Abortion, RandFan, and Me

[RandFan]

NO, THEY ARE NOT. They are trying to prevent what they believe is the killing of an innocent person.

Duh and that IS the point. And they are wrong. So why bother with the choice? Argue that they are wrong.

{eternal argument snipped}

How manny times can we go around the same thing? Sheesh.

If abortion is murder then don't do it.
If it isn't then don't talk about choice.

It really is that simple unless you are talking politics. THEN choice becomes an issue.

 

[Santa666]

Sure, but then one could argue that eating turnips is murder. It's kind of silly but yeah. One could come to such a supposition.

But you see, turnips do not possess the human genome. No combination of turnips or turnip DNA will develop into a human.

Questions: By such logic doesn't it stand to reason that sperm and egg are also human life? Cancer? Blood cells? Is there something fundamentally different between sperm, egg and a fertilized egg?

As humans, we are a combination of our parents DNA, 26 chromosomes in all. A sperm and egg do not contain enough genetic information to make a human, thus, why each one needs the other. This would make a fertilized egg very much different from sperm, an egg, cancer, or blood cells. None of the listed can or will develop into a human, they are all part of said human.

BTW, science hasn't determined the precise time night begins either. I doubt that science will ever determine precisely when life begins.

What do we mean when we say human life? Does a person, in a persistent vegetative state, meet the definition?

Ahhh, here we find the crux of the issue. What exactly is human life? What criteria does one use and how does one apply it? Many of characteristics of Terry Schiavo are also demonstrated by the unborn. Are the lives of Terry Schiavo and a fetus comparable? One might say if abortion is acceptable, perhaps then so is exterminating the mentally challenged, or those who are termially ill, or on permanent life support.

RandFan, how do you define life in context of allowing or disallowing abortion? When is it ok for a woman to terminate her pregnancy and when is it not?

So, long answer to your question, yes, anything is possible. Morality is not absolute. But it would require a ridiculous definition of life and to remain rational it would require the protection of human sperm and egg. You better take a test tube into the bathroom with you along with that copy of Playboy.

I think you are taking the opposing point of view to a great extreme and then attempting to refute that extreme. I certainly would not propose protection of sperm and egg as neither of them are even remotely a human life. I do not know if I have a position yet on when life begins, but I do believe it happens in the womb, and I also believe making the choice to bring that life to a halt is murder.


Santa

 

[Santa666]

If abortion is murder then don't do it.
If it isn't then don't talk about choice.

It really is that simple unless you are talking politics. THEN choice becomes an issue.

I think I am beginning to understand. The two sentences above pretty much tell me what I have been wishing to know. I agree.


Santa

 

[RandFan]

But you see, turnips do not possess the human genome. No combination of turnips or turnip DNA will develop into a human.

You know this absolutely? Sorry, life is life. What makes us different isn't our blueprint it is the result of that blue print after some variables. Sperm does possess the human genome. Am I commiting murder each time I ejaculate?

As humans, we are a combination of our parents DNA, 26 chromosomes in all. A sperm and egg do not contain enough genetic information to make a human, thus, why each one needs the other. This would make a fertilized egg very much different from sperm, an egg, cancer, or blood cells. None of the listed can or will develop into a human, they are all part of said human.

Only in that it is complete DNA. There is little other difference. My cells contain DNA. Am I commiting murder if I discard a cell or two?

Ahhh, here we find the crux of the issue. What exactly is human life? What criteria does one use and how does one apply it? Many of characteristics of Terry Schiavo are also demonstrated by the unborn. Are the lives of Terry Schiavo and a fetus comparable? One might say if abortion is acceptable, perhaps then so is exterminating the mentally challenged, or those who are termially ill, or on permanent life support.

Cool.

RandFan, how do you define life in context of allowing or disallowing abortion? When is it ok for a woman to terminate her pregnancy and when is it not?

Boy, there is a loaded question. I personally am not comfortable with terminating a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester. I have no problem with the 1st sometime in the 2nd it becomes problematic. I'm happy with the standards that exist now but I'm flexible. I could be persuaded incrementally either way given reasoned argument.

I think you are taking the opposing point of view to a great extreme and then attempting to refute that extreme. I certainly would not propose protection of sperm and egg as neither of them are even remotely a human life.

Structurally there is very little difference between sperm and egg and the joining of the two. There is no brain stem. There is no brain activity. The fertalized egg looks and acts a lot more like sperm and egg than a baby.

I do not know if I have a position yet on when life begins, but I do believe it happens in the womb, and I also believe making the choice to bring that life to a halt is murder.

At any point? At conception?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I also wanted to go over this exchange:
If you're Hindu, and you consider killing cows to be murder, you should be free to not kill cows, but you have no right to force others to not kill cows.

If Hindu's feel a moral obligation to protect cows then they absolutely should seek to protect cows. This from an avid steak lover.

You're changing the subject. The issue is not whether they shoul "seek to protect cows", but whether have the right to force others to not kill cows. Do you believe that Hindus have that right?

No, I'm not changing the subject at all. If killing cows is morally reprehensible to Hindus and they believe that they should intervene then they absolutely have a right and should intercede on behalf of cows.

You were.

NO I'M NOT!

You were.

Saying I was won't make it so.

 

[RandFan]

I also wanted to go over this exchange:

Enjoy yourself.

 

[Santa666]

You know this absolutely? Sorry, life is life. What makes us different isn't our blueprint it is the result of that blue print after some variables. Sperm does possess the human genome. Am I commiting murder each time I ejaculate?

Now that is just silly. I shall not entertain such a notion. What variables are you referring to beside the blueprint itself. We all have HUMAN dna, and turnips have TURNIP dna. It is that blueprint that makes turnips produce turnips and humans produce humans.

Only in that it is complete DNA. There is little other difference. My cells contain DNA. Am I commiting murder if I discard a cell or two?

It is the combination of sperm and egg that cause the formation of a new life. I am not a geneticist nor a biologist, so I cannot provide an explanation of the difference between your typical cell and sperm/eggs.

Cool.

I take you find it acceptable to terminate those who are mentally challenge or on permanent life support?

Boy, there is a loaded question. I personally am not comfortable with terminating a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester. I have no problem with the 1st sometime in the 2nd it becomes problematic. I'm happy with the standards that exist now but I'm flexible. I could be persuaded incrementally either way given reasoned argument.

Structurally there is very little difference between sperm and egg and the joining of the two. There is no brain stem. There is no brain activity. The fertalized egg looks and acts a lot more like sperm and egg than a baby.

At any point? At conception?

How might you determine when it is or is not acceptable to end a pregnancy during the 2nd trimester? What criteria would you use? Would it change from day to day? Hour to hour? Minute to minute? Would a point in time exist when you would say, "Yes, this abortion is ok." then suddenly look at the clock and exclaim "Well, you missed your chance, now that baby is a human life!". How do you resolves issues like this when your definition is so subjective?


Santa

 

[RandFan]

Now that is just silly. I shall not entertain such a notion. What variables are you referring to beside the blueprint itself. We all have HUMAN DNA, and turnips have TURNIP DNA. It is that blueprint that makes turnips produce turnips and humans produce humans.

From an evolutionary POV you are talking about less than a nanosecond in time. Yes at the moment this is true. But there is nothing really so special about human DNA.

It is the combination of sperm and egg that cause the formation of a new life. I am not a geneticist nor a biologist, so I cannot provide an explanation of the difference between your typical cell and sperm/eggs.

Structurally there is very little. Both are single cells. There are no higher functions which is crucial, IMO, to defining human life.

I take you find it acceptable to terminate those who are mentally challenge or on permanent life support?

Why? Do they have brain stems? Do they have brain activity?

A permanent vegetative state? Acceptable.

How might you determine when it is or is not acceptable to end a pregnancy during the 2nd trimester? What criteria would you use? Would it change from day to day? Hour to hour? Minute to minute? Would a point in time exist when you would say, "Yes, this abortion is ok." then suddenly look at the clock and exclaim "Well, you missed your chance, now that baby is a human life!". How do you resolves issues like this when your definition is so subjective?

What is my definition? I know what isn't life and I know what is. Like night becoming day it is difficult to tell precisely when it happens. I'm happy to follow the lead of the experts.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Not at all. If I believe slavery is right and my oponent believes that it is immoral then the response isn't that we should each be able to choose whether or not to have slavery.

Of course it is. There are only three possible positions on slavery: "People should be forced to not do it", "People should be forced to do it" "People should choose whether to do it". In this hypothetical, you've rejected the first. So unless you think everyone should be forced to have slaves, you think people should choose.

My argument should be that slavery is moral.

Saying that one should allowed to choose includes the position that it's moral.

The pro-choice position is not merely that abortion isn't murder. The pro-choice position is that abortion should be lega.

Sorry no. No choice is never an issue.

You know, you're really starting to piss me off. You're just restating your position as if it's an argument. And on top of it, your position completely ignores reality.

We don't use it for rape, assault, burglary, homicide, abuse etc., why is that? Because it is not relevant.

That makes absolutely no sense. Choice isn't "relevant" because these things are immoral.

You keep comparing abortion to rape etc. THAT COMPARISON IS ONLY VALID IF ABORTION IS MURDER! Sheesh. Your argument is "if choosing abortion is wrong, then it's idiotic to say that choosing abortion is okay". Well, yes, that's true. But it's also completely stupid.

Huh? Who makes the argument that Religion, Political Affiliation and Clothes are immoral?[/quoteDo you think that, from now on, you could respond to what's in my posts, rather than your bizarre strawmen? Huh? Is that too much to ask?

I'm comparing moral positions to moral positions.

I don't know what that means.

You are playing games and comparing concepts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

You have given absolutely no justification for either of these accusations. Let me make this very clear to you:
Your repeated use of strawmen, your baseless accusations, all this crap is incredibly rude, and I don't have much more patience for it.

You clearly do not understand what I am saying. So instead of trying harder, you're simply declaring that what I'm saying is irrelevant.

That murder is a matter of choice.

Something else I'm losing patience with: having to go back and forth, back and forth between posts. Can you just POST WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY rather than making all these cryptic remarks?

So, apparently, what you MEANT to say is "Abuse, rape, assault or burglary should not be a matter of choice because the notion that murder is a matter of choice is morally ambiguous." Which neither makes sense, nor has anything to do with the discussion. And on top of that, you're repeating your "murder is a matter of choice" strawman and repeating your misuse of the word "ambiguous". Are you going to tell me what you think it means?

Gainsaying, what is this basis?

You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

If there is a basis that you are committing murder then why would you think that it is ok to murder?

I don't. I'm capable of recognizing that just because there is a rational basis for something, that doesn't mean I have to believe it.

There is no rational basis.

That is gainsaying.

So why bother with the choice?

Because that's the issue. Duh indeed.

Argue that they are wrong.

You act like that's mutually exclusive. They are arguing both.

If abortion is murder then don't do it.
If it isn't then don't talk about choice.

That makes no sense. If abortion is murder, then why isn't choice an issue?

 

[RandFan]

{been there done that snipped}

That makes no sense. If abortion is murder, then why isn't choice an issue?

So it should be up to the individual to decide whether to murder, rape, abuse, etc.

Just because you think it is ok to kill an innocent person doesn't make it ok.
Just because you think it is ok to rape someone doesn't mean that it is ok.

I don't think murder should be left to personal choice. I guess that is just me though.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Guys,

You both obviously have had a long fight over this. Art, while I appreciate that you've tried to make a single source for the posts you've both made, your pasted lines lack context for the successive rebuttals, so I can't make heads or tails out of any of it.

Why don't you both write fiarly long posts (500-800 words) outlining what you believe, and starting with fresh content?

 

[RandFan]

Guys,

You both obviously have had a long fight over this. Art, while I appreciate that you've tried to make a single source for the posts you've both made, your pasted lines lack context for the successive rebuttals, so I can't make heads or tails out of any of it.

Why don't you both write fiarly long posts (500-800 words) outlining what you believe, and starting with fresh content?

Thanks for the suggestion Imaginal. I just put a fresh coat of paint on the rear fence and I wanted to watch it dry so I'm afraid I'll have to pass. Damn, cause I'm sure that it would have been a lot of fun.

Root-canal anyone?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for the suggestion Imaginal. I just put a fresh coat of paint on the rear fence and I wanted to watch it dry so I'm afraid I'll have to pass. Damn, cause I'm sure that it would have been a lot of fun.

Root-canal anyone?

I know it would be tedious, but Randfan, I have no idea what the **** is going on here. I can't follow your rebuttals, points and counterpoints because you've obivously been going on so long that you have a shorthand.

It's like listening to the man in black and Inigo talking while they fight in The Princess Bride

 

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, I messed up. I meant to post:

"That makes no sense. If abortion is not murder, then why isn't choice an issue?"

 

[RandFan]

I know it would be tedious, but Randfan, I have no idea what the **** is going on here. I can't follow your rebuttals, points and counterpoints because you've obivously been going on so long that you have a shorthand.

It's like listening to the man in black and Inigo talking while they fight in The Princess Bride

I understand Imaginal it's just I don't think there is much to discuss. Art and I both have a tendency to chop every sentence to bits and argue by reduction ad infinitum. At some point it becomes redicuously over argued. Besides, I have said enough in this thread to make my position clear.

In any event I will offer the following.

If I was debating the morality or the apropriatness of slavery I wouldn't argue that it was simply a matter of choice. That would be a moraly ambiguous position. And let's be honest that was the position of Southern slave owners. They argued states rights and thought that slavery should be a matter of choice.

The same is true with any serious moral confilct. Abuse, rape, burglary, etc.

If someone tells me that I'm commiting murder the rebutal isn't "that's your opinion." The rebutal is "no I'm not!"

Choice says that the morality of murder is a matter of opinion. No, it is not. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a moral absolutist. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

My positions:

Philosophical/Intelectual:

1. If abortion is murder then don't do it and do what you can to prevent it. If it isn't murder then don't assume that it is a matter of choice. Choice is morally ambigous.
2. Single cell organisms (fertialized human eggs) are not human life. A full term baby is human life. Abortion in the first tri-mester is not murder. Abortion in the third term is.

Political: Stating that you are "pro-abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are not very effective political positions. If you believe abortion is not murder then call your self "pro-choice". If you believe abortion is murder then call yourself "pro-life".

I hope that helps. I'm unlikely to contribute much more.

 

[CFLarsen]

Other people (that is, people other than CFLarsen) are welcome to respond, but please only respond to posts in this thread, and only after I've posted my reply.

Oooohhhh....if that isn't an invitation....

And if Claus posts, please keep responses to him in another thread.

You can't censor other posters, not even in your own thread.

Now, since I've been invited, and my arguments are deemed so....powerful, what's the hubbub about? If not a summary, how about a short list?