legislating morality

[z0wb13]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

there are other established prerequisites for life (like being self-sustaining).

i think maybe this is why we have such wildly different positions. i see the zygote a just another part of the female person. once a foetus grows a face, my opinion starts to change, but i couldn't pin it down to a specific trimester. but again, i see life as part of a continuum, and not like a threshold that a person's spirit crosses back and forth from. hope this helps!

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

1)i'm struck again. maybe i presume too much, but your assessment seems oblivious to the possibility that woman in all of these hypotheticals might be thinking, rational actors.



this happens a lot. it's baffling that it hasn't occurred to.



3)anyway, the point is that i don't see how you get to decide for other people's families how many children there should be. that seems... crazy! like, crazy invasive. i just think it crosses so many lines of decency to assume that you know how everyone else should raise their families.

i guess if you could empirically prove that catholics raise better children...

at least we can agree on jack mccoy;p

1) I don't remember you providing facts that a woman could know for certain she will miscarry. Therefore, your hypothetical provides no real-world basis for us to go off of, and is not relevant to the argument.

There are cases (albeit rare ones) where the Church will allow certain types of birth control when the woman has a history of high risk pregnancies. I believe one of the guidelines is something like if the woman has had 3 C-Sections caused by some specific difficulty during pregnancy. The Church respects all life, which means it does not want the mothers to be continually placed in danger by getting pregnant if they have a documented history of dangerous pregnancies. However, no such guidelines exist for miscarriages.

2) Your anecdotal evidence that 'this happens a lot' doesn't really prove anything. If you mean to say that people have abortions for financial reasons, I would accept that. However, your specific example about the mother not having enough money to send 5 kids to college, and so she terminates a pregnancy, seems a bit far fetched.

3) I don't remember implying that it was my right to decide how families should raise their children. My point is that families do not have the right to take away the lives of their children. It has nothing to do with how people raise children, but the fact that one person shouldn't be allowed to legally murder (with the full definition of murder, not simply 'kill' since legal killings occur in self defense, in war, in the justice system, etc) another living human being.

Also, I noticed you haven't had the opportunity to address my points about the definition of a human. I think I would prefer you addressing those points rather than these menial points that are only tangental to our real discussion.

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

i don't think you adequately prove life. it sounds like the underpants gnomes from south park:

dna (steal underpants)=>????=>life (profit)

1)there are other established prerequisites for life (like being self-sustaining).

2)but even if we ignore that, your argument boils down to "all life is sacred." and that is a religious position. as a taoist, the whole idea of sacredness isn't nearly so clear-cut. i hope that i don't sound like a monster, i'm very polite in real life;p

1) The self-sustenance argument is a joke. You recognize life beginning with the first breath. So a baby is born, takes one breath, and then is abandoned. It cannot sustain itself, yet according to you, is a human. What about someone paralyzed from the neck down? They are unable to sustain themselves, and yet are human beings. The same can be said for people with other severe handicaps, whether mental or physical. And yet these are all humans. So why should this argument be used against fetuses when others unable to sustain themselves are considered human?

Saying you don't think I adequately proved life isn't saying much. I built a logical argument. Your attacks must be that a premise is wrong, or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the facts. I am not familiar with South Park and the gnomes, so why don't we avoid this silly allusions and use real facts and points.

If you believe there are other requisites that should be considered necessary in defining what a living human being is, that is fine, but please share them. I contest that for an organism to be a living human being, it must have human DNA, it must be a separate entity than another being (i.e. not part of a human but a different individual), and must have living cells. I think those are the three basic necessities for determining that an organism is a human. Heck, I think the fact that it has human DNA makes it a human - the other two serve to identify fetuses as living human beings distinct from their parents, and not some 'unknown globule of cells'. But if you think, at the most basic level of defining a human being, I am missing something, please let me know.

2) Whether life is sacred or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The use of the word 'sacred' is a religious word. I used it in the sense that our legal system prosecutes those who willfully kill another human being without provocation. If the fetus is recognized as a human being, than the killing of that person is illegal. Plain and simple. You cannot walk up to me and shoot me in the head without being prosecuted because you didn't think my life was sacred. Murder is illegal. If the fetus is human, than the killing of it is murder.

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

i think maybe this is why we have such wildly different positions. i see the zygote a just another part of the female person. once a foetus grows a face, my opinion starts to change, but i couldn't pin it down to a specific trimester. but again, i see life as part of a continuum, and not like a threshold that a person's spirit crosses back and forth from. hope this helps!

But what about when it has a separate heart beat? Surely then, it must be considered a separate being? And by nature that it has DNA separate from the mother's, wouldn't this be considered a 'foreign object' in the mother's womb? It is not merely a product of the mother, but it received outside cells from the father as well. Those two joined to create something new (living entity), something independent (unique DNA), and something human (human DNA). Whether it has a face or not shouldn't be the defining factor of it being a human.

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by Mumbles140

But what about when it has a separate heart beat? Surely then, it must be considered a separate being? And by nature that it has DNA separate from the mother's, wouldn't this be considered a 'foreign object' in the mother's womb? It is not merely a product of the mother, but it received outside cells from the father as well. Those two joined to create something new (living entity), something independent (unique DNA), and something human (human DNA). Whether it has a face or not shouldn't be the defining factor of it being a human.

And to continue this further, I just find that, often times, people who refute that fetuses are humans don't really have any sort of solid definition of what it is then. Calling it a fetus or a zygote is great, but if it is living cells, it must be considered something.

[z0wb13]

Your anecdotal evidence that 'this happens a lot' doesn't really prove anything. If you mean to say that people have abortions for financial reasons, I would accept that. However, your specific example about the mother not having enough money to send 5 kids to college, and so she terminates a pregnancy, seems a bit far fetched.

i'm not offering anecdotal evidence. i just think it's a lot more likely that financial reasons are a more serious consideration than premeditated baby murder. and i find it a bit tiring to debate with someone who just dismisses me out of hand, and obviously doesn't take the time to study or skim the resources that i provide.

you persist in making arguments from incredulity. just because you didn't imagine this situation, that doesn't mean that it's impossible. yes, it's anecdotal to say that "this woman i know had an abortion for financial reasons," but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

if you want to know WHY women actually have abortions, you could look here

Most respondents to a survey of abortion
patients in 1987 said that more than one
factor had contributed to their decision to
have an abortion; the mean number of rea-
sons was nearly four. Three-quarters said
that having a baby would interfere with
work, school or other responsibilities, about
two-thirds said they could not afford to
have a child and half said they did not want
to be a single parent or had relationship
problems. A multivariate analysis showed...
(Torres and Forrest)

this is my biggest problem, that you don't seem to see the women or the families or the rights of the people that are already here. but i want to come back to this later.

But if you think, at the most basic level of defining a human being, I am missing something, please let me know... it must have human DNA, it must be a separate entity than another being (i.e. not part of a human but a different individual), and must have living cells, and not some 'unknown globule of cells'.

first of all, i never said, "unknown globule of cells." i find that outrageous; i would never say anything so asinine. you are putting words in my mouth. that is the most... i'm flabbergasted. do you want to debate, or not? or are you happy to invent my positions for me?

second, i'm tired and have to go to bed;p i will revisit the topic later.

did you know that in north korea, women that become pregnant with chinese babies are forced to have abortions? this is what can happen when women lose the right to choose.

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

1)i'm not offering anecdotal evidence. i just think it's a lot more likely that financial reasons are a more serious consideration than premeditated baby murder. and i find it a bit tiring to debate with someone who just dismisses me out of hand, and obviously doesn't take the time to study or skim the resources that i provide.

2)you persist in making arguments from incredulity. just because you didn't imagine this situation, that doesn't mean that it's impossible. yes, it's anecdotal to say that "this woman i know had an abortion for financial reasons," but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

3)if you want to know WHY women actually have abortions, you could look here

4)this is my biggest problem, that you don't seem to see the women or the families or the rights of the people that are already here. but i want to come back to this later.



5)first of all, i never said, "unknown globule of cells." i find that outrageous; i would never say anything so asinine. you are putting words in my mouth. that is the most... i'm flabbergasted. do you want to debate, or not? or are you happy to invent my positions for me?

6)second, i'm tired and have to go to bed;p i will revisit the topic later.

7did you know that in north korea, women that become pregnant with chinese babies are forced to have abortions? this is what can happen when women lose the right to choose.

1) My point was that financial reasons are very likely a frequent factor in why people have abortions. However, just because they have a reason doesn't mean it isn't murder. What makes it murder is recognizing it as a human life, and deliberately choosing to end that life. They could have a multitude of reasons why they want to doing, but doing the act itself is murder. Plain and simple.

2) I don't understand this point. I agree that financial factors often are part of the decision to abort a pregnancy. I was just saying that your example was a bit far-fetched, and crafting one that was more likely would only serve to keep your points easier to imagine since the situations would be more likely to happen.

3) Again, no debate that there are a multitude of reasons why people choose to have abortions. But just because someone has a reason/motive doesn't mean they aren't a murderer.

4) I don't want to come back to this later because this is the root of the argument. A fetus is still a human being. Therefore, they should be afforded the same rights as other human beings. When a mother aborts, she is taking the life of a human being. That is murder, by definition. I would protect the mother from being fatally stabbed just as I would that of her preborn infant because all human life is sacred, and not just in the religious sense, but in the sense that no one has the right to take it away unjustly. And this 'rights of families' seems pretty vague, but if you mean for reasons such as finances, comfort, etc, does this supercede the right of a person to live? If it were beneficial for you financially to murder your younger sibling, should it be legal since it is for the good of the family?

5) I never actually credited you with saying this, or even implying it. Many people who are pro-choice do not recognize a fetus as a human, especially before it 'looks like a human' (such as your 'has a face' example). My point is that they have a hard time identifying what to consider this. Which, by the way, I noticed you didn't have the opportunity to discuss my 'basic qualifications for defining a human'. Hopefully, when better rested, we can focus on this area of the conversation, because all else is tangental in my opinion.

But I digress - the 'globule' comment was not meant to represent anything you said, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I meant by that was those who don't see human life have a hard time defining that, whereas those who are pro-life look at what defines a human as a human, and see those factors in a preborn child. Anecdotally, I have found it hard getting a firm answer from a pro-choice person as to how the 'globule of cells' should be defined in a scientific sense if they feel it isn't a human.

6) Have a good night's rest!

7) That is a tragedy, as are the other hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths at the hands of the North Korean government. It is a totalitarian state where a (former) dictator willfully committed genocide against mixed-race children. But this has nothing to do with abortion rights - it is about human rights, about not living in a Communist state, about not having a cruel dictator. If you believe this somehow relates to banning abortions, I would love to see the logical connection.

Just out of curiosity, though, how do they know if it is a Chinese baby? Do you have the report on this, or a news article about it?

[z0wb13]

we can argue later, but i was heartened by your curiosity.

Originally Posted by Mumbles140

Just out of curiosity, though, how do they know if it is a Chinese baby? Do you have the report on this, or a news article about it?

it is again anecdotal;p but news about n korea isn't exactly readily available:

Consider: Even in the days of communism, there were reports from Eastern Bloc and Cuban diplomats about the paranoid character of the [n koreans] (which had no concept of deterrence and told its own people that it had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in bad faith) and also about its intense hatred of foreigners. A black Cuban diplomat was almost lynched when he tried to show his family the sights of Pyongyang. North Korean women who return pregnant from China—the regime's main ally and protector—are forced to submit to abortions. Wall posters and banners depicting all Japanese as barbarians are only equaled by the ways in which Americans are caricatured as hook-nosed monsters. (The illustrations in this book are an education in themselves.) The United States and its partners make up in aid for the huge shortfall in North Korea's food production, but there is not a hint of acknowledgement of this by the authorities, who tell their captive subjects that the bags of grain stenciled with the Stars and Stripes are tribute paid by a frightened America to the Dear Leader. c hitchens

more

[z0wb13]

here is even more. but i must impress that this link is disturbing. please don't link to it, unless you are prepared.

this is from the waffling anglican, and is also for adults.

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

here is even more. but i must impress that this link is disturbing. please don't link to it, unless you are prepared.

this is from the waffling anglican, and is also for adults.

That is some pretty terrible stuff, but that regime has never been big on 'human rights'. Still, I don't see how this can be attributed to a woman not having the right to abort a pregnancy. It is about a dictator who abused power, murdered his own people, and was an overall nut job with the likes of some of the other fallen leaders this year.

As per your advice, though, I did not click on the links. Just to be clear, they related to North Korea's oppression and murder of its people, correct? I didn't want to miss if it was realted to another part of our argument.

By the way, have you had a chance to consider the minimal necessities to be considered a human being yet? Not to keep bringing this up, but I believe the whole argument hinges on this very point.

[z0wb13]

oh mumbles. i realized that i had said something in ignorance.

months ago, i had claimed that religious fanatics don't sabotage condoms by poking holes in them. but now, i have come across a paper that reports: 1 in 5 young women in a CA study describe coercion as a factor that led to their unintended pregnancy.

granted, it is a small survey. i don't have a subscription to the page, so i haven't read the entire study. but here is the abstract.

Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy

Abstract
Background

Reproductive control including pregnancy coercion (coercion by male partners to become pregnant) and birth control sabotage (partner interference with contraception) may be associated with partner violence and risk for unintended pregnancy among young adult females utilizing family planning clinic services.
Study Design

A cross-sectional survey was administered to females ages 16–29 years seeking care in five family planning clinics in Northern California (N=1278 [this is the number of participants]).
Results

Fifty-three percent of respondents reported physical or sexual partner violence, 19% reported experiencing pregnancy coercion and 15% reported birth control sabotage. One third of respondents reporting partner violence (35%) also reported reproductive control. Both pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage were associated with unintended pregnancy (AOR 1.83 [adjusted odds ratio], 95% CI 1.36–2.46, and AOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14–2.20, respectively). In analyses stratified by partner violence exposure, associations of reproductive control with unintended pregnancy persisted only among women with a history of partner violence. [what this is saying, is that there is an extremely strong correlation between women who become pregnant unintentionally, and women who "date" men that sabotage their birth control.]

Conclusions

Pregnancy coercion and birth control sabotage are common among young women utilizing family planning clinics, and in the context of partner violence, are associated with increased risk for unintended pregnancy.

i would ask you, mumbles, to read this twice. also, here is the editorial:

Reproductive coercion is a factor in unintended pregnancies
January 25, 2010 | 8:17 am

It's sometimes assumed that unmarried teenagers and young women become pregnant because they don't use contraception or because they want a baby. But the authors of a new study say there's another reason. Some women are coerced into pregnancy by their boyfriends. Young women even report that their boyfriends sabotage birth control to get them pregnant.

Researchers at UC Davis conducted a survey of [1,278] young women at five reproductive health clinics in Northern California. The women ranged in age from 16 to 29. They were asked questions about birth-control sabotage, pregnancy coercion and partner violence. The study found that one in five women said they had experienced pregnancy coercion and 15% had experienced birth-control sabotage. More than half had experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner. The researchers concluded that the rate of unintended pregnancy was double among women who experienced reproductive coercion and partner violence. The study is published online today in the journal Contraception.

"This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners," Elizabeth Miller, a co-author of the study, said in a news release.

"What this study shows is that reproductive coercion likely explains why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens," Jay Silverman, a co-author of the study and a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, said in a news release.

Perhaps we've been over-focused on contraceptives. Rates of unintended pregnancy might decline if more young women learned to recognize, avoid or leave abusive relationships or were given the skills and support to do so. [italics present opinions that i don't find altogether convincing.]

-- Shari Roan

anyways. condoms do not fail 2.5% of the time. try it out. take a hundred condoms and fill them up with water. it was already done once at the condom factory, and any that didn't hold water were discarded.

[z0wb13]

i forgot the pictures!

look how fun!

quality assurance also includes an electricity test.


the entire process is rather interesting. if you want to know more, look here.

WARNING: for those faint of heart;p there is an unprovocative illustration of the proper way to put on a condom on page 7. the link is to page 1, so you have ample warning;p

[Mumbles140]

Originally Posted by z0wb13

oh mumbles. i realized that i had said something in ignorance.

months ago, i had claimed that religious fanatics don't sabotage condoms by poking holes in them. but now, i have come across a paper that reports: 1 in 5 young women in a CA study describe coercion as a factor that led to their unintended pregnancy.

anyways. condoms do not fail 2.5% of the time. try it out. take a hundred condoms and fill them up with water. it was already done once at the condom factory, and any that didn't hold water were discarded.

I'm not really sure of the relevance here. If the whole article is to prove the failure rate, you are just listing part of factors. How do those women know the birth control was manipulated by the male? Was that an assumption because they were taking the pill everyday regularly, so it must be due to something else? The anecdotal evidence is good, and I'm not saying the points I bring up explain the results alternatively, but how do we know for certain? This is a survey, not a science experiment, so we have no way of knowing if the girls are telling the truth. But regardless of all of what I just said, let's talk about failure rates of condoms.

Just because the condoms hold water doesn't mean they always work. Have you compared the size of a water molecule to that of a sperm? Also, my claims weren't that 2.5% of condoms have holes in them. The statistic was that regular condom usage resulted in approximately 2.5% of couples becoming pregnant. They test for leaks, but what about the durability? How easily can a condom break? I don't know these answers, either from scientific study or otherwise. But there are multiple facets involved in 'condom effectiveness', not just whether or not they hold water.

Lastly, I know it has taken you a long time to respond, but you again did not address my definition of the most basic characteristics of a human being. Perhaps you forgot, or haven't had time to address them. It seems a lot of time passes sometime between posts, so it can be hard to keep up. But again, arguments about birth control, coercion, etc are all about factors of unintended pregnancies, which could be reasons women have abortions. But I want to talk about whether abortion kills a human being or not, and I think I have laid out a clear argument as to why that is so. Please respond to this, as the whole post is about the legality of banning abortion, not necessarily on reasons why people get them.

[Mumbles140]

Also, I know I wanted to stay on topic, but there was a recent post on here (I'll try to find it later) quoting one of the regional presidents of PP (I think in Canada) of saying they don't promote abortions for the sake of choosing the baby's sex, but aren't against the woman's right to do it. If you support abortion across the board, then certainly this holds true, but this is even worse than someone using abortion as a regular form of birth control.

[z0wb13]

Originally Posted by Mumbles140

Just because the condoms hold water doesn't mean they always work. Have you compared the size of a water molecule to that of a sperm? Also, my claims weren't that 2.5% of condoms have holes in them. The statistic was that regular condom usage resulted in approximately 2.5% of couples becoming pregnant. They test for leaks, but what about the durability? How easily can a condom break? I don't know these answers, either from scientific study or otherwise. But there are multiple facets involved in 'condom effectiveness', not just whether or not they hold water.

ok. Have you compared the size of a water molecule to that of a sperm? i don't own a microscope that can discern a water molecule [they cost tens of thousands of dollars], but i can tell you that a sperm is several orders of magnitude larger than an H2O.

ugh. i just went to wikipedia to prove it all to you, but i looked up semen and it made me gag! haha. i'm sure that it's out there: the chemical makeup of a sperm. but i never took organic chemistry, because high school chem was too hard.

The statistic was that regular condom usage resulted in approximately 2.5% of couples becoming pregnant. there is a distinction here between "regular" usage and "proper" usage. this is a very important distinction. if you actually want to learn how to use a condom properly, you can look here.

condoms are very effective at preventing the spread of HIV. the virus is at least an order of magnitude smaller than a sperm, for context, look here here here here here

no seriously, look here. it will give you an idea of how small these things are that you are talking about.

Lastly, I know it has taken you a long time to respond, but you again did not address my definition of the most basic characteristics of a human being. i said it earlier. eyes, ears, mouth and nose. head shoulders knees and toes. (knees and toes!) if you want, you could jump down and say "WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE BORN WITHOUT ARMS!!!" yeah. that happens too.

but this is critical. i think that a family should be able to choose to have a kid without arms or not. ugh, i'm sorry if that makes you sick to your stomache. even if it has a face.

but i know that i could be wrong about everything. so i think each person should be able to choose for themselves. i don't know what is best for everyone, ever. neither do you;p