darth_ender

Bingowings said:

I avoid antibacterial detergents specifically to not unnecessarily kill bacteria.

There are lethally harmful bacteria, there are annoying bacteria and there are useful bacteria as well as bacteria essential for living on this planet in this time.

Killing them willy-nilly is just as bad as having a leisurely attitude to traumatic surgery.

 Wow.  Most bacteria that are beneficial are already inside of you.  You are not eating them off your hands.  Your efforts to avoid killing them is not assuring you greater longevity because you think you are preserving essential bacteria.  Using non-antibacterial soap will still kill many, though many others will thrive elsewhere.  As you live from moment to moment, your body is killing bacteria that has managed to penetrate your outer defenses.  Every time you take antibiotics because of a serious infection, you are massacring trillions of those little prokaryotes, including those that are good for you.

Bacteria will not only outlast you, they will outlast humanity.  They are the most adaptable species on the planet.  Have no fear.

But what astounds me about this post is the irony: more protectiveness towards bacteria than towards a zygote?  A part of me hopes this is one of your sarcastic posts, trying to tie the saving of both together, but you seem pretty sincere.

I'll respond to the new things you've said, as I've already addressed the rest multiple times.

Bingowings said:

Ender if your are protecting the future potential of the zygote why not protect the future potential of the plankton which may evolve into a fully functioning non-human sentience?

Or bacteria for that matter?  Why not protect them, right?  We're not talking about hypothetically evolving to human sentience over millions of years after millions of generations, and only doing so through survival of the fittest, meaning that the most vulnerable and ill-equipped to survive will get eaten.  We are talking about the same organism that was conceived, then born, then developed to find self-importance.  Just like killing another full-fledged, self-aware adult is killing his or her potential, as the same organism.  We don't try people for preventing someone from producing offspring.  We try people for killing an individual who had potential to carry on.

As for most people...I don't post for them. I post for me. As I've said before anything not in a quote box is me not someone else's opinion or a universal truth should such a thing exist.

This is all good news.  I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I don't think I attributed someone else's quote to you, but I'm glad you say what you feel.  I am enjoying this debate with you, and I'm glad we haven't gotten on each other's nerves too much.

So I'm nearly to the point where I will be able to upload all my content. I will be leaving out most stuff related to variations between releases, but otherwise it will be most material I had intended to release, though not as organized as I'd originally intended. I hope that it will be the groundwork for others to complete.  It really is a lot of material including some pretty obscure stuff.  Keep your eyes open :)

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:

 In the very poignant words of my friend Warbler, "That is asinine."  I never said a uterus should fulfill it's purpose.  I'm saying it is designed for pregnancy.  As much as you might want, it will never pump blood for you.  It's designed for a specific function, and therefore the heart analogy was poor.  This example is only exacerbating the flaws of such thinking.

RicOlie_2 said:

The heart can easily be replaced with a more suitable body part. I figured my point would get across anyway, but yes, the analogy was poor.

thejediknighthusezni said:

I'll have a try for an analogy that can be followed.

Suppose that a teenage girl, out of sheer criminal irresponsiblity, decides to jack a car for a joy-ride. Unbeknownst to the little ditz, someone's little one year-old baby is in the back seat. To escape the cops, she decides to drive deep into a national park and runs out of gas.

It's freezing cold, no water or food, no telling how many hours or days until help comes by. She discovers the sleeping baby.

If she doesn't carry the baby next to her warm body several miles to where they can be found, the baby will freeze and die. But this is extremely inconvenient. There is even a slightly increased risk of great harm or death for the car-jackette.

Fortunately, the rad-femmes and their enlightened backers know exactly what to do.

Just chuck that little wad of meaningless proto-plasm into a ravine and forget about it.

Fine how's this for an analogy. A woman requests an abortion. She's denied it due to laws and the doctors are unable to determine immediate risk of death to her. She and the fetus end up dead in spite of the stats saying "low risk" of death. Oh wait That happened and it was even linked to in this very thread.

Well at least you can say that it was her choice to have sex in the first place right? I mean it's not like there's a risk of being shot if a woman doesn't have sex with a guy right? Oh wait looks like some guy took it upon himself to add that to the "risk" side of women not having sex. Also linked to before in this thread.

These risks are just something I didn't want ignored. You can create a billion different analogies. You can gripe about my choice of organ in those analogies. It won't magically lower or eliminate the risk of death and health risks involved here. It's still there and shouldn't be ignored.

Fortunately for me, I seem to be the one with the most relevant experience almost every time someone else brings up .  Septicemia, the cause of death of the first woman, means infection in the blood.  It is certainly life threatening.  It is also not caused by pregnancy.  It actually caused her to miscarry.  If she had her abortion even before she wanted it, with all other things being equal, the woman would still be dead.  She was not assessed or treated properly on other levels, and the life of the child had nothing to do with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

But let's go further.  Hospitals do not assess dangers correctly at times, and people sadly die.  In this one rare occasion, it was a pregnant woman who wanted and did not get an abortion.  Even if the baby had led to her death, sometimes that happens.  Sometimes people die because they have an appendix rupture and the hospital doesn't recognize the danger, even if the person wants their appendix removed.  So we should allow literally millions and millions of deaths every year because two years ago one woman died because she wasn't assessed appropriately?  Doesn't that seem extreme?  I admit, Ireland's laws should probably be a little more relaxed, as I feel the woman should have a greater opportunity for life than the child, but only slight.  Don't throw out the baby with the amniotic water, so to speak.  And it should be noted that Irish law has since been altered to better allow for such situations.

On the other hand, what on earth does a moron's massacre of six women who refused to have sex with him have to do with abortion???  Twister, you make some ridiculous stretches, and it is tiring to have to address them.  There is a risk that whatever you do, good or bad, some idiot is going to hate you for it and blow your brains out.  How does that story pertain to the discussion in any practical sense?

I know there are risks to pregnancy, probably better than anyone taking part in this discussion except perhaps TV's Frink, as I believe he is the only other participant who has children (and who had a legitimate reason to have an abortion to boot).  Even then, I have medical and behavioral health experience to assist me in the discussion.  My wife is presently pregnant and, at 22 weeks, is on bed rest.  I know there are risks.  But to simply allow abortions for whatever reason because of the rarity of risks to the mother and the extremely rare death....it's just wrong.  43.8 million dead plankton in 2008 alone.  Documented.  Who knows how many undocumented?  How many plankton that had their futures stolen from them?  How many of them were really underdeveloped Albert Einsteins or Michael Jordans or Twister111s or Bingowings or TV's Frinks?

And to turn the conversation in a different direction, I respect the Catholic belief that contraception is wrong, but I'd rather have 48.6 million prevented pregnancies than terminated ones.  

twister111 said:

There's a lot to respond to here and I've got to do something soon. So I'll just respond to one point now and the rest later.

darth_ender said:

How are the two at all connected?  I don't understand how you can claim my analogies are so flawed, then come up with your bizarre and irrelevant analogies and find them better.

You mentioned the "fulfilling its design" thing in regards to a uterus dealing with a pregnancy. Well I mentioned a scenario where a girl wasn't exactly "meant" to live long enough to reproduce. Whether by genetics or the way she was born she wouldn't "naturally" have lived long enough to even worry about pregnancy. In such a scenario is it okay to grant her unbound abortion rights if she wants it?

 In the very poignant words of my friend Warbler, "That is asinine."  I never said a uterus should fulfill it's purpose.  I'm saying it is designed for pregnancy.  As much as you might want, it will never pump blood for you.  It's designed for a specific function, and therefore the heart analogy was poor.  This example is only exacerbating the flaws of such thinking.

Oh, I forgot to point out that we lose cells all the time, not just sperm.  But we as organisms remain in spite of constant loss.  But if you kill an unborn child, even when it is merely a few cells, you have destroyed the entire organism.  Sperm and ova are just part of the parent organism.  The zygote is the beginning of the new unique organism.

twister111 said:

darth_ender said: I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid. Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes. Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it. It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.

See this is why it's so hard to have this conversation and why I didn't want to go here in the first place. Not three exchanges in and it's so bent over backwards to mean whatever you want it to mean. You use emotional terms to define "person" when talking about a fetus. Drunk driving, slavery, braindead individuals you bring up in analogies. Then when it's a sperm you get all technical. You forego emotional bonds and focus on chromosomes, cell count, and viability of further life independent of another human. Suddenly the potential life it could lead, if preserved, means nothing and it's all about whether or not it could survive and grow on it's own.

Course in the next comparison you mention a fetus would need "life-saving reliance on another human for a time" as though you didn't just dismiss that as a qualification of "personhood" for a sperm. The argument's already turned so upside down to mean whatever you want.

Emotional and logical appeal are valid and time-honored methods of debate.  Using both in itself does not invalidate my argument.  However, if used improperly, then you would be correct to point out flaws in my argument.  However, my use is not incorrect, as you clearly do not understand my point.  Sperm cannot live long on its own.  It will die in a very short time regardless of effort put into saving it.  Provide it with the most ideal environment and it will still only last a few days.  An ovum cannot live on its own.  After ovulating, it will last less than a month in spite of the most favorable circumstances.  But a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, if given the appropriate environment, will continue to grow and thrive in most circumstances.  If you argue that it is utterly reliant on the mother and therefore does not qualify any better than a sperm or egg, then the same could be said of the newborn infant, who simply cannot live without someone providing for his or her every need.

darth_ender said:Thanks for the summaries and for catching my poor phrasing. I'd meant originally to say, If I am not only the only....but I am also the reason," but clearly forgot how I was originally writing my sentence by the time I got to that point. I edited it, but as "If I am the only...and I am the reason," as it's probably less likely to get confused that way by future readers. Thanks for pointing that out :)

No problem.

darth_ender said:I see. It seems still over the top. Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).

So, what about if the woman in question was born with some genetic illness or born premature? Like it was only through massive medical intervention that she even survived to the point in which she could decide to get an abortion. Would you then be okay with her gaining infinite abortion rights because her initial design was to die when she was a little girl?

How are the two at all connected?  I don't understand how you can claim my analogies are so flawed, then come up with your bizarre and irrelevant analogies and find them better.

darth_ender said:Perhaps a kidney would be best. A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk. And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.

I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but while we're on the topic of refining analogies, let's get them right ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.

Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.

You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.

Comparing the act of sex to uncaring just want fun drunken car rides is already a huge exaggeration in and of itself. I mean unless that's only meant to apply to a person knowingly cheating on a spouse with someone who knows that person's cheating and they intend to bring a life threatening STD back to their faithful spouse and the person in the know has that and knows it.

I think you take things far too literally.  The point was that something was both fun and irresponsible.  Having sex without the expectation of possible children is irresponsible.  I'm sorry, but it is.  Pregnancy is as natural a consequence of sex as smoking leading to cancer.  It might not happen, but you sure are foolish to think that you are immune to it.

Anyways the choice of organ hardly matters at this point. I just didn't want the risks of pregnancy to be entirely ignored.

I'm not ignoring the risks involved with abortion but that would be her choice to deal with. The analogies were already getting hard to follow anyways.

Why isn't it her choice to deal with the risks of sex?

darth_ender said:

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

First let me say it's fantastic that you want to take care of your children. Unfortunately you unwittingly help my side of the argument by mentioning this. Many guys just walk out on their children or never know they exist and it was just a one night stand to them. In many ways guys get choice by default. Even if a woman gives the kid up for adoption she'd still be forced to go through the 9 months of pregnancy if the choice of abortion was denied to her. For guys the "consequence" of kids could potentially be absolutely nothing. Well nothing but feeling good for a time of course. Only good decent honorable Men try to be good fathers to their children, try to be good husbands, and do right by them. It's a respectable and wonderful choice but it remains a choice.

Again, you miss the point, but I'll accept your congratulations and agree that it is completely unfair that men don't share in the responsibility.  I think that men should be held far, far more accountable.  Even if they physically do not provide their bodies for 9 months, they should be financially responsible and give of their time.  It irritates me when men don't take responsibility, and I think they legally should be required to do so.

But my point is not that.  My point is that children are demanding, before and after birth.  But if I am responsible for them now that they are born, why should I not be responsible before their birth?

Though that "less healthy" thing is debatable as it's just as likely that you're more healthy with kids than without. There's not some certain definable physical toll that being a father takes. Can't exactly measure it with c-section scars, stitches, or blood loss the way just giving birth can be.

 No, I guarantee I am less healthy.  I get less sleep, have less time for exercise, prepare faster foods, eat out more often, am more frequently stressed out...it's true it's not measurable in the same manner, but it is very difficult.  At this point, due to my children, you don't even know what I am going through at the very present.  But I can't abort them now.  I must be responsible, now as before their birth.  So must my wife.  Why shouldn't we be?

Bingowings said:

 As long as they don't feed the self-aware toddlers and up, it's all good.

Bingowings said:

I have a pet fungus...you know this.

I hope you provide it with lots of shade and nutrients ;)  I had hoped you would answer my question though.  My guess is that you consider your life more valuable than even a beloved Labrador's.  My point is that to most people, the value of humans is superior to that of animals.  That value is not derived from our ability to comprehend.

Why is killing another human wrong?  It's not simply because you are ending the life of a self-aware creature.  That creature is going to die no matter what.  It's not because you are cutting off their history.  That has already taken place.  It is not even because they won't like it.  You can kill someone without causing them any pain.  No.  It is wrong because you are snuffing out that creature's potential.  Well, the funny thing about human potential is that such potential exists at the moment of conception.  Even if you do not believe in spirits, even if you define personhood to your liking, you still must see that the same moral law is broken.  A human being with the potential to become something more, to do something great, to change something, to find happiness, has that opportunity snatched away by someone else.  What does their self-awareness or past matter?  It's their future that is being stolen.  If you truly believe humans to be more valuable than animals, and I'm quite certain you do, then it follows that you should believe in preserving their future.

I can't help it if Americans keep changing English words, I'm Scottish but the word means in English English a definable personality. Not a human.

Changing words?  In any form of English, person came first and meant any human, and words such as personality were derived from it much later.  Even the good ol' Oxford Dictionary, researched and published in English England English ;) tells us that the definition of a person is any human being, and only "in later use" is a human with "human rights, dignity, or worth," and mentions nothing about personality.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/141476?rskey=J39se2&result=1#eid

What is unfortunate about a description as given above, where a person is a human entitled to human rights, is that such a definition has been used to justify slavery and genocide.  If I were a fascist or slave-owner, I could simply say, "That creature over there is less than a person, does not deserve human rights, and therefore can be my slave or may be executed for failing to be a person."  It always seems to be the people with the power who define what a person is, to the eternal detriment of the powerless.

You Mormonites believe in God and Angels and Jesus are these not people too or are they something else?

Wrong person to ask, as "Mormonites" believe, God, Jesus, and angels to be of the same "species" so to speak.  We would call all of us people.  Perhaps Warbler or Ric would disagree, but I sure wouldn't.

When aliens and AI arrive in a few years time you will find them not impressed with your narrow definition of 'person'.

So (leaving religion out momentarily) the fact that I include more under the umbrella of 'person' than you do, extending it to include pre-birth humans makes my definition narrow?  Strange.  Ah, but you mean, since my definition means any human being, and yours means creatures with definable personality, which would then include self-aware aliens, then my definition is narrow.  I got it.  Well, were self-aware aliens to visit us, I would certainly be opposed to them getting abortions, whether or not I chose to use the term person or something else (Romulan?) to refer to them.  I'd find the same morals at stake, and they as self-aware creatures to be equally responsible for their unborn offspring.

I know you are capable of believing weird things (not an insult) from weird sources (also not an insult I use weird in a descriptive not a qualitative sense).

But if you are saying that a zygote has unexpressed desires that you wish to defend please extend that defense to the helpless plankton of the world at the mercy of those evil whales.

Not relevant.  See above.  Fitire potential of the human is at stake, not their present self-awareness.  Those plankton, prawns, and other marine life you continue to refer to will never be anything more.  But going with your example, why do you always turn back to zygotes?  A child at 20 weeks gestation is no longer a zygote and has far more advanced capacities, though it is still not self-aware.  I've made several points justifying life past a certain point (including post-birth people), yet you insistently and persistently say they are not people (and logically equally without human rights), yet fail to rebut any of my statements pointing that out.  So the self-awareness of plankton isn't worth saving, but what about the self-awareness of a trout?  If I could successfully push abortions back to no later than 10 weeks, I'd consider it an incomplete victory!

Yes I defend the rights of mice because they have a clear desire to not die or feel pain and express happiness when their goals are achieved. You are happy to eat more sophisticated creatures which makes you inconsistent or at least speciesist. If someone were to offer human meat for sale would you eat it if it came from someone with the mental capacity of a cow?

See above.  Besides, it's not good for you.  And I do believe it to be inherently immoral.  Even if the person died of natural causes, even if we were stuck on an icy mountain and he knew he was dying and told me to use his body for food, I couldn't do it.

Warbler warbed :

 That is completely asinine.

I don't take that as an insult. Donkey's, mules and other equines are far more sophisticated than dogs and you wouldn't eat a dog...would you?

 If I didn't have any other source of food, I'd eat the White House poodle!

Leonardo said:

darth_ender said:

HotRod said:

This is a load of bollox.  If you're out and find someone attractive. Have sex. It's fun. 

Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it. But everybody should. 

 Babies are a natural byproduct of sex.  Babies are good.  They're hard, but can also be fun.  Not everyone has them, but everybody should.

 errr.... really? everybody?

 I was mocking his phrasing.  I've worked for a behavioral health agency focusing on children ages 0-5, most of whom were involved in Child Protective Services and removed from their rotten parents.  So yes, I agree, not everyone should have children.  However, were those rotten parents to get pregnant again, I'd rather they carry the baby to term and have them placed up for adoption than simply snuffed out of existence.

And come on, Kim Jong-Un needs to have an heir.  One day he will pass, and when he does, he needs to have someone to continue condemning South Korean and American actions and threatening devastating war every time one of our presidents sneezes. ;)

EDIT: I guess I should clarify my original point, and that is that I certainly don't think sex is bad.  I just don't think the natural and intended consequences of sex (sometimes referred to as children, or less commonly, prawns) are bad either.

HotRod said:

This is a load of bollox.  If you're out and find someone attractive. Have sex. It's fun. 

Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it. But everybody should. 

 Babies are a natural byproduct of sex.  Babies are good.  They're hard, but can also be fun.  Not everyone has them, but everybody should.

Bingo, a response is forthcoming.

Bingowings said:

Person, personality, persona...it's what the whole family of words refers to. Blame the middle English speakers (it originally meant a mask or a role in a play).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=person&searchmode=none

The etymological root was synonymous with human, which means genetically human.  Persona and personality were derived from person, and therefore do not define that word.  Appealing to a word's history is not sufficient to define it, as mask and role in a play demonstrate.

Zygotes don't have a personality, they have no characteristics that define them from other microscopic lifeforms.

This doesn't happen until sometime in the toddler stage, usually around the time the baby is on solid food and can make very basic gestures indicating preference.

Just because something can't express desires sooner doesn't mean they aren't there.  Honestly, you speak like someone who knows.

http://lpp.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/pdf/1387.pdf

The above article discusses two things of relevance to this discussion: first, that newborns (as in within an hour of birth) prefer the rhythm of their own language above that of other languages; second, that they are learning language even before they are born, which is significant when considering their mental capacities.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/208/4448/1174.abstract

This shows a preference for mothers' voices over others' voices.

And this one here:

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/en/resourcecentres/prematurebabies/athome/movementandreflexes/pages/newborn-senses.aspx

shows that they can distinguish between their mothers' faces within two hours of birth and someone else's.  Also they can distinguish smells and prefer the smell of their mothers' milk to another's.

We are all dying Ender.

Leaving an elderly or sick person to die without water or food is all about convenience, if it wasn't we would pay someone to check them constantly and keep them alive until they died, not just stop feeding them. That is an abortion of a person, they are being switched off because they are a burden to medical staff or relatives.

Ummm...we do that.  Again, as I am in the medical field and have watched a few people die at this point, I am speaking from greater experience than you.  Only in hopeless cases, only with individual's permission, or if not available, the family's permission after discussion, is it even legal to remove a feeding tube from someone.  See the Terri Schiavo case here in the US just to see the legal difficulties that can be involved.  We don't simply switch of feeding tubes when it becomes too costly.  Maybe it's done in public healthcare systems, but not here in the US.  It is literally illegal.  Never out of burden or cost.  Only out of futility and suffering.

If you are prepared to eat something as inquisitive and as intelligent as a toddler (when a baby becomes a person) but protect the rights of the Zygote (basically all the awareness of an item of plankton) you may well have to invert your thinking to be consistent.

 Why would I do that?  I don't even understand your meaning.  You are into defending the rights of mice, yet not of fetuses, then I think you are the one who is inconsistent.  Calling Frink consistent in being pro-choice and pro-McDonald's while you oppose one and support the other makes you and I equally inconsistent.

I don't recall ever reading about any pets you may have owned, but let's discuss a hypothetical scenario: you've had a wonderful black Labrador  for the past 10 years.  You love your lab.  You feed it, care for it, want what's best for it.  Let's say that one day it got loose and bit your neighbor.  The authorities come to your house and let you know that your pet will have to be put down.  But they offer an alternative: if you agree to give up your life in your Lab's place, your pet will live.  Would you give up your human life to save your pet?  Why or why not?  Afterwards, we'll see where the discussion goes.

^Which is essentially an admission that yours is not, given that you oppose one and favor the other.

Bingowings said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

      ^ So then, when you are sound asleep or passed out drunk, you're cool with having anyone who finds you inconvenient tear you to shreds instead of waiting whatever period of time is necessarry for you to awake and display these qualities of personhood?

         Dude, I sure wouldn't let the gang pushing the global warming fraud and Agenda 21 hear you say that! 

There is a difference between a sleeping person and an non-existent one and I never said I was 'cool' about abortion either.

In debates like these people (a fetus and a baby can't do this) wave silly little flags like 'person' and 'human rights' around. Where is the personhood of the more developed and aware animal? Where are the human rights for pigs?

People are aborted every day in hospitals. When the old are the uncommunicative are left without food or water to 'pass away" and yet the calls against these actions are tiny compared to the abortion issue because babies are cute and old and disabled people are probably even more inconvenient than an unwanted pregnancy.

People who will defend the rights of a fetus while munching on a close cousin are a maze of contradictions.

 Why is personhood defined by self-awareness?  Who made that definition?  Oh yes, people advocating a certain position on abortion.  Why am I not allowed to define a person differently?  You seem very stuck on the concept of personhood as if its definition is inherent and beyond debate.

The elderly are allowed to die because, well, they are dying.  It is not about inconvenience.  If you think about it, most people that reach that age have been preserved long past when nature would have taken its course, were it not for a pacemaker or anticoagulant therapy or dialysis treatments.  Loved ones are usually the ones who push to preserve elderly people, even after those people would have rather chosen to die.  There comes a point where it's futile and causes perpetual misery.  It is not an abortion.

But as for animal rights, it is something on my mind.  I do eat meat and I do not oppose it, but I oppose the cruel treatment of animals.  I have seen pictures and videos of little chicks getting ground up and other cruel ways of killing off animals.  I don't like it at all, and I believe we should legislate against animal cruelty, even for animals whose only destiny is to make chicken nuggets or pork chops.  I wouldn't even mind starting a thread about it.

TV's Frink said:

A lot to respond to and I'm burning time better spent on other things, so I'll just say that it's a fair point that there is a demand for newborns to adopt.  But we're not talking about a baby that is either killed or adopted.  We're talking about an early-stage fetus.  I'm not into forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy an additional six or seven months to term.

The idea that contraception is a sin is one of the most mind-boggling things I've ever heard from religion.

And "irresponsible and a moron" is why I should know damn well better than to get involved in stupid crap like this.  Well done.

 Now wait, I deal with plenty of offensive crap (not usually from you), and I usually continue the conversation.  I admit I shouldn't have used such words, as it doesn't help my argument.

And I completely agree regarding conception.  My church does not oppose it, but I know others do.  I respect their right to practice their religion as they see fit.  But more most people, I'd rather see them purchasing a box of Trojans than going into an abortion clinic.

But back to my statement about "irresponsible" and "moron", I should have pointed out that it is truly a desire to escape the responsibilities of one's actions in having an abortion.  I find it to be willful ignorance or denial that leads people to believe that sex is primarily about feeding those cravings we all feel.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done.  Sex is primarily for baby creation, and the pleasures involved ensure survival of the species.

 Sex is for whatever you want as long as you have a willing partner who has the ability to consent without coercion.  If a couple has a condom fail and they don't wait thirty weeks, I see no problem with abortion.

 Well, that's convenient.  No, from a pure, 100% evolutionary, non-Creationist viewpoint, sex is primarily for one purpose: ensuring the continuation of all species that reproduce sexually.  All other purposes, while important, are secondary.  I love to make love to my wife as an expression of my affection for her.  But to think I can somehow do that without the consequences of potential pregnancy, then I am deluding myself.  And to believe that I can simply kill a small, underdeveloped human being because it is not yet a person, all because I want to enjoy the fun of sex without the consequences, then I am irresponsible and a moron.

Many people find alcohol fun.  But you know what?  There are consequences, ranging from making foot-in-the-mouth comments to falling and injuring onceself to getting into a car accident or going into a coma and dying.  What about skydiving.  It's a real thrill for many.  It's also risky.  It's a risk people take for a little fun.  But every choice, even fun ones, have consequences.  It's best if we can not take others' lives to avoid those consequences.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 that would be logical.  At the very least, use some form of protection during sex.   If you do end up with an unwanted pregnacy, what about putting the child up for adoption? 

 I guss you missed the part where most religions are anti-contraception.  And all kids up for adoption find homes, right?

 Honestly, there are so many homes available.  Beuracratic nonsense and cost-prohibitiveness slow down the process.  But in a sense it's a matter of supply and demand.  If you have more children in the supply pool, it would alter the adoption process to be much easier.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

 

 Did you miss Ender's stats?

 So what's the alternative?  Because the typical response is "don't have sex if you don't want a baby."

 It can be done.  Sex is primarily for baby creation, and the pleasures involved ensure survival of the species.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

As someone who generally appreciates theism, your theology still makes me sad.

I think it's makes perfect sense.

If you take the Bible even remotely to be the story of God's interaction with humanity then everthing we attribute to 'the Devil' is done by the Old Testament God.

He wipes out whole civilisations, visits plagues and death on even his most devoted followers, urges people to rape and murder and even to murder their own children.

Jesus is in total opposition to all that and as the word for adversary is Satan one could make a perfectly good reading of the Biblical text where God is the Devil and Jesus is his rebellious son.

In fact it makes more sense that way.

The Eden Serpent whispers the Word "rebellion" into the ear of Eve and urges man to embrace free will.

Jesus urges man to not fear death on the promise of a new eternal incorruptible Kingdom with himself as ruler.

Embrace Gnosticism kids. You know it makes sense...sort of

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/fact-check-does-the-bible-really-support-rape-and-polygamy-theblaze-explores-atheists-critiques/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Religion/post/704502/#TopicPost704502

Someone needs to spend more time reading the Bible and less reading critiques from others clearly out simply to tear it down.

 That's more of a call to read your links. The Bible God clearly requests rape, murder and infanticide (though an angel saves the day in one case).

 I didn't have time to do much this morning, as I had to head out the door to work (where I am now).  But I can say that there is more to the Bible than "clearly" a request to rape, murder, and kill one's adult child.  Those links might help, but so can a frame of mind not bent on convincing others the Old Testament is pure evil.  The last link is worth a read.  The author is brilliant.  ;)

In all seriousness, if you consider the surrounding cultures of the times, the Israelites lived in a very liberal, progressive culture.  Many of the things we find so reprehensible today were miles ahead of their neighbors' standards.

Reread the passages you hate in light of that context (and note where it does not say rape, though women are taken to be married and obviously subsequently have sexual relations with their husbands).   You will see that God did not condone rape.  The culture of the time did hold women in lower regard with certainly far less freedom of choice than the men, but if God can command his prophets to write scriptures that condemn the perpetrator of rape to death, surely he did not advocate for such behavior later.

Perhaps we should take this aspect of the conversation to the religion thread.

Bingowings said:

It sounds more like you are over romanticising the wiggles, farts and screams of the babies you know.

They feel pain yes, they feel cold or hungry but they have no concept of where to go with these impulses other than instinctively make a loud noise.

Over time they begin to develop into people so by the time they are eating solids and labeling things with sounds they are along same lines as a kitten but not quite as smart and aware as a chicken.

Those who eat chicken are worse than abortionists, they are eating a toddler's worth of awareness.

This is was all started by you saying a very silly thing.

That a fetus is a person.

You can insist this until you are blue in the face but it just plain isn't.

That doesn't instantly make it right to churn them up chuck them away in the same way that infanticide is not a generally done thing but dumbing down and emotively stewing the issue by saying something as clearly incorrect as a fetus being a person is doing the debate a disservice.

Solent Green however..l.

 And how many children do you and your significant other have?

Now I don't mean that to sound rude, but clearly you have not produced offspring, and I find it hard to believe you know better than I do.

Now let me use your insanely tough logic.  You can insist that a fetus is not a person till you are blue in the face, but it just plain is.

A newborn demonstrates more intelligence than a chicken or mouse in all its years, and it merely lacks experience and motor skills.  Intelligence is not a matter of knowledge gained, but capacity to gain.

I can see the argument that an embryo with no developed nervous system is not a person, but I still disagree because I do not define a person the way you do.  And the way and most pro-abortion individuals defines it is ultimately just an excuse to avoid the natural consequences of sex in the vast majority of cases.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Well He is kind of cool irregardless, I was talking to God the other day and like he turned around and said without a hint of irony. "I was going to smack you in the mouth but that foreskin on your foot so becoming" Crazy times he then smote me with a Urinary Tract Infection.

BTW a clump of cells can be a viable fetus, all viable fetuses were at some point a clump of two cells. But a fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a person.

 A brilliant justification for infanticide.  Nice.

Why stop there you might as well eat them as well. Newborn calves and lambs aren't people either. Say would you like a jellied baby?

 Not sure how this strengthens any of your arguments.  Have I not drawn the parallels with you in the past?  You complain about Warbler's execution of non-person vermin, yet justify the killing of non-person people.  Hmmm....

You call them vermin I call them rodent persons, they have desires, they have arguably a personality (no two mice are the same), they fear pain and death.

Little mice people.

A fetus is more like a prawn. I don't kill them either but I don't expect much in the way of interaction. If I had to kill a prawn to save a mouse I would have to give it a good think but I probably would.

 Ah, but a newborn child has no desires, no personality, and has no instinctive fear of pain and death.  Sounds like someone who has not spent a lot of time with babies.  It helps if you have twins.  Then you can see the divergences in personalities from day 1, even amongst identical twins.

Babies aren't people? Pfff...

Probably your weakest argument I've ever read.

Intermission. Back in five minutes.

Bingowings said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

As someone who generally appreciates theism, your theology still makes me sad.

I think it's makes perfect sense.

If you take the Bible even remotely to be the story of God's interaction with humanity then everthing we attribute to 'the Devil' is done by the Old Testament God.

He wipes out whole civilisations, visits plagues and death on even his most devoted followers, urges people to rape and murder and even to murder their own children.

Jesus is in total opposition to all that and as the word for adversary is Satan one could make a perfectly good reading of the Biblical text where God is the Devil and Jesus is his rebellious son.

In fact it makes more sense that way.

The Eden Serpent whispers the Word "rebellion" into the ear of Eve and urges man to embrace free will.

Jesus urges man to not fear death on the promise of a new eternal incorruptible Kingdom with himself as ruler.

Embrace Gnosticism kids. You know it makes sense...sort of

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/fact-check-does-the-bible-really-support-rape-and-polygamy-theblaze-explores-atheists-critiques/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Religion/post/704502/#TopicPost704502

Someone needs to spend more time reading the Bible and less reading critiques from others clearly out simply to tear it down.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Well He is kind of cool irregardless, I was talking to God the other day and like he turned around and said without a hint of irony. "I was going to smack you in the mouth but that foreskin on your foot so becoming" Crazy times he then smote me with a Urinary Tract Infection.

BTW a clump of cells can be a viable fetus, all viable fetuses were at some point a clump of two cells. But a fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a person.

 A brilliant justification for infanticide.  Nice.

Why stop there you might as well eat them as well. Newborn calves and lambs aren't people either. Say would you like a jellied baby?

 Not sure how this strengthens any of your arguments.  Have I not drawn the parallels with you in the past?  You complain about Warbler's execution of non-person vermin, yet justify the killing of non-person people.  Hmmm....

This is a fantastic idea.  I found the novels far superior to the films.  If you guys successfully pulled this off, I would be first in line to take a listen!

As an alternative idea, since no one here has the resources to completely remake the prequels in film format, it might be interesting to remake them in audio drama format.  I think it could be really cool to create the prequels in a manner closer to how GL originally described them, and preferably with a likable Anakin, Kenobi as a real General, the clones as bad guys, no droid armies, etc.  I know folks have attempted some ideas in the scriptwriting section.  This might be a good venue to make better stories become a reality without the budgetary and legal problems of remaking the films.

Sandhate related to Anakin Skywalker