This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
|
|
70242 Members
40 Forums
144318 Topics
2093423 Posts
Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
|
|
|
#898052 - 03/10/05 04:08 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 3378
Loc: North Carolina
|
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:  Ken, your post has really opened me up a bit. Very well said, and very important. It's easy to lose focus on the "big picture" especially with such a hot topic. But your words ring true. I have plenty of work ahead of me. [/b] Without disrespecting anyone's views here, I would submit that this is a controversial issue that should not be assumed to be one that is subject to governmental, political, or yes religious intervention. IMO, it is still one that should be left to the individual/s in question. It is incomprehensible to me that it should be otherwise. The individual/s make the determination, and live with the consequences, whatever those might be. The point is, that none of us have the right to impose our own individual interpretation of the right to life, as we see it, in whatever stage, on another. What is today's science is not necesarily tomorrow's science. Science is a wonderful thing. One day in the not to distant future, we might be able to determine that if a certain egg meets a certain sperm, the outcome will, or will not, and result in a healthy embryo, or the reproduction of a healthy human being. Do we kill it? Do we kill it before it happens, or not? I don't think we want to go to these extremes. As for me, I would leave these decisions up to the individual. That is what choice is all about. Take into consideration that this choice has everything to do with the health of a woman's body, in addition to the health of a fetus that might be housed within, and it still boils to individual decision. Government should have NO role in this decision, IMO, any more than it should have in whether or not a woman should conceive a child, or whether she should not.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898054 - 03/10/05 04:18 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 07/23/01
Posts: 3974
Loc: Seattle, Washington, USA
|
To throw a new question into the mix:
Other than a mother's life being in immediate danger with the only hope for survival being an abortion, or an unwanted pregnacy occures due to rape (and I firmly believe that adoption should be considered before abortion on this one unless the mother's life is at stake) then what purpose does a mother have for abortion?
Maybe I should restate that question: What EXCUSE does a mother have for abortion? "I don't want a baby" doesn't cut it. Too bad, you took the risk and now you're facing the consequence. Like anything else in life, you take a risk, and you suffer the consequence when it doesn't go your way. You can't just abort out of those situations, so why should you be able to do it in this one? (And especially when a life other than your own hangs in the balance).
_________________________
For off-topic discussion, please feel free to visit www.coffee-room.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898056 - 03/10/05 04:35 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3772
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
|
I believe in boxing this is called a "knock-out blow". The anti-abortion rights people are now down for the count. I'm sorry, how is the statement you cited in any way helpful to the pro-abortionist? If his statement holds true, all life is sacred, even before conception. What's been declared is not that post-conception beings are not alive, quite to the contrary the position has been argued that life even before this state is sacred. This seems to be a knockout blow for the "it isn't alive yet" crowd. As for women making educated decisions, I think that people in general can only make decisions based on the information they have. Good data and discernment is the best possible situation for an informed decision. As for doctors making a fair wage I think most do not. Most Dr's are making much less than most people think they are, here we agree. But for example, an OB-GYN salary in this area is well over $200k a year. That's an average. Just perusing a few abortion clinic's web pages from this area gives the impression that they are very profitable businesses. You are a Doctor right? You know that any specialty is going to be fairly profitable. Whether or not what they do is morally right or wrong, please don't make them appear to be selfless freedom fighters. They are in business to make money just like everyone else.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898058 - 03/10/05 05:13 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
2000 Post Club Member
Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
|
ivory: "(3) that the Catholic Church is an anyway racist since for 2000 years it has openly embraced all races;"
Actually, while this is the formal, nominal position of the Church, it is false in practice. In 1547 the archbishop of Toledo issued a law banning any Christian who was the descendant of a Jew from receiving various forms of public assistance. This was ratified by Pope Paul IV in 1555, and came to serve as a model for the Church in Spain. No one could attain higher office in Spanish society unless untainted by Jewish "blood". The view was that they are "as if born with polluted blood. The abomination of their ancestors will cling to them forever."
In 1592 the Jesuit order introduced a rule forbidding admission of men of Jewish origin, calculating ancestry to the 5th generation. This rule was cancelled only in 1946. It was frequently cited by the Nazi Party to demonstrate that their own racial policy was similar to the Church's most respected religious order.
Therefore, not only did the Church persecute Jews who stayed Jewish, they persecuted "Jews" who converted, with racial-like "blood" theories. So much for the vision of universal humanity of the church.
"(1) it is a "potential" human being when all the biological evidence is against you (even Moonbat agrees with me on this one"
Moonbat's position is very similar to mine, with at most minor terminological differences. I am also happy to call a fetus "human life" so long as we agree that the definition, used so broadly, has almost no ethical import. You were insisting on using the term "human life" applied to a fetus as if it automatically implied absolute ethical value, and so I rightly refused to have you assume by tendentious definition what you needed to prove by ethical argument (still not forthcoming).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898060 - 03/10/05 05:32 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
2000 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
Originally posted by Eusebius: Originally posted by The 89th Key: What about the 9 months in between? [/b] It's muddy. I'd rather accept that muddiness than take a hard-line position one way or the other. [/b] I can see that, although in that situation I would rather be safe than sorry, ya know?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898061 - 03/10/05 05:37 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
2000 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
Originally posted by jgoo: To throw a new question into the mix: Other than a mother's life being in immediate danger with the only hope for survival being an abortion, or an unwanted pregnacy occures due to rape (and I firmly believe that adoption should be considered before abortion on this one unless the mother's life is at stake) then what purpose does a mother have for abortion? Maybe I should restate that question: What EXCUSE does a mother have for abortion? "I don't want a baby" doesn't cut it. Too bad, you took the risk and now you're facing the consequence. Like anything else in life, you take a risk, and you suffer the consequence when it doesn't go your way. You can't just abort out of those situations, so why should you be able to do it in this one? (And especially when a life other than your own hangs in the balance). [/b] That's just the thing, jgoo, their only excuse is that they "aren't ready" or "dont want" to have a baby. This position is highly selfish, strongly immoral, unethical, and immature beyond absurdity. Not to mention murderous. Good post jgoo.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898062 - 03/10/05 05:43 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 1730
Loc: The Great American Southwest
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey: ivory: "(3) that the Catholic Church is an anyway racist since for 2000 years it has openly embraced all races;" Actually, while this is the formal, nominal position of the Church, it is false in practice. In 1547 the archbishop of Toledo issued a law banning any Christian who was the descendant of a Jew from receiving various forms of public assistance. This was ratified by Pope Paul IV in 1555, and came to serve as a model for the Church in Spain. No one could attain higher office in Spanish society unless untainted by Jewish "blood". The view was that they are "as if born with polluted blood. The abomination of their ancestors will cling to them forever." In 1592 the Jesuit order introduced a rule forbidding admission of men of Jewish origin, calculating ancestry to the 5th generation. This rule was cancelled only in 1946. It was frequently cited by the Nazi Party to demonstrate that their own racial policy was similar to the Church's most respected religious order. Therefore, not only did the Church persecute Jews who stayed Jewish, they persecuted "Jews" who converted, with racial-like "blood" theories. So much for the vision of universal humanity of the church. "(1) it is a "potential" human being when all the biological evidence is against you (even Moonbat agrees with me on this one" Moonbat's position is very similar to mine, with at most minor terminological differences. I am also happy to call a fetus "human life" so long as we agree that the definition, used so broadly, has almost no ethical import. You were insisting on using the term "human life" applied to a fetus as if it automatically implied absolute ethical value, and so I rightly refused to have you assume by tendentious definition what you needed to prove by ethical argument (still not forthcoming). [/b] It's entertaining watching you play connect-the-dots with 400 and 500 year old historically contingent documents. You're quite good at it, even though we both know your sources  So you now are willing to acknowledge that the foetus is human life. Good. Now we can discuss the ethical import. There is no point discussing moral relevance if there is no agreement on what the subject is, right? Gotta go...
_________________________
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898063 - 03/10/05 05:57 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3772
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
|
Jeffrey, I stated that figure was local. I don't doubt that seems low to you, but I'd wager I have a better idea of what $200k a year in Colorado is than you do. Also, I'm guessing at the bottom of the scale, a doctor performing this specialty in a private practice, once well established is undoubtedly making much more than this. I am now beginning to believe that you simply like to debate the debate. I made a point pertaining to abortion, yet you pick the statement about income to argue. Interesting. I will freely admit that you and Ivory both are much better debaters than I. Part of that is my ability to keep the thought from it's creation in my head, to my fingers on the keyboard. You also have lots of factual data .... for purposes of debating. But really don't have much to say in terms of why[/b] abortion is ok. I'd like to know if choice is the real issue. If it is, then why isn't it ok for a parent to choose their child's life at any other time after birth? You've already made your case that the distinction of life is totally arbitrary and completely devoid of meaning in the ethical and moral sense. So why doesn't this choice stand at 1 hour old, or 1 day old, or 16 years old? If it isn't an issue of choice, what is it an issue of? You've already made quite a case for the sanctity and equality of all life both during pregnancy, and even before! So what is the real issue here for you personally? You have a child, you realize that it is more than some amalgamation of cells and racing neurons. Is this just another fun debate to pass the time while you trade?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898064 - 03/11/05 04:50 AM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
Full Member
Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 265
Loc: Bristol, England
|
I'm sorry, how is the statement you cited in any way helpful to the pro-abortionist?
If his statement holds true, all life is sacred, even before conception. What's been declared is not that post-conception beings are not alive, quite to the contrary the position has been argued that life even before this state is sacred. This seems to be a knockout blow for the "it isn't alive yet" crowd.
Sacred is a decidedly religious term, but i think i see where you are coming from and again I must disagree. I do not believe anyone would claim that a fetus is not "alive", merely that there is no justification for granting it the ethical consideration we grant fully formed human people. My point regarding the spetus was to demonstrate the arbitraryness of the point we wish to consider the beginning. If you accept that preventing a sperm just about to fertilise an egg developing into a future human person is essentially equal to preventing a fertilised egg developing into a future human person, and you follow the reasoning through then i think you end up with a pro-choice stance. Let me explain: The key lies in the fact that one can keep on going back, there is no _objective_ starting point. There is no point where you can say "aha that is where the 'potential' starts" without appealing to convenience. Imagine you have two friends who decide they want to have a child, then you talk to them and in that discussion you talk about the responsibilities involved, etc. etc. as a result they decide not to... BAM you just killed a potential human person, by having that conversation you did _exactly_ the same thing as stopping the fertilised egg dividing, or directly preventing the sperm from fertilising the egg. A couple in a state where they wish to have a child, inevitable represent a potential future person, for the same reasons that a spetus does, or fetus does.
_________________________
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898065 - 03/11/05 04:44 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
2000 Post Club Member
Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
|
it: "You're quite good at it, even though we both know your sources" I've always known the basic outline of how the Vatican created the basic anti-semitic background for the Holocaust. However, even I didn't realize how specific and direct the Church was in creating modern anti-semitism. One main source is: The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism" by David I. Kertzer: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...=glance&s=books I strongly recommend this book to you. It will help teach you about the history of the Catholic Church. "the foetus is human life." I am also happy to call swimming sperm "human life" (it's genetically human, its motile, its a potential human person if certain events happen). I think they are every bit as much or as little "human life" as a fetus with a dozen cells. Both are merely potential moral persons, and neither is worth much moral consternation.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898066 - 03/11/05 04:57 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 1730
Loc: The Great American Southwest
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey: it: "You're quite good at it, even though we both know your sources" I've always known the basic outline of how the Vatican created the basic anti-semitic background for the Holocaust. However, even I didn't realize how specific and direct the Church was in creating modern anti-semitism. One main source is: The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism" by David I. Kertzer: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...=glance&s=books I strongly recommend this book to you. It will help teach you about the history of the Catholic Church.[/b] Sure Jeff, right after I get through reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to learn about Judaism. 
_________________________
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898069 - 03/11/05 05:17 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
3000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3772
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
|
Jeffrey, I do understand what you're saying, and yes moonbat has written a couple of great posts.
I think this issue probably comes down to foundational and fundamental principles that you and I probably don't agree upon.
I might not understand how you've come to your conclusions, but I do understand them, and respect them.
I wish we had a better medium to discuss such serious issues in. This turn-based discussion makes it more like a strategy game than a friendly discussion. Since speech is not my first language, it's difficult for me to relay thoughts in this fashion. I wish I could just upload my thought process to you as one understanding, and wish you could do the same.
I sometimes feel very limited here, and really feel that I don't convey what I'm actually feeling very well.
Oh well.. I do hope you enjoy our conversations, and hope I'm at least somewhat stimulating rather than annoying.
...
I'm going to go spend some energy practicing some Bach.
Peace, and have a great weekend!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898070 - 03/11/05 05:49 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
7000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 7051
|
Originally posted by KlavierBauer: I wish we had a better medium to discuss such serious issues in. This turn-based discussion makes it more like a strategy game than a friendly discussion. Since speech is not my first language, it's difficult for me to relay thoughts in this fashion. I wish I could just upload my thought process to you as one understanding, and wish you could do the same. I sometimes feel very limited here, and really feel that I don't convey what I'm actually feeling very well. [/b] \ I relate. Writing to perfectly convey one's feelings and thoughts is tough. It is like translating. Then you have to consider all the biases of the reader. :rolleyes: What did you mean when you said, "speech is not my first language"?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898071 - 03/11/05 07:56 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 1730
Loc: The Great American Southwest
|
Sure, Jeffboy -- I'll take you up on it -- I just ordered it. The reviews I've read have not been stellar, but if you think it is authentic and dispassionate scholarship (and not a tendetious screed that ignores counterindications), I'll give it a go. You can brush up on Theology for Beginners while I think about the "one book" -- don't worry, it won't be the Summa Theologiae.
_________________________
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898072 - 03/12/05 04:46 AM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/01/04
Posts: 742
|
hmmm this is interesting, i like this bet between jeff and IT.
jeff and I have been trading book reccomendations by PM and ill add his.
waiting for IT's rec.
jeff, have beevor's fall of belin, waiting for next stint in reserves, last week of march.
_________________________
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898073 - 03/12/05 06:31 AM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
2000 Post Club Member
Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
|
it: I'm always interested in reading books from viewpionts different from mine. I assumed you were going to assign me the whole Bible. Or maybe the Catholic Encyclopedia. You may find Kertzer's book tendentious, given the topic, but it seems to cite many facts quite dispassionately and specifically and exactly. Your review can criticize the book, and present your analysis, if you wish. I promise in good faith to read your review and analysis as well. I would in principle prefer to believe that a major social institution with a fabulous contribtion to the history of art at the center of my (second) favorite city - Rome - was *not* out to get the Jews, but I believe the facts speak otherwise, to my dismay. I await your review. I already did order Theology for Beginners a few weeks ago. I will read it to broaden my knowledge (perhaps on the Amtrak today - I will probably go to Philly to see the Dali exhibit). You can still pick another book. Best to all - Jeffrey [edit: don't just pop by to see the Dali exhibit. Tickets are sold out several weeks in advance. Glad I called to check before going to Philly. I have tickets for the 25th reserved. ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898075 - 03/12/05 10:08 AM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
Full Member
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 327
Loc: Hart Island, NYC
|
Jeffery,
Unlike IT, I have no problem conceding to the point that the Catholic Church in the past has had policies that in the light of contemporary morality might be deemed "unkind." I also believe that the Church was in these matters a product of the morals of those days and did not live up to the mandate it professed to have derived from God. If one of course posits that there is no God, then it was simply a group of men ad hearing to the rather autocratic mores of the time. The Church and the civil government both wanted a homogenous community to rule and the Jews were punished for being problematical.
On the other hand, the Jews were bothersome to the Church and to the civil government, since the terms "self determination" and "multicultural" were not as yet talking points in society, the Jews consistently presented themselves as God's Chosen People, (again if one were to posit no God--quite a pompous claim!) The Jews lent money and levied interest, (an unpopular trade at the time,) and in general broke the social, economic and religious mores of their times. They were punished for their non conformity in a society that valued conformity.
All they had to do was comply a bit--in the end what would be the difference? As Henry IV of France said, "Paris is worth a Mass."
In hindsight, mistakes were made all around.
_________________________
I'm not a puppet, I'm a real boy--Pinocchio
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898076 - 03/12/05 07:19 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
Full Member
Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 44
|
Mercutio, have you always been full of crap or did you work your way up to it? The Jews WERE God's chosen people. Actually, maybe we still are. And talk about spin! The Jews wouldn't assimilate? What kind of bullshit is that supposed to be? They were freaking PROHIBITED from assimilating!
Man, you sure do a great job of being an apologist for the anti-Semites.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898078 - 03/12/05 07:49 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
Full Member
Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 44
|
What does your name mean? Mine's a perfectly legit last name. No, I don't have 'fun cussing' but when someone puts this kind of feces on a discussion board I call a spade a spade.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#898079 - 03/12/05 07:58 PM
Re: Just some pictures of "uterine contents"
|
2000 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
|
You cant read English? I'm the key after the 88th key.  Where are you from to acquire a consonant-only last name? Oh, and although they are highly effective as adjectives from time to time...in a venue such as this online forum, those who need to cuss in order to articulate their argument (while concurrently choosing not to utilize the luxury of organizing and manifesting their respective thoughts into visual words) will be seen as an immature and lacking intelligence. Except for Gumby, damn it! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Del.icio.us
|Contact |
Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |
; (2) that personhood is the only morally relevant category (I claim it to be humanity, though not exclusively); (3) that the Catholic Church is an anyway racist since for 2000 years it has openly embraced all races; or (4) that the morula or blastocyst is merely "a few cells" as if this were a random assortment. Your own arguments presuppose way too much. Not good philosophical inquiry, Jeffboy. But keep trying 
Previous Topic
Index
