Abortion II: The Reckoning Revenge! IN CINEMASCOPE!

[mur'phon]

Something in the combination of these two does not fit...

 

What fits in America dosne't necesarly fit in Europe

[RobQel-Droma]

Just a couple thoughts (my last, I assure you):

 

@mimartin: I don't understand what else you want in a source (meaning the link I gave you). Its obvious that there is no way, if they "cited" their sources - such as scientific essays/reports done by doctors - you wouldn't be able to check those anyways, so what exactly do I have to give you until you just accept it? As long as it has come kind of citation, would you just accept it as true? I honestly don't know what more you want me to do (its an official website for the South Maryland pregnancy center for cryin' out loud, and I'm sure Achilles at least would find no "bias" there). But whatever, as I said, this will be the last I say on this topic.

 

@Web Rider: First of all, humans can only produce other humans, right? So I'm not questioning a fetus's humanity, I'm questioning if it has life (which would make killing it murder). So, a human with brainwaves would be a "living person"... your analogy to fish or computers is rather irrelevant, since it is already known that we are dealing with a human.

 

Also, I do see that you pointed out some things while going over my four points, but I still ask: does that somehow make a fetus not alive/sub-human? I realize that some of what you say is true, but I don't think it really makes a difference. You also told me to "realize that these are not sentient thoughts", but.... *ahem*, how exactly do you know that? Obviously, you must have some scientific knowledge that I don't have, because I was not aware of any certainty of what these brain impulses were.

 

And I know that children are dying in third-world countries. But this thread is about abortion, and that is off-topic. I don't know why people tend to try and always bring that up when discussing issues such as this... I'm aware that we should help them, but why should we neglect either of these issues? I'm going one at a time here...

 

To finish up, and to clarify, I would like to say this: I'm sorry if I offended anyone by coming across as "black and white" on this issue. I realize that there are cases in which abortion might be needed to protect the life of the mother; and I also realize that some of you might personally have known situations like this, so you might have a better grasp on the reality of it. My post was only intended to try and point out that abortion does in fact kill a live human being.

 

And lol... someone is having fun with this thread title.

[Totenkopf]

Children do no receive the same rights as "adults", that is, anyone over 18. Why? because we judge them to be less intelligent, less mature, less physically capable, in some instances, less sane, and of course, less deserving. Rights they have are extended to them through their parents and other adults. It is quite true to say that if 18+ers wanted to deprive those under 18 of all rights, they could. And it would be legal.

 

However, the one thing you fail to mention is that they are not judged as nonhuman b/c they have fewer rights than adults.

 

Furthermore, ECGs can measure even the faintest electrial impulses. If you stop for a moment and think about how faint the electrical impulses are that are sent in the brain compared to say, those sent in a computer, you are essentially saying that "if it's got brainwaves, it's human". An obviously, since cats have brainwaves, but do not have all our rights, that is not the way the system works.

 

A metal detector can detect a metal plate in your head, but that doesn't make you a robot/less human either.

 

You must also understand the context in which these impulses are sent. These aren't sentient thoughts, they are much like when you plug an electrical tester into a socket, they are saying the parts are plugged in and growing. Which isn't a spectacularly human feat since the human featus looks much like almost every other mamillian featus....and some fish. Nor is a beating heart a spectacularly grand feat. If this determines humanity, do people with fake hearts become non-people? No, so obviously, since brainwaves dont even determine humanity, we cannot say that brainwaves or a beating heart determine humanity.

 

Ah, yes, the seahorse argument. B/c the fetus looks like any other fetus, ergo it's not human. What determines the human fetuses humanity is it's naturally occuring HUMAN DNA.

 

 

People dependant on machines later in life established their humanity by being born.

 

If you're so willing to overlook terminating a life in the early stages, when you claim there is no sentient thinking, how far are you from euthanizing people no longer capable of sentient thought?

 

Well, you're welcome to tell that to the president and his buddies who sponsor abstinence only education. As much as I dislike abortion, I would prefer to see more emphasis on brith control, unforunatelly, the religious nuts who've already gotten "life" defined as conception, quickly step in to argue that we have no right to prevent that seed from being plowed into that field. In short, I feel at this point it's a matter of we can't even let "them" get a foot in the door.

 

Totally irrelevant. There are now so many avenues for people to get an education or even materials for sex that what a sitting president believes isn't going to significantly impact anything.

 

I would tell you to go out, get raped, and become pregnant, but you are obviously a guy, so, it is difficult to understand that perspective. I agree that I would like to see LESS abortion. But I can't in good conscience outright ban it. My ex got pregnant from a rape. She ended up having a miscarriage from all the stress it added to her...yes...that can happen, read some studies, stress can do horrid things to the body. In any case, pregnancy is not a simple matter of "oh, I've got a baby in me, 9 months here I come!"

 

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.

 

Life is sacrificed for a variety of worse reasons every moment. I'm sure some child in Uganda was murdered in the time it took me to write this(10 miniutes or so). Why are we so obsessed with the unborn, with the living are being slaughtered around the globe? Instead of adding to the population, maybe we should save the one that's already here.

 

Still, why add to such senseless behavior?

[mimartin]

@mimartin: I don't understand what else you want in a source (meaning the link I gave you). Its obvious that there is no way, if they "cited" their sources - such as scientific essays/reports done by doctors - you wouldn't be able to check those anyways

Well I did not go to the greatest university in the world, but if I would have turned in a report with that source I would have failed that project. Yes, you can check scientific reports done by a doctor if it was published. I did a research paper on Lasek for a business communication class and I did cite my sources and went to the original sources. At the very least, they could have given the name of the doctor they are using as a reference since that is not a widely accepted stance. Seems to me with the significances of the decision these websites should hold themselves to a higher standard than a college report.

[Achilles]

Seems to me with the significances of the decision these websites should hold themselves to a higher standard than a college report.

Unless, of course, their audience is people that don't know better and their purpose is to persuade, rather than inform. Then they can just keep on doing what they are doing now.

[mimartin]

But, Achilles I was under the impression that you would find no “Bias” with that site.

 

I did find an article that states where most of the 40 something days and fetus pain arguments come from. I would actually say the page is bias, but she does cite her sources and provides links when possible. Which means she is not affraid of her message being scrutinized. 1964 – That is where this 40 something day argument really comes from?

[Achilles]

But, Achilles I was under the impression that you would find no “Bias” with that site.

I think the page had loaded about 80% of the way before the bias started clubbing me over the head. Real easy litmus test: if the resource refers to dilation and extraction (D&X) as "partial birth abortion", it's a "pro-life" site. Legitimate, objective sources won't substitute politically-motivated or emotionally-charged language for an actual medical term. The site is clearly written to maximize fear and guilt. Hardly unbiased.

 

I did find an article that states where most of the 40 something days and fetus pain arguments come from. I would actually say the page is bias, but she does cite her sources and provides links when possible. Which means she is not affraid of her message being scrutinized. 1964 – That is where this 40 something day argument really comes from?

Thanks for the link. Kudos for the research.

[Totenkopf]

I think the page had loaded about 80% of the way before the bias started clubbing me over the head. Real easy litmus test: if the resource refers to dilation and extraction (D&X) as "partial birth abortion", it's a "pro-life" site. Legitimate, objective sources won't substitute politically-motivated or emotionally-charged language for an actual medical term. The site is clearly written to maximize fear and guilt. Hardly unbiased.

 

Equally easy litmus test, any site that ignores the controversey over the misapplication of D&X is undoubtedly and hopelessly biased in the favor of virtually unrestricted abortion, even up to the last minute. I'm sure that the misuse of clinical language has been used throughout history to hide abuses.

[Web Rider]

However, the one thing you fail to mention is that they are not judged as nonhuman b/c they have fewer rights than adults.

I would say that they are indeed judged as less than human. If they were judged as 100% human, they would have all the rights.

 

Slaves did not have all the same rights because they were not judged to be human. The comparason is similar.

 

A metal detector can detect a metal plate in your head, but that doesn't make you a robot/less human either.

Which is entirely irrelevent.......

So, lets stay on point? Which is: an ECG can measure brainwaves, ie: electrical impulses. If this is a defining point of humanity, then all things with electrical impulses in the brain measurable by an ECG should be considered human, or at least partially so.

 

Ah, yes, the seahorse argument. B/c the fetus looks like any other fetus, ergo it's not human. What determines the human fetuses humanity is it's naturally occuring HUMAN DNA.

ah! So then you would agree that my hand deserves all the same rights as me because it contains human DNA. You agree that cancer should not be removed because it containts NATURALLY OCCURRING HUMAN DNA.

 

If you're so willing to overlook terminating a life in the early stages, when you claim there is no sentient thinking, how far are you from euthanizing people no longer capable of sentient thought?

please, don't even try that with me. I've stated before that it is not the place of the government to keep the braindead alive. If a person CHOOSES to give birth, if a person CHOOSES to keep a loved one alive that can no longer sustain thought, that is THEIR business. Not the role of the government.

 

Totally irrelevant. There are now so many avenues for people to get an education or even materials for sex that what a sitting president believes isn't going to significantly impact anything.

oh you've got to be kidding me. he's the president! Of course people listen to what he says. He is the LEADER of the COUNTRY, regardless of how intelligent or stupid anything he says it, people WILL listen to him because he's the president. People believe that the president is working in their best interests, and that people elected him because he knows the right answers to the right questions. of course people will listen to him. Saying "oh, people don't listen to what the president says" is like saying people don't have ears. it's completly untrue.

 

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.

I'll be sure to tell every rape victim that gets pregnant and can't get an abortion that you don't give a flying willy that somebody sexually assaulted them with their willy.

 

Still, why add to such senseless behavior?

Senseless behaviour is stopped with education, not laws. Laws that mandate better education? Sure. But making laws that say "you can't do that" have yet to stop the existing problems. They have, historically, made this particular issue WORSE.

[Totenkopf]

However, the one thing you fail to mention is that they are not judged as nonhuman b/c they have fewer rights than adults.

I would say that they are indeed judged as less than human. If they were judged as 100% human, they would have all the rights.

Slaves did not have all the same rights because they were not judged to be human. The comparason is similar.

 

 

Poor reasoning here. By that same standard, prisoners (nevermind POWs)are "less than human" (subhuman?) as well. Most people in every country have less rights than their leaders, so I guess most of us are "less than human" also.

 

A metal detector can detect a metal plate in your head, but that doesn't make you a robot/less human either.

 

Which is entirely irrelevent.......

So, lets stay on point? Which is: an ECG can measure brainwaves, ie: electrical impulses. If this is a defining point of humanity, then all things with electrical impulses in the brain measurable by an ECG should be considered human, or at least partially so.

..ah! So then you would agree that my hand deserves all the same rights as me because it contains human DNA. You agree that cancer should not be removed because it containts NATURALLY OCCURRING HUMAN DNA.

 

 

My point is that just b/c a machine can detect anything doesn't make someone human or not. By your logic, if the human brain ceases to produce any brainwave/electrical impulses, the deceased is no longer even human (not merely dead). I would say that measurable brainwave activity does prove that a human fetus is more than just an indeterminate lump of amorphous tissue mass. As to the offal about cancers and hands being "people" somehow b/c they contain any human DNA, well.....you said it, not me.

 

 

If you're so willing to overlook terminating a life in the early stages, when you claim there is no sentient thinking, how far are you from euthanizing people no longer capable of sentient thought?

 

please, don't even try that with me. I've stated before that it is not the place of the government to keep the braindead alive. If a person CHOOSES to give birth, if a person CHOOSES to keep a loved one alive that can no longer sustain thought, that is THEIR business. Not the role of the government.

 

So, you're saying that even a debilitated person has human rights, but you're all to ready to allow for them to be violated b/c someone deems them a drain. So much for being "human", I guess. Btw, I said nothing about government involvement in the decision process, you inferred that.

 

 

 

Totally irrelevant. There are now so many avenues for people to get an education or even materials for sex that what a sitting president believes isn't going to significantly impact anything.

 

oh you've got to be kidding me. he's the president! Of course people listen to what he says. He is the LEADER of the COUNTRY, regardless of how intelligent or stupid anything he says it, people WILL listen to him because he's the president. People believe that the president is working in their best interests, and that people elected him because he knows the right answers to the right questions. of course people will listen to him. Saying "oh, people don't listen to what the president says" is like saying people don't have ears. it's completly untrue.

 

Wow, this is just too precious. You seriously expect me to believe that you think b/c a president is for or against something that everyone that voted him into office goes lockstep with him on every issue? Nevermind that few people (if any) actually say things like "well, I'm going to the drugstore b/c the president says condoms are responsible". Since when did a president become the sole source of information about sex education? If these people truly believed the president, why they'd also be far more likely to abstain and thus deprive you of such a silly position in the first place. On the other hand, Clinton did seem to convince gullible youths that felatio wasn't sex.

 

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.

 

I'll be sure to tell every rape victim that gets pregnant and can't get an abortion that you don't give a flying willy that somebody sexually assaulted them with their willy.

 

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.

 

Still, why add to such senseless behavior?

Senseless behaviour is stopped with education, not laws. Laws that mandate better education? Sure. But making laws that say "you can't do that" have yet to stop the existing problems. They have, historically, made this particular issue WORSE.

 

Education is only half the equation. If your statement were true, many self-inflicted behaviors amongst educated people would disappear overnight. We know that drinking and driving don't go together, but that abuse hasn't ended. Do you seriously believe that everyone who abuses narcotics really have no clue what they're doing to themselves? How about adults who in engage in extramarital affairs that produce children? They didn't know pregnancy was a possible end result of sex? Education alone, without any enforcement mechanisms, is utterly useless. About as vainglorious as saying that the enemy will stop fighting you if only you could get him to sit down and see the sweet light of (your) reason. Nice try.

[Web Rider]

Poor reasoning here. By that same standard, prisoners (nevermind POWs)are "less than human" (subhuman?) as well. Most people in every country have less rights than their leaders, so I guess most of us are "less than human" also.

Quite so actually. Does not the government get away with more? Do not it's officials seem to have more freedom to do things that would normally get Average Joe in trouble? And indeed, most people probably regard criminals as less than human. That's why they're called criminals, and not "humans", in order to strip them of their humanity and make it easier for us to agree with imprisoning them.

 

My point is that just b/c a machine can detect anything doesn't make someone human or not.

So you would agree that an ECG is a bad standard to judge humanity by?

By your logic, if the human brain ceases to produce any brainwave/electrical impulses, the deceased is no longer even human (not merely dead).

Much as they retain human DNA for many many years after death, they are indeed no longer "human". You can't really claim the dead are afforded freedom of speech. The right to bear arms. They WERE human, yes, but since they're dead....

I would say that measurable brainwave activity does prove that a human fetus is more than just an indeterminate lump of amorphous tissue mass. As to the offal about cancers and hands being "people" somehow b/c they contain any human DNA, well.....you said it, not me.

Ah, but YOU said that fetuses were more than fish because they contain human DNA, and thus, that's why they get rights. My hand has human DNA, therefore it should have the same rights as humans.

I suggest you define "brainwave activity" before we go further, because, as I have continually pointed out, cats have brainwaves too, in fact, most living organisims with brains have brainwaves.

 

 

So, you're saying that even a debilitated person has human rights, but you're all to ready to allow for them to be violated b/c someone deems them a drain. So much for being "human", I guess. Btw, I said nothing about government involvement in the decision process, you inferred that.

We are discussing laws here are we not? The banning of abortion is something done by governments. If people don't want to HAVE abortions, it is a matter of enough people being unwilling to give them and enough people not getting them, not a peice of paper....anyway.

But debilitated is NOT what I spoke of before now was it? I specially said "braindead" people. There is a massive difference between those who are braindead and those who are missing a leg. Their rights are not being violated, there is no right that says a person MUST live at all costs. People die, it happens. This person would die without somebody intervening. If somebody who's not paid with my taxes wants to do that? great! if not, well, then let nature take it's course.

 

 

Wow, this is just too precious. You seriously expect me to believe that you think b/c a president is for or against something that everyone that voted him into office goes lockstep with him on every issue?

my my, you really don't read anything I post. I said people would listen to him. I never said who would. I simply said that becase of his position and number of supporters he has a rather hefty weight riding with his words.

 

Nevermind that few people (if any) actually say things like "well, I'm going to the drugstore b/c the president says condoms are responsible".

Schools have dropped sex ed classes because the president said "abstinence only" is the way to go.

Since when did a president become the sole source of information about sex education?[.quote]

You are also apparently good at putting words in my mouth. I said he was a weighty source because of his political position. not the only one, not necessarily the best one even. Just a weighty one.

If these people truly believed the president, why they'd also be far more likely to abstain and thus deprive you of such a silly position in the first place.

"these people" are not generally in a position to care honestly. They are married, or like you say, abstain. But because the president has decided this way, they feel it is their duty to enforce that position upon others.

On the other hand, Clinton did seem to convince gullible youths that felatio wasn't sex.

Most "youths" these days believe that everything besides traditional sex isn't sex. Is that's Clinton's doing? maybe. probly their parents had a hand in it too.

 

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.

ninja'd eh? Sorry, if you check the quote in my post, you will see that that line did not exist when I first quoted you. Actually, before the Roe V Wade, they were taken into account by the law. The Law said "no".

 

Education is only half the equation. If your statement were true, many self-inflicted behaviors amongst educated people would disappear overnight.

I believe you will find that self inflicted injury is not common among the highly educated and that mental disorders, such as depression, bipolar, anxiety, and others, play a role in such a thing. Self-inflicted things are generally the result of an unstable mind.

We know that drinking and driving don't go together, but that abuse hasn't ended.

That is likly due to the pathetic attempts schools do at educating people on the subject.

Do you seriously believe that everyone who abuses narcotics really have no clue what they're doing to themselves?

No, I believe they are doing it because they are addicted and can't stop. I believe education on the subject could prevent it entirely, and help treat those addicted, instead of calling them criminals and throwing them in a cell.

How about adults who in engage in extramarital affairs that produce children? They didn't know pregnancy was a possible end result of sex?

I think they selectivly chose to believe that it would not happen to them. However, I do believe that many people are geniunely surprised when they get preggers after sex. WHY? Because there is a great emphasis on sex in our culture, but NOT on SAFE sex.

Education alone, without any enforcement mechanisms, is utterly useless. About as vainglorious as saying that the enemy will stop fighting you if only you could get him to sit down and see the sweet light of (your) reason. Nice try.

If your enemy saw the "light" of your line of thought, then logically your enemy now believes that your line of thought is truth, and therefore would not fight somebody he agrees with.

No, I believe better education can stop these things before the start. I doubt they will have a significant affect on people already taking part in them. People already involved them generally don't want to change...because it's hard, it's scary, and people don't like difficulty and scary things.

[Jae Onasi]

Mayo clinic (one of the leading medical research institutions in the world) has a site on basic fetal development. If you want more in depth than that, there are good books on neonatology, embryology and fetal development, and Gabbe's Obstetrics is a classic medical text in the field.

 

This page describes development in the first trimester. During week 3 after conception (considered week 5 of pregnancy) is when the heart starts to beat (hence the confusion of 'by week three' and 'in week three'). While with a stethoscope someone may not be able to hear the heartbeat until week 20 of pregnancy (18 weeks after conception), it's beating well before then, and can be heard on ultrasound much earlier.

 

Medline plus (a service of the NIH) has a gestational timeline. The brain starts forming at week 3 gestation (1 week after conception) and is formed enough for the baby to start moving around week 9 gestation and making active movements between weeks 13 and 16 gestation. I have not extensively searched fetal EEGs.

 

In one JAMA article the authors state fetal pain may occur as early as 23 weeks gestation, though the authors suggested it was closer to 29 weeks. Another medical article notes fetuses may experience pain as early as 26 weeks and possibly from 20 weeks gestation and on. In a few other articles I looked at, the general consensus seems to be that fetal pain starts around 26 weeks gestation when the particular nerve cell tracts that register most pain types form.

 

Your embryology/prenatal trivia for the day.

 

Mod note: Don't get too descriptive of sex types, please. We're PG-13 here.

[Web Rider]

I'm curious to know how a fetus could be 3 weeks into gestation after only having been concieved a week earlier.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm curious to know how a fetus could be 3 weeks into gestation after only having been concieved a week earlier.

 

It's the difference between dating pregnancy and dating actual fetal development. Gestational dating starts from the day of the woman's last menstrual period, which is about 2 weeks before actual conception, typically. So while a woman may be at 6 weeks gestation, the embryo is actually only 4 weeks old.

[Web Rider]

It's the difference between dating pregnancy and dating actual fetal development. Gestational dating starts from the day of the woman's last menstrual period, which is about 2 weeks before actual conception, typically. So while a woman may be at 6 weeks gestation, the embryo is actually only 4 weeks old.

 

that sounds like really poor math IMO. I mean, I realize it's difficult to say " This fetus is EXACTLY X weeks along." But it sounds really iffy. I mean, if they know that they're generally about 2 weeks off, why don't they just adjust their weeks instead of totally throwing people off with flipping back and forth between "base 8" and "base 10".

[Totenkopf]

Quite so actually. Does not the government get away with more? Do not it's officials seem to have more freedom to do things that would normally get Average Joe in trouble? And indeed, most people probably regard criminals as less than human. That's why they're called criminals, and not "humans", in order to strip them of their humanity and make it easier for us to agree with imprisoning them.

If one takes your logic to its natural conclusion, then Canadians are more human than Chinese, b/c clearly Canadians enjoy a greater degree of freedom than their Chinese counterparts.

So you would agree that an ECG is a bad standard to judge humanity by?

I'd say it was good for checking for electrical impulse activity.

Much as they retain human DNA for many many years after death, they are indeed no longer "human". You can't really claim the dead are afforded freedom of speech. The right to bear arms. They WERE human, yes, but since they're dead....

So, if the remains aren't human, what species are they?

 

I would say that measurable brainwave activity does prove that a human fetus is more than just an indeterminate lump of amorphous tissue mass. As to the offal about cancers and hands being "people" somehow b/c they contain any human DNA, well.....you said it, not me.

 

Ah, but YOU said that fetuses were more than fish because they contain human DNA, and thus, that's why they get rights. My hand has human DNA, therefore it should have the same rights as humans. I suggest you define "brainwave activity" before we go further, because, as I have continually pointed out, cats have brainwaves too, in fact, most living organisims with brains have brainwaves.

 

Get real. Your argument is that a human fetus is less human b/c it share similarities in appearance with other animals at various stages of development. It's a discredited argument and not something to be taken seriously. Fish and humans are genetically nonviable for purposes of procreation. What will the future hold? Who knows, but it won't be relevant to this conversation in the here and now.

We are discussing laws here are we not? The banning of abortion is something done by governments. If people don't want to HAVE abortions, it is a matter of enough people being unwilling to give them and enough people not getting them, not a peice of paper....anyway. But debilitated is NOT what I spoke of before now was it? I specially said "braindead" people. There is a massive difference between those who are braindead and those who are missing a leg. Their rights are not being violated, there is no right that says a person MUST live at all costs. People die, it happens. This person would die without somebody intervening. If somebody who's not paid with my taxes wants to do that? great! if not, well, then let nature take it's course.

 

I'd say brain dead qualifies as a severe form of debilitation. Apparently, when you look at the history of human "civilization", there is no hard and fast rule that says a person must live at all.

My my, you really don't read anything I post. I said people would listen to him. I never said who would. I simply said that becase of his position and number of supporters he has a rather hefty weight riding with his words.

 

Well, frankly, you did in fact say: people. My response didn't limit itself to one or two specific groups. I merely state that it's really stretching credulity to assert that the president's position on the issue is going to trump all other sources of info a person has on this subject. Presidential policies to "discourage" some formal school based system of sex-ed does not equal information blackout. Anyone who looks to a president for learning about the birds and the bees is as stupid as the educated person who abuses narcotics thinking it won't happen to him/her. Don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone say "I'm not using prevention b/c the president says it's wrong".

 

You are also apparently good at putting words in my mouth. I said he was a weighty source because of his political position. not the only one, not necessarily the best one even. Just a weighty one.

 

Actually, you're the one being a bit disingenuous here. You're imputing far too much value to the president's position on sex ed in the schools vis-a-vis people's behavior.

 

If these people truly believed the president, why they'd also be far more likely to abstain and thus deprive you of such a silly position in the first place.

 

"these people" are not generally in a position to care honestly. They are married, or like you say, abstain. But because the president has decided this way, they feel it is their duty to enforce that position upon others.

 

 

Not clear on your point here. Are you trying to assert that the president's policy is forcing everyone to abstain or be forced into abstaining? The "these people" I was referring to were the ones unduly influenced by the president's position on sex-ed (whoever they are).

 

Most "youths" these days believe that everything besides traditional sex isn't sex. Is that's Clinton's doing? maybe. probly their parents had a hand in it too.

 

Clinton as cultural icon of sorts, perhaps. Their parents probably by default (ie not taking time to discuss these issues w/their kids most likely, all the more so with the proliferation of smut on the web and pop culture in general).

 

 

 

{post#28}

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.

 

{post#35}

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.

 

 

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.

ninja'd eh? Sorry, if you check the quote in my post, you will see that that line did not exist when I first quoted you. Actually, before the Roe V Wade, they were taken into account by the law. The Law said "no".

 

Perhaps you forgot to read. Go back and check. The only diff between the 2 is that I used bold print the 2nd time around.

 

I believe you will find that self inflicted injury is not common among the highly educated and that mental disorders, such as depression, bipolar, anxiety, and others, play a role in such a thing. Self-inflicted things are generally the result of an unstable mind.

 

Now that's a quaint notion......educated minds are axiomatically stable ones.

 

 

We know that drinking and driving don't go together, but that abuse hasn't ended.

That is likly due to the pathetic attempts schools do at educating people on the subject.

 

Fascinating. You're implying that barring a formal school class, people don't have the sense to figure out that driving intoxicated is stupid. Do these people all live in a vacuum?

 

No, I believe they are doing it because they are addicted and can't stop. I believe education on the subject could prevent it entirely, and help treat those addicted, instead of calling them criminals and throwing them in a cell.

 

You're leaving out a very big step here. They had to take the drugs (in most cases voluntarily) FIRST before an addiction could ever develop. They may need to be educated about how to get off of a particular substance after an addiction has formed, though.

 

 

How about adults who in engage in extramarital affairs that produce children? They didn't know pregnancy was a possible end result of sex?

I think they selectivly chose to believe that it would not happen to them. However, I do believe that many people are geniunely surprised when they get preggers after sex. WHY? Because there is a great emphasis on sex in our culture, but NOT on SAFE sex.

 

But what about all that education they had that was supposed to prevent them from engaging in the act (or at least in an "unprotected" state) in the first place? Oops, guess none of that learning took too well.

 

 

Education alone, without any enforcement mechanisms, is utterly useless. About as vainglorious as saying that the enemy will stop fighting you if only you could get him to sit down and see the sweet light of (your) reason. Nice try.

 

If your enemy saw the "light" of your line of thought, then logically your enemy now believes that your line of thought is truth, and therefore would not fight somebody he agrees with. No, I believe better education can stop these things before the start.

 

Sorry, that just smacks of extreme naivete`. You missed the point, though. There is an underlying and somewhat arrogant assumption that YOU can "educate" someone to do things YOUR way, when their goals are often contradictory to yours.

[Web Rider]

If one takes your logic to its natural conclusion, then Canadians are more human than Chinese, b/c clearly Canadians enjoy a greater degree of freedom than their Chinese counterparts.

I would likly agree with an argument that the Chinese are looked at as a lower set of humans due to their being prevented from "being all they can be" so to speak.

 

I'd say it was good for checking for electrical impulses/brainwave activity.

Then we agree that the ECG is not a good unit of measure when looking for "humanity".

 

So, if the remains aren't human, what species are they?

When people talk about remins, it geneerally goes: "these are the remains of a human" or "these are human remains" in short, they are what remains of what was once a human.

 

Get real. Your argument is that a human fetus is less human b/c it share similarities in appearance with other animals at various stages of development. It's a discredited argument and not something to be taken seriously. Fish and humans are genetically nonviable for purposes of procreation. What will the future hold? Who knows, but it won't be relevant to this conversation in the here and now.

no, that's not my argument. My argument is that if ANYTHING with human DNA should be given rights, my hand should not be legally allowed to be forced by myself to excercise my freedom of speech. My argument is: human DNA does not mean something is human. Cancer has human DNA and we remove it all the time. While human DNA may be a FACTOR in what makes a human, it is not the only one. To argue that ALL something needs to be human is human DNA is a false argument.

 

I'd say brain dead qualifies as a severe form of debilitation. Apparently, when you look at the history of human "civilization", there is no hard and fast rule that says a person must live at all.

Can I call fuzzy numbers? Death is the most extreme form of debilitation. Why do we deprive the dead the right to live? It is illegial to kill yourself in most states. Is not your body's own self destruction violating that law?

 

 

Well, frankly, you did in fact say: people. My response didn't limit itself to one or two specific groups.

your response explicitly selected the people who elected the president as the group agreeing. And if you thought I was including chimps, thou art having much silly thoughts.

I merely state that it's really stretching credulity to assert that the president's position on the issue is going to trump all other sources of info a person has on this subject.

I stated for clarification that it did not trump all others. In fact any opinion or research only trumps others if a person chooses it over others. I stated it was a weighty opinion due to the prestige of his political position.

Presidential policies to "discourage" some formal school based system of sex-ed does not equal information blackout.

The president started a plan to offer 1 million dollars to any school that would teach abstinence ONLY. Which, a number of schools have turned down based on INFORMATION BLACKOUT of safe sex practices, and the fact that 1 million is diddily.

Anyone who looks to a president for learning about the birds and the bees is as stupid as the educated person who abuses narcotics thinking it won't happen to him/her. Don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone say "I'm not using prevention b/c the president says it's wrong".

Guess that's where we differ, I have. What can I say, I agree, but I have heard that assertion.

 

Actually, you're the one being a bit disingenuous here. You're imputing far too much value to the president's position on sex ed in the schools vis-a-vis people's behavior.

If you wish to look up the number of schools that teach abstinence only, and how many started AFTER Bush was elected, you are welcome to do so. As it is, I have only memories of newspaper articles which I cannot present here in any other form than "I remember...."

 

Not clear on your point here. Are you trying to assert that the president's policy is forcing everyone to abstain or be forced into abstaining? The "these people" I was referring to were the ones unduly influenced by the president's position on sex-ed (whoever they are).

That the people who are not unduly agreeing, but willfully agreeing, are using the fact that the president said it, as clout against those who disagree.

 

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.

 

Perhaps you forgot to read. Go back and check. The only diff between the 2 is that I used bold print the 2nd time around.

ah, yes, it does appear I missed that, apologies. Still, in earlier times, the law said: "women must hold a place(the womb) for her husband's seed" and later less infringingly, that they couldn't get abortions in many places till after Roe v Wade.(though apparently she's changed her mind and is married to a radical anti-abortionist)

 

Now that's a quaint notion......educated minds are axiomatically stable ones.

My implication was only that educated minds are less prone to such self-inflictions, either because their minds are more stable or because they realize what's going on in their head before they act on it and get help.

 

Fascinating. You're implying that barring a formal school class, people don't have the sense to figure out that driving intoxicated is stupid. Do these people all live in a vacuum?

Barring a formal class, people find out drunk driving is bad by getting drunk, driving, and then killing others or being killed. Now, since drunk driving is still happening, I would glean that the classes that are supposed to dissuade you from driving drunk are not as effective as they should be. I certainly don't approve of the "guess and check" method when it comes to playing with lives.

 

You're leaving out a very big step here. They had to take the drugs (in most cases voluntarily) FIRST before an addiction could ever develop. They may need to be educated about how to get off of a particular substance after an addiction has formed, though.

Indeed, and other people in general need to be educated on how to help them do that. Working under the assumption that they took the drugs voluntarily likly means that any kind of information given to them regarding drugs and avoiding them was insufficient.

 

But what about all that education they had that was supposed to prevent them from engaging in the act (or at least in an "unprotected" state) in the first place? Oops, guess none of that learning took too well.

It's sad that we are only recently learning that all people learn differently. it seems so obvious. In any case, "education" is not limited to those who would do it, but also those who would propose to educate others. One cannot claim to be able to educate if those in their charge are not learning.

 

Sorry, that just smacks of extreme naivete`. You missed the point, though. There is an underlying and somewhat arrogant assumption that YOU can "educate" someone to do things YOUR way, when their goals are often contradictory to yours.

People convert to different religions all the time. While it is true that nobody changes your mind but yourself, you cannot even attempt to change your mind without first getting a new and different set of information regarding a subject. So, if one does not attempt to sit down with ones enemy, neither you nor your enemy could even being to see each others POV to even attempt to change your minds.

[Totenkopf]

Rather than going on a point by point basis, I have a few questions:

 

1)What, for you, is the conclusive proof that something/one is human?

 

2)If a human female delivers a chimpanzee to term and it is born alive, is it now human?

 

2a)If society grants that chimp the same rights as a human being, it it now human also?

 

3)How did we get this far as a species before the invention of formal education?

 

4)Do you really believe that people who go to the "school of hard knocks" are too stupid to figure out that driving intoxicated/stoned is a bad idea?

 

5)Do I need a class to tell me that pointing a loaded gun at my head and pulling the trigger is suicidally dangerous, or will being told by my parents as a youth/ actually observing someone else do it suffice?

 

6)Does the fact that someone might try to classify another group of people as "subhuman" for political/economic reasons actually make them so?

 

7)Do you believe that your enemy/adversary is going to do what you want simply because you ask him to? Human history seems to say otherwise.

 

8)Why do you believe that b/c an administration wants to push abstinence only programs that that means there is an effective blackout on sex-ed info given the fact we are in the age of information(tv/mags/internet, etc..)?

 

9)Realizing, as you've noted already, that some people have an immortality complex, do you not see that very bright people will still make a slew of stupid decisions based on their own egos overriding their better judgement?

[Darth InSidious]

Web Rider, there's a word for people you consider 'inferior': untermenschen.

[Jae Onasi]

that sounds like really poor math IMO. I mean, I realize it's difficult to say " This fetus is EXACTLY X weeks along." But it sounds really iffy. I mean, if they know that they're generally about 2 weeks off, why don't they just adjust their weeks instead of totally throwing people off with flipping back and forth between "base 8" and "base 10".

 

Gestational dating is the most common convention used in pregnancy, and dating from the date of the last period is the easiest device for women and docs to work with for pregnancy dating purposes. I would use gestational dating exclusively, but there's been some confusion in this thread between gestational dating vs. embryo development age, so I tried to include both in the specific cases that were discussed here (date of first heartbeat in particular).

 

It's actually easy to determine fetal age through the first trimester--the growth in the fetal crown-to-rump length is nearly uniform from baby to baby for the first 12 weeks or so, and if you know the crown-to-rump length you can figure out the date of conception pretty much to the day.

 

Btw--ECG is the same as EKG--both measure cardiac activity. EEG is electroencephalogram, which measures brain activity, so I'll use that convention here.

[Web Rider]

Rather than going on a point by point basis, I have a few questions:

1)What, for you, is the conclusive proof that something/one is human?

Keep in mind these are not the ONLY things, just some that come to mind. It needs to be born, it needs to not require constant(and by constant I mean every waking second, not every 6 hours or so), nourishment and protection, it needs to be able to survive outside a specially designed containment unit(ie: a womb) for an extended amount of time to a reasonable degree of success. it needs to be capable of at least minimal cognitive thought, and of course, contain human DNA and a human form.

 

2)If a human female delivers a chimpanzee to term and it is born alive, is it now human?

Since this is not possible, I shall not address it.

 

2a)If society grants that chimp the same rights as a human being, it it now human also?

in the same way that if society grants somebody under 18 the same rights as those over 18, yes. So....socially, yes, genetically, no.

 

3)How did we get this far as a species before the invention of formal education?

I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of primitive hunters teaching other hunters good ways to throw rocks and sticks. "formal" in the past could appear very "informal" to us now. Humans are social creatures after all.

 

4)Do you really believe that people who go to the "school of hard knocks" are too stupid to figure out that driving intoxicated/stoned is a bad idea?

yeah, 'cause I met 'em. They didn't figure it out till they totaled their car or hurt somebody. My school had at least 1 person die annually from car accidents, often related to drunk driving.

 

5)Do I need a class to tell me that pointing a loaded gun at my head and pulling the trigger is suicidally dangerous, or will being told by my parents as a youth/ actually observing someone else do it suffice?

You still required somebody other than yourself to inform you what a gun was, and what it did, and why you shouldn't do it. I'm not proposing that the ONLY place to get an education is in a brick room. only that those attempting, those in that brick room, must be less than successful when looking at current drunk-driving rates.

 

6)Does the fact that someone might try to classify another group of people as "subhuman" for political/economic reasons actually make them so?

Genetically? no. Socially? yes. This has pretty much been the way it's worked for thousands of years. If people are willing to buy it, well, then I guess it's true enough for them.

 

7)Do you believe that your enemy/adversary is going to do what you want simply because you ask him to? Human history seems to say otherwise.

I believe my enemy may question his motivation when he sees I'd rather talk things out than just kill him. The only outcome from violence is more violence.

 

8)Why do you believe that b/c an administration wants to push abstinence only programs that that means there is an effective blackout on sex-ed info given the fact we are in the age of information(tv/mags/internet, etc..)?

Because they've said so. Bush has said it in his speeches.

 

9)Realizing, as you've noted already, that some people have an immortality complex, do you not see that very bright people will still make a slew of stupid decisions based on their own egos overriding their better judgement?

Quite possibly. They are only human. No amount of anything currently available can change that. Of course, I find egotistical intelligent people to be somewhat contradictory.

 

Web Rider, there's a word for people you consider 'inferior': untermenschen.

 

ooooo, a Nazi comparason. You wound me....oh, wait, no you don't, since I know all you're doing is going: "OMG! You think some people are less human! You teh Nazi!!11! lol"

[Totenkopf]

So, where exactly do you stand on what makes a human actually human? I see you include a partial list, but then revert to this duality argument about cultural/social vs genetic. This is part of the kind of reasoning that gave us things like anti-semitism, racism, anti-religious bigotry. It seems to me that if you qualify as "genetically" (ie the byproduct of human conception between two other humans) human, your membership in the human race is assured. The fact that some political power doesn't see fit to give you certain rights and privileges doesn't make you any less human. Frankly, using some of your reasoning, if a "robot" attains a degree of self awareness in it's programing and has a chip that incorporates some human DNA, as well as having a human form, it is not merely a sentient being, but human as well. If all it took to rob someone of their humanity was a government proclamation, there'd be no need for outfits like human rights watch or amnesty international b/c it wouldn't be human beings that were being tortured or discriminated against......thus there be nothing for them to protest in their current forms.

 

Also, you demonstrate throughout that people don't actually need formal education on a lot of subjects b/c they can get it through personal observation, friends, family, etc.. The fact that an administration decides not to use federal funds for a certain type of sex-ed program DOES NOT equal an effective info blackout b/c the administration is only one of a myriad of sources of information. People are still free to organize and give their own presentations, advertise their services via the media, etc.. to get the word out. What you're showing me is that people just get more and more adept at blaming others for their own personal behaviors and failures.

 

@Jae--good catch, should have corrected that myself in an earlier post (esp given the # of med professionals in my family).

[Web Rider]

So, where exactly do you stand on what makes a human actually human? I see you include a partial list...

What I gave you were the best things I could think of that combined made something a human. Given those things, I am more than likly to say that the thing with those is a human.

 

but then revert to this duality argument about cultural/social vs genetic. This is part of the kind of reasoning that gave us things like anti-semitism, racism, anti-religious bigotry.

Such cannot be helped. There is no way to accurately define humanity, even based on DNA, because each person's DNA is unique. How can we say that X strand of human DNA is a good base for humanity? It must also be socially defined. Yes, socially defined things don't always produce GOOD results, but "good" is a relative term and as long as humans do human things, society will continue to produce "bad" things.

 

It seems to me that if you qualify as "genetically" (ie the byproduct of human conception between two other humans) human, your membership in the human race is assured. The fact that some political power doesn't see fit to give you certain rights and privileges doesn't make you any less human.

As part of the human species? yes, but laws are not part of our biology. one cannot claim that we should outlaw abortion because some marker in our DNA says so. "Humanity" in our current debated context is also assigned through social customs and norms, if we were to follow your rules, we could not say that people have the right to free speech, and then say schools can mandate what kids can and cannot say because they are younger humans. While the hypothetical government in question cannot strip you of your genetic connection to the human race, many government have historically be rather effective at doing so anyway.

 

Frankly, using some of your reasoning, if a "robot" attains a degree of self awareness in it's programing and has a chip that incorporates some human DNA, as well as having a human form, it is not merely a sentient being, but human as well.

I would agree that due to those factors, said robot has a good argument for claiming to be human. Lets take the robot girl in the Alien Resurrection movie, she looked human, acted human, and had human biological components, she was self aware and sentient. I would say she had a strong case for being human. Even if she was not 100% human. But, as I already said, though some of our DNA says "this being is human", some of it also denotes that we are all different, even if very slightly, therefore, it is impossible to say that one particular, complete strand of DNA is a base for humanity.

 

If all it took to rob someone of their humanity was a government proclamation, there'd be no need for outfits like human rights watch or amnesty international b/c it wouldn't be human beings that were being tortured or discriminated against......thus there be nothing for them to protest in their current forms.

That is all it takes, is a government proclamantion. Conter to your point however, such statements are only true if people accept them to be. You or I or a government can CLAIM anything we want, and it will only become truth, even if it's a lie, it will only become truth with people accept it as such. Until then it's just an opinion.

And human rights groups exist because they do not subscribe to that particular opinion.

 

Also, you demonstrate throughout that people don't actually need formal education on a lot of subjects b/c they can get it through personal observation, friends, family, etc..

 

The fact that an administration decides not to use federal funds for a certain type of sex-ed program DOES NOT equal an effective info blackout b/c the administration is only one of a myriad of sources of information.

in the area where it is being taught, and not being learned of ones own volition it does. But yes, it does not equal and information blackout EVERYWHERE, but it does equal one in a place that is supposed to be about teaching information, not censoring it.

 

People are still free to organize and give their own presentations, advertise their services via the media, etc.. to get the word out. What you're showing me is that people just get more and more adept at blaming others for their own personal behaviors and failures.

You are welcome to demonstrate to me a K-12 institution that teaches abstinence only but allows for the hand outs of sexual-protection devices or information on campus.

[Totenkopf]

I almost hate to say this, but you're a bit confused. Something is true or not. The # of people who say something is true does not change that fact. It only shows a new truth: that people are willing to suspend their own good judgement b/c someone told them to or forced them to. Green is green, even if 65% of the people say it's blue. The only possible exception to this is to change green and blue by their very definitions to match your new "reality".

 

Using your apparent definitions of what constitutues humanity allows for people to robbed of their "rights" simply b/c they are declared subhuman/untermenschen or undesirables. The fact that someone will relegate you to a lesser status does not in fact MAKE you less human, it just allows for you to be treated as such on whimsy. If I take over your town, throw you in a dungeon and leave you to rot....are you truly less human in fact or just treated as though you were? People talk about perception being reality, but if your neighbors think you're a pedaphile, are you now? If one takes your approach, the answer is resoundingly yes.

if we were to follow your rules, we could not say that people have the right to free speech, and then say schools can mandate what kids can and cannot say because they are younger humans.

Perhaps you can clarify this statement.

 

Frankly, you've already conceded that an administration policy is not the final say on access to information and confirmed my assertion that people who fail to learn will always find a way to blame others. It is you that is hung up on the idea that all learning must somehow be channeled through the school system. Are you an education major, perchance?

 

I'd be a little careful about buying too much into relativism. The commies and nazis used the same tactics. Hitler and Goebbels were big on propogating the big lie as truth. If I can convince enough people that jews, gays, gypsies and slavs are subhuman, then now they are.

[Web Rider]

I almost hate to say this, but you're a bit confused. Something is true or not. The # of people who say something is true does not change that fact. It only shows a new truth: that people are willing to suspend their own good judgement b/c someone told them to or forced them to. Green is green, even if 65% of the people say it's blue. The only possible exception to this is to change green and blue by their very definitions to match your new "reality".

Truth is only objective because you believe it to be. Which makes your take on truth a subjective one. If people say the color green is to be named blue, it is blue. While it does not change the color, the color will henceforth be known as "blue".

 

Using your apparent definitions of what constitutues humanity allows for people to robbed of their "rights" simply b/c they are declared subhuman/untermenschen or undesirables. The fact that someone will relegate you to a lesser status does not in fact MAKE you less human, it just allows for you to be treated as such on whimsy. If I take over your town, throw you in a dungeon and leave you to rot....are you truly less human in fact or just treated as though you were? People talk about perception being reality, but if your neighbors think you're a pedaphile, are you now? If one takes your approach, the answer is resoundingly yes.

quite correct, and that's nothing new.

 

 

Frankly, you've already conceded that an administration policy is not the final say on access to information and confirmed my assertion that people who fail to learn will always find a way to blame others. It is you that is hung up on the idea that all learning must somehow be channeled through the school system. Are you an education major, perchance?

no, but I don't honestly trust people to learn themselves, I think most people must be taught. Formal or otherwise, the desire to learn of ones own volition is not universal.

 

I'd be a little careful about buying too much into relativism. The commies and nazis used the same tactics. Hitler and Goebbels were big on propogating the big lie as truth. If I can convince enough people that jews, gays, gypsies and slavs are subhuman, then now they are.

And is that not what we do when we argue abortion? Argue shades of truth in order to get more people to agree with us so that we can use that weight to legislate our POV?