Jump to content
Null

GOP Lawmaker Explains Why All Abortions Should Be Illegal


Recommended Posts

On 4/18/2017 at 8:36 PM, icanthearyou said:

Sorry but in this instance, you do not deserve respect or civility.  Your morality is baseless and perverse.

In this forum, you'll either show some respect and civility or bow out of the thread.  Find a way to express yourself like an intelligent adult instead of a poo flinging ninny.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites




  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sorry but in this instance, you do not deserve respect or civility.  Your morality is baseless and perverse.

Why not stop complaining and, make an argument.  

You should keep your morality to yourself and, stop attempting to force it on others,  That is truly despicable.  You are free to define human life any way you choose.  However, you are not free to de

On 4/18/2017 at 8:47 PM, TitanTiger said:

In this forum, you'll either show some respect and civility or bow out of the thread.  Find a way to express yourself like an intelligent adult instead of a poo flinging ninny.

 

Do as you wish.  I meant what I said.  There was no "poo".  There was no unintelligent thought.  You simply do not like the fact that your morality has been called into serious question.  It should be and, rather than a snide, trite remark, I would suggest deep thought and prayer.

  • Facepalm 2
  • Dislike 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Do as you wish.  I meant what I said.  There was no "poo".  There was no unintelligent thought.  You simply do not like the fact that your morality has been called into serious question.  It should be and, rather than a snide, trite remark, I would suggest deep thought and prayer.

You didn't call anything into question.  At least not in any way that would cause me any concern.  I don't really respect your take on this or your opinion of my morality in the least.  All that happened here is that you showed your ass and couldn't discuss a difficult subject like a grown person.  This is an important subject with a lot of big implications, big moral questions, deeply fraught with meaning for how we treat our fellow human beings and what we mean by terms like "human dignity" and "inherent worth."  It deserved better than you gave it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd like some pointers on how to have this discussion like an adult, take notes on the exchange between me and alexeva.  Brad and AuburnNTexas as well.  We're on opposing sides yet still able to discuss the subject rather than impugn the other's motives and name-call.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If you'd like some pointers on how to have this discussion like an adult, take notes on the exchange between me and alexeva.  Brad and AuburnNTexas as well.  We're on opposing sides yet still able to discuss the subject rather than impugn the other's motives and name-call.

Why not stop complaining and, make an argument.  

Edited by TitanTiger
removed personal attacks
  • Facepalm 3
  • Dislike 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Why not stop complaining and, make an argument.  

You're getting a 24-hour break for not getting that the personal shots aren't going to be done in this forum.

That said, I've made arguments.  Of course they were in response to others in this thread who do know how to discuss controversial subjects like grown ups.  You're welcome to join in when you figure that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Same to you buddy.  Let's start with not forcing a twisted morality on an innocent being.  Don't give me a speech about imposing morality - morality is being imposed either way.  You aren't coming from some position of neutrality no matter how much you might use such an illusion to salve your conscience.

When you're ready to discuss this with some semblance of civility, let me know.  Until then, I'm done discussing it with you.

It's only an innocent being if it's a being. It is not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, alexava said:

I'm not speaking in science. I am using pure logic.  Forcing a girl to give birth when she is not ready ( when it can be easily fixed) Makes no sense morally or logically. Every person who would vote to make abortion illegal should be forced to adopt a child. 

If the girl is not ready to give birth, then did it ever occur to you that may she shouldn't be having sex, or at the very least taking extreme contraceptive measures (which are readily available)?

Don't give me some crap about rape cases.  Rape pregnancies are such an absurdly low figure that they barely even qualify as a point of discussion.

  • Dislike 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, alexava said:

It's only an innocent being if it's a being. It is not. 

It's a human being.  100% human.  It is human and it exists in time and space.  That is the very definition of human being.

But I'd like to go back to my last response to you to delve into this a bit more:

Quote

I get it.  Out of a desire to save someone from suffering, it is normal to wish we could erase a painful memory such as rape. Unfortunately, the hard truth is that as much as we want to, we can’t.  Killing that human growing inside of her isn't going to erase anything.  Abortion after rape is misdirected anger. It doesn’t punish the perpetrator of the crime or prevent further assaults against other women.

And to refer to them specifically as a "clump of cells" with greater conviction because of how they were conceived is demeaning and dehumanizing.  What do you say to a kid that was born out of sexual assault?  That they are subhuman and never should have been born?

Truth is, both victims - the woman and her child - deserve our unconditional and comprehensive support.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, metafour said:

If the girl is not ready to give birth, then did it ever occur to you that may she shouldn't be having sex, or at the very least taking extreme contraceptive measures (which are readily available)?

Don't give me some crap about rape cases.  Rape pregnancies are such an absurdly low figure that they barely even qualify as a point of discussion.

To be fair, the original post was about a GOP lawmaker's comments on abortion in cases of rape and incest.  

Let's keep it civil, folks.  It's a hard subject with high emotions running on both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The characteristics of life

Cellular organization

Reproduction

Metabolism

Homeostasis

Heredity

Response to stimuli

Growth and development

Adaptation through evolution

 

One of my degrees is in molecular biology. Through my embryology classes I can tell you that as soon as the egg is fertilized that cell begins to show each of those characteristics.

  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

At all stages it is a human being deserving of life.  Zygote, embryo, fetus are stages of human development just as infant, toddler, child, teen and adult are.

I completely understand you think life begins at conception, and that's fine with me. It's certainly a legitimate, defensible position.

I am just calling for accuracy when discussing the science.

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I understand your argument about Rape. There is no doubt that the woman's rights were infringed on but you would then try to repair the wrong that was done to the woman by taking away the life of an innocent who was not responsible for the rape. There is no great solution in the scenario. I just belief that life has to come first.

As for your the genetic issues with Incest. While there is some scientific validation for higher issues when related people have sex it is extremely small in first generation. Most of the issues you see are in isolated communities where there is multi-generational inbreeding. 

We take the lives of innocents on a routine basis for the sake of geopolitics.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, homersapien said:

We take the lives of innocents on a routine basis for the sake of geopolitics.

Which is something I believe you abhor...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I also recognize the reality - not to mention the occasional necessity.

Life is a mixture of paradoxes and dilemmas.  One can deny it or embrace it.

Ostensibly, the reason you might kill non-combatants is 1) unintentionally and 2) in the belief that the action you are taking is going to prevent more deaths.  Now you may be wrong about #2, but that should be the only reason you'd take a chance of killing innocent bystanders if it came to that.  

I don't really see that these two things are analogous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Ostensibly, the reason you might kill non-combatants is 1) unintentionally and 2) in the belief that the action you are taking is going to prevent more deaths.  Now you may be wrong about #2, but that should be the only reason you'd take a chance of killing innocent bystanders if it came to that.  

I don't really see that these two things are analogous.

They are both arbitrary decisions about the taking of a life (accepting your definition of life).

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

They are both arbitrary decisions about the taking of a life (accepting your definition of life).

If taking life over geopolitics is arbitrary and not based on the criteria I set forth, then it's simply immoral.  Is that what you wish to make an analogy with?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank all the people who have posted on this topic. I realize it is a very contentious issue and because of that I almost didn't make my initial post. There were people who obviously disagreed with me and others who agreed and despite that the discussion was on point and polite. It is easy when you feel strongly about something to attack the person and not listen to them but not one poster took that route. They explained their views and why they have their views and I honestly believe this type of discourse without the rancor will go a long way to healing the divisions in this country.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If taking life over geopolitics is arbitrary and not based on the criteria I set forth, then it's simply immoral.  Is that what you wish to make an analogy with?

Establishing any criteria for the taking of life is arbitrary.

(And calling inevitable civilian casualties "unintentional" is kidding oneself.)

 The point is a calculation is being made that results in the loss of life.  A decision that the loss of life is justified is really no different than deciding the life of the mother takes precedence over a fetus. 

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, homersapien said:

Your criteria is exactly what is arbitrary.

That's funny.  I recognize human life.  It's a view based on science.  You arbitrarily choose to regard it as something else for the purposes of denying it rights, as if a personhood fairy perches itself at the edge of a woman's vagina and sprinkles pixie dust on them, magically transforming them into a person.  It doesn't get more arbitrary than saying someone is a person based on relocating 5 inches south.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TitanTiger said:

That's funny.  I recognize human life.  It's a view based on science.  You arbitrarily choose to regard it as something else for the purposes of denying it rights, as if a personhood fairy perches itself at the edge of a woman's vagina and sprinkles pixie dust on them, magically transforming them into a person.  It doesn't get more arbitrary than saying someone is a person based on relocating 5 inches south.

Not exactly.

I have made no claims about when life becomes "life".  (Neither does science.)  I understand that is a logical device you reject out of hand because you believe life begins at conception.

Nor have I said the mother's life supercedes the zygote/blastosphere/fetus in later stages of development.

I do defer to the woman's decision in the early stages of pregnancy.  It's her body not mine. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not exactly.

I have made no claims about when life becomes "life".  (Neither does science.)

Actually science does make such a claim.  Life begins at conception.  It's as plain as day and utterly verifiable.  And this understanding is universal and without regard for religious or philosophical considerations:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

 


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).


"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

 


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

 


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

 


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

 


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

 


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

 


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

 


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

 


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

 


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

 


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

 


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Miller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

 


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

 


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....


"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....


"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.


"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

 

Quote

I understand that is a logical device you reject out of hand because you believe life begins at conception.

Nor have I said the mother's life supercedes the zygote/blastosphere/fetus in later stages of development.

I do defer to the woman's decision in the early stages of pregnancy.  It's her body not mine. 

The only device being employed here is an arbitrary distinction between "person" and "human life."  There's not real basis for it other than to diminish the value of one individual so as to confer the right to dispose of it like a mere thing on another.  Much like any violation of basic human rights, it almost always begins with an effort to simply define the other as a subhuman, a non-person - anything other than a human being.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...