Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
South Dakota to ban abortions?; ...the perfect law.
Topic Started: Jan 23 2006, 07:56 AM (4,185 Views)
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Hey

You misspelled, "I". :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
:tongue:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John D'Oh
Jan 24 2006, 11:28 AM
The 89th Key
Jan 24 2006, 11:16 AM

Which one was done intentionally?

Killing the baby or killing the boy?

Which one happens more (to the tun of 2,100 times more)?

I repeat, I wasn't talking about Iraq, but since you insist on dragging up this number, considerably more than 2100 people have died in Iraq.

Yes, please number up all those who have died, and you'll still be about 1/2,000th the number of abortions.

Secondly, your comparison to bombing an 8-year old is a clear cut

Posted Image

fallacy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Jan 24 2006, 12:57 PM
John D'Oh
Jan 24 2006, 11:28 AM
The 89th Key
Jan 24 2006, 11:16 AM

Which one was done intentionally?

Killing the baby or killing the boy?

Which one happens more (to the tun of 2,100 times more)?

I repeat, I wasn't talking about Iraq, but since you insist on dragging up this number, considerably more than 2100 people have died in Iraq.

Yes, please number up all those who have died, and you'll still be about 1/2,000th the number of abortions.

Secondly, your comparison to bombing an 8-year old is a clear cut

Posted Image

fallacy.

All I did was state that bombing causes more suffering than abortion, a statement you'll have a hard time refuting, IMHO. It's you pro-lifers who are always using the stupid comparisons with Auschwitz, not me.

I don't see why my comparison is a fallacy, and I'm not sure what the purpose of posting the straw man picture was. If you bomb strawmen with napalm, the effects are very similar to bombing 8 year old children, except probably quite a lot less painful for the strawmen, since they don't have a central nervous system. I'm not a doctor, but I believe that anything without a central nervous system tends to feel a lot less pain than a regular 8 year old child.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 08:06 AM
There is an aggressive attempt to disallow the nazi - abortion analogy in conversation. It is a direct analogy of terms and very instructive.

Yes there is an aggressive attempt and not only from legal positivists, but more importantly also from the victims and the relatives of victims.

The alleged instructive analogy falls well short of describing how the evil of the Nazi Holocaust was compounded by the circumstances under which it was done. Jews and Gypsies were treated like animals--terrorized, persecuted, raped, beaten, and then eventually murdered. It does not begin to describe or characterize the Nazi holocaust in all its prolonged horror to its victims and the barbaric conditions under which the Nazis exterminated those they no longer valued.

It is not my intention to dispute that there is an abortion on demand holocaust dressed up as womens' rights and freedom of choice infecting Western society. But to define the present day abortion holocaust by analogy to the Nazi holocaust demeans the suffering and murder of all victims of totalitarianism by depriving the latter of the very real conditions under which it was perpetrated.

Attack today's holocaust against the unborn according to its own conditions and on its own terms of evil.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Jan 24 2006, 11:25 AM
I'm not a doctor, but I believe that anything without a central nervous system tends to feel a lot less pain than a regular 8 year old child.

Which seems to happen rather early on in the process of development..

You should watch Bernard Nathanson's Silent Scream video and tell me what level of pain the fotus feels during an abortion.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 24 2006, 11:59 AM
But to define the present day abortion holocaust by analogy to the Nazi holocaust demeans the suffering and murder of all victims of totalitarianism by depriving the latter of the very real conditions under which it was perpetrated.

Well I'll grant you that the conditions under which we now kill innocents are certainly more civilized.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
it was only a matter of time until someone brought up the pain issue which is becoming so popular today.

this is an abstract from a recent JAMA (journal of the american medical association)

Fetal Pain

what i found intersting is not the evidence yes or no. its the reactions, the mass hsyeteria around the authors, and what lead JAMA editor to quip...

Quote:
 
Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor-in-chief, said the decision to publish the review was not politically motivated.
    "Oh, please," Dr. DeAngelis said. "If I had a political agenda, I wouldn't pick fetal pain."
    JAMA does not publish "politically motivated science. We publish data-based, evidence-based science," Dr. DeAngelis said.


i love it...."oh please!", exasperated at how people get so petty.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
But to define the present day abortion holocaust by analogy to the Nazi holocaust demeans the suffering and murder of all victims of totalitarianism by depriving the latter of the very real conditions under which it was perpetrated.


Irrespective of my views regarding abortion, this is a why I object so strongly to the holocaust comparison.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Jan 24 2006, 12:36 PM
Quote:
 
But to define the present day abortion holocaust by analogy to the Nazi holocaust demeans the suffering and murder of all victims of totalitarianism by depriving the latter of the very real conditions under which it was perpetrated.


Irrespective of my views regarding abortion, this is a why I object so strongly to the holocaust comparison.

I have trouble thinking that for either of you a more civil and democratic society makes the deaths of innocents somehow more acceptable. I suspect it is really quite the opposite.

How do you take into your utilitarian calculus not only the different conditions but the factor of over 7 times as many abortions (just in the US) over the number of jews that Hitler killed?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

That argument has much more in common with a Singerian utilitarianism than a pro life argument against abortion.


I really don't think it does, Singer does not suggest ethical equivalence of conscious entities with unconscious bacteria. Besides i wasn't the one suggesting that either all life was sacred or else it's just legal definitions, if i'm not mistaken that was a pro-lifer.

Quote:
 

Earlier you attempted the crass and unsubtle characterization of the embryo as "bunches of cells" as if they were not particular types of cells that CAN ONLY BE human and constituitive of an complete and unique human being in a particular stage of development.


We are all bunches of cells, the difference is that some bunches can laugh and cry and feel pain, i.e. some bunches have attached to them conscious experience.

The skin cells i discard every time i take off my jumper "can only be human", indeed what is the relevence of human? That humans are ethically superior to other animals is not valid if it is asserted through axiom, you only need to look at logical (and indeed physical) possibilites like the existence of E.T.s that totally wreck a system of ethics predicate on humans having axiomeric superiority. Indeed the very idea putting a certain group ahead of another purely by postulate should cause us shivers to our very depths; it's very easy to look back at the past to see how we view those who have followed an ethics based on that idea.

A fertilised egg is certainly not constituitive of a complete unique human being, if it's 'constitutive' of anything it's of a near infinite number of different human beings - A billion genetic clones can all be different people. (and of course the claim of a system being constitutive of a 'group' of genetically identical though distinct human beings can be made at any point before fertilsation and afterwards)

Pro-life stances invariably assert that something magic happens at the point of fertilisation, i.e. you go from "non-entity" to "entity", this view however is horribly confused (with the caveat of approaching the matter from a secular perspective).

When you actually look at what's going on, you see that these are just randomly drawn lines, nothing magic happens, chemistry happens, chemistry happened before, and chemistry happens afterwords. You can talk about potential future human people before and afterwards.

If you watch the process of fertilisation the pro-life stance results in the conclusion that moving these atoms by a tiny amount is the difference between ethical irrelevence and the highest level of ethical significance, a carbon atom moves a few angstroms bang ethical significance, you move it back, bang ethical irrelevence.

The process of development from inert matter to conscious human being is gradual, the underlying ethical principles must reflect that gradation if we want them to have anything at all to do with reality.

The question of genetic "identity" (which in itself involves a degree of arbitrary line drawing - genes mutate) is irrelevent to the ethics or lack thereof of abortiton; genomes are not granted ethical status, unique genomes are not granted ethical status (indeed the uniqueness of a persons genotype does not determine how ethically viable we consider them to be - both identical twins have rights, one does not become cannon fodder because his genome is not unique). Genotypes are just recipes for constructing bodies, we can synthesise them in labs, we can tweak with them in bacteria, there's one in every cell i discard when i take of my shirt, they are simply molecules.

Here's another perhaps simpler way of looking at it: why are humans more ethicaly significant than animals? Because of specific criterea. Why are adult humans more ethically significant then fertilised eggs? Because of the same criterea.

To argue that both fertilised eggs and adults are human therfore must be equal is as lacking in validity as arguing that both bacteria and humans are life forms therefore must be equal.

Quote:
 

I am surprised by this, especially coming from a scientist such as yourself. In fact, reading over your messages on this thread has definitely lowered my estimation your ability for scientific objectivity and rational discourse. That is a loss to me


I'm sorry i've fallen in your estimation, i think you're wrong, i think i can do rational and the objective pretty damn well but sometimes it becomes obvious that rational discourse and objective reasoning get you nowhere at all.

You can easily reach a point where you either get angry or you just laugh. I used to get angry, actually i still do, but where-ever possible i try to laugh. If that means i'm lowered in the opinion people who are clearly intelligent (albeit somewhat confused :P) then that is an unfortunate though inevitable consequence.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat:

I am much happier discussing these things with you on a rational level. You obviously have the intelligence to do so, and so my chiding you for the previous posts was intended to bring you back around. I am sorry, but I thought that indeed those posts were base and unworthy of you.

I will read in depth your latest note, which raise some very interesting and valid considerations for discussion.

best,

Steve
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 02:50 PM

I have trouble thinking that for either of you a more civil and democratic society makes the deaths of innocents somehow more acceptable. I suspect it is really quite the opposite.


You think barbarism and brutality is preferable to an operating theatre?

Quote:
 
How do you take into your utilitarian calculus not only the different conditions but the factor of over 7 times as many abortions (just in the US) over the number of jews that Hitler killed?


I don't see the fetus in the same way that you do. Obviously I'm not asking or expecting you to agree with me. There's not much point arguing about this aspect of things since I doubt either of us will change in our opinions.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John, that's why we use the Holocaust comparison. To us, they are innocent human lives, even at a very fundamental level. They have hearts, lungs, they yawn, kick, etc...all at a very early stage.

We kill 4,000 babies every DAY. As so if one sees the "fetus" as a "baby", then you can not blame us for using such a comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 11:50 AM
I have trouble thinking that for either of you a more civil and democratic society makes the deaths of innocents somehow more acceptable. I suspect it is really quite the opposite.

How do you take into your utilitarian calculus not only the different conditions but the factor of over 7 times as many abortions (just in the US) over the number of jews that Hitler killed?

I suspect I am one of the "either".

You are wrong in your assessment. That is not what I wrote and you know it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Jan 24 2006, 01:22 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 02:50 PM

I have trouble thinking that for either of you a more civil and democratic society makes the deaths of innocents somehow more acceptable. I suspect it is really quite the opposite.


You think barbarism and brutality is preferable to an operating theatre?

Neither is preferable, but the callous death of innocents seems to me to be more understandable in a barbaric and brutal culture, unless of course you are speaking of the cold and sterile laboratories of Dr. Mengele. (again, nothing to do with Godwin's law -- you seem to again be making a claim that the destruction of human beings is more acceptable if done with surgical precision, sterile conditions, and modern efficiency).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 24 2006, 01:35 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 11:50 AM
I have trouble thinking that for either of you a more civil and democratic society makes the deaths of innocents somehow more acceptable. I suspect it is really quite the opposite.

How do you take into your utilitarian calculus not only the different conditions but the factor of over 7 times as many abortions (just in the US) over the number of jews that Hitler killed?

I suspect I am one of the "either".

You are wrong in your assessment. That is not what I wrote and you know it.

I am happy to be wrong, and I noted that I would have trouble thinking that you held that. What you actually do hold regarding the point is still unknown to me. (the point of utilitarian calculus was not aimed at you, Mr Crude).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Moonbat wrote:

"That humans are ethically superior to other animals is not valid if it is asserted through axiom, you only need to look at logical (and indeed physical) possibilites like the existence of E.T.s that totally wreck a system of ethics predicate on humans having axiomeric superiority. Indeed the very idea putting a certain group ahead of another purely by postulate should cause us shivers to our very depths;..."
See, the pro-lifers would know that already had they watched more Star Trek. (They can also study more Far-Eastern religions/philosophies and native American spiritual believes... but Star Trek is easier and more entertaining).

Quote:
 
Moonbat wrote:

"When you actually look at what's going on, you see that these are just randomly drawn lines, nothing magic happens, chemistry happens, chemistry happened before, and chemistry happens afterwords. You can talk about potential future human people before and afterwards."
That's not a "randomly drawn line." It's a strategically drawn line that the pro-lifers explain as their choice "to err on the side of life."

Where's Jeffrey when you need him?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Jan 24 2006, 01:22 PM

I don't see the fetus in the same way that you do. Obviously I'm not asking or expecting you to agree with me. There's not much point arguing about this aspect of things since I doubt either of us will change in our opinions.

I doubt anyone here who contributes will change anyone's mind. There are a lot of lurkers or casual visitors who, however, might find the discussion informative. We never know what impact our words or actions might have in the life of another.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fizzygirl
Fulla-Carp
musicasacra
Jan 23 2006, 11:54 AM
The 89th Key
Jan 23 2006, 09:33 AM
MS...sounds like a place I'd like to live! :thumb:

it is a great place to live and raise a family. in most places, people leave their houses unlocked all day (my family didn't have a key made to lock the door until we all went out of state for my brother's wedding in 1993), leave the car running in the grocery store parking lot in the winter so it stays nice and warm, say hello to people when walking by, wave at fellow drivers on the highway, welcome new neighbors, shovel sidewalks for people who aren't able to, give generously to families with medical bills, kids can play at the park and ride their bikes around without being threatened, etc.

Sounds like Minnesota! :biggrin:
Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a purpose. ~ Garrison Keillor


My latest videos.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 12:39 PM
What you actually do hold regarding the point is still unknown to me. (the point of utilitarian calculus was not aimed at you, Mr Crude).

And that's exactly what you should think. What I think on this matter is really of no consequence to you. Right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 24 2006, 01:45 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 12:39 PM
What you actually do hold regarding the point is still unknown to me. (the point of utilitarian calculus was not aimed at you, Mr Crude).

And that's exactly what you should think. What I think on this matter is really of no consequence to you. Right?

Why should I not care about what you think? I respect your views. Don't pull a Rick Zimmer on me. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
BTW, AC, which Orthodox church do you attend? What do you think of His Eminence, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Nicholas and the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese? He certainly has no problem pointing out the parallel between the holocaust and modern totalitarian regimes and abortion.

Quote:
 
What do we do with such a crushing number as 40 million? It is tempting to be so overwhelmed by its enormity that we simply dismiss it as a statistic instead of accepting it as a reality. This is indeed what happened in the time of Hitler and Stalin: the world stood by, listless and impotent, while these dark lords disposed of millions of Jews and Gypsies and unwanted peoples (including many of our own}.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Axtremus
Jan 24 2006, 03:40 PM
Quote:
 
Moonbat wrote:

"That humans are ethically superior to other animals is not valid if it is asserted through axiom, you only need to look at logical (and indeed physical) possibilites like the existence of E.T.s that totally wreck a system of ethics predicate on humans having axiomeric superiority. Indeed the very idea putting a certain group ahead of another purely by postulate should cause us shivers to our very depths;..."
See, the pro-lifers would know that already had they watched more Star Trek. (They can also study more Far-Eastern religions/philosophies and native American spiritual believes... but Star Trek is easier and more entertaining).

Quote:
 
Moonbat wrote:

"When you actually look at what's going on, you see that these are just randomly drawn lines, nothing magic happens, chemistry happens, chemistry happened before, and chemistry happens afterwords. You can talk about potential future human people before and afterwards."
That's not a "randomly drawn line." It's a strategically drawn line that the pro-lifers explain as their choice "to err on the side of life."

Where's Jeffrey when you need him?

The essential fact that we, as humans, are intelligently discussing such controversial yet imperative issues alludes to our inherent axiologist mindset driven by our anthropocentric perspective.

PS. How did you like that one, IT and Kenny? No dictionary or thesaurus baby! :sombrero:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Jan 24 2006, 03:41 PM
We never know what impact our words or actions might have in the life of another.

Actually, I try not to think about that too much.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply