Is there anyone here that is actually PRO-Abortion but is also Anti-Death Penalty and how do you justify being for one and against the other?
Curious because it seems quite an indefensible position when you take an innocent unborn baby (fetus) and end it's life, but take a convicted murderer and say he has the right to live (and vote if you are a Michael Moore fanboi).
It just doesn't appear to have any apeasement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The two are unrelated. The majority of people who favor abortion rights think that at least first-trimester abortion is not the taking of human life. Therefore, to them, there's no comparison to the taking of a human life by the state.
Dagonee
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yay, more little boys trying to act like the big kids. Stick to the teeter-totter, infant.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Additionally, there are a fair number of people who oppose the death penalty solely for financial reasons; it costs the state more money to execute a criminal than to keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't pro abortion and anti-death penalty, so I won't try to explain it.
I will, however, ask if you are anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty. Are you?
If so, how can you justify that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This thread is asking for trouble. You might as well go cruising Kansas in a pink Hyundai and waving a banner saying "The Lord loves me 'cos I'm gay."
That said, I do support abortion, and am ambivalent about the death penalty. And the reason is essentially as Dagonee suggested.
In a desperate attempt to derail this from becoming another abortion thread, I shall now outline why I am against a death penalty. In fact, I do not see any point to permitting a murderer or rapist to live. But that's theory. In actual practice, innocents are going to get killed; this occurs in every state with the death penalty, the US nowise excepted. The thing about locking people up is that you can change your mind; and the way the appeals process is carried on here in the US, I suspect it's not much more expensive, if at all. The likes of China, admittedly, have a much cheaper appeals process.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dude = troll. It's really that simple. Either that, or this guy's coming from the Free Republic site and has never had to speak with people capable of stringing together words into sentences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: this was a response to MPH.
Easily, at least from the perspective of someone who thinks that an unborn child is a fully human person from the moment of conception (or implantation, even).
Once that proposition is accepted, then an unborn child occupies the same moral plane as any other human. In general we consider it wrong to kill other humans, absent special circumstances.
Some people consider the commission of a henious crime sufficient special circumstances to justify the taking of life, just like some people consider self-defense to be sufficient special circumstances.
Dagonee
[ September 20, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So killing a fetus would be just fine if you could first prove that it had committed a sufficiently heinous crime. Yeah, I could buy that line of reasoning.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dagonee -- I wasn't asking for *your* justification (or mine). I was asking for *his* justification.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. OK. He's got my dander up, as you may have guessed.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Not only does Dude = troll, but dude = troll that's trolled in this exact way before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which one? He seems too articulate to be W2W or OSC-fan. Which doesn't say much for them, actually.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So most of the people, (Minus Dagonee who took the time to respond in an intelligent way) choose not to answer. Or hide by answering with a question. Keep hiding.
To those that did. Thanks.
So when does life begin then? What determines a Human Being? A distinct heartbeat? A different Bloodtype from it's mother? It's ability to WHAT?
In my opinion, I am anti-Abortion for the Scientific Reasons that determine what is "Human" and what is not. DNA, Heartbeat, etc. So from the time those things are determined, it's a Human being who happens to be in it's mother.
I'm against killing it as much as I am against any conjoined twin taking it upon themselves to blow away their twin who is capable of living a full life and saying "It's attached to me, it's my body, I have a right to terminte it's life"
How could that be MURDER and killing of a baby attached by an Umbilical cord as OK?
From a religious standpoint I would prefer that from conception nothing was killed, but that's not my call.
For Death Row it depends on the circumstance. I do NOT believe that a person who has been convicted of a crime should be able to be supported and have rights to TV, etc.
They should have mandatory isolation with no human contact.
Unfortunately due to the ACLU, they get a free ride till they die, which is wrong.
Also they are allowed to continue having an effect on society.
A la Charles Manson. That guy should have been put to death.
A la Timothy McVeigh. He was justly put to death.
Timothy McVeigh can no longer affect society with his views. He is no longer an active participant.
The taking of one life is a serious offense. The Purposeful taking of multiple lives with no remorse is not something that should be rewarded with a free meal, bed, TV and pornos.
If the ACLU didn't fight for these people to be treated so highly, perhaps Life Imprisonment would be a just reward. The fact that most inmates GAIN a few notches on the social ladder for killing someone is not something I endorse.
There is a huge difference between a Baby who did nothing more than be created and a Man/Woman who using their freedom, chose to murder and being given a right to live by choosing wrong.
Perhaps some here believe an unborn child deserves less of a right than a man who has murdered others.
I find a problem with that myself.
Thanks for your replies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, I don't think he's OSC-fan. I suspect he's likely a former regular, though.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually I like OSC although I have only read "Ender's Game" so far. I've never been to this board before either.
But feel free to make up whatever history you like regarding me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: They should have mandatory isolation with no human contact.
Do you know what happens to people if they are kept isolated without any human contact?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh and I like how everyone calls me names and you don't even know me.
The last resort of the weak minded. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Do you know what happens to people if they are kept isolated without any human contact?
Yes, but inform the rest of the board.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
See, the problem is, you're trolling... people don't respect trolls.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Is every moron who walks through the door Cedrios? There are a lot of other internet mimbos who float around these days.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
How about you tell us, since it's your argument.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually it's yours. You opened the bag, take the cat out.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
*takes cat out of bag*
*pets it*
*sets it free*
space opera
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While you are thinking about your reply, allow me to take this opportunity to remind you that the ACLU is not the only organization on the planet that is against the death penalty and for humane treatment of prisoners. While I, as something around a liberal, appreciate the thought, don't forget that many religious organizations take these ideas seriously, too.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No offense, but if you want to argue about who I am or not, please open another thread. Otherwise, keep your posts to topic.
Oh and another thing, my name is Chad as in Chad Stroman as in my user id.
Jebus! Is every liberal a stupid conspiracy theorist?
I've never been here before.
But I do find your "who is this guy who makes me look stupid" rambling to be quite funny.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You keep using dat word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks for your reply. Dodging, but thanks.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
To be honest, you have yet to present a single idea not thoroughly combed over on this forum many times. Your insistence upon not doing a simple search for such threads shows that you either don't care and are trolling, or you're too lazy and stupid to do a simple forum search.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:To be honest, you have yet to present a single idea not thoroughly combed over on this forum many times. Your insistence upon not doing a simple search for such threads shows that you either don't care and are trolling, or you're too lazy and stupid to do a simple forum search.
Jebus save them! They don't know how to answer a simple thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, responses like that do not make it seem LESS likely that you're a troll. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh and I'm new so everything put up is new to me. I haven't ever been to this forum and I didn't see a thread titled the same as mine.
You don't want to answer, then don't.
But be smart enough to have some self control and NOT answer if you don't want.
I'm not forcing ANYONE to read a single post in this thread.
You read it....WHY? The topic is pretty self promoting of what it's about. If you don't like it, then do us and yourself a favor and don't post.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
CStroman - the thing is, you arrived on the forum and started a thread with loaded language, on two (possibly three) very touchy subjects, subjects that have been argued very well and at length quite a few times here. Your bias was apparent in your question, you exhibited no respect for anyone who might disagree, you didn't check to see what had already been said on this subject, and so far you haven't responded to the replies other than to thank people for them.
That spells troll, whether you intended it to or not.
I urge you, with respect, to search for "abortion" and "death penalty" on Hatrack and spend a week or so reading up on the many excellent arguments made from all sides of the issues, arguments that, for the most part, were made by people who actually listened to what was being said. Then come back and ask your question again.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Tom posts like yours have nothing to do with the thread.
Keep it to the topic, which I know is a news flash for some....
Is NOT me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Actually it's yours. You opened the bag, take the cat out.
Um, it's not my idea to put people in total isolation.
Are you going to elaborate on and defend your idea, or are you really expecting me to do it for you? You want people to take you and your posts seriously, the first step is to show that you have some idea of what you're talking about, to answer people's questions about your ideas.
YOU advocated the idea, YOU need to explain exactly what it is you are advocating.
Let me also say that the isolation part of your argument is difficult for me to parse. Are you advocating total isolation for just those who murder, those who commit multiple murders, or all criminals? When I first read your post, it seemed like you were saying all criminals, but now I'm not sure.
If you refuse to answer my questions, and try to get me to make your case for you, then I'm just going to assume that you can't answer those questions, and that your argument rests on pure emotion, rather than ideas, and that there is, therefore, nothing to discuss.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Chris, the subjects presented here are topics of debate on issues that are current and for which OSC has stated his opinion on.
I just finished reading Ender's Game about a Month Ago.
I knew who OSC was before then, but hadn't read up on his views until reacently.
There is an election 30 some odd days from now.
My subject is VALID today and is about issues that are out there TODAY.
That said, I will state it again.
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then please excersize your free right to NOT POST.
If you don't like My opinions on the matter, then feel free to do so.
But even insinuating that someone has a right to post something or not because it 'gels' with certain trains of thought or not is not a worthy argument.
I'll state this again.
If you don't want to participate in this thread..
Then don't.
If all you want to do is come on the thread and make accusations and act like a turd, then choose a different thread to read.
My posts on the topic share my Point of View OF THE TOPIC and are appropriate.
90% of the posts by others are not.
So again, to make it clear, again!
If you don't like the thread, then DON'T POST!
One last time.
If you Don't Like the POSTS then DON'T POST!.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey, the moment you stop projecting positions on your perceived opposition in your opening posts, the sooner we'll answer you in a respectful way.
If you are going to barge into this community and disrespect a portion of it, don't be surprised if we don't exactly roll the red carpet out for you.
However, extend a little respect, and you'd be surprised at how accomodating and engaging people can be on this board.
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Total Isolation is exactly what a person who has murdered needs to have. They need to have NO contact with the outside world.
NONE.
Why should they?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me SEE if I can MAKE this clear to YOU.
You are being RUDE. You are also showing NO RESPECT for other people's beliefs and opinions.
You've made no attempt to demonstrate any understanding of anyone's opinions but your OWN. You also seem to think everyone who disagrees with you is a LIBERAL, and you have consistently stated your CONCLUSIONS as if they were starting propositions.
This tends to make people ANGRY.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Let's see,
I have the ability to control what other people on this forum do? I have the ability to MAKE them angry.
I'm not that powerful am I? And they are not that weak are they?
Self Control.
I cannot control your emotions. If they get out of hand, don't try to blame me.
And unless I am missing something.
I have to repect other's beliefs, but they have to have NONE for mine?
Because if you re-read ANY of the responses, you would see just how rude the majority of you have been.
You have been rude yourself.
I'm sorry, I won't call anyone directly a "liberal".
I would say the rudeness factor of the responses to my post is much greater than my posts.
In fact people who haven't even been asked or targetted in a post have been rude.
I think you all need to recheck your responses before you open your mouths to cry foul.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll put it more bluntly, Chad: you've said that you don't care what any of us have to say. So why should we engage in conversation with you? What merit is there in "discussing" something with someone who has actually admitted to not listening?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Is there anyone here that is actually PRO-Abortion
Not that I know of. There are many people here that are pro-choice, who support a woman's right to choose, but I know of no one on this forum that is pleased when someone has an abortion. There are more than a few here -- I'm one of them -- who consider themselves pro-choice but would like to see more restrictions on abortion availability.
but is also Anti-Death Penalty and how do you justify being for one and against the other?
Answered quite well by Dagonee. They're not really comparable.
Curious because it seems quite an indefensible position when you take an innocent unborn baby (fetus) and end it's life, but take a convicted murderer and say he has the right to live (and vote if you are a Michael Moore fanboi).
So you've already set the definition of a fetus as a person and then asked us to justify killing it? The point at which a fetus should be considered a person is the very heart of the abortion argument. Since that is unresolved, answering your question the way you worded it is kinda tough. I believe the rights of a fetus must be weighed with the rights of the mother, with the mother having more say in the beginning and rights weighing more heavily towards the fetus as it approaches viability.
It just doesn't appear to have any apeasement.
Not sure what you mean here. Appeasement? For whom?
So when does life begin then? What determines a Human Being? A distinct heartbeat? A different Bloodtype from it's mother? It's ability to WHAT?
In my opinion, its brain wave state. Before that it is an unthinking clump of cells.
I'm open to the idea of harsher punishment for convicted criminals, but against the death penalty for the simple reason that the justice system is fallible and innocent people could be killed. Have been, in fact.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. It's what the topic was about.
quote: In my opinion, its brain wave state. Before that it is an unthinking clump of cells.
So should a consensus be taken of varying fetuses to see at what stage they have brain activity?
If it is found that they are "thinking" or "dreaming" at a certain stage, should abortions be illegal past that point except in instances where the mother's life is in jeopardy?
quote:I'm open to the idea of harsher punishment for convicted criminals, but against the death penalty for the simple reason that the justice system is fallible and innocent people could be killed. Have been, in fact.
I see the reason for this argument and it is something that makes me cringe, but I also see parallels between this and war as well.
In WWII many civillians died unintentionally (in Iraq today thousands have died as well). Although you try your best to prevent it, in winning a war it is almost impossible to do.
But I also think that there are some people that do not deserve the right BECAUSE of their actions and choices, to influence the human race further.
Not for "revenge" but for this person forfeited their rights by their choices.
As long as those people are protected to continue spreading their message and detrimentally affecting the human race.
Why should they be allowed to live?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have to repect other's beliefs, but they have to have NONE for mine?
Because if you re-read ANY of the responses, you would see just how rude the majority of you have been.
I've read them all. On the very first page of your posts I saw, you said, "If you have a problem with that fact. Then you have a problem recognizing FACTS in general."
Straight ad hominem attack.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: You might as well go cruising Kansas in a pink Hyundai and waving a banner saying "The Lord loves me 'cos I'm gay."
That was precious, KoM!
FG
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: As long as those people are protected to continue spreading their message and detrimentally affecting the human race.
Why should they be allowed to live?
I am confused again. Are you for the death penalty for murderers, or isolation? Further, when you talk about murderers, do you mean anyone who murders someone else for any reason?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The only instances in which I would favor the death penalty are those in which the guilt of the convicted is absolutely unassailable. Video or conclusive DNA evidence, and then only in truly heinous cases. Personally I'd rather see them put to work somewhere useful. Timothy McVie should never have been given the chance to be a martyr.
Brain waves begin in a fetus around six weeks. At about 24 weeks the fetus is capable of feeling pain, the most rudimentary form of "awareness" there is. This is also about the same time the fetus is considered viable. At 26 weeks, higher brain functions can be detected. Abortions without overwhelming medical necessity are currently available in the first trimester, before the 24 week point.
[ September 20, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Hi, Chad! Welcome to Hatrack.
You will find that threads you start here will often stray from their intended course. People here don't like to follow orders much. You'll also find that there are intelligent people with all sorts of different perspectives and positions, so you may have to be a little more careful with your arguments than you're used to. If you make a mistake, even a little one, chances are you will be called on it. But it's ok, cause we all make mistakes, get pissed off, are nasty, are butts of jokes, etc., but somehow we usually manage to talk to each other afterwards.
Oh, and I'd give you a response to your question, but I'm tired and I have to get up early tomorrow. Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
*sings*
If you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S." But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S," scalawag!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If you Don't Like the POSTS then DON'T POST!.
If you can't TOLERATE posts that don't talk about your THREAD then you're in THE wrong place! You might be HAPPIER at anoTHER FORum.
-----
Annie, you're still awesome.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
It's threads like this that make me love Tom.
Ni!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why should they be allowed to live?
For many people the question isn't why should they be allowed to live, but why should we go out of our way to make sure they die? Because with our current system, you *really* have to go out of your way to execute somebody.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think I shall start a club: Conservatives Who Think Tom is Cool
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Seriously Chad ... you won't be able to make any thread that doesn't have some type of cheesy humor.
Just be more opun...
Ok, that was a bad one, I know...
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: For many people the question isn't why should they be allowed to live, but why should we go out of our way to make sure they die? Because with our current system, you *really* have to go out of your way to execute somebody.
Well if they aren't put to death, then they are allowed to live. Why should they be allowed to live, when they have taken the lives of at least ONE person.
And I agree. If it is NOT a heinous crime then it doesn't warrant the death penalty.
There are various forms of Murder and various levels.
No one is advocating Death for a Manslaughter conviction.
But does anyone really think the guy cutting off the heads of clothes truck drivers in Iraq should get "Life in Prison" and be afforded the civil rights the ACLU wants him to have?
Sorry, I want that ______er dead. He adds NOTHING to the world but absolute hatred. Letting him live is stating that his crimes are somehow "justified".
The death penalty is just in some cases.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Seriously Chad ... you won't be able to make any thread that doesn't have some type of cheesy humor.
Just be more opun...
Ok, that was a bad one, I know...
I didn't get it. Do you mean like "pun" as in a Puns?
You stole my humor dammit! (and improved upon it)
Anyways, nice to see some people break up the conundrum.
Thanks.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm a liberal and PROUD OF IT!
What does being liberal mean to me? It means that I try to stay open minded. I listen to what people have to say, and do my best to respond inteligently and civilly. I carefully consider their opinions, on whatever topic, state my own not as fact, but as opinion. When people make factual arguements I examine their facts, examine their assumptions, examine their conclusions and see if the arguement works to convince me of their point. If it doesn't I respectfully say so, and do my best to clearly point out why. Sometimes it comes down to a difference of opinion, and when it does I agree to disagree and do not hold it against the person. It means I try to be not only tolerant, but completely accepting of people of all backgrounds, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, or political. Above all it means the most important thing in the world to me is freedom.
The only difference between a liberal and a conservative is a slight difference of opinion of how to go about protecting that most highly valued freedom.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: But I do find your "who is this guy who makes me look stupid" rambling to be quite funny.
Well, if you are dumb enough to think that is what we were saying.....
How about we give you some homework.....at your age that should seem familiar....
That should be good for a starter course....let me know when you are done with those, and I will stop babyfeeding you the easy stuff.
BTW...they are all ON TOPIC.....
Kwea
[ September 21, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
That said: I'm Pro-Choice. We are still trying to figure out just what a human being is, and what goes into its creation. A human being is a wonderful thing indeed, but when you think about it, its not very different from a dog, or a dolphin, or a chimpanzee. For the thing we uphold above all else in a human is thinking and feeling. Yet we know a dog can feel, the love of dogs to their owners is reknown in our society. We also know dogs can think, anyone who's ever owned a dog will tell you that dogs can be quite brilliant problem solvers when it comes to getting something they want. So if its thinking and feeling that make a human being so wonderful that killing one is such an awful thing, how come we kill hundreds of thousands of dogs a year? My local animal shelter alone goes through thousands every year. Dogs that are unwanted, but heaven forbid they go free to wander in the wild or in our streets. No they'd be a meanace to society so they must be put to sleep.
Now about those fetuses that are a month or two old. How many here have taken basic biology? I'd assume everyone since its a basic high school class (and I think its required outside the US as well). If everyones taken it, then you should have seen those pictures of human fetuses at various stages compared to pictures of lizard fetuses at similar stages, and fish fetuses at similar stages and pig fetuses at similar stages. I can't find a link, so you'll either have to dig up a bio book, or comb out the cobwebs, but the fetuses of these very different animals look almost EXACTLY alike up until very late in pregnancy. A human fetus at 6 weeks differes from a carp fetus only in the genes contained with in its cells. Those genes do give it the potential to become a human yes. But so do sperm and eggs... so should we make sex illegal, becuase millions of sperm, potential humans, die every time you have sex. And every time a woman has her period, a potential human dies. Every time a guy has a 'wet dream' millions of potential humans die.
So the line is usually drawn at the point where sperm enters egg to form diploid zygote. The argument I've heard for drawing the line there, is that you have the genetic code for a complete human. And that that is the only time that grouping of genes will come together. Doesn't that grouping of genes have a chance at life too? Well the argument fails at this: that grouping of genes is only completely unique by statistical chance. It is entirely possible that it will come together again, has come together before in teh past, or already exists together elsewhere on earth. After all there are only so many combinations of 4 different bases grouped into 20 billion pairs. Also: there are genetically identical twins that occur quite often. The sperm and egg meet, the zygote forms and begins to devide and somewhere along the line they split right in half. Same sperm, same egg, same BEING for a while... but not the same HUMAN in the end. Becuase, twins are completely different people. They have different conciousnesses, they often grow up with different tastes and sometimes even come to look different. So its NOT the individual genetic code that makes a human, its the combination of the genetic code with how the person is brought up and what happens in their lives that truely makes them the sacred individual human.
When you think about it. Nature has absolutely no respect for the sacredness of human life and especially for the sacredness of potential human life. As stated above millions of sperm die every time a male has so much as a wet dream. Females have a monthly cycle of murdering their potential offspring. Adult humans die with insane regularity, killed by disease, or starvation or the elements. Not to mention each other. So what makes humans sacred? Scientifically? Other humans. Socially? Religion, but we've already established in other threads that this country holds a separation of church and state, a need to be secular and a need to allow people ot practice religious freedom as one of its highest priorities. Its one of the first amendments to the consitution in the Bill of Rights.
So what it comes down to is this: I'm pro-choice, becuase what it comes down to is an individual moral battle of where to draw the line. Where a persons individual religious beliefs and moral feeling have a great effect. Being an american, I value freedom highly, and this includes the freedom to make ones own moral choices. Abortion is an individuals dicision of when that fetus becomes human enough. Personally I wouldn't draw the line at birth, becuase the rare person will have memories of being in the womb, even if vague. But I wouldn't draw it at conception either, becuase up until around 2 months, that fetus is no different from the fetus of a dog, which we have no problem wiping out by the millions when the reach adulthood, save in its genetics and the genes don't make the human. When its this vague, best let the individual decide.
Editted several times to make it more clear, its 1 am in the morning for crying out loud... give my poor brain a break
[ September 21, 2004, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I agree with everything that Chris Bridges has said so far.
(Not an uncommon occurance, actually ).
I am pro-choice but not pro-abortion. I happen to think that it is a decision that must be made by the indiviuals alone, not the state. I'm not sure what line I would put between fetus and baby - though one I would consider a possibility is viability outside the womb.
****
Chad, from the tone of your posts it seems that you are more interested in proving you are right at all costs then listening to what other people have to say.
Regardless of whether that is your intention, it is how you come across to me, at least. And that certainly isn't conducive to amiable debate. I think sometimes we need to show more respect on online forums then we would in real world discussions - without facial expressions or tone to modify words, they can come across as very harsh and confrontational.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
alcon, i agree with a lot of what you had to say, but just thought i'd point out this:
quote:After all there are only so many combinations of 4 different bases grouped into 20 billion pairs
that's 4 raised to the 20 billion. just for a quick demonstration of how big this number is, 4 raised to 20 is 1099 trillion (i don't know what the word past trillion is), and the value increases exponentially. in other words, 4 raised to 20 billion would be a number whose exponent in scientific notation would probably be well above 20 billion.
so yes, it is possible that two random combinations of genes would have an identical genetic makeup, but the chances of that happening are many orders of magnitute smaller than the number of human beings ever to have existed, and can basically be ruled out as functionally impossible.
[ September 21, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I don't know what the word past trillion is
It's quadrillion. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
If you're going to flaunt your biological expertise you should at least get the number of base pairs in the human genome right. You're an order of magnitude too high (the actual number is in the 3 billion range).
The question isn't one of thinking and feeling but one of self reflection. The ability to feel hunger and the ability to reflect on that feeling are two very different kettles of fish.
Then you're arguing about the phenotype of these different species foetuses and suddenly leap from phenotype similarities to genotype differences and somehow this means sex is illegal? In that bout of mental acrobatics you've kinda face planted. Unless you're trying to argue that, in the end, what's important are our appearances? Do you understand the difference between genotypes and phenotypes? It's not a crime if you don't, although it is annoying when you're talking down to everyone about biology.
Now you're talking about unique gene sequences and not answering the question you asked. Again, the potential for humanity is different from a unique gene code. The breaking point of this argument (I believe) isn't that twins exist it's that the blastocyte has the potential to differentiate into any human being, not just the one it's coded for (a la undifferentiated fetal cell transplants). Then you start tossing around this difference between "being" and "human" without defining the two. And while your burning of the unique gene sequence straw man is laudable, it's also worthless. Nobody argues that a unique gene code is a necessity for humanity (as opposed to a copmlete one) (actually, I'm assuming nobody has. I browsed the thread and if someone did I'll quite happily berate them for it). Never mind nurturing, the environment you're exposed to has a huge impact on the proteins you express (which is why 1 twin may develop of disease state and their identical twin will not). It's not the letters that make you who you are, it's the proteins they express that make the difference (amusingly enough, this is saying that your phenotype is more important than your genotype. Clearly we need more terms for the levels above the actual gene sequence than phenotype, but that's a personal pet peeve).
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:in other words, 4 raised to 20 billion would be a number whose exponent in scientific notation would probably be well above 20 billion.
No. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Eru almighty, stop with the exponents and scientific notation, and gene base pairs you're all making my head hurt.
As for me, well, I'm fairly consistent I think. I think all life is precious and sacred and I am both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
just because i'm really bored, i worked it out. i don't have any software capable of doing the calculation accurately, but the exponent would end up being within 1% of 12,041,000,000 (12 billion).
so good call mike. still, thats a dern big number
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
People. You do not need software for this sort of thing. What are logarithms for?
*Goes away shaking head over state of American schools*
Edit : Oh, wait, you mean you worked out the logarithm on a calculator with that accuracy. Sorry. My brain is mush after that damn Qual.
[ September 21, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I didn't intend to flaunt biological expertise Bob, I'm very sorry if it came off that way. And yes, you are right its around 3 billion. I have no idea where I pulled the 20 billion from *ponder* And yes if you look at the details its a mess, but the general point still comes across. Though i suppose I didn't realy make it clear. The general point I was trying to make is that:
The line where a new human being truely becomes a new human being is extremely vague, and is very hard to define scientifically. Up until birth, when it is quite clear that the child is now its own human being no longer attached at all to the mother, it should be left up to the individual to decide rather than the government.
Despite the disorganization of my above post, I believe that point is still made.
But I think the point that is most clearly made by it is that I shouldn't try to post to political topics at 1:00 am Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:The line where a new human being truely becomes a new human being is extremely vague, and is very hard to define scientifically.
To be fair, so are all scientific demarcations of kinds.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Keep hiding.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
That was precious, KoM!![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Welcome to Hatrack.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)