Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Just some pictures of "uterine contents"

ivory: "Most women (I would venture) are victims of this highky profitable industry which obfuscates the reality behind Orwellian newspeak like "human genetic material", "uterine contents", "fetal protoplasm", etc."

As I suspected, you devalue women and their capacity for intelligent moral choice. Women who have abortions are usually making informed, rational, highly ethical decisions. You portray women as passive dupes in this matter. I wonder if you regard women as merely passive dupes in other areas as well?

As for "highly profitable" - you have stated elsewhere your lack of skill in understanding financial topics. Abortion providers make a fair (or perhaps less than fair) income for their professional medical skills, similar to other trained medical doctors. I don't think doctors in general are overpaid, given the years of training and study their profession takes.

Moonbat: "Imagine a sperm just about to fertlise an egg, then you step in and stop that event occuring, clearly had you not done so the result would have been a fertlised egg, now if a fertilised egg represents a potential human being, it follows that a sperm just about to fertlise an egg MUST also represent a potential human being."

I believe in boxing this is called a "knock-out blow". The anti-abortion rights people are now down for the count.

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.

Both Merc and ivory have stated that "personhood" as both I and Moonbat have used it is too arbitrary and changeable a notion for ethical use. The Catholic definition, they think, of human life (including the fetus), is non-arbitrary and less subject to political change.

This is false. First, White Nationalists are not much impressed with ethical arguments. One doesn't stop fascism with ethical definitions, but with baseball bats. Second, the biggest champion of defining the value of human life not in personhood terms but in biological terms is the Catholic Church. But this has not stopped the Church from persecuting and imprisoning culturally distinct groups of people in ghettos, or whipping up hatred of them with fake blood libel charges in their press.

So the "universal" and genetic definition of human life is neither relevant against racists, nor does accepting it prevent racism. Personhood is the relevant moral notion. It is simply silly to say that a few cells have the same moral value as an adult woman.

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).

Yes, Jeffboy, we are well as aware of your opinions on this as you all are of mine.

You have yet to convince me that (1) it is a "potential" human being when all the biological evidence is against you (even Moonbat agrees with me on this one and your "knock out call" shows how ready you are to fix the fight) ; (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

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.

KB: I dunno... I would guess that he looked at the financial side and found a better ROI in brothels and kiddie porn...

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).

kb: "But for example, an OB-GYN salary in this area is well over $200k a year. That's an average."

I do not regard that as a very high income, especially for all the training a doctor has to undergo.

I can see that, although in that situation I would rather be safe than sorry, ya know?

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.

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...

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 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?

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.

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/t...103-6661324-7025429?v=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.

Sure Jeff, right after I get through reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to learn about Judaism.

kb: "I made a point pertaining to abortion, yet you pick the statement about income to argue.
Interesting."

ivory was claiming that abortion doctors were motivated primarily by money, and that abortion was a vastly profitable industry. I pointed out that abortion doctors make pretty much what similarly trained medical specialists make.

"But really don't have much to say in terms of why abortion is ok.
I'd like to know if choice is the real issue."

The issue is women's ability to control her fertility and plan when to have any children they may desire, allowing women to participate freely in the educational, political and work life of their society. It also increases the average life situation children are born into. Societies like the Taliban and Nazi Germany that devalue women, usually ban abortion and see women as merely breeders. Free societies allow abortion, because it allows women to participate fully in social life.

"You've already made quite a case for the sanctity and equality of all life both during pregnancy, and even before!"

I've done no such thing. I've pointed out how absurd it is to value a fully adult conscious woman as worth no more than a handful of cells.

Moonbat's last post makes many good points.

ivory: I take it then that you have *not* read the book? So how can you comment? You seem quite ignorant of actual Church history, not just what your theology professors taught you. All the sources are documented and quoted in detail.

I'll make you a bet - you buy and read the book (only 5 dollars used on Amazon) and I will read any one book you suggest. Any one at all. You must post a review of the book on PW, however, as will I. I'll even read Theology for Beginners.

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!