life pre-birth

[Fellowship]

What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm?

Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?

Please tell me your thoughts and I will reply in part to your ideas.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Man, is Mrs. Fellowship breathing conservative fire down your moderate neck?

Shawn feel free to address the issue I raise if you like. To answer your question No.

Fellows

[Gon]

We need a War on Embryos.

[hardeeharhar]

What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm?

Rights? um, I am not sure you want to give fetuses rights... that would lead to all sorts of incongruous thoughts about nasty medical conditions that actually exist.


Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?only in as much as the failure to protect creates a burden on society after birth. that is all that the government should be concerned with.

[vinea]

Please tell me your thoughts and I will reply in part to your ideas.


No thanks, you first.

[tonton]

The rights of an unborn fetus should never outweigh or even be equal with the rights of the mother, especially during the first trimester. During the first trimester, according to most scientists, the embryo is not a life. It is still a potential life. Even before the birth, if there's a medical choice between the mother surviving or the fetus surviving, the mothers life MUST always take precedence.

And to answer your question, of course government should protect life pre-birth. But not as an equal to life post-birth.

A second trimester fetus should be protected as a life under certain circumstances, i.e., if the mother is assaulted and she loses the baby, the attacker can be charged with murder (manslaughter) if it's proven that the assault directly led to the death of the fetus.

[Fellowship]

only in as much as the failure to protect creates a burden on society after birth. that is all that the government should be concerned with.

How would you define "only in as much as the failure to protect creates a burden on society after birth" as you put it. What are some examples you would give of this?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

The rights of an unborn fetus should never outweigh or even be equal with the rights of the mother, especially during the first trimester. During the first trimester, according to most scientists, the embryo is not a life. It is still a potential life. Even before the birth, if there's a medical choice between the mother surviving or the fetus surviving, the mothers life MUST always take precedence.

And to answer your question, of course government should protect life pre-birth. But not as an equal to life post-birth.

I see what you are saying.

Let me ask this. Should life pre-birth be protected from "elected" termination if the life of the mother is not in jeopardy?

also I would invite your thoughts in regard to the specific subject of partial birth abortion. What should the criteria be for allowing this procedure?

Simply if the mother wants to terminate?

Medical reason of some sort which would compromise the life of the mother?

Some other basis?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

No thanks, you first.

ok fair enough,

My thoughts are that abortion is not always a good choice. There are cases where it may be needed to protect the life of the mother and who am I to prevent the procedure if this is the case? I believe if the life of the mother is in jeopardy then she has every right to abort.

Aside from this provision I find abortion in many cases to be nothing short of murder.

Fellows

[Jubelum]

A second trimester fetus should be protected as a life under certain circumstances, i.e., if the mother is assaulted and she loses the baby, the attacker can be charged with murder if it's proven that the assault directly led to the death of the fetus.

What, if any, limits should there be on a mother choosing to abort in the second trimester?

[tonton]

I see what you are saying.

Let me ask this. Should life pre-birth be protected from "elected" termination if the life of the mother is not compromised?
Not under all circumstances, but under some, yes. The problem arises when you pass bullshit laws like bans on life-saving partial-birth abortion simply because you cannot differentiate the various circumstances.
also I would invite your thoughts in regard to the specific subject of partial birth abortion. What should the criteria be for allowing this procedure?
Serious health risk to the mother. Likelihood that the unborn fetus cannot live an independent or at least independently mobile, assisted life. If the fetus is 90% likely to die or be brain-dead within the first month, and the mother's life is 25% at risk, you bet your life PBA should be allowed in such a case.
Simply if the mother wants to terminate?
First trimester yes. No questions asked. Second trimester more difficult. There should be evidence of some risk to the mother or evidence of likelihood of serious deformity, disease or handicap. Third trimester, only under cases where there is serious risk to the mother, or evidence of life threatening (to the baby) deformity or disease.
Medical reason of some sort which would compromise the life of the mother?
Of course. But again it depends on degree of risk. Even giving birth itself carries risk to the life of the mother, so risk alone is not a valid reason.

Some other basis?
Yes. Under cases where there has been significant emotional and mental trauma to a mother due to a rape or incest, for instance, there should be fair consideration of whether she should be allowed to have an elected abortion of a "safe" pregnancy even in the second trimester, depending on the circumstances. However, third trimester abortions should not be allowed except under medical circumstances as previously mentioned.

[Fellowship]

A second trimester fetus should be protected as a life under certain circumstances, i.e., if the mother is assaulted and she loses the baby, the attacker can be charged with murder if it's proven that the assault directly led to the death of the fetus.

What if it is the mother who "elects" to cause the termination of her pregnancy?

Is the pre-birth life in this case not considered worthy of any protection? If not why not?

Fellows

[tonton]

What, if any, limits should there be on a mother choosing to abort in the second trimester?

As above. No elected abortion of a "safe" pregnancy during second trimester except under extreme circumstances.

[tonton]

What if it is the mother who "elects" to cause the termination of her pregnancy?

Is the pre-birth life in this case not considered worthy of any protection? If not why not?

Fellows

If a mother self-aborts during the second trimester, I believe she should be charged with an offense, but not murder. Of course, coerced abortion vs. natural miscarriage would be hard to prove in many cases.

[tonton]

There's also the issue of endangering the fetus, like the mother takes recreational or unprescribed drugs during pregnancy. I think this should be severely discouraged by law. A mother who gives birth to a "crack baby" or other handicapped or threatened baby because of recreational drug use should be charged with child endangerment or child abuse.

[vinea]

ok fair enough,

My thoughts are that abortion is not always a good choice. There are cases where it may be needed to protect the life of the mother and who am I to prevent the procedure if this is the case? I believe if the life of the mother is in jeopardy then she has every right to abort.

Aside from this provision I find abortion in many cases to be nothing short of murder.

Fellows

We are largely in agreement. I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I DO support birth control and sex education because abortion is a risky and stupid method of birth control.

1st trimester abortions I'll go along with as the choice of the mother. 2nd trimester I'm willing to say only for the health (not life) of the mother. There are sufficient life long health impacts from pregnancy that warrants this consideration.

Better though, to avoid unwanted pregancies in the first place.

[Fellowship]

As above. No elected abortion of a "safe" pregnancy during second trimester except under extreme circumstances.

It seems we have a very similar view of this subject if I am not mistaken.

Do you think it would serve the people if the procedure of abortion required qualifiers before it is administered? Qualifiers for example follow the line of reasoning and thought which has guided this discussion?

Or just allow abortion on demand no matter the basis for it?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

If a mother self-aborts during the second trimester, I believe she should be charged with an offense, but not murder. Of course, coerced abortion vs. natural miscarriage would be hard to prove in many cases.

Not all offenses go punished by law in any law breaking activity.

Fellows

[tonton]

Not all offenses go punished by law in any law breaking activity.

Fellows

Yeah but I would hate to see an innocent mother have to go through the trauma of an investigation after she's already lost her baby, so the benefit of the doubt on all but the most obvious cases should be given to the mother.

[tonton]

It seems we have a very similar view of this subject if I am not mistaken.

Do you think it would serve the people if the procedure of abortion required qualifiers before it is administered? Qualifiers for example follow the line of reasoning and thought which has guided this discussion?

Or just allow abortion on demand no matter the basis for it?

Fellows

As above, I believe first trimester abortion should be allowed under any circumstance. No parental notification, except for juveniles below a certain age threshold like 14, and even under such an age the juvenile in question should have the right to seek a judicial injunction against notification under certain circumstances, like a previously documented abusive situation.

Second trimester I believe should have reasonable requirements.

[Fellowship]

We are largely in agreement. I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I DO support birth control and sex education because abortion is a risky and stupid method of birth control.

1st trimester abortions I'll go along with as the choice of the mother. 2nd trimester I'm willing to say only for the health (not life) of the mother. There are sufficient life long health impacts from pregnancy that warrants this consideration.

Better though, to avoid unwanted pregancies in the first place.


Back when Jerry Springer had a radio program hosted on Air America I heard him make a good case for birth control availability. He was arguing that of course it would be ideal to prevent pregnancy by way of people abstaining from sex, but sometimes ideal scenarios are not how reality unfolds. His analogy was how we would of course prefer a world at peace with no war but this does not preclude nations from having a military in case the ideal situation is not realized. I thought the way Springer framed his argument was brilliant and on the mark.

Fellows

[tonton]

We are largely in agreement. I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I DO support birth control and sex education because abortion is a risky and stupid method of birth control.

1st trimester abortions I'll go along with as the choice of the mother. 2nd trimester I'm willing to say only for the health (not life) of the mother. There are sufficient life long health impacts from pregnancy that warrants this consideration.

Better though, to avoid unwanted pregancies in the first place.

I agree. Of course, in all of my recommendations above, I'm assuming that teens will be taught, in school, by mandate, by age 11, the choices available to them, their limits, and the consequences of their actions. And that this will be reviewed on an annual basis. Sexually active teens should be well enough educated to know that they need to track their periods, and if they are more than a week late with their period, they need to take a pregnancy test, and they should be shown how to take one. Ignorance should not be offered to them as an excuse for missing the first trimester window.

[hardeeharhar]

How would you define "only in as much as the failure to protect creates a burden on society after birth" as you put it. What are some examples you would give of this?

Fellows
Failure of the mother to provide pre-natal care which is likely to result in preventable medical
malformities. Same thing with drug use, alcohol use.

Women should be allowed to have an abortion since it effectively removes the burden from society of caring for a child.

[Fellowship]

I want to give a thanks to all of you so far who have contributed to the discussion. I raise the issue to field the differing thoughts held by a diverse group.

The discussion of abortion is often times not diligently explored and the nuance is lost when people make assumptions about people "on the other side of the issue" and dismiss the subject all together based on assumptions of the views / opinions of "those on the other side of the issue".

I hope if nothing else this thread does show that respectful and thoughtful discussion can be engaged in by willing parties.

The world needs more rationality and reason.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Women should be allowed to have an abortion since it effectively removes the burden from society of caring for a child.

So I suppose if we extend your basis here (if I understand it correctly) why not allow a mother to murder her born 1 week old when she has an ooops moment and realizes she can not afford and for other reasons support and raise her baby?

Is this a fair extension of your idea? or am I way off base?

Fellows

[hardeeharhar]

So I suppose if we extend your basis here (if I understand it correctly) why not allow a mother to murder her born 1 week old when she has an ooops moment and realizes she can not afford and for other reasons support and raise her baby?

Is this a fair extension of your idea? or am I way off base?

Fellows

Fair extension with the caveat that under such circumstances, 'murder' of the new-born would only be illegal if there are societal means for caring for the child. That is, it is reasonable for a woman who has just given birth in abject squaller to 'murder' her newborn if she realizes that neither she nor society can care for it.


The moment of birth is an important one -- in separates the entities from each other -- the newborn can be taken away and given a chance, before birth under all circumstances this isn't the case.

[Fellowship]

Fair extension with the caveat that under such circumstances, 'murder' of the new-born would only be illegal if there are societal means for caring for the child. That is, it is reasonable for a woman who has just given birth in abject squaller to 'murder' her newborn if she realizes that neither she nor society can care for it.


The moment of birth is an important one -- in separates the entities from each other -- the newborn can be taken away and given a chance, before birth under all circumstances this isn't the case.

wow... this honestly makes me take pause that you hold this view.

It seems to me a very sad sad way of thinking. I am not trying to pass judgement so much as just giving you my honest opinion / feedback.

So like an animal shelter with an animal which can not support itself just put it down?

Is this the idea?

What about people who would readily adopt a child?

Fellows

[Jubelum]

I agree. Of course, in all of my recommendations above, I'm assuming that teens will be taught, in school, by mandate, by age 11, the choices available to them, their limits, and the consequences of their actions.

Do parents have the choice to opt out of this instruction if they choose?

[franksargent]

What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm?

Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?

Please tell me your thoughts and I will reply in part to your ideas.

Fellows

I don't accept the premise for your use of the term "life pre-birth" and not because it generates only 37 Google hits (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22life+pre-birth%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8). :no:

Prenatal development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development)
Fetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus)
Birth control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control)

[tonton]

Do parents have the choice to opt out of this instruction if they choose? No because it would lead to unwanted pregancies... and... get this... more abortions than if such education were a non-opt-outable mandate. Sounds like you're pro-abortion to me if you think you can trust ultra-religious parents with the responsibility of teaching their own kids about sex.

[Jubelum]

No because it would lead to unwanted pregancies... and... get this... more abortions than if such education were a non-opt-outable mandate. Sounds like you're pro-abortion to me if you think you can trust ultra-religious parents with the responsibility of teaching their own kids about sex.

No one said anything about "ultra religious" - that's your characterization. There are plenty of parents that prefer to handle that topic in their home, rather than leaving it to the state. But it's not surprising that you support diminished parental rights... not surprising at all. The state is, "of course" smarter than it's citizens.

[Fellowship]

I don't accept the premise for your use of the term "life pre-birth" and not because it generates only 37 Google hits (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22life+pre-birth%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8). :no:



Well paint me guilty for not using the correct and approved language.

I truly do hope you can see that I raise a topic with this thread and most here understand the topic and are discussing it. If you have a problem with the language I use I respect that you have an issue with that.

I am sorry for that.

Fellows

[franksargent]

Well paint me guilty for not using the correct and approved language.

I truly do hope you can see that I raise a topic with this thread and most here understand the topic and are discussing it. If you have a problem with the language I use I respect that you have an issue with that.

I am sorry for that.

Fellows

"life pre-born" "harm" "protect" you have so many modifiers in your first question, three in fact, that to even answer that question, and it's followup (with two modifiers), is conceding certain assumptions when framing this discussion.

I don't have a viability test in this discussion, I don't have an economic test in this discussion, I don't have a right's test in this discussion.

I see it only as one of many methods of birth control, and that the state shall make on laws in an individual's right to control their own life.

How's that for a libertarian philosophy?

[BRussell]

The thing about abortion is that you're killing the child before you even know what they might become, who they might be. It could be that they'd turn out to be a genius, or artist, or something like that.

The other problem is that many kids who weren't aborted turn out to be real obnoxious brats. I see 'em all the time, crying, throwing tantrums, breaking stuff, hitting their sister.

So my solution is this: Outlaw abortion, but allow parents to kill their kids any time from birth up to the age of, say, 6. You can get a pretty good idea of the child by that age, and whether they deserve to live or not.

[sammi jo]

What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm?

Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?

Off the top of my head here...
Is this question a subtle way of asking "should the government pass a law to make abortion illegal, with the stated aim (as opposed to actual consequence) of such law being to protect a fetus"?

Should the "governmental" or "public funds" effort/involvement go towards educating parents and potential parents, so they are more qualified to be successful parents (ie they dont mess their kids' lives up before entering the world?). I haven't looked at the statistics on pre-birth abuse by parents, but you bet it's commonplace.. for example: pregnant mothers consuming junk food and drink, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, abusing both illegal and prescription drugs..... Then there's all those cases of physically abusive fathers (commonplace). Then there are those cases of so many people who have kids long before they are emotionally and mentally ready, which might have an effect of the mental state of the child for the rest of his/her life.... ? All the kids conceived in these situations are liable to be damaged and traumatized before birth, and they end up then having to deal with the consequences which might take an entire lifetime.

To reduce and prevent abortions, the causes of unwanted pregnancies have to be addressed. Incidentally, I am skeptical that there is a single human on this planet who is "pro-abortion", despite what the likes of Rush Limbaugh say.

[hardeeharhar]

wow... this honestly makes me take pause that you hold this view.

It seems to me a very sad sad way of thinking. I am not trying to pass judgement so much as just giving you my honest opinion / feedback.

So like an animal shelter with an animal which can not support itself just put it down?

Is this the idea?

What about people who would readily adopt a child?

Fellows


No, not at all like an animal shelter with an animal which can not support itself... It would be like an sick and dying animal in the middle of a community which cannot support it -- there is no shelter, there are no families that could or WOULD take it.

Adoption is great if it actually happens, but it doesn't for lots and lots of unwanted children.

[Fellowship]

To reduce and prevent abortions, the causes of unwanted pregnancies have to be addressed.

What if the number of unwanted pregnancies seen in the numbers that they are in fact are in part due to the availability or access to abortion on demand sanitized by certain politicians and many in society who paint such a "service" as a right for a woman?

Similar to how some view bankruptcy. Ohh well if I do XYZ there is always the option of (blank).

If I do get in over my head there is always bankruptcy.

If I do get pregnant there is always the option of aborting the child.

No?

Fellows

[Jubelum]

Ohh well if I do XYZ there is always the option of (blank).


Such has been the successful assault against personal responsibility, and the creation of a class of professional excusers to cover the need.

Unwanted Pregnancy- Not your fault.
Robbing a Store- Not your fault, economic desparation brought on by evil, Trickle Down economics.
LA Riots- Not your fault, brought on by people making you break the law.

Now, corporate profits? Congressional hearings.

You're not claiming that old, fuddy duddy sentiment that people should be responsible, are you?

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/notodumpster.jpg

[franksargent]

Such has been the successful assault against personal responsibility, and the creation of a class of professional excusers to cover the need.

Unwanted Pregnancy- Not your fault.
Robbing a Store- Not your fault, economic desparation brought on by evil, Trickle Down economics.
LA Riots- Not your fault, brought on by people making you break the law.

Now, corporate profits? Congressional hearings.

You're not claiming that old, fuddy duddy sentiment that people should be responsible, are you?

Reproductive rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights)

Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[1] Various reproductive rights have been claimed as human rights in international human rights documents[2], particularly with the ratification of the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the adoption of the the Cairo Programme and the Beijing Platform.[1] Reproductive rights are often held to include the right to legal abortion, the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.

Reproductive rights in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Reproductive_rights_in_the_Uni ted_States)

In the United States, the public debate surrounding reproduction rights is often about abortion rights. Reproductive rights advocates support a woman's right to abortion and contraception from within the context of the right to privacy, or freedom from governmental interference, supporting legalized contraception and abortion.

In the United States Constitution, the right to privacy has been interpreted to include reproductive rights, as seen in numerous Supreme Court cases. Three important cases are Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), and Roe v. Wade (1973). In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme court overturned a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, which established a constitutional right to privacy and legalized contraception for married people. Eisenstadt v. Baird extended the right to use contraceptives to unmarried people. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on a federal level.

Who are you to decide someone else's individual rights? Who are you to invade on other individual's privacy rights? Who are you to decide individual responsibilities?

I find your position to be the height of hypocrisy, given your numerous stances on virtually all other privacy right issues.

[Jubelum]

I find your position to be the height of hypocrisy, given your numerous stances on virtually all other privacy right issues.

Because other privacy rights do not involve the taking of a human life.

And BTW... you're not looking for the word "hypocrisy." The word "inconsistency" is a more correct for your purpose. And it is not inconsistent for the reason listed above.

Who are you to decide someone else's individual rights? Who are you to invade on other individual's privacy rights? Who are you to decide individual responsibilities?

Yawn. I'd bother with this if your original premise were correct. It isn't.
And be careful what you critique of others, if you are not willing to be tried by that same standard.

[franksargent]

Because other privacy rights do not involve the taking of a human life.

And BTW... you're not looking for the word "hypocrisy." The word "inconsistency" is a more correct for your purpose. And it is not inconsistent for the reason listed above.



Yawn. I'd bother with this if your original premise were correct. It isn't.
And be careful what you critique of others, if you are not willing to be tried by that same standard.

D'oh! I did choose my words carefully.

Individual, individual, and individual.

Did you perchance miss my use of, framing, and phrasing of the word individual?

[@_@ Artman]

"Fine them, kill them, or let them go." -the philosopher dmz.

For you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKR3QU3dB0M), artman.

:D

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/imagesnotoncebuttwice.gif

[Jubelum]

Who are you to decide someone else's individual rights? Who are you to invade on other individual's privacy rights? Who are you to decide individual responsibilities?

As opposed to collective privacy rights? As opposed to collective responsibilities? What is your point? And the "who are you to..." cuts both ways. No one wants anyone else telling them what to do... and our political alignments are based on which group of rights one side wants to protect, and which rights they support limiting for the other side.

I do not buy your premise that there is a "right" to end a human life.

The terms "freedom" and "right" are becoming very, very cheap.

[franksargent]

As opposed to collective privacy rights? As opposed to collective responsibilities? What is your point? And the "who are you to..." cuts both ways. No one wants anyone else telling them what to do... and our political alignments are based on which group of rights one side wants to protect, and which rights they support limiting for the other side.

I do not buy your premise that there is a "right" to end a human life.

The terms "freedom" and "right" are becoming very, very cheap.

And, I don't buy your premise of what constitutes a human life, since you seem not to understand some basic definitions, such as individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual);

As commonly used, individual refers to a person or to any specific object in a collection. In the 15th century and earlier, and also today within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual means "indivisible", typically describing any numerically singular thing, but sometimes meaning "a person." (q.v. "The problem of proper names"). From the seventeenth century on, individual indicates separateness, as in individualism.[1] Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs, goals, and desires.

or person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person);

In modern usage, the term "person" is subject to dispute and re-interpretation based on alternate definitions. This is especially so for uses that are not necessarily synonymous with the classical definition of human or human being.

or human being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being);

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).

or life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions);

There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.

or human responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility#Human_responsibility);

One part of social responsibility is being responsible to people, for the actions of people, and for actions that affect people. Social responsibility is about holding a group, organization or company accountable for its effect on the people around it.

[Jubelum]

And, I don't buy your premise of what constitutes a human life

You're trying to teach school out of wikipedia again... how cute. Try that in a college classroom and see where that gets you. You can feel free to go on for pages quoting wikipedia to try to achieve some "position" of correctness. I'd advise you that, like the "rust belt" episode, you are not making a strong argument, rather passing around definitions from wikipedia like they constitute an argument by themselves. They don't. No one disagrees with the basic dictionary definitions anyway.

I believe that a fetus is a human life.

Nowhere in the herein-posted franktionary do I find anything that comments on when life begins. If you'll put down wiki for a minute, any of these articles (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=when+does+life+begin&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) might provide a richer discussion. I particularly liked this one (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162) as a nice overview of perspectives.

[franksargent]

You're trying to teach school out of wikipedia again... how cute. Try that in a college classroom and see where that gets you. You can feel free to go on for pages quoting wikipedia to try to achieve some "position" of correctness. I'd advise you that, like the "rust belt" episode, you are not making a strong argument, rather passing around definitions from wikipedia like they constitute an argument by themselves. They don't. No one disagrees with the basic dictionary definitions anyway.

I believe that a fetus is a human life.

Nowhere in the herein-posted franktionary do I find anything that comments on when life begins. If you'll put down wiki for a minute, any of these articles (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=when+does+life+begin&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) might provide a richer discussion. I particularly liked this one (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162) as a nice overview of perspectives.

.. propose a definition that fits your emotional and subjective beliefs, nothing more, and nothing less.

Googling four words when does life begin (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=when+does+life+begin&btnG=Search), four unquoted words doesn't mean squat! :\

Me, why I'll stick to the objective facts of the matter, TYVM! :)

[Jubelum]

.. propose a definition that fits your emotional and subjective beliefs, nothing more, and nothing less.

Me, why I'll stick to the objective facts of the matter, TYVM! :)

Emotional? Subjective?

If ONLY there were absolute, objective facts when it came to "when does life begin?" as a question. Obviously you did not read that second link. That non-agreement is one of the central points of contention in the entire abortion debate.

Again, a bunch of dictionary definitions do not create "objective facts" which serve as the totality of a well-crafted argument. They are definitions. They simply define terms so that the rhetorical process can thus proceed. They are not proceeding much with you, apparently.

[franksargent]

Emotional? Subjective?

If ONLY there were absolute, objective facts when it came to "when does life begin?" as a question. Obviously you did not read that second link. That non-agreement is one of the central points of contention in the entire abortion debate.

Again, a bunch of dictionary definitions do not create "objective facts" with which to serve as the totality of a well-crafted argument. There is nothing in your pile of wikitionary scraps that approaches "objective facts." They are simply definitions. They simply define terms so that the rhetorical process can thus proceed. They are not proceeding much with you, apparently.

... on a roll. :lol:

When does live begin? Well according to many scientists, it occured about ~3.5 billion years ago. :D

[tonton]

No one said anything about "ultra religious" - that's your characterization. There are plenty of parents that prefer to handle that topic in their home, rather than leaving it to the state. But it's not surprising that you support diminished parental rights... not surprising at all. The state is, "of course" smarter than it's citizens.

Yes, but some of the parents that would definitely "opt-out" are the ultrareligious, and that was to what I was alluding.

Giving all of the people opt-out rights is giving all of the stupid people opt-out rights (and by saying stupid people I'm not just talking about the ultra-religious, so leave that one in the bag). And that's going to lead to more uninformed teen behavior. How about giving parents opt-out rights if they have a degree in reproductive rights or an MD? Yes, we can consider most of the others who would "opt out" to be ignorant and think that by NOT teaching kids about condoms they might not be tempted to use them. :rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

... on a roll. :lol:

That was not an ad hom... you claimed to have made a compelling argument based on a reguritation of wiki defintions. I explained to you how that does not an arguement make... TWICE.

If it were an ad-hom, I would have said... "frank, you're a total idiot with bad posture, thus your arguement is not valid." You did not make a compelling or complete argument, and I critiqued your approach. I explained the holes in your lacking argument. That is not an ad-hom.

Turn that browser toward the chapter on Ad Homs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) while you are over there.

[Jubelum]

Yes, but some of the parents that would definitely "opt-out" are the ultrareligious, and that was to what I was alluding.

So what if they are? What if they are in a UFO cult? Or do not think that the school system is teaching their values? Or do not think the school goes far enough?

Parents should have the ability to opt-out should they choose.

[hardeeharhar]

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/imagesnotoncebuttwice.gif
i don't think i felt the need to laugh out loud before.

[franksargent]

That was not an ad hom... you claimed to have made a compelling argument based on a reguritation of wiki defintions. I explained to you how that does not an arguement make... TWICE.

If it were an ad-hom, I would have said... "frank, you're a total idiot with bad posture, thus your arguement is not valid." You did not make a compelling or complete argument, and I critiqued your approach. I explained the holes in your lacking argument. That is not an ad-hom.

Turn that browser toward the chapter on Ad Homs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) while you are over there.

Dude, you don't get to ask that rhetorical of rhetorical questions "When does life begin?" in the same way that you don't ask "How high is the sky?" or "How far is the pull of the Sun's gravity field?"

Once we abandon your false and flawed dilemma, false and flawed logic, false and flawed reasoning, we are left with the basic issues of individual rights of all living human beings.

It is also a matter of settled law for over 35 years now.

[Jubelum]

Dude, you don't get to ask that rhetorical of rhetorical questions "When does life begin" in the same way that you don't ask "How high is the sky" or "how far is the pull of the Sun's gravity field."

OK, smarty pants, give me a full, 100% objective and accepted definition of when life begins. (If you bothered to read the first link earlier, you'd see that "experts" have many very different definitions of this)

Once we abandon your false and flawed dilemma, false and flawed logic, false and flawed reasoning,

You've demonstrated in no way that anything I have stated is "false and flawed"- you've tossed out a pile of fscking definitions, thinking it makes your case. One last time, tell me what I have said that is empirically "false and flawed," that you can show evidence to refute. We haven't even gotten to my dilemma, my logic, my reasoning, or any of that. We're too busy dealing with your wanna-be dictionary "gotcha" and misunderstanding of ad homs.

we are left with the basic issues of individual rights of all living human beings.

Yes, we are. The right to not be killed before you are born. See?

[franksargent]

OK, smarty pants, give me a full, 100% objective and accepted definition of when life begins. (If you bothered to read the first link earlier, you'd see that "experts" have many very different definitions of this)



You've demonstrated in no way that anything I have stated is "false and flawed"- you've tossed out a pile of fscking definitions, thinking it makes your case. One last time, tell me what I have said that is empirically "false and flawed," that you can show evidence to refute. We haven't even gotten to my dilemma, my logic, my reasoning, or any of that. We're too busy dealing with your wanna-be dictionary "gotcha" and misunderstanding of ad homs.



Yes, we are. The right to not be killed before you are born. See?

I already tried to answer your question, ~3.5 billion years ago. :\

The bottom line?

You don't decide the fate of others, you don't get to decide how others conduct their lives, you don't get to dictate anything, as far as I'm concerned.

While I go about posting concise definitions of commonly accepted words, you run to what you call belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief);

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
.
.
.
The relationship between belief and knowledge is subtle. Believers in a claim typically say that they know that claim. For instance, those who believe that the Sun is a god will report that they know that the Sun is a god. However, the terms belief and knowledge are used differently by philosophers.

Oops, my bad another Wikipedia definition.

[Jubelum]

The bottom line?

You don't decide the fate of others, you don't get to decide how others conduct their lives, you don't get to dictate anything, as far as I'm concerned.


This is like arguing with my 14 year old nephew. Good one, champ. ;)

Deciding/Dictating? I know that. Neither do you. Or any of us here. I'm not making a case for authoritarianism... that's a strawman. I think you'll find, if you read my posts, that I am not really interested in the government telling people how to run their lives. Quite the opposite. I bet if I get to dig around and that little mind of yours I could find all sorts of things that YOU don't think should be legal. Unless you're going to take an anarchist position. Like I said, be careful with the standard you use, because you've set the bar so high that you are bound to fail yourself.

You're making this personal. It never has been for me, though it is going there. I simply want you to make a compelling argument that life begins at birth, or conception, or somewhere in between. You won't. Hell, I've even given you sources you could cut and paste an opinion from. But no go. You're set on poking me in the chest over what I can and cannot do, because you cannot make a reasoned argument to support your view, apparently that life begins at birth, not at any other point. And goodness, frank, you can cut and paste that from somewhere.

With me, the ending of a human life, except in certain circumstances, is killing. YOU don't get to decide what I think... YOU don't get to tell me to shut up... YOU don't get any more ground in winning a real reasonable argument, post after post.

Here:
1. Give me a full, 100% objective and accepted definition of when life begins.
2. Tell me what I have said that is empirically "false and flawed," that you can show evidence to refute.

Until you can do one or both of those things, or offer something that doesn't sound like Badnarik on acid, don't bother.

You don't want to debate the issue of why some people think life begins at some time other than when you do. You consider that subjective opinion on your side "fact" and on my side, the opposite opinion on the same issue is "false and flawed," though you can't make even a basic case as to why.

This is not discourse. It's mostly having a tantrum while holding a dictionary.

[franksargent]

This is like arguing with my 14 year old nephew. Good one, champ. ;)

Deciding/Dictating? I know that. Neither do you. Or any of us here. I'm not making a case for authoritarianism... that's a strawman. I think you'll find, if you read my posts, that I am not really interested in the government telling people how to run their lives. Quite the opposite. I bet if I get to dig around and that little mind of yours I could find all sorts of things that YOU don't think should be legal. Unless you're going to take an anarchist position. Like I said, be careful with the standard you use, because you've set the bar so high that you are bound to fail yourself.

You're making this personal. It never has been for me, though it is going there. I simply want you to make a compelling argument that life begins at birth, or conception, or somewhere in between. You won't. Hell, I've even given you sources you could cut and paste an opinion from. But no go. You're set on poking me in the chest over what I can and cannot do, because you cannot make a reasoned argument to support your view, apparently that life begins at birth, not at any other point. And goodness, frank, you can cut and paste that from somewhere.

With me, the ending of a human life, except in certain circumstances, is killing. YOU don't get to decide what I think... YOU don't get to tell me to shut up... YOU don't get any more ground in winning a real reasonable argument, post after post.

Here:


Until you can do one or both of those things, or offer something that doesn't sound like Badnarik on acid, don't bother.

You don't want to debate the issue of why some people think life begins at some time other than when you do. You consider that subjective opinion on your side "fact" and on my side, the opposite opinion on the same issue is "false and flawed," though you can't make even a basic case as to why.

This is not discourse. It's mostly having a tantrum while holding a dictionary.

You are dictating a rhetorical question. I understand that, and I would think that you would understand that. Yes or no?

Look at how this thread was started, with a loaded title and loaded question.

I posted #30, and highlighted that fact, no one else caught that flawed premise.

The same criteria applies to your rhetorical question. Get it yet?

If you still don't, then don't be surprised if I refuse to answer the flawed premise in your question.

I have laid down the basic definitions that are in common usage, I do not, and will not, answer a facetious and/or rhetorical question.

Thus, I can stick to my argument, since it doesn't rely on a response to your question. Get it now?

[Jubelum]

If you still don't, then don't be surprised if I refuse to answer the flawed premise in your question.

My question has been, and remains, when you think life begins, and why. What is flawed in that question?

I have laid down the basic definitions that are in common usage, I do not, and will not, answer a facetious and/or rhetorical question.

So we have a pile of definitions of things that relate to life. Awesome. But no one here is arguing definitions with you, frank. I don't disagree with them in their posted form. If that is all you are going for, defining terms, then why not just say that, and not go off on what others can or cannot do?

Thus, I can stick to my argument, since it doesn't rely on a response to your question. Get it now? Near as I can tell, your argument is that there should be no argument around the "when is life, life" question.

[franksargent]

My question has been, and remains, when you think life begins, and why. What is flawed in that question?



So we have a pile of definitions of things that relate to life. Awesome. But no one here is arguing definitions with you, frank. I don't disagree with them in their posted form. If that is all you are going for, defining terms, then why not just say that, and not go off on what others can or cannot do?

Near as I can tell, your argument is that there should be no argument around the "when is life, life" question.

No. Because ultimately the question is subjective to the viability argument, which I believe in time will vanish as human technologies improve. it's a moving target already and has been since the introduction of in vitro fertilization.

Life began at some point in time long ago, maybe the precursors have existed from the apparent beginning of our universe, there will never be a definitive unambiguous answer to your question, life has been a continuum since it's very beginning.

If I were to attempt to draw any line in the sand, I would not be able to defend it objectively.

Thus, I am forced to leave that question without a response, since to do so would be indefensible.

[Jubelum]

If I were to attempt to draw any line in the sand, I would not be able to defend it objectively.

Thus, I am forced to leave that question without a response, since to do so would be indefensible.

Fair enough.

[Fellowship]

Look at how this thread was started, with a loaded title and loaded question.



Pardon me for my being absent from the forum for some period of hours. I come back this evening and I see the above and I have to ask..

What is wrong with how this thread was started?

How is the title loaded?

What is the loaded question? How do you see it as loaded?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

IN REPLY TO JUBELUM:



I find your position to be the height of hypocrisy, given your numerous stances on virtually all other privacy right issues.

Privacy?

So If some mother were to kill a born child in the privacy of her home it is just a matter of privacy and the issue of ohhhh say murder is not really a material concern?

Is this your point?

Fellows

[franksargent]

Pardon me for my being absent from the forum for some period of hours. I come back this evening and I see the above and I have to ask..

What is wrong with how this thread was started?

How is the title loaded?

What is the loaded question? How do you see it as loaded?

Fellows

Ok, the title, in and of itself, isn't loaded since it's just a short title "life pre-birth." So I'll backpedal on that one.

But your two opening sentences;

What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm?

Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?


clears up any ambiguity in the thread title. At least that's how I read it, as part of the two questions, that life is implicitly assumed in pre-birth.

I'm an agnostic on the life question, so I took exception to the implied phrasing of your two questions.

You are attempting what I consider to be a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), wherein you choose one branch, and those opposing your opinion, are left with defending the other branch;

The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. This fallacy is also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, and bifurcation. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options, called the law of the excluded middle, and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice.

Thus, I resorted to several textbook definitions to delineate my position with respect to the inherently ambiguous nature of the life question, and the trap one falls into when attempting to draw any line in the sand with respect to this question.

I would not have to resort to such tactics, if the false dilemma was not placed before me in the first place.

[Marvin]

I think abortion should be allowed until the fetus is 21 years old. It's only by that age you know for sure if they are going to be worth keeping.

Seriously though, I think abortion up until birth and just beyond should be ok. I think it's inhuman to allow a child with birth defects to suffer a life not worth living. It seems to me people who disagree with abortion are people who believe that the human condition is defined by a soul - some mystical non-existent entity that appears at the point of conception that explains our self-awareness.

The sooner we dispel that notion, the sooner we can start helping people with severe disabilities by supporting stem cell research.

[franksargent]

IN REPLY TO JUBELUM:



Privacy?

So If some mother were to kill a born child in the privacy of her home it is just a matter of privacy and the issue of ohhhh say murder is not really a material concern?

Is this your point?

Fellows

No. Clearly a normal birth produces a viable individual.

I believe in reproductive rights;

In the United States, the public debate surrounding reproduction rights is often about abortion rights. Reproductive rights advocates support a woman's right to abortion and contraception from within the context of the right to privacy, or freedom from governmental interference, supporting legalized contraception and abortion.

[Fellowship]

Abortion deals with non-viable human life, Fellows.

After that, the state can come in and regulate it all the way up to banning the procedure. Viability obviously is a murky line with our increasing technological sophistication. I wonder what would happen if a woman doesn't want to carry the fetus anymore but she already passed the viability point. I wonder if she can just say, "hey, the baby can live on its own now. I'm having it now!" Could she get a doctor to induce labor if she can't legally abort it? All kinds of thorny medical, ethical and legal issues.

I suppose if an elderly woman is struggling to get out of a burning building we don't need a fire department to help her.

Hey gotta see just how "viable" the woman is to survive on her own...

I suppose hospitals should just do away with the doctors and prenatal staff who deal with encouraging the health and well being of premature babies and instead sit back once that little "thing" is out of the mother and see if it will be "viable".

I mean who needs progress... especially in regard to life...

Fellows

[Fellowship]

No. Clearly a normal birth produces a viable individual.

I believe in reproductive rights;



I gotcha... murder is ok as long as it is a "reproductive right"

Thanks for making that clear.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Nah, just 30-something Texans who are being intentionally clownish.

:p

The only clownish thing around here are people who call themselves liberal but are on the wrong side of an issue so bad it hurts.

Nothing progressive in your arguments Shawn.

Fellows

[giant]

What's your view, Fellowship, specifically on issues like first trimester vs second vs third, as well as the various health considerations both influencing and resulting from different legislative approaches? Also, what are the differences between your personal attitudes toward various aspects of the issue and the legislative frameworks you support/advocate.

[Jubelum]

Nothing progressive in your arguments Shawn.

Fellows

What really amazes me is how many "progressives" that live with hair-triggers for racism also have spirited defenses of Planned Parenthood (http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/308723.html), and downplay the eugenicist philosophy of Margaret Sanger, and her "Negro Project."

[BRussell]

What really amazes me is how many "progressives" that live with hair-triggers for racism also have spirited defenses of Planned Parenthood (http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/308723.html), and downplay the eugenicist philosophy of Margaret Sanger, and her "Negro Project." Because it's like saying you shouldn't support science today because Mengele and the Nazis did science in the past. Or that you can't support America today because America had slaves in the past. Or etc. etc.

[Fellowship]

What's your view, Fellowship, specifically on issues like first trimester vs second vs third, as well as the various health considerations both influencing and resulting from different legislative approaches? Also, what are the differences between your personal attitudes toward various aspects of the issue and the legislative frameworks you support/advocate.

No matter the trimester I would hope that people who are having an abortion having nothing to do with a health consideration for the mother would consider birth and if the birthing process is successful if the mother at that point does not want to raise her child adoption is an option.

I also really believe that having sex is something serious in the sense that it does carry potential consequence (pregnancy). Individuals and couples need to learn life skills to be more responsible members of society to the degree that they take risks.

As for legislative frameworks I think the abortion procedure should require qualifiers. Is there a health risk to the mother for example.

Ultimately however the actions of individuals are their own. The subject of abortion is made complex by the simple fact that more than one life is involved. There is not always a good answer but I would suggest that for a majority of abortions which have taken place a better option was available that did not kill an innocent life.

The mindset that abortion is an option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy needs to be transformed. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a worthy cause but there is not a one size fits all method in this area I can assure you.

It is a worthy cause nonetheless.

Respectfully,

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Because it's like saying you shouldn't support science today because Mengele and the Nazis did science in the past. Or that you can't support America today because America had slaves in the past. Or etc. etc.

BRussell what is your thought on abortion?

Do you lean more to:

Abortion on demand to anyone who wants one

or

Abortion with qualifiers combined with a multifaceted approach to combat unwanted pregnancies.

or

some other set of ideas

Fellows

[tonton]

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a worthy cause but there is not a one size fits all method in this area I can assure you.]

Tell me about it...

I can't for the life of me find condoms that fit in Hong Kong.

[giant]

As for legislative frameworks I think the abortion procedure should require qualifiers. Is there a health risk to the mother for example.
What specific kinds of qualifiers? Would they include different restrictions based on trimester or fetal development, acknowledge or consider the differing views and ongoing debate about the ethical issues and definitions, or address any potential social impacts of various legislative frameworks? Is there any difference between your personal ethical views on the issue and the legislative framework you'd support?

[Fellowship]

Tell me about it...

I can't for the life of me find condoms that fit in Hong Kong.

LOL :lol:

Yet another reason I love ya tonton!

Great fun that was to read!

Fellows

[Fellowship]

What specific kinds of qualifiers? Would they include different restrictions based on trimester or fetal development, acknowledge or consider the differing views and ongoing debate about the ethical issues and definitions, or address any potential social impacts of various legislative frameworks? Is there any difference between your personal ethical views on the issue and the legislative framework you'd support?

To be honest I am not qualified to suggest policy in any serious context. I would only suggest that a majority of people on any given side of this Abortion issue get together and see if we can't come to some common agreement on what is truly progressive for all parties when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and abortion. To consider the mother and the unborn alike.

I am sure there is room for improvement. Improvement meaning fewer abortions.

Fellows

[hardeeharhar]

The problem with abortions with qualifiers is that the desire to punish non-qualifiers as murderers is so much a cognitive disconnect that I don't think it would stand the test of legal logic.

Abortions without qualifiers. SECULAR (and highly regulated) counseling before an abortion is performed.

but most importantly, sex-education, full frontal, no-holds bar... it has been shown to be a better deterrent than anything else we've got...

[Fellowship]

The problem with abortions with qualifiers is that the desire to punish non-qualifiers as murderers is so much a cognitive disconnect that I don't think it would stand the test of legal logic.


The problem with abortions without qualifiers is the fact that innocent life is being forsaken and in many cases for convenience.

To give a conditional "ok" to abortion because it is convenient suggests that life is expendable when it is convenient.

Not a great message. Let alone "progressive"

Fellows

[vinea]

My question has been, and remains, when you think life begins, and why. What is flawed in that question?


Given that both sperm and egg are alive at conception and the resulting fertilized egg is also alive it doesn't help you to know when he thinks LIFE begins.

The question you want to know is a variation on the original one Fellowship asked:

When does it become human enough?

For me, start of the 2nd trimester (13 weeks). I can see some people arguing for 21-24 weeks since there is potential viability as a preeme. I can see some people arguing for 9 weeks since its an embryo up until then.

I don't agree with folks about 3rd trimester abortions (except for the life of the mother which is a choice between two lives*). I also don't agree with folks about human life beginning at conception...at least not from the perspective of the elimination of morning after pills.

But nobody I've met actually LIKES abortions. Therefore everyone I've met is anti-abortion with varying degrees of acceptability. And yeah, I've been part of a clinic defense so I've met some really whacked people on both sides.

As an aside, its a really bad way to meet women. Oh, its a target rich environment all right but you're luckier not to score in 90% of the cases.

V

* I told the ob in no uncertain terms...if there was to be a choice of survival between mom and child it was always to be mom.

[BRussell]

Tell me about it...

I can't for the life of me find condoms that fit in Hong Kong. They're all too big, huh? ;)

[vinea]

The problem with abortions without qualifiers is the fact that innocent life is being forsaken and in many cases for convenience.

To give a conditional "ok" to abortion because it is convenient suggests that life is expendable when it is convenient.

Not a great message. Let alone "progressive"

Fellows

The question from the Christian perspective is whether these lives belong to Ceasar or to God and whether the actions of secular folks who do not believe in your God are rightfully under your purview.

[Fellowship]

The question from the Christian perspective is whether these lives belong to Ceasar or to God and whether the actions of secular folks who do not believe in your God are rightfully under your purview.

With all things I trust God. But I do believe in sharing the message of life for all.

I do not want to unfairly characterize those who are pro-choice as pro-abortion as I do not think this would be fair or accurate.

My goal as a Christian who has faith and a person who has a brain and thinks is merely to suggest ideas which may enhance the human experience.

I wish for all of us no matter our label of pro-life or pro-choice to come together and see if we can't find common agreement on what is truly progressive for all parties involved with unwanted pregnancies and abortion. To consider both the mother and the unborn.

I am sure there is room for improvement being the progressive I am.

Improvement meaning fewer abortions.

Fellows

[giant]

To be honest I am not qualified to suggest policy in any serious context. I would only suggest that a majority of people on any given side of this Abortion issue get together and see if we can't come to some common agreement on what is truly progressive for all parties when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
On the last page you seem to have a pretty clear idea of there being a "wrong side ... so bad it hurts" and responded to multiple comments, including franksargent's discussions of "reproductive rights" and "privacy" and Shawn's comments that there are "thorny medical, ethical and legal issues," by making comparisons to "murder." You started this thread asking "What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm? Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?" and the comments you were reacting to were discussing it primarily from a policy perspective rather than one solely focused on personal ethical standards.

You've made it very clear that on a personal level you equivocate the overall concept of abortion with murder. However, since the question you posed and discussion you reacted to was one regarding policy, and you apparently have a strong opinion on the legal framework, your above statement (the quote above) is incongruent with what you've expressed.

[Fellowship]

On the last page you seem to have a pretty clear idea of there being a "wrong side ... so bad it hurts" and responded to multiple comments, including franksargent's discussions of "reproductive rights" and "privacy" and Shawn's comments that there are "thorny medical, ethical and legal issues," by making comparisons to "murder." You started this thread talking asking "What rights should human life pre-birth have to protect it from harm? Should the government protect life pre-birth at all?" and the comments you were reacting to were discussing it primarily from a policy perspective rather than personal ethical standards.

You've made it very clear that on a personal level you equivocate the overall concept of abortion with murder. However, since the question you posed and discussion you reacted to was one regarding policy, and you apparently have a strong opinion on the legal framework, your above statement is incongruent with what you've expressed.

First of all I did want to get the readers of the opening post to consider and think about the matters I laid out.

The thing is I stand by every single word I have said in this thread.

It all does weave together to make my overall point. If you can't see how it weaves into a larger context I am not going to be able to do much to enhance that.

Some things I can help to solve some things are out of my control.

Respectfully,

Fellows

[franksargent]

I gotcha... murder is ok as long as it is a "reproductive right"

Thanks for making that clear.

Fellows

Go back and read what I wrote. I laid the groundwork that avoids your false dilemma.

[giant]

First of all I did want to get the readers of the opening post to consider and think about the matters I laid out.

The thing is I stand by every single word I have said in this thread.

It all does weave together to make my overall point. If you can't see how it weaves into a larger context I am not going to be able to do much to enhance that.

Some things I can help to solve some things are out of my control.

Respectfully,

Fellows
You don't have to be rude. I'm asking you legitimate questions. You started a policy discussion and have descended into making hardline comments about your personal ethical views while dismissing and avoiding pretty much every policy-related issue.

So you think abortion is ethically wrong. Great. We get it. Some of us may even completely agree with you. But that's not a policy issue.

[Marvin]

I suppose if an elderly woman is struggling to get out of a burning building we don't need a fire department to help her.

Hey gotta see just how "viable" the woman is to survive on her own...

That's someone who has lived a viable life and may continue to do so vs a fetus which has not and is not likely to.

Individuals and couples need to learn life skills to be more responsible members of society to the degree that they take risks.

In other words punish them for having all the sex that you by choice aren't having? Abstinence is the responsible thing to do right? Well unless you're bound by the religious institution of marriage of course.

So if a married woman is raped and becomes pregnant, what then? You're going to force her to give birth to a child she didn't want.

To give a conditional "ok" to abortion because it is convenient suggests that life is expendable when it is convenient.

Assuming you define life as merely being alive. In reality what people define as life generally has a well defined minimum level of quality. Of course you tend to find that the only people who care about that little condition is people who have reached that level or below it.

If a couple cannot give their child a suitable quality of life then the responsible thing to do is to not bring it into a state of suffering.

[franksargent]

The Roman Catholic Church remains morally opposed to contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse, believing that all sexual acts must be open to procreation. The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence.

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

When groups such as the Pope's People™ force upon others their false dilemma argument there will never be a middle ground.

Therefore, I support all forms of reproductive rights necessary for individuals to make an informed and timely decision as how they choose to control the privacy of their own lives.

[Fellowship]

In other words punish them for having all the sex that you by choice aren't having? Abstinence is the responsible thing to do right?

I don't think you have been fair to consider that I have wider views and considerations than how you seem to frame me in narrow terms.

For example in this very thread I said in an earlier post:

Back when Jerry Springer had a radio program hosted on Air America I heard him make a good case for birth control availability. He was arguing that of course it would be ideal to prevent pregnancy by way of people abstaining from sex, but sometimes ideal scenarios are not how reality unfolds. His analogy was how we would of course prefer a world at peace with no war but this does not preclude nations from having a military in case the ideal situation is not realized. I thought the way Springer framed his argument was brilliant and on the mark.


Now my goal with this thread was to field the differing viewpoints and to gather the nuance and diversity of views at every angle of this matter from those who contribute. It was my thought that such a discussion would foster thought and understanding of where each of us comes from with our view.

Fellows

[giant]

When groups such as the Pope's People™ force upon others their false dilemma argument there will never be a middle ground.

Therefore, I support all forms of reproductive rights necessary for individuals to make an informed and timely decision as how they choose to control the privacy of their own lives.
There are legitimate ethical issues involved from various angles. As long as we consider infanticide ethically wrong, we need to consider how that applies to fetuses and why. And even if one person doesn't have ethical problems with it, someone else will, and when scaled up to a few million people it becomes a big issue. I totally agree that the Christian extremists are scary, indeed, but hidden somewhere in their ignorant extremism is a legitimate point. I'd rather have rational public policy than careless theocracy (of any kind), so I'd like to believe that people like Fellowship can learn to understand the difference. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe not.
Now my goal with this thread was to field the differing viewpoints and to gather the nuance and diversity of views at every angle of this matter from those who contribute. It was my thought that such a discussion would foster thought and understanding of where each of us comes from with our view.
You seemed to be helping achieve that on the first page, but not so much since then when you outright condemned other, legitimate perspectives of the policy issues.

[MarcUK]

Please note, the following comment is based upon projection of average statistics and mental wanderings of my sick mind...

But if God 'designed' life....why is it I have a friend who has been injected with 200 million sperm a week for the last 8 years and failed to have a single egg fertilized?

Thats around 83 billion pre-birth infant deaths if I calculated properly - directly caused by God.

[vinea]

Please note, the following comment is based upon projection of average statistics and mental wanderings of my sick mind...

But if God 'designed' life....why is it I have a friend who has been injected with 200 million sperm a week for the last 8 years and failed to have a single egg fertilized?

Thats around 83 billion pre-birth infant deaths if I calculated properly - directly caused by God.

Bad math. 768 potential pre-birth infant deaths.

8 years x 12 menstrual cycles (more or less) x 8 octuplets.

It's the eggs you count.

[BRussell]

But if God 'designed' life....why is it I have a friend who has been injected with 200 million sperm a week for the last 8 years and failed to have a single egg fertilized? Maybe because no one told him men can't get pregnant?

[Jubelum]

I have a friend who has been injected with 200 million sperm a week for the last 8 years and failed to have a single egg fertilized?


Because the injections are not as effective when given in the upper arm.

[Denton]

Improvement meaning fewer abortions.

Agreed.

He was arguing that of course it would be ideal to prevent pregnancy by way of people abstaining from sex, but sometimes ideal scenarios are not how reality unfolds. His analogy was how we would of course prefer a world at peace with no war but this does not preclude nations from having a military in case the ideal situation is not realized.

I like the analogy.

[Denton]

The thing about abortion is that you're killing the child before you even know what they might become, who they might be. It could be that they'd turn out to be a genius, or artist, or something like that.

I prefer to think about all of the rapists, murderers, child-molesters and dictators that we are preventing from inflicting their horrors on the world... :)

[Jubelum]

I prefer to think about all of the rapists, murderers, child-molesters and dictators that we are preventing from inflicting their horrors on the world... :)

Here's some backup for that. (http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/8/)

I'm sure The Klan loves this research.

[Denton]

I think that abortion is justified anytime. An adult woman (and even a juvenile woman) is worth so much more to me. I have no more qualms about killing a fetus than I would about killing any other parasite. At the moment of birth, something fundamental changes: the new baby is no longer a physical parasite, but is a social parasite. I would still value an adult person above an infant. However, if a woman is not willing to harbour this social parasite, then it can be passed to another person (or persons) who are willing to do so. If none can be found (unlikely in our society), I would have no problem with infanticide.

But as I said in my previous post, abortion is an imperfect solution (as would be infanticide). And with access to very effective means of birth-control, it is almost completely unnecessary. I hope very much that we will eventually have a means "turning on/off" our reproductive systems to avoid unwanted pregnancies altogether. (Of course, condoms -- or other technologies -- would still be used to aid in preventing the transmission of sexual diseases.)

[Denton]

Here's some backup for that. (http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/8/)

I'm sure The Klan loves this research.

That's hillarious... Any drop in the number of piano virtuosos? :lol:

[Jubelum]

That's hillarious... Any drop in the number of piano virtuosos? :lol:

I dunno. I don't think we've had a real good one since Liberace. I think the reincarnated Liberace was probably aborted somewhere in West Virginia. The Reincarnated Elvis was aborted... In the Ghetto.

[tonton]

Three months is plenty of time to allow an eduacted girl/woman to:

a) Figure out whether she is pregnant.
b) Decide what to do with regard to her pregnancy.

That's why I support conditional requirement for second trimester abortions, even though modern medicine has made second trimester abortions no more risky than first trimester abortions.

The longer the pregnancy, the greater the psychological health considerations for the mother, as well.

Since the medical profession has divided human gestation into trimesters, it is convenient to use that as a cut-off point with regard to giving "enough time".

Now... the important thing is that we need to make sure ALL girls/women are properly educated in this regard, whether their parents, who may or may not be themselves properly educated, want that or not.

[tonton]

Maybe because no one told him men can't get pregnant?

LOL :lol:

[Fellowship]

I think that abortion is justified anytime. An adult woman (and even a juvenile woman) is worth so much more to me. I have no more qualms about killing a fetus than I would about killing any other parasite. At the moment of birth, something fundamental changes: the new baby is no longer a physical parasite, but is a social parasite.

This has got to be one of the least inspired, least faithful, least positive, least loving, posts I have read in some time.

So you frame life both born and unborn as a parasite.

What a fantastic outlook on life. :???:

Fellows

[Jubelum]

So you frame life both born and unborn as a parasite.

What a fantastic outlook on life. :???:

Fellows

I didn't have time to respond to that earlier... +1 to what you said.

[Jubelum]

whether their parents, who may or may not be themselves properly educated, want that or not.

... as we continue to hear spirited denials regarding "elitism on the left." :lol:

I'm thinking I should have just had my kids and handed them over to the state, so that we can "make sure they are taught the right values" and "get the 'right' information," as apparently, you know better than everyone else how children should be raised.

I have to hand it to you, tonton, you have not backed off this totalitarian thing when it comes to parents and children one bit since we started years ago. That takes commitment.

Do you have kids?

[Jubelum]

Abortion as art. (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513) :no:

Art major Aliza Shvarts ’08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

[Fellowship]

I didn't have time to respond to that earlier... +1 to what you said.

You know Jubelum I sometimes don't know if comments like those that Denton made are born out of wanting to provide insult, spit in the face of, provide shock value (like pulling hair and throwing chairs on the Jerry Springer TV show) towards pro-life folks or if these people like Denton actually think and believe this way honestly.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Abortion as art. (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513) :no:

How sad.

How pathetic.

Fellows

[Jubelum]

You know Jubelum I sometimes don't know if comments like those that Denton made are born out of wanting to provide insult, spit in the face of, provide shock value (like pulling hair and throwing chairs on the Jerry Springer TV show) towards pro-life folks or if these people like Denton actually think and believe this way honestly.

Fellows

I think there are many who do... absent some sort of system that sees humans as anything more than basic animals, this kind of sentiment is predictable. Heck, I don't even think secular humanists would go that far. For some people, there is a certain shock value they are going for, but there are people who are completely callous and non-feeling when it comes to human exceptionality. There are even people within the environmental movement who quite decidedly see humans as just another overpopulated species that needs to be actively culled. (Denton said some things along this line as well.)

Where you and I fall on the spectrum of beliefs (life is life before birth, and is sacred at all times throughout life) is just part of a larger package that is often rejected and ridiculed as "religious dogma." Absent any system that holds life in high regard, things like euthanasia and abortion become simple matters of human choice.

I imagine what life would be like if I could look at a newborn baby, and think of it as a "parasite." Have not been able to get in that frame of mind yet.

[tonton]

... as we continue to hear spirited denials regarding "elitism on the left." :lol:

I'm thinking I should have just had my kids and handed them over to the state, so that we can "make sure they are taught the right values" and "get the 'right' information," as apparently, you know better than everyone else how children should be raised.

I have to hand it to you, tonton, you have not backed off this totalitarian thing when it comes to parents and children one bit since we started years ago. That takes commitment.

Do you have kids?

We have a required curriculum for all of the important subjects. Math. Reading and Writing. Even sciences which the church may or may not object to. The reason we have required curricula, even for home schoolers, is that too often parents think they know better. Honestly, if you know better with regard to sexual education, you can teach your kids supplementary to what they NEED to know, just like you can with everything else. The problem is when idiots think kids don't NEED to know what they do NEED to know.

Like I said. There are definitely, definitely people out there who think that if you don't teach kids about safe sex then they won't have any sex, safe or unsafe. And yes, these kids need to be protected from their ignorant parents, the same way kids need to be protected against child abuse. I'm sure some parents think what's best for their kids is to break an arm when they get poor grades to punish them and force them to work harder. Should we let parents decide what's best there, too?

And my 9 year-old daughter is top in her class, at a fantastic school, in English, Chinese, Art (see the picture below - first runner up in her age group in all of Hong Kong), and she plays the piano and has been learning ballet for five years, though she's not the best ballerina, I must admit...

Go ahead and don't teach your kids about sex education if the law allows. I know my daughter will have less chance of getting pregnant than yours when she reaches that age, because one of the two won't be ignorant when "one of the boys" decides to try to educate her himself, and she's just entered the curiosity phase of puberty at the same time as the rebellious phase.

Abstinence education is fine. Teach it. But abstinence only education is absolutely moronic. Teach about safe sex as a precautionary measure as well. It's like a single mother in South Central LA telling her teenage boy not to touch a gun -- ever -- without teaching him how to behave if he goes against her advice and does it anyway.

http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/cert2.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/runnerup.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/bentonton/award2.jpg

[MarcUK]

LOL :lol:

:lol: ok that was funny, but seriously she is one of the good people in the world, why would God want to punish her like that?

[Jubelum]

Go ahead and don't teach your kids about sex education if the law allows.

Abstinence education is fine. Teach it. But abstinence only education is absolutely moronic. Teach about safe sex as a precautionary measure as well.


tonton, I'm not making a case against sex education, as in "kids should not be taught about these things." Just because I do not want them to receive your version does not mean that I am not going to give them the facts they need to remain non-pregnant, non-STD-infected, and sexually aware in a sexual world. My argument is not "anti-education," it is "anti-mandatory-state-version-education."

In my home, we'll strongly suggest abstinence, explain why, and also the possible consequences for sexual activity. We're using CDC numbers and we plan to explain the range of birth control and STD protection available. But we're doing it framed with OUR VALUES, not YOURS. That is a right that I think parents have.

And tell your daughter that is a great drawing... and congrats on her win.

[Denton]

You know Jubelum I sometimes don't know if comments like those that Denton made are born out of wanting to provide insult, spit in the face of, provide shock value (like pulling hair and throwing chairs on the Jerry Springer TV show) towards pro-life folks or if these people like Denton actually think and believe this way honestly.

Fellows

Whether you object to the term "parasite" or not, take a look around: life is parasitic by nature.

Welcomed though it may be, a fetus is a parasite. If it is welcomed, it will become so much more to the people involved, but on the other hand, if it is not welcomed then I have no problem with treating a fetus as it is.

[Jubelum]

If it is welcomed, it will become so much more to the people involved, but on the other hand, if it is not welcomed then I have no problem with treating a fetus as it is.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:inI8tHS8uWd6HM:http://nsefilms.com/images/recent/dick%2520martin-%2520lrg.jpg

<singing> you're nooooobody 'til somebody loooooves you.... <singing>

:no: :rolleyes:

[Denton]

I think there are many who do... absent some sort of system that sees humans as anything more than basic animals, this kind of sentiment is predictable.

All life is magnificent. I think that human accomplishment is wonderful for being able to reshape its environment to its own purposes. Particularly, I think back in wonder to our ancestors of 10000 years who first began tinkering with wild plants and animals on the path to domestication. The things we have seen! However, life itself is a marvel, and though I prefer my life (and the lives of those I love) above the life of a bacteria, I know I have no more or less right to live.

There are even people within the environmental movement who quite decidedly see humans as just another overpopulated species that needs to be actively culled. (Denton said some things along this line as well.)

While I'm not sure that I'm "within the environmental movement," I do think there are too many humans. And as I have said, there are two ways to move population sizes to more reasonable levels (someone tell me why we need seven billion people -- would not 700 million or even 70 million suffice?), only one of which is civilised. Based upon the history of our species, I tend to believe that starvation and genocide will be the default yet again.

[Marvin]

This has got to be one of the least inspired, least faithful, least positive, least loving, posts I have read in some time.

So you frame life both born and unborn as a parasite.

What a fantastic outlook on life. :???:

What is your preferred interpretation of the meaning of life?

There are even people within the environmental movement who quite decidedly see humans as just another overpopulated species that needs to be actively culled.

And yet when you see it happen in war footage, it seems so inconsequential.

The ease with which a human life can be extinguished makes life either invaluable or worthless depending on how you look at it. I have always seen it as the latter.

You can spend your entire life fighting and struggling to make a place for yourself and find some ultimately pointless reason for believing you deserve to exist and some crack-head can come along and push you under a train. What kind of system is that?

Even if you see life as something to be enjoyed, that enjoyment must by definition come at the expense of someone else's or in contrast to your own suffering. A system that only functions by comparison like that is broken by design.

The only way that human life can be valued highly is to believe in something more than what we see and have evidence for. Sure people can pretend to value life without this but it's false. And even with it, it can be viewed as equally false because there's no particular reason for believing it other than to justify the conclusion that life is something to be cherished beyond reason.

<singing> you're nooooobody 'til somebody loooooves you.... <singing>

<singing>I'm just a prom night dumpster baby... </singing>

http://www.broadcaster.com/clip/12006

[Jubelum]

I know I have no more or less right to live.
:wow: I'm sorry, I just have to follow Fellow's question... do you really believe that?

(someone tell me why we need seven billion people -- would not 700 million or even 70 million suffice?)

That is truly terrifying. Ted Turner, line one... (http://www.infowars.com/?p=1315)

[Jubelum]

The ease with which a human life can be extinguished makes life either invaluable or worthless depending on how you look at it. I have always seen it as the latter.

Just because something is easy to destroy it is worthless? Can't follow you there, sorry.

You can spend your entire life fighting and struggling to make a place for yourself and find some ultimately pointless reason for believing you deserve to exist and some crack-head can come along and push you under a train. What kind of system is that?

Is there a better one?

Even if you see life as something to be enjoyed, that enjoyment must by definition come at the expense of someone else's or in contrast to your own suffering. A system that only functions by comparison like that is broken by design.

At the expense of someone else's? Watching a sunset or playing with my kids creates enjoyment at no one's expense. And that is just life... good times and bad times. You need one to truly appreciate the other, and we all share in that. What do you see as a better system? Mass suicide?

The only way that human life can be valued highly is to believe in something more than what we see and have evidence for. Sure people can pretend to value life without this but it's false. And even with it, it can be viewed as equally false because there's no particular reason for believing it other than to justify the conclusion that life is something to be cherished beyond reason.

Just because you do not believe in the intangible "spirit of being human" does not mean that it does not exist. I'm sorry that you've come to a place, through trial or education, that has so sterilized and calloused your view of the purpose and value of human life.

If not life, the greatest of all gifts, then what do you find any value in at all?

[giant]

Abortion as art. (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513) :no:
How sad.

How pathetic.
How inaccurate (http://www.yale.edu/opa/)

[Jubelum]

How untrue (http://www.yale.edu/opa/)

What a stunt. Does not make the intent any less sick.
This is drawing fire from pro-life and pro-choice leaders alike.

So wonderful what is happening in the Ivy League these days. :no:

Statement by Helaine S. Klasky — Yale University, Spokesperson
New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008

Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.

She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.
Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns."

I think this hoax raises mental health concerns regardless.

[Fellowship]

I have got to say I just have no idea at all as to how one responds to some of the things said in recent replies given by Denton and Marvin.


In the Name of Jesus I petition that the grip that death and evil has over your mind be released.

This really is a spiritual battle here with some.

Fellows

[Marvin]

Just because something is easy to destroy it is worthless? Can't follow you there, sorry.

And yet if you bought a cheap product from Taiwan that broke easily, you'd probably reach that conclusion.

Is there a better one?

Does there need to be to realize the flaws in this one?

At the expense of someone else's? Watching a sunset or playing with my kids creates enjoyment at no one's expense.

The other part applies more to this scenario. You only recognize enjoyment in those moments relative to the moments you don't enjoy. Suffering is a necessity for enjoyment. Holidays are only enjoyable relative to the mind-numbing work you have to do every day of the week.

And that is just life... good times and bad times. You need one to truly appreciate the other, and we all share in that. What do you see as a better system? Mass suicide?

Well I can't speak for everyone else but on the subject of a better system, it's clear that there can be one without the flaws we already see. So why wasn't there a better one already? A system that doesn't work by comparison - where short people aren't ridiculed because they are considered short relative to those of average height, where ugly people aren't ignored relative to beautiful people, where people aren't brought into existence not being able to walk or see or hear and experience what meagre enjoyment life has to offer.

This world is a system of constraints full of boundaries that we cannot control. We can't fly, we can't survive without food or water, we are daily forced into competition in order to justify our place in society. We did not by choice place those vulnerabilities and flaws on ourselves so to find value in a system that only allows us to find it is meaningless.

Just because you do not believe in the intangible "spirit of being human" does not mean that it does not exist. I'm sorry that you've come to a place, through trial or education, that has so sterilized and calloused your view of the purpose and value of human life.

I have got to say I just have no idea at all as to how one responds to some of the things said in recent replies given by Denton and Marvin.

In the Name of Jesus I petition that the grip that death and evil has over your mind be released.

Ok great but what is it that you see in human life that makes it so valuable to you?

It may be a glass half full/empty scenario but surely the fact that you can view things either way means that any value is not universally quantifiable. Even that devalues life. I believe that everyone deserves an equal chance but they don't get it. People are born into and die in poverty daily, people are born in ways where life is nothing but a painful experience.

If you play a game where the odds are continually stacked against you, sooner or later you start asking why you are even bothering to play.

If not life, the greatest of all gifts, then what do you find any value in at all?

I find no lasting value in anything any more. I could probably word that more accurately by saying that I now realize I have never seen any true value in anything.

I think above all else people value relationships but we are all disconnected and any closeness that people experience is mostly based on the need for resources or the need to be loved but those needs are merely due to the flaws in our design so the satisfaction thereof is not purposeful other than to sustain survival.

As soon as you stop fulfilling those needs and you reach a state of irrelevance, it's clear that individuals do not have a god-given place. People only have a place who make a place for themselves at the expense of others. It's easy to gloss over but if you have a family, a job and a home, you have people close to you who could so easily have been with someone else, a home you bought that could have been a home for someone else, a job that someone who maybe didn't communicate how much they deserved it more than you didn't get and so could not afford the home you now have.

Everyone wants to enjoy life but they do not get equal opportunity to do so. From the children in Cambodia who are raped at infancy to get money from Western businessmen in order to afford food or the Russian girls who similarly live in poverty and sell their bodies and dignity in order to survive or the thieves in South America who murder so easily for the chance at a stash of money to ensure an easy life. Meanwhile air-head celebrities, born into wealth and fame live comfortable, arrogant lives.

You may see sunsets but I stop at the suffering and know that this isn't how it should be.

[Jubelum]

And yet if you bought a cheap product from Taiwan that broke easily, you'd probably reach that conclusion.

In no way can I reach that conclusion. Life, even the most broken, despaired, and "meaningless" life is capable of changing in an instant for the better. It has inherent value, if not at present in your opinion, then for the potential that is therein contained.

Does there need to be to realize the flaws in this one?

It's about all we got. Sometimes I don't like it either. But every day is a new day, with a million possible courses.


Suffering is a necessity for enjoyment. Holidays are only enjoyable relative to the mind-numbing work you have to do every day of the week.

Suffering it not necessary per se... it makes the good times much more appreciated. Ask someone who has lived a long life and they will tell you that those hard, hopeless times were often vital to their growth. It certainly was that way for me. If you don't like mind-numbing work, don't do it. Find another job, even if it takes a long search.

A system that doesn't work by comparison - where short people aren't ridiculed because they are considered short relative to those of average height, where ugly people aren't ignored relative to beautiful people, where people aren't brought into existence not being able to walk or see or hear and experience what meagre enjoyment life has to offer.

Please take a look at a book by CS Lewis called The Problem of Pain.

Ok great but what is it that you see in human life that makes it so valuable to you?

The love within my family. The daily opportunities to reach out to others. My basis in faith that clearly describes the sacred nature of life at all stages. If you were to lose someone close to you, someone you loved, would you feel that? That feeling is the value of human life... as reflected in those who are left in grief.

I believe that everyone deserves an equal chance but they don't get it. People are born into and die in poverty daily, people are born in ways where life is nothing but a painful experience.

There is no possible way to rectify all wrong in the world. People are born into nothing and become great... and people are born into greatness and become nothing. There is no possible way to eliminate all suffering the world. I wish it were possible.

If you play a game where the odds are continually stacked against you, sooner or later you start asking why you are even bothering to play.

I don't think they are continually stacked against you. If you cannot find a break... make one.

I find no lasting value in anything any more. I could probably word that more accurately by saying that I now realize I have never seen any true value in anything.

Well, maybe you have one up on the materialistic world. ;) In all seriousness, to say that you've never seen any true value in anything is, again, a sentiment that I cannot relate to. Do you find value in helping others? In accomplishing something that improves the human condition? In sharing what you think with others? The real value we have is what we leave behind.

I think above all else people value relationships but we are all disconnected and any closeness that people experience is mostly based on the need for resources or the need to be loved but those needs are merely due to the flaws in our design so the satisfaction thereof is not purposeful other than to sustain survival.
It may have, at some point, had to do with survival... but the reality is that our relationships are all we've really got here. Our houses can burn down, our temples be destroyed, and our libraries reduced to ashes. Any tangible thing we create can be destroyed. Properly cared for, the relationships and later memories are enduring... we live on the foundation of others' legacies.

As soon as you stop fulfilling those needs and you reach a state of irrelevance, it's clear that individuals do not have a god-given place.
I can only respond to a God question from my own position... that is, that every individual has a place in God's plan.

People only have a place who make a place for themselves at the expense of others. It's easy to gloss over but if you have a family, a job and a home, you have people close to you who could so easily have been with someone else, a home you bought that could have been a home for someone else, a job that someone who maybe didn't communicate how much they deserved it more than you didn't get and so could not afford the home you now have.

Life is the sum total of the minute-to-minute decisions we make. And someone has to be the family member, the home owner, and the worker. That's what we do here. You are just as entitled as anyone else to go and claim these things for yourself, without eternal gnawing guilt. Work hard, work on relationships, and (I'm going to veer off into an Ayn Rand novel here...)

Everyone wants to enjoy life but they do not get equal opportunity to do so. From the children in Cambodia who are raped at infancy to get money from Western businessmen in order to afford food or the Russian