Feminism in the Wake of ‘Ladies’ Night’ is… Complicated

Categories: ,

While perusing the Internet, I came across an article about how to be a more attractive woman. First on the list was to learn how to tell a funny story. “Wit is the key. Be interesting.” When have you ever heard anyone advise a woman to learn to tell a decent anecdote? Never. Encourage women to be interesting as opposed to hot? It was radical! Totally progressive and forward-thinking. Then I realized I misread the premise: it was how to be more attractive to women. The suggestion is well-worn and typical – for dudes.

Cartoon by Taylor Jones - Cagle Cartoons (click to purchase)
Cartoon by Taylor Jones – Cagle Cartoons (click to purchase)

Here’s the thing: if we still have a need for the word “feminist” then the goal of gender equality has not been reached. No one has to say they’re an abolitionist. It’s just assumed you’re against slavery unless otherwise indicated.

We clearly still need the word – and the concept of – feminism.

The 2010 primary season has marked an unprecedented number of female candidates for national and state offices”¦according to the hype. Republicans winning Republican primaries across the country is a victory for Republicans everywhere! There are more female GOP candidates this season than ever before. Well, there are four: former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, South Carolina State Representative Nikki Haley and former Nevada Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.

To some this could seem like a feminist victory. It’s a female Republican victory, sure. But being a feminist and being against reproductive freedoms means you are not a feminist. You can say you’re a Mets fan, but if you only want the Yankees to win ““ you’re not a Mets fan.

The irony is this swarm of candidates, almost all entirely anti-abortion rights (save Whitman) has the feminism movement to thank for their ability to be candidates. Which is like using Twitter to get your message out about the evils of micro-blogging.

This new trend in the Republican Party – putting up women who want to turn the clock back to criminalize abortion – is complicated for feminists. And feminism in its third wave (or so) is already complicated. Yes, it’s great to think of women in power, but not when they’re against women’s rights as their platform.

The anti-choice movement tells women they deserve better than abortion, that they are the ones who have the best interests of women in mind. But treating women like children who need to be told what’s best for them is hardly equality. It’s a step back. And saying not having an abortion is the right choice ““ is a choice.

A stealthy anti-abortion movement has been chipping away at access to information and services since before Roe v. Wade. Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the first opening in Hawaii in 1967, are fake women’s clinics offering no medical services, only religious-based misinformation and scare tactics to discourage abortion and in many cases premarital sex. They outnumber abortion providers 2-1 in this country.

The Dutch organization Women on Waves provides health services in countries where abortion is a crime. A doctor with the group told me an alarming amount of their calls are from women in the U.S. in desperate situations. Some are from U.S. soldiers who don’t have access to abortion while serving their country, even if they’re raped. This should be embarrassing to us. This should be a concern to thoughtful female candidates and patriots alike.

Currently, an amendment added to the 852-page Pentagon policy bill repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” calls for soldiers to get the same basic health care access as civilians. Civilians with money, at least. This has been called “government funding of abortions” by opponents and “supporting the troops” by everyone else.

Because nothing says “sanctity of life” like serving in a war zone.

The Republican rhetoric about freedom, the sacredness of the Constitution and government not encroaching on your rights all come to a screeching halt at reproductive issues. Republicans are for those platitudes”¦but with asterisks. To glaze over this contradiction, female anti-abortion GOP candidates have flippantly called themselves feminists. Which is like proclaiming yourself vegetarian while eating a ham sandwich. They’re not feminists. They’re just female. “Being a feminist isn’t a question of plumbing,” author Gloria Feldt said to me.

Yes, this third wave is complicated. But at least it’s interesting.


Comments

143 responses to “Feminism in the Wake of ‘Ladies’ Night’ is… Complicated”

  1. Mr. Lee Avatar
    Mr. Lee

    Calling the killing of babies "reproductive freedom" is a misnomer. Being against the sad slaughter of thousands of innocent babies has very little to do with feminism. It's like saying allowing people on ships means you are for shipping of slaves.

    I dont know what I expect reading your tripe, lady.

  2. geoff Avatar

    Mr. Lee: who is killing babies? Abortion kills fetuses.

    And if you were really serious about stopping "the sad slaughter of thousands of innocent babies," a good place to start would be to try to reduce America's scandalously high (for a western industrial nation) infant mortality rate.

  3. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "And if you were really serious about stopping “the sad slaughter of thousands of innocent babies,” a good place to start would be to try to reduce America’s scandalously high (for a western industrial nation) infant mortality rate."

    – Or at the very least, be strongly for comprehensive sex education, making birth control more easily available, making it illegal for pharmacists to withhold medication based on their personal moral predilictions, etc.

  4. Mr. Lee Avatar
    Mr. Lee

    @Geoff

    Then why is it if a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with two murders? that's what I thought.

    @ Both. You both miss my point entirely of comparing Pro-Life to being Anti-Feminist. It is BS in its purest form. The two have nothing to do with each other. Nothing.

  5. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    What a fantastic and impeccably written article! Dupuy has excellent journalistic instincts which are few and far between here at cagle.

    Like it or not, abortion is the law of the land and our men and women serving overseas should have access to the same medical choices we have. Of course conservative social values tend to get slaughtered when people are given an actual choice and thus the need to remove the people's ability to make choices.

  6. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    "if we still have a need for the word 'feminist' then the goal of gender equality has not been reached"

    Well, there's your problem. There ISN'T a need for it. Anyone I have personally dealt with who claims to be a feminist is, in reality, anti-male.

    And abortion rights are a male priority, not a feminist's. The lowest level pf women that were pro-life in America was 72%, and that was in the early 90's. MEN keep abortion legal, not women.

  7. CaptEagleheart Avatar
    CaptEagleheart

    Amilam:

    I agree with your interpretation. This article is a valiant attempt in trying to understand the moral “eco-system”(hypocrisy) of our political universe. For example, we can clone Justice Scalia eight times; still the Supreme Court will vote 5 to 4 to uphold Roe vs. Wade. The reality is that the majority of abortions are performed on poor, minorities and uneducated woman. For we all know that money won/t necessarily make you happy, but it’ll make you a Republican. Thus the irony of our political system, conservatives scream about respecting the rights of a fetus born into poverty, but sure don’t want him/her to reach voting age.

  8. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    "But treating women like children who need to be told what’s best for them is hardly equality."

    Although I bet she favors ObamaCare. Just a guess.

  9. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Honestly, don't wingnuts realize how easy it is to fact check blatant lies on the internet?

    "And abortion rights are a male priority, not a feminist’s. The lowest level pf women that were pro-life in America was 72%, and that was in the early 90’s. MEN keep abortion legal, not women"

    How convenient that we have such a specific number without any reference. What you're saying is pure, consolidated b.s. and you don't even have the integrity to publish your source.

    61% of women favor the right to have an abortion in all or most cases and this number has remained steady over the last few years:
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews

  10. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    I have said this before, I will say it again.

    As long as feminists insist that the right to abortion is one of the, if not THE, central tenant of feminism, they remain a shrill voice that will never be united.

    I don't know and don't pretend to know the number of women who are PRO-LIFE (love her anti-choice euphemism) vs pro-abortion (do you like mine?) but I do not there are a lot of women who favor equal jobs, equal pay, equal everything, and are against abortion.

    Tina, darling, if we were to roll back in time and your mother was considering aborting you, would you feel the same? Would you be willing to never exist for the sake of your principles?

  11. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "PRO-LIFE (love her anti-choice euphemism) vs pro-abortion (do you like mine?)"

    – At least hers was accurate. Yours shows the typical bent of conservatives to misrepresent the facts.

    I've read very few pro-birth screeds whose authors don't also favor the removal of whatever social support funds that might give the women and the children, whose lives they want to exercise control over at this juncture, an actual chance of having a real chance at life.

    Likewise, I haven't read any pro-choice supporters who think abortions are great and everyone should rush out and get one.

    I also know a lot of women who favor equal jobs, equal pay, equal everything, and are against abortion. It so happens that they are also against allowing the moral prepossession of others to dictate what they may or may not do with their own bodies and lives. They seem to feel that they are the best judges of how they should live their lives and don't want uninvolved third parties dictating to them what they may or may not do. A very conservative outlook.

  12. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Ami-lame: "Honestly, don’t wingnuts realize how easy it is to fact check blatant lies on the internet?

    “And abortion rights are a male priority, not a feminist’s. The lowest level pf women that were pro-life in America was 72%, and that was in the early 90’s. MEN keep abortion legal, not women”

    How convenient that we have such a specific number without any reference. What you’re saying is pure, consolidated b.s. and you don’t even have the integrity to publish your source.

    61% of women favor the right to have an abortion in all or most cases and this number has remained steady over the last few years:
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections…..10122.html&quo…

    As usual, nice spin on the data. For anyone checking out the link Amilame provided, you will also read this:

    "But views differ with the circumstance, and a MAJORITY opposes legal abortion if it's performed solely to end an unwanted pregnancy." Gee . . . isn't that why most are abortions are performed – to end an unwanted pregnancy?

    You will also read this:

    "Indeed, views on abortion run a spectrum. At one end, eight in 10 or more say abortion should be legal to preserve the mother's life or health or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. At the other end, 55 percent say abortion should be illegal "when the woman is not married and does not want the baby."

    And as for women specifically, you will also read this:

    "And while 58 percent of men say abortion should be illegal to end an unwanted pregnancy, so do 52 percent of women."

    52 percent of women think it should be ILLEGAL to end an unwanted pregnancy.

    Hmmm.

    I decided to look for a second poll . . . and chose Gallop. These figures come from a 2009 poll:

    "More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time. Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”

    "51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice."

    "A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life."

    Woman are now PRO-LIFE by a margin of 49% – 44%.

    "Bottom Line

    With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans — and, in particular, Republicans — seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

    It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-

    Fortunately, the 'public's understanding' of many things liberal are starting to come into focus.

  13. geoff Avatar

    Mr. Lee: "Then why is it if a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with two murders? that’s what I thought."

    What did you think?

    "You both miss my point entirely of comparing Pro-Life to being Anti-Feminist." That was a point?

    As a man, I don't see how you can make such a statement. Obviously, you're not "equal" in the sense that you don't do your 4 1/2 months of pregnancy. Abortion is about giving women choices and control over their lives, equal to that which men already enjoy. That should mean, as Stug pointed out but you apparently failed to note, giving decent sex education (not just "abstinence only" fairy tales), access to contraception, decent day care services, etc.

    You're not going to stop abortion by outlawing it any more than you're going to outlaw the hiring of illegal aliens just by passing laws. So the least you anyone can do is make sure women have safe places to have abortions and don't risk dying if that is what they either choose or are driven to.

    Otherwise, consider cases where abortion has been most strongly fought over time: Catholic Ireland, Fascist Spain, Nazi Germany: all countries where men ruled and women (at least in the latter two cases) were just supposed to breed cannon fodder.

    Neil: seems like in your case a lot of women probably would be "anti-male" with an attitude like that.

  14. Mr. Lee Avatar
    Mr. Lee

    @geoff

    "Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

    I am done getting beat by an idiot. You didnt even give and intelligible response to me. You are a troll as well.

  15. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    You know, Mr, Lee, if you're going to call someone an idiot you may want to actually write an "intelligible" post yourself. Where is our pseudo grammar Nazi Cal when he's actually needed?

  16. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    There is quite a bit of nonsense above.

    First, there are a lot of folks out there who are against abortion, who vigorously support women in all other days. There are crisis pregnancy counselling centers that work with women hard to give them all the support they need to carry the child and either raise it or give it for adoption. The argument that folks who oppose abortion want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is a strawman arguement–that is, you have assigned your opponents a certain position and then proceed to oppose it. The trouble is, it is not their position.

    Now, let's talk about the pro-choce euphemism. Who is not for choice? We are all for choice–the trouble is, choice for what? Do I have the right to wave my hand about? Well sure, unless your nose happens to be in the vicinity, then we call it assault. Pro-choice people want to make it sound like those awful evil conservatives want to take away a woman's freedom when the fact is they simply want to extend legal protection to all humans, including those not born yet. If you truely believe choice should always be honored, where do we draw the line? If someone choses to rape, are we for that? If someone choses to buy cigarettes with their milk money instead of food for the children, are we for that? Those are choices. So lets talk about what we are actually chosing, and stop hiding behind words.

  17. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    I'm sorry, I didn't even notice Arty's little hissy fit, I'm so used to skimming over his substance-less posts, but since he's branding my name about (though he seems to lack the opposable thumbs to spell it correctly) I guess I have to respond.

    Gee, how silly of me spinning the poll… by quoting word for word it's headline. Honestly AW, stick to puns and sanctimoniously hugging your children.

    How funny that AW wasn't able to find a poll from this year though. I mean it was one of the top results on google and from a reputable polling source. Still, it's the responsibility of those with knowledge to help those (terminally) without: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

    Pro-choice Pro-life Neither/Mixed (vol.) Don't know what terms mean (vol.) Unsure

    5/3-6/10

    45 47 2 4 3

    7/17-19/09

    46 47 3 2 2

    5/7-10/09

    42 51 2 4 1

    5/8-11/08

    50 44 1 2 2

    5/10-13/07

    49 45 3 2 2

    5/8-11/06

    51 41 4 2 3

    5/2-5/05

    48 44 3 3 2

    5/2-4/04

    49 44 2 3 2

    10/24-26/03

    48 45 3 3 1

    5/5-7/03

    48 45 2 4 1

    5/6-9/02

    47 46 3 3 1

    8/10-12/01

    46 46 3 3 2

    5/10-14/01

    48 42 4 4 2

    3/26-28/01

    47 41 4 6 2

    Available no matter what the reason Only legal in certain circumstances Illegal in all circumstances Unsure/

    Refused

    5/12-18/10

    37 44 15 5

    11/24 – 12/7/08

    37 43 15 5

    11/26 – 12/9/07

    34 45 17 4

    Just for kicks let through in a diagram of shifting support for Roe v. Wade so Arty can use a picture instead of reading all dem big wordies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roevwade.png. Roe V. Wade did not stipulate on the conditions for an abortion beyond developmental time of the fetus. Hmmmm

    Keep in mind these polls did not factor in sex. We can safely expect women to have a +2-3% point higher towards pro-choice. What the poll shows is there is a lot of fluctuation on whether or not people view themselves as pro choice / pro life. The fact that the numbers from 2010 have moved more towards pro choice than 2009 runs contrary to Arty's little fictional narrative so it had to be completely axed. Alas. Regardless, for all of Arty's inability to make an honest point I'm glad that he at least tactically admits that his compatriot Neil was flat out lying. Of course he doesn't have the integrity to say as much, but the fact that he's isn't trying to justify the ludicrous claim that "The lowest level pf women that were pro-life in America was 72%, and that was in the early 90’s. " speaks for itself. Sorry Neil, not even other wingnuts are willing to follow you down that rabbit hole.

    Murray:

    Are we really going to quibble about the wording of the debate when Conservatives claim to be pro "life"? How does the old saying go? Something about cake and eating it. Help me out.

  18. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Well, Murray: until a woman has an equal right to choose to walk away from a pregnancy that men have, it just seems like the only way to even things out towards the equality supposedly protected by your constitution. As for drawing the line: are sperm also sacred (i.e. "human")? Talk about using a straw-man argument… Unless you're a philosopher, I don't think you want to follow this argument any further: how about we define a baby as being capable of life outside the womb whereas a fetus is wholly dependent upon its mother.

    I was actually using exaggeration (the inverse of reductio ad absurdum): looking at the worst case scenario. And yes, there are choices like adoption, and I don't think anyone ever denied that, but at the same time, it seems strange to be against facing personal responsibilities in the form of making informed decisions about possibly not bringing a child into the world, and leaving said child for someone else to raise.

    Mr. Lee: since it's not clear what you're trying to say, or what you are actually arguing, it's somewhat difficult to post "and intelligible response."

  19. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "The argument that folks who oppose abortion want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is a strawman arguement"

    – I agree, it would be if that were the argument, but it wasn't. The argument is that many of those who oppose abortion often also oppose adequately funding the crisis pregnancy centers you mentioned, as well as any social support for the mother and child or adequate sex education, including contraceptive methods, in the first place. Nobody assigned them this position of hypocrisy, they chose it for themselves.

    "Now, let’s talk about the pro-choce euphemism."

    – Are you going to include a discussion of the pro-life euphemism as opposed to pro-birth? The fact that many of those who are "pro-life" are also for dismantling the WIC program; removing all forms of social financial assistance; refusing medical treatment to the child if the mother can't afford it – except the emergency room of course, where it is even more expensive.

    "Pro-choice people want to make it sound like those awful evil conservatives want to take away a woman’s freedom when the fact is they simply want to extend legal protection to all humans, including those not born yet."

    – No, pro-choice people just recognize that somebody has to deal with the reality of what happens after the child is born as well as the birth itself. This seems to be something that many conservatives, neither awful nor evil – but thanks for trying to paint us as simplistic, simply don't concern themselves with.

  20. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    “51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.”

    – Interesting statistics Art. And yet, we live in a country where the rights of the minority are supposedly protected from abuse by majority rule. This is one of the main tenents that makes America a great country.

  21. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Stug: Those rights are equal for all people. I think you are implying that the minority in this debate should get their way in terms of setting policy – thats not how the constitution works.

  22. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    "pro-choice people just recognize that somebody has to deal with the reality of what happens after the child is born as well as the birth itself."

    So if the child is going to have to grow up in a difficult environment its better just to kill them so they don't have to go through it? I always love to ask pro-abortion people exactly at what point does the child earn the right not to be killed? Being in the womb or out of the womb is only a matter of location. A child that is born prematurely at 7 months is suddenly given the right to live by the pro-abortion crowd. But an 8 month old still in the womb… it's okay to go ahead and kill it if the mother chooses to.

    What a sick twisted and selfish mentality…

  23. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    It's interesting to see which side is using calm discussion and which one is relying on wild emotionality. "life", "murder", "kill", "selfish", "sick", "twisted", etc. I imagine if some our pro life friends were to honestly express themselves, they express a great deal of empathy with the terrorists who go around shooting up abortion clinics and murdering doctors if not direct support. Yet, we still have Murray quibbling about the use of the word "choice".

  24. geoff Avatar

    Mike: "What a sick twisted and selfish mentality…" That's what I think, as well. High infant mortality rates in the US, lack of affordable daycare, low wages, lack of public transport. When I was in the US I kept reading about black mothers leaving their kids in front of the TV all day because it was safer than letting them out on the streets; because supermarkets were so far away from black neighbourhoods, their diets consisted mainly of what was available from the shops at the local gas stations. So: fat kids getting diabetes, their brains deprived of the mental stimulation that might enable them to escape the cycle of poverty.

    So basically what you're saying is that you'll fight for a baby's right to be born, but will basically abandon it to free market forces when it's here. And maybe execute or imprison it if it lives 20-25 years.

    I have also been watching this whole issue of Catholic priests raping kids, given my wife's family's relation to Irish orphanages (which were notorious for child abuse).

  25. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    This is an obviously hysterical response (note author's comment on crisis pregnancy centers) to the fact that Americans increasingly more and more pro-life.

    I hope pro-life women clear the court in November, and it looks like they will, as all the pro-choicers offer is death.

  26. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Ms. Dupuy would have us believe that historically, all feminists have turned their backs on the unborn and killed their children in-utero.

    Not so.

    Some of the staunchest pro-lifers were some of the earliest feminists.

    Susan B. Anthony has some interesting comments about abortion:

    "Susan B. Anthony

    In her publication The Revolution, was written:

    "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

    Abortion was referred to as "child murder."

    The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

    http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth….

  27. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Since no one had the guts to answer my question I will ask it again:

    At what point does the child earn the right not to be killed?

    Is it after a certain number of months? It is being in or out of the womb?

    Please. One of you compasionate, caring, calm, non-emotional pro-choicers, answer me.

  28. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike–How about all eggs have a right to be fertilized and sperm should only be ejected for the purpose of impregnation.

    If life is sacred and life can only come from life then eggs and sperm that go to waste is without a doubt killing potential babies.

    Now if one puts emotion aside. The fact is we tried making abortion illegal. It didn't work. The rich went to Europe and the poor went to back alley butcher shops or attempted to self induce. Abortion has been recorded back to the oldest records of the Pharaohs.

    So what does work. Hope and Love. If a woman has hope that the child will have the basics of life the odds of an abortion go down. Unfortunately, those who care, those who love, a fetus don't give a ____ ___ about children five minutes after they are born. Just ask them to give hope to the mother after the child is born. They will vote against any Hope and any Love that may cost them a dime. (Your heart is where your treasure is.)

    God gives three great gifts, Faith, Hope, and Love. Amazing that those who claim to have the greatest of the first are totally stingy with the other two. I wonder how God judges these people of great "faith"?

  29. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Mike: I did tell someone else that they should probably avoid such questions unless they're philosophers, and even then I don't think you'd find much agreement. You can find conflicting legal arguments, scientific, medical, ethical, and many variant religious arguments (from many different faiths). So don't bother: you're essentially asking what came first: the chicken or the egg. Either you ban masturbation or you take some point around where a fetus could live independently from its mother if it were to be removed from the womb.

  30. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Good Life – Thank you for the response.

    While I appreciate your vast knowledge of the subject. Including the records of the Pharaohs. I can't help but point out that you did not answer my question. Maybe I can word it a little differently…

    At what point does a woman no longer have the right to decide to kill her baby?

  31. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike—every time she menstruates she kills a potential life. Every time you ejaculate without the purpose to fertilize an egg you kill a potential life. Do you have the right to kill that baby?

  32. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike—More directly, this is a major problem with making a "one size fits all" law. Every case is unique and "the point" is different in every case. Before anyone including you can answer such a question one needs to know all of the facts of the case. Nearly all of the late term abortions of the Wichita doctor that was killed about a year ago were referrals from throughout the US. Nearly all were due to circumstances that came up shortly before the abortion. They weren't "I changed my mind". The facts were carefully considered by the primary physician, the gynecologist and the woman. And just as with any dangerous medical procedure a specialist was called because he had the knowledge and experience do do a very specialized procedure.

    These were exceptions to the overall abortion statistics which place nearly all in the first two months. During those first two months the decision is based on that lack of hope which those with "faith" don't want to give. I know of several abortions and don't know of one that was an easy choice of "birth control". Every time they are very difficult decisions based on what the woman could see of the future. Perhaps if the "hope" in the future would have been brighter there would have been fewer of those abortions. Perhaps those who are so concerned with the unborn should "walk in the shoes" of those they oppose and understand why that future looked so bleak and do the things that would make that future look brighter. Alas, "pro-life" really means "pro-fetus" and "anti-child".

    Your question should be: "At what point do you decide that you no longer give a —– about the future of a child?"

  33. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Mike: "But an 8 month old still in the womb… it’s okay to go ahead and kill it if the mother chooses to."

    – No, it isn't ok, though at the moment it is unfortunately legal in many cases. The vast majority of abortions happen well before 8 months though, and the majority of those occur before the fetus has even a 50% chance of viability if removed from the womb. Your example, while meant to grab emotionally, isn't representative of 98% of the abortions that take place. I, and many other pro-choice people, would like to see late-term abortions made illegal in all but medical necessity cases. Unfortunately, the pro-birth extremists, like yourself, aren't interested in workable compromise legislation if that means you aren't able to impose your will on others absolutely.

    I do agree with you on one point though. The insistence by some that a woman be forced to bear a child to full term, that she may not want and likely can't afford to raise, so that they can assuage their feelings of moral superiority, and the inevitable abandonment of the mother and child by those who did the insisting, is indeed a manifestation of "a sick twisted and selfish mentality…"

  34. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    You're a brave man Good Life, trying to use reason to debate emotion. I mean using loaded questions like "At what point does a woman no longer have the right to decide to kill her baby?" demonstrates that Mike clearly has no interest in a rational discussion.

    Let's pretend that Mike actually asked a rational and fair question. A fair question would be at what point do a collection of cells become a life. For all of the talk that life begins at conception, I don't think people are going to be printing pictures of zygotes for their "baby's" first pictures. We've had such debates before, and I personally believe that when all of the fetus's biological systems begin functioning (this varies, but is commonly expected at week 15) that it qualifies as a life.

  35. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Amilam "Let’s pretend that Mike actually asked a rational and fair question. A fair question would be at what point do a collection of cells become a life. For all of the talk that life begins at conception,"

    Amilam, now do you want to answer questions framed by you only?

    What is the point in answering a framed question?

    But I appreciate that though indirectly, you did answer the question Mike asked.

    Good job.

  36. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Good Life says, "Mike—every time she menstruates she kills a potential life. Every time you ejaculate without the purpose to fertilize an egg you kill a potential life. Do you have the right to kill that baby?"

    Good Life, please come out of the Dark Ages and use modern science in your reasoning.

    Does a woman's egg have a genetically complete and DIFFERENT DNA code from the mother's DNA?

    Does a man's sperm also have a genetically complete and different DNA code than from the ejaculator?

    Unless there is new DNA, you are arguing from nonsene.

  37. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Congratulations, Mike, you have stumped the pro-abortion crew.

    It's kind of like asking the pre-Civil War crowd at what percentage does a "human animal" with Negro blood become a person?

    Were'nt African Americans in this country at one time considered only 3/5's of a person?

    It's the same mentality. They can't answer your question, only ridiculue you, because it would show the depths of their inhumanity to man….. historically repeated in our country once again.

  38. geoff Avatar

    liseux: So you are making a distinction between "genetically complete and different DNA code" and human life. OK: we have some defining criteria. A fertilised egg, therefore, shouldn't be aborted, but not every sperm is sacred. Gotcha.

    How soon, then, would that count for fertilised eggs intended for in vitro fertilisation but found to be unnecessary (i.e. one of the others in a batch looks viable)?

    I wouldn't say that we were ridiculing Mike, rather his basic premise. Look up "ontology" in an encyclopedia, then consider problems like defining the boundaries between orange and red on a colour spectrum. Some people like to argue on tradition, in which case there are various cultures which have thought it was perfectly legitimate to leave unwanted babies out in the wilderness to die of exposure up until a certain age. Even the Jews don't really consider boys to be alive until they get circumsised at the age of 8 days.

    As I said: which answer do you want? Any of the numerous national and/or state legal definitions, one derived from any of the world's religions, a scientific answer, a medical answer…

    And other geoff: you've been away a while. "What is the point in answering a framed question?" Actually, what is a "framed question"? something you hang on the wall or which has been set-up to look guilty for a crime for which it did not commit?

  39. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Actually, Mike was the one asking you the question, so I'll defer to you to answer your own similar question about life.

    Don't you guys have any answers around here, or do you beat around the bush all day????

  40. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    DIFFERENT DNA code —-Every single egg has a different genetic code than every other egg. Every single sperm has a different genetic code from every other sperm. Yes they are all genetically unique.

    Can they live on their own? No. Are they life? YES!

  41. geoff Avatar

    liseux: there's a famous question lawyers discuss quite often, where they expect you to answer with a "yes" or a "no": "did you stop beating your wife?"

    As I pointed out, there are many answers. Compare any two legal codes and you will find different definitions. Compare any two religions and you'll probably find the same: a baby isn't alive until the "spirit" of air flows through it, doesn't have full legal rights until the age of 18 or 21…

    "They can’t answer your question, only ridiculue you, because it would show the depths of their inhumanity to man….. historically repeated in our country once again." No, it's showing the limitations of language. You have several concepts, "baby," "fetus," "life," etc., and are trying to find boundaries where they don't necessarily exist. Fertilised/unfertilised makes a clear binary distinction, as does fetus/baby (one has been born and the other hasn't). But after that… where do you draw the line between orange and red? between hot and cold? between human and something that still has a tail and gills?

    You know the oldest question in philosophy? "What is truth?"

  42. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    it’s showing the limitations of language. —–A point that I never though of but should have. "Live" is an extremely abstract term and with the advances in medicine is becoming even more abstract. At one time if you were breathing you were alive if you weren't you were dead. Now we know people can quit breathing for several minutes. At one time if your heart was beating you were alive if it wasn't you were dead. Now we know that the heart can quit and be restarted. At one time we said that all life needed food that originated from the sun. Now we know that isn't true.

    When is someone or something alive and when is it mineral? Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Abstractions are not black and white. There is no line. We can say that some things are definitely not alive and some things are definitely alive, but there is that gray area where we can't be sure. I guess that is the problem. Sperm and eggs are alive, but are they alive enough? At what point is something alive enough?

  43. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Good Life- The genetic code is different all right- and incomplete.

    Please demonstrate with a documented source of any EGG that matured to an adult human without fertization from a sperm or genetic manipulation.

    The egg or sperm is not genetically complete to grow into anything by itself. They are incomplete life forms, unless you can demonstrate that a sperm becomes a child all by itself.

  44. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Geoff, I know who truth is… He's a great guy.

    Anyway, if you rephrase your question, I will answer it, in the spirit of getting along in a foreign place.

    I'd appreciate it to if you repaid the favor to Mike and me and answered our questions.

    Simple answers will do. No need to obfuscate to hide the fact that you ain't got an answer you like to make public.

  45. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Good life, I'm sorry, but you're reminding me of the alchemists of the dark ages that couldn't distinguish between life/death or mineral or flesh.

    If you had a Negro slave in front of you, would you act so obtuse as to not call him a person either???

    Different time, but the same inane dancing around to promote the culture of death.

  46. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Don’t you guys have any answers around here——-I gave an answer to the main question. Most abortions are from a lack of HOPE as the woman looks at the future. Give HOPE and LOVE and the abortion stats go down.

    Except, that's going to cost some $$$ and most pro-lifers worship $$$ too much to guarantee the basics of life to the child.

  47. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Crisis Pregnancy Centers, individuals who adopt, and many people of good will, both religious and non-religious give hope and $$$.

    Mother Teresa said "Don't abort the child. Bring it to me. I will take care of it." And her order as well as thousands of organizations around the U.S. are doing that.

  48. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    liseux —–Is your sperm or eggs (as the case may be) "human"?

    The debate of slavery was never if the slave was human. The debate was if it was justifiable to enslave a human. The compromise was never about if the slave was human but if the slave were a citizen and due the power of citizenship. The compromise came because the House of Representatives was going to be based on population. Both sides wanted as many representatives as possible. (ie. as much POWER as possible) So in order to keep the former colonies together they had to agree on the issue. The north (remember the people against slavery) wanted to say they would be counted at ZERO. The south (the dudes with the slaves) argued that they should be counted the same as any other human. So the slave holders were actually arguing that the slaves were 100% human. And the abolitionists were arguing they were 100% not human.

    So by your example, if a slave were standing before his owner, the owner would say 100% human but still a slave.

    The egg and sperm is 100% human, but not able to live on it's own.

  49. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    thousands of organizations around the U.S. are doing that.——-Which group is more likely to vote to pay taxes to ensure that the child will have food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education until it is 18?

  50. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    I guess you can see why I enjoy asking the question. The resulting contortions prove my point better than my own words ever could…

  51. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike—You enjoy asking the question because you don't think deep enough to understand what you are asking. You think in black and white and draw the line where YOU want it with out one thought as to why it should be drawn there.

    Can you justify why you draw the line where you do and not at all human life?

  52. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Good Life – Thanks for reminding me…

    Correction – The resulting contortions and INSULTS prove my point better than my own words ever could.

  53. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike—Prove me wrong. Answer the question in depth

    Can you justify why you draw the line where you do and not at all human life?

  54. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    imposter geoff: "When life begins" is fair debate that is used by both sides. Using questions with terms "murder" and "kill" are just shrill rants with a question tacked onto the end. A mother can never "kill" her baby via abortion because an undeveloped fetus is not a baby, is not alive, and thus cannot be killed. It's amusing to see the wingnuts here get a direct answer and then slap themselves on the back about not getting a direct answer.

    Liseux's point about slavery was so comically obtuse that it made me spill my coffee. Good job there buddy.

  55. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Amilam – So as long as the "fetus" is inside the mother it's okay to terminate it? What about a full term "fetus"? What about a delivered "fetus" that's still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord?

    I've asked the simple question several times and despite your claim otherwise no one has answered it – including you.

    At what point does the "fetus" become a baby and have the right to life?

    Please enlighten me with YOUR direct answer.

  56. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Actually Mike, I already answered your question some time agp, I even gave you the exact time when I personally see a fetus as being alive. I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread, but perhaps no one is answering your question because you're not reading them:

    "I personally believe that when all of the fetus’s biological systems begin functioning (this varies, but is commonly expected at week 15) that it qualifies as a life."

  57. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    At what point does the “fetus” become a baby and have the right to life? ——Can you justify why you draw the line where you do and not at all human life?

    Every time a woman menstruates she kills human life. With modern technology at least 40 of those eggs are potential unique children. Every time a man ejaculates, with modern AI (artificial insemination) every ejaculation could fertilize at least 10 eggs. Three ejaculations per day over 60 years means a man could fertilize at least 20,000 eggs. Every one of those a life that would be human and unique. By drawing the line at conception, you are arbitrarily saying it is valid to kill all of the human life that goes before that point.

    You want others to draw a line at an arbitrary point. Yet you yourself have drawn an arbitrary line. You recognize a "right" to life after conception but not before. How can you justify that line? How can you not see that eggs and sperm are also life? Why do you think your arbitrary line that says killing before this line, but no killing after this line is more valid than other arbitrary lines?

    I ask the same question you ask. Justify your arbitrary line of death. At what point does life have a right to live? That is your question and you refuse to answer it. Why doesn't the life in an egg or sperm that would produce more unique humans have a right to life?

  58. Leon Avatar
    Leon

    I think this discussion of "what point is a baby a person" is really missing the point.

    The point, as I see it, is what do you tell a woman who says "I just can't handle 9 months of pregnancy". Even after she becomes aware of all the groups the will offer financial, spiritual, and emotional assistance throughout her pregnancy, she still does not want to go through it. Do we tell her, "tough sh*t, you have to anyway".

    Even when you sincerely want to protect the unborn, I don't see how anyone can have the right to dictate to another person that they have to carry an unwanted baby in their body.

  59. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Leon- how about common human decency that we owe to one another? This is what your generation is getting- If your own kids are aborted, then you as an old man can be euthanized.

    Why? Because you will no longer be profitable, convenient, or worthwhile.742298

    Hey Mike, have you noticed all the pro-aborts here are already born??? (Thanks, Ron)

  60. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Amilam – Then is it okay to terminate a "fetus" after its biological systems start functioning at around 15 weeks?

    Leon – I think you would do the other Pro-Choice people a favor by removing your last comment. Your scenario is the classic example of selfish, self centered, and cold thinking that turns off even moderate Pro-Choice people…

  61. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike—Is it all right to terminate LIFE before conception and why is that killing justified if so?

  62. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Good Life – I will be happy to anwer your question once you answer mine. Asking another questions is not a direct answer to my question.

    Thank you.

  63. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Mike—I did answer yours. Life only produces more life. Therefore the point at which it is ok to terminate human life is NEVER. That includes eggs and sperm. Therefore, you are advocating murder by allowing killing BEFORE conception. My line preserves more life than yours. Justify YOUR killing.

  64. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    At what point does the “fetus” become a baby and have the right to life? It has the right to life as eggs and sperm.

  65. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Good Life – In answer to your question I believe that life begins at conception. That is the successful fertilization of the egg. I do not consider unfertilized eggs or sperm to be "life".

    On a side note – If your ejaculating three times a day as described in your scenario you may want to talk to someone about that…

  66. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, please demonstrate with a peer-reviewed scientific document that a sperm or an egg is a genetically complete human or that either will one day develop by themselves into a genetically complete human.

    Without doing so, you're just talking laughable nonsense.

  67. geoff Avatar

    Mike: I gave you an answer: when a fetus is capable of independent life on its own. Clear enough? That's my take on it.

    Should I repeat it again? Should I direct you instead to your local legal code, some religious tract, some scientific findings, or just suggest you go ask your local obstetrician?

    liseux: "GL, please demonstrate with a peer-reviewed scientific document that a sperm or an egg is a genetically complete human." Why? No one ever said they were, did they?

    If you go back to your own vapid argument, you asked "Does a woman’s egg have a genetically complete and DIFFERENT DNA code from the mother’s DNA? Does a man’s sperm also have a genetically complete and different DNA code than from the ejaculator? Unless there is new DNA, you are arguing from nonsene."

    Since in the case of both egg & sperm, the genetic codes are incomplete, obviously they must be different. The degree of difference might also reflect the standard incidence of mutation.

    And by the way: did you stop beating your wife yet?

  68. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    liseux—–Show me a peer reviewed article that says eggs and sperm are NOT ALIVE.

    We are talking here of life and death. You are picking a place to draw a line as to where you will KILL life. Others are drawing a line where they would KILL life. You happen to pick a point of a combination of two forms of life into one. I pick the two forms of life. Do you really want to argue that eggs and sperm are not life? To do so you would have to say that life comes from non-life. Each and every one of those two forms of life have enough genetics to be individually alive as long as they are supported by another life form. The line you have drawn is of a creature that is also only capable of continued life as long as it is supported by another life form. In fact sperm are capable of independent movement, a zygote isn't. So a sperm shows far more signs of life.

    Are they a complete human, no. But neither is a zygote. Both are parasitic lifeforms. With the zygote being the more parasitic. Once an egg or sperm is formed it demands very little of the host.

    Will they grow into a complete human. Yes if they are allowed to get to the next stage without being condemned to death by purposefully not allowing them to go onto the next stage of life. Just as butterflies come from worms (yes I know caterpillars) humans come from the life in eggs and sperm. Kill the caterpillar and it will not go through the other stages. The debate is where are you allowed to KILL LIFE.

    Why is your definition better than mine? Can there be "more alive" or is something either alive or not alive?

  69. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    geoff – I thought you were Pro-Choice? If a fetus/baby is capable of independent life at a certain stage of pregnancy and therefore it has the right to live, doesn’t that make aborting that fetus/baby wrong?

    Your answer and your position don’t match up. Please clarify.

  70. geoff Avatar

    Mike: let's face it: I'm never going to get pregnant, and I'm never going to have to make a decision about having an abortion or not. Judging by your name, you'll never have to face that decision, either. So it doesn't seem right for me to tell someone else how to decide about something that intimate. Is that clear?

    After that, we're just arguing at what is the latest possible/moral cut-off point for having an abortion. As I stated: sometime between conception and the point where a fetus can manage on its own. If you put it down in legal terms, you're going to get some arbitrary boundary like "4 months," in which case everyone is going to ask if you can make an exception for "4 months plus 1 day." Clear enough?

    What you don't seem to have noticed was some of the subtext of some of the criticism sent your way: why is it not OK to kill a fetus, but apparently OK not to give a living child a decent education, its mother access to affordable daycare, maternity leave, etc.? Isn't it wrong to fight for a kid's "right to life" but then to abandon them once they're born? Isn't it better to give kids decent sex ed and access to contraception to prevent abortions ever being necessary in the first place?

  71. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    geoff – Thank you for the clarification.

    I have noticed the criticism sent my way but because the assumption is wrong I haven’t bothered to reply. You seem to assume that because I consider myself Pro-Life I naturally oppose WIC and other child/family services, along with Sex Ed and access to contraception. I oppose neither.

    My only hope in asking the question “At what point does the child/fetus have the right to life” is to make others honestly consider it. By supporting abortion we are putting ourselves or others in the position of deciding at what point a human life has value. If an individual cannot make that declaration how can we expect law makers or courts to do so? If an individual has to struggle (or simply refuses) to answer that question doesn’t it raise the possibility that there might be a flaw in the concept of being Pro-Choice?

  72. geoff Avatar

    Mike: "If an individual cannot make that declaration how can we expect law makers or courts to do so?" Uhm… by getting philosophers, doctors, lawyers, health insurance industry officials, etc. (i.e. "experts") to make an informed decision? Aren't you also saying there must be a flaw in global warming or the reasons for invading Iraq or even how the law of gravity works if the average person can't explain it?

    Like I said: how do you decide where to draw the line between orange and red? Usually I'm either going to ask an artist, a paint salesperson, or a physicist, or I'm just not going to worry about it. You're asking for a specific point on something where there are no points, just a continuous spectrum from conception until birth, so you're asking a question based on a false premise.

  73. Leon Avatar
    Leon

    liseux: "how about common human decency that we owe to one another?"

    Who says that I owe you anything? This is the perfect example of small minded self-righteous thinking. I don't know you and I don't give a darn about you. I don't tell you how to live your life and you don't tell me how to live mine.

    liseux: "If your own kids are aborted, then you as an old man can be euthanized"

    That is just a stupid statement and actually you have it backwards. Euthanasia is the equivalent of someone telling you to keep a baby you don't want. They both invovle other people making the "Choice" for you.

    Mike: "Your scenario is the classic example of selfish, self centered, and cold thinking that turns off even moderate Pro-Choice people…"

    True, but isn't that the definition of individual freedom. Doing what I want to do without regard for you.

  74. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Leon – “isn’t that the definition of individual freedom. Doing what I want to do without regard for you.”

    Your individual freedom does not allow you to harm another life. You can do whatever you want to yourself, but when your actions harm another person it’s not longer INDIVIDUAL freedom.

    geoff – If it takes that many experts to come to a conclusion don’t you think it’s possible they might get it wrong? Expert opinions have changed and/or been proven wrong throughout history. Remember the ice age that was supposed to be coming back in the 70’s…

    I think you and I differ in the fact that I would much rather inconvenience someone, or interfere in “something that intimate” than end a human life. The inconvenience can be compensated or corrected. You cannot restore life once it’s been extinguished.

  75. geoff Avatar

    Mike: "or interfere in “something that intimate” than end a human life." You're mixing terms here again. Abortion is not "ending a human life," it is aborting a fetus. Until that fetus is capable of independent life, it is no more alive than is a sperm or an unfertilised egg: it is a parasite, wholly dependent upon its mother. As I asked already: is a fetus "human" while it still has gills and a tail? At what point does it become not just "human" but a human? usually at birth. In some cultures, at some time after.

  76. geoff Avatar

    Mike: "Your individual freedom does not allow you to harm another life. You can do whatever you want to yourself, but when your actions harm another person it’s not longer INDIVIDUAL freedom." Very liberal of you. A lot of conservatives seem to like to argue that corporations should have the right to make profits, regardless of how they damage the environment, endanger their workers, ruin the economy by outsourcing jobs overseas, etc., all of which would normally be considered "harmful" to normal people. Normally the definition is some variation on the idea that your rights stop at the point where they interfere with mine. You have the right to play your music as loud as you want, but I also have a right not to be forced to hear it.

    So, in some abortion cases, we're talking about a man having the right to walk away from a pregnancy, but a woman can't. Everyone's rights are supposed to be equal before the law, right? How else would you suggest this "harmful" imbalance be rectified?

  77. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    geoff – So just to make sure I understand where you are coming from…

    If a woman is pregnant and the baby IS capable of independent life then it's wrong to abort it – correct?

    Notice I called it a baby rather than fetus because in your opinion it’s not a "human" unless it meets those criteria. I’m trying to grasp your point of few but it seems to be jumping all over the place.

    Again – If a woman is pregnant and the baby IS capable of independent life then it's wrong to abort it – correct?

  78. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Amilam – Then is it okay to terminate a “fetus” after its biological systems start functioning at around 15 weeks?

    No, I would not support aborting a fetus after this point unless there were outside circumstances such as severe genetic defects or the life of the mother was in danger.

  79. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, any cell in our body is alive, including sperm and ovum. We agree!

    But alive doesn't mean it is a genetically complete human.

    So, cough up the peer reviewed journal substantiating that a genetically complete human sprang from a sperm….or ovum.

    Unless you can do that, I must stand by my earlier comments that you are an alchemist from the Dark Ages, waiting for a human to jump forth from sperm deposited on the floor.

    Man- you guys are supposed to be the bastions of reason and science, not superstition.

  80. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Leon, I'm sorry you feel that way about me and others.

    But.. life goes on, and least in my world.

    When you can make a reasoned discussion perhaps we can dialogue.

  81. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Perhaps we can dialogue? I know you're doing your best aping an educated individual, but you're trying way to hard and it shows. Additionally, I would think that someone with an ounce of reasoning wouldn't state an absurd fallacy like "If your own kids are aborted, then you as an old man can be euthanized." That would be an embarrassing argument in high school debate classes. It doesn't even reach the level of a False Cause because the two don't even follow one another in any existing country. You would think with virtually every first world nation in world (actually a vast majority of every nation in the world) that we would see mass euthanization of the elderly. Perhaps if you could develop some reason in your own posts you would be capable of recognizing it elsewhere.

  82. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    liseux ———It would be good if you would think about the point. Each person is drawing a line as to where reproductive life begins. All of these lines are arbitrary and all are justified in the mind of the person drawing the line.

    There is an old joke that to a driver anyone going slower than him is an "idiot", and anyone going faster than him is "insane". In other words the driver has decided that his speed (line) is the only valid speed (line) and everyone else is wrong.

    We are not talking of all of the cells of the body. We are speaking of reproductive cells. If sperm and eggs are allowed to go onto the next phase and the phase after that and the phase after that…..they will form a human. They cannot do that at the stage they are at. BUT at the same time a zygote allowed to go onto the next phase and the next phase, and the next phase….will form a human. They cannot do that at the stage it is at. The number of DNA particles at any given stage is YOUR definition. Just because you pick that stage doesn't mean those that pick other "speeds" are "idiots" or "insane".

    So cough up a peer reviewed article that says sperm and eggs won't produce a human if allowed to do so. If you cannot, you are saying that one stage of reproductive life is valid to kill and another is not. That is the same argument that a person that picks any other reproductive stage can also make. (implantation, organs developed, ability to breath, exit from the womb, at circumcision…..) Your choice of where you kill and where you will not kill is simply that…YOUR choice…in YOUR mind…based on an arbitrary line YOU chose…and that you justify in YOUR mind. Dead potential humans are still dead potential humans even if before one line you have no conscience about murdering but at another you do.

  83. geoff Avatar

    Mike: "If a woman is pregnant and the baby IS capable of independent life then it’s wrong to abort it – correct?"

    If you want to get all tied up in semantics (which probably explains your inability to "grasp" my "point of view"), then yes, since a baby is, by definition, existing and/or functioning independently of its mother. If a fetus has developed far enough as to be able to function independently should it need to (death of the mother, miscarriage, premature birth, etc.) then it is also too late to abort. And I don't think many people would object. There should be term limits. But that does not mean that there should be blanket bans on abortions.

  84. geoff Avatar

    Mike: "Expert opinions have changed and/or been proven wrong throughout history."

    Then again: next time you take a vacation, consider whether you would rather have an "expert opinion" flying the plane, or someone who played some flight simulator on their X-box.

    Or undergo surgery with an "expert opinion" rather than someone who saw a few "Marcus Welby" episodes a while back.

  85. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    There should be term limits. ——That is the problem—-Whose term limits.—-Because it's right for you, that makes it right?—-Just because your limits are further down the road than others and less down the road than even others makes you correct?—–Unfortunately, everyone's opinion is further down the road than some and less down the road than others.

    The fact is that until a doctor looks you in the eye and says "This baby could be a real mess." You nor anyone else on this site has a clue what their reaction and/or their decision will be.

  86. geoff Avatar

    Good Life: "Whose term limits."

    I think that's for the law, doctors and maybe philosophers to decide.

  87. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    geoff—–doctors, patients and philosophers

  88. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    geoff – When those “semantics” determine whether or not a human life is allowed to continue, yes, I’m more than willing to “get tied up in semantics”.

    Your little diatribe about flying on a plane or having surgery makes no sense. You are confusing training with opinion. I could care less what the opinion is of my pilot. The thing that I would be concerned with is his level of training.

    The definition of Opinion is: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

    There is no certainty in anyone’s opinion. No matter how much of an “expert” they claim to be. For that reason I will always err on the side of caution when it comes to ending a life. No matter what the “experts” say.

    I bid you farewell geoff and wish you well.

  89. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Mike: we're talking about the difference between a fetus and a baby. This is a standard distinction which you seem unable either to recognise or get beyond.

    Now, as to opinion: whose opinion should I worry about in the case of whether a baby is capable of functioning on its own? A doctor's? A philosopher's? Or yours? These are people whose opinions I would trust, because they are trained in making just that kind of decision. That is part of their job.

    And Good Life: I included the "law" because, for better or worse, it's going to get thrown in there anyway, and better to consider it from the start.

  90. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Mike: "For that reason I will always err on the side of caution when it comes to ending a life."

    That's one reason why I oppose capital punishment. But given some of the alternatives to abortion over time (Irish orphanages, for example, where the sexual abuse of children was a sort of open secret back as early as the 1950s; the very real threat of death faced by many desperate women unable to procure a safe, legal abortion), it does seem the lesser of two evils in some cases. Ideally, unwanted pregnancies would never happen, but…

  91. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, I agree that a sperm cell and an ovum are alive. So is one of my skin cells.

    None of these will grow into a different, genetically complete human of itself.

    GL, if you make the proposal that a sperm grows into a genetically complete and different human being from its host, then the burden is on YOU to find the peer-reviewed scientific journal to back that up.

    If you can't find it, then you are using in the camp of the Dark Ages alchemists.

    I only suffer charlatans so long, and this charade is tiring.

  92. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Amilam,

    I don't dialogue with coarse internet trolls who have no ideas, logic, or facts and whose main method of communication is insult.

  93. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    "coarse internet trolls who have no ideas, logic, or facts and whose main method of communication is insult."

    Funny, I guess like really doesn't recognize like. Still, I don't blame you for running away. If I say so myself, I really did logically demolish your poorly construed point that abortion will lead to forced euthanization of the elderly. Still, I do not lament not having to waste time poke holes in your absurd logical fallacies. All the best to you sunshine.

  94. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Again, if all you have is unsults, Amilam, you are indeed a coarse internet troll. Thanks for the evidence to prove my point.

  95. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    liseux—-The difference is, except for cloning, a skin cell isn't a reproductive cell. Spurious argument.

    You and I both know that given the opportunity to unite sperm and eggs are reproductive cells. (Thank you for agreeing so I don't have to give you a peer review that says they are reproductive cells) By not allowing them to unite they are given a death sentence. (Do you really want an article that says they die?) A zygote is also a reproductive cell and not allowing it to implant it is given a death sentence. (Do I need a peer reviewed article that says it won't survive without implantation?) A fetus is also a group of reproductive cells and not allowing them to remain is a death sentence. (Do I need a peer reviewed article for that?)

    YOU have made the decision that denying an egg and sperm the ability to unite isn't killing. (Even though there isn't a biologist in the world that would say they don't die if not allowed to take the next step.) YOU have decided that YOUR arbitrary line is their uniting and not before. That is a line which YOU decided is between murder and not murder, not a line that biology decided. Others have decided that implantation is their line and they are willing to kill before. Others have decided that organ development is their line and they are willing to kill before. Others have decided that ability to breathe outside of the womb is their line and they are willing to kill before. Others have decided that exit from the womb is their line and they are willing to kill before. Others have decided that circumcision or baptism are the line and they are willing to kill before.

    It isn't insulting, just a fact to anyone reading this, that you are not thinking about the point you are trying to justify in your mind your own killing. In biology there is a continuum of reproduction. At any point along that continuum any given person can say "before this there is no moral value in killing and at the next point there is a moral value to killing". YOU have chosen YOUR line and morally condemn anyone who chooses a point any further down the continuum, but at the same time deny anyone the right to pick a point before YOUR chosen point because that would mean they could morally condemn your point. And of course whatever YOU have chosen is the morally justified point. Anybody before YOUR point (in your mind) cannot be justified; And any one beyond YOUR point is morally corrupt.

    It's hard to see that others could see you as morally corrupt as you see others.

  96. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Hello G L,

    You said from the very beginning that a sperm cell is a human life…. All I agreed to was that it was alive, but only for a few hours/days until it fulfills its God-given natural purpose, which is to unite with an ovum. If it doesn't do that, it whithers and dies.

    You still need the peer-reviewed journal to prove otherwise. Again, if you cannot do this, you rank with the Dark Age alchemists.

    You have not demonstrated that it develops into a genetically complete human with entirely different DNA than its host.

    As for moral judgements, thanks for yours.

    I'm looking at the science right now, which you have not been able to provide.

  97. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    And… last chance. I expected more from the neo-progressives here. You all need more science and fewer insults to be taken seriously.

  98. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    The only insults in my post where copied from you. So yes, if your point is that you are what you are critiquing then I did indeed help you prove your point nicely! Let's do it again sometime.

    I still don't see anything of substance from Linseux unless you count thin projections. Look, sunshine if you can't respond to my demolition of your euthanasia point, I understand. I mean I did completely take it apart which you are nicely illustrating by hiding from it. However, I'm not your therapist so please stop wasting my time with your passive aggressive whining.

  99. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    liseux: "dialogue" is not a verb.

    here is a nice example of an alternative to abortion when you don't have contraception:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environmen

  100. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Is contraception 100% effective in the user rates today?

    How about opening up one of these pits near your house for those whose contraception fails today? You can be the doorkeep.

    I see little difference in one of these "nice" pits and late term abortion clinics. The bones in the picture of an approx. 40-wk. gestation child would be very similar to the bones of the 35-wk. gestation child killed in the abortion clinic of today.

  101. geoff Avatar

    liseaux: is anything 100% effective? Ever?

    "Late term abortion clinics" shouldn't exist. And probably wouldn't need to, if women had enough education to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, and sufficient opportunity to get early abortions. And if guys didn't find it so easy to walk away from their share of responsibilities.

  102. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Geoff, you make great points about the late term abortion facilities not existing and about men walking away from responsibilities.

    However, according to Human Life Int'l, approximately 58% of women/girls who go in for abortions to Planned Parenthood reported that they had been using birth control. Because it failed, abortion was their back up.

    So, the conceived humans pay with their lives for recreational sex and irresponsibility.

    Anyway, thanks for the link to the infanticide pit, as it really did make me think about different things, like the barbarity of a society that would do that, esp. the lack of help for women and compassion for babies.

  103. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    liseux —–"You said from the very beginning that a sperm cell is a human life"—–Gee it would help if you read my quotes that you yourself copy and paste.

    This is the first that you copied.

    "every time she menstruates she kills a potential life. Every time you ejaculate without the purpose to fertilize an egg you kill a potential life. Do you have the right to kill that baby?”

    If you actually read the quote and the others I've made I never said that an egg or sperm that wasn't united could further develop any more than a fertilized zygote that doesn't implant could further develop. One is just one step beyond the other and the zygote wouldn't be a zygote without a LIVING egg and sperm to go from one step to the next. And a zygote couldn't be a fetus unless it is allowed to go from that step to the next. If you do not allow an egg and sperm to unite you have killed as surely as if you don't allow a zygote to implant. Or a fetus to develop beyond a zygote.

    Every egg is genetically different and every X sperm is genetically different than its host. (Do you really want me to show that?) Every one (you admit) is alive. And if allowed to take the next step will develop into a zygote that is also genetically different than the host. (you admit) And a zygote must implant. And an implanted fetus must develop organs. And those organs must be able to function independently………..

    The problem is you are looking at the "science" based on what you "want" to believe is morally correct. The science plainly says that all children start with unique eggs and sperm that are different than their host. It is just that you don't want to think of yourself as a killer but you do want to think of the "Dark Age" decision that where you kill it isn't a possible human, but where others kill it is a possible human.

    Your ——these “nice” pits——happen to be in the trash or laundry. But that doesn't mean you didn't kill.

    Potential humans also pay with their lives for recreational sex and irresponsibility.

  104. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, you are contradicting yourself.

    You state: "If you actually read the quote and the others I’ve made I never said that an egg or sperm that wasn’t united could further develop…"

    Good so far. If a woman menstruates and the unfertilized egg passes from her body, that is not a potential life.

    If you think it is, then you need to demonstrate from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that unfertilized eggs naturally develop into genetically complete and different individuals.

    Then you state: "Every egg is genetically different and every X sperm is genetically different than its host. (Genetically different, GL, but not complete. MY WORDS) Every one (you admit) is alive. And if allowed to take the next step will develop into a zygote that is also genetically different than the host."

    Contradiction…..

    What is that next step?

  105. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    What is the potential of an egg that remains unfertilized, GL?

    What is the potential of an egg that is fertilized?

  106. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    What is that next step?——The combining of the egg and sperm. Only life produces life. Without that step there would be NO zygote. There would be NO child. Yet you are willing to kill at one point on the continuum without conscience and yet defend totally the next point on the continuum.

    What is the potential of a zygote if it remains nonimplanted?

    What is the potential of a zygote if it is implanted?

    What is the potential of a fetus if it develops organs?

    What is the potential of a fetus if it doesn't develop organs?

    What is the potential of a fetus if the organs can be used independently?

    What is the potential of a fetus if the organs do not function independently"

    With one question asked you are willing to kill without conscience.. With another you are not willing to kill without conscience.

    With a different question others are willing to kill without conscience. With another others are not willing to kill without conscience.

    YOU say your conscience should be the only conscience that matters. OTHERS say their conscience is the only conscience that matters.

    You are willing to see killing in others but argue vehemently when someone points out your own killing.

    Hypocrite

  107. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, you say only life produces life.

    Please demonstrate how an alive human ovum produces life…..

    It all comes down to your statement you made that you obviously cannot back up, so now you're insulting again.

    Let's keep the emotions out of it as much as we can.

  108. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    That would be an alive unfertilized human ovum producing life, or a sperm cell as well. Of course, they must not meet- sneaky things.

  109. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Please demonstrate how a zygote can be formed WITHOUT an egg and sperm.

    It all comes down to your need to cut out the first step in reproduction because of your EMOTIONAL need to deny that you kill life. You obviously can't back up your contention that there is not any step before your emotional starting point. And that you simply black out the facts of life in order to start where YOU want to start and not where humans start.

  110. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Let’s keep the emotions out of it as much as we can.——-That would be wonderful. What is the first step in reproduction? I would say the development of egg and sperm are needed before any other step. I would like to see that scientific paper that says the zygote suddenly appears out of nothingness.

  111. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    It's not my proposition that a zygote is formed without and egg and sperm.

    I have no emotional need to prove that I don't kill life, as science has not supported that an unfertilized ovum is genetically complete and develops into a human being. That was your supposition that you failed to prove and support.

    At least so far.

    Please support with a peer-reviewed scientifiic journal that an unfertilized ovum develops into a genetically complete individual by itself.

  112. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    liseux —–That was your supposition ———-Show me where I said that.

    I said that human life begins with eggs and sperm which are both alive and both of which if allowed to go onto the next stage (uniting into a zygote) and the next stage (implantation) and the next stage (development of organs) and the next stage…………..until there is a child that will become a unique human and by killing eggs and sperm without allowing them to go onto the next stage (uniting into a zygote) you are killing potential life as much as not allowing a zygote to implant, or not allowing a fetus to develop organs, or……………until there is a child.

    Anyone can pick any stage, any point on the continuum. You have picked zygote. I picked eggs and sperm. Others pick implantation. Others pick organs. Others pick ability to breathe. Others pick exit from the womb. Others pick baptism or circumcision.

    You cannot say that you are right and the others are wrong. You picked a point and not the FIRST point of reproduction. Others pick other points that happen to be BEFORE or AFTER your particular prejudice. Scientifically, there is no more justification for killing at your line, or my line, or anyone else's line. Emotion and religion is NOT scientific. But if you want to say you value human life, then the starting point is the egg and sperm. (You cannot and do not deny that [you just try to justify a starting point that isn't the FIRST point]) Allow them to go through all stages (including uniting) and you have a baby. Cut out any one stage (as you are doing as you are doing by cutting out the first stage) and you deny a unique life to develop to the next stage.

    I really don't know how to explain if you refuse to recognize that eggs and sperm uniting is a stage of reproduction. But scientifically that's where it starts.

  113. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, you have been equating an unfertilized ovum as "life" equal to that of a fertilized zygote to claim that I kill life. You have not supported your claim with any evidence other than your opinion. Now you back-pedal. Okay……

    You stated: "Every time a woman menstruates she kills human life. With modern technology at least 40 of those eggs are potential unique children. Every time a man ejaculates, with modern AI (artificial insemination) every ejaculation could fertilize at least 10 eggs. Three ejaculations per day over 60 years means a man could fertilize at least 20,000 eggs. Every one of those a life that would be human and unique. By drawing the line at conception, you are arbitrarily saying it is valid to kill all of the human life that goes before that point."

    Please demonstrate how she "kills" the human life. What method is used? Guns, knife, etc.? If there are no aggressive actions, it's not killing.

    If she is killing the human life, then why isn't she arrested? If she's not arrested, then it's not killing.

    What is she supposed to do with the ovum if they are not fertilized so people like you won't absurdly claim she is "killing" them! Capture then and put them in some kind of a jar? lol (Do you see how ridiculous your claim is?)

    Scott Peterson of California is in jail right now for killing his wife and unborn son, 8 mths. gestation. He used a knife and a rope, if I recall correctly.

    Now that's killing human life, sadly.

  114. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    By drawing the line at conception, you are arbitrarily saying it is valid to kill all of the human life that goes before that point.”——-Sperm and eggs that come from humans aren't human? What are they? Dog, cat, rat, horse, worm????

    potential unique children——–Notice the word "potential". If allowed to proceed POTENTIAL becomes actual. A zygote is also POTENTIAL. If allowed to proceed it becomes actual.

    If she is killing the human life, then why isn’t she arrested? ——If a woman has an abortion, then why isn't she arrested? Because all killing isn't illegal.

    By drawing the line at conception, you are arbitrarily saying it is valid to kill all of the human life that goes before that point.”——–Notice I said "valid" not "illegal". It is legal to kill through abortion right up until full exit from the womb. The question is: Is it valid to kill and at what point? Some kill at one point and others kill at another point. Each thinks their point is valid.

    What method is used? Guns, knife, etc.? If there are no aggressive actions, it’s not killing.——So if you don't provide food for a child it's not killing? Denying food isn't aggressive. . The method of course is the denial of being allowed to combine with that which would continue life. (combine with other cells, combine with food.) Just as if a zygote is denied the ability to implant it is being denied the combining with the mother's blood system the zygote dies.

    Now that’s killing human life, sadly.——–I agree. But it's not the only way to kill.

  115. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL says, "By drawing the line at conception, you are arbitrarily saying it is valid to kill all of the human life that goes before that point.”——-Sperm and eggs that come from humans aren’t human? What are they? Dog, cat, rat, horse, worm????"

    No, GL, I never said that, that's your dream that I would say that, and it's also a very huge strawman.

    So are you saying that everytime a woman doesn't have sex and get her eggs fertilized in her cycle she is intentionally killing human life?

  116. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Yes, and every time sperm is wasted death also occurs.

  117. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    huge strawman—–It's not a strawman, it's a sarcastic exaggeration to show how silly your arguments are when taken to the extreme.

  118. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    A wasted death would only have occured it that unfertilized egg was a genetically complete human being.

    The unfertilized egg, GL, is not a life.

    No fuzzy science or alchemy can make it one.

    If you think that a life has been wasted, the produce the peer-reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates that a genetically complete human is "killed" every time a woman menstruates.

  119. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    I can't believe anyone can be stuck on their own definition with super glue to extent that they don't see the point that I've been making and have repeated several times. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.

    I have continued with this to help others that may be reading it to think about the point. Obviously, you are never going to perceive. I think anyone who reads the whole thing need not bother to read more. The point has been well made to all who have eyes.

    And this final post of yours is the ultimate prime example of my point.

    Thank you for helping me educate any readers.

  120. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    I think anyone reading this sees how you try to cover up with personal attacks on another poster the fact that you have no scientific answers nor logical ones.

    What is the natural process of an egg that remains unfertilized?

    What is the natural process of an egg that is fertilized by a sperm?

  121. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    I'll try one last time:

    What is the natural process of a zygote that remains non-implanted?

    What is the natural process of a zygote that is implanted?

    My questions are as valid as yours. My questions are the same as yours. The only difference is at what point during the continuum of reproduction you are willing to kill without conscience.

  122. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    I'm not dealing with only zygotes, but also unfertilized ova. That question you are refusing to answer.

    The natural process for an implanted zygote is to continue its development as a genetically complete human.

    The process for a zygote which is prevented from implantation is an unnatural death, caused by IUDs, rings, abortion pills, or a barren womb due to hormonal birth control pills. This death is intentional and tragic.

    Please demonstrate the actions that a woman takes to intentionally kill her unfertilized ovum during menstruation and that that ovum was a genetically complete human.

  123. Hatch Avatar
    Hatch

    I can't believe this conversation has gone on for so long!

    First of all, you are killing cells when sperm or eggs leave the body prior to fertilization…. On that note… oh no… If I cut my hand and bleed, blood cells are dying all over the place… not to mention the skin cells that were just torn to bits when I cut my hand.

    I just wanted to remind you of the folly which is your argument. Take a step back and listen to yourself.

    It no longer even sounds like a debate between the two of you, all I see is repeated information from both sides, and personal attacks for the other persons opinion. What are you guys running for office?

  124. geoff Avatar

    Zygote: "A diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum."

    "The process for a zygote which is prevented from implantation is an unnatural death, caused by IUDs, rings, abortion pills, or a barren womb due to hormonal birth control pills. This death is intentional and tragic."

    Uhm… intentional, yes (in contrast to the pregnancy in question, presumably); tragic? How?

    Tragedy: "An unhappy, terrible, or fatal event in life; a calamity, a disaster (freq. hyperbol.); such events collectively." Unhappy, perhaps, and fatal for the zygote involved, but not really terrible, a calamity, or a disaster.

    "Misery, misfortune; esp. sorrowful or violent end." Sorrowful, perhaps, but as an "accident" also sorrowful. IUDs and pills are not really violent, though, are they?

    Maybe you should save your hyperbole for a viable fetus.

  125. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Geoff, one is not "killing" cells if they die a natural death without fertilization. They are cells, not people.

    If they are people and are being killed, please present a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that demonstrates that a sperm is a gentically complete human being and will develop natural by itself.

    Then, we can discuss "killing."

  126. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Oops, that message was to Hatch.

    This is to Geoff:

    Happy you can admit those actions were intentional. I agree, unhappy and fatal for the zygote, especially if it had been you or me our loved ones. In other words- you came full circle to admitting it was tragic as well.

  127. geoff Avatar

    liseux:"killing"?!? I was questioning your misleading, hysterical use of the word "tragic." I don't see where you get the word "killing."

    You're asking for scientific proof of something that doesn't exist and makes no sense? While I'm at it, should I find "a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that demonstrates that" 2+2=4?

  128. geoff Avatar

    Actually, you know liseaux: talking about my loved ones: my wife grew up without a mother. She died undergoing a botched, back-alley abortion. Seems she couldn't get contraception in Catholic Ireland back in the 1950s, couldn't afford another kid with her husband disabled because of an accident at work, and didn't want the kid to be abused in a Catholic (i.e. the only available) orphanage. So don't try to tell me about my "loved ones." You don't know F-all.

    And no: for all your fancy semantic word games, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "tragic."

  129. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    I agree, Geoff. I am asking for proof of something that doesn't exist because Good Life is presenting his argument as if a human life does exist in an unfertilized ovum. I'm waiting for him to present the evidence.

    Sorry about the loss of your wife's mother and her sibling during the abortion. That is indeed very tragic. I have lost family members to abortion as well. It is indeed a culture of death out there.

  130. geoff Avatar

    Liseaux:

    Comment from Good Life

    Time June 29, 2010 at 12:25 am

    "huge strawman—–It’s not a strawman, it’s a sarcastic exaggeration to show how silly your arguments are when taken to the extreme."

    Is that clear enough? Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps?

    "It is indeed a culture of death out there." Yes, but if there is no way to protect the living or prevent more "accidents" (hint: "abstinence only" sex ed doesn't work) people will continue to be driven to desperate measures.

  131. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    No, it's not clear, because I have never argued that a sperm is a genetically complete human, yet Good Life continues to act as it is. I think he really believes it.

    As long as conceived children are seen as "accidents" before and after birth, they will always be killed and mistreated.

  132. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    geoff—-Since I don't expect you to read this whole thing:

    What I've been trying to do is point out the irony of some people picking out a point on the continuum of reproduction and saying whatever is before that point is a morally acceptable point at which to terminate life. Everything after that point is deemed morally wrong in which to terminate life. But that point of morally wrong and morally right is different for each person.

    As you can see, if someone picks a point BEFORE another person's morality point; that other person will fight vehemently that their moral point is the ONLY point on the continuum that is valid.

    I compared this to the old joke that to a driver on the hiway: Anyone going faster is insane, and anyone going slower is an idiot.

    In this case, anyone picking a later point is immoral; and anyone picking an earlier point is "scientifically invalid".

    In other words, each person's chosen point on the continuum is the only valid point. (Just try to ask them to consider a different point)

  133. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    Would it have been morally acceptable to terminate the zygote "Good Life" very early in his continuum of growth?

    I notice that you are alive…. and so is everyone else here who argues that at some point in the continuum of human development, it's "morally" fine to kill a human.

    I like being alive, and I have a right to this life. So does every human.

    Professor Peter Singer says that up to 3 months past birth, it's morally acceptable to kill infants. Now that's an odd line he's drawn.

  134. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    And a zygote is an odd line when one considers all of the people that could have been produced had you not killed eggs and sperm rather than allowing them to unite..

  135. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    You really believe that unsupportable position, don't you?

    You're not making any logical sense, GL, with that point. Prove a sperm is a genetically complete human, please.

    You can discuss killing a human any time after fertilization and the "morality" of it, and I can discuss with you.

    Nazis thought is was moral to sterilize, abort, and kill full grown Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" on the reproductive continuum. That's part of what you are supporting with your "moral" line. Go figure.

    Moral relativism is not good for the weak and vulnerable.

  136. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Nazis thought is was moral to sterilize————Sterilization only kills eggs and sperm, so by your argument it would be moral to you since no zygote ever develops. By my argument it would be immoral to sterilize. Who's argument are you trying to support with this statement.

  137. D.S. Avatar
    D.S.

    It's hard to reasonably draw the abortion line anywhere before gastulation, since God himself does not seem to highly value the unborn before that point. Only about 1 in 3 fertilized eggs make it past gastulation to develop into fetuses and eventually be born, while after gastulation, close to 90% survive to eventually be born.

    Gastulation is the point where the hollow ball of cells folds in itself to begin differentiating into different body tissues (for instance, where the blastomere folds in on itself is the beginning of the nervous system, and if the fold is not complete, the result is spinal bifida.) Because so much begins to happen developmentally at this point, any problems here end the pregnancy.

  138. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    GL, please don't tell me what my arguments are or are not. Are you wearing a Karnac hat?

    I'm glad to see that you think sterilization is immoral, you Fundie, you.

  139. liseux Avatar
    liseux

    D.S., since you bring God into it, He does say, "Before you were formed in the womb I knew you." And, "Though your mother would desert you, I never will."

    Also, in Deuteronomy 30:15, God says, "O man, life and death are put before you. Choose life, so that you may live." Abortion at any stage is not choosing life, so gastulation is a bit after life has begun.

  140. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Before you were formed——Wonderful quote. When exactly is "before" and what is "formed"? And who is arguing "before formed"?

  141. geoff Avatar

    Good Life: I get your point , which was why I was using ontological examples like the dividing line between "orange" and "red" on a continuous spectrum; think I also said it would have to lie somewhere between conception and the point where a fetus could conceivably function on its own. After that, pointless discussions on zygotes, emotional appeals in trying to conflate babies & fetuses (oh, look at the cute little baby! it still has gills & a tail!), etc.

    "Logic"?!? Doesn't seem to enter into this, does it?

    "Nazis thought is was moral to sterilize, abort, and kill full grown Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirables” on the reproductive continuum." Liseaux might want to look at the history of the eugenics movement and its various manifestations in the US: "mentally deficiant" and various classes of criminals were often sterilized into the 1950s and later, and still kills ("executes") full-grown convicts.

    The "Karnac" hat comment has me stumped, though: typo on the temple complex in Egypt or the megaliths in France?!?

    But you're right. No one would ever read through all of this.

    "Moral relativism is not good for the weak and vulnerable." Yes, liseaux: and we would think you should take your own advice.

  142. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    geoff–Karnac was a character of the late comedian Johnny Carson. The bit was he would give the answer to a question that was in a sealed envelope then open the envelope and read the question. Of course the answer and question in that order was a joke. The basis was he could answer a question without seeing it.

  143. geoff Avatar

    GL: OK, I remember now.

    Talk about ancient history…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *