# IF you're in favour of abortion



## Polednice

I only realised today that the law in the UK is slightly restrictive in that the reason for an abortion must be that the birth of a child would affect the mother's mental health. The definition is nebulous enough to allow a couple of hundred thousand abortions per year, but I didn't realise that it wasn't allowed on whatever basis the woman desires.

Intuitively, it seems to me that a woman ought to be able to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. Others may not agree with such her reasons, and I might find a few of them distasteful myself, but the alternative would be deeming her reason inadequate and forcing her to have a child which I don't think is justifiable.

So, _providing you already accept that abortion ought to be allowed_ (I don't want this to be a discussion about whether it should be allowed in the first place), do you think our laws should make restrictions, or do you think a woman should have full access no matter what?


----------



## mmsbls

I believe in full access with no restrictions for the first 6 months.


----------



## kv466

For me life is life at the moment of conception, however, I care not what others do.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> I believe in full access with no restrictions for the first 6 months.


can you elaborate more why 6 months?. I have a similar position.


----------



## starthrower

This topic gives me the blues. I see things the same way as Kv466, however... it makes me sad when people choose abortion.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Full access, even after it's born.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> This topic gives me the blues. I see things the same way as Kv466, however... it makes me sad when people choose abortion.


Indeed, I don't think we can ever be "happy". Having discussed it with other people, I think the mantra "safe, legal, and rare" is a good one. We absolutely cannot deny a woman the right to an abortion in whatever circumstances she sees fit, but, at the same time, we must improve our sex education (especially in the US and UK, who have bad sex education compared to other developed countries) in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. Again, when it comes down to it, I just don't think anyone can justify stating that because they do not agree with the woman's point of view that therefore she must be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth.


----------



## Chrythes

regressivetransphobe said:


> Full access, even after it's born.


Yes, let us be hamsters.


----------



## Couchie

Canada has totally unrestricted abortion. There is something like 50% popular support for no restrictions in abortions. Next step: _mandatory_ abortions, I say!


----------



## Polednice

One of the arguments against unrestricted abortion is proto-eugenics - especially (it seems) people of certain cultural backgrounds aborting if they find they're carrying a girl instead of a boy. I don't think this is a sufficient point against unrestricted abortions, first because there is no way of reliably determining when the person's primary reason is the gender of the foetus, and second because that is again an underlying cultural reason that must be addressed directly, rather than prohibited at the level of abortion.


----------



## Chrythes

I agree with full access.
Does the committee/those who decide offer alternatives like adoption before approving/disproving the abortion?
Any statistic on the state of the women that go through abortion compared to those who must keep their child?


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> can you elaborate more why 6 months?. I have a similar position.


The question for me is not "When does life begin?" That happened about 3.7 billion years ago, and there has been no break since then. Life begins before conception. The egg and sperm cell are clearly both alive and human. Every act of sex kills millions of things that are human life. The question for me is, "When does a person (i.e. human being) begin?". We believe we can kill animals such as dogs and cats, but humans are considered special. What makes us special is our brain. My understanding from reading about brain development is that the human brain does not begin to reach an advanced state of development until the last trimester. Even then other mammal brains exceed its capacity, but the 7th month seems like a reasonably conservative cutoff.

I agree with Polednice that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> The question for me is not "When does life begin?" That happened about 3.7 billion years ago, and there has been no break since then. Life begins before conception. The egg and sperm cell are clearly both alive and human. Every act of sex kills millions of things that are human life. The question for me is, "When does a person (i.e. human being) begin?". We believe we can kill animals such as dogs and cats, but humans are considered special. What makes us special is our brain. My understanding from reading about brain development is that the human brain does not begin to reach an advanced state of development until the last trimester. Even then other mammal brains exceed its capacity, but the 7th month seems like a reasonably conservative cutoff.
> 
> I agree with Polednice that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.


so, according to your points, abortion before the 6th month would be like another dead sperm that has not reached his goal, since what makes us humans is our advanced brain, brain that does not have reached sufficient development before the 6th month.

I agree with your points because 1) it gives an answer to all that "you are killing a potential life" things (come on, and all those sperm who have died in the way?, they also could have made a "life"). So, given the answer in point 1), 2) it's reasonable to assume that you are not committing a homicide if the brain is not developed, you are just killing another sperm, but this one has reached a more (although insufficient to consider the result as "human") advanced state in his way.


----------



## Lenfer

Polednice said:


> I only realised today that the law in the UK is slightly restrictive in that the reason for an abortion must be that the birth of a child would affect the mother's mental health. The definition is nebulous enough to allow a couple of hundred thousand abortions per year, but I didn't realise that it wasn't allowed on whatever basis the woman desires.
> 
> Intuitively, it seems to me that a woman ought to be able to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. Others may not agree with such her reasons, and I might find a few of them distasteful myself, but the alternative would be deeming her reason inadequate and forcing her to have a child which I don't think is justifiable.
> 
> So, _providing you already accept that abortion ought to be allowed_ (I don't want this to be a discussion about whether it should be allowed in the first place), do you think our laws should make restrictions, or do you think a woman should have full access no matter what?


The *UK* is quite restrictive *Northern Ireland* (*Ireland* as a whole is even worse). I am pro-choice and see no reason why abortion should be restricted. The only thing I'd say is I don't like the use of "in favour" it makes it sounds like people who are pro-choice like that it happens or encourage people to have abortions. It's not that I like abortions but they are a necessary medical procedure and should be treated as such.


----------



## Guest

Explain the logic behind "safe, legal, and rare." If you want it to be safe and legal, and available for whatever reason, then why on earth do you argue it should be rare? The only way to make something rare is to put restrictions upon it - which you all clearly don't want to do. So to say that you want it safe, legal, AND rare is really being disingenuous. It makes you feel a little bit better with yourselves - sure, you find it discomforting that people should be allowed, for whatever reason, to abort a fetus, but you are prepared to defend the practice for whatever reason, and cloak yourselves with this protective shroud of claiming you wish it were rare. And what exactly is rare?

As to it just being an advanced sperm up until 6 months, that is patently absurd. The second the sperm fertilizes the egg, it ceases to be a sperm and an egg. That is not a value judgment, that is a scientific fact. A sperm and an egg have the potential to create a human life, but alone, neither can do this. They each only contain half of the requisite genetic material that comprises the typical human cell. Not until they merge do they have the full amount. There has been an unending effort to define down exactly what exists within the womb, to try and not hurt our sensibilities when we discuss exactly what we are doing with abortion. Life is life. Speaking purely scientifically, that fertilized egg, that zygote, is alive. It is human life. A sperm or an egg are not. They are alive in the scientific sense, but not human life in that sense, rather partial human life. They have limited lifespans. Sperm do not wait in an endless waiting room until propelled to their destiny. They have a very limited lifespan. If they are not utilized within that timeframe (which is rather short), then they are eliminated and new ones are produced.


----------



## Chrythes

mmsbls said:


> The question for me is not "When does life begin?" That happened about 3.7 billion years ago, and there has been no break since then. Life begins before conception. The egg and sperm cell are clearly both alive and human. Every act of sex kills millions of things that are human life. The question for me is, "When does a person (i.e. human being) begin?". We believe we can kill animals such as dogs and cats, but humans are considered special. What makes us special is our brain. My understanding from reading about brain development is that the human brain does not begin to reach an advanced state of development until the last trimester. Even then other mammal brains exceed its capacity, but the 7th month seems like a reasonably conservative cutoff.
> 
> I agree with Polednice that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.


If a developed brain makes us human, what is your position regarding newborns with not fully developed brains, or damaged ones, as in FAS? 
Would abortion before the end of the 6th month be equal to killing a newborn with e.g FAS?


----------



## mmsbls

Chrythes said:


> If a developed brain makes us human, what is your position regarding newborns with not fully developed brains, or damaged ones, as in FAS?
> Would abortion before the end of the 6th month be equal to killing a newborn with e.g FAS?


A main consideration in abortions is a women's autonomy over her body. Once a baby is born, that consideration no longer holds.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Explain the logic behind "safe, legal, and rare." If you want it to be safe and legal, and available for whatever reason, then why on earth do you argue it should be rare? The only way to make something rare is to put restrictions upon it - which you all clearly don't want to do. So to say that you want it safe, legal, AND rare is really being disingenuous. It makes you feel a little bit better with yourselves - sure, you find it discomforting that people should be allowed, for whatever reason, to abort a fetus, but you are prepared to defend the practice for whatever reason, and cloak yourselves with this protective shroud of claiming you wish it were rare. And what exactly is rare?


I want treatments for polio to be safe, legal, and rare. Luckily they are now, and it did not come about due to restrictions on treatments. The desire for "rare" abortions stems from the effect on women not on the fetuses. Since there are potential negative mental issues for the women having abortions, prevention is a better policy. Presumably better education and more research into birth control could be a solution.



DrMike said:


> Speaking purely scientifically, that fertilized egg, that zygote, is alive. It is human life. A sperm or an egg are not. They are alive in the scientific sense, but not human life in that sense, rather partial human life. They have limited lifespans. Sperm do not wait in an endless waiting room until propelled to their destiny. They have a very limited lifespan. If they are not utilized within that timeframe (which is rather short), then they are eliminated and new ones are produced.


I'm not sure how to respond. You admit the egg and sperm cells are alive. You also know that their DNA is without question human. Just because the cells are haploid rather than diploid does not mean they are not human or alive. The issue _for me_ is that the important question for abortion is NOT whether the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is alive. They are, and they are human as are the egg and sperm cells. The main question is, "When does a human life become a human being or person?" That question is very difficult to answer.

I do agree that a fetus is very different from an egg or sperm cell.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Explain the logic behind "safe, legal, and rare." If you want it to be safe and legal, and available for whatever reason, then why on earth do you argue it should be rare? The only way to make something rare is to put restrictions upon it - which you all clearly don't want to do. So to say that you want it safe, legal, AND rare is really being disingenuous. It makes you feel a little bit better with yourselves - sure, you find it discomforting that people should be allowed, for whatever reason, to abort a fetus, but you are prepared to defend the practice for whatever reason, and cloak yourselves with this protective shroud of claiming you wish it were rare.


Oh please, don't be so childishly simplistic. We want abortion to be rare because it's an unpleasant medical necessity, but we see that the burden of making it rare should be on adequate sex education, not law that prohibits women from control over their bodies. We also want teenage pregnancies to be rare, but we don't make them illegal. You can't just pass legislation on everything you want to see less of - that's ludicrous.

The rest of your comments, by the way, are a clear hi-jack of the thread as I made it explicit that I don't want the fundamental morality of abortion debated. Please start your own thread if that is a line you wish to pursue.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> This topic gives me the blues. I see things the same way as Kv466, however... it makes me sad when people choose abortion.


For me, 'life' is not the question, it's the much more nebulous 'rights', which I believe begin at birth. Before birth, the woman possesses the rights. She may be capable of making unfortunate and/or bad and/or disgusting decisions, but they are hers to make.

:tiphat:


----------



## Lunasong

Polednice said:


> but we see that the burden of making it rare should be on adequate sex education


And access to family planning. i.e. birth control.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I want treatments for polio to be safe, legal, and rare. Luckily they are now, and it did not come about due to restrictions on treatments. The desire for "rare" abortions stems from the effect on women not on the fetuses. Since there are potential negative mental issues for the women having abortions, prevention is a better policy. Presumably better education and more research into birth control could be a solution.
> 
> I'm not sure how to respond. You admit the egg and sperm cells are alive. You also know that their DNA is without question human. Just because the cells are haploid rather than diploid does not mean they are not human or alive. The issue _for me_ is that the important question for abortion is NOT whether the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is alive. They are, and they are human as are the egg and sperm cells. The main question is, "When does a human life become a human being or person?" That question is very difficult to answer.
> 
> I do agree that a fetus is very different from an egg or sperm cell.


How abortion is somehow comparable to treatment for polio is beyond me. What, pray tell, is the moral objection to treatment for polio?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Oh please, don't be so childishly simplistic. We want abortion to be rare because it's an unpleasant medical necessity, but we see that the burden of making it rare should be on adequate sex education, not law that prohibits women from control over their bodies. We also want teenage pregnancies to be rare, but we don't make them illegal. You can't just pass legislation on everything you want to see less of - that's ludicrous.
> 
> The rest of your comments, by the way, are a clear hi-jack of the thread as I made it explicit that I don't want the fundamental morality of abortion debated. Please start your own thread if that is a line you wish to pursue.


Several people have now stated that an abortion is a medical necessity - yet have not provided the evidence to back up this claim. I will concede this to be the case where the life of the mother is threatened. I can also see an argument where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Yet these examples are the rare exceptions. So explain to me how it is a medical necessity. Having an appendectomy to treat appendicitis is a medical necessity. A heart bypass may be a medical necessity. CPR for a person that has ceased breathing is a medical necessity. How is abortion a medical necessity? Let's be honest and agree that in the vast majority of cases, it is not a necessity, rather a want. The woman whose life is threatened by the preganancy needs the abortion. The woman whose comfort and lifestyle will be affected by the pregnancy wants the abortion, but does not need it.

Why shouldn't government be able to regulate the terms of abortion? They are allowed to dictate every other facet of our lives. Why not this one as well?


----------



## Guest

Lunasong said:


> And access to family planning. i.e. birth control.


Addressed to both you and Polednice - exactly what constitutes adequate sex education? How many people engaging in sex do you think don't comprehend that the ejaculation of sperm into the ****** has the potential consequence of creating a new life? What more is it that we need to teach that will somehow limit the number of abortions? How many people, at least living in modern countries, who are engaged in sex, do not know what a condom is or does?

Who doesn't have access to birth control? I can't speak to access to it in Europe, but here in the U.S., there are numerous places where people can obtain it for free. How do we spread access any further, short of government issuing mandatory prophylactics?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Several people have now stated that an abortion is a medical necessity - yet have not provided the evidence to back up this claim. I will concede this to be the case where the life of the mother is threatened. I can also see an argument where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Yet these examples are the rare exceptions. So explain to me how it is a medical necessity. Having an appendectomy to treat appendicitis is a medical necessity. A heart bypass may be a medical necessity. CPR for a person that has ceased breathing is a medical necessity. How is abortion a medical necessity? Let's be honest and agree that in the vast majority of cases, it is not a necessity, rather a want. The woman whose life is threatened by the preganancy needs the abortion. The woman whose comfort and lifestyle will be affected by the pregnancy wants the abortion, but does not need it.


If framed a little better, this concern is surprisingly relevant to the thread. As I stated, here in the UK, an abortion must be necessary in terms of the woman's mental well-being. Within this, however, there is a confusing circularity. After all, if a woman merely wants an abortion because of her lifestyle, the law dictates she should not be allowed one. But then, given the option of abortion in the first place, the woman could argue that thus having to endure 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth will affect her mental well-being.

This is a problem, but, as I have stated elsewhere, I don't think that this restriction should be in place anyway. Yes, some abortions are a medical necessity, but yes, some aren't. My position is that a woman should be permitted an abortion no matter what the reason. If she wants one because she wasn't on contraceptives and doesn't want to get fat, so be it. It's her body and she has the right to choose what happens to a clump of cells, not you or anyone else.

Anyway DrMike, you've been contrarian so far, but you haven't yet clearly stated what restrictions you'd have in law. Would you allow it only for women who aren't ****s? Or would you be more generous and suggest that the government has no place inside a woman's womb?


----------



## Guest

Oh, I think the restrictions I would place are quite obvious - but you don't want me to talk about that, since you don't want to discuss the legality of abortion. But within the context of it being legal, these are some of the restrictions I would place until such time that it could be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was threatened:
No abortions for minors without parental consent - if you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental consent, why can you give them an abortion?
No late-term abortions, or partial birth abortions.
No public financing of abortions.
Providing conscience exclusions to groups to not perform abortions or provide abortifacients if it violates their beliefs.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> How abortion is somehow comparable to treatment for polio is beyond me. What, pray tell, is the moral objection to treatment for polio?


I think you missed my point. You wrote: "If you want it to be safe and legal, and available for whatever reason, then why on earth do you argue it should be rare? The only way to make something rare is to put restrictions upon it - which you all clearly don't want to do."

My response explained why one might want something to be safe, legal, _and rare_ and that there are ways to make things rare without restrictions.


----------



## mmsbls

I have two general questions:

1) I don't think I've heard objections to abortion for reasons other than murder is wrong. If you think abortion should be illegal because it's murder, why would rape, incest, or threat to mother's life be a mitigating factor? In other words why would abortion ever be allowed _only_ in cases of rape, incest, or threat to mother's life? As far as I know there are many people with this view, and I have never fully understood it.

2) I'm not sure if there are any people here who believe abortion is murder and who also feel abortion should be legal. This view is somewhat easier for me to understand - the mother's autonomy over her body exceeds the right to life; nevertheless, I've always been surprised to hear people give this argument. Maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough, but can anyone give other examples where one person's autonomy exceeds another's right to life?

@Polednice: I hope we're not getting off topic (or maybe to off topic). I still feel these questions involve people believing abortion should be legal (at least sometimes)


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> I have two general questions:
> 
> 1) I don't think I've heard objections to abortion for reasons other than murder is wrong. If you think abortion should be illegal because it's murder, why would rape, incest, or threat to mother's life be a mitigating factor? In other words why would abortion ever be allowed _only_ in cases of rape, incest, or threat to mother's life? As far as I know there are many people with this view, and I have never fully understood it.
> 
> 2) I'm not sure if there are any people here who believe abortion is murder and who also feel abortion should be legal. This view is somewhat easier for me to understand - the mother's autonomy over her body exceeds the right to life; nevertheless, I've always been surprised to hear people give this argument. Maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough, but can anyone give other examples where one person's autonomy exceeds another's right to life?
> 
> @Polednice: I hope we're not getting off topic (or maybe to off topic). I still feel these questions involve people believing abortion should be legal (at least sometimes)


I think those questions are relevant, because they're about restrictions within legality, rather than about legality itself. Number 1 is particularly interesting, as I haven't viewed it from that angle before. I'll be interested to hear what people say...


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> I think those questions are relevant, because they're about restrictions within legality, rather than about legality itself. Number 1 is particularly interesting, as I haven't viewed it from that angle before. I'll be interested to hear what people say...


I sort of feel like a lawyer asking the judge for permission to proceed with this line of questioning.


----------



## Lenfer

DrMike said:


> Explain the logic behind "safe, legal, and rare." If you want it to be safe and legal, and available for whatever reason, then why on earth do you argue it should be rare? The only way to make something rare is to put restrictions upon it - which you all clearly don't want to do. So to say that you want it safe, legal, AND rare is really being disingenuous. It makes you feel a little bit better with yourselves - sure, you find it discomforting that people should be allowed, for whatever reason, to abort a fetus, but you are prepared to defend the practice for whatever reason, and cloak yourselves with this protective shroud of claiming you wish it were rare. And what exactly is rare?
> 
> As to it just being an advanced sperm up until 6 months, that is patently absurd. The second the sperm fertilizes the egg, it ceases to be a sperm and an egg. That is not a value judgment, that is a scientific fact. A sperm and an egg have the potential to create a human life, but alone, neither can do this. They each only contain half of the requisite genetic material that comprises the typical human cell. Not until they merge do they have the full amount. There has been an unending effort to define down exactly what exists within the womb, to try and not hurt our sensibilities when we discuss exactly what we are doing with abortion. Life is life. Speaking purely scientifically, that fertilized egg, that zygote, is alive. It is human life. A sperm or an egg are not. They are alive in the scientific sense, but not human life in that sense, rather partial human life. They have limited lifespans. Sperm do not wait in an endless waiting room until propelled to their destiny. They have a very limited lifespan. If they are not utilized within that timeframe (which is rather short), then they are eliminated and new ones are produced.


At the point sperm and egg meet it starts to become an embryo. Up until 24 weeks it can not be sustained outside of it's host even after this date it is touch and go. I don't want them to be rare I want them to be used in the right circumstances. If you do not wish to have the child, if it will cause possible health problems, death to the mother or if the foetus will have a life changing disability then yes an abortion should be an option for the mother and the mother alone.

If you go to a doctor when your six months pregnant and say actually we wanted a boy and it's a girl or we'd have preferred a *Virgo* and not a *Scorpio* you will be denied. After a set date that varies depending on the country you cannot have a legal abortion.

I do not like the fact that a foetus will die but I know a women a close friend of my Mother who was due to give birth to twins but one of them was sick and there was nothing they could do. If they did not terminate the sick foetus then it was likely her body would try to get rid of the foetus itself along with the other healthy foetus. She went on two have a one healthy baby and a further two children. Sometimes these things have to be done if we like it or not.

I know a few people and I'm sure there are many more that are all for the death penalty but against abortion. I find this hard to understand...

People on both sides of the argument can be well informed and still they hold one view or another I accept this. I don't like however you trying to pass off the pro-choice argument as stupid by saying the argument is that the foetus is just advanced sperm it's dishonest.


----------



## Polednice

Lenfer said:


> I know a few people and I'm sure there are many more that are all for the death penalty but against abortion. I find this hard to understand...


You know I'm already on your side, but I think this is just how the question is framed. Equally, one could say that it's boggling how a person can be against the death penalty but for abortion, depending on your view of what constitutes valuable life. Many conservatives think that some (criminal) fully fledged humans are worthless scum, while a clump of cells trumps its mother. Others believe that all living humans have a right to life, including a mother who should be in control of whether or not a foetus less intelligent and sensitive than a pig should reside in her womb.

I would still very much like to see someone address mmsbls's question with regards to abortion being permissible with rape and the implication that the value of the "potential" life is somehow diminished in this circumstance. I have also never seen speciesism adequately addressed - if you think an unfeeling, unborn, unintelligent foetus is worth saving, you really ought to be a vegetarian, as many animals are more capable and sensitive. Talking about "potential" feeling and intelligence is, I think, ludicrous, because on that basis we ought to hold funerals for miscarriages.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Providing conscience exclusions to groups to not perform abortions or provide abortifacients if it violates their *beliefs*.


So DrMike admits it is a question of _belief_. If he wants to claim a doctor's right to refuse an abortion on religious grounds, he loses the the right to force women to carry to term on the same principle.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> So DrMike admits it is a question of _belief_. If he wants to claim a doctor's right to refuse an abortion on religious grounds, he loses the the right to force women to carry to term on the same principle.


DrMike is not talking about a _doctor's_ right of refusal. He is referring to a religiously _commanded_ ban. Any doctor who performs an abortion against his understanding of the oath has abandoned it.

I wonder if you folks have heard of the concept of 'first breath'. I won't elucidate, but if you want to know, it's out there. Very old, sometimes a decision that had to be made without hesitation by a doctor or midwife. It wasn't - and isn't - easy being a life giver.

[Can't handle the hard stuff? Once in awhile the academic 'playing around' evolves into something real; sorry about that.]


----------



## Couchie

Hilltroll72 said:


> DrMike is not talking about a _doctor's_ right of refusal. He is referring to a religiously _commanded_ ban. Any doctor who performs an abortion against his understanding of the oath has abandoned it.
> 
> I wonder if you folks have heard of the concept of 'first breath'. I won't elucidate, but if you want to know, it's out there. Very old, sometimes a decision that had to be made without hesitation by a doctor or midwife. It wasn't - and isn't - easy being a life giver.
> 
> [Can't handle the hard stuff? Once in awhile the academic 'playing around' evolves into something real; sorry about that.]


So you agree then that doctors who interpret the oath as meaning to not deny patients access to a professionally performed abortion should be fully allowed to perform them as they see fit? Any doctor who is forced to turn away abortion patients against their understanding of the oath has abandoned it.

I think if you look a bit closer you'll see DrMikes undeniable double standard.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> So you agree then that doctors who interpret the oath as meaning to not deny patients access to a professionally performed abortion should be fully allowed to perform them as they see fit? Any doctor who is forced to turn away abortion patients against their understanding of the oath has abandoned it.
> 
> I think if you look a bit closer you'll see DrMikes undeniable double standard.


I agree with your first paragraph. I suspect that you do not understand _DrMike_'s religious convictions well enough to figure out his standards. In this case they probably involve precedence - God's - as well as _balance_. The balance is the same one that Justice is depicted as holding. What he knows of God's will was imparted to him by a process I don't pretend to understand. It apparently allows the scale to be read.

I have asked if you know of 'first breath'. If you don't, please do. It may increase your understanding; it is closely related.


----------



## Couchie

Hilltroll72 said:


> I agree with your first paragraph. I suspect that you do not understand _DrMike_'s religious convictions well enough to figure out his standards. In this case they probably involve precedence - God's - as well as _balance_. The balance is the same one that Justice is depicted as holding. What he knows of God's will was imparted to him by a process I don't pretend to understand. It apparently allows the scale to be read.
> 
> I have asked if you know of 'first breath'. If you don't, please do. It may increase your understanding; it is closely related.


I suspect I do understand DrMike's religious convictions. I was once a devout Christian myself after all. Perhaps it was the realization that there is no concept more dangerous to society than "God's will" that the revulsion began building inside me and I lost my faith - probably the greatest achievement of my life.

By first breath I assume you speak of when the infant switches from receiving oxygen parasitically through the placenta to obtaining its own oxygen from the air via its lungs. I'm probably missing the context in which you're referring to it, however.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> I suspect I do understand DrMike's religious convictions. I was once a devout Christian myself after all. Perhaps it was the realization that there is no concept more dangerous to society than "God's will" that the revulsion began building inside me and I lost my faith - probably the greatest achievement of my life.
> 
> By first breath I assume you speak of when the infant switches from receiving oxygen parasitically through the placenta to obtaining its own oxygen from the air via its lungs. I'm probably missing the context in which you're referring to it, however.


I do believe you are.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> I do believe you are.


This is where you offer a brief explanation.


----------



## Philip

(will rephrase)


----------



## Guest

Lenfer said:


> At the point sperm and egg meet it starts to become an embryo. Up until 24 weeks it can not be sustained outside of it's host even after this date it is touch and go. I don't want them to be rare I want them to be used in the right circumstances. If you do not wish to have the child, if it will cause possible health problems, death to the mother or if the foetus will have a life changing disability then yes an abortion should be an option for the mother and the mother alone.
> 
> If you go to a doctor when your six months pregnant and say actually we wanted a boy and it's a girl or we'd have preferred a *Virgo* and not a *Scorpio* you will be denied. After a set date that varies depending on the country you cannot have a legal abortion.
> 
> I do not like the fact that a foetus will die but I know a women a close friend of my Mother who was due to give birth to twins but one of them was sick and there was nothing they could do. If they did not terminate the sick foetus then it was likely her body would try to get rid of the foetus itself along with the other healthy foetus. She went on two have a one healthy baby and a further two children. Sometimes these things have to be done if we like it or not.
> 
> I know a few people and I'm sure there are many more that are all for the death penalty but against abortion. I find this hard to understand...
> 
> People on both sides of the argument can be well informed and still they hold one view or another I accept this. I don't like however you trying to pass off the pro-choice argument as stupid by saying the argument is that the foetus is just advanced sperm it's dishonest.


You find it hard to understand that someone would be for ending the life of a murderer who has snuffed out innocent (relatively speaking) life, but preventing the snuffing out of inherently innocent human life?


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> I only realised today that the law in the UK is slightly restrictive in that the reason for an abortion must be that the birth of a child would affect the mother's mental health. The definition is nebulous enough to allow a couple of hundred thousand abortions per year, but I didn't realise that it wasn't allowed on whatever basis the woman desires.
> 
> Intuitively, it seems to me that a woman ought to be able to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. Others may not agree with such her reasons, and I might find a few of them distasteful myself, but the alternative would be deeming her reason inadequate and forcing her to have a child which I don't think is justifiable.
> 
> So, _providing you already accept that abortion ought to be allowed_ (I don't want this to be a discussion about whether it should be allowed in the first place), do you think our laws should make restrictions, or do you think a woman should have full access no matter what?


I'm sorry that the thread took the turn it did because I'd have liked to have seen this question discussed. I personally don't know how I would answer the question, because I'd need to know at least a little about the potential legal complications before I'd feel able to offer even a tentative answer.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> You find it hard to understand that someone would be for ending the life of a murderer who has snuffed out innocent (relatively speaking) life, but preventing the snuffing out of inherently innocent human life?


No, i believe she's saying it's hypocriticlist that pro-lifers would decide to end somebody's life.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> No, i believe she's saying it's hypocriticlist that pro-lifers would decide to end somebody's life.


Tell me - as a pro-life individual, would it be hypocritical for me to kill an individual who was directly threatening the life of my family? Say they had a gun to the heads of my children, and if I don't kill them (end their life), then it will mean the death of my children. If I choose to kill the person and save my children, would I then be seen as a hypocrite for claiming to be pro-life?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> This is where you offer a brief explanation.


I prefer that you arguers of the subject question do the research - but I suppose you will not.

For a very long time, the test of whether a _live birth_ has occurred was - did the infant breathe on her own. If she didn't, there was no live birth, and she never existed as a person.

If you can't carry the ball from there, there is no point in continuing this discussion - or perhaps any discussion.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> I prefer that you arguers of the subject question do the research - but I suppose you will not.
> 
> For a very long time, the test of whether a _live birth_ has occurred was - did the infant breathe on her own. If she didn't, there was no live birth, and she never existed as a person.
> 
> If you can't carry the ball from there, there is no point in continuing this discussion - or perhaps any discussion.


Sorry man. I googled first breath, looked around for about 10 minutes, read a couple of articles about birth and about abortion, but I didn't find that. Ten minutes for an intentionally cryptic reference was more than enough. I figured you didn't really want us to know, or you'd have explained more. I'm not sure why you wanted to make us do the dance, but congratulations, you got me to do it and then you also managed to blame me (and all others) not merely for failing to magically decipher your intentionally cryptic reference, but even for failing to research it. False. Wrong. I tried. You didn't give me enough information, and you did it on purpose. Of your two criticisms, the former was, I suppose, in some sense fair; the latter was not.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> Tell me - as a pro-life individual, would it be hypocritical for me to kill an individual who was directly threatening the life of my family? Say they had a gun to the heads of my children, and if I don't kill them (end their life), then it will mean the death of my children. If I choose to kill the person and save my children, would I then be seen as a hypocrite for claiming to be pro-life?


There is no apparent connection between your scenario and capital punishment.

That being said, i see no hypocriticlism here because nobody can be blamed for saving a family member's life. However, when incarcerated a criminal poses no threat to the general public. Further, the potential for saving a wrongly convicted individual's life alone is an outstanding argument against the death penalty.

The ball is now in your camp: as a pro-lifer, would you rather kill convicted murderers when they pose no threat, as punishment, or potentially save an innocent's life by banning the death penalty altogether?


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> Sorry man. I googled first breath, looked around for about 10 minutes, read a couple of articles about birth and about abortion, but I didn't find that. Ten minutes for an intentionally cryptic reference was more than enough. I figured you didn't really want us to know, or you'd have explained more. I'm not sure why you wanted to make us do the dance, but congratulations, you got me to do it and then you also managed to blame me (and all others) not merely for failing to magically decipher your intentionally cryptic reference, but even for failing to research it. False. Wrong. I tried. You didn't give me enough information, and you did it on purpose. Of your two criticisms, the former was, I suppose, in some sense fair; the latter was not.


Sorry man, I had no idea that the subject is somehow Forbidden Knowledge.

My attempt at a tie-in to the abortion debate has to become explicit then. Damn!

Abortion has been practiced for centuries to avoid unwanted births - but it was not the only way. In the normal head first birth, the infant is usually not breathing immediately. The first breath can be prevented actively - by blocking the mouth and nose, or passively by not stimulating the 'I'm here' yell. In cases of obvious gross deformity, the first breath was often not allowed. The possibility was always there in... other cases.

I had hoped to avoid 'voicing' this circumstance; it disturbs my sensibilities. I have been told that I was not a pretty sight at birth.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> There is no apparent connection between your scenario and capital punishment.
> 
> That being said, i see no hypocriticlism here because nobody can be blamed for saving a family member's life. However, when incarcerated a criminal poses no threat to the general public. Further, the potential for saving a wrongly convicted individual's life alone is an outstanding argument against the death penalty.
> 
> The ball is now in your camp: as a pro-lifer, would you rather kill convicted murderers when they pose no threat, as punishment, or potentially save an innocent's life by banning the death penalty altogether?


No, you stated that it seemed hypocritical that someone who professes to be pro-life would end somebody's life - you didn't put any conditions on it. The bottom line is that we both believe that there are certain conditions where the ending of a human life is justifiable and does not necessarily negate a person's pro-life beliefs. My line is at innocent life. I am for exhausting every avenue to verify that a person is truly guilty of the crime of murder before their life is ended.

How can you logically argue that convicted murderers pose no threat? By definition, they are a threat. The punishment serves two purposes - it is the only punishment that truly fits the crime, and it permanently ends their ability to ever again kill. Could there be wrongful executions? You can never say never. But there is a significant system in place for appeals, and people are removed from death row if they can convincingly be exonerated. So no, I would not ban the death penalty altogether, especially in light of the fact that numerous murderers have been paroled and then proceeded to kill again.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> I prefer that you arguers of the subject question do the research - but I suppose you will not.


Thanks for the lazy and condescending response. Strange though it may seem, it's difficult to adequate research on the sole basis of a two-word term, though I did try.

Edit: I see you bothered to respond.


----------



## Polednice

Although DrMike's contributions have taken this thread in some unfortunately tangential directions, they provide an insight into the desperate self-contradiction of someone who is anti-choice and pro-death penalty. At one point we hear about the sanctity of life and life beginning at conception, then we move, depending on the nuance of the discussion, onto innocent life, and then "potential" life. All of these become interchangeable, but deceptively so as they cannot be logically tied together. It is a profound slipperiness used to support a well-hidden bigoted agenda against women, and one that is also implicitly founded on vengeance, not justice.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> No, you stated that it seemed hypocritical that someone who professes to be pro-life would end somebody's life - you didn't put any conditions on it.


Are we seriously going to play that game?



DrMike said:


> How can you logically argue that convicted murderers pose no threat? By definition, they are a threat. The punishment serves two purposes - it is the only punishment that truly fits the crime, and it permanently ends their ability to ever again kill.


I'm sorry, but being locked in a cell, away from society, is a pretty effective way of neutralizing a threat... and kudos on "the only punishment that truly fits the crime", Jesus would be proud. :angel:



DrMike said:


> So no, I would not ban the death penalty altogether, especially in light of the fact that numerous murderers have been paroled and then proceeded to kill again.


So because a sentence is not as adequate as it should, eg. life without chance of parole, that means murderers should all be put to death? To me that sounds like correcting a wrong with another wrong, given that taking a person's life is wrong, according to the pro-lifer.

Keep them contradictions coming...


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Thanks for the lazy and condescending response. Strange though it may seem, it's difficult to adequate research on the sole basis of a two-word term, though I did try.
> 
> Edit: I see you bothered to respond.


Wow. Maybe there _is_ a plot. I even Googled on 'prevent first breath' (which stretches my clue some) and examined the first 16 pages of hits. Nothing.

My apologies, folks. What I thought was accessible data isn't accessible. I wonder if it ever was common knowledge.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Although DrMike's contributions have taken this thread in some unfortunately tangential directions, they provide an insight into the desperate self-contradiction of someone who is anti-choice and pro-death penalty. At one point we hear about the sanctity of life and life beginning at conception, then we move, depending on the nuance of the discussion, onto innocent life, and then "potential" life. All of these become interchangeable, but deceptively so as they cannot be logically tied together. It is a profound slipperiness used to support a well-hidden bigoted agenda against women, and one that is also implicitly founded on vengeance, not justice.


Oh, touche! You have me pegged! Yes, I do have a well-hidden bigoted agenda against women - just ask my wife. I am horribly driven by vengeance! Don't get on my bad side! Why, I am for the death penalty for anybody who dares disagree with me!

Once again, I have proven how ridiculously driven by ideology I am, while you all, my enlightened superiors, are only motivated by the purest intentions! How vengeful of me to apply the death penalty to murderers! You are right - it is wrong of me to think that justice requires that the punishment fit the crime. Or that we ensure that murderers will never go free to kill again. And how unenlightened of me to not allow the free, unrestricted right of women to abort their - let's see, what is the preferred term you all like to use to try and dehumanize the process to make yourself feel better - "advanced sperm," or fetus, or foetus (to those of you on the other side of the pond), or lump of non-conscious cells!

I believe that abortion is wrong - I would believe it is wrong even if it were me who possessed the wombs. My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with how I feel about women (love them, by the way, probably moreso than you). Aside from my father, the people that I revere in my life most are women - my mother and my wife. I don't buy into the false notion, so often repeated by naive young children and rebellious teenagers, of "if you love me, you will let me do what I want." Do I think having a baby is a major thing? Absolutely! Two of the 3 most significant moments of my life were when my two sons were born (the third being my marriage). And I acknowledge that there are some women who aren't prepared, for whatever reasons, for what comes with raising a child. But I don't believe that gives them a right to have an abortion. Seek out other alternatives. For example, I have some friends that would desperately love to adopt a child. If you think this makes me a bigot, well, then go ahead and call me a bigot. I suspect you will call me that regardless of what I do or say. Unfortunately for you, nothing you can do or say can define me. That is one of the wonderful things of life - I don't have to be defined by the ignorant labels that others place on me.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> Are we seriously going to play that game?


Yes, we are. It is a game that member science likes to play as well.



> I'm sorry, but being locked in a cell, away from society, is a pretty effective way of neutralizing a threat... and kudos on "the only punishment that truly fits the crime", Jesus would be proud. :angel:


Really, it is a pretty effective way of neutralizing a threat? I would recommend you visit this website for a short list of some examples how "being locked in a cell, away from society" was not a "pretty effective way of neutralizing a threat."
http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html



> So because a sentence is not as adequate as it should, eg. life without chance of parole, that means murderers should all be put to death? To me that sounds like correcting a wrong with another wrong, given that taking a person's life is wrong, according to the pro-lifer.
> 
> Keep them contradictions coming...


The contradiction is only there because you mischaracterized what I said. I said that we both could conceive of instances where taking a person's life is not wrong. For me, the execution of a convicted murderer is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing a person to protect others is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing a person in self defense is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Going to war to prevent the extermination of a people is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing an innocent person IS an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Aborting a baby whose life does not jeopardize that of the mother IS an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. There, did I spell that out clearly enough for you? In case you are wondering, there is a common thread here - I oppose taking a person's life when that life is innocent. I support taking a person's life where the person has shed innocent blood.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with how I feel about women (love them, by the way, probably moreso than you).


That gave me a giggle at least.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> For example, I have some friends that would desperately love to adopt a child. If you think this makes me a bigot, well, then go ahead and call me a bigot. I suspect you will call me that regardless of what I do or say. Unfortunately for you, nothing you can do or say can define me. That is one of the wonderful things of life - I don't have to be defined by the ignorant labels that others place on me.


This is another fundamental problem with your approach to the question. Don't you think everyone here would rather someone gave a child up for adoption than aborted? Of course we would! We're not all nasty baby-haters who want nothing more than to "murder" a foetus. We have the decency and foresight, however, to recognise that there is more than one answer to the question, and while we would all advocate better sex education and contraceptive cover and promotion of adoption (all things that are hindered by the ever self-defeating church), that _does not mean_ that we should therefore make abortion illegal.


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> DrMike is not talking about a _doctor's_ right of refusal. He is referring to a religiously _commanded_ ban. Any doctor who performs an abortion against his understanding of the oath has abandoned it.
> 
> I wonder if you folks have heard of the concept of 'first breath'. I won't elucidate, but if you want to know, it's out there. Very old, sometimes a decision that had to be made without hesitation by a doctor or midwife. It wasn't - and isn't - easy being a life giver.
> 
> [Can't handle the hard stuff? Once in awhile the academic 'playing around' evolves into something real; sorry about that.]


I'm aware that if someone causes harm to the mother and the baby is born either by natural or *Caesarean section* if it can take a breath then that someone can be charged with murder. If the baby does not draw breath then it is still born and that person may only be charged with the lesser offence of destruction of a foetus. I'm not sure if this applies to every country I doubt that is does but it does in most of western *Europe*

As for objecting on religious grounds I don't think this should be allowed. It prevents the doctor from carrying out hippocratic oath, do no harm etc. The doctor's patient is the mother not the unborn child.

This wasn't directed directly at you *Hilltroll* I only quoted you as you were the one to mention the "first breath".


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> Really, it is a pretty effective way of neutralizing a threat? I would recommend you visit this website for a short list of some examples how "being locked in a cell, away from society" was not a "pretty effective way of neutralizing a threat."
> http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html


How is being locked in a cell in any way compatible with being released or on parole? You're making the same argument as before, and while i heard you the first time, it is completely irrelevant.

BTW, very nice source, it begs to be taken seriously.



DrMike said:


> The contradiction is only there because you mischaracterized what I said. I said that we both could conceive of instances where taking a person's life is not wrong. For me, the execution of a convicted murderer is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing a person to protect others is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing a person in self defense is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Going to war to prevent the extermination of a people is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing an innocent person IS an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Aborting a baby whose life does not jeopardize that of the mother IS an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. There, did I spell that out clearly enough for you? In case you are wondering, there is a common thread here - I oppose taking a person's life when that life is innocent. I support taking a person's life where the person has shed innocent blood.


That's well interesting, now if only we could all agree on the definition of innocence.


----------



## Lenfer

DrMike said:


> You find it hard to understand that someone would be for ending the life of a murderer who has snuffed out innocent (relatively speaking) life, but preventing the snuffing out of inherently innocent human life?


No but if you are a believer in the Abrahamic "God" it's made quite clear that only he has the right to punish people and decided when they die. It's also quite clear that in *America* the death penalty is a racially motivated punishment.

Two people convicted of the same crime one black one white it's X times more likely the black chap will end up on death row than the white one. I'll post a link to the *New Statesmen* article on it if it's still on the net.

Unlike most religious arguments I *do* understand your point of view. That embryo/child what ever stage it may be at could be a person one day. But until it can survive independently of it's host I do not think it should be given the same rights as a child.

If a mother's body terminates the child (miscarriage) at whatever stage she is not held responsible no matter what. It his her body her choice and I do not expect a man to fully understand I admit I do not fully comprehend what it is like to be pregnant as I haven't been pregnant (yet).


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> This is another fundamental problem with your approach to the question. Don't you think everyone here would rather someone gave a child up for adoption than aborted? Of course we would! We're not all nasty baby-haters who want nothing more than to "murder" a foetus. We have the decency and foresight, however, to recognise that there is more than one answer to the question, and while we would all advocate better sex education and contraceptive cover and promotion of adoption (all things that are hindered by the ever self-defeating church), that _does not mean_ that we should therefore make abortion illegal.


See, and this is where we differ. I have not called any of you "nasty baby-haters," nor have I suggested you want to "murder a foetus." I, on the other hand, have been labeled a bigot, and a hypocrite.

But your statement above, "We have the decency and foresight . . . " again implies that I lack both because I don't find your arguments convincing. I recognize certain rights, but rights end where they violate those of others. For example, I have the right to free speech in my country. However, I don't have the right to slander and libel others, and I don't have the right to plagiarize, and I don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building when no fire exists. Women and men have the right to determine what they do with their bodies, but I don't believe this is absolute. Where at all possible, I fully support this. But when a person takes this to the extreme of killing a fetus (notice, again, I have not used the word murder) for no medically justified reason, I believe that the right does not extend that far. You may believe that I don't acknowledge that there are other answers to the question - that is incorrect. I know that there are other answers to the question, but I also know that not all answers are right.

And to Lenfer - a person can object on whatever grounds they want. I believe that one of the true measures of the health of a civilization is how we treat the innocent. I believe that two of the signs of ours being an advanced civilization (speaking of Western civilization) is the evolution of our treatment of women and children. In that respect, I see medically unnecessary abortion as a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> How is being locked in a cell in any way compatible with being released or on parole? You're making the same argument as before, and while i heard you the first time, it is completely irrelevant.
> 
> BTW, very nice source, it begs to be taken seriously.
> 
> That's well interesting, now if only we could all agree on the definition of innocence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Dillbeck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawud_M._Mu%27Min
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leroy_Nash
I apologize for not verifying every single name on the list, but here is for starters. I wonder, based on what do you question the voracity of the source I linked to? Just because it didn't support your argument? Did you notice that some of the repeat murders were for people who were supposed to be behind bars, but escaped and killed again? And some of the repeat murders were of prison guards while incarcerated? I would argue that imprisoning murderers is clearly not the most effective way of preventing people from killing again. How about you provide a list for me of all the murderers that have been executed who then returned from the grave and killed again (and no, you cannot cite Jason, or Freddy, or Michael Myers).

As for innocence, I would hope we could all concede that murder victims are innocent. If we can't even start off on that footing, then we really have nothing more to discuss. And as for fetuses, I would say that that level of human life is not only innocent, but wholly incapable of committing any wrong. Do you have some other definition of innocence that contradicts what I have just said?


----------



## Lenfer

DrMike said:


> And to Lenfer - a person can object on whatever grounds they want. I believe that one of the true measures of the health of a civilization is how we treat the innocent. I believe that two of the signs of ours being an advanced civilization (speaking of Western civilization) is the evolution of our treatment of women and children. In that respect, I see medically unnecessary abortion as a step in the wrong direction.


Not if your a doctor, you can't turn round and say:

"I'm not treating him he's black/a murder/a drunk he'll have to wait"

You can't choose not to preform treatment because it goes against what you believe.

Personally I don't think your a bigot I wouldn't even call you a hypocrite as I believe you a sincere.


----------



## Philip

By the way, "hypocriticlist" is an Ali G reference... for all of you who didn't know and probably thought i was an idiot.

This is my standard response to all religiously tainted discussions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRWEnKlNUSQ#t=4m8s


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> How about you provide a list for me of all the murderers that have been executed who then returned from the grave and killed again (and no, you cannot cite Jason, or Freddy, or Michael Myers).


We all know that only Jesus came back from the dead...


----------



## Lenfer

Philip said:


> By the way, "hypocriticlist" is an Ali G reference... for all of you who didn't know and probably thought i was an idiot.
> 
> This is my standard response to all religiously tainted discussions:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRWEnKlNUSQ#t=4m8s


LOL!

I didn't and don't think your an idiot. I can see why people would say say the good doctor is a hypocrite. I doubt he is a doctor though and if he is it'll be from some third rate doctor school like the *Dr. Pepper* doctoring school of *Azerbaijan*. 

(If he turns out to have gone to *Harvard* I'll have so much egg on my face. )


----------



## Guest

Lenfer said:


> No but if you are a believer in the Abrahamic "God" it's made quite clear that only he has the right to punish people and decided when they die. It's also quite clear that in *America* the death penalty is a racially motivated punishment.
> 
> Two people convicted of the same crime one black one white it's X times more likely the black chap will end up on death row than the white one. I'll post a link to the *New Statesmen* article on it if it's still on the net.
> 
> Unlike most religious arguments I *do* understand your point of view. That embryo/child what ever stage it may be at could be a person one day. But until it can survive independently of it's host I do not think it should be given the same rights as a child.
> 
> If a mother's body terminates the child (miscarriage) at whatever stage she is not held responsible no matter what. It his her body her choice and I do not expect a man to fully understand I admit I do not fully comprehend what it is like to be pregnant as I haven't been pregnant (yet).


The Abrahamic "God" provided for numerous crimes for which death was to be the punishment. In fact, more crimes than I would recommend the death penalty for.

It is quite clear that some people think that the death penalty in America is racially motivated. It is not clear to me that the death penalty in America actually IS racially motivated. Statistics that I found showed that, since 1975, inmates on death row were 56% white, and ~35% black. The U.S. as a whole is ~70% white, and ~12% black (these numbers may be a little off, but they are in the ballpark). So if you purely look at it from the standpoint of this, then it seems that blacks are overrepresented on death row. But if you also look, you will see that, consistenly since 1975, the homicide rate for blacks is significantly higher than for whites - for whites, the rate is below 10%, for blacks, it has consistently been above 20%, and at some points as high as 50%. So one question that comes from this is that, if whites make up less than 10% of the murderers in this country, why do they make up more than 50% of the murderers sentenced to death?

As to the argument regarding the ability of a child/embryo being able to survive independently being a distinction for assigning rights, what of those on life support who are unable to survive independently. Can we euthanize them? What of the mentally ill or those with genetic disorders that render them incapable of independent survival, who would likely die without the help of another? You see, when you get to start arbitrarily determining when a life is and is not worthy of being granted rights - and make no mistake about it, the decisions is usually arbitrary, and more often than not decided by judges and politicians who have no more expertise in deciding such critical matters than you or I (and sometimes less), then there really is no hard and fast rule as to where they get to decide rights begin and end. Why does birth have to be the defining line? Newborns are incapable of independent survival. Don't believe me? Go leave a newborn out on the street by itself, and see how long it survives. And the implications of this are what scares me the most. Because since abortion has been legalized, we hear the musings of recognized expert ethicists talking about how post-partum abortion should be allowed. I can cite for you a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that argues that very point. And we see horrendous procedures where babies, otherwise developed enough that they can survive outside the womb, are partially delivered, only to have their brains suctioned out. The current president of the United States, while an Illinois state senator, opposed a bill that would have required medical help and life-saving efforts be given to babies that somehow survived abortion procedures and happened to be born alive. Nurses testified that they witnessed these occurrences - babies being born, despite attempts to abort them, and being left to die in garbage cans.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> We all know that only Jesus came back from the dead...


So at least we can agree, then, that, whatever else it is, the death penalty is a fairly reliable deterrent of repeated murder.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> The contradiction is only there because you mischaracterized what I said. I said that we both could conceive of instances where taking a person's life is not wrong. For me, the execution of a convicted murderer is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing a person to protect others is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing a person in self defense is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Going to war to prevent the extermination of a people is not an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Killing an innocent person IS an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. Aborting a baby whose life does not jeopardize that of the mother IS an instance where taking a person's life is wrong. There, did I spell that out clearly enough for you? In case you are wondering, there is a common thread here - I oppose taking a person's life when that life is innocent. I support taking a person's life where the person has shed innocent blood.


Here are the major contradictions about the three lines of argument that I stated I see (sacred life, innocent life, and potential life). These are not all yours, but for the sake of completeness:

1) To talk about "innocent" life, "life" must first be defined. Many, but not all, religious people claim that a foetus at any stage is "life" because life is sacred and begins at conception. If this is taken to be true, there are two consequences: a) abortion should not be allowed in any circumstances, rape and incest included, because, as horrible as rape is, life is more important; b) because _all_ life is sacred, God has dominion over all life, and thus we have no right to execute people. In brief, you must ban all abortion and be against the death penalty. I have not come across anyone consistent in this approach (_I know that some people don't accept this position; read on for alternatives_).

2) Alternatively, in order to allow us a little blood-thirsty vengeance, some say that life begins at conception, but side-step the idea of sanctity. Instead, it is because the little ball of cells is "potential" life. It is acknowledged that it is not fully feeling and capable, but that it will be in the future, so we must not cut its chances. If this is taken to be true, contraception ought to be prohibited in line with the Catholic view, as every egg and sperm, though of a different nature to a fertilised embryo, nevertheless has "potential" to be life. There is no persuasive reason to make a distinction between a gamete and an embryo - that is an attempt to appeal to emotion via the image of a little child - as the embryo is no more clinically alive than a sperm in its current state; it's all about future potential, and gametes have future potential in bucketloads.

3) With both positions of "innocent" life and "potential" life, there is an irreconcilable contradiction if a person wishes to allow abortion in cases of rape. To permit such a thing necessitates that "innocent" life and "potential" life are _lesser_ than fully-fledged human life, otherwise, as in 1, the foetus's life would trump the violent crime committed against the mother. But, if you accept that "innocent" and "potential" life are important but sufficiently diminished to allow this, it follows that the fully-fledged life of the mother is more valuable than the lesser life of the foetus. You are then charged with working out a more thorough framework - are women allowed abortions after rape? After incest? If their life is threatened by childbirth? If their mental health is threatened? If their financial circumstances don't allow it? This is really what this thread was about, but when you push on this, I have very often found that post-rape abortion is reflexively permitted, but the rest is thrown out entirely _not_ because people have any coherent, balanced view about the value of the life of the foetus compared to the mother, but because people think the only legitimate cases for abortion are when the pregnancy is forced, otherwise the main concern is stopping ****ty, whorish, lascivious temptresses from using abortion as a quick-fix.

4) More ethically, rather than practically, any anti-abortion position that accepts that life does not begin fully-fledged at conception is inherently speciesist, as it acknowledges that the embryo is _not_ fully alive, and is less feeling and sensitive to harm than many of the livestock we slaughter by the millions every day, but the fact that it will become _human_ life is what separates it. Why should this distinction made? If we were to accept the religious idea that human life is special, we nevertheless must talk about "potential" humanness, and so run into the problems with 3, and if we're more honest and talk about the practicalities of an embryo at a precise moment in time, rather than emotively thinking of its future, compared to a living animal, the animal is more important in its current state.

----------

Now I've just thrown the above together as best as I could in the past few minutes, so it's not complete and there may well be holes in it, but my major point - as before - is that the language used in defence of various anti-abortion positions is extremely slippery and, when probed, often reveals a number of contradictions. Unsurprisingly, interpretation of religious doctrine rather conveniently fits the world-view of the believer. Strange how we don't often come across people who follow religious doctrine _despite_ intuitions to the contrary; instead intuition and religious interpretation almost always coincide...


----------



## Guest

Lenfer said:


> LOL!
> 
> I didn't and don't think your an idiot. I can see why people would say say the good doctor is a hypoxic. I doubt he is a doctor though and if he is it'll be from some third rate doctor school like the *Dr. Pepper* doctoring school of *Azerbaijan*.
> 
> (If he turns out to have gone to *Harvard* I'll have so much egg on my face. )


Oh Lenfer - the problem when you go about making assumptions like that, you will, 9 times out of 10, get egg on your face. The truth of the matter is that I am a doctor, although not the kind with an M.D. trailing their name, rather the kind with the Ph.D. behind their name - or, as I like to say, the poorly paid doctor. I received my ****** in Microbiology, with minors in Chemistry and History, and then received my Ph.D. in Microbiology. I will not say where, so that I can keep some anonymity here. But I am not misrepresenting myself here, and it is correct, at least in the United States, to refer to Ph.D.s as doctors. I will say that both degrees were from accredited universities in the United States - I will even admit that my ****** is from Brigham Young University, which should come as no surprise to many of you that know I am a Mormon. I study viral immunology, and aside from these religious and political debates, I also enjoy properly informing people of the importance of vaccinations.

As to people labeling me an hypoxic, I can assure you that my blood is properly oxygenated, and my skin has a very healthy appearance. If that term has a different meaning over in the UK, then it is lost on me.

Edit: I love it! The abbreviation for Bachlor of Science is censored by the website!


----------



## Polednice

P.S. I haven't seen anything about it, so I would be extremely interested to hear whether proponents of outlawing medical abortions also seek to criminalise women who do it by other means (flushing out, or with a coat-hanger, perhaps). Much of the rhetoric is based on saying, "I'm not having _my_ tax dollars pay for that because it goes against my beliefs", but if your beliefs honestly dictate that the life inside a woman at any stage is a sacred, innocent, or potential life worth saving, then surely it is logical to state that the "killing" of it in _any_ circumstances - whether by a doctor or not - must result in punishment.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Here are the major contradictions about the three lines of argument that I stated I see (sacred life, innocent life, and potential life). These are not all yours, but for the sake of completeness:
> 
> 1) To talk about "innocent" life, "life" must first be defined. Many, but not all, religious people claim that a foetus at any stage is "life" because life is sacred and begins at conception. If this is taken to be true, there are two consequences: a) abortion should not be allowed in any circumstances, rape and incest included, because, as horrible as rape is, life is more important; b) because _all_ life is sacred, God has dominion over all life, and thus we have no right to execute people. In brief, you must ban all abortion and be against the death penalty. I have not come across anyone consistent in this approach (_I know that some people don't accept this position; read on for alternatives_).
> 
> 2) Alternatively, in order to allow us a little blood-thirsty vengeance, some say that life begins at conception, but side-step the idea of sanctity. Instead, it is because the little ball of cells is "potential" life. It is acknowledged that it is not fully feeling and capable, but that it will be in the future, so we must not cut its chances. If this is taken to be true, contraception ought to be prohibited in line with the Catholic view, as every egg and sperm, though of a different nature to a fertilised embryo, nevertheless has "potential" to be life. There is no persuasive reason to make a distinction between a gamete and an embryo - that is an attempt to appeal to emotion via the image of a little child - as the embryo is no more clinically alive than a sperm in its current state; it's all about future potential, and gametes have future potential in bucketloads.
> 
> 3) With both positions of "innocent" life and "potential" life, there is an irreconcilable contradiction if a person wishes to allow abortion in cases of rape. To permit such a thing necessitates that "innocent" life and "potential" life are _lesser_ than fully-fledged human life, otherwise, as in 1, the foetus's life would trump the violent crime committed against the mother. But, if you accept that "innocent" and "potential" life are important but sufficiently diminished to allow this, it follows that the fully-fledged life of the mother is more valuable than the lesser life of the foetus. You are then charged with working out a more thorough framework - are women allowed abortions after rape? After incest? If their life is threatened by childbirth? If their mental health is threatened? If their financial circumstances don't allow it? This is really what this thread was about, but when you push on this, I have very often found that post-rape abortion is reflexively permitted, but the rest is thrown out entirely _not_ because people have any coherent, balanced view about the value of the life of the foetus compared to the mother, but because people think the only legitimate cases for abortion are when the pregnancy is forced, otherwise the main concern is stopping ****ty, whorish, lascivious temptresses from using abortion as a quick-fix.
> 
> 4) More ethically, rather than practically, any anti-abortion position that accepts that life does not begin fully-fledged at conception is inherently speciesist, as it acknowledges that the embryo is _not_ fully alive, and is less feeling and sensitive to harm than many of the livestock we slaughter by the millions every day, but the fact that it will become _human_ life is what separates it. Why should this distinction made? If we were to accept the religious idea that human life is special, we nevertheless must talk about "potential" humanness, and so run into the problems with 3, and if we're more honest and talk about the practicalities of an embryo at a precise moment in time, rather than emotively thinking of its future, compared to a living animal, the animal is more important in its current state.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Now I've just thrown the above together as best as I could in the past few minutes, so it's not complete and there may well be holes in it, but my major point - as before - is that the language used in defence of various anti-abortion positions is extremely slippery and, when probed, often reveals a number of contradictions. Unsurprisingly, interpretation of religious doctrine rather conveniently fits the world-view of the believer. Strange how we don't often come across people who follow religious doctrine _despite_ intuitions to the contrary; instead intuition and religious interpretation almost always coincide...


In regards to scenario 1, there are in fact people who are both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the official position of the Catholic church.

As for the rest, rather than have to explain myself again, I will simply quote the great American poet Walt Whitman, "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself,(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> In regards to scenario 1, there are in fact people who are both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the official position of the Catholic church.


I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know - I'll look into it.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> So at least we can agree, then, that, whatever else it is, the death penalty is a fairly reliable deterrent of repeated murder.


Yes, and chopping off your hands is a reliable deterrent of repeated nose picking.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> P.S. I haven't seen anything about it, so I would be extremely interested to hear whether proponents of outlawing medical abortions also seek to criminalise women who do it by other means (flushing out, or with a coat-hanger, perhaps). Much of the rhetoric is based on saying, "I'm not having _my_ tax dollars pay for that because it goes against my beliefs", but if your beliefs honestly dictate that the life inside a woman at any stage is a sacred, innocent, or potential life worth saving, then surely it is logical to state that the "killing" of it in _any_ circumstances - whether by a doctor or not - must result in punishment.


Well, now, Polednice, in another discussion you stated quite clearly that if there is a law in place, then various groups should not be allowed to disregard it. So you tell me - if abortion were illegal, would you argue that some people should be allowed to ignore the law and not face punishment for doing so? If you say yes, then do you care to revise your opinions on the other issue? Since we are talking about contradictions, lets see how you handle this one.

I believe that abortion should not be legal, except in the exceptions I have previously stated. Would I submit all people to the same level of punishment? No, probably not. Consider the issue of illegal drugs. Do we punish drug dealers in the same way that we punish drug users? No - and yet the same law is still being violated - *gasp* do you mean that the law can be nuanced?!? Bite your tongue - you know that we religious hacks are absolutists to the end! Why, I think that all abortionists and women who receive abortions should be executed! The more grisly, the better! Maybe we can bring back the guillotuine and publicly execute them!!!! Yeah, that gets my god-fearing, woman-hating blood flowing!!!


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> Yes, and chopping off your hands is a reliable deterrent of repeated nose picking.


I'd been meaning to ask how you had learned to type so well . . .


----------



## Philip

Lenfer said:


> *Dr. Pepper*


He may be a third-rate doctor but he makes a damn good pop.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> I'd been meaning to ask how you had learned to type so well . . .


Not at church anyway, i couldn't put my hands together for prayer so God never did me any special favors.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> He may be a third-rate doctor but he makes a damn good pop.


Wow, you are actually conceding that I am a doctor! First Polednice over in one of the groups accused me of being ignorant of science and the scientific method, then Lenfer questioned whether I was actually a doctor, and now you are conceding I am a doctor AND a good father to my children! I AM making progress with you people. Maybe by the end of this you all will be nominating me for the Nobel Peace Prize!


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> Not at church anyway, i couldn't put my hands together for prayer so God never did me any special favors.


Why would he . . . you kept sticking your damn boogers under his pews!


----------



## Lenfer

DrMike said:


> Oh Lenfer - the problem when you go about making assumptions like that, you will, 9 times out of 10, get egg on your face. The truth of the matter is that I am a doctor, although not the kind with an M.D. trailing their name, rather the kind with the Ph.D. behind their name - or, as I like to say, the poorly paid doctor. I received my ****** in Microbiology, with minors in Chemistry and History, and then received my Ph.D. in Microbiology. I will not say where, so that I can keep some anonymity here. But I am not misrepresenting myself here, and it is correct, at least in the United States, to refer to Ph.D.s as doctors. I will say that both degrees were from accredited universities in the United States - I will even admit that my ****** is from Brigham Young University, which should come as no surprise to many of you that know I am a Mormon. I study viral immunology, and aside from these religious and political debates, I also enjoy properly informing people of the importance of vaccinations.
> 
> As to people labeling me an hypoxic, I can assure you that my blood is properly oxygenated, and my skin has a very healthy appearance. If that term has a different meaning over in the UK, then it is lost on me.
> 
> Edit: I love it! The abbreviation for Bachlor of Science is censored by the website!


Haha I actually thought you might have a Ph.D I didn't think you'd call yourself *DrMike* for the heck of it but I didn't think you had an MD. I was only trying to lighten the tone of the subject a little bit and was prepared to risk looking stupid. I don't like it when a thread becomes X vs. one person I feel bad as I don't have anything against you or what you believe or *Azerbaijan* for that matter.

I'm not sure what *Hilltroll* believes but I think this is why he may take what I see as a contrarian position to try and bring some balance. Perhaps in future I will not reply to these threads. I knew it would turn out as for and against and debate is fine but I fear it could stop people interacting with each other on other parts of the forum, I hope this is not the case.

"Hypoxic" was a typo I was busy sorting out my new *Rubinstein* CDs and didn't notice nor do I why I typed it. I switched to *Google Chrome* perhaps I misspelled it and it corrected it?

I have also noticed that this site censors a lot. if you type F and then two * and a k the full thing gets censored.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> Wow, you are actually conceding that I am a doctor! First Polednice over in one of the groups accused me of being ignorant of science and the scientific method, then Lenfer questioned whether I was actually a doctor, and now you are conceding I am a doctor AND a good father to my children! I AM making progress with you people. Maybe by the end of this you all will be nominating me for the Nobel Peace Prize!


I was actually talking about *Dr Pepper*.


----------



## Lenfer

Philip said:


> I was actually talking about *Dr Pepper*.


I've never had a *Dr. Pepper* nor have I had any type of soda drink not even *Coke*. :lol:


----------



## Philip

Lenfer said:


> I've never had a *Dr. Pepper* nor have I had any type of soda drink not even *Coke*. :lol:


Impossible.


----------



## Lenfer

Philip said:


> Impossible.


Nope, true my *Mother* was very strict and these things were treated as contraband at school. But I may have lied I just remembered I sometimes take *Lucozade* on doctors orders when I am sick but I'm not sure if this is soft drink or not.

My I ask what your avatar is? I noticed you changed it and it has been on my mind. I liked your old one better.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Well, now, Polednice, in another discussion you stated quite clearly that if there is a law in place, then various groups should not be allowed to disregard it. So you tell me - if abortion were illegal, would you argue that some people should be allowed to ignore the law and not face punishment for doing so? If you say yes, then do you care to revise your opinions on the other issue? Since we are talking about contradictions, lets see how you handle this one.


Of course I'm not asking for special exceptions. You're right that I stated no one should get special exceptions, and I don't think anyone should. My point was simply that the rhetoric has been rather vague in public debate - it is not made clear whether the law should be that doctors should be banned and made accountable, or whether the act is so unequivocally abhorrent that any woman found committing it herself should also be considered a criminal. Whatever becomes the law must be followed by all (though I may well leave any country that passed such a law), I'm just looking for clarification, as it's not inconceivable that people think that this is simply something public money shouldn't be spent on, but which is otherwise OK (a la contraception). I don't think my question was hyperbolic either - there is precedent for women being severely punished, and I haven't seen much about people stating how women should be punished should abortion be outlawed again.


----------



## Guest

Lenfer said:


> I've never had a *Dr. Pepper* nor have I had any type of soda drink not even *Coke*. :lol:


THAT is un-American!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> I was actually talking about *Dr Pepper*.


Hah. That's what I thought - and it's entirely possible _DrMike_ did too. These Doctors of Philosophy can be slippery.

The death penalty equates to State Murder. How about if the State amputates the arms at the elbow and the legs at the knee, and then returns the convicted murderer to Society? Then if he is eventually found to be innocent, he can be fitted with prostheses. Neat solution, eh?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Of course I'm not asking for special exceptions. You're right that I stated no one should get special exceptions, and I don't think anyone should. My point was simply that the rhetoric has been rather vague in public debate - it is not made clear whether the law should be that doctors should be banned and made accountable, or whether the act is so unequivocally abhorrent that any woman found committing it herself should also be considered a criminal. Whatever becomes the law must be followed by all (though I may well leave any country that passed such a law), I'm just looking for clarification, as it's not inconceivable that people think that this is simply something public money shouldn't be spent on, but which is otherwise OK (a la contraception). I don't think my question was hyperbolic either - there is precedent for women being severely punished, and I haven't seen much about people stating how women should be punished should abortion be outlawed again.


Sure, there is precedent for women being serverely punished . . . in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern nations. I'm not even sure women were severely punished back before abortion was illegal in this country.

Actually, there are people who think that abortion should be illegal, and there are more people who feel that public money should not be spent on abortion. I would prefer it be illegal, but while it is legal, I am going to fight for as many restrictions as possible, and I am definitely going to fight to prevent tax dollars being spent to pay for abortions. It is one thing to say that you have a right to something - it is quite another thing to say that you have a right to something and that right includes me paying to provide you with it. I have the right to free speech, but nowhere does it say that anybody has to facilitate my free speech.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah. That's what I thought - and it's entirely possible _DrMike_ did too. These Doctors of Philosophy can be slippery.
> 
> The death penalty equates to State Murder. How about if the State amputates the arms at the elbow and the legs at the knee, and then returns the convicted murderer to Society? Then if he is eventually found to be innocent, he can be fitted with prostheses. Neat solution, eh?


Nope, I thoroughly believed he was referring to me! After all, I'm much sweeter than Dr. Pepper.

I think your idea has merit, but I would add one final condition - rather than returning them to society following the quadruple amputation, they would then be transported to a penal colony in Antarctica. (and the childish person is me is suddenly reminded of some great jokes - what do you call a guy with no arms and no legs swimming? Bob. What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs laying on the floor? Matt. What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs hanging on the wall? Art.)


----------



## Philip

Lenfer said:


> Nope, true my *Mother* was very strict and these things were treated as contraband at school. But I may have lied I just remembered I sometimes take *Lucozade* on doctors orders when I am sick but I'm not sure if this is soft drink or not.


It's funny because Dr Pepper is an agnostic drink, you can't tell what it tastes like.







Lenfer said:


> My I ask what your avatar is? I noticed you changed it and it has been on my mind. I liked your old one better.


It's a secret


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Actually, there are people who think that abortion should be illegal, and there are more people who feel that public money should not be spent on abortion. I would prefer it be illegal, but while it is legal, I am going to fight for as many restrictions as possible, and I am definitely going to fight to prevent tax dollars being spent to pay for abortions. It is one thing to say that you have a right to something - it is quite another thing to say that you have a right to something and that right includes me paying to provide you with it. I have the right to free speech, but nowhere does it say that anybody has to facilitate my free speech.


Well you continue to do that, and I'll continue to hope you lose, while cherishing the still-limited but greater freedoms permitted in the UK. It's funny how the big nation with the greatest constitution in the world is the one that has ended up with theocratic battles masquerading as "religious liberty", while countries over here with established churches and monarchies are the ones that allow their citizens actual freedom from religion. It seems that the "freedom of / freedom from" clause has been unfortunately interpreted as the right for the religious to battle to get their beliefs legislated, and the right for the non-religious to battle to keep them at bay, rather than a mutual understanding that all should be able to live without anyone else's beliefs affecting you. If only the U.S. public echoed its president:


----------



## Philip

Thought i'd shake up the thread by showing you this link i saw on reddit, *NSFW*, *WTF*:

http://www.sonoworld.com/fetus/page.aspx?id=2951

Life is ****** up.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Well you continue to do that, and I'll continue to hope you lose, while cherishing the still-limited but greater freedoms permitted in the UK. It's funny how the big nation with the greatest constitution in the world is the one that has ended up with theocratic battles masquerading as "religious liberty", while countries over here with established churches and monarchies are the ones that allow their citizens actual freedom from religion. It seems that the "freedom of / freedom from" clause has been unfortunately interpreted as the right for the religious to battle to get their beliefs legislated, and the right for the non-religious to battle to keep them at bay, rather than a mutual understanding that all should be able to live without anyone else's beliefs affecting you. If only the U.S. public echoed its president:


Sorry, but I will not echo a man who is among the extreme of the extreme of the pro-choice movement - a man who couldn't even bring himself to vote for a bill that would require providing medical assistance for failed abortions where the child was born alive, banning the practice of simply discarding these live births which was occuring. Whether the mother wanted the child or not, live, viable babies were born and were outside of the womb and no longer physically connected to the mother. Certainly even pro-choice people could see fit, at that point, to see this no longer as a fetus, but a living human being that had the right to life. Unfortunately, Barack Obama couldn't see that. When a similar bill was introduced at the national level, it was passed, including by unanimous consent in the Senate, which includes people like Barbra Boxer, who is one of the staunchest supporters of abortion rights.


----------



## Lenfer

Philip said:


> Thought i'd shake up the thread by showing you this link i saw on reddit, *NSFW*, *WTF*:
> 
> http://www.sonoworld.com/fetus/page.aspx?id=2951
> 
> Life is ****** up.


The second baby was most likely an egg that fused with another egg hence the two heads etc...

My boyfriend was born more than 3 months premature and he's a fine physical specimen even if I do say so myself.  So I can only think it was the IV treatment that lead to the abnormalities. It could have been genetic but the other baby was fine. Eggs can fuse naturally. I'm guessing there is a higher risk of them doing so during if as the number they take is higher and they are confined in a dish with not a lot of room.

*DrMike* just for future reference, I'm not *American*.


----------



## Guest

Lenfer said:


> The second baby was most likely an egg that fused with another egg hence the two heads etc...
> 
> My boyfriend was born more than 3 months premature and he's a fine physical specimen even if I do say so myself.  So I can only think it was the IV treatment that lead to the abnormalities. It could have been genetic but the other baby was fine. Eggs can fuse naturally. I'm guessing there is a higher risk of them doing so during if as the number they take is higher and they are confined in a dish with not a lot of room.
> 
> *DrMike* just for future reference, I'm not *American*.


Lenfer, I know you are not American - my comment was extremely tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Lenfer

Polednice said:


> Well you continue to do that, and I'll continue to hope you lose, while cherishing the still-limited but greater freedoms permitted in the UK. It's funny how the big nation with the greatest constitution in the world is the one that has ended up with theocratic battles masquerading as "religious liberty", while countries over here with established churches and monarchies are the ones that allow their citizens actual freedom from religion. It seems that the "freedom of / freedom from" clause has been unfortunately interpreted as the right for the religious to battle to get their beliefs legislated, and the right for the non-religious to battle to keep them at bay, rather than a mutual understanding that all should be able to live without anyone else's beliefs affecting you. If only the U.S. public echoed its president:


I agree with some of what you said but I disagree with some. On a street level yes the *Americans* in general are more God lovin' than us *Europeans* (not counting former *Soviet* countries etc)

People like that *Santorum* chap can say they don't believe separation of church and state is absolute but it is in the law. A judge would just smack him on the head with his gavel and that would be that.

Even if he did get elected which isn't going to happen with a name like *Santorum*. Why? For the same reason poor *Ed Balls* will never be *PM* here in the *UK* (even *Ed*'s wife wouldn't take his name).

Meanwhile here in the *UK* the *Queen* is still the head of state and head of the church of *England*. No matter what people say there still not crazy keen on *Catholics*, *Jews*, *Muslims* ("foreign" folk in general), *homosexuals*, *Labour* and *Lib Dem* MPs the list goes on.

While *Obama* really only seems to dislike the *British* (that's why he's taking "call me *Dave*" to a basketball game). Even if he disliked all the things I mentioned above you can get rid of him every 4 years until he gets to 8 years in office. Unless he does a *Putin* that's the end of him.

You *Brits* are stuck with the cow till she dies and then you get *Charles* things anit looking good for you my dear *Polednice*. 

*Vive le Francais*!

:tiphat:​


DrMike said:


> Lenfer, I know you are not American - my comment was extremely tongue-in-cheek.


I knew you knew and I know so was mine!


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> No, you stated that it seemed hypocritical that someone who professes to be pro-life would end somebody's life - you didn't put any conditions on it. The bottom line is that we both believe that there are certain conditions where the ending of a human life is justifiable and does not necessarily negate a person's pro-life beliefs. My line is at innocent life. I am for exhausting every avenue to verify that a person is truly guilty of the crime of murder before their life is ended.
> 
> How can you logically argue that convicted murderers pose no threat? By definition, they are a threat. The punishment serves two purposes - it is the only punishment that truly fits the crime, and it permanently ends their ability to ever again kill. Could there be wrongful executions? You can never say never. But there is a significant system in place for appeals, and people are removed from death row if they can convincingly be exonerated. So no, I would not ban the death penalty altogether, especially in light of the fact that numerous murderers have been paroled and then proceeded to kill again.


Funny thing is, the Roe v. Wade decision correlated statistically significantly with a decline in violent crime. So not only is abortion more effective in curtailing crime than the death penalty, but many of the human lives you claim you to want to save go on to be the very same ones you want to kill.

I hope you realize that by forcing "innocent life" be brought into, as you say, "inconvenient" circumstances, that innocent life has a _much_ higher likelihood of ending up on death row than children born into more convenient circumstances when pregnancy is planned. Basically you save fetuses only to kill them as adults.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Funny thing is, the Roe v. Wade decision correlated statistically significantly with a decline in violent crime. So not only is abortion more effective in curtailing crime than the death penalty, but many of the human lives you claim you to want to save go on to be the very same ones you want to kill.
> 
> I hope you realize that by forcing "innocent life" be brought into, as you say, "inconvenient" circumstances, that innocent life has a _much_ higher likelihood of ending up on death row than children born into more convenient circumstances when pregnancy is planned. Basically you save fetuses only to kill them as adults.


Correlation is not causation, and the troublesome thing with that argument is that black fetuses are aborted at a disproportionately higher rate than white fetuses.

Ultimately, though, that is an interesting statistical correlation, but, as I said, it does not prove causation. So are you advocating increasing abortions to limit future crime? Because while there is room for disagreement on whether abortion is immoral, I'm pretty sure we all would agree that pro-active death penalty for crimes not yet committed is definitely immoral.

And instead of focusing on quick fixes, like simply aborting the child, why don't we try to make the best of bad decisions and encourage these people to marry before bringing children into the world, so that children have as many advantages entering this world as possible.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike, you are back! What happened? I haven't read your posts for a while.


----------



## Lenfer

DrMike said:


> And instead of focusing on quick fixes, like simply aborting the child, why don't we try to make the best of bad decisions and encourage these people to marry before bringing children into the world, so that children have as many advantages entering this world as possible.


It can take 9 months for the baby to start making it's way out. It's hard work and your body is never the same afterwards. If your willing to go through everything and have the baby then if you still don't want it most people will put it up for adoption instead of abortion.

Some people don't want to have to go through that either they just don't want to or there could be another reason it could be their rapists child for example. Some people *can't* go through with pregnancy it could kill them and any children they may or may not wish to have.

If you knew that a women who had three children and a husband at home was going to die and her unborn child/foetus would also die. There is nothing else that could be done would you still oppose her having an abortion?

I know those circumstances may only account for a minute percentage but it does happen. Also I'm not sure if this has been brought up but some people who are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control the pill, condoms etc. I'm not saying you are *DrMike* I'm just saying some people are.

You would think they'd welcome birth control if it stopped people having abortions...


----------



## Philip

Lenfer said:


> Some people don't want to have to go through that either they just don't want to or there could be another reason it could be their rapists child for example. [...]
> 
> Also I'm not sure if this has been brought up but some people who are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control [...]


Two excellent points.

That's right, there are people who believe abortion is not justifiable in the case of rape, and there are people who are against contraception; I believe these people are called 'religious nutjobs'.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Correlation is not causation, and the troublesome thing with that argument is that black fetuses are aborted at a disproportionately higher rate than white fetuses.
> 
> Ultimately, though, that is an interesting statistical correlation, but, as I said, it does not prove causation. So are you advocating increasing abortions to limit future crime? Because while there is room for disagreement on whether abortion is immoral, I'm pretty sure we all would agree that pro-active death penalty for crimes not yet committed is definitely immoral.
> 
> And instead of focusing on quick fixes, like simply aborting the child, why don't we try to make the best of bad decisions and encourage these people to marry before bringing children into the world, so that children have as many advantages entering this world as possible.


Well if we're going to take "correlation is not causation" at face value that's pretty much game over for the entire field of Socioeconomics to begin with.

Obviously I don't advocate abortion for crime control purposes as you suggest. I brought that up as an interesting aside. So you know, I advocate abortion for the purposes of women having autonomy over their own anatomy.

Normally the "inconvenience" in question is poverty. I don't know the solution to poverty but I'll go out on a limb and say that the Republicans don't got it.


----------



## Guest

Lenfer said:


> It can take 9 months for the baby to start making it's way out. It's hard work and your body is never the same afterwards. If your willing to go through everything and have the baby then if you still don't want it most people will put it up for adoption instead of abortion.
> 
> Some people don't want to have to go through that either they just don't want to or there could be another reason it could be their rapists child for example. Some people *can't* go through with pregnancy it could kill them and any children they may or may not wish to have.
> 
> If you knew that a women who had three children and a husband at home was going to die and her unborn child/foetus would also die. There is nothing else that could be done would you still oppose her having an abortion?
> 
> I know those circumstances may only account for a minute percentage but it does happen. Also I'm not sure if this has been brought up but some people who are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control the pill, condoms etc. I'm not saying you are *DrMike* I'm just saying some people are.
> 
> You would think they'd welcome birth control if it stopped people having abortions...


I do not have a problem with contraceptives. I know that it is against Catholic doctrine, but I am not Catholic, and don't share that doctrine. I don't know if any other religious groups share that same doctrine.

I have already stated that I believe that abortion should be illegal EXCEPT in the case of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. Most "religious nutjobs" as Philip calls them are of the same opinion as me. In contrast, many on the Pro-Choice side in my country, including our current president, believe that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion - your earlier example of not being able to have an abortion for non-essential reasons doesn't even fly with them. They want unrestricted abortion.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Well if we're going to take "correlation is not causation" at face value that's pretty much game over for the entire field of Socioeconomics to begin with.
> 
> Obviously I don't advocate abortion for crime control purposes as you suggest. I brought that up as an interesting aside. So you know, I advocate abortion for the purposes of women having autonomy over their own anatomy.
> 
> Normally the "inconvenience" in question is poverty. I don't know the solution to poverty but I'll go out on a limb and say that the Republicans don't got it.


Well I'm sorry that is inconvenient for your argument, but I'm afraid that in science, you can show all the correlations you want, but ultimately you are going to have to provide some proof that the correlates are, in fact, linked.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Sorry, but I will not echo a man who is among the extreme of the extreme of the pro-choice movement - a man who couldn't even bring himself to vote for a bill that would require providing medical assistance for failed abortions where the child was born alive, banning the practice of simply discarding these live births which was occuring. Whether the mother wanted the child or not, live, viable babies were born and were outside of the womb and no longer physically connected to the mother. Certainly even pro-choice people could see fit, at that point, to see this no longer as a fetus, but a living human being that had the right to life. Unfortunately, Barack Obama couldn't see that. When a similar bill was introduced at the national level, it was passed, including by unanimous consent in the Senate, which includes people like Barbra Boxer, who is one of the staunchest supporters of abortion rights.


There was little point in reading that because it was just a verbose ad hominem to avoid addressing the actual argument in the Obama quote. Would you care to actually consider it?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> There was little point in reading that because it was just a verbose ad hominem to avoid addressing the actual argument in the Obama quote. Would you care to actually consider it?


Funny - I don't believe I have brought in religious arguments to this debate, so why you think I should now back away from them is confusing. I do object to abortion on religious grounds, but that is not my only motivation. I think it is barbaric. I think one of the measures of how advanced a civilization is can be seen in how strongly it defends those least capable of defending themselves. I think the unfettered practice of aborting children for anything other than the exceptions I have above explained is deplorable because it appeals to our baser instincts of selfishness and refusal to accept personal responsibility for our actions, choosing rather to make someone else pay the price for our poor choices. Yes, pregnancy does take a toll on a female's body, but as others have pointed out here, so does abortion. So does irresponsible unprotected sex. There - I believe I made my point in universal terms that are not religion-specific.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Well if we're going to take "correlation is not causation" at face value that's pretty much game over for the entire field of Socioeconomics to begin with.
> 
> Obviously I don't advocate abortion for crime control purposes as you suggest. I brought that up as an interesting aside. So you know, I advocate abortion for the purposes of women having autonomy over their own anatomy.
> 
> Normally the "inconvenience" in question is poverty. I don't know the solution to poverty but I'll go out on a limb and say that the Republicans don't got it.


Given that poverty still exists despite the myriad of entitlement programs and spending programs enacted by liberals, including the "War on Poverty" in the U.S.A., I will go out on a limb and say that the Democrats "don't got it" either. So we just abort the kids until we find the solution to poverty?


----------



## Guest

And Couchie, since you like correlations, how about these observations:
The poverty rate for all children in married-couple families is 8.2 percent. By contrast, the poverty rate for all children in single-parent families is four times higher at 35.2 percent.
The number of single-parent families has grown considerably since the onset of the War on Poverty. In 1960, less than 12 percent of children lived in single-parent families. By 2000, that figure had more than doubled, rising to 27.6 percent. 

So it seems that one way to combat poverty is to reduce the amount of single-parent families. Despite what the media has tried to portray, raising a child in a single-parent home can be detrimental to the child.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Funny - I don't believe I have brought in religious arguments to this debate, so why you think I should now back away from them is confusing. I do object to abortion on religious grounds, but that is not my only motivation. I think it is barbaric. I think one of the measures of how advanced a civilization is can be seen in how strongly it defends those least capable of defending themselves. I think the unfettered practice of aborting children for anything other than the exceptions I have above explained is deplorable because it appeals to our baser instincts of selfishness and refusal to accept personal responsibility for our actions, choosing rather to make someone else pay the price for our poor choices. Yes, pregnancy does take a toll on a female's body, but as others have pointed out here, so does abortion. So does irresponsible unprotected sex. There - I believe I made my point in universal terms that are not religion-specific.


Although you will not agree with me, I will say briefly that I think your entire position is religious, though some of it is more explicit than others. For example, you have obvious theological arguments as many do, but I also think the sense of barbarism you wish to fight is fundamentally grounded in the religious view of life and its conception. If you adopted a neutral approach based on evidence, you would not be talking about barbarism, and you would not be talking about aborting "children" because all reasonable science demonstrates that these foetuses are _not_ children, they are not feeling, they are not sensitive.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> So it seems that one way to combat poverty is to reduce the amount of single-parent families. Despite what the media has tried to portray, raising a child in a single-parent home can be detrimental to the child.


I think that actually makes a lot of sense and no one would deny it - of course two parents are better than one because of combined income, duh. The problem is that people very often don't portray single-parent homes merely as hotspots of financial difficulty, but as the result of ****ty ****ty ****-****s, of people who can't keep it in their pants who deserve to be punished because it is their sexual promiscuity that leads to the detriment in child welfare. The _parent_ is just as capable, the environment just as loving, it is only the amount of money that has an effect.


----------



## Lenfer

Polednice said:


> I think that actually makes a lot of sense and no one would deny it - of course two parents are better than one because of combined income, duh. The problem is that people very often don't portray single-parent homes merely as hotspots of financial difficulty, but as the result of ****ty ****ty ****-****s, of people who can't keep it in their pants who deserve to be punished because it is their sexual promiscuity that leads to the detriment in child welfare. The _parent_ is just as capable, the environment just as loving, it is only the amount of money that has an effect.


I know no one here is saying that single parent is always a bad thing. Yes it's not ideal but for the most part it tends to be the guy who runs off. Of course I think in an effort not to appear sexiest the media in the *UK* I can't say about that *States* did not turn round and say well actually you should not drink and behave like men. It was bad enough with drunk boys now we have drunk girls as well and it does need to more unwanted bambinos.

Either that or the mother ends up with more children than eggs. I read in the newspaper that one council here removed one family from there house so they could knock the wall down to give the next door neighbour a bigger house. She was an single unemployed mother of *13* with one on the way. It says something when that sort of story makes the *Guardian* or *Independent*. Sorry for the *British* references most of you outside the *UK* won't know those newspapers but they are not the kind to report something like that.

It may not be her fault she's unemployed, it may not be entirely her fault she got pregnant perhaps she's against contraception and or abortion for moral, ethical or religious reasons. That many kids is not a mistake though...

I doubt this would ever happen in *France* and certainly would not happen in *Switzerland*. Ok *Switzerland* is liberal in terms of freedom but it's staunchly *Christian* in away that *Britain* and *France* are not so no surprise there. I left the topic a bit there but Britain annoys me when it comes to it's culture sometimes.

Hopefully I will be going home sooner rather than later. No offensive intended *British* people (sorry *Polednice*)


----------



## Guest

I absolutely agree with your point about delinquent fathers. Too many are buying into this notion that they can sleep with any woman they choose and be free from the consequences. I find it deplorable that so many single mothers have to revert to legal action to get fathers to own up to their responsibilities. A man who will not support his family is not a man.

Edit:
Despite some thought that I may be bigoted against women, if people were to know me, they would probably find that, in most scenarios, I tend to be harder and more critical of men than I am of women. I grew up in a stable household where my father instilled in me a very firm respect for women. While many mistakes could potentially be tolerated, offenses against mother were not. Being a husband as well, and seeing what my wife went through giving birth to our two sons, and what she continues to do for our boys, I have no problem telling people that she is indeed the better half of our relationship. She will be the first to tell you that I frequently criticize quite vehemently men who neglect or abandon families, men who cheat on wives and destroy their respect, and I firmly believe that there is a special level of hell for men who abuse wives and children.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Although you will not agree with me, I will say briefly that I think your entire position is religious, though some of it is more explicit than others. For example, you have obvious theological arguments as many do, but I also think the sense of barbarism you wish to fight is fundamentally grounded in the religious view of life and its conception. *If you adopted a neutral approach based on evidence, you would not be talking about barbarism, and you would not be talking about aborting "children" because all reasonable science demonstrates that these foetuses are not children, they are not feeling, they are not sensitive*.


Spoken like someone who has not experienced the thrill of seeing your child's heartbeat on a sonogram, or watching the in utero development of your child. I am extremely lucky - my wife is an x-ray technician, and while pregnant with our first child, she worked at a clinic that also performed ultrasounds. As a result, I received weekly pictures as my first son was developing. At a real, emotional level, that boy was my child the second I first saw that heartbeat (we didn't know we were pregnant, my wife was just a guinea pig for the ultrasound tech who was practicing, since they didn't have a lot of ultrasound patients, and it was the shock of my wife's life when the tech told her she had found a heartbeat!!!). I experienced real heartache when we were told the results of a prenatal screen indicated Down's syndrome (although we were prepared to have the child anyway, we were extremely grateful when later we learned it was a false positive result).

Perhaps my opinions prior to my own children were driven mostly by religious doctrine, but since having my own children, I am more convinced than ever that abortion is a barbaric practice.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Spoken like someone who has not experienced the thrill of seeing your child's heartbeat on a sonogram, or watching the in utero development of your child. I am extremely lucky - my wife is an x-ray technician, and while pregnant with our first child, she worked at a clinic that also performed ultrasounds. As a result, I received weekly pictures as my first son was developing. At a real, emotional level, that boy was my child the second I first saw that heartbeat (we didn't know we were pregnant, my wife was just a guinea pig for the ultrasound tech who was practicing, since they didn't have a lot of ultrasound patients, and it was the shock of my wife's life when the tech told her she had found a heartbeat!!!). I experienced real heartache when we were told the results of a prenatal screen indicated Down's syndrome (although we were prepared to have the child anyway, we were extremely grateful when later we learned it was a false positive result).
> 
> Perhaps my opinions prior to my own children were driven mostly by religious doctrine, but since having my own children, I am more convinced than ever that abortion is a barbaric practice.


OK, I concede that your motives are somewhat different, but the above is a purely emotive argument, not a rational one, and so I can't take it seriously.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> OK, I concede that your motives are somewhat different, but the above is a purely emotive argument, not a rational one, and so I can't take it seriously.


Alright, then, I beg your indulgence to bear with me in something that I know will be controversial, will probably draw rancor upon me, and that you may even hate me for, but understand in advance that I only make the argument as a challenge to your line of reasoning regarding why you can't take my motives seriously (based on the fact that they are not rational), and not as a personal attack upon you.

I can't take your homosexuality seriously. It doesn't seem to be based on any kind of rational argument. From a purely rational standpoint, what is the purpose of life? At a basic, evolutionary level, it seems that the primary motivations of life are self-preservation and propagation of the species. Evolution, and the constant progression of life on this planet, is driven by reproduction. Were there to be no reproduction, there would be no evolution - the story of the origins of life and the species would have been snuffed out long ago, and this planet might very well have been one of those planets that presumably had the proper conditions for life, but did not succeed. Homesexuality in mammalian species is anathema to the ability to reproduce. Other species may be capable of reproduction by asexual techniques, or by simpler processes, such as binary fission, but not mammalian species. They require the complimentary reproductive organs of male and female members, and the coming together of sperm and egg, to reproduce. So homosexuality seems entirely irrational. So what if homosexuals can experience significant emotional bonding with one another. That is not a rational argument, and so I can't take it seriously.

Again, this is not meant to be mean-spirited, but rather I feel that it is comparable to the argument you made for not taking my reasoning seriously.


----------



## emiellucifuge

EDIT: Thought it better not to say anything


----------



## Guest

Here is a rational argument for why abortion is barbaric:
I believe that humans have developed very strong emotional attachments to their offspring at the very earliest of stages as an evolutionary tool for protecting human life at its weakest in order to ensure our survival. Mammalian life, and human life in particular, is very vulnerable at the earliest stages. The 9 month gestational period of human life within the womb is highly protective of the offspring - that the life should evolve to the point where it is protected for such a long period of time within the female. Additionally, other evolutionary developments associated with mammals, and humans, continue that evolved protection of the young. Humans, especially females, evolved with body parts (the placenta, womb, breasts) that are specifically designed for the protection and nourishment of the young. Associated with this, and probably in no small part also due to the actions of hormones, women in particular can develop very close emotional attachments to their offspring, even in utero. This provides a protective advantage, as this close emotional attachment facilitates the need to protect the young. Males have also evolved with the desire to protect both the females (those who are the reprodcutive machinery for bringing forth the offspring) and the young in order to successfully pass along their genetic material to succeeding generations. Those more adept at protecting their mate and their offspring will be more successful at passing on their genetic traits. Emotional attachment is a very real thing, evolved in humans to strengthen these bonds and make reproduction more successful, which is critical in a species that, relative to the rest of the animal kingdom, reproduces in very limited numbers, and so it is more critical that each offspring be protected as much as possible.

Thus by aborting children, we are working in opposition to natural forces that have evolved to help us propagate our species. The revulsion that people feel at abortion is a very real thing, not the product of religious conditioning, but rather innate feelings in humans that have evolved as a tool to help pass along our genetic material and propagate our species.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> DrMike, you are back! What happened? I haven't read your posts for a while.


I have been gone - too many reasons to go into here - and I can't promise that I am back for good, but my situation changed a bit, and I found myself in the last week with a bit more freetime than I have had in some time, so I gravitated back here to see how things are. And right away I find myself back in the thick of things in controversial debate topics!

I trust you have been continuing your promotion of HIP performances. I have actually checked back in here periodically, and looked at posts of yours where you are recommending HIP recordings - something I am also very fond of.


----------



## Philip

emiellucifuge said:


> EDIT: Thought it better not to say anything


Doctor Mike is not actually saying he doesn't take Polednice's homosexuality seriously... he's trying to prove a point in a provocative manner, in order to infuriate the opposition and later say: "Hey hey, you didn't quite read my post, if you look carefully, through all the B. S. i just uttered, i was just spinning your own argument around!"










Good work. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

My point was that both Polednice and I have very strong feelings over things that could arguably be shown to be irrational, but which we both feel on a very emotional level. And with my follow up post, the point that I am hoping to make is that, while the concept may be an emotional one for me, there just may be a rational argument for that emotional response, just as I'm sure Polednice would probably argue for his position that there may very well be a rational argument for the emotional relationships that he is able to forge.


----------



## Polednice

Just for the record, I've got no problem with DrMike's comments on sexuality, and I'm actually glad he was frank. So I hope nobody else gets offended by it - I shall return in a few moments with a post about the comparative "rationalities" of abortion and homosexuality.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Im glad you respond in such a way on what is quite a justifiably touchy subject.

I too agree with Drmikes argument on the 'rationality' of homosexuality from an evolutionary viewpoint, but I removed my post expressing this for two reasons:
1. I dont see at all the significance of this to homosexual persons, nor on others. Intolerance of homosexuality has no positive effects and only leads to a lot of suffering. It should become socially acceptable, and also legally so. This too is a rational argument (though I havent spelled it out).
2. I dont see the value of the contribution to this debate.


----------



## Polednice

OK, so the rationality of homosexuality. There are two major points to make here:

1) Even a completely understood mechanism for the natural world provides _no_ basis for human culture and morality. This is the naturalistic fallacy. To say that homosexuality goes against evolutionary principles is not a point against it, after all, clothes are unnatural, and technology is unnatural. Why draw the line at sexual practices?

2) Even accepting the naturalistic fallacy just for the sake of it, it is very important to point out that, in fact, homosexuality _does not_ go against evolutionary principles, and thus cannot be said - even on those terms - to be irrational.

*First: Nature*

Expanding on the second point, a clarification of the evolutionary process is required. What is the point of evolution? Well there is no "purpose", it is a blind, uncaring process, but its _function_ is _not_ the perpetuation of a species. Evolution is successful when an individual's genes are perpetuated. So, from the outset, all arguments about homosexuality not being good on a species level can be discarded - these arguments are analogous to the outdated theories of group selection, which have long been proven inadequate. The question then becomes: are there any mechanisms that would allow homosexuality on an individual level to perpetuate one's genes? The counter-intuitive answer to that question is an emphatic 'yes'.

One answer can be found in kin selection, which is a valid evolutionary process. Because we _share_ genes with members of our family (in other words, our family members carry copies of some of our genes), we feel greater attachment to them, and are more likely to help them, as their survival also benefits our own genes. I can't remember who it was, but someone coined a phrase along the lines of "I'd die for 2 of my brothers and 8 of my cousins" because of the relative proportion of genes shared with different family members. Thus, anything that aids the survival of one's kin can be selected for _because the survival of one's family is an alternative to sexual reproduction for the perpetuation of an individual's genes_. Homosexuality can reduce competition between siblings, it can improve the child-rearing success of nieces and nephews, and, as there seems to be a correlation between the number of male siblings and homosexuality (i.e. second borns more likely gay than first, third more likely than second etc.), there could be an in-utero process for population control.

There are other plausible theories out there, but while these are not yet sufficiently proven, you only have to look at the animal kingdom to _know_ that there _is_ an explanation, we just don't have it complete yet. Hundreds of species demonstrate homosexuality, and they cannot be said to have had environmental and cultural influences throwing them off-whack. There is clearly a purpose to homosexuality in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would not be so prevalent. And it's not a dysfunctional sexuality either - zebra finches, for example, will enter monogamous homosexual relationships even when there are females around, and the relationships are conducted in exactly the same manner as heterosexual ones without being affected by the presence of females.

In short, there _are_ rational arguments for the existence and continuation of homosexuality in terms of evolution.

*Second: Morality*

But this was supposed to be connected to abortion somehow? Well, you actually have to scrap most of the above - that was an aside to address the evolutionary arguments, which are important but nevertheless irrelevant. Go back to point number 1 - the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever can be demonstrated as part of the evolutionary process has _nothing_ to do with how we must conduct ourselves. The fact that homosexuality _can_ be shown as natural actually has just as little validity as if it could be demonstrated that it isn't. Either way, you're deducing morality from nature, and that's illogical. Thus, in the same way, you cannot appeal to evolved human traits in defence of abortion.

So what am _I_ talking about when I say you need a rational argument? I'm talking about the evidence of suffering. I think our world-views ought to be founded on maximising happiness and minimising suffering, and this can be approached by evaluating evidence, as it is not so hard to quantify happiness and suffering. So, in applying this to homosexuality and abortion, the correct rational argument is _not_: "can it be supported on the basis of evolution?", the correct rational argument is: "does this cause suffering or harm?" All the evidence points to homosexuality as a completely benign influence - gay relationships are as (dys)functional as straight ones, and children are brought up just as well - and all the evidence points to abortion as doing no harm to the unborn foetus up to a certain stage in its development as it lacks the ability to know, to think, to feel. Because of this, the rational position to take is that the mother's life is of greater value, and she ought to be allowed bodily autonomy.

---------

P.S. I thought you didn't believe in evolution anyway?!


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> OK, so the rationality of homosexuality. There are two major points to make here:
> 
> 1) Even a completely understood mechanism for the natural world provides _no_ basis for human culture and morality. This is the naturalistic fallacy. To say that homosexuality goes against evolutionary principles is not a point against it, after all, clothes are unnatural, and technology is unnatural. Why draw the line at sexual practices?
> 
> 2) Even accepting the naturalistic fallacy just for the sake of it, it is very important to point out that, in fact, homosexuality _does not_ go against evolutionary principles, and thus cannot be said - even on those terms - to be irrational.
> 
> *First: Nature*
> 
> Expanding on the second point, a clarification of the evolutionary process is required. What is the point of evolution? Well there is no "purpose", it is a blind, uncaring process, but its _function_ is _not_ the perpetuation of a species. Evolution is successful when an individual's genes are perpetuated. So, from the outset, all arguments about homosexuality not being good on a species level can be discarded - these arguments are analogous to the outdated theories of group selection, which have long been proven inadequate. The question then becomes: are there any mechanisms that would allow homosexuality on an individual level to perpetuate one's genes? The counter-intuitive answer to that question is an emphatic 'yes'.
> 
> One answer can be found in kin selection, which is a valid evolutionary process. Because we _share_ genes with members of our family (in other words, our family members carry copies of some of our genes), we feel greater attachment to them, and are more likely to help them, as their survival also benefits our own genes. I can't remember who it was, but someone coined a phrase along the lines of "I'd die for 2 of my brothers and 8 of my cousins" because of the relative proportion of genes shared with different family members. Thus, anything that aids the survival of one's kin can be selected for _because the survival of one's family is an alternative to sexual reproduction for the perpetuation of an individual's genes_. Homosexuality can reduce competition between siblings, it can improve the child-rearing success of nieces and nephews, and, as there seems to be a correlation between the number of male siblings and homosexuality (i.e. second borns more likely gay than first, third more likely than second etc.), there could be an in-utero process for population control.
> 
> There are other plausible theories out there, but while these are not yet sufficiently proven, you only have to look at the animal kingdom to _know_ that there _is_ an explanation, we just don't have it complete yet. Hundreds of species demonstrate homosexuality, and they cannot be said to have had environmental and cultural influences throwing them off-whack. There is clearly a purpose to homosexuality in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would not be so prevalent. And it's not a dysfunctional sexuality either - zebra finches, for example, will enter monogamous homosexual relationships even when there are females around, and the relationships are conducted in exactly the same manner as heterosexual ones without being affected by the presence of females.
> 
> In short, there _are_ rational arguments for the existence and continuation of homosexuality in terms of evolution.
> 
> *Second: Morality*
> 
> But this was supposed to be connected to abortion somehow? Well, you actually have to scrap most of the above - that was an aside to address the evolutionary arguments, which are important but nevertheless irrelevant. Go back to point number 1 - the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever can be demonstrated as part of the evolutionary process has _nothing_ to do with how we must conduct ourselves. The fact that homosexuality _can_ be shown as natural actually has just as little validity as if it could be demonstrated that it isn't. Either way, you're deducing morality from nature, and that's illogical. Thus, in the same way, you cannot appeal to evolved human traits in defence of abortion.
> 
> So what am _I_ talking about when I say you need a rational argument? I'm talking about the evidence of suffering. I think our world-views ought to be founded on maximising happiness and minimising suffering, and this can be approached by evaluating evidence, as it is not so hard to quantify happiness and suffering. So, in applying this to homosexuality and abortion, the correct rational argument is _not_: "can it be supported on the basis of evolution?", the correct rational argument is: "does this cause suffering or harm?" All the evidence points to homosexuality as a completely benign influence - gay relationships are as (dys)functional as straight ones, and children are brought up just as well - and all the evidence points to abortion as doing no harm to the unborn foetus up to a certain stage in its development as it lacks the ability to know, to think, to feel. Because of this, the rational position to take is that the mother's life is of greater value, and she ought to be allowed bodily autonomy.
> 
> ---------
> 
> P.S. I thought you didn't believe in evolution anyway?!


I think it is pretty difficult to claim that aborting a fetus causes no harm. As for pain and suffering, that is a pretty vague area. For instance, we know that you can sometimes perform surgery on newborns without anesthesia as their ability to sense pain is not yet fully developed. Premature babies as young as 22 weeks have been able to survive (normal gestation time is 40 weeks). Studies have demonstrated that fetuses may be capable of feeling pain as early as 18 weeks - in studies during the early 90's, fetuses in utero were stuck with needles and levels of pain-related hormones and signaling molecules became elevated. Fetuses between 18 and 20 weeks, when given blood transfusions, exhibited elevated blood pressure and heart rates and elevated levels of pain-related hormones, which could all then be brought back down with morphine-like drugs. So which is it - can they feel pain as early as 18 weeks, or is it not until after birth? Do you err on the side of caution? And if you do, and it is also known that babies born prematurely, as early as 22 weeks (just slightly over half the duration of a full-term pregnancy) can survive, would you be willing to at least limit abortions to prior to 18-22 weeks gestation? You previously stated that you don't want any restrictions on abortions, but now you talk about thinks like harm, feeling, knowing, etc. Can we not agree that, at the very least, the timepoint when these fetuses become capable of life outside the womb is a good border from switching from unfeeling fetus to child?


----------



## Polednice

Oh absolutely - when I said that there shouldn't be any restrictions, I meant that there shouldn't be a framework of good and bad reasons for a woman to have an abortion. If she wants one, any reason is permissible. Timing, however, is a completely different matter, on which there certainly should be restrictions, and being cautious about them is probably the best way to go. I'm no embryologist, so I don't know all the arguments about when a foetus can feel pain, but if it's the case that it can feel pain at 18 weeks, then there's the cut off. To have an abortion after this stage certainly would be barbaric.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Oh absolutely - when I said that there shouldn't be any restrictions, I meant that there shouldn't be a framework of good d bad reasons for a woman to have an abortion. If she wants one, any reason is permissible. Timing, however, is completely different matter, on which there certainly should be restrictions, and being cautious about them is probably the best way to go. I'm no embryologist, so I don't know all the arguments about when a foetus can feel pain, but if it's the case that it can feel pain at 18 weeks, then there's the cut off. To have an abortion after this stage certainly would be barbaric.


Barbaric? That's a remarkably useless word. Moving on, _DrMike_'s number 18 connotes potential survival outside the womb, not 'ability to feel pain'. That survival potential has only recently arrived; birth before somewhere in the 40s of weeks was a no-go not very long ago. It is fairly plausible to predict that, as biological science progresses, a fetus may be viable outside the womb very shortly after it gets in there.

The measurements that _DrMike_ cites to indicate feeling pain apply to reactions from the most primitive brain; there is a difference between_ reacting to trauma_ and awareness of pain.

_DrMike_ is a scientist, and you, _Poley_, are a disciple of Science. Both of you may be trying to stuff pieces of social esthetics into your arguments. Good luck coming to an agreement.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Barbaric? That's a remarkably useless word.


I used it only because DrMike used it earlier; I was just drawing a parallel.


----------



## Philip

Hilltroll72 said:


> _DrMike_ is a scientist, and you, _Poley_, are a disciple of Science.


Please... never heard of a scientist who believed in a personal god.


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> Please... never heard of a scientist who believed in a personal god.


Ah, and since you have never heard of one, then they don't exist? Shall I enlighten you?

Let's start out with some prominent ones.
The current director of the National Institutes of Health (appointed by Pres. Obama) is Frances Collins. He got his Ph.D. in physical Chemistry from Yale. He was in the leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is also an Evangelical Christian. He wrote the book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

Jennifer Wiseman got her Ph.D. from Harvard in Astronomy, is part of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and is a Christian.

Richard Smalley was a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, and also a supporter of intelligent design.

Henry Eyring (near and dear to me, as he is a relative) was an American Chemist who received his Ph.D. from U.C. Berkeley, was president of the American Chemical Society and the Association for the Advancement of Science, received the Wolf Prize in Chemistry and the National Medal of Science, very nearly won the Nobel Prize, but did receive the Berzelius medal, and was a practicing Mormon.

Georges Lemaitre, one of the first (if not the first) to propose the Big Bang Theory was a Roman Catholic priest.

Arthur Compton was a Nobel Laureate in Physics and a deacon in the Baptist Church.

Robert Millikan was also a Nobel Laureate in Physics, the son of a preacher, and wrote the book, "Evolution in Science and Religion."

Max Planck, who should need no introduction, but nevertheless, he was a Nobel Laureate in Physics, is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics, has a research institute named after him, and was an elder in the Lutheran church until his death. He wrote that religion and science both require a belief in God.

Martin Nowak is the Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, has 40 publications in Nature and 15 in Science (recognized by many as THE top scientific journals). He is also a Roman Catholic, and has said, "Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach."

Those are some of the more prominent ones I identified, and I limited my search to only those whose major achievements were in the 20th and 21st centuries.


----------



## Guest

By the way, Philip, that last comment of yours was a slow pitch right across the plate - it almost makes me suspect you are secretly on my side and served me up such a softball statement that was so easy to hit out of the park. Don't worry, though, I know you probably meant it in all sincerity.


----------



## Philip

OK, so to state my position clearly i like to make an exaggerated comment here and there, you picked up on that and made a nice list...

Meanwhile, God still hasn't accepted his invitation to the Colbert Report.


----------



## Polednice

I know it was only a joke, but there are some rather respectable and reasonable religious scientists. Some, like Frances Collins and Jennifer Wiseman make my stomach churn, but the former director of the Vatican Observatory, George Coyne, seemed like an altogether good scientist and tolerable individual! It's just a case of cognitive dissonance and shoe-horning childhood indoctrination into a more learned world-view. Some, like Coyne, manage it with humility, others set up ludicrous organisations like the Discovery Institute to peddle pseudoscience.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I know it was only a joke, but there are some rather respectable and reasonable religious scientists. Some, like Frances Collins and Jennifer Wiseman make my stomach churn, but the former director of the Vatican Observatory, George Coyne, seemed like an altogether good scientist and tolerable individual! It's just a case of cognitive dissonance and shoe-horning childhood indoctrination into a more learned world-view. Some, like Coyne, manage it with humility, others set up ludicrous organisations like the Discovery Institute to peddle pseudoscience.


But no, Polednice. By your reasoning, stated elsewhere, these learned individuals and pillars of the scientific world are only slightly less bad than religious terrorists because it is bad to believe something for which there is no evidence.

To quote you directly, so as not to miscontrue what you have said:


> I don't think it is dishonest and lazy to tar all religion with the same brush, and I do believe that Miss. Lovely Christian baking cookies and helping the homeless presents a threat not too far from that of a Christian terrorist. This is why I stated in another post somewhere around here that my beef is not with religion per se, it is with the fundamental idea that it is OK to believe in anything in the absence of evidence. That is what I wish to rail against, and all religion falls underneath it. A harmless Christian is little better than a harmful one because they use the same methods as the harmful one to come to different conclusions, and are thus an enabler of harm, if not the executor.


And then this:


> my point that it is fundamentally bad to believe something in the absence of evidence.


Seems like rather an extreme view to have. How can you call Coyne a tolerable individual when you believe that he is engaged in something that is fundamentally bad, and poses a threat that is not too far from that of a Christian terrorist (interesting choice, there - true, to claim that there are no Christian terrorists would be just as wrong as Philip's claim that there are no scientists who believe in a personal God, but for at least the last 10 years, the religion of Islam has been disproportionately represented in the terrorist field).


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> But no, Polednice. By your reasoning, stated elsewhere, these learned individuals and pillars of the scientific world are only slightly less bad than religious terrorists because it is bad to believe something for which there is no evidence.
> 
> Seems like rather an extreme view to have. How can you call Coyne a tolerable individual when you believe that he is engaged in something that is fundamentally bad, and poses a threat that is not too far from that of a Christian terrorist (interesting choice, there - true, to claim that there are no Christian terrorists would be just as wrong as Philip's claim that there are no scientists who believe in a personal God, but for at least the last 10 years, the religion of Islam has been disproportionately represented in the terrorist field).


Oh yes, I do believe that people like Coyne are enablers of violence and thus a pernicious influence, but there's a sliding scale and I only went so far as to call him "tolerable". Coyne was of a variety of religious person who really seemed to get no moral or factual guidance whatsoever from scripture and, wherever he did, he had extremely valuable philosophical humility. His faith never led him to certainty. Others, however, ram moral certainties derived from scripture into a scientific world-view, and also pay to get pseudoscience circulated harmfully. These are worse, but they are all bad.

On the point of terrorists, I make a point of referencing Christian terrorists because the prevalence of Muslim terrorists in the past decade has led people to believe both that Muslims are worse than they are, and that Christians aren't as bad as they are.


----------



## Philip

DrMike said:


> By the way, Philip, that last comment of yours was a slow pitch right across the plate - it almost makes me suspect you are secretly on my side and served me up such a softball statement that was so easy to hit out of the park. Don't worry, though, I know you probably meant it in all sincerity.


Thankfully, by saying that i don't understand how a scientist can believe in a personal god, i was only stating my personal opinion, so your rebuttal is just as meaningless as my own personal view. What is more interesting, however, in the general tendency within the scientific community.

Obviously, science and religion have enough independence from each other that one doesn't necessarily have enough persuasive weight to completely discredit the other. For example, a religiously orthodox person can carry scientific work without having to invoke his personal philosophy, and whatnot.

Nevertheless, science and religion must intersect at some point, conceptually, because it is the current tendency for scientists to be significantly less religiously inclined than the general population. I'm sure there are studies that illustrate this more concretely, to be honest i don't follow them very closely. But through my scientific acquaintances, i can say with enough confidence that science has a tendency to move people away from any religious beliefs.


----------



## Guest

Being a person with religious beliefs in the scientific community, I can tell you, at least in my experience, why you seem to see a greater tendency away from religious beliefs - intimidation. Being a religious person in science can be about as inviting as being a Republican in Hollywood. Then there is that particularly rare breed in science - the politically conservative, religiously devout Christian. For people in my position, thoughts and opinions like those expressed by Polednice about us are more the norm than the exception. You want to get the odd looks from your peers? Let them know you regularly go to church.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Oh yes, I do believe that people like Coyne are enablers of violence and thus a pernicious influence, but there's a sliding scale and I only went so far as to call him "tolerable". Coyne was of a variety of religious person who really seemed to get no moral or factual guidance whatsoever from scripture and, wherever he did, he had extremely valuable philosophical humility. His faith never led him to certainty. Others, however, ram moral certainties derived from scripture into a scientific world-view, and also pay to get pseudoscience circulated harmfully. These are worse, but they are all bad.
> 
> On the point of terrorists, I make a point of referencing Christian terrorists because the prevalence of Muslim terrorists in the past decade has led people to believe both that Muslims are worse than they are, and that Christians aren't as bad as they are.


Well, I tried to find data on this. I found this FBI report, which summarized terrorist attacks against America and Americans, from 1980-2005, and gives an idea of the culprits:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05
Another website summarized the breadown by ideology in a nice, succinct pie chart (their motivation, as was yours, was to show that Muslims do not perpetrate the majority of terrorism:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
By their assessment, Latinos perpetrated 42% of attacks, extreme left-wing groups 24%, others 16%, Jewish extremists 7%, Islamic extremists 6%, and Communists 5%. I don't see Christian extremists in that group, but perhaps they are part of the catchall "others" category. Left-wing extremists also seem to be quite busy.

Now, while that summary does convincingly show that 94% of terrorist acts committed against America and Americans from 1980-2005 were not committed by Muslims, there is something else in the data - number of people injured or killed by terrorist attacks in that period. From 1980-2005, the total number of casualties (injured or killed) from terrorism was 17,216. Of that total, 14,994 come from the year 2001 alone. I'll give you a second to think back to 2001 and what event might have resulted in so many casualties. So while 94% of terrorist attacks were NOT committed by Muslim terrorists, 87% of casualties WERE caused by Muslim terrorists. If you have data from other countries, I'd be happy to see it.

Prior to the 1980s, the FBI report states that, in the first half of the 20th century, most incidents of terrorism in the U.S. were perpetrated by right-wing extremists groups, such as the KKK, who were predominantly motivated by racist ideology. Beginning in 1950 and through the 1980's, this shifted to left-wing extremist groups becomming the dominant terrorist groups. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc by the end of the 1980's, funding for these groups began to dry up, and their activities tapered off.

Nowhere there (and I acknowledge that this is only for the United States) do I see mention of any significant activity by "Christian terrorists."


----------



## Polednice

Philip said:


> Nevertheless, science and religion must intersect at some point, conceptually, because it is the current tendency for scientists to be significantly less religiously inclined than the general population. I'm sure there are studies that illustrate this more concretely, to be honest i don't follow them very closely. But through my scientific acquaintances, i can say with enough confidence that science has a tendency to move people away from any religious beliefs.


I shall have to dig up the statistics elsewhere, but, approximately, the general population is around 80-90% religious, while something like 7-14% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are. To ascribe an ~80% difference to intimidation as DrMike does is quite laughable. This follows the other well-known trend that better-educated people are more likely to be irreligious.

DrMike, with regards to the terrorist thing, I wasn't making any statement whatsoever about the relative numbers of terrorist acts committed by Christian and Muslim terrorists, so your quantifications mean little to my concerns - I'm sure everyone else finds it fascinating though.


----------



## Ukko

"I shall have to dig up the statistics elsewhere, but, approximately, the general population is around 80-90% religious"

Religious? Do you mean, that's how they answer the question 'are you'? Harumph.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> "I shall have to dig up the statistics elsewhere, but, approximately, the general population is around 80-90% religious"
> 
> Religious? Do you mean, that's how they answer the question 'are you'? Harumph.


No. Like I said, I have to look up the specifics later.


----------



## mmsbls

Here is a link to a summary of a paper that appeared in Nature. The survey found that in 1998 7% of respondents from the group of NAS physical and biological scientists said they had a personal belief in God. Biologists had the lowest belief followed by physicists and astronomers and finally mathematicians.

From my experience physicists are not easily intimidated for their beliefs. They are generally somewhat to very arrogant. Obviously I was not aware of the religious beliefs of all the physicists I knew, but it was rather clear that very few of the research physicists believed in God. From my experience, the vast majority of research scientists have trouble taking things on faith and that does not just apply to religion.

But all that means is that God is not, at this time, to be found through scientific research or rational thought. And we know that. So people who look at the world through those lenses will generally not "find God". I guess we're talking less about abortion now.


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> But all that means is that God is not, at this time, to be found through scientific research or rational thought. And we know that. So people who look at the world through those lenses will generally not "find God". I guess we're talking less about abortion now.


I'm not sure why you preface this with "but all that means..." This is actually extremely significant because the theistic interpretations of God are ones that very much make claims within the realm of science, so if it doesn't stand up to the scientific lens, then it has to be thrown out.


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> I'm not sure why you preface this with "but all that means..." This is actually extremely significant because the theistic interpretations of God are ones that very much make claims within the realm of science, so if it doesn't stand up to the scientific lens, then it has to be thrown out.


Yes, you can find factual claims in religious works, and certainly scientists should question those statements they believe are not scientifically correct.

I do not believe that anyone comes to believe in God for scientific or even rational reasons. I think they arrive at God for a variety of reasons and _then_ they may look for some rationale to support that belief. Of course, that's not so different from how most people come to believe in many things. Many religious beliefs are not consistent with modern science, but the basic issue of the existence of a personal God seems to fall outside of science and reason (at least for now).


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> Many religious beliefs are not consistent with modern science, but the basic issue of the existence of a personal God seems to fall outside of science and reason (at least for now).


There's an important distinction to be made here.

The issue of the existence of _a_ God falls outside science and reason.
The issue of the existence of a _personal_ God is very much a scientific question, as a personal God is one who has interfered in the world and thereby must leave traces of his actions.


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> There's an important distinction to be made here.
> 
> The issue of the existence of _a_ God falls outside science and reason.
> The issue of the existence of a _personal_ God is very much a scientific question, as a personal God is one who has interfered in the world and thereby must leave traces of his actions.


I would say any God (not god) "interferes" with the world in some way. I always thought that a personal God was simply one who cared about individual beings. I know some would say a personal God has a relationship with individuals. I don't know what that means. It's possible science can someday find evidence of God (personal or not). _For now_ it appears that our science is not developed enough to make clear statements about any God.


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> I would say any God (not god) "interferes" with the world in some way. I always thought that a personal God was simply one who cared about individual beings. I know some would say a personal God has a relationship with individuals. I don't know what that means. It's possible science can someday find evidence of God (personal or not). _For now_ it appears that our science is not developed enough to make clear statements about any God.


Although there might be a god of some nature, perhaps even with emotions about our ridiculously tiny planet, I think the scientific approach makes it clear enough that it is ludicrous to believe that there was a god that intervened in our affairs 2000 years ago. We can't disprove it, but we ought to be very, very, very agnostic.


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> Although there might be a god of some nature, perhaps even with emotions about our ridiculously tiny planet, I think the scientific approach makes it clear enough that it is ludicrous to believe that there was a god that intervened in our affairs 2000 years ago. We can't disprove it, but we ought to be very, very, very agnostic.


I would generally agree with you, but I would simply say that I have never heard, read, or experienced anything that gave me reasons to believe that a God exists.

I think we're a long way from the abortion question.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> I would generally agree with you, but I would simply say that I have never heard, read, or experienced anything that gave me reasons to believe that a God exists.
> [...]


I have had the experience. That may be the only way that God is 'personal'.


----------



## Philip

mmsbls said:


> I would say any God (not god) "interferes" with the world in some way. I always thought that a personal God was simply one who cared about individual beings. I know some would say a personal God has a relationship with individuals. I don't know what that means. It's possible science can someday find evidence of God (personal or not). _For now_ it appears that our science is not developed enough to make clear statements about any God.


I think the term personal god simply refers to a god with a person-like figure, regardless of its relationship with real beings; as opposed to an impersonal god, which could refer to a more logical, hierarchical entity without shape or form, like the Spinozian god. That's how i view it, anyway.

The latter is most likely the god adopted by scientists who do believe in some form of superior force, ie. God is nature itself.


----------



## Polednice

Indeeeed, my main point was really just to make a distinction because many people point out the scientific limitations in assessing a deistic style god and then swiftly move to shove a personal, theistic one in the picture.

Anyway, yes, abortion...


----------



## Polednice

Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, I think everyone ought to find the Texas requirements and restrictions despicable. It's nothing more than legally-enforced humiliation and punishment for even thinking about having an abortion.

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, I think everyone ought to find the Texas requirements and restrictions despicable. It's nothing more than legally-enforced humiliation and punishment for even thinking about having an abortion.
> 
> http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know


I have never denied that the procedure can be a horrifying experience to the mother. Nevertheless, I don't know if I would characterize this as legally-enforced humiliation and punishment. While this woman was dealing with a particularly tragic situation, the statistics show that her circumstances are nowhere near the majority - most abortions are not performed for cases of rape, incest, protecting the health of the mother, or because of crippling birth defects.

I wonder what people might think of the recent paper published in the _Journal of Medical Ethics_ by A. Giubilini and F. Minerva (Department of Philosophy, University of Milan) entitled, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"

I know most of you cannot access scientific journals, but the abstract is fairly short, so I will quote it here verbatim:


> Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.


Nice euphemism - after-birth abortion. And this is not a new concept. Consider this interview with Peter Singer, a respected ethicist at Princeton University:


> III. The Sanctity of Human Life
> 
> Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?
> 
> A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term "person" (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
> Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support - which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely.
> 
> Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn't your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?
> 
> A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that's a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.


To paraphrase Orwell, all human life is equal, but some are more equal than others.

And how many people have the same opinion as writer Jessica DelBalzo:


> I love abortion. I don't accept it. I don't view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, "Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!" has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights. Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide...
> 
> Suggesting that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare," and crowing that "no one likes abortion," accomplishes nothing for women's rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we all find termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of women who have had or will have abortions? Those women need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-abortionists. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What's not to love?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I have never denied that the procedure can be a horrifying experience to the mother. Nevertheless, I don't know if I would characterize this as legally-enforced humiliation and punishment. While this woman was dealing with a particularly tragic situation, the statistics show that her circumstances are nowhere near the majority - most abortions are not performed for cases of rape, incest, protecting the health of the mother, or because of crippling birth defects.


This goes back to the initial point of this thread, thinking that some reasons are better than others. I have already stated my viewpoint that all reasons are irrelevant, and that a woman should be allowed an abortion for whatever reason she likes without legally required intimidation.

And, shock horror, I agree with Peter Singer and the journal paper. As an aside, it's amusing how many people who disagreed with the paper on the grounds that it is anti-life issued death threats to the writers.


----------



## Guest

But not too long ago you were talking about being okay with limiting abortions to no later than the 18-22 month of pregnancy or before. Now you agree with a paper that argues that "after-birth abortions" should be allowed for all the same reasons that "pre-birth abortions" are allowed, which, in your mind, should be unrestricted. So you would be okay with a woman giving birth to a child, being upset that the child has brown hair instead of blonde, and telling the doctor to kill it? Or they were hoping it would be a boy, and when they saw it was a girl, they had the doctor kill it (or vice versa)? Or, say in the future there is some genetic marker for homosexuality found, or some measurement that can be made at birth, and a mother, not wanting to raise a homosexual child asks the doctor to kill it. You are okay with all of this?


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> But not too long ago you were talking about being okay with limiting abortions to no later than the 18-22 month of pregnancy or before. Now you agree with a paper that argues that "after-birth abortions" should be allowed for all the same reasons that "pre-birth abortions" are allowed, which, in your mind, should be unrestricted. So you would be okay with a woman giving birth to a child, being upset that the child has brown hair instead of blonde, and telling the doctor to kill it? Or they were hoping it would be a boy, and when they saw it was a girl, they had the doctor kill it (or vice versa)? Or, say in the future there is some genetic marker for homosexuality found, or some measurement that can be made at birth, and a mother, not wanting to raise a homosexual child asks the doctor to kill it. You are okay with all of this?


Youre weird. Tragic abortions in cases of deformity are rare enough to be worth ignoring. Abortions over hair color and hypothetical homosexuality markers are what we should be forming policy on?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> But not too long ago you were talking about being okay with limiting abortions to no later than the 18-22 month of pregnancy or before. Now you agree with a paper that argues that "after-birth abortions" should be allowed for all the same reasons that "pre-birth abortions" are allowed, which, in your mind, should be unrestricted. So you would be okay with a woman giving birth to a child, being upset that the child has brown hair instead of blonde, and telling the doctor to kill it? Or they were hoping it would be a boy, and when they saw it was a girl, they had the doctor kill it (or vice versa)? Or, say in the future there is some genetic marker for homosexuality found, or some measurement that can be made at birth, and a mother, not wanting to raise a homosexual child asks the doctor to kill it. You are okay with all of this?


Hmm, that is an inconsistency on my part that I hadn't thought about. I think it in part depends on the actual mechanics of a procedure. With an "after-birth abortion", I'd rather call it infant euthanasia, as it would only be permissible in similar circumstances to adult euthanasia. While the foetus is still inside the mother, things are more complicated because of removal. I don't know enough about it.

What I would say then is that anything past the 18 week line must be due to a deformity that would cause suffering for the duration of the child's life, while anything before that limit could be for any reason. I don't think women should be asked for a reason, so if it so happens that they somehow find out their foetus could be gay (that particular example being unlikely because sexual biology is too complex), so be it.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Hmm, that is an inconsistency on my part that I hadn't thought about. I think it in part depends on the actual mechanics of a procedure. With an "after-birth abortion", I'd rather call it infant euthanasia, as it would only be permissible in similar circumstances to adult euthanasia. While the foetus is still inside the mother, things are more complicated because of removal. I don't know enough about it.
> 
> What I would say then is that anything past the 18 week line must be due to a deformity that would cause suffering for the duration of the child's life, while anything before that limit could be for any reason. I don't think women should be asked for a reason, so if it so happens that they somehow find out their foetus could be gay (that particular example being unlikely because sexual biology is too complex), so be it.


Sounds 'reasonable' to me. Have you noticed that _DrMike_ has persuaded you to modify your original position considerably? This may be because you have 'looked at abortion (and clouds maybe) from both sides now'.

[Thank you, Ms. Mitchel]


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sounds 'reasonable' to me. Have you noticed that _DrMike_ has persuaded you to modify your original position considerably? This may be because you have 'looked at abortion (and clouds maybe) from both sides now'.
> 
> [Thank you, Ms. Mitchel]


I always appreciate a nudge towards modification - there's nothing more satisfying then entering a discussion and someone convincing you that you're wrong in some way. I don't think the nudge was substantially in DrMike's direction though.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Youre weird. Tragic abortions in cases of deformity are rare enough to be worth ignoring. Abortions over hair color and hypothetical homosexuality markers are what we should be forming policy on?


How is my position weird? I have stated that I oppose abortions except for some rare instances (rape, incest, life of the mother threatened). Others have argued for unrestricted abortion, although Polednice has now acknowledged that after a certain point, some restrictions can be placed. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions are for "personal choice" reasons.
Here is an analysis of abortion statistics, with data and references:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
The Table at the end lists this breakdown of the frequency of the various reasons for having an abortion in the U.S.:
Rape - 0.3% of abortions
Incest - 0.03%
Physical life of mother - 0.2%
Physical health of mother - 1%
Fetal health - 0.5%
Personal choice - 98%

So yes, in comparison to personal choices, "tragic abortions in cases of deformity" ARE rare - half of one percent as compared to 98%.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sounds 'reasonable' to me. Have you noticed that _DrMike_ has persuaded you to modify your original position considerably? This may be because you have 'looked at abortion (and clouds maybe) from both sides now'.
> 
> [Thank you, Ms. Mitchel]


I've just become very adept at online brainwashing - watch, before you know it, Polednice will be announcing he has been Born Again!


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> How is my position weird? I have stated that I oppose abortions except for some rare instances (rape, incest, life of the mother threatened). Others have argued for unrestricted abortion, although Polednice has now acknowledged that after a certain point, some restrictions can be placed. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions are for "personal choice" reasons.
> Here is an analysis of abortion statistics, with data and references:
> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
> The Table at the end lists this breakdown of the frequency of the various reasons for having an abortion in the U.S.:
> Rape - 0.3% of abortions
> Incest - 0.03%
> Physical life of mother - 0.2%
> Physical health of mother - 1%
> Fetal health - 0.5%
> Personal choice - 98%
> 
> So yes, in comparison to personal choices, "tragic abortions in cases of deformity" ARE rare - half of one percent as compared to 98%.


I'd have to see the breakdown for "personal choice", I wonder what % is hair colour. That medical necessity or rape are the only valid reasons is your own distinction. I think there are plenty of valid reasons under "Personal Choice".


----------



## TresPicos

Couchie said:


> Canada has totally unrestricted abortion. There is something like 50% popular support for no restrictions in abortions. Next step: _mandatory_ abortions, I say!


To be honest, I think the world could use more Canadians. So, if anything, I think you should have stricter laws.


----------

