Abortion rights foes look to spread fetal pain law

Dec 10, 2010 By TIMBERLY ROSS , Associated Press

(AP) -- Abortion rights foes emboldened by a new Nebraska law that restricts late-term procedures based on the disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks are pushing for similar legislation in other states, particularly those where Republicans won big in November.

National Right to Life held a strategy conference this week in Arlington, Va., to offer its state affiliates guidance for the 2011 legislative session. Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky lawmakers have already started drafting bills similar to Nebraska's law, and abortion opponents are pushing lawmakers in Kansas, Maryland and Oklahoma to do the same.

"What Nebraska did was fantastic," said Margie Montgomery, the executive director of Kentucky Right to Life. "That makes us more excited about it. Now we can point to it - it's already a law in Nebraska. That's really good for us."

Nebraska's law, which took effect Oct. 15, outlaws abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed claim that can feel pain after that point. It is a departure from the standard of viability, established by the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which allows states to limit abortions in cases where there's a viable chance the fetus could survive outside of the womb, generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers who runs a clinic near Omaha, and his backer, the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Rights, have threatened to challenge the Nebraska law in court. Dionne Scott, a spokeswoman for the center, said it would file a challenge "when the circumstances are appropriate." But losing such a challenge would risk having the court throw away the viability standard in favor of a pain standard, which could be further lowered should it be proven fetuses feel can feel pain earlier than 20 weeks.

While some doctors contend that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it knows of no legitimate evidence showing a fetus can ever experience pain. It says a fetus' brain begins its final stage of development between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy, and that certain hormones that develop in the final trimester also must be present for it to feel pain. It's not known exactly when those hormones form.

Nevertheless, the passage of Nebraska's law and the Republican Party's newfound power have emboldened those who want to outlaw abortion.

Mary Spaulding Balch, the legislative director for National Right to Life, said those working to outlaw abortion will be able to "do more in states where we haven't been able to do much in the past." She declined to name the states being targeted.

In Kentucky, Montgomery said, Republican gains in the state House offer hope for passage of a fetal pain law. She said several lawmakers have shown interest in introducing a bill, which would have to pass through committee before getting a floor vote.

"Once it gets to the floor, we know it's going to pass," she said.

House Minority Whip David Floyd, R-Bardstown, said at least two lawmakers are preparing a bill and agreed that it has a better shot - although not a definite one - at becoming law. He said he has no doubts it will pass in the Senate, which historically has been favorable toward abortion restrictions, but getting a floor vote in the House remains a challenge.

It "will depend, once again, on the Democratic majority, who are reluctant to let anything through pro-life on the floor," Floyd said.

Facing limitations in Nebraska, Carhart recently announced he was expanding his practice across the state line to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and in Germantown, Md., and Indianapolis - locations with less-restrictive state laws.

But lawmakers in Iowa and Indiana - wary of Carhart and hoping to play off strong Republican gains in their statehouses - are already drafting fetal pain legislation.

Rep. Matt Windschitl, a Missouri Valley Republican and a board member of Iowa Right to Life, said keeping Carhart out of Iowa will be among his highest priorities when the Legislature convenes next month. Republicans have gained control of the state House and governor's office and closed the gap in the state Senate. Windschitl said he's confident that a fetal pain bill will pass through the House and hopes it will gain traction in the Senate.

"This issue bridges party lines," he said. "Whether you're a pro-choice Republican or pro-choice Democrat, it doesn't matter. When you talk about killing a baby at 16-20 weeks, that's pretty far along and I think that's something everyone can get behind."

But with many states also facing budget problems, social issues such as abortion could fall to the wayside. Governors in Iowa, Indiana and elsewhere have pledged to make the budget a priority.

Indiana state Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus, said his colleagues have spoken at length about the priority that will be given to fiscal issues and he doesn't see the budget as a roadblock.

"We have the ability to entertain more than one idea at a time," said Walker, who is working with state Rep. Wes Culver, R-Goshen, on a fetal pain bill.

Republicans won control of the Indiana House in the November election, so the GOP now controls the House, Senate and governor's office. Walker said lawmakers in both parties have been receptive toward abortion restrictions but a change in House leadership makes the prospect of passing his bill much greater.

Carhart "has to leave Nebraska if he wants to practice as he has in the past . . . We're asking to him to find another home than Indiana," Walker said.

Jordan Goldberg, the legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Nebraska's law and similar legislation "are about taking the decision about abortion away from a woman and her doctor - no matter what her circumstances might be - and giving the power to make that decision to legislators instead."

Goldberg said lawmakers have more serious issues than abortion - such as the economy - to worry about next session and shouldn't "waste state time" on fetal pain legislation that's not backed by medical science.

Hundreds of abortion opponents protested this week outside Carhart's new clinic in Maryland. Republican state Delegate Donald H. Dwyer, an anti-abortion leader in the Democrat-controlled Maryland General Assembly, said that amid heightened awareness prompted by Carhart's plans, he will organize like-minded legislators to propose bills next year tightening abortion-clinic regulations.

While not mentioning fetal pain specifically, Dwyer said: "We're going to look at all options to address the issue of late-term abortions in this state. I think it's a travesty that we continue to allow that and that we've never addressed it legislatively."

opponents in Kansas and Oklahoma say they're making a similar push for fetal pain legislation, but no lawmakers have publically announced their support.

Explore further: Supplement maker admits lying about ingredients

5 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study: Fetuses can't feel pain

Apr 14, 2006

A senior psychologist at Britain's University of Birmingham says he has found good evidence that fetuses cannot feel pain.

Abortion looms as possible health bill deal killer

Dec 23, 2009

(AP) -- The way abortions are covered under health care reform is a major obstacle to finalizing the legislation, even though the House and Senate both agree that no federal money should be used.

Decision day for health care in the House

Nov 07, 2009

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is trying to close the deal in the House on his health care overhaul, facing a make-or-break vote that's certain to be seen as a test of his presidency.

Recommended for you

Supplement maker admits lying about ingredients

Dec 17, 2014

Federal prosecutors say the owner and president of a dietary supplement company has admitted his role in the sale of diluted and adulterated dietary ingredients and supplements sold by his company.

User comments : 277

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 10, 2010
Strange how you can kill a person before s/he's born but cannot do so after birth.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 10, 2010
Another biased headline: "Abortion rights foes...".
How about 'Pro-life supporters...."?
Raveon
2.2 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2010
Is it a person? What is a person without memory? We are no better than vegetables without memory and even newborns have no long term memory, let alone a fetus. Do you remember the pain of being circumcised? I don't and it must have hurt for quite a while. I have to laugh at the bleeding hearts who want to spare babies the pain of that. My first lucid memories start after the age of one, I was nothing more than a vegetable before that. This is nothing short of a ploy to advance anti-choice beliefs, it has no basis in any sane reality. Mind your own business and don't tell women what to do with their bodies else someone might tell you what to do with yours, whether you like it or not.

dtxx
2 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
Strange how you can kill a person before s/he's born but cannot do so after birth.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are anti birth control too?
mabarker
2.7 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2010
Stick to the issue, dtxx! It's a baby in the womb and it's sadly legal to kill it right up to partruition. This story is unashamedly pro-abortion in its reporting. *late-term procedures* what a chilling orwellian euphemism for killing an unborn child when it can feel itself being *terminated*
Raveon
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2010
It isn't pro-abortion like anti-abortion idiots want to think (I use the term think loosely).

Abortion is wrong, telling someone what they can and can't do with their body IS REALLY REALLY WRONG.

Would an anti-choice person stand for anyone telling them they MUST risk their life and have no choice in the matter? Women die giving birth and outlawing safe abortions FORCES them to risk their life. That is outrageous, no matter how small the chance. No one should be forced to play Russian roulette no matter how many empty cylinders there are in the gun. And if it comes to a choice between an unknowing and unfeeling fetus and a knowing thinking person, the choice should be obvious unless you are a complete moron. All pro-lifers should be forced to watch a women hemorrhage to death from giving birth or a botched illegal abortion. And there will be illegal unsafe abortions if it is outlawed, just like there used to be.
Raveon
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2010
....what a chilling orwellian euphemism for killing an unborn child when it can feel itself being *terminated*


No it can't you freaking moron, the chicken or cow you are probably chowing down as you wrote that has more feeling and is more of a person than a fetus.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2010
Biased media anyone? Why can't progressives tell the truth? Pro-Life is an accurate description. So is Pro-baby killers, but the biased media would never use that term. No wonder the MSM is losing credibility.

For the record, I am not anti-abortion. If abortion didn't kill a defensless baby I could care less if you had an abortion. I am pro-life, that means I believe that all humans have the right to life, whether you are jew, black, gay, old, young, athiest, christian, or unborn.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2010
telling someone what they can and can't do with their body IS REALLY REALLY WRONG.

What if they want to use their body to work for less than minimum wage?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
For the record, I am not anti-abortion. If abortion didn't kill a defensless baby I could care less if you had an abortion.
Wouldn't be an abortion in that case would it?
I am pro-life,
You're not pro life, you're anti-women's rights.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
You're not pro life, you're anti-women's rights.

It's a woman's right to kill?
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
SH thats the point. If abortion didn't kill a defensless baby I would have no problem with it. If you want to remove your clump of cells called your brain, be my guest. However killing a defensless baby is wrong.

Again SH you lie. I am more for rights than you are. You, like progressives, dont believe everyone is equal. I do. You know I do. You and other pro-baby-killers just say you care about womens rights, but where is the proof other than rhetoric? What have you done to support a womans right to choose adoption over abortion? Other than rhedoric, I don't think you have done one thing for anyones rights. I don't think you care about anyones rights except your own. Have you faught or defended childrens rights, parents rights, mens rights, religious rights?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
If abortion didn't kill a defensless baby I would have no problem with it.
Abortion doesn't kill a defenseless baby. It kills a fetus.

When you jerk off have you committed mass murder? Of course not.
What have you done to support a womans right to choose adoption over abortion?
I haven't attempted to restrict it as you do with abortion.

The rest of your commentary is ridiculous and baseless accusation.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
It's always funny to hear people who support war actions, the death penalty, and call for the execution of Julian Assange for "treason" claim that they're in the "right to life" camp.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
Abortion doesn't kill a defenseless baby. It kills a fetus.


When EXACTLY, and I mean down to the minute and second does it start being a defenseless baby SH? Please be accurate, we don't want to be killing human beings here now do we...
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
It's always funny to hear people who support war actions, the death penalty, and call for the execution of Julian Assange for "treason" claim that they're in the "right to life" camp.


Just as funny to hear the other side rail against the death penalty and whine like they were kicked over "abortion rights"...

Besides Assange is a criminal, and I'm assuming you think there are valid reasons to go to war...

Were you deliberately being intellectually dishonest in your blatant comparison of apples and oranges or are you really that stupid?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
When EXACTLY, and I mean down to the minute and second does it start being a defenseless baby SH? Please be accurate, we don't want to be killing human beings here now do we...
I'd say once you hit the end of week 24 in gestation, abortion should no longer be an option with the exception of health risk to the mother or if the child will be stillborn and the mother doesn't wish to naturally deliver a dead child.

As for when it becomes a defenseless baby, that'd be once it is born, prior to that it is a fetus, zygote, blastocyst, etc based upon what stage of gestation the child to be has gone through.
Just as funny to hear the other side rail against the death penalty and whine like they were kicked over "abortion rights"...
We're not the ones advocating death and pretending that there's a right to life to suit our twisted constructs.
Besides Assange is a criminal, and I'm assuming you think there are valid reasons to go to war
What has he been convicted of?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
I'd say once you hit the end of week 24 in gestation, abortion should no longer be an option with the exception of health risk to the mother or if the child will be stillborn and the mother doesn't wish to naturally deliver a dead child.


Why 24 weeks? Why not 25, or 23, or 23 1/2? How do you know it's worthy of life at that point? How exactly do you determine what is a human being and what isn't?

What has he been convicted of


He's admitted to leaking classified information. Why does a murderer need to be convicted if they confess?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
Why 24 weeks? Why not 25, or 23, or 23 1/2? How do you know it's worthy of life at that point? How exactly do you determine what is a human being and what isn't?

MM,

Is this a baby?
http://channel.na...0300.jpg

How about this one?

http://img.dailym...x299.jpg
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
Why 24 weeks? Why not 25, or 23, or 23 1/2? How do you know it's worthy of life at that point? How exactly do you determine what is a human being and what isn't?

MM,

Is this a baby?
http://channel.na...0300.jpg


That's my question to YOU...I freely admit I don't KNOW when or where one stops and the other starts.

YOU are making that assertion, it's up to YOU to prove it, not me.

Get it straight.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
He's admitted to leaking classified information. Why does a murderer need to be convicted if they confess?
Aside from the fact he isn't a US citizen....

How about the fact he's a journalist and is protected by the First Amendment? We don't want to shit on the Constitution now do we?
That's my question to YOU...I freely admit I don't KNOW when or where one stops and the other starts.
Actually those pictures would be a cat fetus and elephant fetus,
YOU are making that assertion, it's up to YOU to prove it, not me.

Get it straight.
I'm not making any assertion, those are animal fetuses, and you can't tell the difference, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE until after you pass that stage and begin final development.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
Aside from the fact he isn't a US citizen....


So foreign nationals are exempt from those kinds of laws. Well come on in spies of the world and we won't prosecute you...

What idiocy.

And since you admit he isn't a US citizen what the HELL does the 1st amendment have to do with HIM?

Actually those pictures would be a cat fetus and elephant fetus,


So what?

I'm not making any assertion,


Yes you were, you said before 24 weeks it's cool to kill developing human beings and after it isn't.

BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE until after you pass that stage and begin final development.


Of course there is, one is being carried by a human and the other isn't. Also I'm quite sure if you took the DNA of each you could tell the difference.

You're BSing up a storm here and NOT answering any direct questions. But I understand, it's hard to give a direct answer when you CAN'T because there isn't one.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
And since you admit he isn't a US citizen what the HELL does the 1st amendment have to do with HIM?
The Constitution applies to all people who would fall under the jurisdiction of the United States. If you want to bring him to court or even military tribunal, he has Constitutional rights.
Yes you were, you said before 24 weeks it's cool to kill developing human beings and after it isn't.
It isn't killing. A fetus isn't a self functioning organism.
You're BSing up a storm here and NOT answering any direct questions. But I understand, it's hard to give a direct answer when you CAN'T because there isn't one.
I've answered all of your questions. You're making assertions based on a medically ignorant worldview that arises from thinking that reproduction involves the implantation of a mini-person into a woman's uterus. Life doesn't begin at conception, sorry, never has, and probably never will.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
The Constitution applies to all people who would fall under the jurisdiction of the United States. If you want to bring him to court or even military tribunal, he has Constitutional rights.


OH so now we can try foreign nationals?? SH make up your mind bud, you can't have your cake and eat it too. SO now you're saying he can be tried in the US as a foreign national and gets those protections, in which case his nationality is IRRELEVANT.

It isn't killing. A fetus isn't a self functioning organism.


It will be at some point in the future though. Is it killing to pull the plug on someone's life support that's expected to fully recover? Quit dancing...

I've answered all of your questions.


Not a single straight answer yet.

Life doesn't begin at conception, sorry, never has, and probably never will.


I agree, I disagree that YOU have a clear cut notion of where it does begin though.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
OH so now we can try foreign nationals?? SH make up your mind bud, you can't have your cake and eat it too. SO now you're saying he can be tried in the US as a foreign national and gets those protections, in which case his nationality is IRRELEVANT.
He can be tried yes, he can't commit treason because he isn't a citizen. Pay attention.
It isn't killing. A fetus isn't a self functioning organism.
It will be at some point in the future though.
So if I think you're going to break into my house, am I jsutified in having you arrested for what you might do?
Is it killing to pull the plug on someone's life support that's expected to fully recover?
Difficult to answer without more specifics but I would say, in general, yes it is. That person has been alive, and is still alive.
I've answered all of your questions.
Not a single straight answer yet.
What have I not answered?
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
He can be tried yes, he can't commit treason because he isn't a citizen. Pay attention.


Who said anything about treason, I was talking about espionage. YOU pay attention.

So if I think you're going to break into my house, am I jsutified in having you arrested for what you might do?


Apples and oranges again.

Difficult to answer without more specifics but I would say, in general, yes it is. That person has been alive, and is still alive.


When did he become alive? Careful, you're actually getting close to answering a question now...

What have I not answered?


What makes a person alive and worthy of protection from murder, when does this happen, and why.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
It's always funny to hear people who support war actions, the death penalty, and call for the execution of Julian Assange for "treason" claim that they're in the "right to life" camp.
He's admitted to leaking classified information. Why does a murderer need to be convicted if they confess?
So I say treason, and then there's no mention of espionage for another 4 or 5 posts. Who's not paying attention?
Apples and oranges again.
Funny how when I make an analogy it is apples and oranges, but when you make one, there's no problem with it. Seriously man, grow up. If you don't want to address something, don't address it. No need to act as though you're an authority when you clearly
freely admit I don't KNOW
When did he become alive? Careful, you're actually getting close to answering a question now...
Oh fuck off, now you're just fishing for a fight, "life support".
What makes a person alive
How about independent function, read above.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
So I say treason, and then there's no mention of espionage for another 4 or 5 posts. Who's not paying attention?


Yeah stupid of me to assume you'd understand the ****ing difference all on your own. Won't happen again.

Funny how when I make an analogy it is apples and oranges, but when you make one, there's no problem with it.


No it's just funny that when I do it isn't apples and oranges and when you do it is...how about you grow up some and start being a bit more honest in your arguments.

Oh fuck off,


Not my type SH. Sure you have a lot of liberal friends that fit the bill though.

now you're just fishing for a fight, "life support".


No I was asking a direct question, which of course you can't answer and instead insult me because you KNOW you can't answer it.

How about independent function


A baby can't function independently. Many adults can't either. Go fish...
Pyle
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
MM - Abortion is a terrible thing. Nobody argues that it isn't. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to eliminate it with better "conception control" methods. Ultimately, however, hard choices must be made, because everyone can't be saved.

What bothers me most is that "pro-lifers" waste their time fighting for a 2 week definition change to control women's bodies while millions of children go hungry each night in America. I wish they would spend their time and money helping people and stop trying to impose their moral code on others.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
MM - Abortion is a terrible thing. Nobody argues that it isn't.


Oh there's a few out there who don't give a fig...

What bothers me most is that "pro-lifers" waste their time fighting for a 2 week definition change to control women's bodies while millions of children go hungry each night in America.


Bothers me too because they're just as full of **** as anyone on the other side who says they know where life begins and ends.

I wish they would spend their time and money helping people and stop trying to impose their moral code on others.


Pffft. Like pro-choice people aren't doing the same thing...puuullllease.

How can he commit treason against the US?


He can't never said so myself.

If he is a criminal, what was his crime?


http://en.wikiped...spionage

It's not about free speech, or rights for you people. You're just tickled because he gave America a black eye and you hate America. It's politics.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
Yeah stupid of me to assume you'd understand the ****ing difference all on your own. Won't happen again.
Go start at the beginning of the conversation and read it. I'll prepare myself to receive your backhanded apology. You don't begin to talk about espionage until after my statements of constitutionality. You weren't paying attention again.
A baby can't function independently. Many adults can't either.
You're living proof of that, however, we're talking basic life function, not function within society, we're talking breathing, eating, etc. A baby has the physical ability to do all of the above, a fetus does not.
No I was asking a direct question, which of course you can't answer and instead insult me because you KNOW you can't answer it.
How many dead (not dying, DEAD) people do you put on life support? Kinda sick if you ask me.
how about you grow up some and start being a bit more honest in your arguments.
Right to lifers advocating death penalties....
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2010
Pyle, if I could rate your post a 50, I would. Rarely does any one post on these boards display such wisdom.

We certainly defend the right to use lethal force against others when they unexpectedly and without justification block our right to make choices we would otherwise have the right to make. That's what an unwanted pregnancy does. A fetus does not have the right to be in utero just because it is there. It has that right because the person whose uterus it is gives them that right. If you found someone camping out in your house and eating your food without your permission, and refusing to leave for 9 months, would you use lethal force to evict them if it came down to it? Would you protect the right for others to use lethal force in that situation?
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
If you found someone camping out in your house and eating your food without your permission, and refusing to leave for 9 months, would you use lethal force to evict them if it came down to it? Would you protect the right for others to use lethal force in that situation?


Excluding rape you invited it in...
panorama
4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
Wow, this thread dove deep rather quickly...

I'm with Raveon on this one. Me personally, I couldn't care less if a woman wanted to have an abortion. I'll never be in that situation for multiple reasons. One, I'm male so I personally won't be having one. Second, I was educated thoroughly on the importance of using protection.

Back on subject though, I think if the NRL succeeds in their mission to outlaw abortion all that is going to do is bring back the days of the back-alley abortionist. Bloody coat hanger anyone?

This might be the layer of Libertarian crust on my political loaf of bread, but hasn't our country been in this situation before? Outlaw alcohol and you get the bloody time period during Prohibition. Outlaw various drugs and you get the "War on Drugs".

Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
If you found someone camping out in your house and eating your food without your permission, and refusing to leave for 9 months, would you use lethal force to evict them if it came down to it? Would you protect the right for others to use lethal force in that situation?


Excluding rape you invited it in...

No one invites their mother in law in.

Pffft. Like pro-choice people aren't doing the same thing...puuullllease.
That's like saying that I'm imposing my morals on you by having a constitution that refuses a state endorsed religion.

Allowing someone to have an abortion isn't the same as me holding your wife down and forcing one on her, don't even pretend that they're the same.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
You don't begin to talk about espionage until after my statements of constitutionality.


I never talked about treason and was, in fact talking about espionage the ENTIRE thread. Take your apology and shove it. I can't help your inability to grasp a concept without high levels of explicitly.

however, we're talking basic life function, not function within society, we're talking breathing, eating, etc. A baby has the physical ability to do all of the above, a fetus does not.


Neither do some babies, or adults. Your definition still fails.

How many dead (not dying, DEAD) people do you put on life support? Kinda sick if you ask me.

Right to lifers advocating death penalties.


Apples are red and shiny, Oranges aren't....
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
FTR: Panorama I'm not for outlawing abortion.

I just can't ****ing stand people who pretend it's just a settled cut and dried issue because they pick some arbitrary assed number like 24 weeks out of the air and sit on top of it like they're God and they have all the answers to life and death.

People like that make me literally ****ing ill...
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
I never talked about treason and was, in fact talking about espionage the ENTIRE thread.
Which would mean that you really weren't paying attention at all.
Apples are red and shiny, Oranges aren't....
Well that'd be the first accurate thing you've posted all thread.
panorama
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
How about abortions legal up until the 75th trimester?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2010
Actually, you didn't necessarily invite him in. You may have left the door open, or done something else that was perhaps unwise that allowed him to gain entry. Or you may have done everything you could to keep him from getting in, and the bugger got in anyway. The point is you've got someone in your house you don't want in there, and you have the right to use lethal force in the last resort to evict them. And you can do that even if you invited them in in the first place, so long as the use of lethal force is a last resort.

I'm being a bit cute here but then, so are you, because you want to say that people who don't want to get pregnant shouldn't have sex. As soon as you say that, however, you know that you'll come right up against the objection that that's not reasonable. People have sex for lots of reasons, reproduction is arguably least among them.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
I'm being a bit cute here but then, so are you, because you want to say that people who don't want to get pregnant shouldn't have sex.


Oh HELL NO I'm don't. I want to have lots of sex and no babies. I'm saying that the one doesn't absolve responsibility in the other. That's all.
panorama
5 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
Apples are red and shiny, Oranges aren't....

What about a Granny Smith? :)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2010
Apples are red and shiny, Oranges aren't....

What about a Granny Smith? :)


:P
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2010
Who's being irresponsible? Our analogy seems to be less contentious than the abortion issue, so let's keep working with that. If you know that there's a threat of someone getting in your house that you don't want in there, then you're not being very responsible if you don't lock the doors, bar the windows, etc, to keep him out. But even if you're irresponsible about all that, the intruder still only has a right to be in your house if you intentionally invite him in. And once he's there, and you didn't invite him, what's the responsible thing to do? Throw up your hands and say, "oh well, I guess I'm stuck with him now," pretend he's not there and try to passive-aggressively get him to leave on his own by making things really uncomfortable for him, or calling the cops to use force to remove him? It seems to me that once you've got an uninvited intruder, the only truly responsible thing to do is call the cops and use force to get him out.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
Here's the issue Thras...the pill is about 98% effective. Therefore you've go a 98% effective security system. We have more abortions in this country than this accounts for.

IF you're using something then yes your analogy and point stands....if.

I'll tell you this, if a woman gets pregnant while she's "on the pill" I can be 98% sure she's full of ****. Which is why it would be nice if there were a male equivalent.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
Here's the issue Thras...the pill is about 98% effective. Therefore you've go a 98% effective security system. We have more abortions in this country than this accounts for.
That's irrelevant, the reason why we have more abortions than the pill can account for is because the pill isn't used universally. If you look at the stats, the states that promote abstinence only education have the highest unwanted pregnancy rates. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but if you don't know of the options how often will you exercise those options?
I'll tell you this, if a woman gets pregnant while she's "on the pill" I can be 98% sure she's full of ****. Which is why it would be nice if there were a male equivalent.
Or she was on antibiotics.
panorama
3 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
Which is why it would be nice if there were a male equivalent.


I hear a vasectomy works pretty well.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
Like all drugs, not all are safe for everyone. 'The pill' has significant side effects.
Bloody coat hanger anyone?

Seems fair. Why should a mother have little or no risk for killing her child?
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2010
There is a male equivalent, it's called a condom. If you muck up using a condom, your spawn should be aborted, because you're too stupid to reproduce.

Insults aside, the taking of precautions or not is irrelevant to whether the pregnancy was unwanted. Let's go back to our home invasion analogy. You might know full and well that not taking some sort of precaution against it will mean that you're gonna get a home invader. That doesn't mean you've invited the invader in if you don't take precautions. It also doesn't mean he has a right to be in your home if you don't take precautions.

What gives a home invader the right to be in your home? Your ongoing consent that he can be there. The same thing applies to a woman's uterus. The only thing that gives that fetus/baby/whatever the right to be there is the woman's ongoing consent that she wants it there.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
The only thing that gives that fetus/baby/whatever the right to be there is the woman's ongoing consent that she wants it there.

Then she has the right to remove it, but does not have the right to force anyone do it for her.
panorama
5 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
Bloody coat hanger anyone?

Seems fair. Why should a mother have little or no risk for killing her child?

What do you mean? I was merely stating that if abortion is made illegal, that won't stop someone who is intent on terminating their pregnancy. I would hope most people would prefer something like this to happen in a medical office with trained staff on duty as opposed to the coat hanger option.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
I think there is far more logical criterion for when human person begins to exist than external viability is, I am pro-choice but I never understood the logic of that argument, dependance on others should not make killing legal, in case of this I am with Modernmystic.

Presence of brain function (brain waves) is the only logical criterion. Just as the end of human person is medically determined by irreversible cease of higher brain activity, the begining should be determined by first appearance of it. Thats around 4-5th month. I support abortions, but only till 3th month of pregnancy (a bit sooner, just to be sure). Thats how it is over here. Of course, more in cases of health risk or damaged fetus.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
I would hope most people would prefer something like this to happen in a medical office with trained staff on duty as opposed to the coat hanger option.

Why would you want to others to aid and abet murder?
Presence of brain function (brain waves) is the only logical criterion.

Can you be 100% certain that all human brain function can be detected to certify that the living tissue in a coma is no longer a human?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
The only thing that gives that fetus/baby/whatever the right to be there is the woman's ongoing consent that she wants it there.

Then she has the right to remove it, but does not have the right to force anyone do it for her.

Doctors are never forced to perform procedures in the US. If you're going to say there's a law that requires faith based hospitals to perform abortions, you're wrong. There's a law that forces faith based hospitals to provide referrals when required by insurance agencies.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
"All indications are that President Obama is going to rescind an existing executive order, commonly known as the conscience exception or the conscience rule, that prohibits doctors and nurses from being forced to participate in abortions against their will. If the conscience exception is revoked, doctors and nurses in VA and military hospitals, as well as veterans who are doctors and nurses in non-military hospitals, could be forced to choose between performing abortions or losing their jobs.

At this point it is unclear exactly how far the Obama administration is going to go in reversing this policy, but it’s clear that protections are going to be weakened for doctors and nurses who don’t want to take part in abortions, even if they object on moral or religious grounds. "
http://www.vetera...ortions/
If all medical personnel refused to provide abortion 'services' why won't the govt force them?
panorama
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
I would hope most people would prefer something like this to happen in a medical office with trained staff on duty as opposed to the coat hanger option.

Why would you want to others to aid and abet murder?

I don't consider abortion murder. To me it's more along the line of having a cyst removed.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
If all medical personnel refused to provide abortion 'services' why won't the govt force them?
If you're part of the military, you do not have a right to object to your duty until you leave the military. VA doctors operate under the same guidelines. That is the contract you sign with the country when you enter service.

These people are more than welcome to resign if they object, when you work for anyone, you follow your employers rules. If you choose to not follow those rules, quit or be fired. As the government, and by extension the VA are not allowed to use religious or moral interjection, the employees of the government or VA are more than welcome to become private employees.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2010
Marjon's just given up the game. Nobody, anywhere, ever has suggesting forcing anybody to provide abortions or forcing anybody to have abortions. When the woman or her insurance company pays the doctor, he agrees to do the service. If he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't take their money.

And since marjon's already admitted that women have the right to evict unwanted fetuses from their wombs, then he's admitted that abortion ought to remain legal and unrestricted. Although he'd probably take the analogy too literally and require the woman to provide a notarized 30 day eviction notice to the fetus.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
There is a male equivalent, it's called a condom. If you muck up using a condom,


If you can't figure out why people DON'T generally use those if given another option I can't help you out...

Abstinence works too, but I can't recommend it.

I hear a vasectomy works pretty well.


I'll bet castration does too...what's your point?

Why is the left so opposed to men having the same option as women in this regard? I'm seriously interested in an honest answer to this. You wouldn't believe the levels of hostility I've gotten for even SUGGESTING that men need a "pill" from people over the years...mainly from women, but from men too.

My guess? It's all about power...

Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
If you're part of the military, you do not have a right to object to your duty until you leave the military.


Well that's a loaded statement isn't it.

What constitutes "duty" pray tell? What if someone orders you to line up unarmed civilians against a wall and mow them down?

Is it stretching a point? Yeah it is, but that's how strongly some people feel about the issue. That I don't or you don't is irrelevant...

Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
What gives a home invader the right to be in your home? Your ongoing consent that he can be there.


Well there the analogy breaks down. Unless you're suggesting that it's proper to revoke an invitation to your house by pulling out a gun and blasting your guest's brains out...
panorama
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
I hear a vasectomy works pretty well.


I'll bet castration does too...what's your point?

Really? Come now I hope for your own sake you don't confuse the two. I was simply stating (with an air of humor) that a vasectomy is a rather effective method of birth control for men. I think the last time I looked it up they have a effectiveness of about 1 in 2000 or so.
topor
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
You can argue all you want. It won't change the fact that abortion ban will only lead to increased number of illegal abortions and orphaned children. It's not about morals, it's about human behavior.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
No, I'm not suggesting that you should pull a gun on the home invader to evict him just as soon as you want him to leave. I'm suggesting that the use of force remains as a last resort to get him to leave. If you tell him to get out, and he refuses, then you can pull your gun.

When you're evicting a fetus, the fact that the fetus will die upon eviction is as irrelevant as the fact that your home invader might die when you evict him (especially if it's 4 degrees outside). The use of force to evict a fetus is a last resort, because the fetus can't be served with an eviction notice, and can't be transferred to another, more willing uterus owner. Perhaps when that last becomes possible, you could require the woman to seek out alternative vacant uteri and give the fetus and it's new home sufficient time to effect the transfer. But until then, you still can't deny the woman the right to evict an unwanted fetus from her uterus.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
You can argue all you want. It won't change the fact that abortion ban will only lead to increased number of illegal abortions and orphaned children. It's not about morals, it's about human behavior.

What behavior should society reinforce: behavior that supports life or death?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
Nobody, anywhere, ever has suggesting forcing anybody to provide abortions or forcing anybody to have abortions.

Really?
"President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization,"

Read more: http://www.foxnew...s"
"A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and
abused by the boyfriends or husbands who took them to the clinics to make sure they underwent their scheduled abortions."
http://www.theunc...heet.pdf

http://www.allian...cid=4806
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
If you're part of the military, you do not have a right to object to your duty until you leave the military.
Well that's a loaded statement isn't it.

What constitutes "duty" pray tell? What if someone orders you to line up unarmed civilians against a wall and mow them down?

You've certainly never been in the military or worked with them if you're going to be so cavalier with that question.

Anyone else with prior service, feel free to correct me if the definition has changed but your duty is to the six articles of the military code of conduct, domestic and international law, the Constitution, and the seated President of the United States.

If you are given an order that does not violate domestic or international law you must follow it. That would include performing the medical service of abortion when requested in the case of any military doctor or otherwise applicable party.

Execution, as you outline above is against domestic, international, and USMJ.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
Read more: http://www.foxnew...s"
I already read the Onion today.
http://www.theunc...heet.pdf

From their website:
So, our name is not of any particular significance. We are even willing to change it. So, if you or a rich aunt would like to underwrite our work with a large endowment, we would be glad to change the name to the "Smith Institute", the "Charlie Group," or whatever memorial name you would like! Just let us know.
That's a super professional source you got there Mr. Swenson.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
Ahhh I see you meant the "Code of conduct" which is what everyone in the service calls it. I've NEVER heard it referred to as the "six codes of military conduct". Spoken like someone who's trying to bull**** about being in the service IMO.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
You wouldn't believe the levels of hostility I've gotten for even SUGGESTING that men need a "pill" from people over the years...mainly from women, but from men too.

My guess? It's all about power...
You're right. The entire argument is about power. Abortives have been in use far longer than Christianity has been in existence, some suggest the proto-practice may even predate Judiasm.

Females control reproduction in the human species biologically, they always have, and unless technology or evolution changes the mating game, they always will.

If you're concerned about having a child woth a woman, take your own advice and don't have sex with them, or put on a rubber, or get a vasectomy, etc. You're asking for a very specific option, when you already have a multitude of options.

Why would you have sex with someone who you can't trust to take the pill in the first place? Sounds like your priorities are fucked up to me.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
You stand corrected.
Actually, feel free to look it up, I'm quite correct.
The only oath I took was to uphold the Constitution...I don't even know what the hell the "six codes of military conduct" are, nor were we bound by any international agreements I was aware of beyond the Geneva convention
Must've been a moron grunt in that case. You're seriously going to tell me you served and were not required to learn the Codes of Conduct....
I don't think you were even in the service honestly.
Likewise, and if you were, how was enlisted life, private?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
SH you are such a self righteous prig.

Like you've never had sex with someone who's turned out to be untrustworthy...

What ****ing planet do you live on? Is it blue, third one from the sun...called Earth??
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
"Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, was instructed to assist in a late second-trimester abortion for a woman 22 weeks into her pregnancy. The hospital had known of the nurse’s religious objections to abortion since she was hired in 2004.

Cenzon-DeCarlo reminded her supervisors of her religious objections, but was told that if she did not participate, she would be charged with “insubordination and patient abandonment,” which could result in disciplinary action and the possible loss of her job and nursing license"
http://hotair.com...bortion/
"State officials have mandated that all medical students learn to perform abortions in New York"
"ER doctors are forced to dispense Emergency Contraception in Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Washington."
http://www.lifeet...nce.html
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
Likewise, and if you were, how was enlisted life, private?


I did a lot of actual work. Did you enjoy the coffee sir?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
SH you are such a self righteous prig.

Like you've never had sex with someone who's turned out to be untrustworthy...
No, actually I haven't. I don't take sex lightly, although, as you're a Christian, I wonder why you would.
What ****ing planet do you live on? Is it blue, third one from the sun...called Earth??
You have a rather irrational fear of capable women, don't you? Most conservatives do, that's why they like Palin so much.

"Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York,
Private business Marjon, don't they have a right to do business as they choose in your world?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
No, actually I haven't. I don't take sex lightly, although, as you're a Christian, I wonder why you would.


LMFAO....mmmmkay SH. It's your story bud. As an atheist I wonder why you're so worried about what kind of a Christian I am. And yes I don't make a big deal about sex, nor am I up-tight about sex.

You have a rather irrational fear of capable women, don't you? Most conservatives do, that's why they like Palin so much.


Uh no it's the incapable ones I have a RATIONAL fear of...have you been paying attention?

Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
As an atheist I wonder why you're so worried about what kind of a Christian I am.
Because some of them would like to take away my rights and others would like to see me killed for being an apostate.

That satisfy your curiosity?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
"Mt. Sinai is violating state conscience laws, as well as state laws against religious employment discrimination and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on an individual—along with five other claims based on DeCarlo’s coerced participation in the abortion."
http://www.examin...ond-time
SH, a not-for-profit corporation violates the law and the individual rights of one of their employees, but 'Mr. Law' finds this acceptable?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
'However, in today’s ruling the court found that there is no right to private action or private remedy under the statue cited by DeCarlo in her suit – the so-called “Church Amendment.” (Read the decision here.)

That amendment protects health care workers working for federally-funded entities from being discriminated against because they refused to perform abortions on religious or conscience grounds"
http://www.lifesi...n-court/
From my take on this court case, any hospital can force employees to perform an abortion or be fired regardless of the Federal law.
SoulmanOtto
2.6 / 5 (37) Dec 15, 2010
Marjon's just given up the game. Nobody, anywhere, ever has suggesting forcing anybody to provide abortions or forcing anybody to have abortions.
Man, you love superlative statements dont you? For a philo it seems youre all black and white. People in china were forced to have abortions, if not by the govt then by coercion from neighbors. Minors in the US and canada can be forced to have abortions.
http://www.google...7ADRA_en
Because some of them would like to take away my rights and others would like to see me killed for being an apostate.
Trouble is, all religions have that tendency built in, written into their holy books, and meant to take advantage of our tribal urges to kill the competition. And despite what religionists say today, tomorrow they might just decide to act on it.
SoulmanOtto
2.6 / 5 (36) Dec 15, 2010
-And sooner or later, people like this must be, and WILL be, prevented from reproducing at ALL COSTS:
http://www.cbsnew...083.html
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
Sorry MM, I was busy today to help you with the idiots who lack biology knowledge. Basic biology 101, a human is a human from conception. Simple.

Progressives and other haters give human rights only to those they subjectively like. Jews, Blacks, Christian, athiests, old people, sick people at times were subjectively denied human rights by haters such as SH even though they are fully human.

I love it when people like soulmanotto suggests taht religionists might kill the competition. Typical progressive bait and switch. What they mean is they are scared Christians might kill (Muslims and other religions never would do that) for christianity. Problem is fundamental Christianity goes against that. It is only when christianity is perverted by progressive thought that it, alone with anyone who is contaminated with progressive thought, becomes dangerous. Athiests in Russia, China, Korea, etc have killed more people than Christians who have been so contaminated.
freethinking
2 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
The reason Athiesim is so bad when it get contaminated with progressivism is that it has no fundamental belief. Christianity will self correct back to fundamentalism.

Conservatives often make the mistake of thinking progressives are like them, but just with different opinions. That is wrong. Progressives will lie, cheat, and distort the truth, as is aptly seen with SH and his cohorts. They don't care for women's rights, they don't care about the poor, the gay, the sick, or the unemployed. They say they do only to gain control. SH, what have you done to help the rights of anyone?
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2010
Well, it still looks like nobody disagrees that woman has the right to evict and unwanted fetus from her womb the same way she has a right to evict an unwanted squatter from her home. Since I've made that unchallenged analogy, we've seen slurs thrown back and forth about military service, marjon going off topic with his spaghetti link posting, and the conspiracy nut who's seemed to drop his advocacy for his pet conspiracy fairy tale in order to follow me around and attack me personally (not that I'm not flattered). Oh, and the Christianist troll attacking atheism. Seems like the case is settled then. Women do have a pretty much unqualified right to abort the fetuses they carry.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Basic biology 101, a human is a human from conception.


Human life should not be legally protected, only human (and non-human) beings should. Therefore killing of foetuses up to cca 4-5th month, but also killing of braindead patients is not murder.

That said, I fully agree with this particular law, our current knowledge of human biology tells us that 4-5th month foetuses have nervous system developed enough to be protected.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
but also killing of braindead patients is not murder.

Many totalitarian regimes used this to justify murder of their opposition.
It is not surprising 'progressives' and socialists can't acknowledge individual human life.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
They don't care for women's rights, they don't care about the poor, the gay, the sick, or the unemployed.
I'm not the one trying to control women's bodies, the ability of Gays to get married, or attempting to kick all of the unemployed off of a defined benefit of working in the US.
SH, what have you done to help the rights of anyone?
Well jsut recently I replied to your posts and showed what a douchebag you are. Decrying those who'd rather grind the lower class to dust in order to get ahead certainly helps. I vote, which you probably do in contrast in order to usurp their rights, and I've engaged in public debate on the issue locally as time allows.

Perhaps you should stop projecting.
I was busy today to help you with the idiots who lack biology knowledge.
Not sure how you can say this when you don't believe in evolution.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
"Many totalitarian regimes used this to justify murder of their opposition."

Strawman (and possible slippery slope logical fallacy). So now every hospital that pulls the plug on a patient with non-functioning brain, but otherwise able to live on life support for a long time is totalitarian? Thats some twisted logic right there.

There is a big difference between living human body (human life), and existence of human person. The latter cannot exist without the former (at least till mind uploading becomes possible :D), but the former CAN and often exists without the latter (brain damage, embryos, early fetuses).
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (45) Dec 16, 2010
right to evict an unwanted squatter from her home. Since I've made that unchallenged analogy
'Eviction is the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord.' -Which follows a previous lease arrangement agreed to by both parties. IOW, the lessor wanted the tenant there until the tenant did something wrong. Very poor word choice by a philo unskilled at thinking.
conspiracy nut
-And the only thing you get uprated for- personal attacks.
his pet conspiracy fairy tale
Funny- I'm right about everything else -?
order to follow me around and attack me personally (not that I'm not flattered)
-Because you flatter yourself- this is a small community and your flawed philo thinking is irresistible. Who all do you enjoy attacking?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
So now every hospital that pulls the plug on a patient with non-functioning brain,

Doctors kill patients in hospitals unintentionally every day with mistakes.
Why are you comfortable enabling doctors to intentionally kill their patients when doctors are known to make many errors?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
SH - your logic and your science is faulty again. You really need to take a sex ed and a biology class and quite being a talking point for every progressive cause.

For your information, as I am not God, I cannot control a womans body, second a baby is fully human from conception. Only progressives, such as yourself, believe some people are not worth living. Count yourself with Hitler in that belief.

Everyone who is for abortion has the same beliefs as Hitler, and the other great progressives throughout history. They determine who is granted rights as humans. Me, I grant all people full rights as humans. Call me a bigot if you like, but the truth is your and those like you are the bigot.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
SH - It is People like you want to force your belief onto others, to force people to do things against their will (in essence control their body), you want to remove peoples rights.

Just because a person becomes a doctor or nurse or pharmacist, especially if they join that profession to save lives, they don't check conscience at the door.

You and other progressives want to control these peoples body (their hands, mind and skill) to kill another human being. You have no problem to force them to take another persons life.

Like I said, you and those like you are the bigot, are the one who wants control, and whats worse is you lie and say you care. Well you care just as much as the nazi cares for the jews, or a KKK member cares for a black man, or a black panther cares for a white man.

I will always say and act as All people, regardless of age, sex, religion (or lack of), handicap, are fully human.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
For your information, as I am not God, I cannot control a womans body
Then why are you trying?
second a baby is fully human from conception.
Then those nine months of development are a total waste of time.
Only progressives, such as yourself, believe some people are not worth living. Count yourself with Hitler in that belief.
And the Pope, and Every religious leader around, and yourself, etc. Difference is, I don't fit that group. I don't have problems with anyone until they try to intervene in the affairs of others unjustly.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
I will always say and act as All people, regardless of age, sex, religion (or lack of), handicap, are fully human.
And you also have no problem telling them who they can and can't marry, what religion they should have, what god they must worship and what economic system they must live under.

Laughable FT, utterly laughable.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
Women do have a pretty much unqualified right to abort the fetuses they carry.


Yeah, about on par with people having the right to drink themselves into a coma....

Not exactly the glory the 1st amendment like a lot of twits make it out to be. It's one of those things to tolerate, not celebrate.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
SH - you are the bigot, you tell people what they can and cant do, yet condemn others for doing the same.

You have no problem telling people that they shouldn't have a religion, yet you condemn me for saying they should. Hypocrite anyone?

You have no problems forcing a crying nurse to help kill a baby.

You have no problems forcing kids against their parents wills to see pro-gay material at schools.

Equal rights means the rules apply to everyone the same. The rules as they currently are is that, a black man can marry a white woman, a gay man can marry a woman, a christian can marry an athiest, etc.. Rules apply equally.

If what you want is to change the rules. Then be honest. You want to allow anyone to marry anyone. How about a 7 year old marrying a 80 year old? What about 10 women marrying 1 man? What about a bother marrying his sister? What about a dad marrying his daughter? What rules would you apply and what gives you the right to set the rules?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
SH - you are the bigot, you tell people what they can and cant do, yet condemn others for doing the same.
I tell you that you can't tell women they can't get abortions, I tell you that you're not allowed to tell gays they can't be married. Beyond that, and telling you to fuck off, what else have I told people to do?
You have no problem telling people that they shouldn't have a religion, yet you condemn me for saying they should. Hypocrite anyone?
I've never told someone they shouldn't have a religion. I've told many people that I disagree with the religion they've followed, and I've told them that people lie to them about their religion.
You have no problems forcing a crying nurse to help kill a baby.
Actually I do have a problem with that. No one should be forced to perform abortions unless it's a condition of their employment, which they're made aware of when they're hired. They're welcome to get a different job, until then, do your job.(TBC)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
You have no problems forcing kids against their parents wills to see pro-gay material at schools.
Want to tell me what constitutes "pro-gay" material? Is there such a thing as "pro-straight" material?
Equal rights means the rules apply to everyone the same. The rules as they currently are is that, a black man can marry a white woman, a gay man can marry a woman, a christian can marry an athiest, etc.. Rules apply equally.
Again, you're being dense. You are limiting someone's right to liberty. The entire supreme court has unanimously and explicitly stated that marriage is an act of liberty. To prevent two people from getting married is unconstitutional, and yes, this includes Scalia and Thomas.
How about a 7 year old marrying a 80 year old?
Not old enough to enter a contract.
What about 10 women marrying 1 man?
Don't care.
What about a bother marrying his sister?
Don't care.
dad-daughter
As long as she's a willing participant, don't care.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
You have no problems forcing a crying nurse to help kill a baby.
This piece, which the Pro-life groups bring up repeatedly is in reference to a nurse in upstate New York who attempted to sue. What they never mention is the fact that the patient had an IUD in at the time, meaning that the child, at best, would suffer multipkle forms of developmental disorders, and potentially be stillborn.

Secondly, these hospitals are private institutions, where the employees know that performing medical procedures is not optional. If their ethics demand that they do not perform their job, then their ethics should demand that they don't work there and support the organization in the first place.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Secondly, these hospitals are private institutions,

Which are under the jurisdiction of all sorts of laws and regulations which were violated by forcing the Catholic nurse to participate in an abortion procedure.
SH, why so selective now in interfering with a private institution?
http://www.nypost...ABrQxuoN
This story is in Brooklyn, not up-state, and at Mt. Sinai, a not-for-profit hospital (subject to all sorts of state and federal regulations).
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Which are under the jurisdiction of all sorts of laws and regulations which were violated by forcing the Catholic nurse to participate in an abortion procedure.
No actually there are no laws that were violated. If you followed the case, you'd know that that was the determination of 2 courts.
This story is in Brooklyn, not up-state, and at Mt. Sinai, a not-for-profit hospital (subject to all sorts of state and federal regulations).
Apologies, there are a few Mt. Sinai clinics and hospitals, the majority of which are upstate. Here's the full decision so you can read and understand the legal proceedings.
http://www.ca2.us...0-556_op (PC).pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/75752a89-b8bc-4b88-a420-f75f64aff9da/3/hilite
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
Of course the law was violated.
See that's the beauty of your regulatory state, SH. The state can issue all sorts of laws, rules and regulation, but when they are violated, courts can be very selective in enforcing the 'laws' and in accusing others of violations.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Mt. Sinai admits they violated her rights:
"On August 10, attorneys for Mt. Sinai Hospital filed a brief claiming that Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo, the Catholic nurse forced to participate in an abortion, has no right to sue. "
"The Church Amendment "provides that no recipient of federal health funds may discriminate in the employment or privileges of its health care personnel because of their religious objection to abortion.""
"However, according to Mount Sinai Hospital, the Church Amendment "does not grant individual litigants a private right of action.""
http://www.lifesi...bortion/
What good is the law, Church Amendment, if no one will enforce it?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Mt. Sinai admits they violated her rights...What good is the law, Church Amendment, if no one will enforce it?
Read what you posted again and tell me if it says that. Then tell me where it says the church amendment applies.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Mt. Sinai admits they violated her rights...What good is the law, Church Amendment, if no one will enforce it?
Read what you posted again and tell me if it says that. Then tell me where it says the church amendment applies.

Their defense was she didn't have a right to sue, not that the nurse was wrong.
What good is a law if no one will enforce it?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Their defense was she didn't have a right to sue, not that the nurse was wrong.
In order for her to not have a right to sue for a civil rights violation, her civil rights would have to be unviolated. The court agreed that her rights were not violated under the law.

Have a nice day.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Their defense was she didn't have a right to sue, not that the nurse was wrong.
In order for her to not have a right to sue for a civil rights violation, her civil rights would have to be unviolated. The court agreed that her rights were not violated under the law.

Have a nice day.

What good is the law? You claim medical personnel can't be forced to participate in an abortion, yet she was.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
What good is the law? You claim medical personnel can't be forced to participate in an abortion, yet she was.
You didn't read the finding did you?
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 16, 2010
Marjon, if she didn't want to participate with the procedure, she shouldn't have taken the money. This involves getting another job. Nobody is forcing her to be a nurse at that hospital. If she had a moral problem with what they were doing, she should have quit.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
If someone has a problem with abortions, just add an article in employment contract that he/she will not do them. Nurses and doctors are highly qualified people, and would have no problem to find a job without being forced to do abortions. There is no need for any laws or bureaucracy for this.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Doctors oath is to due no harm. Killing a baby is doing harm.

Interesting, using the progressive ethics rules, Christians are not allowed to be teachers, doctors, nurses, police, military, pharamsist, preachers, etc. etc. Using progressive ethics and rules, Christians are to not be employed by anyone as they bring their religious eithics to the work place. I love Progressive tolerance.
CHollman82
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2010
Can we all agree that at SOME point during pregnancy the practice of abortion would be completely benign?

I think we can all agree with that at least, since at conception the "fetus" is only a few cells... I don't think any of you shed a tear for your skin flakes.

Now, we should also be able to agree that at some point during the pregnancy the sense of touch develops, and that before this point the fetus experiences no pain.

And we should also be able to agree that at some point during the pregnancy the fetus gains consciousness, and that that is likely after the development of the five senses... because without sensation what knowledge can you have, and without knowledge what can you think?

So I think all of us could agree that abortion in and of itself is not wrong, but it all depends on determining when these developments occur and when the abortion is performed.

Now, seeing that I am not a neuroscientist, I defer to their judgment on the issue... which they have already made..
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
CHollman82, go back to biology 101, and ethics 101. Biologically speaking, at conception, a human is fully human.

As I keep repeating a person is a person, whether back or white, gay or straight, old or young, jew or muslim, christian or atheist. Bigots and haters deny that truth. I rather defend human life, than defend Hitlers principles as SH and Progressives do.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
Interesting, using the progressive ethics rules, Christians are not allowed to be teachers, doctors, nurses, police, military, pharamsist, preachers, etc. etc.
Care to explain this statement? I know a great many pro-choice Christians who have no problem with what other women choose to do with their body.
Using progressive ethics and rules, Christians are to not be employed by anyone as they bring their religious eithics to the work place.
That would be the freedom from religion part of the Constitution.
I love Progressive tolerance.
We don't jail you for your beliefs, we don't prevent you from taking those jobs, we simply make you do them if you so choose to take them. That would be the contract of employment.

How many devout Jews have your company shutdown on Saturdays? What if I shut down all businesses, including utilities every Sunday? Force you to go outside during the new moon, naked, to dance around a fire? Your religion doesn't get priority.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
On this board if you are for ethics, equal rights, and speak basic science, the atheists and progressives give you a 1 for a ranking. Talk about tolerance.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
On this board if you are for ethics, equal rights, and speak basic science, the atheists and progressives give you a 1 for a ranking.
No, but if you post crap like you and Marjon often do, you may get insta-one'd.
Talk about tolerance.
We've tolerated you for quite a while now.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Strange how you can kill a person before s/he's born but cannot do so after birth


Actually you can kill a person any time you like. It's just a question of whether or not you think the penalty is worth it.

I agree with ryggesogn2, from the second comment here. What in the world is up with this headline? I don't think I've ever heard of the term 'Abortion rights foes'. I'm pro-choice, so I guess that makes me an abortion rights supporter? The bill of rights: 1)Free speach 2)Bear Arms 3)No Quartering Troops 4)Search & Seizure 5)Abortion 6)Trial by Jury 7)Trail again 8)Torture 9)Whatever 10)States

Notice anything funny? Sorry I could not resist, even though I am a supporter of choice. Er.. sorry 'abortion rights advocate'.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
SH - you are the least tolerant one. You love to distort, love to misquote and been caught many times doing so, you denegrate kids by calling them bastards for things they have no control over, etc.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
SH - you are the least tolerant one.
That might be true. I'll go with that.
You love to distort
Nope.
love to misquote and been caught many times doing so
Show us 1 instance. Just one.
you denegrate kids by calling them bastards for things they have no control over
Again, 1 instance.
etc.
etera.
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
That might be true. I'll go with that
Nope
I wear pink tights and a cape
Again, 1 instance.
etera


lolz.

I frequently disagree with Skeptic, but I don't think it's fair to question his ethics. His posts are some of the most thoughtful and well-backed comments out of all the people who regularly post here. ...even when he's wrong!
CHollman82
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2010
CHollman82, go back to biology 101, and ethics 101. Biologically speaking, at conception, a human is fully human.


Biologically speaking you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

At conception there are only 2 cells... 2 cells are not a human, only the potential for a human. Just as a seed is not a tree, but the potential for a tree.

At some point between 2 cells and birth is the development of sensory perception and consciousness. I don't know when that is, and you don't either. I defer to neuroscientists because they know orders of magnitude more about this than I do.

a person is a person, whether back or white, gay or straight, old or young, jew or muslim, christian or atheist. Bigots and haters deny that truth. I rather defend human life, than defend Hitlers principles as SH and Progressives do.


This nonsense is not at issue here... you are feebly trying to draw a comparison between abortion and bigotry where none exists.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
I defer to neuroscientists because they know orders of magnitude more about this than I do.


That's the only difference between you and I. I don't defer to anyone about a subject like this...it is life and death after all. I don't know when a collection of cells becomes a person. I DO know a neurologist has no clue either....
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
That's the only difference between you and I. I don't defer to anyone about a subject like this...it is life and death after all.


Okay...

I don't know when a collection of cells becomes a person.


Then why should anyone give a shit about your opinion? You won't defer to experts but you have no idea either... makes sense.

I DO know a neurologist has no clue either....


No you don't...
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
Marjon, if she didn't want to participate with the procedure, she shouldn't have taken the money. This involves getting another job. Nobody is forcing her to be a nurse at that hospital. If she had a moral problem with what they were doing, she should have quit.

She thought she had told them she did not want to participate in killing babies and the hospital agreed because there is are federal and state laws that allow health care workers the choice of not killing babies.
The hospital reneged on the agreement and threatened her career.
The govt holds all the cards as nurses are licensed by the state.
The state, including courts, can (and have) ruled that the federal law didn't apply to her.
Bottom line is the law stating licensed medical professionals don't have to kill babies is hollow.
Take away those C.O. laws and there will be an even greater shortage of doctors and nurses.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
lolz.

I frequently disagree with Skeptic, but I don't think it's fair to question his ethics. His posts are some of the most thoughtful and well-backed comments out of all the people who regularly post here. ...even when he's wrong!
Lol, subjectively wrong, just as you are, and we find middle ground.
She thought she had told them she did not want to participate in killing babies and the hospital agreed because there is are federal and state laws that allow health care workers the choice of not killing babies.
The hospital reneged on the agreement and threatened her career.
The govt holds all the cards as nurses are licensed by the state.
She was refusing to render emergency care in a mandatory emergency response for trained first responder state. It was an offense that would force the State to Pull her license. Again, refusing to read up on things ruins your argument.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
She was refusing to render emergency care in a mandatory emergency response for trained first responder state. It was an offense that would force the State to Pull her license. Again, refusing to read up on things ruins your argument

They lied.
"However, the abortion was a scheduled procedure, and was not classified by the hospital as an emergency procedure. “Category I” is the hospital’s classification for “patients requiring immediate surgical intervention for life or limb threatening conditions.” “Category II” is the classification for lower priority procedures which need to take place within six hours. The abortion in question was a Category II procedure. In a fully-operational hospital such as Mt. Sinai, six hours is more than enough time to find another assistant nurse. "
http://www.headli...410.html
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2010
"Now, the New York state lawsuit is pending and we are awaiting news regarding a possible appeal of the federal Second Circuit case. In both suits, DeCarlo asked for the courts to enjoin Mt. Sinai from continuing its practice of discrimination, as well as for damages for her lost wages."
"In its ruling yesterday, the Second Circuit confirmed the holding of a lower court that DeCarlo does not have the right to bring forth a private, individual cause of action under the Church Amendment. This ruling reflects a flawed reading of the Church Amendment, as it is obvious that Congress intended to protect individuals from discrimination when it enacted the Church Amendment. "
http://www.headli...410.html
What use is a law if it is not enforced?
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Progressives use the law when they want, and ignore the law when they want. The law is just for reasonable people.

It is sad that Progressives never defend the rights of those they disagree with, yet Conservatives do. I would protect SH right to be an atheist, but I'm sure he would not protect my rights.

How do you know when a progressive is losing an argument. They curse and swear, for example SH, CHollman82, Otto, etc.

As for being Pro-Choice Christians, ask them a simple question, if Jesus told you abortion is murder and to fight against abortion, would you? I've asked this question to someone who called themselves a pro-choice christian. They answered no. To them the right to choose is more important than Jesus commands. Jesus said if you follow him you are a christian. If you don't you are not.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2010
SH are you telling me you only called a group of children Bastards just once in your life? I'm sure since you like to degrade people you also have used the words Retard before too.

CHollman82, the 2 cells at conception are fully human. A single sperm is just a cell of a person, A single egg is just an egg of a person. Combine the two, you have a unique individual. Simple factual biology.

Bigots claim for whatever reason someone else is sub-human. Nazis say jews are subhuman, black panthers call white people sub-human, KKK call blacks sub-human, some people call gays sub-human, gays call people like me breeders (a derogatery term), abortionists call unborn babies all sorts of things to hide the fact and to make it easier to kill the baby. The fact is everyone is fully human regardless of race, religion, sex, or age.

If you are pro-abortion, you are a bigot as you refuse to grant rights to another human being.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2010
As for being Pro-Choice Christians, ask them a simple question, if Jesus told you abortion is murder and to fight against abortion, would you?
If Jesus told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

That's the difference between you and I. I merely don't put stock in the commandments of an imaginary Jewish Zombie.
SH are you telling me you only called a group of children Bastards just once in your life? I'm sure since you like to degrade people you also have used the words Retard before too.
So you're going to slander me and fail to prove it. I'm starting to get the inclination to search you down as I did Marjon, except this time I may sue.
If you are pro-abortion, you are a bigot as you refuse to grant rights to another human being.
No one is pro-abortion. There's no one on the planet who jumps out of bed and states "It's a great day for some abortions!"

This commentary shows how sick of mind you are.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
Progressives use the law when they want, and ignore the law when they want. The law is just for reasonable people.


"Progressives" realize that the law is subject to being wrong, and is not above reproach.

It is sad that Progressives never defend the rights of those they disagree with, yet Conservatives do.


I defend your right to worship your childish notion of god.

How do you know when a progressive is losing an argument. They curse and swear, for example SH, CHollman82, Otto, etc.


Our notion of morality and ethics, as opposed to the ones handed to you by your god, is not concerned with trivial things such as which words we can and cannot speak.

CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2010
CHollman82, the 2 cells at conception are fully human. A single sperm is just a cell of a person, A single egg is just an egg of a person. Combine the two, you have a unique individual. Simple factual biology.


2 cells are 2 cells, to call a group of 2 cells a "human" is to ignore, entirely, the fundamental and defining properties of humanity.

Bigots claim for whatever reason someone else is sub-human. Nazis say jews are subhuman, black panthers call white people sub-human, KKK call blacks sub-human, some people call gays sub-human...


There is a significant difference here and you know it. Asserting that a collection of cells is not a human is COMPLETELY different than asserting that a conscious thinking person is not a human for whatever reason.

If you are pro-abortion, you are a bigot as you refuse to grant rights to another human being.


Wrong.

A bundle of cells is not a human as it lacks all defining traits and qualities of humanity.
ShotmanMaslo
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
freethinking - "A single egg is just an egg of a person. Combine the two, you have a unique individual. Simple factual biology."

Only if you think the presence of unique human genome is all what constitutes a person. Medicine, sociology and neuroscience disagree with you. The medical criterion for the existence of a human person inside a body is presence of brain waves (functioning brain). Not presence of unique human genetic material. Otherwise disconecting braindead patients capable of long vegetative life on life support would be murder too. It is not.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Then why should anyone give a shit about your opinion?


I missed the part where I was asking anyone to. Are you stupid or intentionally being dishonest?

I'm saying that that's all ANYONE has on this subject...an opinion. No one knows, that includes you and everyone else on this board.

No you don't...


Yes I do. If you feel otherwise present your proof, otherwise STFU.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
So have you called others those names before? If you haven't I'll appologize. If you have what does that say about yourself?

So you tracked someone down that disagreed with you down. Isn't that typical of what radical progressive leftists do? Threaten, intimidate? Doesn't this show how sick your mind is? How hateful you are? I have never threatened anyone. Nor will I track anyone down for their beliefs or their posts. I have never sworn at you. This is how the left shuts down discussion, by using fear, bullying.

BTW my question, was for those that call themselve christians to answer, not athiests. So unless you are calling yourself a christian, that question wasn't for you to answer.

Yes there are people who jump out of bed saying its a great day for abortion. Those in the abortion industry make a lot of money.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
The medical criterion for the existence of a human person inside a body is presence of brain waves (functioning brain).


Oh bullshit. What about someone who is in a coma and has no EEG, then a week later they're out of it and functioning normally.

Did they stop being a person when their brain was "flat-lined"? Kindly stop talking our your a$$...
CHollman82
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
No one knows, that includes you and everyone else on this board.


Sure, but that does NOT include people who research this topic for a living...

Yes I do. If you feel otherwise present your proof, otherwise STFU.


You said that you know that no neuroscientist has a clue as to when sensory perception and consciousness arise in a fetus... I don't have to prove you wrong, because to know what you claim to know you would have to know what all other neuroscientists in the world know, and you clearly do not.

This position is typical of under-educated people, not only a lack of respect for the knowledge of others but a distinct lack of understanding of the disparity between the knowledge of others and of your own knowledge.

Scientists that study the human brain and human cognition for a living certainly do have a much better understanding of this topic than you do, and you should defer judgment to your intellectual superiors.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
This position is typical of under-educated people,


This position is typical of over-educated people. They claim to know something is true and then dismiss their burden of proof on the "education" level of the people debating them.

You've shown amply that you're worthless in this debate. You can't add anything to it, which you should be able to. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, just provide some evidence that you know when a person is a person and when they aren't.

But you won't, because I already know you CAN'T. You're making ridiculous claims and thinking that somehow because you have 7 years of student loans to pay off you're right. Well...WRONG.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
The medical criterion for the existence of a human person inside a body is presence of brain waves (functioning brain).


Oh bullshit. What about someone who is in a coma and has no EEG, then a week later they're out of it and functioning normally.

Did they stop being a person when their brain was "flat-lined"? Kindly stop talking our your a$$...


Are you comparing someone who is in a coma who has lived for many years, has had many experiences, has a distinct and unique personality, has friends and family, and has countless memories, etc etc with a microscopic bundle of cells?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
Are you comparing someone who is in a coma who has lived for many years, has had many experiences, has a distinct and unique personality, has friends and family, and has countless memories, etc etc with a microscopic bundle of cells?


No dip****, shotman was. Learn to read.

and I quote-

"The medical criterion for the existence of a human person inside a body is presence of brain waves (functioning brain)."

He made no distinction. Moreover I've just shown that definition to be false anyway, so what does it matter?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
So have you called others those names before? If you haven't I'll appologize. If you have what does that say about yourself?
So when did you decide to stop beating your wife?

Don't like that question? I don't blame you. Because it doesn't prove that you beat your wife, it assumes you do the action, and gives you no way to say otherwise regardless of proof. It's called slander. Your apology is hollow when you frame it with such a question.

So you tracked someone down that disagreed with you down. Isn't that typical of what...leftists do?...I have never threatened anyone.
First, yes, you threaten people often. "You're going to suffer after death" is a threat that you have made many times now.

Beyond that, I tracked Marjon down so I could identify who I was dealing with. The trail led me to... A POLITICIAN! And not just any politician, a corporate shill who endorses liberals. You've seen his posts, I tracked him down to determine if he was a liar. He is, as are you.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
This position is typical of over-educated people. They claim to know something is true and then dismiss their burden of proof on the "education" level of the people debating them.


Kind of like when a math teacher asserts to his student that one must follow order of operations to successfully complete an algebra assignment.

You've shown amply that you're worthless in this debate.


I've pointed out that at some point in the development of the fetus it is quite clear that abortion is completely benign.

just provide some evidence that you know when a person is a person and when they aren't.


I have, you ignored it. A person, as defined by the fundamental qualities and traits of humanity, cannot be only a handful of cells.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
I have, you ignored it. A person, as defined by the fundamental qualities and traits of humanity, cannot be only a handful of cells.


You've done no such thing. I agree that a collection of 2 cells isn't a human being, probably 100,000 doesn't qualify either, I'm pretty sure a million doesn't. What I've ASKED you to do, and you've delibratly ignored, is WHEN does a person become a person. We don't disagree on the extremes, it's the MIDDLE we're talking about here. It's what this whole debate is about you moron.

You can't claim victory in a debate over a point in the distance between two points by pointing at the beginning and saying "This is the beginning"....

Jesus.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
What I've ASKED you to do, and you've delibratly ignored, is WHEN does a person become a person.
He said above, when there is the presence of brain wave patterns.

You fired back stating something about being in a coma with no EEG. At that point in time, you're dead. I don't know of any incidences in which someone with no brain activity has come back from that state. I do know of many where there has been an extremely low reading, but never a flatlined EEG.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
What I've ASKED you to do, and you've delibratly ignored, is WHEN does a person become a person.
He said above, when there is the presence of brain wave patterns.


And I've shown that isn't a sufficient definition.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
What I've ASKED you to do, and you've delibratly ignored, is WHEN does a person become a person.


I answered this. I said I don't know, and I defer my judgment to scientists that study human cognition, who have weighed in on this debate many times and with a resounding and unified voice and who have helped to shape current laws regarding it, which you are arguing with.

So, tell me why you think you have a better idea of when a fetus should gain human rights than neuroscientists?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
And I've shown that isn't a sufficient definition.
No, you constructed a hypothetical and asserted that it wasn't a strong enough definition. You haven't shown that it isn't and I'm not sure any of us could do so definitively. We simply don't know enough about the brain. I, as well, would defer to someone who is an expert in the field of cognition as I can't speak to it.

If you're always ignoring those who know more, and can demonstrate that knowledge, then no burden of proof will ever be enough for you to make an informed decision.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
I answered this. I said I don't know, and I defer my judgment to scientists that study human cognition,


Deference of judgment is proof? Kindly allow me to accuse YOU of being undereducated at this point...

If that's what you're standing on as proof there's no point in discussing it further with you.

No, you constructed a hypothetical and asserted that it wasn't a strong enough definition.


Not a hypothetical-
http://en.wikiped...(singer)

And I think that shows what he said was most definitely not a sufficient definition.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
If you're always ignoring those who know more, and can demonstrate that knowledge, then no burden of proof will ever be enough for you to make an informed decision.


Get off it SH, I don't ignore people who know more. I'm simply not willing to stand by and not call bullshit on someone when it's as blatantly flying around as it is in this case.

You yourself even almost admitted as much in your last post.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
Get off it SH, I don't ignore people who know more. I'm simply not willing to stand by and not call bullshit on someone when it's as blatantly flying around as it is in this case.

You yourself even almost admitted as much in your last post.
The only bullshit blatantly flying around is the nonsense being spouted off that the fetus is conscious and fully functional before the third trimester.

That and almost everything Marjon and Freethinking say is fairly bullshitastic as well.
From your source on brainwave activity:
Reynolds was under close medical monitoring during the entire operation. During part of the operation she had no brain-wave activity and no blood flowing in her brain, which left her clinically dead.
No EEG==dead.
Critics also contend that EEG monitoring is not 100% reliable. Sometimes the brain has activity that is not registered by the equipment.
Explains outlier cases like the one you're linking. Beyond that, it isn't properly sourced
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
Deference of judgment is proof?


Proof of what? What are you talking about?

The concept of "proof" is one of those things that makes all kinds of sense when speaking informally, but makes very little when taken literally.

Very few things can be proven. No one can prove that our entire existence and all that we know is not some elaborate matrix-esque illusion, for example... and when you consider that you realize that almost nothing can be proven.

People who demand proof for anything have no idea what the word means or are too ignorant to realize that it is an unreasonable expectation. Evidence is much more valuable of a concept, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest when cognition develops in fetuses.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
Get off it SH, I don't ignore people who know more. I'm simply not willing to stand by and not call bullshit on someone when it's as blatantly flying around as it is in this case.


I am not sure what bullshit you are referring to, but I never claimed to know when we should consider a fetus a human being with rights. All I said is that it is clear that at some point in development it is not that thing, and at some later point it is. I stated, in my first post in this thread, that we should all be able to agree that at some point at least in the development of the fetus abortion is completely benign and that what is at issue here is not whether abortions are allowed but at what stage of development.

I then stated that since I am not a neurologist and that I have not spent my entire life studying the human brain I see no more rational course of action than to defer my judgment of the topic to those that have.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
And therein lies MY hypocrisy in this debate.

I know that two cells is NOT a human being.

I'm NOT pro-choice, I'm just against outlawing abortions...and YES there is a difference.

I already admit I don't know when a human being is a human being, therefore even by my OWN standards I'm "advocating" murder.

It's not a perfect world and this is one of those grey issues in life. I don't know what else to say about it other than no one, and I do mean NO ONE knows for sure when life starts, or when a human becomes a human and not a collection of cells.

I humbly suggest we err on the side of caution in the matter...
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
already admit I don't know when a human being is a human being, therefore even by my OWN standards I'm "advocating" murder.
that's the problem. You're not advocating murder by allowing for women to choose to abort. You're not even condoning it. Yet you still have a deep problem within your own conscience in regards to what other people are doing in a manner that doesn't affect you or yours in the least.

I'm pro-choice because the availability of abortion does not affect me in the least. This is the same reason why I'm anti-prohibition. What people choose to do is not my moral, ethical, or social concern if it does not inpact people outside of their own person or familial sphere of influence. That is tolerance, not acceptance.

I don't care if Freethinking wants to be a Hutaree member or some other fanatical christian sect.

It becomes a problem when he begins slandering other people for not being like he is as it no longer limits influence to his own person.
CHollman82
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2010
no one, and I do mean NO ONE knows for sure when life starts, or when a human becomes a human and not a collection of cells.


Sure, but other people certainly have a better understanding of it than you and I. Doesn't it make the most sense to just defer to the subject matter experts when you lack personal knowledge of the topic rather than crossing your arms and stomping your feet and proclaiming "I have no idea but this is my uneducated opinion and I am not budging for anyone!"

I humbly suggest we err on the side of caution in the matter...


Sure, which means to trust the learned opinion of scientists that study the human brain. Take their opinion of when a fetus gains consciousness and add a bit to it and be done with it. Like you said, this is not a perfect world and that is practically the best we can do in an attempt to minimize infringement of basic human rights.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
What people choose to do is not my moral, ethical, or social concern if it does not inpact people outside of their own person or familial sphere of influence. That is tolerance, not acceptance.


No, that is not exactly what tolerance means. Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person begins, that is the cornerstone of tolerance. Persons in familial sphere of influence and unborn persons are persons too, and have some rights that we must be concerned about.

Of course, a human needs sufficiently developed nervous system to be considered an unborn human person, not just human life.
panorama
5 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
imaginary Jewish Zombie

This made me think of something I read a while back. Does this mean he's a self-hating jewish zombie?

http://www.robotc...over.jpg
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (32) Dec 17, 2010
What about someone who is in a coma and has no EEG
-We ought to do a minimum of research before we comment on things I think:
"Electroencephalography (EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp produced by the firing of neurons within the brain."

-Which can record this activity in the brains of comatose patients:
http://www.ncbi.n...11085551
As for being Pro-Choice Christians, ask them a simple question, if Jesus told you abortion is murder and to fight against abortion, would you?
You are assuming the godman would call abortion murder. Why? What makes you think you can put words into gods mouth?

Nothing more arrogant than a religionist who thinks he knows what his god thinks. Consider the fact that your champion failed to address the issue along with so many other fundamental moral quandries, and left his believers to guess.

When does life begin god? When does it end? Silence. Maybe he intended for us to decide??
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
Sure, but other people certainly have a better understanding of it than you and I.


No I honestly don't think they "certainly" do. I think this is one of those more philosophical questions than a strictly scientific one. Though there are both present.

"I have no idea but this is my uneducated opinion and I am not budging for anyone!"


Here's another difference between you and I is that I don't think you have to have a ****ing degree in something to have a valid opinion. Quite frankly take your education and shove it...hard. Some of the biggest idiots I've known were educated ones.

I humbly suggest we err on the side of caution in the matter...


Sure, which means to trust the learned opinion of scientists that study the human brain.


No sorry, in this case the opinion of scientists who insist on ONLY using science and no philosophy mean precious little to me. Again I view this a bit differently than you do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (30) Dec 17, 2010
Does god tell us here perhaps?
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" Jer1:5

-You may think god was talking about the immortal soul, but nowhere in the bible is this thing mentioned. The soul is actually a greek concept, which makes sense because greeks were the ones who actually wrote much of the bible and foisted it on the people. Kind of a backfire set against jewish belligerance and proselytism which was a real threat to western culture at the time.

Jesus does promise:
"16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. john3:16

-But the NT talks a lot about raising up the dead, and not much about a 'spirit' which will survive us.

So if your fetuses are human they will be restored to life on judgement day, if thats any consolation to you, and the people who killed them will burn in the lake.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
No I honestly don't think they "certainly" do. I think this is one of those more philosophical questions than a strictly scientific one. Though there are both present.


The point at which a fetus gains consciousness is a purely scientific question.

I don't think you have to have a ****ing degree in something to have a valid opinion.


What do you consider a valid opinion?

I would lend more credence to the opinion of anyone who has ever studied neurology than to your opinion here.

Some of the biggest idiots I've known were educated ones.


Dunning Kruger.

in this case the opinion of scientists who insist on ONLY using science and no philosophy mean precious little to me.


What do you think philosophy has to do with determining when a fetus gains consciousness? Philosophy has a place, and that place is in the speculative and inquisitive nature of man that eventually leads to science. Philosophy is inherently beneath science in terms of discovering truth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (31) Dec 17, 2010
The def of what is alive or what is human has certainly varied through the ages. Infanticide, or postnatal abortion, was routinely practiced in direct relation to perceived population pressure.

Malformed babies were tossed into gehenna to suppliment molochs legions; and during times of want, healthy babies were culled as well. Tribes around the world did this to avoid ruinous conflict over resources which always resulted from overpopulation.

And, from the proper Perspective, we can see that this is exactly the Reason abortion is legal throughout the world today. ONE BILLION abortions worldwide since the beginning of the last century, mostly in communist countries freed from the prewar cultures which would have resisted it. These countries are largely peaceful as a direct result.

More humane and much SAFER to kill people in the womb than on the battlefield, rioting in the streets, or starving in their hovels and slums. If abortion is to be ended then overpop must be solved.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (27) Dec 17, 2010
-You can argue about 'alive' or 'sentient' all you want, and miss the real Issue.

Because of the sheer Magnitude and the proximal Effects of international family planning programs, and the consideration of what conditions might have been like had they not done their Work, we can infer that the only relative freedoms women enjoy today are the result of a lack of overcrowding in these areas, and the subsequent absense of the kind of strife that existed there before and during the world wars.

Consider the immense depletion of fighting-age males during ww1 and the red revolutions, and realize that only a gen later they were replaced with more than enough to do it ALL OVER AGAIN, to greater effect and with more ominous potential.

And that this cycle has only been interrupted because women can now use contraception and abortion. And they are not now bound by their religions to doing little else but make and raise babies.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
The point at which a fetus gains consciousness is a purely scientific question.


Again, I ask for you to prove your assertions, and again you'll not do it. This is an opinion, and a very narrow minded one at that.

What do you consider a valid opinion?


What do you consider one?

I would lend more credence to the opinion of anyone who has ever studied neurology than to your opinion here.


Of course you would dear.

What do you think philosophy has to do with determining when a fetus gains consciousness?


Oh I dunno, I guess because that's a huge focus of philosophy....

Call me crazy.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
Again, I ask for you to prove your assertions, and again you'll not do it. This is an opinion, and a very narrow minded one at that.


Prove what assertion? That some living organism either is conscious or is not? That is called a tautology... a number is either one or not one... something either is conscious or is not conscious.

What do you consider one?


A valid opinion is a learned one based on a well developed understanding of that which is at issue.

Of course you would dear.


Of course anyone who is rational would...

Oh I dunno, I guess because that's a huge focus of philosophy....

Call me crazy.


Is it? It seems to me that philosophy is and should be concerned with unanswerable questions, questions that have no concrete referent in physical reality, questions that cannot be investigated by the scientific method.

This question can be investigated through science, and is therefore a matter of science, not philosophy.
ShotmanMaslo
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
"Oh I dunno, I guess because that's a huge focus of philosophy.."

Well, we are not in the middle ages, the question when sentience or consciousness arise has long ago been shifted from philosophy to neurology. Just as you wont use Democritos philosophical theory of atoms but rather physics to study them now, you wont use past philosophical theories of consciousness or sentience but rather neurology.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Persons in familial sphere of influence and unborn persons are persons too, and have some rights that we must be concerned about.
No, they hdon't have rights as they don't have anything outside of the machienry of humanity. When building a ship in a shipyard, should you toss it on the water before it's done? No, it's not a ship yet. It's a ship to be.

The same can be said of fetuses.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
Here is what I consider the truth(s) of the matter:

1) At some point during development the fetus has no sensory perception. I know this because it starts as a couple of cells, which do not have sensory perception.

2) At some point during development the fetus is not conscious. I know this based on number one, because consciousness requires EITHER present sensory perception or memories of past sensory perception.

3) Consciousness likely develops parallel to and in accordance with sensory perception. Consciousness is the ability to think, and the ability to think requires stored knowledge (otherwise what can you think about?). Knowledge is gained through sensory perception, therefore it is impossible to think before you can perceive.

Given the above, I assert that all abortions performed before sensory perception develops are completely and inherently benign as far as the fetus is concerned, just as splitting a rock in two is benign as far as the rock is concerned.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
Deu 4:29 seek him with all your heart and ... soul
6:5 Love the ... with all your soul
Jushua 22:5 serve him with all your heart ... soul
Judges 5:21, 1 Samuel 1:15, 1 Kings 2:4, 1 Chron. 22:19, 2 Chron 15:12,Job 10:1, Psalm 26:9, and on and on and on.

SH dont you find it creepy that someone would search someone out who makes posts, but then again, I'm not a progressive so I wouldn't even think of tracking a poster down.

I'm also sorry that I scared you with Hell. I know Progressives are a afraid of a lot of thing, but since you said you are an athiest, things like going to hell shouldn't bother you. Only people who believe in Hell should be scared. Have you gotten religious on me now?

At conception, we have a fully human and alive person. Does that person have an EEG? Not for a while, but that person is alive. You don't need an EEG to be alive.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
I have a belief when the soul enters the body. BUT since I'm not God, and unlike SH do not pretend to be God, I go with basic biology. A human is a human beginning at conception. Killing and individual no matter the age of the individual is killing an individual, who has the right to life.

What I find funny is that religious people are saying life begins at conception, when it aught to be atheists defending this position, with the religious people saying its ok until the soul enters the body.

panorama
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Only people who believe in Hell should be scared. Have you gotten religious on me now?


The "Hell" of my religion is exponentially better and more fun than the christian heaven...so I've got that to look forward to...
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2010
Is it? It seems to me that philosophy is and should be concerned with unanswerable questions, questions that have no concrete referent in physical reality, questions that cannot be investigated by the scientific method.
Those kinds of questions are nonsense questions. There is no metaphysical- only physical. Philosophy answers nothing.

A few things about just what a foetus is:
1. It is commonly understood that humans are naturally born premature due to the size of our brains. We cannot gestate any longer because women could not birth us. The brain continues to grow after birth, and we are born far more dependent on maternal care than other animals.

2. Humans exhibit neoteny, also called juvenilization, which is the retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles.
http://en.wikiped.../Neoteny

-In other words, humans never mature. This is evinced most frequently in DOMESTICATED animals undergoing rapid, forced change.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
At conception, we have a fully human and alive person. Does that person have an EEG? Not for a while, but that person is alive. You don't need an EEG to be alive.


Man you're dumb...

No, you don't need brain activity to be alive. Plants are alive, individual cells are alive... do you cry every time you lose a flake of skin or mow your grass?

Being alive isn't the issue, no one is saying that a fetus isn't alive, and no one is saying that abortion isn't an act of ending life.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
Everyone uses philosophy every day of their lives in very concrete ways. Ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, politics...this makes it VERY relevant to the current discussion.

You know what you get when you use science without philosophy?

http://en.wikiped..._Mengele

To quote Chris Knight "All science and no philosophy? *Wrong*...."

A valid opinion is one based on sound reasoning and it can be based on the BASIC concepts involved. It doesn't require years of university to acquire. Otherwise, why not just have scientists in charge of everything? Why have a democracy if "uneducated" people can't have valid opinions. Shallow...VERY shallow thinking...

Philosophy deals with the basics of consciousness..."How do I know what I know"? etc. These are real questions and have direct bearing on this discussion because philosophy is also where we get our ethics (or lack thereof) from.

Got a few well educated idiots on this board for sure...
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
I have a belief when the soul enters the body.


Stop.

This is your problem. Your beliefs. Define "soul" for me, because I am fairly certain you are speaking of something that is non-existent.

I go with basic biology.


No you don't, you assert nonsense and label it "basic biology", which you are able to do based on your complete lack of understanding of basic biology.

A human is a human beginning at conception.


Want to plant a forest? Just go buy a packet of trees...

What I find funny is that religious people are saying life begins at conception


Life does begin at conception, I never said otherwise. Humanity, however, does not begin with life...

You are confused. You are confused about what is at issue here and you are confused about what it means to be human.
panorama
not rated yet Dec 17, 2010
To quote Chris Knight "All science and no philosophy? *Wrong*...."

...wait...do you mean Peter Brady?
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
Everyone uses philosophy every day of their lives in very concrete ways. Ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, politics...this makes it VERY relevant to the current discussion.


I don't disagree. I stated that philosophy deals with unanswerable questions, and they are unanswerable because they are subjective.

A valid opinion is one based on sound reasoning and it can be based on the BASIC concepts involved. It doesn't require years of university to acquire.


This depends on the nature of the question. Your opinion is worthless here because this question REQUIRES appropriate education to properly address.

This movement to empower ignorance is shameful.

Philosophy deals with the basics of consciousness..."How do I know what I know"? etc. These are real questions and have direct bearing on this discussion because philosophy is also where we get our ethics from


Nope, neurology is where you need to look to determine when consciousness develops in a fetus, not philosophy
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
To quote Chris Knight "All science and no philosophy? *Wrong*...."

...wait...do you mean Peter Brady?


Ever seen the movie Real Genius? :-)

If not I highly recommend it...
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2010
At conception, we have a fully human and alive person. Does that person have an EEG? Not for a while, but that person is alive. You don't need an EEG to be alive.
A person doesnt have an EEG (electroencephalogram) until the technician makes one. An EEG is a record of brainwave activity.

"The brain waves of a developing fetus can both be detected and recorded approximately six weeks after conception. Between day 54 and 56, muscle movements begin. By week 24, the olfactory and auditory senses are activated by the brain waves...."

-Who else here besides me sees the value of research in making a point??
No, you don't need brain activity to be alive.
In a human, legally, you do:

"Brain Death- the final stopping of activity in the central nervous system esp. as indicated by a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) for a usually statutorily predetermined period of time...sometimes used as a legal definition of death."
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
I don't disagree. I stated that philosophy deals with unanswerable questions, and they are unanswerable because they are subjective.


You're answering questions using your philosophy right now. Philosophy is axiomatic in this discussion. You're wrong...period.

This depends on the nature of the question. Your opinion is worthless here because this question REQUIRES appropriate education to properly address.


Then since you don't have it, bugger off and let the rest of us who aren't afraid of expressing our opinions have a grown up discussion.

If you don't think your opinion is valid why should I?

Nope, neurology is where you need to look to determine when consciousness develops in a fetus,


Since even neurology can't answer what consciousness is yet, good luck with that.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
No, you don't need brain activity to be alive.
In a human, legally, you do:

"Brain Death- the final stopping of activity in the central nervous system esp. as indicated by a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) for a usually statutorily predetermined period of time...sometimes used as a legal definition of death."


Not really what I was talking about... I meant alive in the general sense, as evident from my comparison to plants and cells... After losing all brain activity I would argue that may still be alive, in the sense that a flower is alive, but you are no longer a person... one of the defining characteristics of humanity is that of cognition.
panorama
not rated yet Dec 17, 2010
To quote Chris Knight "All science and no philosophy? *Wrong*...."

...wait...do you mean Peter Brady?


Ever seen the movie Real Genius? :-)

If not I highly recommend it...


That totally didn't register. That movie has one of my favorite quotes that semi-relates to most comment threads on this site.

"It's yet another in a long series of diversions in an attempt to avoid responsibility." - Chris Knight

So true...for me at least...
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
You're answering questions using your philosophy right now.


No, I am not. I am answering questions using my amassed knowledge, that is all.

If you don't think your opinion is valid why should I?


My opinion is valid BECAUSE I recognize that I do not possess the personal knowledge of neurology and neuroscience to properly address it and as such I defer to the opinions of those who DO... therefore my opinion is a reflection of the opinions of the people who know what they are talking about, unlike yours which are in spite of them.

Since even neurology can't answer what consciousness is yet, good luck with that.


Do you think that geographers can't answer what shape the world is yet as well? Or that chemists and physicists can't answer what fire is?

It's not what you don't know that is frightening, it's that you have no idea how MUCH you don't know that other people do know.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 17, 2010
Everyone uses philosophy every day of their lives in very concrete ways. Ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, politics...this makes it VERY relevant to the current discussion.

You know what you get when you use science without philosophy?
Uh, progress?

I see your Mengele and raise you one Hawking.
http://www.people...ew-book/

-Apparently mengele had a good understanding of the discipline... "Dr. Josef Mengele was born on March 16, 1911, the eldest of three sons of Karl and ... He studied philosophy at Munich and medicine at Frankfurt University. ..."

-Thats the thing about 'philosophy'- There are so many -isms out there that one can shop around and pick the one which justifies ones intentions. Always many pundits willing to dust off an old one for you and tailor it to suit your needs.

Society decides ethics by enacting laws by popular consent, not by pundits.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
No, I am not. I am answering questions using my amassed knowledge, that is all.


No you aren't. You're making an ethical and a political statement when you say abortion should be legal. You're taking your amassed knowledge and filtering it through your philosophy. That's where ethics and politics come from.

My opinion is valid BECAUSE I recognize that I do not possess the personal knowledge of neurology


Then how do you know that they even know what they're talking about? No your opinion is NOT valid using your own criteria.

Do you think that geographers can't answer what shape the world is yet as well? Or that chemists and physicists can't answer what fire is?


It doesn't matter since we don't know what consciousness is then we (by your own standards) can't tell when a fetus is alive or not. Thanks for making my point for me.

CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
No you aren't. You're making an ethical and a political statement when you say abortion should be legal.


When did I say this? Quote it.

Then how do you know that they even know what they're talking about? No your opinion is NOT valid using your own criteria.


Are you serious? I know that subject matter experts are going to have the most learned opinion... do you not understand this? Do you have no respect for education and knowledge at all?

It doesn't matter since we don't know what consciousness is


I don't think you understood what I wrote, at all...

We know what consciousness is... because we made the term and decided what it means. Consciousness is the combination of the ability to perceive and the ability to think.

then we (by your own standards) can't tell when a fetus is alive or not. Thanks for making my point for me.


I didn't, you misunderstood, and you are still confusing life with what we are talking about. A fetus is alive from conception.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
Uh, progress?


Knowledge is neutral otto. Without philosophy there is no way to determine whether or not it's acquisition or application is ethical.

Now kindly hump another leg with your nihilist idiotic notions about philosophy.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
Philosophy is equivalent to pondering and speculation. Science is the natural progression of philosophy. Once the scientific method is able to be used to answer a certain question it is no longer a matter of philosophy at all and is entirely a matter of science.

Your reverence for philosophy is misplaced, it has very little if any practical use beyond asking questions. Science answers the questions that philosophy asks.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
The only question that remains is whether modernmystic is the most ill-informed, most irrational, and most confused poster here... or simply the loudest.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
When did I say this? Quote it.


I would if it actually mattered. Even if you don't think it should be legal, or even if you're not sure either way you're STILL using philosophy.

Are you serious? I know that subject matter experts are going to have the most learned opinion... do you not understand this?


You don't know enough about neurology to know if they know what consciousness is, again and therefore your opinion is meaningless by your own standards.

Do you have no respect for education and knowledge at all?


I have respect for knowledge, not much for blind faith in authority.

We know what consciousness is... because we made the term and decided what it means.


We ought to know what the Universe is too then right? But we don't.

Consciousness is the combination of the ability to perceive and the ability to think.


Can a baby think? Do you favor killing unwanted babies? What about someone who can't see, taste, touch, smell, or feel?
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
either way you're STILL using philosophy.


Nope, I am not.

You don't know enough about neurology to know if they know what consciousness is, again and therefore your opinion is meaningless by your own standards.


If they don't then no one does, because they, as experts, no more about it than anyone else, so it is STILL the most rational position.

We ought to know what the Universe is too then right? But we don't.


Sure we do, we know exactly what we mean when we refer to the universe, and I know exactly what I mean when I refer to consciousness. You are confusing man-made concepts for real things.

Can a baby think?


Yes. I have one at home, 3 months old, he thinks all the time.

Do you favor killing unwanted babies?


After they gain consciousness (pre-birth)? Of course not.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
Nope, I am not.


Yes you are.

so it is STILL the most rational position.


You'd have no idea if it's rational or not. Just because they say they're experts doesn't make it so.

Sure we do, we know exactly what we mean when we refer to the universe, and I know exactly what I mean when I refer to consciousness. You are confusing man-made concepts for real things.


You mean I'm using philosophy? Yep I am, and so are you. Unless you really DO know exactly what consciousness is or the universe is when you use those terms...which of course you don't.

However since we're talking about REAL lives, I think having a REAL concept of consciousness is mandatory here.

Yes. I have one at home, 3 months old, he thinks all the time.


Prove a 2 week old child thinks. Do you have a source?

After they gain consciousness (pre-birth)? Of course not.


When can they think in the womb? What can they perceive from there? You're SURE they qualify? I don't think you are
Mira_Musiclab
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
Heh, had to stop for a moment there and make sure I wasn't on Huffington Post or something...

Guess we really like our moral politics around here...

Anyhoo, carry on..
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
one of the defining characteristics of humanity is that of cognition.

What if some people don't measure up to the majority's definition of cognition?
Then they are sub-human and can be treated accordingly?
Raveon
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
modernmystic:
When EXACTLY, and I mean down to the minute and second does it start being a defenseless baby SH?


This statement displays your total ignorance.

First, a baby can survive on it's own, a fetus can't. Only the modern religious fanatic has twisted the definition of baby to include a non-viable fetus.

If someone is human it can tell you it's human and defend itself if you accuse it of not being human. A newborn can't do that, let alone a fetus. Humanity isn't conferred at a point in time, certainly not at conception. Humanity is developed over time. A newborn is more human than a fetus, it can react to outside stimuli. A 2 year old is more human than a newborn, it might talk but it will stare at you with a blank expression if you ask it to defend its status as human.

The process of becoming human occurs over time but it seems some never get there, if you don't even know what it is how can you say you are modernmystic? (you don't have a mystic bone in you)
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
"An Illinois man believed to be brain dead after suffering an aortic aneurism woke up this week and started talking, his family said.

Gene Stotts, 84, of Oquawka, Ill., suffered the attack Nov. 15 and underwent emergency surgery at Great River Medical Center in West Burlington, Iowa. Tuesday, Nov. 23, tests revealed the only part of Stotts' brain that was functioning was the part that helped him breathe.

Stotts' daughters, Shirley Martinez and Peggy Link, said they left the room after the decision was made to remove his ventilator. Link and Martinez were later approached by a nurse, who called them back, telling them their father was conscious and speaking.

"He asked me for an ice cream cone," Link said. "It had to be a miracle.""
http://www.examin...up-talks
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
"After tests revealed no blood flow to Dunlap’s brain, doctors determined he met the legal and medical requirements for declaring someone brain-dead. "
"Dunlap said he did not remember the accident, but he does remember the doctor declaring him dead. “I heard it and it just made me mad inside,” he said."
http://www.cathol...ccident/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
First, a baby can survive on it's own, a fetus can't.

How about those people on mechanical life support. They can't survive on their own.
Babies are now being born and kept in incubators for months. When do you draw the line on fetus survival?
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
This statement displays your total ignorance.

First, a baby can survive on it's own, a fetus can't. Only the modern religious fanatic has twisted the definition of baby to include a non-viable fetus.


Bhahahaaha. Thanks I needed a laugh. ****ing moron...

Keep arguing semantics because your logic is **** all.

I tried to actually extract a point from your moronic rambling screed but couldn't.

If you've got one try to make it more clear than a lead wall...

ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
I will just leave this here...

http://tigtogblog...and.html

And also, I dont think the correct term associated with presence of basic brain waves is "consciousness", certainly not in its philosophical or god-forbid anestesiological definition.
Sentience would fit better IMHO, even being sentient of your internal mind processes, feelings, or a dream world counts - sentience does not directly imply perception of the outside world.

The physical process is still the same - brain activity. Even if we cannot determine the exact point of appearance of these qualities, we dont need it - we know for sure that embryos dont have them, and we know for sure that third trimester babies have them. So they appear somewhere in the second trimester. Thats enough knowledge for our need - to construct a law.
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Dec 17, 2010
"How about those people on mechanical life support. They can't survive on their own."

Yes. As a prochoice, I tell you I too consider external viability criterion for determining the appearance of a new human person absurd. Dependence on others has nothing to do with qualities that constitute personhood.

The only correct and internally consistent criterion is the medical one - brain status. The begining and the end of human person ought to be defined by the presence or absence of the same thing obviously, otherwise its illogical.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
The illogic and contortions on the pro-abortion side. This person is human, no that person isn't.
Babies.
Ok, how about everyone review these videos about abortion.
http://www.youtub...o_0cW-ek

How about late term abortion/partial birth abortion
http://www.youtub...ture=fvw

If you watch the videos the babies often attempt to get away from the medical tools that is ripping them apart. So yes, even unborn babies fight to live.

Anyone who says a unborn baby is just a bunch of cells is ignorant at best. ShotmanMaslo it is well known that unborn babies do have dreams, brain activity, and can learn. Using the bunch of cell classification who isn't just a bunch of cells.

SoulmanOtto
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2010
Uh, progress?


Knowledge is neutral otto. Without philosophy there is no way to determine whether or not it's acquisition or application is ethical.

Now kindly hump another leg with your nihilist idiotic notions about philosophy.
Wow slap me silly! Nihilism is just another -ism, another philosophy. If you want to raise idle speculation to some respectable level, and give practitioners oak-paneled offices and such, then you're going to have to let them entertain whatever type suits their fancy. Like nihilism.

You say 'philosophy' like you think it's one thing. it's not. It's a large number of things, some of which are pretty nasty, and most all of which have proved to be a waste of time. We decide as a society what laws we want to live under. We need no mush head spaghetti-speaking philos (and no religionists) to tell us what is right.

Philo was proven to be nonsense in another thread. TM is still bleeding from that one.
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
SoulmanOtto, no, what we need is a soul-less government controling our lives. What we eat, what we drive, what we live in, who gets basic human rights. We know some people are worth more, have more rights than others. Who are smart enough to run everything.

We cant have people of faith and kindness making rules, can we. No, those people are evil. They think people no matter who they are, or how old they are, or how sick they are, how dumb they are, to be of equal value. They even think (how dare they) that people with different opinions should be able to speak.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
After the day I had and from reading the comments posted, I have to share the following videos even for my atheist friends.
http://www.youtub...=related

http://www.youtub...=related

And for all Americans especially of faith.
http://www.youtub...=related
SoulmanOtto
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2010
We cant have people of faith and kindness making rules, can we.
Not by themselves, no.
No, those people are evil.
Indeed they certainly can be, and their 'kindness' a pretense.
They think people no matter who they are, or how old they are, or how sick they are, how dumb they are, to be of equal value.
-Only if they convert, that is. Come on, would you let your daughter marry an atheist with a nose ring perhaps??
They even think (how dare they) that people with different opinions should be able to speak.
No they don't. You actually believe this stuff? Only in public I bet. Your book tells you that unbelievers are condemned from birth- read John 3.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
The only correct and internally consistent criterion is the medical one - brain status.

So you think medical science knows everything about the brain? Enough so that you would trust your life to the current knowledge and technology? Sure you do.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
freethinking - the silent scream is prolife propaganda full of medical inaccuracies and outright lies.

http://my.opera.c...nda-film

And yes I agree, babies fetuses after 5th month have all the qualities you say. Thats why I am against late-term abortions and abortions after 4-5th month (even in case of rape! Not in cases of incest or damaged fetus, that can be considered euthanasia, which I also support). But I have no problem with them being done in the first trimester, for any reasons mother deems appropiate.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
"So you think medical science knows everything about the brain?"

Science knows enough about the brain to determine when human person starts with sufficient accuracy to construct an abortion law.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
So you think medical science knows everything about the brain? Enough so that you would trust your life to the current knowledge and technology? Sure you do.
So when you have a medical issue do you take care of it yourself or do you see a doctor? Nah, you're probably one of those jackasses that does his own dentistry.
SH dont you find it creepy that someone would search someone out who makes posts
No, do you find it scary that your lies will be found out if someone digs up your information?
but then again, I'm not a progressive so I wouldn't even think of tracking a poster down.
Because you use the anonymous status that you create to lie, slander, and defame people who otherwise outclass you.
I'm also sorry that I scared you with Hell.
You're an idiot. Are you afraid that I'll track down who you are and expose your fraud?

And since you seem to like youtube so much, here you go.
http://www.youtub...1Q3UidWM
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
SH to track me down you will have to do some illegal things. So yes it is a bit creepy, and I have a problem and will react to criminal activities appropriately.

However if you do track me down, you'll be pleasantly suprised to find out that everything I've ever said about myself is true. I'll absolutely treat you with respect. I don't go nuts when people disagree with me, even when people say nasty things about me, it rolls of my back.

I am however starting to wonder if you are actually a secret religious conservative trying to make progressive atheist look bad, angry, crazy, hateful, ignorant, irrational, paranoid, prone to violence. If you are a conservative, remember your principles and quit trying to make them look bad. Progressive and especially progressive atheists look bad enough already without your help.

freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
ShotmanMaslo using planned parenthood for source of accurate information is about as idiotic as relying on the Kinsey Institute for accurate information on sex. They make money killing unborn babies. They are the lagrest abortion providers.

If you trust them, you would trust Kinsey to babysit your kids if he was still alive.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
ShotmanMaslo using planned parenthood for source of accurate information

And don't forget why Sanger founded PP.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (21) Dec 18, 2010
ShotmanMaslo using planned parenthood for source of accurate information

And don't forget why Sanger founded PP.
Uh, to make this a better world?
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Planned Parenthood has never ceased to target the poor and disabled, Sanger's favorite examples of the so-called "unfit." In the year 2000, almost 75% of PPFA clients had incomes at or below 150% of the poverty line. In 1997, PPFA's Plan of Action asserted that its "core clients" are "young women, low-income women, and women of color." Accordingly, although African-American women tend to be more pro-life than white women, they nonetheless have abortions at triple the rate of white
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
SH to track me down you will have to do some illegal things.
Actually, no, I wouldn't.
So yes it is a bit creepy, and I have a problem and will react to criminal activities appropriately.
Uncovering information that you've volunteered on your travels through the internet is quite legal.
However if you do track me down, you'll be pleasantly suprised to find out that everything I've ever said about myself is true. I'll absolutely treat you with respect.
So you'll change when your face is put to your screen name.
I don't go nuts when people disagree with me
See your posts above.
I am however starting to wonder if you are actually a secret religious conservative trying to make progressive atheist look bad, angry, crazy, hateful, ignorant, irrational, paranoid, prone to violence.
I'd have to surgically remove half my brain and flush it down the toilet to fit in with your crowd. You should probably stop projecting.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
those with disabilities feel the old eugenic bias of Planned Parenthood. A former employee of PPFA, who herself had disabilities, complained that her colleagues believed in the "need" to abort fetuses diagnosed with disabilities. "There was a feeling that they were bad babies," she told the New York Times. "There was a strong eugenics mentality that exhibited disdain, discomfort, and ignorance toward disabled babies."

Sanger was also a progressive, just like Kinsey.

Why is it that all of the progressive heros are evil people that are haters? Sanger, Kinsey, Hitler, Mao, Stalin.

Can anyone give me a Progressive hero that wasn't either a racist or a child abuser?
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
I think I may need to rename SH to scary harasser. Are you threatening me that you are planning to track me down, to do violence to me or my family or intend to harm my business or employees? Be very careful how you answer that because if you are, you are committing a criminal offense. I WILL take every legal action including notifying the appropriate authorities of your threat. I'm not someone to mess around with as I take all bullying seriously and will not put up with it.

So if you were just pushing the envelope of civil discourse, argue the point, you are more than free to call me any name you want, but don't step across the line and threaten.
SoulmanOtto
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2010
Can anyone give me a Progressive hero that wasn't either a racist or a child abuser?
muhammad. No, wait-

Hey did you know that the virgin Mary was most likely only 13 when accosted by the holy spirit? How do I know? That was the normal age for marriage back then. Ask Jerry lee Lewis.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
Are you threatening me that you are planning to track me down, to do violence to me or my family or intend to harm my business or employees?
You'll have to read above and tell me where you even came up with this deluded fantasy of yours.
Be very careful how you answer that because if you are, you are committing a criminal offense. I WILL take every legal action including notifying the appropriate authorities of your threat. I'm not someone to mess around with as I take all bullying seriously and will not put up with it.
Bullying... wow, you really are a sad sack aren't you? You lie a lot online, and you take someone offering to determine whether you are actually lying or not as a threat.

So if you were just pushing the envelope of civil discourse, argue the point, you are more than free to call me any name you want, but don't step across the line and threaten.
Threaten what? What demented pseudo-reality are you living in?
SoulmanOtto
3.9 / 5 (21) Dec 18, 2010
Dear lunatic fringe,
On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, refe... to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
-I've got a few things planned for a little later, so I'm not gonna waste time digging up comparable quotes from otherwise fine, upstanding clergymen and god fearers of the period. You've seen them already I'm sure, posted in response to your irrationalities, and have chosen to ignore them anyways so, what's the point? Ever seen 'Birth of a Nation'?
Signed, otto the polychromed-
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
I've got a few things planned for a little later, so I'm not gonna waste time digging up comparable quotes from otherwise fine, upstanding clergymen and god fearers of the period.
I got one.
The very worst it could do would be to sweep a vast number of people at one moment from this world to the other and more vital world, into which anyhow they must pass at one time. For there is but the Providence of God in the actions of nuclear extermination.
The Archbishop of Canterberry.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
SH reread you comments. If you went threatening me then fine. If you were be careful, if you act on those theats, be even more careful.

That said, the venom and hate you have in you is going to kill you. I actually feel sorry for you and people like you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
SH reread you comments. If you went threatening me then fine. If you were be careful, if you act on those theats, be even more careful.

That said, the venom and hate you have in you is going to kill you. I actually feel sorry for you and people like you.

So this is the place where you completely change your tone and back down because you don't have the nerve to support your suppositions. Very sad FT. Very sad indeed.

As for venom and hate, I'd strongly suggest you take an inward look to determine where it comes from.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
bullies always blame the victim. I stand by everything I said.

I just said that if you didnt mean to threaten me then I take you at your word. So are you going to track me down or not? If you say you are, I'll take that as a threat and respond accordingly as any resonable person would.

Getting back on track.... I believe all people are equal and have a right to life (a very hateful statement I know)... a progressive pro-abortionist always add a qualifier that they make up.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
SoulmanOtto you need to go to the founders of the church not those that came afterwoods to make arguements against the church. I'm not a member of the church of England, nor am I Catholic so I dont care if they had wrong theology. As I said in previous post, the Christian church self corrects and goes back to its core after it is corrupted by the world. I will take agrument you come up from the bible.

The facts are the PP founders were racist and worse. Its original mission was racist and worse. Today it rakes in millions of dollars from killing unborn babies from the original groups it orignally seeked to exploit. It has a vested interest in unplanned parenthood.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
I will take agrument you come up from the bible.
How about John 3:18
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.
"Kill the infidels".
With a side of Romans 8:32
He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
"And take their stuff."
SoulmanOtto
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2010
SoulmanOtto you need to go to the founders of the church not those that came afterwoods to make arguements against the church.
Okay, FT, here's a question for you... What makes you so completely sure that your denomination is the right one? How do you know that yours isn't as corrupted as all the rest?

Out of the thousands of religions and sects existing in this world, at most only ONE can be the right one, the one god loves most, and the one that gets you to the front of the line on judgement day. Those are pretty slim odds. How do you know for sure you're not insulting god every time you participate in your church services and rituals, because you've unknowingly chosen to join the wrong one?

Before you answer, consider that a person from the church or synagogue or mosque down the street from yours will give the exact same answer as you do, and he will believe it just as much as you do, and he could just as well be right and you wrong.

Take your time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
at most only ONE can be the right one,

Why?
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2010
I believe all people are equal and have a right to life (a very hateful statement I know)... a progressive pro-abortionist always add a qualifier that they make up.


So you are against death penalty then?

ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
Psalms 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

There you have it. Bible is pro-abortion. :D
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
Psalms 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

There you have it. Bible is pro-abortion. :D

"the Psalmist is expressing his curse against Babylon, a natural response to what his people have already suffered."
http://carm.org/b...children
Context is key.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
Psalms 137:9
"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

There you have it. Bible is pro-abortion. :D

"the Psalmist is expressing his curse against Babylon, a natural response to what his people have already suffered."
http://carm.org/b...children
Context is key.

In what context is infanticide acceptable?

Especially when it follows, "thou shalt do no murder."

Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but if you want a good person to do an evil thing, you need religion or a similacrum thereof.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
or a similacrum thereof.

This is called 'the state'.

But, again, if you care to read the Psalm in context, the author was expressing his anguish and wishing for bad things on his enemies.
Now recall this was before Jesus. Jesus ended 'The Law' of the Old Testament and would have encouraged the author not to kill the babies of his enemy.
Also, the reason the Jews were in captivity in Babylon was for not following God.

And then we have atheist 'populists' who support killing babies and support govt ownership, via regulations, of private enterprise.
Evil people use govt power to do evil things claiming it is for the 'good of society'.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
or a similacrum thereof.

This is called 'the state'.
Only within theocracies and totalitarian cults of personality like Saudi Arabia, the DPKR, Nazi Germany, etc. Most of which are fueled by religious overtone. ie: the "Great leader" and the "Dear Leader" of the DPKR are considered to be one in the same, with one being the reincarnation of the other.
But, again, if you care to read the Psalm in context, the author was expressing his anguish and wishing for bad things on his enemies.
He was commanding grace for infanticide. A disgusting notion that you're supporting.
And then we have atheist 'populists' who support killing babies and support govt ownership, via regulations, of private enterprise.
LOL
Evil people use govt power to do evil things claiming it is for the 'good of society'.
Every incidence of ethnic cleansing on the planet has been perpetrated in the name of God.

After all, you're the one who's promoting infanticide.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
Every incidence of ethnic cleansing on the planet has been perpetrated in the name of God.

What god did the Khmer Rouge worship?
"Also targeted were minority groups, victims of the Khmer Rouge's racism. These included ethnic Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai, and also Cambodians with Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai ancestry. Half the Cham Muslim population was murdered, and 8,000 Christians. "
http://www.ppu.or...ia1.html
"In all, from 1915 to 1945, probably over one million Russian Germans perished from unnatural causes under three successive Russian governments—those of Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin, and Stalin—chiefly by means of mass executions, forced labor, deliberate starvation, and brutal deportations. "
http://cvgs.cu-po...cide.cfm
What god did the Soviets worship? The STATE.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
How was god invoked in Rwanda?
"Soldiers and police officers encouraged ordinary citizens to take part. In some cases, Hutu civilians were forced to murder their Tutsi neighbours by military personnel. "
http://news.bbc.c...8230.stm
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
What god did the Khmer Rouge worship?
Conservative agrarianism and ideological negative liberty through purity. ie: TEA Party.
What god did the Soviets worship?
The divine right of Kings(Czars) and afterwards the Divine Ruler (head of the party).

As I said, it requires religion or a similacrum thereof.
How was god invoked in Rwanda?
Too easy. RAF is the Christian Crusader army of Rwanda, responsible for the genocide.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
On the RAF:
Four days after the genocide began, the Catholic church issued a statement asking its followers to support the new government that came to power following the death of the president in a plane crash. Similarly, Archbishop Augustin Nshamihigo and Bishop Jonathan Ruhumuliza of the Church of the Province of Rwanda acted as spokespersons for the government in a news conference, blaming the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) for the assassination of Habyarimana and the genocide. Many clergy members continued to attend local security committee meetings, in their roles as prominent members of the community, despite those committees' organizing the mass killings of Tutsi. The Church allowed politicians and propagandists to claim divine inspiration for the genocide
Directly due to Church influence.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
"According to Jean-Pierre Karegeye, a Jesuit priest, genocide is morally hideous, an evil expressed in forgetting God, and hence a new form of ATHEISM."
"ecurrent genocides in Rwanda since 1959 were meant to maintain the ‘Hutu majority’ in power, by killing the Tutsi. Distributive justice became equivalent to regional and ethnic quotas; and revolution came to mean legitimised genocide of the Tutsis. "
"“The Church should not be the vassal of the scular powers, but it should be free to speak with sincerity and courage when it proves necessary.” The authors of this letter were Fr.Augustin Ntagara, Fr. Callixte Kalisa, Fr. Aloys Nzaramba, Fr. Jean Baptiste Hategeka, and Fr. Fabien Rwakareke. All but the last two were killed during the genocide."
"one way in which Churches could fight political injustices was to question state injustices and call the state to responsibility; "
http://www.newsfr...231.html
(cont)
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
The motivation for the genocide was state POWER. What SH supports and defends.
The 'epitome' of state power, the UN, did nothing to stop the murder. The UN and other govt entities are what Hobbes claims are required to keep men from warring with each other. The UN failed.
Historically in Rwanda, the Belgian govt institutionalized the discrimination. The church failed to condemn such practices for the same motivation of the state, power.
I guess I will need to agree with SH, the motivation of genocide is a god. State power, which SH worships, is one of those gods.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
From http://news.bbc.c...1464.stm
Many converts say they chose Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide. Human rights groups have documented several incidents in which Christian clerics allowed Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death squads
So now your fallacy.
The 'epitome' of state power, the UN, did nothing to stop the murder.
In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres. Preventing another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the UN's greatest challenges
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers. The Epitome of state power, the UN, lacked the power to do anything in Rwanda. No one cared the X-ians were winning.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
"Rwandan President Paul Kagame is personally invested in making Rwanda a country that is committed to reconciliation, human rights and self-sufficiency. Toward that end, Kagame is seeking to mobilize the most powerful social force in his country—Rwandan pastors—to protect human rights and pursue forgiveness in a country that has much to forgive."
"I have spent the last two weeks working with a team of Saddleback lawyers who are implementing this impressive program. Having met with Supreme Court and High Court judges, Ministry of Justice officials, and over sixty of the top Rwandan pastors in the country, I am convinced that in a country where 82 percent of the population are Christians, there is no better vehicle for educating the general populace about human rights than the local church."
http://opiniojuri...-rights/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
Conservative agrarianism and ideological negative liberty through purity.

How is this related to God?
the Divine Ruler (head of the party).

It was Lenin that said all communist party members MUST be atheist.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
Toward that end, Kagame is seeking to mobilize the most powerful social force in his country-Rwandan pastors-to protect human rights and pursue forgiveness in a country that has much to forgive."
Of course he'd use them. They were the power that stands behind the RAF. They were the recruiters and propaganda machine for the RAF and still are!
http://www.guardi...genocide

They've Catholicized the country, now the crusades can begin against their neighbors in earnest. Just as they always have.
It was Lenin that said all communist party members MUST be atheist.
It was also Lenin who stated that he was the unquestionable truth, much like every religion does. Like I said, a similacrum thereof.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
SH lol you say atheism is the absolute truth.
SH lol when will you take the bible in context my 8 year old knows to do that.
Do I think the church I go to has 100% correct theology? No. Do I think I have 100% correct theology? No. I'm someone who believes Prove all things... hold fast to that which is true. BTW its not a contractition. The fundamental belief of the church I go to is what I believe is true.

SH you believe athiesm is true and you wont change your belief no matter what.

You projecting your hate on christians, just shows how hateful you are. There are difficult passages in the bible. If you would research and study the bible you would find them.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
SH lol you say atheism is the absolute truth.
When have I ever done that?
SH lol when will you take the bible in context my 8 year old knows to do that.
Neither you, nor your eight year old have ever read it without dictation, of that I'm making a logical assumption.
No. I'm someone who believes Prove all things... hold fast to that which is true.
Then what's up with the guy who you can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and have to "take on faith"?
SH you believe athiesm is true and you wont change your belief no matter what.
Atheism isn't a religion, a lack of belief in your story isn't a belief of any story. It is mere disbelief in your fairy tale.
You projecting your hate on christians, just shows how hateful you are.
Like Infanticide hateful?
There are difficult passages in the bible.
Not really, they're all quite clear when you simply take them at face value.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
Not really, they're all quite clear when you simply take them at face value.

Can you read Hebrew or Greek? If, not, how do you know the 'face value'?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
Not really, they're all quite clear when you simply take them at face value.

Can you read Hebrew or Greek? If, not, how do you know the 'face value'?

And you're telling me you have any idea what the Hebrew and Greek texts say? Your intrepretations make the birth of Jesus magical pathinogenesis when the Hebrew and Greek state that Mary was a young woman, not a virgin. You're going to need a far more robust argument than that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
Not really, they're all quite clear when you simply take them at face value.

Can you read Hebrew or Greek? If, not, how do you know the 'face value'?

And you're telling me you have any idea what the Hebrew and Greek texts say? Your intrepretations make the birth of Jesus magical pathinogenesis when the Hebrew and Greek state that Mary was a young woman, not a virgin. You're going to need a far more robust argument than that.

I don't claim to take the Bible text at face value.
SH does.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
"Just as pro-life Christians argue that life is sacred because it's given by God, pro-life atheists insist that human life is intrinsically valuable without God's help. "I think there is nothing beyond this life—but life in and of itself is unique and special," explains Matt Wallace, a UPS package handler in North Carolina who started an online group for pro-life atheists in 1999. "In abortion, a human being ends up getting killed for no other reason than he or she wasn't planned or wanted. One should always err on the side of innocent human life." "
http://www.newswe...ons.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
Religion is your argument. My lack of beliefs do not have any effect whatsoever on my judgement in this social topic. I don't have an artificial tether from an opinion, to an enforced and codified belief set, as you do. Each case has it's own determination, and much of the time, it is not up to me. Therefore, for positive liberty to remain, the freedom of choice to abort must also remain. Your religious views affect no one but yourself, by law.
SoulmanOtto
3.9 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2010
at most only ONE can be the right one,

Why?
As usual we have to read into marjos posts... Let's try a thought experiment. Marjo implies she is willing to accept alternate interpretations of gods word while admitting that her cult may not be the one that's got it right.

In that case we could assume that the Moslem sphere might in fact be closer to what her god had intended for his devotees, and that muhammud might have been right about Jesu being only a very good listener. You willing to go with that marjo? Ever try on a burqa? Hard to play tennis in one of those I bet-
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
Otto can't comprehend that all human observations and understanding are subjective and God is interpreted uniquely by each individual.
But statists can't seem to appreciate and understand 'individual'.
SoulmanOtto
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2010
Otto can't comprehend that all human observations and understanding are subjective
Not in science theyre not. How long you been coming here?
and God is interpreted uniquely by each individual.
Which, you must admit, is a highly subjective and personal opinion, not held by the vast majority of religions. Most would insist you believe the way they want you to. That's why things like sharia exist.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
ryggesogn2 - Athiests should be the most pro-life, they have nothing but this life.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
ryggesogn2 - Athiests should be the most pro-life, they have nothing but this life.
They also don't have the concept of instantaneous conception to conciousness, nor do we think there's a soul that is crafted for each individual. We're biological machines, each unique and not all are destined to exist.

In short there is no destiny, and no right to life, but we should support each other in this life and explore curiously the rammifications of our actions.

Whereas you think there's some grand plan that you're merely playing out.

If there was such a plan that your "God" created, then he created and endorsed abortion as part of it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
no right to life, but we should support each other in this life

Why bother?
Kill all who oppose you and take their stuff. That is the natural way of things, no?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (28) Dec 20, 2010
no right to life, but we should support each other in this life

Why bother?
Kill all who oppose you and take their stuff. That is the natural way of things, no?
Reminds me of a quote:

Arnaud (or Arnau) Amalric (died 1225) was a Cistercian monk remembered for giving advice during the Albigensian Crusade to a soldier wondering how to distinguish the Catholic friendlies from the Cathar enemies to just "Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His."

-Even the Inquisitor knew how to improve upon nature-
The motivation for the genocide was state POWER. What SH supports and defends.
The motivation for the genocide on both sides was TOO MANY PEOPLE. Rwanda and Burundi (still) have some of the highest pop growth rates in the world. The division is the oldest rivalry in the history of civilization: herders vs growers; Cain vs Abel. The brits arranged and antagonized the division of 2 identical peoples, differing principly only in occupation.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
The motivation for the genocide on both sides was TOO MANY PEOPLE.

That's the 'progressive' POV that believes, with data to the contrary, that the size of the wealth 'pie' is fixed.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
no right to life, but we should support each other in this life

Why bother?
Kill all who oppose you and take their stuff. That is the natural way of things, no?

No, that'd be the Christian way, you know until they realized that everyone else will gang up on them and make them answer for it. Some aspects of Islam are still learning this lesson.
That's the 'progressive' POV that believes, with data to the contrary, that the size of the wealth 'pie' is fixed.
Your entire anti-government, "hands off the economy" ideology can be refuted with two simple words.

"Interchangeable Parts"
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
"Interchangeable Parts"

So?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
Your entire anti-government, "hands off the economy" ideology can be refuted with two simple words.

"Interchangeable Parts"
So?

Exactly.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
Your entire anti-government, "hands off the economy" ideology can be refuted with two simple words.

"Interchangeable Parts"
So?

Exactly.

What is it like to live in your own little world?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
The world of SH and others like him is hate, death, sorry, and anger.

Quite a while back the phrase what would Jesus do? was the rage. However I recently heard another phrase even better. What would Satan do?

Unintended pregancy. WWJD? life. WWSD? kill it.

Many times I think its easier to imagine what Satan would do, than Jesus.

So SH - I know you don't believe, but if you were to follow either a hypotheitical Jesus or Satan, who would you follow?

http://www.youtub...=related
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
What is it like to live in your own little world?
Not bad considering I can actually leave it and learn new things.

How is it trapped inside yours?

And feel free to let us know when you figure out the relevence of Interchangable Parts.
So SH - I know you don't believe, but if you were to follow either a hypotheitical Jesus or Satan, who would you follow?
Neither, both are tyrants. I don't trade one pair of shackles for another, regardless of how pretty they may appear.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
The world of SH and others like him is hate, death, sorry, and anger.

Perhaps you gents want abortion to be illegal so you can have sex with the kids.

After all, it was the Conservatives who shot down the anti-child marriage bill in the House.

And just to defeat any of your arguments in favor of this action: Here's Cenk to explain the bill to you.

http://www.youtub...wC0KcMUg
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
Here is a bit of SH world http://www.wusa9....atid=188
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
Here is a bit of SH world http://www.wusa9....atid=188

More imagination from silly Christians.

So tell me, when you went to school, were you allowed to walk down the hallway throwing things at people? I wasn't.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
We were allowed to have fun. Something progressives have taken away from school. For some reason, progressives never like fun.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2010
The world of SH and others like him is hate, death, sorry, and anger.

Quite a while back the phrase what would Jesus do? was the rage. However I recently heard another phrase even better. What would Satan do?

Unintended pregancy. WWJD? life. WWSD? kill it.

Many times I think its easier to imagine what Satan would do, than Jesus.

So SH - I know you don't believe, but if you were to follow either a hypotheitical Jesus or Satan, who would you follow?

http://www.youtub...=related
Yuuccckkk. Reminds me of the video they played for Edward G Robinson at the euthanasia center in Soylent Green.

Your video is the typical sort of insipid Deception used to sell the LIE. A commercial for a particularly costly Product. That obvious Truth makes it uncommonly Foul.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Or is it a way to teach the truth? Otto, what gives me hope is that according to the Bible, even Hitler, Sanger, Mao, and Stalin, if they came to know Jesus just before their deaths, they would be forgiven and enter into Heaven. This teaching is one of the main ones that drive many people away. But if these people can be forgiven, so can I, and even you Otto, no matter what you or I have ever done, as far from the east is from the west, He has/will/or can remove our sins.
http://www.youtub...VJfADlwo

Merry Christmas Otto.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2010
Otto, what gives me hope is that according to the Bible, even Hitler, Sanger, Mao, and Stalin, if they came to know Jesus just before their deaths, they would be forgiven and enter into Heaven. This teaching is one of the main ones that drive many people away.
If this is the case, then why the hell would you prostrate yourself for decades if you can simply pick up the forgiveness pass on your deathbed?

That was probably the dumbest argument you've ever used.

If your only reason for being a Christian is the reward after death, or avoiding punishment (which it rather obviously is one of these two) then why would I ever put in the effort prior to my deathbed? Just stupid.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2010
if you can simply pick up the forgiveness pass on your deathbed?

Only God's grace will decide.

If there is no hope for salvation, why should you, SH, bother to make any changes to your sinful existence?

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Dec 23, 2010
Or is it a way to teach the truth?
No.
Otto, what gives me hope is that according to the Bible, even Hitler, Sanger, Mao, and Stalin, if they came to know Jesus just before their deaths, they would be forgiven and enter into Heaven...if these people can be forgiven, so can I, and even you Otto,
What- otto is worse than hitler?? How come Im not in wiki then?
no matter what you or I have ever done, as far from the east is from the west, He has/will/or can remove our sins.
HOW poetic. More infernal xian pap. I prefer more conventional justice:

"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4

-And nothing more. I know you think this refers to the pentateuch, but I think that humans have devised laws which are more just, more equitable, and more comprehensive than what priests pretending to be god wrote into your book.
Merry Christmas Otto.
Happy solstice godder. Go kill a tree for jesus. :]
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Dec 23, 2010
just before their deaths, they would be forgiven and enter into Heaven...if these people can be forgiven, so can I
Just to be safe, you know in case youve gotten it wrong, you might want to recite 'There is no god but god and muhammud is his prophet.' -Or even say 'Betelgeuse' 3 times; might work.
http://www.google...4Q9QEwAw

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.