Hallelujah

| | Comments (130) | TrackBacks (0)

God bless America and the United States Supreme Court.

Partial birth abortion is no more.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hallelujah.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1032

130 Comments

Noonan said:

A HUGE victory to end a gruesome form of infanticide! Now is the time to press on with other Pro-Life efforts on the state level that used to be deemed unconstitutional by 4-5 margins. All we need is 1 more Justice to overturn Roe. Forget Giuliani's crappy "deal" for social conservatives. We've got the momentum.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

hmm, or you just lost the momentum. This will let off some steam. The partial birth abortions you guys have been railing against are no more, the grotesque imagery that drove your movement is now an anachronism. you need all new posters!

Jack said:

"Yes, their team just scored a touchdown. But that means WE have the momentum, because we get the ball back now!" -- Coach Puffalump

"Liberalism is a mental disorder." -- Dr. Michael Savage

Ted said:

And when a pro-abortionist gets indignant about overturning a Supreme Court ruling, just ask him if he thinks Dred Scott should still be the law of the land.

stay puft said:

Jack,

you're a fool. 90% of the stuff I heard from anti-abortion people focused on the horrors of partial birth abortion. Almost all of the imagery on their posters depicted this sort of procedure (even though it only accounted for a small fraction of all abortions)

sorry, but with the ban upheld, the anti-abortion movement could loose it's teeth; it's shock value. but instead of talking you'd rather say I have a mental disorder, so go to hell.

Jack said:

You want Hell? Go watch a "doctor" perform the preferred method of late-term abortion.

"Partial-Birth Abortion" is technically known as "Intact Dilation and Extraction." The other method is to dismember the living fetus (which is mature enough to survive outside the womb) inside the womb, tear it limb-from-limb, and take it out in parts.

Such compassion for the oppressed you socialists have.

Stay puft, lets see "go to hell" that is a good argument, stop ruining the happiest news i have heard all week, a shining light in a week of darkness, GOd bless america!

stay puft said:

well I guess I can't because it's been baned by the high court. now get a new issue

Kevin said:

I, for one, am happy about it.

Jack said:

Don't worry, puffalump. With a million in-utero murders every year in this country, we have plenty of issues to be getting on with.

stay puft said:

you hear voices, don't you Jack

jacob said:

Marshamllow,
Calling murder 'a choice' does not make it something other than murder. Jack is noting that in this country 5000 children a day are killed on the alter, to appease the god of 'choice'.

Euphamisms are often employed to dehumanise the victim. Think 'final solution', for the 'vermin'. Which is terminology that another bunch of murderers (what did they call themselves again, oh yeah 'National Socialist Party') used when killing over 6M jews last century.

We use 'fetus' in lieu of 'unborn child'. If you ever saw a sonogram, you would know it aint a lump. It looks like a baby.

I used to play with my kids while they where in the womb. Tap on mom's side and they tap back. A lump of tissue does not tap, or have a nose, fingers and toes.

So far the butchers bill in this country is in the 20M to 30M range since the passage of Roe. The numbers vary, depending upon who you beleive. We have outstripped the National Socialists by a factor of three to one at the very least, and 5 to one on the high end. I am sure some are proud of this 'right' to murder, in the name of 'choice'.

Either way, I guess voices is something you should hear. With that much innocent blood spilt, we should collectively be having nightmares.

stay puft said:

Jack defines a strand of DNA as a child, so yeah.

according to Jack, the moment an egg is fertilized it's a child,

talk about dehumanizing, you just compared Jews to a clump of cells!

"We use 'fetus' in lieu of 'unborn child'"

you use 'unborn child' in lieu of 'fetus' so that you have an excuse for telling other people how to be, again.

conservatives can't handle diverse understandings and different ways of doing things. It's always got to be One way, which is your way. There's can only be one idea of when life begins, there can only be one definition of marriage. If society doesn't embrace your One True Way, you launch a jihad, "It *IS* murder, because conservative pro-life wing-nuts say it is!" bunch of fanatics.

jacob said:

"talk about dehumanizing, you just compared Jews to a clump of cells!"
Nice try, good hysterical tone too, but no dice. Most abortions are conducted in the late first trimester. Your statement that I am comparing Jews to clumps of cells does not hold. In the late first trimester, its a baby. Go see some pictures.

As for using the comparison, it is a famous example, in fact it is THE famous example. I am not throwing rocks at Jews, I married one. Both groups (the National socialists, and the pro-abortion lobby) go through the same process of using new labels, and in the process are able to justify their actions (to themselves at least).

"you use 'unborn child' in lieu of 'fetus' so that you have an excuse for telling other people how to be, again."
If how to be, in this case, keeps party A, from killing party B, then I guess I am guilty. We have laws that tell people "how to be" all over the pace. How fast to drive, where to smoke, don't steal, murder, rape, loot or burn. Are all laws then conservative? Face it, your logic here does not hold.

Furhtermore, murder for convenience sake is thin ice pal. Next thing is the killing of those in the fourth trimester because they are not 'fit'. Do you support that? It is only a question of degree. This activity leads devaluation of human life. Don't you see that?

"conservatives can't handle diverse understandings and different ways of doing things."
Nice. Can't win on the specifics so you switch to the blanket (banal) generallity. Do you realise that you look like a bigot when you do that?

Furthermore, as an answer to your blanket generality, the law of this land allows for plenty of diversity. I support it the freedom of people to make fools of themselves. You want to pray to something, or someone other than Yahweh, go ahead. You want to fornicate, go ahead. I won't stop you. Stopping you would abridge this freedom. OTOH Marshmallow, if you are seeking my tacit _approval_ for worshipping Thor and having sex outside of marriage, you ain't getting it. That is were we differ. I see that I am obligated to not interfere, you feel I am obligated to approve.

As for the:
"It's always got to ...(!@#$) ... you launch a jihad"
Go have a beer, calm down. Try breathing deeply. Please note that the overwhelming majority of conservatives operate through the law, and the law does not allow for jihads against murderers.

Shoot, we don't even like sit-ins.

I will fight legally against abortion, and fight on I shall. But no one here has advocated the use of violence.

Now, back to the matter at hand ...
I did not say when life begins. I am not Jack. Nor will I tell you when life begins. I can tell you that by the time they got feet, hands, heart, eyes and head they are alive. Which is ALL of the 2nd and third trimesters. Most of the 1st as well.

Is a string of cells life? I beleive so. Please note the word 'believe' because I really do not _know_. Howerver, frankly, neither do YOU.

To be cavalier about this is a bit risque, don't you think?

zimzo said:

Congratulations for winning the Godwin's Law prize for this argument, Jacob:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Jack said:

We can always count on zimzo to delever a completely worthless comment.

jacob said:

Hmmm. We've had longer threads w/o the National Socialists being invoked. The law does appear to have held true in this case. Are you sure it is just not a coincidence? ;-)

stay puft said:

I don't KNOW, there is nothing to KNOW. It is all about belief, and you want to force yours on society at large.

talk about hysterics! comparisons between nazis and pro-choice. you want this to be THE issue because it's the only one that you see as having a shot (if you're hysterical enough about it and your hyperbole catches on). "never mind the war in iraq, the environment, scandals in high offices. Liberals are murdering 5000 children every day!"

honestly, I think not intervening would suffice

fetus is not a new term. it dates back to 1350 according to the dictionary. nice try with the "liberal revisionist" card.

I don't get you guys. If the government was going from school to school, randomly selecting 5000 students each day, lining them up and executing them for the hell of it, is this how you would respond? by blogging about your legal options?

You guys love the 2nd amendment. If you really see this as a holocaust, why not take advantage of your god-given right to own guns in order to reign in a society gone mad? If on the other hand, you see this as the issue which will allow you to hang on to political power for a few more years, than good luck my fellow American

jacob said:

Now Jack, thats not fair. As ol' Uncle Karl put "each according to his abilities ..."

Jack said:

Puffalump:

I do not define a "strand of DNA as a child." There is far more in a fertilized egg than a strand of DNA.

One of the problems with our language is the use of artilces. For instance, you consider a fertilized egg that has divided "a clump of cells." Then denigrate that clump by implicit comparison to ANY clump of cells, by phrases like "Jack considers a clump of cells to be a child." (Sorry about the caps, zimzo, but I need the emphasis.)

That is, on its face, true, but it is misleading. I do not consider ALL clumps of cells as children. An embryo can be considered a clump of cells, and so can a cancer. By using the "clump of cells" phrase, you imply that a cancerous tumor is equivalent to an embryo. Is that what you really believe?

Barring accident, disease, or malice, a fertilized egg will be a living person, according to your definition of a living person, in less than a year. A year from now, you will also be a living person, barring accident, disease, or malice.

If someone is the instrument of any malice that results in your not being a living person next year, will that person not be guilty of murder?

Jack said:

"It is all about belief, and you want to force yours on society at large."

We call that "democracy," puffalump.

I posted an article about Global Warming the last time you asked. You did not respond. Should I repost it?

Yes, puffalump, society has gone mad in this regard. However, we do not generally believe in violence, unlike those who hope Dick Cheney and Michelle Malkin get shot, unlike those who riot in the cities, and unlike those who protest the WTO.

Your analogy does not hold, because our own children are not at risk, as they would be if the government were killing 5000 children a day.

I do believe that women who kill their children for convience, whether those children are born or unborn, are suffering from some form of mental disorder.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,

You Wrote:
don't KNOW, there is nothing to KNOW. It is all about belief, and you want to force yours on society at large.

I Respond:
Actually, while Jack has a point that advocating our beliefs through argument is in large measure what Democracy is all about, it is not the point I want to make. Neither you nor I can have metaphysical certainty as to when 'life' begins. You have your beliefs, I have mine. So we can draw lines based on our beliefs; these lines will be different in their location. Since we don't have God-like knowledge, despite the help of the Supreme Court, I would say that to err on the side of caution is prudent. When 1M abortions are conducted per year, you want to tell me all/any of them do not stop a heart beat? If it is a heart beat that is stopped, do you want to tell me that it is not a human heart. That sir is something that would/should give either of us reason to pause.

You Wrote:
talk about hysterics! comparisons between nazis and pro-choice. you want this to be THE issue because it's the only one that you see as having a shot (if you're hysterical enough about it and your hyperbole catches on). never mind the war in iraq, the environment, scandals in high offices. Liberals are murdering 5000 children every day!

I respond:
Could you impose some grammar on this mess? Yes, I know I am hysterical in your eyes, but you have actually managed the neat trick of giving the impression that you are frothing at the mouth right about here. As for the environment, or Iraq, we have had some conversations. Start a post, we can go discuss then have some more.

You Wrote:
fetus is not a new term. it dates back to 1350 according to the dictionary. nice try with the "liberal revisionist" card.

I respond:
OK, the human fetus was described as such in 1350. So what? A human fetus was always still human, not just a 'lump of cells' until recently. Please note that many states recognize that the fetus of a deer will become a deer unless something wrong occurs, like poaching. If the female deer is poached out of season in PA, and it is determined she was pregnant when shot, two counts of poaching are leveled against the poacher. When a CA district attorney tried to level a second count of murder against someone who killed a pregnant woman NOW stepped in and tried to stop the indictment on the grounds that the fetus is not human. So tell me, why are deer fetuses actually deer but human fetuses are not?

Revisionism indeed, it is wonderful little vignettes like the one above and your own "it's a lump of cells" statements that give me cause to draw the link you find so objectionable. Vermin, or, lump of cells. Since neither are human, both can be disposed of. You don't like fetus? OK, I give you 'lump-of-cells'. In either case we are dehumanizing the life that is being ended. Yelling at me, in 12pt font, does not change that.

You Wrote:
'I don't get you guys.'

I Respond:
I know, it's what gives you your charm.

You continue ...
If the government was going from school to school, randomly selecting 5000 students each day, lining them up and executing them for the hell of it, is this how you would respond? by blogging about your legal options?

You guys love the 2nd amendment. If you really see this as a holocaust, why not take advantage of your god-given right to own guns in order to reign in a society gone mad?

I respond:
I think Jack put it into perspective with his "its your own kids" you're killing. Come to my school, and I will exercise my right, God given, as explained in the second amendment, to protect my kids, and send who ever showed up to harm them to hell.

Finally:
If on the other hand, you see this as the issue which will allow you to hang on to political power for a few more years, than good luck my fellow American

I respond:
Your original point I believe, more or less. I have some news for you the Democrats are in power already. The Iraqi war and the MSM already have given them that power. The abortion practice that was ended, as you have correctly pointed out, is only a small fraction of the total number of abortions performed. So the issue in its totality is not gone.

You framed this victory in the courts as Phyric(sp?) because it give this (hysterical) side of the debate one less issue. OK. I agree with you. I have more news for you, it's worth it. Saving the lives of those kids trumps having a political issue. Don't you think?

stay puft said:

""It is all about belief, and you want to force yours on society at large."

We call that "democracy," puffalump."

Jack, you got a warped idea of things.

You always say everyone who doesn't agree with you has a mental disorder. You're like a doll with a pull-string, pull the string and you say, "I'm not CRAZY, everyone else is CRAZY! HaHaHa!"

Jacob,

You believe that there is an objective truth of when life begins, and since we don't know for sure, we ought to err on the side of caution. I believe that there isn't any universal "beginning of life" moment. There is clearly a point at which there is nothing, and some time later there is clearly a person, but there is no one catch-all instant at which there is a human being. You can grow human cells in a petri dish, you can synthesis human DNA, you can create an embryo in a lab. Those aren't human beings.

There's a violence in partial birth abortion which doesn't exist in abortions at other phases of pregnancy. It's not that this ban is the problem. It's that people see it as a steeping stone to banning ALL abortions.

It's only a small proportion of the abortions. Even very rare. Yet it made up the vast majority (say, 90%) of the pro-life rhetoric about the horrors of abortion. So now the pro-life movement is left with 10% of it's rhetoric about evil abortion, and it's the much less compelling 10%; the idea that "all abortions are always wrong because no matter what it looks like, regardless of whether it could even survive outside of the uterus, it is in fact a child."

It's a view that the majority of the country disagrees with, and yet the pro-life movement (believing that only They understand the Truth) are determined to cram it down everyone else's throat.

you say you are obliged not to interfere. OK. So mind your own business. Don't get an abortion.

Jack,

I just can't believe your definition of democracy is so stupid. "Democracy is: you force your own views on society."

I have a headache

Jack said:

'I just can't believe your definition of democracy is so stupid. "Democracy is: you force your own views on society."'

Isn't that your definition of democracy when it comes to gun control, welfare, and health care?

You want to take guns from everyone, force everyone to pay for welfare, force everyone to be on a single-payer health program, and force everyone to be in the Social Security program.

Conservatives generally go through the legislative process to acheive their goals, such as the partial-birth abortion ban just upheld by the USSC. Liberals, not liking democracy, go to the courts to overturn the will of the people. Take, for instance, the voter initiative in California to restrict public spending to those who are legally in the country. The liberals went to the courts. How many times have liberals sued to overturn laws against same-sex marriage? What about liberals suing to overturn parental consent laws?

On the other hand, aside from the DC lawsuit to overturn the city's gun ban, can you think of any instances in which conservatives have sued to overturn a law or referrendum?

Is that your idea of democracy, puffalump -- if you don't like a law or referrendum, get it overturned by unelected judges?

stay puft said:

What's the problem with a lawsuit? If a law is past, it's going to be tested. That IS part of the system.

...and I don't want to take everyone's guns away. I think it's part of our culture -- it's completely fitting for America to come across as a nation of psychopaths.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Its late, I'll beat you like a red headed step child come morning. Sleep on this thought. You sir, have in the past have written that doing something is OK, if it feels good and does not hurt someone else. In abortions it is not just the brutality of the act I find appalling, it is the fact that a human heart is stopped. The act by definition is hurting someone else.

OK. Second and last thought. Your refrain (mantra?) "its all beleifs" applies to you as well. All viewpoints start with assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven at some level. You should know this. Both aetheist and beleiver have assumptions. Sleep well.

jacob said:

Marshamallow,
Testig laws IS part of the system. Laws by judicial fiat is another matter. That sir has happened as well.

stay puft said:

are you referring to the current situation with our attorney general?

the heart can be made to beat with an electrical current. In med school, everyone dissects a heart. they touch a wire to the muscle and it contracts. Would you define that as the moment of reincarnation? Perhaps you are anthropomorphizing.

seriously though, the belief that life begins when the heart begins to beat is valid, and you probably not have an abortion after 3-4 weeks of pregnancy.

However, an abortion within the first three weeks of pregnancy is not a brutal procedure, does not stop the beating of a heart, and yet I'm guessing you still see it as murder. So I think you're basing your ideas on romantic feelings rather than logic, which is fine.

I know the idea applies to me as well, which is why I don't want to force others to accept my personal beliefs on when life begins.

What's frustrating about all of this is that it seems like there can be no compromise. pro-life sees this supreme court decision as their moment, and will try to push to outlaw all abortions across the country. Then after a bunch of women die in back alleys there will be a movement to restore choice which won't stop until all forms of abortion are allowed, etc. etc.

the reason there is no solution is because the issue is really about politics, not morality. It's a struggle over who gets to defines "Life?"

I say it's the woman who's body creates it. You say... what do you say? Not the majority (the majority generally supports abortion rights). Conservative Christians?

Jack said:

Puffalump:

Answer the question, if you can:

Barring accident, disease, or malice, a fertilized egg will be a living person, according to your definition of a living person, in less than a year. A year from now, you will also be a living person, barring accident, disease, or malice.

If someone is the instrument of any malice that results in your not being a living person next year, will that person not be guilty of murder?

Jack said:

What are you babbling about, puffalump? The AG is not a judge, so nothing he does can be "judicial fiat."

jacob said:

Marsmallow,
I would be willing to guess that most of the first trimester abortions occur after the first three weeks. I don't (currently) have time to go find it on the web. Typing in the key words yield gogabs of sights that offer the service.

as for your:
"So I think you're basing your ideas on romantic feelings rather than logic, which is fine."

I reply:
No, it's not fine. I stated and you agreed that we do not know when life begins. I beleive we are in agreement there. yes? My response to that FACT is that erring on the side of caution is prudent. You have, from what I have read, ignored this line of reasoning. Instead it is easier (lazier?) for you to go on to say I am using feeling, faith etc.

I would really like to see an answer to the "since we don't know, then do risk killing". If you do have an answer, now would be a good time to lay it out.

Mind you my reasoning falls from a definition of manslaughter being "reckless disregard for human life." If we do not know when life begins, then are we not being reckless as a nation conducting 1M abortions a year?

Jack said:

The argument of "when life begins" is quite ridiculous. All of our technology cannot make alive that which is dead. The sperm and unfertilized eggs are unquestionably alive. Alone, however, they cannot become human beings. They must join together first. If this joining happens naturally, the fertilized egg will, barring accident or malice, become a human being, even by the most "liberal" (which, oddly enough, means "restrictive" in this context) definition, in a few months.

I feel I must repeat myself to point out the liberals' unwillingness and inability to deal with this point, but if someone takes an action with the intention and result that a human being will not be alive next year, that is murder.

That is why I believe abortion is murder.

Robin said:

Then I suggest all of you that smoke should stop because you are murdering yourselves. Oh and don't buy any (more) guns because you could kill yourself of others. Stop eating everything bad for you and please take up jogging. Let's get rid of the death penalty and for pete's sake, stop all wars.
Please note my sarcasm.

Jack said:

I have heard that sarcasm is the last refuge of a defeated wit.

Be that as it may, I do not understand your point. The individual actions you mention are not taken with it INTENTION of killing oneself or another. Intent is required in murder. Without intent, the charge is manslaughter or negligent homicide.

As for the death penalty, that is not murder, but punishment, as ordained in the Bible.

Is an unjust war murder? Certainly. Are all soldiers murderers? Certainly not. It can be said that all wars are unjust, from one side or the other. How, then, are we to stop the wars? If the attacked never resist the aggressors, there will be no wars, just oppression. Is that what you want? The way to stop wars has been known for thousands of years:

"SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM"

Kevin said:

Guess what Robin?! I'm not saying this to be a smart ass but because I'm excited: I quit smoking last week and took up jogging, no sh*t! It's been 7 days today and I've never felt better. I'm excited. We'll see how long it lasts.

And I think the death penalty is a waste of time. It's not a deterrent and it kills innocent people. I do not feel as Jack does.

Jack said:

What innocent people have been put to death by our judicial system?

Kevin said:

That's a joke, right?

Jack said:

No. Answer the question.

Kevin said:

There has only been one posthumous DNA check and it confirmed the verdict. It was conducted, I believe, in 2006. Or late 2005.

Using DNA and other methods, about 100 people have been exonerated since they began overturning convictions (what has it been, like 10 years?).

It was enough to get bipartisan support for a statement that there may be a problem.

Jack said:

C'mon, Kevin. You claimed that the death penalty kills innocent people. (That's plural, BTW.) So back up your claim. Name some names.

Kevin said:

I guess your argument would be better put, "Innocent people are put to death by our judicial system, recently?" There are at least 100 people who would have been dead were it not for a science that has been readily available and accessible for only about 10-15 years. You seriously think those have been the only 100 people in the history of the US Judicial System? If so you are more concrete than I thought.

And you're right, I should have said "has in the past and has the potential to continue to. . ."

Kevin said:

BTW, I must say that 100 people exonerated is a pretty low number!

Kevin said:

Meaning that the system works pretty good. Also, I'm not sure all were death penalty cases. I think that's just exonerations by DNA.

Kevin said:

"At the same time, death penalty opponents have noted that although Coleman was guilty, more than 170 prisoners have been exonerated by DNA tests in recent years. Some of them were on death row."

_____http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011601044_2.html

jacob said:

I am against the death penalty for a variety of reasons. The first is that I am against giving the guv'mint that much power over the citizenry. The 2nd os for the reasons Kevins cites. The guv'mint does make mistakes.

zimzo said:

__________________
__________________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001313.html

http://www.aclu.org/capital/innocence/10361pub20031209.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Claims_Innocent_Lives/page.do?id=1101086&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

Now is the the point where Jack will say, "I had no idea so many innocent people were put to death, although even one innocent person put to death is cause for concern. Thank you for informing me. I will now re-examine my opinion on the matter." Either that or pigs will fly.

That's why engaging Jack or answering his exceedingly stupid "questions" is a completely pointless exercise.

Kevin said:

I have no idea where these numbers come from but:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908211.html

Jack said:

Thank you, zimzo. At least you answered the question, unlike Kevin, who seems to equate exonerations (the system's working) with executions (the system's not working).

No, I did not know that ANYONE had been wrongfully put to death in the U.S., which is why I asked the question.

Yes, I do reconsider my positions in light of new evidence.

I do think that a requirement for the death penalty should be not just the severity of the crime, but also the weight of the evidence. The cases mentioned in the WaPo article clearly do not fit that prescription.

I do disagree with Jacob on this point: the government does NOT have this power. The death penalty cannot be handed down by a judge; it must come from the jury, which are the people, not the government.

It is comforting to see that Virginia's system seems to be working properly.

Robin said:

First, Hazzah Kevin! I'm proud of you! Just before the dreaded hunger pangs. Buy lollipops.

Second,Jack, at least you have reconsidered your opinion. It just boggles my mind that people are ok with the death penalty and war but consider a women's right to control her reproduction as heinous wheather via contraception of abortion. It's chop-logic. Birth 'em, let 'em grow up and THEN kill'em.

War should be a last resort, and as Kevin said, the death penalty is no solution.

I'd rather see children come into homes where they are loved and wanted and prepared for.

As Oscar Wilde on sarcasm, "it may be the lowest form of wit, but still the highest form of intelligence."

Jack said:

It is not "chop-logic," Robin. A child in the womb as committed no crime, and we go to great lengths to ensure that the innocent are not given the death penalty. It boggles my mind that people are up in arms about FOUR people thought to be wrongly executed, but think killing millions of innocent children is justified in the name of "reproductive control."

We do agree that war should be a last resort.

I, too, would "rather see children come into homes where they are loved and wanted and prepared for." If that is not possible, kill them?

I think Oscar meant that sarcasm is the highest form of intelligence of which that particular individual is capable.

Kevin said:

That's right, Jack. I'm over hear complaining about how the system works.

(I was only using one of your formulas of assumption).

Anyhow, I'm glad Zimzo cut through my rhetoric about how the current set up, decided by the States, is faulty, and got to the meat and bones of the issue?

Seriously,thanks Zimzo, I couldn't come up with actual names even though I think we can safely assume that innocent people have indeed been put to death under our judicial system, particularly in the beacon of light that the relatively new practice of DNA analysis shines on that fact. Thanks for the assist.

Robin said:

No, that is not what Oscar Wilde meant Jack (you are obviously not an english major)nor do I mean "kill them" but have you ever seen what happens to an unwanted child? There has already been an increase in desertions and infanticide. What I want is proper sex-ed in the schools, access to birth control and help for single mothers. But it is that last resort that we must have in order to allow women to choose or not choose to have children even if they have done everything to prevent it.

Singleton said:

Robin,

They didn't do 'everything.' They still had sex.

*Feeling, the counterpunch coming* When Roe is overturned, I might be more willing to engage in arguments on the exceptions (rape, etc.).

Jack said:

One million abortions per year does not sound like a "last resort."

I want proper sex ed in the HOMES, not the schools.

Tell me, who doesn't have access to birth control in this country?

What I want is for women to get married before they have children. Why should I be forced to pay for child care for another man's child? I have my own children to pay for.

stay puft said:

Jack,

I love how you're all passionate about "human life" right up to the moment it comes into the world, then it's,

"Why should I be forced to pay for child care for another man's child? I have my own children to pay for."

...assuming you meant that as a joke, HA HA!

Jack said:

It is the being forced that I object to. I notice that you did not answer the question.

stay puft said:

well, we all hate having other people telling us what to do, don't we?

you should pay voluntarily because we are a society of people, not a pack of wolves. Da universe has a tendency to be cold and impersonal. It's our humanity that makes it all worthwhile.

Jack said:

Ah, I DO pay voluntarily, though charities. As I said, I have a problem with being FORCED to pay for others' irresponsible behavior.

stay puft said:

what you said was, "Why should I be forced to pay for child care for another man's child? I have my own children to pay for."

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
For now I will stick to the abortion issue as it is what we where discussing before you and Jack decided to run off and solve all the world’s problems.

>re: "no one is omniscient,"
>You haven't gotten that impression? seriously?
Very seriously, please note: We both agree that we do not know when life begins. Correct? I am the one urging caution (prudence); you are not.

If you do not know when life begins, how can you proceed to terminate the pregnancy? This is akin to driving down a tunnel with no lights where it is known that people might be sleeping. If you knew that people sleep in the tunnel sometimes, and, you drive down that tunnel anyway running them over, its manslaughter. Let’s take this a little further, if you KNOW someone is sleeping in the tunnel, and you drive over them and they die it is murder.

The point being that if we do not know when it is no longer a “lump of cells”, which is your parlance that I am using, how do you KNOW that you are not killing someone?

Marshmallow (note the capital M), given the above uncertainty, can you guarantee when the procedure is carried out that the doctor is simply removing “a lump of cells” or is it tearing a human being apart? The later is most definitely a killing. The only question being should one level a manslaughter or murder charge against all parties? Currently under the law if one makes a mistake in this matter no one is subject to penalty. However, does law always equate to justice?

You claim to not be omniscient here, but you stance demands such omniscience in order to allow for so many abortions, or any for that matter. To be in least bit unsure, you are then admitting to being in a horrific crap shoot where some small individual dies if the parties are wrong regarding the individual’s status. “Lump-of-cells”, or unborn child?

You yourself have admitted not to knowing when one passes the threshold. Therefore the current law allows us to play Russian roulette on a grand scale, one-million rounds or so per year. Granted, it is not your head to which the barrel of the gun is pointed, but are you that callous that you are going to tell me you don’t care? As I said before, “Does this not give you pause?”

Jack said:

I know what I said, puffalump. Answer the question.

zimzo said:

Jacob says: "We both agree that we do not know when life begins. Correct? I am the one urging caution (prudence); you are not."

In other words because some people claim that life begins at conception, you would like us to err on the safe side by outlawing abortion just in case it's murder. So then I take it following this logic that you are a vegetarian. Millions of Hindus and Buddhists believe that people are reincarnated as animals so by killing animals you are destroying human life. Do you know for certain they are wrong? Shouldn't you err on the safe side?

By the way, love the image of the long dark tunnel with the writhing bodies in bed. How did you think that up?

stay puft said:

Jacob (capital J),

I say that because no one knows, people (read: pregnant women) need to make their own decisions. No one knows, so no one is any more qualified to make the call than the woman herself. When she determines that the "lump of cells" is a unique person, it becomes one. She creates the life, physically and conceptually.


Jack,

Don't you see that you are an idiot? I did answer your question: because we're not a bunch of wild animals. Maybe you should be forced to pay because you're running your mouth about how women shouldn't have a choice.

We feed poor kids because otherwise they don't get food. If you can't afford to pay your taxes and feed your kids, maybe you ought to apply for some sort of assistance. Answer this question: why don't you stop with the worthless, irrelevant comments?

Zimzo,

Nice!

Jack said:

"We feed poor kids because otherwise they don't get food."

That's why we contribute to charities, puffalump.

Let me ask you this -- is it right to steal to feed your family?

To Jacob's point, according to you, pufflump, two fetuses, conceived on the same day, one is alive because his mother thinks he is, and the other is not because his mother does not think he is. Is that correct?

What of the women who do not even know they are pregnant until they give birth? What of the woman who was in a coma? She never knew that she was pregnant or that she had given birth. Is the child still not a unique person?

BTW, you still haven't anwsered the murder question. It's a simple "yes" or "no" question, too:

If someone takes an action that results in your not being alive next year, is that murder?

Jack said:

Oh, I forgot to mention that women DO have a choice: saying, "no."

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
So in your world, the power of thought IS reality. Just because I imagine it is a lump of cells, then by golly its a lump of cells. I think a cat is a dog, so I can expect it to start barking just because I think so? Your "When she determines that the "lump of cells" is a unique person, it becomes one" is utter crap. By that way of 'thinking' we can return to the days when the father, who also gives life, could kill any kid he wanted to.

You are correct we are not a bunch of wild animals. So how we treat the unborn is every bit as important as those who have made it into the 4th trimester.

jacob said:

zimzo,
I never said life begins at conception. Lets not stuff words into each others mouths. All we will be doing then is knocking down strawmen. In short, what I DID say is: "if you don't know, be careful."

As for the tunnel analogy, some homeless dude did get his legs crushed in a tunnel, under a railway tressle, thats where I got the scneario, the guy apparentley in his sleep rolled off the curb.

As for your "Millions of Hindus and Buddhists believe that people are reincarnated as animals so by killing animals you are destroying human life. Do you know for certain they are wrong? Shouldn't you err on the safe side?"
Interesting question, but the analogy breaks down because a fetus becomes a human being, if you don't destroy it. Dogs, cats, rats, bats and gophers do not suddenly become humans not matter how long they stick around. The plausible link betwenn a fetus/Unborn Child to that of a human is far stronger than that of a dog to a human. Granted both dogs and humans have bad breath, but it is a far bigger stretch to say this means dog=man, don't you think?

Jack said:

Silly question, jacob, we have already determined that he doesn't.

Kevin said:

"Granted both dogs and humans have bad breath, but it is a far bigger stretch to say this means dog=man, don't you think?"

Nah, Jack uses that equation all the time with amazing accuracy!

zimzo said:

I guess you didn't understand what I was saying Jacob so I'll try to explain. You claim that it's possible life begins in the womb, which I assume you define as a "soul," whether at conception or sometime later, and that therefore since we are not sure whether or not this is true, we should err on the side of preserving life, even if you don't believe this is true but can't prove it.

What I was saying is that many Buddhists and Hindus believe that our souls not die after this life is over but that we are reborn as an animal or another human. Therefore, many avoid taking the life of animals because their souls are no different from human souls and may have once inhabited a human body. I did not say that dog=man as you so crudely put it, I said that they believed that dog souls and human souls are equivalent.

Following your logic that we must err on the side of preserving life, since you cannot prove that Buddhists and Hindus are wrong about this any more than we can prove that Christians are wrong about when life begins in the womb, then you should refrain from eating meat because you are as responsible for killing a human soul just as much as those who are pro-choice.

Just in case. Just to be careful.

It's awfully easy to set up a logical argument for why abortion should be banned (as flawed as it is). Here is a real-life example of someone actually grappling with what is still a legal choice:

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html

Jack said:

Zimzo, you have made a fine argument that the Hindus and Buddhists would agree that abortion is murder. Thank you.

jacob said:

Zimzo,
Actually I think I did get you. Your thinking goes like this ...
According to Buddists, souls are eternal, since our bodies are not, the souls go and inhabit animal forms. Then, inserting my logic w.r.t. erring on the safe side we ought to leave the chickens alone and subsist wholey on veggies and tofu. Is that a correct assessment of your point?

Lets get this clear, so when you don't agree with what follows we both are at least agreeing upon a starting point. Otherwise it all devolves into our typical, and pathetic, talking past one another.

My counter to your argument will be now repeated in a more expansive edition:
1. Look inside the womb. We see something that appears very human after a few weeks(I would contend what you see IS human, but that is the crux of our argument, so with mere contention we won't get anywhere, now will we), and if it is removed from the womb, and not dismembered in the process, it will be human even by your definition.

Do you agree with pt1?

2. Looking at a chicken, be it in the egg, or walking around, prior to going into the fryer to make delicious food, we see something that will never be human, by any definition.

Do you agree with this point?

3. Above in pt 1. I am making observations about the unborn. They look human, two feet, two hands, correct number of chromazones etc. They act human (they play, they answer to their name, etc). They don't write concertos, but I would guess neither do you.

If you disagree here, let me know.

4. It appears you are attempting in your analogy to equate my assertion, that the unborn are human to the Buddist assertion that chickens have human souls. I am saying that I have observable facts that suport my assertion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

I am pretty sure we at this point are in disagreement, so lets hear it.

5. The chickens have human souls assertion has no observable facts to support it.

Do you agree?

6. I am able therefore to contend that the two items, 'unborn become human while in the womb, at some point' v. 'Chickens have human souls' do not rate the same level of scepticism.

Face it, some call abortion 'birth control' for a reason. It does not stop the coming of a chicken into the world, but a baby. What is a baby I ask you if not human?

Do you agree? (I doubt it, but I can always hope)
---
As for your providing me with your assessment of the overall relative _quality_ of my previous arguments, as seen by you; it is at best, an subjective opinion, if you wish to continue in this activity, go ahead. I promise it won't deter me a bit.

stay puft said:

"If someone takes an action that results in your not being alive next year, is that murder?"

No, it is not murder. Don't be silly.

If it were, any ovulating woman who refused to have sex would be a murder. If a guy forgets to turn off the sink and the bathroom floods, and I come in and slip on the wet tiles and die, I would not have been murdered. If a butterfly flaps it's wings in Honk Kong, setting off a series of events that culminates in my early demise, my epitaph would not read, "Here Lies Stay Puft, Killed by the gossamer Wings of a Butterfly."

"To Jacob's point, according to you, pufflump, two fetuses, conceived on the same day, one is alive because his mother thinks he is, and the other is not because his mother does not think he is. Is that correct?"

in effect, yes. The larger point I'm getting at is that you are looking for absolutes where there aren't any. I know that's a tough pill for an evangelical engineer to swallow, which is why I say you should never have an abortion. That's fine.

Jacob, you thing this is a bunch of crap. But you do this all the time. In what sense is a zygote, a cluster of dividing cells, a person? It doesn't think, eat, sleep, it is not aware of it's surroundings, it doesn't have a nervous system. The only way that this could be considered a person is through an act of anthropomorphism on the part of others. People project personhood onto a biological process. It's not hocus-pocus, it's the way people interact with their world every day. It seems reasonable to conceptualize a developing fetus as a person. It also seems reasonable not to.

I guess this is the heart of it, isn't it? At the end of the day, I am willing to accept that some things are relative and you are not.

zimzo said:

Forgive me if I gave you credit for making a more sophisticated argument.

1) A fetus that is a few weeks old actually doesn't look very human at all and is virtually indistinguishable from fetuses of other animals. Perhaps you should retake Biology 101.

2) A Buddist or Hindu might say that the chicken could indeed be human when it is reborn and may have been human in a past life.

3) Are you saying that a fetus plays and answers to its name? Maybe the fetus of Superman does.

4) If you are saying that a fetus is human when it looks human, then you are agreeing with the Roe v. Wade trimester construction and you are also agreeing with early Christians and Jews who approved of abortion up until the time of "quickening," that is, when a mother feels the first kick of a baby in her womb.

5) I would submit that the whole notion that anyone has a soul has no observable facts to prove it. If you are going to base your abortion argument on observable facts, then you have already lost.

6) As far as skepticism goes, that is in the eye of the beholder. There are certainly quite a few stories in the Bible that warrent just as much skepticism as the Buddhist and Hindu belief in reincarnation.

My point, to reiterate, is that if you are going to make the case that abortion should be banned "just in case" a fetus might be human then you are going to have to ban meat-eating "just in case" killing an animal is killing a human soul.

Of course, I think that both would be ridiculous. If a Buddhist or Hindu wants to be a vegetarian I have no problem with that and if a woman decides she needs an abortion I have no problem with that either. Roe v. Wade merely states that the law's interest in such a private decision increases with each trimester, which as a matter of fact, most Christians and Jews have also believed for centuries. Your "argument" for banning abortion ironically just confirms the wisdom of Roe v. Wade.

Jack said:

The results of those actions are accidental, puffalump. Even so, you can be held liable for negligent homocide ini some cases. The intent of abortion, however, is that a human will not be alive. Intent is the difference between negligent homocide and murder.

As such, allow me to rephrase the question slightly, so that you may not worm out with such silliness:

"If someone takes an action with the INTENT and RESULT that you are not alive next year, is that murder?"

Kevin said:

____________________
___________________

http://andhracafe.com/index.php?m=show&id=22248

no lie.

Anonymous said:

zimzo,

There is nothing to forgive, my argument is so sophisticated it went righht over your head. You're built too low to the ground.

1) Here is a fetus at ~7 wks
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/23.html
It looks humanoid for sure, and I certainly would not classify the little booger as a lump of cells.

2. While a Buddist would argue that you or I were possibly a chicken in a past life, the _observable_ evidence is slim. Look back at the 'blob' above and tell me how slim my evidence is.

3. Each of my kids would pound on moma side when I would called to them inside. I gave each of them a name in the womb, since I did not know if they were male or female it was usually generic, 'BJ' (baby jacob) for instance. Also, if I pushed in twice, they pushed out twice. Granted, this activity occured later, in the 2nd trimester if I gave the impression it occured in the first, then it is incorrect.

4. I have heard/read of the 'quickening' argument. About 15 years ago I agreed with it. I have learned a bit since then and have modified my views.

Because an unborn child looks human, to me, it is only confirmation of its humanity. When did it become human could very well be a that point. It also could be earlier. The heart starts beating earlier, around day 21. The baby is certainly alive then.

Note, I mentioned the following once before: In many states if a poacher kills a pregnant dear he is cited with two counts of poaching. Regardless of the devopment of the fetal dear. This means under the law, the fetal dear is a dear irrespective of its development. Please answer this "Why should it be different in the case of humans since we also are classified as mammals?"

5. You are knocking down a strawman here. I never mentioned the word soul. I only spoke of life.

6. Your " As far as skepticism goes, that is in the eye of the beholder. There are certainly quite a few stories in the Bible that warrent just as much skepticism as the Buddhist and Hindu belief in reincarnation."
You are engaged in more strawman bashing. I have not brought up the Bible. Why should I. It's at best a questionable book to _you_, full of fancy; at worst it is a tool of oppresion. I suspect you think of it as a door stop at best. If I am wrong in this, then correct me.

To be specific regarding the proovability of the supposition zimzo, I was using observable facts v. unobservable conjecture as the measure for what warrants more scepticism. Which is why holding up the humanity of a fetus is far more concrete than the hypothesizing upon the soul of a chicken.

Hmmm. Maybe the argument did go over your head.

An finally, being a vegetarian is fine; I think the word is old english for 'hunts poorly'. Killing off your own unborn offspring while curently legal, is not fine.

zimzo said:

You linked to a cartoon. Here is a photo of an embryo after 7 weeks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg

If you're arguing "life" instead of a "soul," then every cell in your body is "alive" and "human." Then you contradict yourself and say that the fact that a fetus at some stage of its development looks human it is human. Of course, a squirrel monkey embryo looks human after a few weeks, too.

Your story about your baby answering to its name and playing is touching but largely a figment of the imagination of a hopeful father.

Maybe if you were a bit clearer about what you do believe I wouldn't make so many assumptions about what you mean. If you aren't basing your opinion on religious belief but on observable "facts," then you agree with Roe v. Wade's dividing a pregnancy into trimesters where the the law has an increasing interest with each trimester. If you are going to argue that anyhting that potentially could be a human life must be preserved, then you are with the Buddhists and Hindus.

Frankly, it's difficult to tell what you believe and why and I'm not sure you know either. So why don't you tell us when you believe life begins and why. And then tell us why those beliefs should be imposed on people who don't share them.

jacob said:

"If it were, any ovulating woman who refused to have sex would be a murder."
Wow, back when I was 16 I would have agreed with that argument for all the wrong reasons. One small error in the thinking; an egg only has half the chromozones of a human. Therefore it ain't human.

It is not a question of absolutes. The central tenet of your argument is that the unborn is at the mercy of its own mother. If she 'thinks' its a baby then it's a baby. Otherwise it's a lump of cells. A tumor. The majority of abortions accur later in the first trimester, does the following look like a tumor to you?
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/23.html

Furthermore, if mom thinks its a rock star is it going to grow up to be Bono? If she thinks it is a dog is she going to give birth to Snoopy? Thinking or wishing does not alter reality.

As for "what sense is a zygote, a cluster of dividing cells, a person?" In most cases, by the time the mother realizes she is pregnant the zygote is long gone, and we are far and away closer to the situation shown in the link above.

Remember 1 million per year? Tens possibly hundreds of thousands are at the stage shown above. You want to tell me that in the name of choice, we are not commiting a travesty? Legal is not always just.

zimzo said:

Now it's you who is not answering my questions. When do you believe life begins and why? And then tell us why those beliefs should be imposed on people who don't share them.

If you don't believe it's a question of absolutes then why do you want to ban abortion absolutely?

The central tenet of my argument is not that the "unborn is at the mercy of the mother." It is that a mother in consultation with her docter should should be able to decide what to do with her own body. You want to take away that right based on a hunch, a belief that she might be committing what you define as murder but many others do not. If you are going to start defining murder based on what any minority believes, then you're going to have to ban meat and pull us out of Iraq pronto.

And did you actually read what was at this link:
http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html

Jack said:

"When do you believe life begins and why?"

As we have determined, life does NOT begin. Life is. Nothing we do makes that which is not alive live. We can only end life, we cannot create it.

As you pointed out, the cells in our bodies are alive. However, they will not become separate human beings. A fetus will. A fertilized egg will. (Again barring accident or malice.) That is the difference.

The question of whether one has a soul is critical to the discussion, of course. If one has no soul, religion is irrelevant, and the proscription "Thou shalt not murder" is irrelvant. If there were no fear of the law, what would stop a soulless man from committing murder? Stalin had no fear for his soul. Nor did Pol Pot.

If you do not believe we have a soul, then do you even believe that murder is wrong?

stay puft said:

what's with this, "in a year from now" clause? It seems like that ONLY applies to abortion. So you are expanding the definition to fit your needs.

Jacob, my "an ovulating woman who refuses sex would be a murder" thing was a response to Jack's, "action that results in someone not being alive in a year"

So anyone who could become pregnant but takes action not to become so would be a murder based on that definition, which, novelly, doesn't depend on a person's existence at the point of said Action, but in a person's existance or non-existance a year later.

Jack, I don't appreciate your comments about me trying to worm my way out. The fact is that your murder re-definition is lame and contrived.

Jacob,
you should re-read zimzo's post beginning with "You linked to a cartoon"

at the end of the day it just kind of seems like you're most interested with pushing your one perception on the beginning of life on everyone. Can you answer zimzo's question about why we should all have to comply with your point of view? It just doesn't seem like you're interested in a solution to this issue. Clearly I do Not see it as a travesty, but to your point about

...I just realized that it's a sunny day and this is a waste of time

Jack said:

Not so, puffy. If you are intentionally shot, but do not die from your wounds until much later, it is still murder, no matter how long it takes you to die.

Similarly, if someone tampers with your brakes so that they fail if you go faster than 70 mph, but you, being a good driver, don't speed, you may not trip that trap for a long time.

So, answer the question.

jacob said:

Zimzo,
>Now it's you who is not answering my questions.
Relax, I was out on the Appalachian trail last two days. As Marshmallow said, 'it's a sunny day'. I thought I did answer your question. Restate it, and will take another bite at the apple.

I will also deal with you 'its a cartoon' statement come tommorow evening. I am whipped.

Marshmallow,
Look at the timestamps. We basically posted at the same time, I finished my comment and logged off. I will be happy deal with the 'cartoon' assertion and all that it implies. You mentioned this is a 'waste of time'. You giving up?

Jack,
They never answer your questons. They always side-step. Or call you names.

stay puft said:

Stop saying "answer the question" like you're some little lord fauntleroy. No, I said, it isn't murder. I've answered your silly question three times now. No one dies over the course of a year following an abortion. An abortion does not consist of fixing a bomb to a fetus which will blow up at some later point.

"guns don't kill people, condoms kill people"

You can't murder someone who never existed. If that were the case, than I'm attempting murder right now by responding to you rather than having sex. once again, your new murder definition is crap and you're trying to hard. Snap out of it; it's ok for you to try to rationalize your beliefs, but you ought to recognize that that's what's going on here.

...but if you'd prefer to stay on this merry-go-round a while longer, why don't you address the obvious absurdity of your "in a year from now" clause?

Jack said:

Funny, puffalump, how Jacob says, "They never answer your questons. They always side-step. Or call you names." Then you call me "some little Lord Fauntleroy"! Beautiful!

No, you have NOT answered the question, you have, as Jocob said, side stepped it. You said ABORTION isn't murder. You did not answer the question I posed, which was about someone's intentionally causing YOU to not be alive next year.

So, if one cannot murder someone who never existed, why are murder and killing a fetus BOTH Class 2 felonies (VA Code 18.2-32 and 18.2-32.2)?

Jack said:

P.S. Why don't you address the obvious absurdity of your "it's not human" clause?

jacob said:

zimzo,
Calling anything that is not a photo a cartoon is ridiculous. This implies all pictures of rabbits wind up looking like bugs bunny; hardly the case. It is not a photo, but frankly most medical texts use such renderings for teaching purposes, for good reason.

The picture you use is from wiki, wiki is notorious when it comes to veracity w.r.t. hot button issues; the picture you chose is also at odds with the following ...

for instance ...
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week7

this one is from a place I am sure you will say is 'bogus' because only proabortion people are not hysterical.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/

this is from the BBC which I beleive you would consider 'credible'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3846525.stm

there is another 7 weeker ...
http://www.studentorg.umd.edu/sfl/embryoscopy.html

this is from the bbc also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

or ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/~miltonim/

I think the wiki picture looks more like the 2-3 week 'cartoon'. Nice try. I also like the 'cartoon' reference the allusion is excellent for making the image seam illegit.

"It is that a mother in consultation with her docter should should be able to decide what to do with her own body."
But it is not just her own body that is involved. We are not discussing the fate of a tumor, or lump of cells or a prasite. It is a human being (recall the pictures above).

Question: Considering all the other pictures avalable on the web, why did you pick the one from wiki? It is many pages deep into the search, so why that one? Could it be because of all of them it is the one that in some way helps your case?

jacob said:

zimzo,
Calling anything that is not a photo a cartoon is ridiculous. This implies all pictures of rabbits wind up looking like bugs bunny; hardly the case. It is not a photo, but frankly most medical texts use such renderings for teaching purposes, for good reason.

The picture you use is from wiki, wiki is notorious when it comes to veracity w.r.t. hot button issues; the picture you chose is also at odds with the I think the wiki picture looks more like the 2-3 week 'cartoon'. Nice try. I also like the 'cartoon' reference the allusion is excellent for making the image seam illegit.
following ...

for instance ...
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week7

this one is from a place I am sure you will say is 'bogus' because only proabortion people are not hysterical.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/

this is from the BBC which I beleive you would consider 'credible'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3846525.stm

there is another 7 weeker ...
http://www.studentorg.umd.edu/sfl/embryoscopy.html

this is from the bbc also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

or ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/~miltonim/

"It is that a mother in consultation with her docter should should be able to decide what to do with her own body."
But it is not just her own body that is involved. We are not discussing the fate of a tumor, or lump of cells or a prasite. It is a human being (recall the pictures above).

Question: Considering all the other pictures avalable on the web, why did you pick the one from wiki? It is many pages deep into the search, so why that one? Could it be because of all of them it is the one that in some way helps your case?

stay puft said:

Jacob,

in biological sciences, 'cartoon' is the usual term for an illustration, as opposed to a photograph. Often 'cartoons' are used to depict processes like mitosis, which photos don't do so well. but if you want to see what something looks like, a photo is better than a cartoon.

I think you're saying that because it looks like a person it is a person? Don't you think that's kind of problematic? I once found a piece or coral that looked like a person. It was alive, and looked like a person. So it was human?

(sorry for pulling a Jack on ya there)

in what sense is it "a human being"? I suspect that looks aren't your true criteria.

Jack,

Nice side-step your self. Now dos-a-dos!

Oh, you want to talk about me? if you killed me today, you would be charged with murder now, not in a year from now. If your action resulted in my dying over the course of a year, you would still be charged at the point of my death, right. Not a year later.

The only reason you would need the "year from now" clause is if you're assuming that a fetus is not a person. if you're arguing that a fetus is a person, you don't need the "in a year from now" clause. Not only is the in a year from now thing unnecessary, it leads to logical absurdities. So if you can stop looking for reasons to sneer at the other side of the argument long enough to have something resembling a conversation, maybe you can explain why you think this "year from now" thing is important?

since a fetus is not a person, it can't be murdered. If you want to pretend that it's a person, fine. If you want to pretend that a rock is a god, fine, but why not keep it to yourself?

I never said "it's not human." it IS human. my toe is human. It's not a human, an individual.

Let me predict your next post:

"Liberals are all the same, they never answer a question"

you conservatives are all the same. Why don't you answer the question? Is a woman who refuses sex while ovulating not fulfilling your own criteria for Murder?

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"you conservatives are all the same."
bigot! ;-)

"Why don't you answer the question? Is a woman who refuses sex while ovulating not fulfilling your own criteria for Murder?"
I actually did, seriously, do you read what is posted? Look above and you will see the following, posted April 27, 2007 8:37 PM: "Wow, back when I was 16 I would have agreed with that argument for all the wrong reasons. One small error in the thinking; an egg only has half the chromozones of a human. Therefore it ain't human." So there, I have answered this question, twice now.

"in biological sciences, 'cartoon' is the usual term for an illustration, as opposed to a photograph."
Again, read the comments. We are in violent agreement here.

As for the coral, if it has the correct number of chromazones, and can be taught how to reason, or at least play the banjo, then you might no be looking at coral. Marshmallow, it appears you are engaging in sophistry with this kind of argument. My criteria
are as follows:
1. correct number of chromazones
2. consciousness, not awake mind you, but conscience, the little guys start moving around seven weeks so they are probably awake at different points in time
3. frankly, a soul, this is a point you will ignore, or use as a weopon in our argument, I don't care.

If you cannot tell the difference between a human and a piece of coral, then good luck. You will need it.

Furthermore, "I never said "it's not human." it IS human. my toe is human. It's not a human, an individual." is nonsensical. A toe is not human, it is a body part. The conscience does not reside in the toe. If you hook a toe up to life support it will not tell stories or have desires. Its a toe.

"dos-a-dos" is also incorrect, it is dos-i-dos.

QUESTION: Why are deer fetuses consider deer for the puroses of determining the number of counts of poaching, but humans fetuses are not? Please answer this because your ignoring this point of law is not helping your argument. At all.

zimzo said:

1. So a person with Down's Syndrome is not a human. They don't have the correct number of chromasomes.

2. How do you know a fetus is "conscious"? What is consciousness? By most definitions of consciousness artificial intelligence is developing to the point where computers might be considered conscious. Will you then be fighting for the rights of computers?

3. Finally you admit why you really think a fetus is a person, which you have been reluctant to do. Because you believe it has a soul. And because you believe this you think you have the right to impose this belief on everyone else. So I ask once again, why do you think you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else by outlawing abortion but Buddhists and Hindus do not have this right by outlawing meat-eating?

Jack said:

1. Logical fallacy #1, zimzo. "If A, then B" does NOT imply "if not A then not B."

2. Logical fallacy #2. "If A and B, then C" does NOT imply "if either A or B, then C."

3. The existance of a soul notwithstanding, the point is not to "impose [our] religious beliefs on everyone else," but to convince enough people of the rightness of our position that it is made into law. We call this "democracy." Remember that in this case, and in most others, it is the LIBERALS going to the courts to overturn the will of the people, expressed by their elected representatives. (We call this a "republic.")

Perhaps you should try taking a course in logic, rather than rhetoric.

Jack said:

Puffalump, I put the "year from now" clause in because at that point even YOU would agree that the fetus had become a person.

Similarly, there is hope that YOU will become a person one day, with the ability to think logically and to feel sympathy for the most vulnerable. If someone denies you that chance by killing you, it is murder.

zimzo said:

Once again you miss the point. Your definition of human being makes no sense. Your criteria excludes those who are clearly human and includes those who are not. It also relies on unprovable beliefs. Try again.

Your definition of democracy is also flawed. The aim of democracy is not to impose on a minority what the majority believes or vice versa. You might want to read the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist Number 10. Then you might want to reread the Constitution.

Jack said:

While Jacob's definition (not mine) may exclude some, I cannot see how it can include those those who are not. Please give an example.

That is, indeed, the aim of a democracy. That is why we need a constitution to keep the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in check.

I suggest YOU read the Constitution, and tell me where it says that a woman can kill her unborn child.

stay puft said:

Hey Jacob, that "answer the question" was directed at Jack, who is using a different set of criteria, and who has still not answered the question. Typical.

As to your own, thanks for the clarification. So what the thing looks like is irreverent and we can stop talking about cartoons and photos.

it's really funny that you should say it's "dos-i-dos" not "dos-a-dos"

because in fact there are a number of different spellings in common usage. Isn't it fitting that you would try to claim that your own spelling is the correct one!? Of course, I am perfectly willing to accept that there are different ways to spell the same phrase and say, "we are both right!"

(actually, I believe it originates from the French dos-a-dos, which means, "back to back," and has changed over time)

Jack said:

Your pardon, puffalump. Which question was directed to me?

zimzo said:

Whoops. I accidentally replied to something Jack wrote thinking it was Jacob. Now feel like I need to take a shower.

jacob said:

zimzo,
Thank you for the numbers, it appeals to my desire for organization.

1. "So a person with Down's Syndrome is not a human. They don't have the correct number of chromasomes."
Congradulations. You get a rubber duck for finding a loop hole in the definition I made up in 15 seconds. Folks with downs syndrome are more than human, they have our 46 plus one more. I find them to be on average loving, sweet and cuddly. I wish humanity were more like them in this regard. Counter question: did you really think this question is something other than grasping at straws? It would be utter lunacy to call someone with Downs Syndrome something other than human.

2. "How do you know a fetus is "conscious"? What is consciousness? By most definitions of consciousness artificial intelligence is developing to the point where computers might be considered conscious. Will you then be fighting for the rights of computers?" At 7 weeks the fetuses start moving and reacting to stimuli. Later (12 weeks??) they start the playing I wrote of earlier. The playing behavior is a clear sign of consciousness. But when is the onset, good question. That my ORIGINAL point. (not yelling just adding emphasising)

As for silicon based consciousness? I really do not know. My gut reaction is to kill it off as soon as possible. In most moral /ehthical systems chickens and calculators do not have rights. Even the possiblity of a terminator-doomsday scenario would lead me to a shoot first, shoot last, shoot some more and then when the smoke clears, ask a few questions. But for crying out loud, shoot boy. In conclusion this entire line of questioning is a rabbit trail zimzo.

3. "Finally you admit why you really think a fetus is a person, which you have been reluctant to do. Because you believe it has a soul. And because you believe this you think you have the right to impose this belief on everyone else. So I ask once again, why do you think you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else by outlawing abortion but Buddhists and Hindus do not have this right by outlawing meat-eating?"
Yes, but my arguments up to now going forward have not rested upon the soul being there. Do I beleive we have souls? Yes. Can I convince YOU we have souls using observable evidence? NO. So I confine myself to the observable. Consciousness in humans is observable. Is this consciousness a function of synapsis firing, or the sould, soem combination? That is an interestng question. However, it is not germain to my argument regarding abortion.

4. MY turn. Why are deer fetus' deer under the law, but human fetus' are not? I just answered your three, so how about answering this one.

I can take a three answers for one. I realise allowances need to be made; being that your's and Marshmallows inability to answer this simple (often repeated) question is evidence of some kind of cognitive handicap.

jacob said:

Marshamallow,
So I answered the question posed to Jack twice, given your recent trains of thought I guess that means I am correct and you now agree that a fertizlised egg is potentially a human.

"So what the thing looks like is irreverent and we can stop talking about cartoons and photos."
Hardly, but if it lets you sleep at night, having dehumanized the unborn, go ahead. Blindness is a terrible thing.

Nice mountain you made out of that dos-i-dos mole-hill. Calm down, try breathing exercises. Or an adult libation.

Jack said:

We would all be happier if you would, zimzo.

stay puft said:

Jack,

"Why don't you answer the question? Is a woman who refuses sex while ovulating not fulfilling your own criteria for Murder?"

dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with this.

there is no debate that a fetus may one day develop into a person. I believe the issue is whether or not it IS not whether it WILL BE. This is a difference you've had problems differentiating between all along.

"there is hope that YOU will become a person one day, with the ability to think logically and to feel sympathy for the most vulnerable."

Silly Jack, you're lovely bit of punditry just made everything you've said before irrelevant.

I will become a person when I have the ability to think logically and feel sympathy. By those rules, a fetus is not a person. And neither are you for that matter. You keep talking about how logical you are like fox news keeps talking about being fair and balanced.

it's not the first time I've pointed it out, but I love how you lecture me about sympathy when unborn fetuses are apparently the ONLY thing you feel sympathy for. At the moment of birth your tone changes to, "screw you, I have my own kids to feed!"

"So you're jobless and hungry in Mexico, get in line!"

"So what if you got shot for not stopping soon enough at a checkpoint, the US army is justified in being in your country!"

"So what if you're in love, you can't get married, God hates your kind!"

I guess there's some logic in it, though. You seem to have an honest detain for people in general, and so are only able to feel sympathy towards people that only exist in your imagination. A fetus isn't a person to you, it's more of a blank slate upon which you can project an idyllic vision of mankind as you wish it could be. That's what you mean by "innocent": never having been born into this wicked world.

"Why don't you answer the question? Is a woman who refuses sex while ovulating not fulfilling your own criteria for Murder?"

'If someone takes an action with the INTENT and RESULT that [an individual is] not alive next year, is that murder?'

If you extend your "in a year," you could say that if someone was murdered, so were all of the descendants that they may have otherwise given birth to.

you keep accusing others of being illogical, it's time to address the logical problems with your own argument: putting on a condom becomes murder. Taking a pill becomes murder.

I know this is what the catholic church says, but all that proves is that they're forced to accept these absurdities because if they don't the logic of their anti-abortion position crumbles.

zimzo said:

I'll answer your question first. Who knows why or if some legislature decided to pass a law counting a deer fetus as a deer for the purpose of hunting and who really cares. What does it prove? Are you trying to say that because some legislature made a law declaring something that means it's true? Just because the Founding Fathers declared blacks 3/5s of a person didn't make it so.

As far as your definition of what makes a fetus human, I showed why it is not a very good definition and you admit as much. So all it comes down to are your religious beliefs and your interpretation of observations, which anyone could just as easily interpret in other ways. Along the way you make a few absurd statements such as "Consciousness in humans is observable." Really? Was Terry Schiavo conscious? There is considerable debate about that. You also repeat your absurd claim that fetuses "play." Are there any reputable biologists or doctors that believe that? Sorry if I don't trust your "credentials." As far as reacting to stimuli, plants do that, too, but no one would say they are conscious.

So you are saying that all you have are your religious beliefs and hunches, which you would like to convince a majority to impose on those who don't believe what you do. The practical results of this will be that women who reject your beliefs will die in back-ally abortions, women and doctors will be arrested and thrown in jail, children impregnated by their fathers will be forced to carry babies to term, more babies will be abandoned in dumpsters, others will grow up in foster care and have psychological problems, etc., etc.

Kevin said:

I'm not taking sides because I think the argument is Constitutionally unwinnable on both sides but, "I once found a piece or coral that looked like a person. It was alive, and looked like a person. So it was human?" are you serious? If some unusual human woman birthed a lump of coral I might find this comparison mildly compelling. And then if you were to analyze the coral and find it to indeed be coral you would still have to call it human. Maybe not exclusively human but human nonetheless, as it was generated by a human.

"there is no debate that a fetus may one day develop into a person. I believe the issue is whether or not it IS not whether it WILL BE." First of all, barring an interuption, natural or unnatural, a fetus will be a person. Can you point out a time when a fetus magically becomes a person? When an infant becomes a child? When a child becomes an adult? When an adult becomes elderly? The problem with your answers to all of those questions is the problem.

For those who use spiritual arguments to make their point, and you should know this, God is not constrained by artificial time-frames placed on a person's life by human "ingenuity", particularly if the person believes in pre-destination (aka God has his/her plan). Some would argue that time is completely misunderstood by human beings, in the face of omniscience.

I know, I know, the condoms and the birth control, and. . . I swear you can go on for years and years like this.

Jack said:

Answer: No.

Boy, my little joke really got you in a huff, didn't it? I love tweaking you libs -- you're so emotional. Maybe we should call you "huffy."


Yes, huffy, I do lecture you about sympathy. You have none for those work hard to support their families. No, if a man abandons his family, that's OK, you;ll make everyone else pay for his kids.

You have no sympathy for the millions who DO stand in line waiting to come to this country legally. You'd rather put the illegals ahead of them.

You have no sympathy for our troops who have seen their buddies killed my those who refused to stop at checkpoints.

And lastly, you have no sympathy for the misguided homosexuals whose souls are in jeopardy. You'd rather they go to Hell.

But then, you probably don't even believe they have souls.

Jack said:

Oh, and about the descendents, that's one reason why murder is so heinous.

stay puft said:

Kevin, I brought up the coral thing because Jacob and zimzo were comparing photos of 7-week-old fetuses. The question was, "how human does it look?" I was pointing out that whether something looks human or not is irrelevant.

Jack, what the hell are you talking about? Everything you say is so ridiculous that it's impossible to tell when you are kidding.

regarding sympathy, suffice it to say that you're full of shit.

your answer is illogical. If a woman refuses sex while ovulating she is taking an action which will result in a person who would have been alive in a year not being. This isn't sophistry on my part, it's a logical inconsistency on yours.

If it is not murder when a woman says "no" with the intent and result being that a person will not be alive in a year, than why is abortion murder?

presumably the difference is a fertilized egg. so ultimately, all of this "is it murder if..." stuff is moot. your argument is still based on the idea that life begins at conception. As I've said, that's a perfectly valid belief

stay puft said:

also, Kevin,

I guess this whole disagreement stems from the fact that no one can point out a "magic time" when one thing becomes another. That's why I believe people need to make their own decisions.

Kevin said:

and why it's so hotly contested, to be sure.

I've been having the debate with a friend for years about what age does the Christian God decide children are old enough to make a decision on faith and what happens to children when they die. All stemming from an argument about baptism, him thinking that the catholics have it right by baptizing the infant, despite the fact that baptism is not noted in the Bible as being the saving action as much as the proclaiming and committing action.

Years, I tell you!

And I maintain, Christ was baptized when he was much older than an infant! I'm right, he's wrong!

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"I guess this whole disagreement stems from the fact that no one can point out a "magic time" when one thing becomes another. That's why I believe people need to make their own decisions."
Amazing. When it comes to gun control its OK for the guv'mint to dictate upon the peoples right to bear arms. When it come to health care it is OK for the guv'mint to dictate a socialist plan called medicare and medicaid. When it come to retirement we also are forced to engage in a hive/socialist ponzi scheme called 'social security'. It is okey dokey for the guv'mint to dictate in a manner most intrusive in all these things. The age that we can drive, drink, and smoke. Where we smoke drink and pee. But in this one area of life don't touch. Truely amazing. The god of choice is strong in you Marshmallow.

We don't know so lets roll the dice and take the chance, because god (of choice) forbid that someones choice should have a consequence. So lets extinguish a life because 'choice' is more imptortant than life.

jacob said:

zimzo,
your answer can be summed up as 'the law is capricious'. Which is sad. Must be a scary world you live in.

I will go into the why I see you answer in that way later.

stay puft said:

Jacob,

what the hell are you talking about?

First of all, (but not for the first time) I will say, in capitals, that

I HAVE NOT ARGUED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE PEOPLE'S GUNS AWAY.

Damnit, You and Jack both keep throwing this in my face like it's some kind of proof that I'm being hypocritical, but the closest I've ever come is to ask for some solid evidence that guns keep us safe, which you(s) have yet to produce.

I do think that medicare/medicaid are in the general interest and well-being of the people, but they, along with SS, could use some streamlining.

I don't approve of the other government intrusions that you mentioned.

So now that we've straightened that out, you were saying...?

Jack said:

Huffy, allow me to explain the difference between before and after conception. Before conception, action (having sex) is required to create a child. No action equals no child. After conception, action is required to destroy that which was created by the prior action. What you want is not "choice," but to avoid the consequences of your choices.

I have repeatedly show evidence that guns keep us safe. The drop in the crime rate in Florida upon passage of their concealed carry law, with a concurrent RISE in crimes against tourists, who could not carry, should be prrof enough.

Please read the Constitution, particularly Section 8. The first sentence says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States...."

Notice that it says "general Welfare of the UNITED STATES," not the welfare of the PEOPLE.

I have asked you, and the other libs, to find any power given to the federal government that allows such things as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare. You have been unable to do so, because it is not there.

jacob said:

Gee, I'm batting over .850! Gun control NOPE! SS, Health care, smoking, drinking, driving, YUP. You sure sensitive about that gun control issue.

Oh yeah, I read the conversations you and Jack had regarding the impact of gun control. I saw Jack provide you with evidence which you promptly ignored. You did call him an idiot. Which has become your trademark when 'discussing' issues with Jack.

stay puft said:

maybe it's because Jack is an idiot.

maybe you, too. I said,

"I don't approve of the other government intrusions that you mentioned."

you're not even debating me anymore, you're arguing with some liberal archetype in your head.

If you reread the gun control discussion, then you would have noticed that I asked Jack again and again over the course of a week to provide data showing that guns = less crime. He had nothing definitive, only vague assumptions that correlation = causation in Florida. If I dismissed his "evidence" it's because he pulled it out of his ass.

I wasn't quoting the constitution, Jack.

Your action thing still doesn't work. Is putting on a condom and action?

Jack said:

Do you have any other explanation for why crime in general would decrease, while crime against tourists would increase, after Florida passed its concealed carry law?

The Catholic Church diapproves of condoms for that very reason.

stay puft said:

sorry I called you an idiot.

I don't know the details about Florida. Don't you have any studies or reports that you're basing this claim on?

Like I said, that's an absurd position that the Catholic Church is forced to accept in order to preserve their 'logic'

Jack said:

Puffalump, the report on the tourists was provided by the Brady Campaign after Florida passed it's concealed carry law. The idea was to punish Florida by discouraging tourists, which are a major source of revenue for the state. That was, of course, many years ago.

You call their position absurd, but do not say WHY it is absurd.

stay puft said:

well, there are a lot of things that can influence crime rates, esp. over a period of decades. (for example: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html )

To say that gun law is responsible for the drop is a major leap.

Do you not think it's ridiculous to say, "using a condom = murder" ?

Why is it absurd? Because no one is being killed, perhaps?

As an ideological position, or a matter of faith, it's fine, but in the literal sense of murder being the act of ending a life, it doesn't hold up at all.

Jack said:

Puffalump, many things can drive down the crime rates. I asked for an explanation of why the crime rate against tourists ROSE while the crime rate generally went down. This occurred the year after CCW law was passed.

OK, I'll accept your argument that "no one is being killed" when one uses a condom. However, someone IS being killed in an abortion.

stay puft said:

ok, maybe you can post some data on Florida crime rates the next time the gun issue comes up.

I think there might be some disagreement about whether someone is being killed in an abortion.

Jack said:

Puffalump, the only one's who say no-one is killed are those who want to dehumanize the fetus (if it's not human, what is it?) for their own convenience.

Kevin said:

"This occurred the year after CCW law was passed." Was it sustained or just for that year? Just curious.

Jack said:

I do not know. I suspect it was sustained for a while, because Florida made a point of getting reciprocal agreements to honor other states' licenses, thus allowing the tourists to carry.

stay puft said:

well, things can be human without being "a human" right?

DNA, stem cells, hair follicles, etc.

(...and they're off!)

Jack said:

True, and they will never be "a human" either. If a fetus is not "a human," what is it? Is it, perhaps, a cow? Hence the term, "to have a cow"?

stay puft said:

hmmm...

It's still part of the woman, a process that her body is carrying out.

Jack said:

It does not have the same DNA that the woman has, so it cannot be part of the woman.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM