[LaLaLand]

When religious fanatics have to make-up history, or pander to bizarre sensationalism in order to get media attention; you know they are getting desperate.

Boy oh boy, this is some choice propaganda. Where do you people come up with this stuff? Is this the kind of trash one could expect at an evangelical "church" sermon these days?

[RonMN]

threadbear Wrote:
considering that your mother almost had an abortion, instead of having you


HUH? where did that come from? My mom never considered aborting me...nor any of my siblings.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LaLaLand', '[')url=http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44779]Boy oh boy, this is some choice propaganda.[/url]

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', '[')b]threadbear Wrote:
considering that your mother almost had an abortion, instead of having you


HUH? where did that come from? My mom never considered aborting me...nor any of my siblings.

[Newsseeker]

I believe that life begins at conception but I also believe that we must be good stewards of the earth and that there is currently an overpopulation of the earth. Therefore, abortion is justified.

[gg3]

My point about anencephaly is:

No brain, no person.

Same as the definition of death: brain dead = dead.

A heartbeat is not sufficient to establish "life," and human bodies in which the heart is beating but the brain has permanently ceased to function are considered dead, dead, dead.

Thus, a fetus in which there is not a brain, is equivalent to an adult human with a heartbeat but no brain (either via mechanical destruction thereof or via simple absence of activity therein): not a living person. It does not matter if the non-existence of a brain is a developmental matter (i.e. there is not a brain yet but there will be in a few months) or a permanent state of affairs (i.e. ther is not a brain and in this fetus there will never be a brain because the fetus has anencephaly). What matters is whether, at the specific point in time you are considering, the fetus does or does not have a functional brain.

---

The idea that "life begins at conception" is a clever piece of propaganda that is designed to circumvent your critical thinking.

First of all, the word "begins" is misleading and deceptive. The word is used as a form of the verb "to be," a kind of future-tense substitute for the word "exists."

If you were to say "a human being exists at conception," clearly that statement would be absurd. The thing that exists at conception is a blastocyst that is no different from the blastocysts of other mammals, and that has no nerve cells much less a functioning brain. If we were to consider it a human body, it would precisely fit the medical and legal definition of brain death: no brain, no brain activity. Therefore it has no moral or legal standing in the state in which it actually exists.

But by saying "begins," you end up with a statement that is literally true but also misleading. "A human being begins at the moment of conception," is as misleading as when Alberto Torquemada said "many things go through my office, of which I am unaware." His statement is literally true, but when said in response to a question about the attorney firings, suggests that that particular matter went through his office without his being aware of it, which, by way of today's document release, is patently false.

For while the fetus without a brain has no moral or legal standing in the state in which it actually exists, the living human which that fetus may become would have moral and legal standing.

The logic error there is the being/becoming error: conflating the end-state of something with its present condition, and thus mapping the moral status of the end-state onto the beginning state.

The other clever bit of deception in that common phrase "life begins at conception" is the use of the word "life." The word is not qualified in any way, for example "a human life," or "every human life." If we were to say "every human life begins with conception," this would be literally true, but it would have no moral implication, any more than the statement "every great song begins with someone singing in the shower."

But the subtle shift created by using the broad generalism of "life" instead of the more specific statement "human life" or "every human life," or some such, has the psychological effect of identifying the person who is speaking with the phenomenon about which they are speaking: "life"-in-general becomes your life and thus something to be defended; and most importantly, defended without questioning.

In much the same manner we could unpack the word "conception," as distinct from implantation in the uterus. Conception after all is meant as the point at which the sperm fuses with the egg: emphasizing the role of the male who provides only the sperm, at the expense of the role of the female who provides both the egg and the uterus. His contribution requires a brief "effort" indeed, but hers requires nine months plus an additional effort we all know by the term labor.

In fact, many are the "conceived" that are not implanted, and are passed out of the body during the menstrual period, and therefore never even have the chance of becoming a human being. If we truly believe that every human life begins at the point of conception, rather than implantation, each of these must somehow be found and catalogued as deaths, as surely as we catalog the deaths of infants during the process of complicated childbirths. As a practical matter this would require that every woman spend a week every month in the hospital whilst the doctors search for evidence of a prospective human during her period.

If we cut through the deliberately misleading usages of words, and try to create a statement that is not only literally true but is also not misleading, where we end up is this:

"A human being exists after a fetus has a functioning brain."

And finally we can begin to clarify the issues of moral standing, one way or the other.

[RonMN]

WOW gg3...I could spend hours picking apart that piece of propaganda...But I have better things to do with my saturday

Here is where we agree.

gg3 Wrote:
No brain, no person.
Same as the definition of death: brain dead = dead.

Agreed.


gg3 Wrote:
The idea that "life begins at conception" is a clever piece of propaganda that is designed to circumvent your critical thinking.

Don't think my critical thinking has been circumvented simply because we disagree.

gg3 Wrote:

First of all, the word "begins" is misleading and deceptive. The word is used as a form of the verb "to be," a kind of future-tense substitute for the word "exists."

I guess that would depend on what the definition of "is" is

gg3 Wrote:

If you were to say "a human being exists at conception," clearly that statement would be absurd.

What you view as absurd, I view as fact (IMO)...but that statment is starting to show where your critical thinking has been circumvented.

gg3 Wrote:

In much the same manner we could unpack the word "conception," as distinct from implantation in the uterus.

Implantation? As in "abducted by aliens"? and YOU speak of "propaganda"?

OK...enough of this...In my opinion, that was one of the most rediculous arguments to date...I will respect it, but I can't come anywhere close to agreeing with it...nor do i see an "error in MY logic".

[RonMN]

Twilliam Wrote:
If there is to be retribution, that is between my Maker and myself. It is not for them to administer on His behalf.

I agree.
However this is where my brain goes into a feedback loop & why i would like to hear others opinions (as crazy as some opinions may be).

It seems clear to me (IMO) that abortion IS the murder of a human being, yet I don't think a choice of preventing it is mine to make...yet if a 40 year old murderes another 40 year old we all would clearly make a "judgement" about it. This is a conflict in my mind that i seek to resolve by reading others opinions. (how can i possibly view something as "murder" and then wash my hands of it saying "it's not my place"?).

Yes, everybody can pull out "circumstances" and say "what if the one 40 year old was defending himself/herself"...that's not what i'm talking about.

I know i began this thread terribly wrong & i've already apologized for it & will so again if necessary. This is clearly an emotionally charged issue for most (including myself).

But my over-all goal is to seek a better understanding of both sides...

(for instance, SMG's comment about "voluntering somebody else as a human incubator" is a great point & one that i'm still chewing on in the over-all scheme of things).

[ClassicSpiderman]

My position on abortion is pro-life, in fact I used to be very passionate on this subject. The arguments for being pro-life are based on a human rights argument. But the sad fact is that there is a political majority that believes it should be legalized. There's no point in wasting time and energy trying to use rational arguments to appeal to people's better natures, because...

A society that argues that it should have the right to kill it's unborn basically has a death wish.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Prince', 'A')bortion is not a bad thing, and there are plenty of people out there who would be better off to society as a dead fetus than a leaching, worthless humanized pile of shit.

By and large look at the women who have abortions. These are usually young women with little or no financial means to care for their child. Too many of these inner-city and illegal dirtbags pump out units now like a Xerox machine, and the taxpayers often get stuck with this printing bill at several tens of thousands of dollars per sheet. At least abortion limits this to some degree.

[jupiters_release]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'I') personally, have to look at it backwards...

Would it be ok for somebody to take my life right now?
NO!

Would it be ok for somebody to take my life as a teeenager?
NO!

Would it be ok for somebody to take my life as an infant?
NO!

Would it be ok for somebody to take my life as a dependant fetus?
NO!

Would it be ok for somebody to block ME from developing in the first place?
YES.

[Stratovarius]

gg3 pretty much nailed it, if that doesn't convince you, nothing will. It seems like a lot of people that oppose abortion do so because they're mixing up politics, religion and morality. Jeez!

[RonMN]

What exactly did gg3 nail?

While gg3 wrote of distorting words as "propaganda"...gg3 went on to distort words into"propaganda"...(see definition of "BEGINNING" or "CONCEPTION") in order to blur the lines.

What I'm talking about is equivelant to being a German citizen who could smell the burning flesh of the concentration camps...yet professed to KNOW NOTHING!

I'm finding that I can no longer sit on the sidelines...I can no longer say "it's not my problem".

I feel filthy & disturbed because I have remained silent for so long...

Abortion Is Murder!

I wonder if people will think that way when it's the jews...or gays...or blacks...or the alcaholics...or the smokers...that are being "aborted".

Never happen, you say?

No bother...better they all end up dead anyhoo...

[RonMN]

ClassicSpiderman Wrote:

My position on abortion is pro-life, in fact I used to be very passionate on this subject. The arguments for being pro-life are based on a human rights argument. But the sad fact is that there is a political majority that believes it should be legalized. There's no point in wasting time and energy...

So you've been BEATEN down ,as I have been...only, I'm not willing to allow others to die without a vioce. The one without a voice really should be heard.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ClassicSpiderman', 'M')y position on abortion is pro-life, in fact I used to be very passionate on this subject. The arguments for being pro-life are based on a human rights argument.

[gg3]

Thanks, Strato.

---

Ron, if you agree with me that the absence of brain functioning is the definition of death, and no brain = dead body, then how on God's green earth can you possibly say that a fetus, at the point where it has no brain whatsoever, has any moral standing?

Note, I was not talking about aborting fetuses with functioning brains. I do believe that those types of abortions constitute the killing of human beings. As soon as you get to the point of a functioning brain, the fetus at that stage has moral standing, and the only basis for an abortion at that point should be rape, incest, and risk to life or health of the mother.

The reason for the rape/incest exception is to deal with cases where a woman is being molested by a parent or other live-in authority figure, and cases wher a woman is held hostage, and cases where a rape or incest occurs and the pregnancy is not discovered until a few months after the act. True it is not the fetus' fault that its existence was brought about by the supreme violation of another's person. But on the other hand, being forced to bear that child is soul-killing torture. So in these cases I would say that the rapist or incest instigator should also be charged with murder.

The exceptions for life/health of the mother are obvious enough. Halfway through a pregnancy, a woman is diagnosed with cancer. The cancer treatments will kill the fetus anyway. Thus the pregnancy itself is not an immediate threat to the woman's life, but it's obviously a threat to her health if the cancer treatments are withheld for a few critical months to enable the pregnancy to be carried to term.

The foregoing pertains to fetuses with functioning brains. At earlier stages of the pregnancy, where there is not a functioning brain, there is not a person there, thus no killing of a person, thus no moral prohibition on terminating pregnancies at that stage for any reason or no reason at all.

But the fact that a fetus will naturally grow a brain at some point, is no more reason to assign it moral standing prior to that point, than there is reason to assign to a few jars of oil paint the status of a finished painting by a great master.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the fact that a fetus will naturally grow a brain at some point, is no more reason to assign it moral standing prior to that point, than there is reason to assign to a few jars of oil paint the status of a finished painting by a great master.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'A')hhh... but left to it's own devices, that paint will never become anything more than pigment.

Not so for our much maligned fetus friends.

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'Y')ou can try and define a potato as being a person.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'N')ote, I was not talking about aborting fetuses with functioning brains. I do believe that those types of abortions constitute the killing of human beings. As soon as you get to the point of a functioning brain, the fetus at that stage has moral standing, and the only basis for an abortion at that point should be rape, incest, and risk to life or health of the mother.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'A')hhh... but left to it's own devices, that paint will never become anything more than pigment.

Not so for our much maligned fetus friends.