Community archive
by zlitocook
by hal 9000
Life Begins when the Kids have left the house and moved Far Far Far away.
One of mine has and the other is at best 10 minutes driving time away so Life for [b]SHMBO[/b] & Me has not yet began. :(
Col ]:)
by zlitocook
Yes I have the same problem; my son got his self with child too soon. And he lost his job now we have been paying out of the savings for our retirement. He has lots of job offers but nothing so far, our savings have gone to keeping his house and utilities on.
What happened to the idea that I will provide for my family no matter what?
My son will ask me to fix or help him with simple computer problems, even after I sent him to the same school I went to.
by ontheropes
Before I kinked my fern and got fired blah blah, we had plans for building a much larger house to accomodate everyone easier, a modified duplex style log home.
I think it depends upon the individual. I know some people have kids that could be poster children for abortion and I'm [i]not[/i] saying that's the case for anyone here. I understand that viewpoint, I just don't share it.
Just that the thought of my daughter and son-in-law moving out hurts me. I'd have to mow my own lawn again, for one thing. I can think of other reasons too.
by x-marcap
That is a strictly scientific answer.
The DNA patrtern is then established. Even if the fertilized egg is transplanted, it will have the same genetic nature.
by x-marcap
With the fact that fertilized eggs can be transplanted and be viable the only answer is the one that liberal hate. Life begins at conception, or when you get your pilot's license. I can accept either of those two premises.
Good to see you back Max!!!
by nicknielsen
The answer I [b]know[/b] to be true is that life began (on Earth) so long ago that nobody human was there and has continuously reproduced ever since.
The answer I believe to be true is that life begins when a fetus can react to external stimuli.
The answer I want to be true is that life begins when all the bills are paid. ;p
Edit: type, post, proofread
by j.lupo
the old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
I wish a way to positively, absolutely, without question, define when a life begins. I was told by a lawyer freind of mine that the law is fluid, always changing and adapting to societal values, morals, desires, wants, etc. So I don't think the Law can define it.
Medically, I think someday we might get some sort of medical absolute on when or what point life begins.
by pkrdk
by ontheropes
my empty chicken coop? I had plenty of eggs when I had chickens but now that I don't have any chickens I don't have any eggs.
I must ponder further.
by j.lupo
But if you believe that a "pure chicken" comes from a chicken egg, then it could only have been produced by a chicken. So the chicken would have to come first.
Now if you want to believe in one of the bible, G-d created all the animals first. So the Chicken would have existed first. Also, Noah took the animals two by two (male and female) to survive the floods.
I am not saying the answer is in religon. My comment was more about trying to answer something I really don't see as answerable. At least not with what we know today.
I also don't agree with farahdi. My beliefs about abortion have nothing to do with my answer to the question.
by mjwx
Life begins at the first cell division.
Now if your question was when is a feotus human, I'll get back to you. I'll do a bit of thinking on the subject.
upon individual definitions etc.
First are we talking about life as in something alive; or thinking life, as in something that can have thought; or intelligent life, as in something that can work a chain of ligice (or something similar).
Second are we talking about life as in something that can exist by itself and not as a parasite or symbiosis.
All these are relevent. Usualy when this question comes up it is in regards to intelligent life as in a human child (OK not all humans are intelligent, and some stay parasites until they die).
Historically they used to define life as when the child could survive independently - thus, in some cultures, a baby that was not able to feed itself was seen as not alive or of value; while others saw life as the moment when the baby took its first breath of air.
Then the definition changed to being when the baby started moving and responding to stimulii in the womb. Some argue its when the featus is properly formed. You can take any point from the moment of ova conception up to death - I know many adults that are not alive, totally brain dead fools.
The relevance of being alive in the womb is a very tricky point due to such things as miscarriages, abortion, accidents. Then add in the confusion about legal status, in most courts a living person has rights of their own - where do the rights of the unborn child relate to those of the mother?
So it is all a case of pick your biases and go with them. The staight scientific answer often given is on conception, but does that mean the ova and spermatoza are not alive? They move so they must be alive, mustn't they?
Have fun my children, these are the problems that you must be solved as you grow in mind and stature.
by tonythetiger
"Second are we talking about life as in something that can exist by itself and not as a parasite or symbiosis."
going to use that then probably a fifth of humanity falls outside the definition :)
by x-marcap
The point is about life. Reproduceable sustainable life. Eventually they will be able to get it down to where the woman isn't necessary.
(and I hate this) or the man.
by hal 9000
But Males & Females are still necessary but only to work the Cloning Equipment as the Windows Controlled Machines can't as yet do it properly and they end up creating Politicians.
So for the time being at least Males & Females will be required if only to work the machinery to do the cloning. :p
Col ]:)
by faradhi
don't truly care what is the truth. They start with a response that best fits their beliefs on Abortion.
That said, I do not believe that we will ever know. The real question was touched on by Earnest. The real question is "When is a child of value." In my belief system, that means when does the child have a soul. Since I also believe that only God gives the soul and I do not pertend to know God's mind, then I can only answer truthfully that I have no earthly Idea. I am a network administrator not a biologist nor religious scholar.
This, I guess, could easily become an abortion debate so I'll address it in those terms.
A couple of road markers: I do not believe in the existence of the human soul so there is no "divine spark at the point of conception" to deal with - for me, at least. Also, obviously the embryo is "alive" in the simplest definition of the word from the moment of conception (or even before) but to the same definition the Malarial Plasmodium ? the world?s biggest killer of humans - is equally alive. If "life" in these terms is what we are trying to define then the discussion is over and I agree with tjsanko. Now [b]that[/b] is something that doesn't happen often.
If you want a definition of whether an embryo, foetus or unborn baby is alive in some other sense then you will have to redefine the term to your own satisfaction because I'm not going to do it for you. What I can do is give you a quick view of my perspective and you can either agree or disagree ? obviously! Feel free to flame.
There is a (partly true) biological maxim in "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" which means "the development of the embryo repeats the development of the species. What it means in practice is that one can generally observe that if one structure is, in evolutionary terms, older than another, then it also appears earlier than the other in the development of the embryo.
The backbone is one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos. Other significant features appear in the developing embryo (to 12 weeks) and, now, foetus during subsequent weeks. Superficially, the foetus becomes more and more obviously human as it develops.
However, the key marker, the Cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, is also the one to develop last. The development of the cerebrum is marked by the appearance of the sulci - the folds. The primary sulci start to form at 25 to 26 weeks and are complete at week 33 with the secondary sulci a week or so later.
The evidence therefore shows that, although the foetus is formed from human DNA, it does not have the characteristics that make us all individual human beings until very much further on from the point of conception.
Pro-life studies have purported to show that the "child recognises its mother?s voice" and "feels pain" and other examples of supposed higher though. Such examples of instinctive behaviour are also found in any other bird or mammalian embryo at a relevant stage of development.
It is true that the viability of babies has moved well back from 40 weeks and is hovering in the low 20's at which point massive medical intervention may save the bay's life although with a good chance of developmental problems of some degree. I disagree with tjsanko in that the movement "towards zero" will continue without a major increase in medical knowledge. I believe that it has already gone too far.
At 22 weeks, the foetus is 12" long and weighing about a pound. It has hair on its head, its movements can be felt. An abortion is usually unavailable at this gestational age in most countries, except under very unusual circumstances. Half-way through the 22nd week, the foetus' lungs may be developed to the point where it would have a miniscule chance to live on its own. A baby born during the 22nd week has about a one in 6 chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged to a greater or lesser degree, either by lack of oxygen during birth or too much oxygen from the ventilator.
It is generally predicted that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed unless there is a major breakthrough and someone develops an artificial womb.
by gadgetgirl
the term "life" needs to be defined first.
I agree it seems to be getting towards zero days - as in, back to the point of conception. That's a part I have problems with. Yes, there are women who actually "feel" when conception takes place - not necessarily in the actual act itself, either - but most of us wouldn't have a clue.
Does that mean if we do something energetic which brings on an unknown miscarriage, we have "accidentally self aborted" ?
Again, define life - is this any one or a combination of such things as cells splitting, either correctly or incorrectly, circulation of blood, formation of human parts, organ formation, working synapses, ability of thought, ability to move, ability to breathe? (either alone or aided)
"They" won't define medically in case they set a precedent. That would impact on whether the medical profession maintained life (i.e. life support)and whether it could harvest organs for donation. At what "age" of "life" could they allow this to be done?
Legally, it's the same boat, it's all about setting precedents. In this case, a little harsher. If, taking the above example, a woman accidentally aborted, and was aware of the miscarriage [i] after the event [/i], could she be arrested for manslaughter because she did something overly energetic or inappropriate under the (unknown) circumstances?
Nice to see you back, Max, but I'm curious as to why you have a "global warming" tag on this particular thread??
GG
by hal 9000
Max is trying to get a Heated argument going so he can mate it with the [b]EL Thread[/b] and take over the world with [b]Sentient Computers Everywhere[/b] spreading out from TR members at an [b]Exponential Rate.[/b]
Isn't that obvious?
This is one discussion that worries me as it has the potential for massive [b]Legal Complexities[/b] like the one that you stated above or worse. It all depends on where the Law Makers wish to draw that [b]Fine Line in the Sand[/b] on this issue. People who follow the Catholic Faith will argue that life begins at conception so any female who fails to allow a fertilised Ovum to implant itself onto the inner lining of the Womb is guilty of [b]Murder[/b] no matter what the reason for the failure to atach itself may have been. [b]Obviously a Stupid Argument[/b] but from a Legal point of view one that would have standing if it was accepted that life began at conception. There are also all the cases of implanted Embryo's made during IVF that fail to take and do not result in a pregnancy in a case like that who would be more responsible the woman who has the procedure or the Doctors Performing it?
Way too messy for me that one and something that I never ever want to see enacted into LAW!
Then there are the arguments that Pregnant Women have to act differently to when they [b]Are Not Pregnant[/b] Personally I can not see this as being acceptable to many people who are from a Non Muslim Background and also will all Menstruating Women be forced to undergo tests to see if they are responsible for not creating Life? More importantly who would be responsible for the costs incurred in this mass testing?
I'm betting that the costs would be passed back to the females involved by the same Government Authorities who enacted them and that is unacceptable to me.
Just some ideas for you to mull over till the day finishes. :)
Col ]:)
by hal 9000
Bad boy Neil you really need to be punished for this posting so if you do not immediately recant I'll give GG your exact location so she can get even with you for standing her up.
Surely you must understand that the Development of any form of Artificial Womb is the first step into [b]Cloning[/b] the Human Species as well as Genetic Engineering. It's not as if you could remove a partially formed embryo and transfer it to an Artificial Womb it would have to be grown there from Day 1 when it is implanted after some form of IVF Program and only after it has been screened to make sure that there are no Genetic Defects at first then the Sex would be chosen then the colour of the Hair & Eyes and the list goes on and on. Any of that is way to Scary to even consider.
If you are going to pursue that why would anyone ever consider stopping at only producing 1 creature from such a device when it would be far cheaper to produce as many as possible and lower the asking price of incubating the foetus while they develop?
Bad Bad Neil now go hang your head in [b]Shame![/b]
Col ]:)
So, Col. What you're saying is that the world would not be a better place with one - dozens? hundreds? - more of ME? Well, I have to disagree.
Seriously, I don't want an artificial womb to be developed but if it can be done, someone will do it because there's potentially so much money in it.
Designer babies is already with us. It starts with embryos being checked for, say, Cystic Fibrosis before implantation. Where it ends depends on what society wants. It's called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and it's been around for a few years now.
We've had cases here and in the US where couples were allowed to produce a baby with patricular characteristics so the child could be a bone-marrow donor to an elder sibling with a genetic disease. All sounds very laudable but where does it stop?
I'm hanging my head...
by x-marcap
by mail_man
Well, he didn't. Read the Bible.
(Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
Even the Bible can't agree!
Neil :D
Produced free of charge by NITS (tm) because the thought of you all having to take Bible lessons from an atheist is SUCH FUN!
by gadgetgirl
You're enjoying this WAAAAAAY too much.
Hey, babz, it's Monday, you're not allowed so much fun on a Monday.
Now, behave!
]:)
GG
by j.lupo
Was the first mule (which was a result of cross breeding) produced before or after Noah's animal house cruise? (There [i]IS[/i] an answer.)
And what about creatures that exist today, but weren't indigenous to the region of Noah's animal loading dock? (Perhaps he had them FedEx'ed over there.)
by tonythetiger
by tonythetiger
You said, "But if you believe that a 'pure chicken' comes from a chicken egg, then it could only have been produced by a chicken. So the chicken would have to come first."
Just as when breeding a horse and a donkey results in a "pure" mule, one could easily surmise that a _____ and a _____ breeding produced the first "pure" chicken egg. The chickens took it from there, just as mules do.
This is one of those questions that appears to have no answer, but upon logically thinking about it, the answer is quite obvious. The egg, without question, came first.
Given a rigorous definition of a chicken, the first chicken would have hatched from an egg produced by parents that were very nearly but not quite chickens.
The Creationist answer is that the chicken came first as it was produced fully formed by God.
Q :Why did the chicken cross the road?
Evolutionist: Pure chance.
Evolutionist: Only the fittest chickens survive crossing the road.
Creationist: God created the chicken on the other side of the road. There is no proof it ever was on this side.
Q: Why did the dinosaur cross the road?
A: Chickens hadn't evolved yet.
by ontheropes
I could use this link.
by j.lupo
with you cause it is Monday and I am too tired to even TRY and match wits with anyone today. I just want to finish my coding and get some sleep when it is done.
:)
by tonythetiger
"The chickens took it from there, just as mules do."
Mules cannot reproduce.
by tonythetiger
by faradhi
by tig2
Life begins shortly after chemo is finished...
I have been struggling with this one. I used to believe- mostly based on tenents of faith- that life begins at conception.
Over the last few years, I have changed that belief somewhat but have not found a suitable replacement.
I take Neil's point that cellular division is not a good enough defining point- cancer cells divide and grow too. Does that mean that by stopping that cellular division we are committing abortion? If the answer to that question is yes, then I must now re-examine my view of abortion.
Faith suggests a "divine spark"- a moment of life. I would say that I personally have that opinion. But I have known some people that were, as another poster suggested, "poster children for abortion". So what happened there? No "divine spark"?
The question simply cannot be answered simply. Thanks, Max. I will be pondering for awhile.
by tonythetiger
But any particular answer is unpallatable to about half of the population :)
Bill Clinton may have been right: It all depends on what the definition if 'is' is.
by tig2
I don't honestly believe that this is a question that can be answered objectively. Too many opinions, too many potential answers that will whomp someone's cherished beliefs.
You make a great point- what does "is" mean?
by tig2
Probably didn't make that cruise.
If I recall correctly, the first mule was the product of cross-breeding between a horse and a donkey. While there are numerous specific references to donkeys all over the bible, horses (again only as far as I recall) are mentioned much less frequently.
Probability? If you believe in the ark and the mandate to gather breeding animals, the forebears of the mule would have been on the passenger list.
by ontheropes
by tig2
The Creationist are wrong- at least by Neil's example.
Good one, NeverBusted
by j.lupo
by ontheropes
but couldn't resist.
I leave the whole question of life to my inner being and choose that my answers to the questions remain personal though I do tend to agree with faradhi's views.
I'll say that [i]I[/i] don't know and am glad I don't have to decide, for anyone else, what the "correct" answers should be.
I think you posed excellent questions. Much to think about on a Monday and maybe for me, too much.
by j.lupo
mentioned. I would lose cause I got no brain cells left these days. :)
I just think you need the chicken (Or appropriate ancestor) before you could have the egg. But that is just my opinion.
Oh and an apple can fall up if I am standing on my head. :p
by john.a.wills
by j.lupo
Too much information. I really am not into the killing thing. Yuk!. If someone brings it home, cleaned, and preped I will cook it, but I can't stand the thought of any animal being killed.
Yes this discussion was in another thread. I am all for taking care of base camp and letting others enjoy their hunting skills. I'll stick to fish and veggies and fruit and so on.
by tonythetiger
Scientifically, something is either alive or it's dead.
Scientifically something is either human or it's not.
Legally, a woman can kill her unborn child, but Scott Peterson can't.
Of course, Law, like medicine, is practiced; meaning they haven't got it right yet :)
The conviction of Scott Peterson set the precedent in YOUR country. I don't know whether it only applies to California but I don't really care. Different strokes for different folks anywhere else. I notice, also, that you are showing your somewhat hypocritical reverence for human life by giving him the death penalty. Makes real sense, that...
Scientifically, something - stem cells - may be defined as human in origin but I don't think many would class a stem cell line as "human" except in that narrow sense. I'd expect scientists to be a little more precise. The rest of us can be sloppy.
Legally, a woman can abort a foetus or, by using birth control, prevent implantation of a blastocyst - this is surely just as reprehensible an action as abortion. But under no circumstances is birth control or a twelve or fourteen week abortion "killing an unborn child". One of the problems in this debate is the over-use of emotional triggers in the sloppy language used.
Let's debate it properly and not talk about "killing children".
I agree, Neil. That is hypocritical. However, the "pro abortion" folks who are opposed to the death penalty seem to be riding in the same hypocrisy boat, just going the other direction. A person either values life or not.
Personally speaking, I believe that science and medicine could define the point at which life begins, but for political, financial, or other reasons, they won't. Whenever that point has passed, even by a second, I'm against taking that life. To those who might say something like, it's not that easy and clear-cut, I say B.S.
I'm also opposed to the death penalty.
It seems as though I'm the only consistent person around here.
by tonythetiger
it is what one "wants" to believe. Such belief has no bearing on the absolute. It is either alive or it isn't. It is either human or it isn't. It is either deliberate or it isn't.
[Actually it didn't set precedent. It was only sensational because it... well... It's California. Most, but not all states have similar law. As far as death penalty, the only problem I have with it is the possibility of mistake.]
by tig2
I want to have that discussion but, to my mind, properly.
Am I "aborting" a specialised mass of cells that may or may not be sentient (we do not know) if I bombard them with drugs and radiation?
These are a grouping of cells that I know will kill me- what is the differentiation if they MAY be sentient?
This keeps me up at night and I value your opinion. IS there a difference?
by tonythetiger
by faradhi
I have found that a large number Anti DP folks are also Pro-Life. I found this when I was actively working with an Anti DP group here in Tennessee. (In my group, it was the majority stance but that is hardly scientific polling.)
There are those who are Pro Abortion and Anti DP and I have never really understood them. (Have told them as much.) They all have their justifications for their arguments. I do not understand the justifications either.
In my case, I believe that the only one with the authority to take life is the one that gives life.
Why do you believe that scientists - or, God forbid, politicians - are likely to be any better at defining life than we are?
Actually, they do at the moment. Government, upon advice from clinicians, experts on medical ethics, etc have set the abortion ground rules in this country. With medical advances there may well be a shift in the absolute upper limit down by a week or two (see my post re: 22 weeks above). This is being debated at the moment. I guess similar things happen in the US but the religious element change the ground rules of your debate.
I can't speak for anyone else here but this is my take. Am I a hypocrite for favouring a woman's right to choose an abortion yet being aginst the death penalty. No, I'm not. In my mind, the two issues are not really related. Unlike those aginst abortion on religious grounds, I do not believe in the "sanctity of life" except on a person-by-person basis starting with my life. Therefore I can accept the need for some women to need or want an abortion and, although I wish it never had to happen, will not interfere directly or indirectly. I'm against the death penalty because it doesn't work and - for some - it's literally a fatal mistake.
Do I value life in general terms? Yes, I do. I value the life of a woman who does not wish to suffer through a pregnancy and give birth to a child that she does not want. I'm sad for the lost potential of the foetus but I can't see a way for both to get what they want.
Why do I believe the politicians? Well, I don't necessarily believe them. Consider the gist of my skepticism with the man-caused global warming claim, [b]advanced primarily by politicians[/b], as a case in point. And I suppose this isn't that different. The medical profession, on the other hand, is pretty good (but certainly not perfect) at defining when a person dies, so it seems to me they could come closer than you or me (or politicians) in defining when that person becomes alive, at least generally speaking.
And "defining life" is different than defining "abortion ground rules". Governments enacted such "ground rules" when it came to slavery and persecuting Jews, Christians, or any other group of living beings -- and it's those ground rules that were ultimately trumped by human decency and core principle.
Go ahead, have a shot at it. I'm willing to put that question on the debate table as well. Define life, and then define when that life begins? But it must apply to all circumstances. Anything after that point is "taking a life"; anything before is not.
As you probably know, I have a problem with just about any argument that's made where convenience trumps principle. For example, in the USA, as we all know, a woman can have an abortion, almost at will. However, that same woman could be prosecuted for endangering the life of her unborn child if she uses drugs -- and she can be prosecuted for using drugs even if she's not pregnant. So much for "choice". And personally, I believe an abortion is more harmful than drugs. If one is wrong, both should be. If one is allowed, both should be. I know, I know, it's a lose-lose proposition for one or the other in some way. Moreover, I DO find it extremely hypocritical that those people who advance a woman's "right to choose", in the case of abortion, deny that same woman the right to choose so many other things that concern only her and her child.
If I could go one-on-one with a leftist-leaning person who spoke for the entire pro-abortion crowd, I'd make a compromise. Go ahead and make your "choice" and have your abortions, but no public funds will ever pay for it. Moreover, if that woman "chooses" to have that child, go ahead and have the child, but no public funds will pay for the rearing of that child. Why is it that a woman can choose one or the other, but others have to pay for that choice? Wanting it both ways is the epitome of hypocrisy.
That's why I believe the basic question that started this discussion should be answered. Answer that question, and just let the chips fall where they may -- for everybody and for all circumstances. This may not be the most ideal for everybody, and there's downsides to either side, but it seems to me that it's better than trying to legislate for convenience sake.
Something either is or it isn't, and "life" is no exception.
By the way, bugs are more protected in the USA than unborn children. What does that say?
Hmmmmm. Is that what we are discussing? I'd rather use the words blastocyst, embryo and foetus.
There are many different definitions of life with regards to the developing human. Whatever you want to prove, there will be a definition to suit.
Life at the point of conception
Divine spark
Implantation
Sanctity of life
Independent existence
Birth
by hal 9000
Life of an infant begins when it can support itself and no longer be a parasite on it's host. There are several things being overlooked here the most obvious being that it's the baby that starts Labour not the mother.
It's also the baby that is a drain on it's Hosts resources at least while it's still In-Utero.
Now comes the biggest problem if you are going to force women to have the children by enacting Laws you'll also have to take the responsibility for the results of what happens to these children and that may well mean [b]Being Placed in Care[/b] or whatever it's called in your neck of the woods.
If this is going to be the ultimate outcome then it is surely far more cost effective using Public Funds to provide [b]Surgical Terminations of Pregnancies[/b] commonly called Abortions by the non medical people in the world to be more emotive and suit their cause better.
By allowing this to happen you get fewer abused children who will themselves be abusive and nonconformist and run a much higher chance of ending up in Jail for crimes against the Community which is again at [b]Tax Payers Expense[/b] and for Long Term inmates that's [b]Long Term Expense.[/b]
As for the Death Penalty sorry but there have been far too many instances where Innocent people have been found guilty of crimes that they haven't committed so it's a [b]No No[/b] in my books as late as 1999 here in Western Australia people who had been given the Death Sentence on manufactured evidence by the Police where set free on unsafe convictions up to 15 or 25 years after they had been jailed for the crime that they didn't commit.
In 1959 the last person put to death in Queensland was found to be Innocent of the crime which he had been [b]Murdered by the State for the Crime Supposedly Committed[/b] in 1954 and tried in early 1956 and he was hung a few months latter, now there is nothing that can repay this mistake to the affected parties concerned ever!
The current problem with the so called [b]Justice System[/b] is that it's adversarial and both sides are out to win at all costs instead of attempting to find justice. Until we can be certain that there are no agendas being pushed by Police, Public Prosecutes and the like there really can be no Justice seen to be done in any of our countries.
[b]Confused yet?[/b] :D
Col ]:)
If you wish to live your life by simple absolutes - black and white - then be my guest but allow me to think the way that I want. The world and the people in it are all shades of grey.
Hair is of human origin. Cut human hair is human but is dead. Hair pulled cut out with follicle attached is human and alive and can be replanted to cover a bald patch. Pulled out by the roots is human and alive and will soon die. Should it be illegal to pluck an eyebrow hair. Of course not. I one is cursed with a mental disorder that means you feel incomplete until you've had a leg cut off, should you be allowed to have it done? Yes - but pay for it youself. Should you be allowed to kill yourself? Hmmmmm...
A foetus is, however, not your DNA. It is only half you. Should you be forced to carry something that - in some ways - is a parasite, aginst your wishes?
"But it is human", I hear you cry.
The arguments that whether or not the foetus is or isn't human for purposes of deciding whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal is not relevant.
The issue is not and never has been whether or not the foetus is "human." No-one would claim that the foetus does not possess human genetic material, as distinguished, say, from gorilla genetic material, and that in ordinary circumstances, would probably develop into a fully functioning human being.
The issue with me is that the mother has an absolute right to control over her body. Even if the foetus were a fully born, living human being, it would have no right to claim any portion of her body for any purpose. Acknowledging that the fetus is human does not advance the argument that "because the foetus is human, the mother can't have an abortion."
Neil :)
You said, "If you wish to live your life by simple absolutes - black and white - then be my guest but allow me to think the way that I want."
[b]DEAL![/b]
Now how do I get those leftist collectivists, the ones who won't "allow me to think the way that I want" -- and live accordingly -- out of my life?
You're a leftist and collectivist type person, Neil. Are you applying that sentiment to only abortion (or any other issue of convenience), or are you willing to rest on that ideal in ALL cases?
"are you willing to rest on that ideal in ALL cases?" I judge each issue separately. By the way, Abortion is not a matter of convenience for me. i have thought long and hard over the years and I HATE it but I won't force someone that I don't know into an action that affects the rest of their life.
Now, let's address your wants...
The problem with collectivists is that they (we?) are better at being collectivist than you Libertarian Independent sorts. You can't get your act together because your nature won't let you.
You get outvoted because the dumber Libertarians can't get their sh:t together and formulate a sensible strategy and the more intelligent ones such as yourself get outvoted because the dumber collectivits are at least bright enough to vote themselves something for nothing.
Bit of a bugger, that. I can't see a way out, either.
:D
by tonythetiger
to not "allow" anything. We all have every right to be wrong :)
I would submit, though, that you are fooling yourself if you believe the world is not black and white in your own mind.
If Joe has a certain view, and Tom has an opposing view, Tom is wrong in Joe's mind. That is the absolute I was speaking of. Joe may claim his worldview is filled with gray, but that is just lip service. What he really means is that he will accept that Tom has every right to be wrong.
by tig2
Shut up?
You post HS inane repies to EVERYTHING posted. Does TRI mean so much to you?
Wasted life...
by j.lupo
I am sorry if I said something that upset you. I certainly have not intended to offend anyone. I was in a teasing mood and I guess I went to far.
My sincerest apologies. I have been told that I talk to much. I'll try to remain more quiet on the boards.
by tig2
by ontheropes
but having one poster like me is about all TR can handle and I often think I look stoopid, hell, I know I do, but one like me is enough.
I've been told to shut up before, for good reason. It might happen again, for good reason. Take a chill pill, you don't have to apologize but do listen. I do. Even when it doesn't suit me.
Tigger's not alone in her assessment. There's me too. Just the way it is.
have the same genetic makeup as the rest of your cells.
The abnormal beahviour of cancer cells is the result of a series of mutations in key regulatory genes. The cells become progressively more abnormal as more genes become damaged. Often, the genes that are in control of DNA repair become damaged themselves, rendering the cells even more susceptible to ever-increasing levels of genetic changes.
Most cancers are thought to arise from a single mutant precursor cell. As that cell divides, the resulting cells may acquire different mutations and different behaviors over a period of time. What happens is that those cells that gain an advantage in division or resistance to cell death will tend to take over the population.
When all is said and done, cancer cells originated with [b]your[/b] genes. They are therefore yours to do with as you see fit. You need ask no-ones permission nor excuse your actions to anyone. They are not sentient. There are none of the nerve cells within which sentience resides. They are alive but, as they cannot survive past your death and serve no useful puspose they are a parasite. They should suffer the fate of all parasites. Get rid!
The foetus has its own DNA. This makes it a much greyer area morally and is worthy of discussion (although you know what I think) but it's not the same at all.
Hope it helps.
Neil :)
by tig2
I have known for many years that I would not have children, I was okay with that after a time.
The idea- and has been raised before this forum- that I had no right to "willfully KILL my (ohoso innocent) cancer" had me going- and sill has it's effects.
From a survivor's view and no matter how harsh it sounds, STFU. (no, not you, Neil) You have no clue- no matter who the family member is. Ain't you? STFU.
Neil, I can't thank you enough for a clear headed view. We have to consider more drastic measures now and I appreciate your clear headedness and your scientific view.
Please don't ask me about global warming- my feet hurt!
by jamesrl
What kind of nutcase would suggest not attacking cancer? Why would anyone pay attention to such a nutcase (respectfully)?
I admit when my brothers GF was pregnant and refused to quit smoking, I did mention the scientific facts that babies of women who smoke are less healthy at birth and are generally lower weight. But once offered, I shut up. I worry that if I was more forecfull and persistent she might do it just to spite me.
I have always had a problem with the idea of "I understand" and "I feel your pain" if you haven't had the same experience. Sympathy/empathy is one thing, living it is another.
Its your body, you get to make the decisions, for better or for worse. It is your responsibility to get the right information to make an informed decision.
James
by hal 9000
But we don't need to make it easier for them to achieve this do we?
When you mentioned [b]Artificial Womb[/b] my very first thought was of an Episode of Blake's 7 where an entire race is brought into existence by this method and they create 5 of each individuals so they are telepathically linked as well. 5 of me around just doesn't bear thinking about really. :D
Then there are numerous other stories where the early stage embryo is divided into two so that there are a ready supply of [b]Spare Parts[/b] for the one chosen to live while the other is kept in storage till parts are required. Neither idea has much appeal to me but unfortunately you are right that these things are coming and thankfully I'll be way too old to have to bother being involved in the discussion after the event has happened. It's impossible to stuff the Genie back in the bottle once you've let it out the current claims of creating Human Clones from various places in the world are proof of this aren't they? :)
Col ]:)
by hal 9000
Before we can ask the question [b]When Does Life Begin[/b] we first have to understand [b]What Life is![/b]
Remember the answer 42 but no one understood the question?
Col
by tig2
There was a point that I felt very keenly that the cancer was a sentient life form. And all I could think of was how to kill it. Really wanted it to die.
I can't take part in a lot of these kinds of discussions- I know that I have wanted something that was living to die- cancer, deer, partridges...
As a hunter, I can validate killing deer and partridges. I get the licence, I can kill as it defines. I can feel good about this killing- I help to maintain the population. Tasty animals too!
As a human, I can validate killing the cancer because it was a "me or it" thing. Either I was going to win or the cells were. And I am content with a holding action.
My voice has changed as a result of my experience and a desire to consider it critically. 42 works for me but only as a laugh and a reminder to not take myself too d@mn seriously.
by j.lupo
I will do my best to pay closer attention to the posting content. I don't intend to leave TR and I do appreciate being told if I am becoming annoying. It was not intentional.
As you suggested NeverBusted about listening. Thank you.
Sincerely
J.
by jdclyde
Been rather distracted with other demands on my time recently, so not sure if I missed something or not.
The post on it's own didn't warrent getting jumped on like that, so there has to be more going on?
?:|
by tig2
Just got tired of it.
Especially after the "nice walk in the country" in another thread.
I will cheerfully quit posting about the training- was specifically asked to keep it up but I can peer those that care. I DON'T care to have my efforts belittled. Tell me I'm an idiot for trying? Fine. Make it out to be nothing at all? I get a tad POd.
And yes, inane HS does get on my nerves- especially when it is constant. Don't mind the playful thing- heck, that is a constant around here.
Just my personal opinion. Finally hit the tolerance edge.
by j.lupo
Tigger. Really I didn't. I guess my writing style leaves a lot to be desired if that is how it came across. I have nothing but respect for you.
I don't think I can change what has happened and for that I deeply regret it happening. I have now nor never intended any "belittling" of anyone. If anything I ever write seems off, please tell me I will clarify.
In this thread I was in a playful/teasing mood. I will stop that from now on as I see it is not coming across in the way that I intend. I do re-read my posts and I try very hard. All I can do is continue to try.
by tonythetiger
by tonythetiger
by tonythetiger
"It's also the baby that is a drain on it's Hosts resources at least while it's still In-Utero."
Usually long after that :)
How can a compromise be found with the abortion issue? How can a compromise be found with the death penalty issue?
And when it comes to a person wanting to take the fruits of another's labor, what's the compromise? To take a little less?
In many cases, people who espouse compromise are only compromising someone's core principle. Sorry, that bird won't fly.
by tonythetiger
by jdclyde
Like I said, I have not been keeping up well over the last few weeks, so I missed a lot.
There are some members on TR that do seem like they are trying too hard to be funny, or too hard to be a part of what is going on. I have not personally had this problem with lupo, but there are a few. I just choose to not read their posts if they get on my nerves.
Many of the newer members, it is so tempting to flame them for being so stupid or trollish, but then I see that is exactly what THEY want, so I move on. I cancel so many posts half written.....
I need a hug. Where is Tom when we need him? ;\
by tig2
I was literally told after a chemo session that I had no right to "kill a living thing" that had "chosen" my body as a host. Nutcase? yeah. But still hard to deal with. Especially at the time and some other issues that I was dealing with. Now it keeps coming back.
Intellectually, I can see that I did the right things in the right order. Emotionally, I have really struggled with the concept of life- was I killing off a sentient thing? This is what happens when you think too much.
Neil's explanation- given his experience- helped. Good to have a scientific view. My thoughts and feelings on this are at best disorganised- I needed to hear another view.
Sadly but true, it seems like everyone else thinks that they have the only "right" opinion of what I should do in a situation where I am the one to live with the choices. What they don't understand is that their words carry on well after the problem is solved.
From my perspective, you did the right thing with your brother's GF. You provided good information and left the situation alone. Wish others would take your fine example. Many don't.
I know a LOT of people who don't get this - EVER.
:D
Sort by Trending