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
being pro life outside the political arena
Topic Started: Nov 12 2008, 06:24 AM (4,737 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 03:01 PM
OK, so what grounds do you have for feeling that a 281 day post conception human being and a 1740 day post conception human being have rights that a 2 day post conception human being doesn't have?

(BTW, I am not advocating that women who use day after pills be subject to penalty- that is a whole other discussion).
There are plenty of differences. A newly fertilised egg and a new born baby do not share much that is common. Before you ask, I cannot answer the question 'when does it become a human', because I really don't know. I don't believe third trimester abortions should be permitted except under exceptional circumstances, but at what point the cut-off should be, I'm not sure.

I do appreciate that doubt and maybe even uncertainty is a rather unusual thing to admit to here, particularly in a debate on abortion, however trying to lump together the cases of partial birth abortion and the morning-after pill is, I feel, unrealistic.

As I've said elsewhere, I am in no-way 'probort' as you refer to it. With two young children, I would describe myself as being a great supporter of young life - quite frequently to the detriment of my own (I'm just kidding about that bit, kind of). I think that the fact that 50 million abortions have taken place is highly regrettable, and I'm sure there has been untold suffering to many people who have been through the procedure. It also indicates that something is clearly wrong with our society. My gut feel is that we need to tackle what is wrong with society, rather than simply attempting to ban abortions, since even if the symptom is removed, the underlying disease will likely remain, as will very large numbers of unwanted babies. My main problem with much of the argument is what I see as dogma, which is why I raised the issue of the morning-after pill. I don't believe that attempting to classify this form of contraception in the same breath as abortion on demand is helping your cause at all.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Dewey
Nov 15 2008, 11:42 AM
So if I'm in an auto accident and my brain ceases to function, I'm not human? I may in fact, be "dead," but I remain human. Whether one is human is determined by DNA, not brain function. Don't confuse the terms "human" and "alive."
If you're not alive, you can't be killed.

You've just changed the verbiage, not the analysis.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Nov 15 2008, 11:42 AM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 11:38 AM

There may be other factors that are relevant too, but brain function is an indispensable quality of humanness.

So what would be "brain function"?

Would two cells communicating be enough?

Or would you need 3 or 4?
Oh, good. Can we take it that you concede that brain function is an indispensable quality of being human?

Once you concede that, we can move on to discuss what constitutes brain function.

If you don't concede that, there's no point in discussing what we'd need to constitute brain function.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 12:31 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 11:09 AM
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM

proborts
This is another one of your snarky misnomers. I know of no one who is in favor of abortion. No one. People are in favor of a right to choose.

If you insist on calling one side "proborts", then it's equally fair to call the other side "womanhaters".
Jeffrey is completely in favor of abortion. In fact he insists that there are no detrimental effects and that "post abortion syndrome" is a fabrication of the pro life camp.

You can use womanhater if you wish

Thank you. I will henceforth refer to you in any discussion of abortion as a womanhater.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
John D'Oh
Nov 15 2008, 01:29 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 12:35 PM
John D'Oh
Nov 15 2008, 11:11 AM
IT - would you seriously claim that taking a morning-after pill is committing a graver injustice than torturing a 4 year old child?
Is it a graver injustice to torture a 4 year old child or to kill a 4 year old child?

Is this some sort of binary thing that if we decry one we are approving the other?

You are way smarter than that sort of nonsense.
Since you appear unwilling to answer, I'll give my opinion.

Taking a morning-after pill pales into insignificance next to the horrendous crime of torturing a four year old child. I would have no problem at all with a partner of mine doing the former. Thus far, the only torture involving four year olds at our house has been carried out by them rather than on them.

I honestly don't understand how any other answer can be considered valid.
+1
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 04:36 PM
Copper
Nov 15 2008, 11:42 AM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 11:38 AM

There may be other factors that are relevant too, but brain function is an indispensable quality of humanness.

So what would be "brain function"?

Would two cells communicating be enough?

Or would you need 3 or 4?
Oh, good. Can we take it that you concede that brain function is an indispensable quality of being human?

Once you concede that, we can move on to discuss what constitutes brain function.

If you don't concede that, there's no point in discussing what we'd need to constitute brain function.

Actually the answer is 1, 1 cell.

Everything needed to make the human is there.

After that everything is conceeded because there is no longer any question.

At that point the life has started and off we go.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Copper at least try to be consistent. You have just contradicted your own argument of Thursday night:

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/topic/7039911/3/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Bzz! Wrong answer. No advancing to Final Jeopardy for you.

As a country ... hell, as a world ... we agree that, in the absence of brain activity, there is no human life. It's what distinguishes us from other beings. As far as I know, there is no country in the world that mandates that those without brain function must be kept alive.

If that's the case, then the obverse should be true as well ... there is no human life until there is brain function.

And a single-celled organism has no brain function. In fact, it has no brain cells at all. They don't begin to differentiate for quite a while.

So, as I thought, there's no point in answering your question, because you don't concede the need for brain function.

But, I tell you what ... why don't you rough out the increased taxes necessary to keep alive for decades everyone who no longer has brain function, but whose body is perfectly capable of continuing to pump blood and repair cells. When the rubber hits the road, I'm sure you'd be utterly opposed to the huge tax increase necessary to put your money where your mouth is.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 04:55 PM
Bzz! Wrong answer. No advancing to Final Jeopardy for you.

As a country ... hell, as a world ... we agree that, in the absence of brain activity, there is no human life. It's what distinguishes us from other beings. As far as I know, there is no country in the world that mandates that those without brain function must be kept alive.

If that's the case, then the obverse should be true as well ... there is no human life until there is brain function.

And a single-celled organism has no brain function. In fact, it has no brain cells at all. They don't begin to differentiate for quite a while.

So, as I thought, there's no point in answering your question, because you don't concede the need for brain function.

But, I tell you what ... why don't you rough out the increased taxes necessary to keep alive for decades everyone who no longer has brain function, but whose body is perfectly capable of continuing to pump blood and repair cells. When the rubber hits the road, I'm sure you'd be utterly opposed to the huge tax increase necessary to put your money where your mouth is.

OK MR. Stick-to-the-topic, let's define "brain function".

Then we can discuss it.

How many cells, and what exactly are they doing?

Come on, give us a number.

As far as my money is concerned, here is the exact number I think the government should pay for health care: zero.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
But, I tell you what ... why don't you rough out the increased taxes necessary to keep alive for decades everyone who no longer has brain function, but whose body is perfectly capable of continuing to pump blood and repair cells.


If you go there, you'll also have to start considering the tax revenues lost from all those aborted children. There may be hope yet that liberals will be as opposed to abortion as conservatives, if only from the standpoint of growing government.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
No, no. No point in discussing what constitutes brain function since you won't agree that you need brain function to constitute a live human being.

But you can start with this ... at least one differentiated brain cell. In the absence of brain cells, there's no brain. And, if there's no brain, there's no brain function.

So that's a starting point. More would likely be required. But, since you won't even concede that, there's no point in discussing it further with you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
AlbertaCrude
Nov 15 2008, 04:54 PM
Copper at least try to be consistent. You have just contradicted your own argument of Thursday night:

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/topic/7039911/3/

I not only try to be consistent, I am.

To be honest I'm not sure what you are talking about.

When we were talking about IVF I clearly said we were playing God.

I also said it wasn't any fun. This is a difficult question.

Why do you think I contradicted my argument of Thursday night?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Nov 15 2008, 05:05 PM


As far as my money is concerned, here is the exact number I think the government should pay for health care: zero.
Ah, so indigent people should be allowed to die in the streets. How very charitable of you.

Would government be allowed to pick up the corpses, or should they just lie there until they rot or until private enterprise decides to dispose of them? Or is that, in your view, a street cleaning function?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:09 PM
No, no. No point in discussing what constitutes brain function since you won't agree that you need brain function to constitute a live human being.

But you can start with this ... at least one differentiated brain cell. In the absence of brain cells, there's no brain. And, if there's no brain, there's no brain function.

So that's a starting point. More would likely be required. But, since you won't even concede that, there's no point in discussing it further with you.

Left alone the brain cells will develop from that one cell.

The brain cells are in there - all of them - just give them some time.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Just read what you wrote when I asked whether IVF is tantamount to abortion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree. It's in there, just give it time.

Do you really think an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:11 PM
Copper
Nov 15 2008, 05:05 PM


As far as my money is concerned, here is the exact number I think the government should pay for health care: zero.
Ah, so indigent people should be allowed to die in the streets. How very charitable of you.

Would government be allowed to pick up the corpses, or should they just lie there until they rot or until private enterprise decides to dispose of them? Or is that, in your view, a street cleaning function?

I think you have left the topic once again.

We were discussing government payments for keeping dead people alive (your topic not mine).

Somehow you ended up throwing indigent people into the streets to die.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
AlbertaCrude
Nov 15 2008, 05:14 PM
Just read what you wrote when I asked whether IVF is tantamount to abortion.

I did, what a well written answer!

Concise, clear, unambiguous and entirely consistent with my writing today.

I guess if you think there is some inconsistency you will have to identify it because I just don’t see it.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:16 PM
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree. It's in there, just give it time.

Do you really think an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing?

So, we are discussing how we'll define "brain function".

And QE asks "Do you really think an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing? ".

I really don't have an opinion about acorns.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 04:37 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 12:31 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 11:09 AM
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM

proborts
This is another one of your snarky misnomers. I know of no one who is in favor of abortion. No one. People are in favor of a right to choose.

If you insist on calling one side "proborts", then it's equally fair to call the other side "womanhaters".
Jeffrey is completely in favor of abortion. In fact he insists that there are no detrimental effects and that "post abortion syndrome" is a fabrication of the pro life camp.

You can use womanhater if you wish

Thank you. I will henceforth refer to you in any discussion of abortion as a womanhater.
Go right ahead Quirt-- you'll look like a nutter doing so, and MS who is fully a woman would disagree with you.

But it does not surprise me that you would threaten to use language as a tool of coercion or manipulation.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:09 PM
No, no. No point in discussing what constitutes brain function since you won't agree that you need brain function to constitute a live human being.

But you can start with this ... at least one differentiated brain cell. In the absence of brain cells, there's no brain. And, if there's no brain, there's no brain function.

So that's a starting point. More would likely be required. But, since you won't even concede that, there's no point in discussing it further with you.
Of course brain function does not define a live human being. No individual function that humans generally share defines membership in homo sapiens sapiens. Especially those functions that develop over time in the mature specimen.

What scientific and philosophical nonsense you are getting yourself into. :no:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 05:33 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 04:37 PM
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 12:31 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 11:09 AM
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM

proborts
This is another one of your snarky misnomers. I know of no one who is in favor of abortion. No one. People are in favor of a right to choose.

If you insist on calling one side "proborts", then it's equally fair to call the other side "womanhaters".
Jeffrey is completely in favor of abortion. In fact he insists that there are no detrimental effects and that "post abortion syndrome" is a fabrication of the pro life camp.

You can use womanhater if you wish

Thank you. I will henceforth refer to you in any discussion of abortion as a womanhater.
Go right ahead Quirt-- you'll look like a nutter doing so, and MS who is fully a woman would disagree with you.

But it does not surprise me that you would threaten to use language as a tool of coercion or manipulation.
You horse's ass. You know you use pro-bort as a deliberately insulting, misleading, and deceptive term. As I have explained to you, repeatedly. No one is in favor of abortion as a general rule. They are in favor of the right to choose.

And then you have the temerity to accuse me of using language as a tool of coercion or manipulation?

You're either hopelessly lacking in self-awareness, or a pathological liar.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Nov 15 2008, 05:39 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:09 PM
No, no. No point in discussing what constitutes brain function since you won't agree that you need brain function to constitute a live human being.

But you can start with this ... at least one differentiated brain cell. In the absence of brain cells, there's no brain. And, if there's no brain, there's no brain function.

So that's a starting point. More would likely be required. But, since you won't even concede that, there's no point in discussing it further with you.
Of course brain function does not define a live human being. No individual function that humans generally share defines membership in homo sapiens sapiens. Especially those functions that develop over time in the mature specimen.

What scientific and philosophical nonsense you are getting yourself into. :no:
I didn't say it was the only prerequisite. But everyone except the fruitcakes agrees that, if brain function ceases, the person dies.

Hence, brain function is a necessary element of humanity. Not the ONLY necessary element, but a necessary element.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:16 PM
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree. It's in there, just give it time.

Do you really think an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing?
They are both specimens of Quercus. An acorn that has not been germinated is not in any sense an oak tree -- just like a lone spermatozoan or unfertilized human ovum is in no sense a human being. It is a nut containing the seed. Once the acorn has been germinated and starts growing it is no longer properly an acorn, but a seedling. But it is still a specimen of Quercus.

I really thought you would have learned this in grade school biology.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Nov 15 2008, 05:21 PM
QuirtEvans
Nov 15 2008, 05:16 PM
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree. It's in there, just give it time.

Do you really think an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing?

So, we are discussing how we'll define "brain function".

And QE asks "Do you really think an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing? ".

I really don't have an opinion about acorns.
Let's see if you can follow simple logic.

You say, a single cell has everything necessary to become a human being.

I point out that an acorn has everything necessary to become an oak tree.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

Because, if it isn't, then perhaps something that has everything necessary to become a human being isn't a human being yet.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply