01 Mar 2009, 10:58 pm
02 Mar 2009, 3:45 pm
02 Mar 2009, 10:18 pm
Tantybi wrote:
Did you read the article you submitted?
Yes, I did:
Quote:
In addition to presenting 25 weeks as a critical developmental landmark, other proponents of the neurological view believe that events of the eighth week of human gestation represent the key moments marking the beginning of human life. Contemporary philosophical arguments for designating week 8 as the beginning of human life proceed in accordance with the following format: humanness requires rational thought and rational thought requires a brain and a nervous system. Philosophers who present such arguments contest that an embryo is not a human being until it has a rudimentary nervous system. At week 8, the embryo has completed organogenesis, meaning it has simple, undeveloped versions of all the basic organ systems, including the nervous system (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Philosophers who subscribe to this perspective pay close attention to the progressively increasing complexity of the nervous system or the first weeks and months of pregnancy. At week 5 the first neurons begin to appear, at week 6 "the first synapses ... can be recognized," and at 7.5 weeks the embryo displays its first reflexes in response to stimulus (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus around week 8 the embryo has a basic three-neuron circuit, the foundation of a nervous system necessary for rational thought. (Shannon and Wolter 1990).
...A third developmental landmark presented by proponents of the neurological view occurs at 20 weeks. Some advocates of the philosophy that a prerequisite for humanness is the capacity for rational thought believe that the existence of a primitive nervous system after 8 weeks, with the ability to respond by reflex to stimulation, does not amount to rational thought. The embryological landmark of 20 weeks marks the completion of the development of the thalamus, a region of the brain, which enables the integration of the nervous system. Philosophers who support this view therefore believe that only after 20 weeks of gestation can the embryo be said to have the capacity for rational thought.
...A third developmental landmark presented by proponents of the neurological view occurs at 20 weeks. Some advocates of the philosophy that a prerequisite for humanness is the capacity for rational thought believe that the existence of a primitive nervous system after 8 weeks, with the ability to respond by reflex to stimulation, does not amount to rational thought. The embryological landmark of 20 weeks marks the completion of the development of the thalamus, a region of the brain, which enables the integration of the nervous system. Philosophers who support this view therefore believe that only after 20 weeks of gestation can the embryo be said to have the capacity for rational thought.
Not to mention:
Quote:
Although EEGs are often used as a diagnostic tool, the exact mechanism behind how an EEG pattern is linked to an individual's cerebral neuron activity remains a mystery (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
I notice you specifically left out the vast majority of the neurological entry:
Quote:
If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a simple medical procedure in which electrodes are attached to different locations on a patient's head and the voltage difference over time is measured between the two points. The voltage data is plotted against time to produce "brain waves" with up and down voltage oscillations that are representative of the organized electrical activity of the brain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Medical professionals use a patient's EEG pattern to identify a broad spectrum of mental states. Although EEGs are often used as a diagnostic tool, the exact mechanism behind how an EEG pattern is linked to an individual's cerebral neuron activity remains a mystery (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
Despite lacking a precise explanation for the connection between the EEG and neural activity, there is a strong argument that the unique and highly recognizable EEG pattern produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits an EEG pattern consistent with that of a mature brain is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
Because the state of modern technology still prohibits EEGs in utero, brain activity data for humans at various stages of development has been gathered using premature infants. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25 weeks of gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for recognizable neural activity. At this point in development, the recognizable signals exist only as intermittent bursts that interrupt periods of random activity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). This conclusion is summarized by Donald Scott who in his book Understanding the EEG wrote, "Attempts have been made to record cerebral activity of premature infants and they have succeeded (only) if the gestational age was 25 weeks or more (Morowitz and Trefil 1992)." Such claims, as well as arguments that endorse an opposite argument, are for many the foundation for any dispute over defining the inception of human life. Consequently, the principles of the neurological view are tenets in the debate over another controversial subject: abortion.
...the film contends that a fetus has brain waves after 12 weeks and suggests, even in the title "The Silent Scream," that it reacts to its termination with fear and pain. These contentions contradict scientific evidence that indicates neural connections in the cerebral cortex have yet to develop in a 12-week-old fetus. Lacking these basic neural networks, the developing fetus is incapable of feeling the emotions recognized as fear or pain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
...At 8 weeks an embryo displays reflexes that are the result of its budding nervous system, but it does not yet have the structures necessary to engage in true rational activity in contrast to mere reflex motivated movement (Shannon and Wolter 1990).
...The precept at the heart of the neurological view of the beginning of human life is the significant development of neural pathways that are critical for characteristic human brain activity. The formation of these neural connections is often viewed to culminate in the acquisition of humanness, a stage during the third trimester of human gestation when the overwhelming majority of neural pathways in the cerebral cortex are established (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). The contemporary concept of the acquisition of humanness was developed and elaborated during the later half of the twentieth century by theological and biological leaders who emphasized the importance of the cerebral cortex in characterizing humanness. The Jesuit scholar and anthropologist scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin presented his belief that the transcendence of humanity was dependant upon the successful maturation of the cerebral cortex. Bernard Haring, a prominent Catholic theologian of the 1970s argued that individuality and the uniqueness of personal characteristics and activities originated from the cerebral cortex. A decade later, the anatomist Paul Glees argued "the (cerebral cortex) represents the signature of a genetically unique person" (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
The contemporary idea of the acquisition of humanness is based on the contemporary theories of developmental embryology. Cerebral nerve cells accumulate in number and continually differentiate through the end of the second trimester of human pregnancy (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). However, it is not until the seventh month of gestation that a significant number of connections between the newly amassed neurons begin to take form. It is only after the neurons are linked via synapse connections that the fetus is thought to acquire humanness. Just as a pile of unconnected microchips is incapable of functioning and is therefore not called a computer, the unconnected neurons of the pre 24-week fetal brain lack the capacity to function, thus the developing fetus has yet to acquire humanness (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a simple medical procedure in which electrodes are attached to different locations on a patient's head and the voltage difference over time is measured between the two points. The voltage data is plotted against time to produce "brain waves" with up and down voltage oscillations that are representative of the organized electrical activity of the brain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Medical professionals use a patient's EEG pattern to identify a broad spectrum of mental states. Although EEGs are often used as a diagnostic tool, the exact mechanism behind how an EEG pattern is linked to an individual's cerebral neuron activity remains a mystery (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
Despite lacking a precise explanation for the connection between the EEG and neural activity, there is a strong argument that the unique and highly recognizable EEG pattern produced by a mature brain is a defining characteristic of humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). Therefore, the moment that a developing fetus first exhibits an EEG pattern consistent with that of a mature brain is indicative of the beginning of human life. It is from this point and onward during development that the fetus is capable of the type of mental activity associated with humanity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
Because the state of modern technology still prohibits EEGs in utero, brain activity data for humans at various stages of development has been gathered using premature infants. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25 weeks of gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for recognizable neural activity. At this point in development, the recognizable signals exist only as intermittent bursts that interrupt periods of random activity (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). This conclusion is summarized by Donald Scott who in his book Understanding the EEG wrote, "Attempts have been made to record cerebral activity of premature infants and they have succeeded (only) if the gestational age was 25 weeks or more (Morowitz and Trefil 1992)." Such claims, as well as arguments that endorse an opposite argument, are for many the foundation for any dispute over defining the inception of human life. Consequently, the principles of the neurological view are tenets in the debate over another controversial subject: abortion.
...the film contends that a fetus has brain waves after 12 weeks and suggests, even in the title "The Silent Scream," that it reacts to its termination with fear and pain. These contentions contradict scientific evidence that indicates neural connections in the cerebral cortex have yet to develop in a 12-week-old fetus. Lacking these basic neural networks, the developing fetus is incapable of feeling the emotions recognized as fear or pain (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
...At 8 weeks an embryo displays reflexes that are the result of its budding nervous system, but it does not yet have the structures necessary to engage in true rational activity in contrast to mere reflex motivated movement (Shannon and Wolter 1990).
...The precept at the heart of the neurological view of the beginning of human life is the significant development of neural pathways that are critical for characteristic human brain activity. The formation of these neural connections is often viewed to culminate in the acquisition of humanness, a stage during the third trimester of human gestation when the overwhelming majority of neural pathways in the cerebral cortex are established (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). The contemporary concept of the acquisition of humanness was developed and elaborated during the later half of the twentieth century by theological and biological leaders who emphasized the importance of the cerebral cortex in characterizing humanness. The Jesuit scholar and anthropologist scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin presented his belief that the transcendence of humanity was dependant upon the successful maturation of the cerebral cortex. Bernard Haring, a prominent Catholic theologian of the 1970s argued that individuality and the uniqueness of personal characteristics and activities originated from the cerebral cortex. A decade later, the anatomist Paul Glees argued "the (cerebral cortex) represents the signature of a genetically unique person" (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
The contemporary idea of the acquisition of humanness is based on the contemporary theories of developmental embryology. Cerebral nerve cells accumulate in number and continually differentiate through the end of the second trimester of human pregnancy (Morowitz and Trefil 1992). However, it is not until the seventh month of gestation that a significant number of connections between the newly amassed neurons begin to take form. It is only after the neurons are linked via synapse connections that the fetus is thought to acquire humanness. Just as a pile of unconnected microchips is incapable of functioning and is therefore not called a computer, the unconnected neurons of the pre 24-week fetal brain lack the capacity to function, thus the developing fetus has yet to acquire humanness (Morowitz and Trefil 1992).
What you have done is known as 'quote mining.' It takes selected passages from a whole and pieces them together to raise doubt or to present a case that is diametrically opposed to the clear purpose of the whole. It has been used to claim that Stephen J. Gould believed that evolution was failing and that climate scientists do not believe that global warming is taking place; claims that sea ice is increasing can even be extracted from papers that show the opposite. It is a fundamentally dishonest practice.
Quote:
Does not sound like they are in total agreement, nor does it sound like they can measure EEG in the womb.
can you cite a paper, or even come up with a good theoretical argument, that says that EEGs somehow change between a zef in utero and the same premature infant?
Quote:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/fetal_pain.asp
Are you familiar with the term 'reflex arc'? It's what causes you to pull your hand off of a hot burner before you even feel the pain. It's also what causes your leg to twitch when the doctor hits your knee with a hammer. It requires no thought, no pain, no consciousness. Flatworms have reflex arcs. It's not a sign of humanity.
Quote:
The fact that people are debating over this shows clearly that we can't prove whether or not there is pain or not.
Bull. People argue over obvious things all the time because they don't want to face the consequences of the facts. Oil company execs, and the scientists in their pockets, constantly argue that global warming isn't happening (or that, if it is, it's a good thing); that doesn't mean that we can't prove that the earth is warming.
Quote:
If the brain = pain, and nobody can agree when there is a brain, then nobody can agree or know when there is pain.
I suggest you read the whole passage again.
Quote:
Your source is ambiguous when there are other proponents arguing when. All you cited was one proponent's argument. The other things you have to consider is pain an emotion? What defines pain? No, it's not all science or otherwise, when I walk into a doctor's office, they wouldn't ask me what my pain scale is on a 1-10 scale, but instead, they'd hook me up to a machine to accurately measure my pain.
Ok, I'll agree with you on that: when a zef is capable of describing its pain on a 1-10 scale, it's clearly capable of feeling pain as both a sensation and an emotion.
Quote:
So, then by week 6, the brain is growing rapidly, meaning there is a brain, meaning personality, meaning person.
I mean that a brain is a minimum requirement. At six weeks, there is not a complete brain. At 25 weeks, there is a brain complete enough that we can measure human EEG waves. Despite the fact that the brain clearly has some development to go, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and agree with current standards that start placing significant limits on abortion at the start of the 3rd trimester.
Quote:
Isn't that what a D&C is? It scrapes and then sucks? Or are you playing with the terminology...
Honey, I'm not the one forming emotionally laden neologisms for procedures that are already clearly described and named.
Quote:
Just because I give something emotional interest doesn't make it wrong just as you can decide to remove the emotion interest.
Public policy should not be made on the basic of illogical emotion. Nurses may 'feel' that they are helping their patients with 'therapeutic touch' (ie, waving their hands around over the patient), but that doesn't mean that Medicare should pay them for it. Some Catholics may 'feel' that birth control is murder, but that doesn't mean that birth control should be outlawed.
Quote:
I could just as easily knock you for removing emotion from the term to make it easier for you accept abortion in your life.
Making laws and policy based on emotion and irrationality was what gave us the dark ages. They were called The Dark Ages because the vast majority of people were poor, miserable, died young, and were enslaved to the soil they worked; no scientific, medical, or philosophical progress happened for a thousand years.
Quote:
A brain starts forming pretty early on, so then there would be thought and feeling.
STARTS being the key word. Just because there's a lightbulb in the socket does not mean that there will be light when you flip the switch; there has to be wiring between the two.
Quote:
Science is not clear on the subject or nobody would be debating it.
*snort*
You don't get out much, do you?
Quote:
Nobody debates the earth is round because we finally proved that.
that is incorrect.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm
Quote:
Nobody debates that HIV is sexually transmitted because we proved that.
That is also incorrect. Not only is sexual transmission of HIV denied, but the whole idea that HIV causes AIDS is denied.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1949841
http://pages.prodigy.net/johnhunter2/hivaids.htm
Quote:
No I wasn't equating abortion with infanticide (although you took me out of context to make it sound like I did, thank you).
And then you proceeded to prove the point - twice!
Quote:
No, I was using the logic in your example against your argument. So it was YOU who equated the two when you set forth said lousy logic and then again by pointing out that your logic was equated with infanticide.
And you continue to dig. You equate the PC position with infanticide. We get it. You can stop now (That's not out of context, btw; I've cited your complete statement).
Quote:
yes it would be murder passed week 24 by your definition because that's when you said it's a person. To abort a person is murder.
I have said that it approaches personhood enough by week 24 that significant restrictions should be placed on abortion - restrictions which you agreed with in earlier posts, btw. Life and health of the mother. Fetal abnormality. Not exactly controversial.
Quote:
Maybe the NOW needs to work on some things. Since if I were black, and I was discriminated against, I know to call the NAACP. They will help me with my particular case. But the NOW seems more of a liberal group focusing on women rather than being about women. It sounds like they are more about talking on my behalf in Washington about things I disagree with than helping me personally.
Explore their website a bit. You might be surprised. Now works on equal pay for equal work, it works on paid maternity leave, it's working on ensuring that women with infants not only have breaks to pump breast milk, but that they don't have to go to some grungy bathroom to do so. You hear more about them wrt the abortion issue because it's more 'newsworthy' (in the sensationalist sense), but they do quite a lot.
Quote:
So my mother's love is all hormones?
Every emotion you feel is hormones and neurotransmitters. That's why a pill can make you happy, contented, sad, or even suicidal. That's why brain damage can turn a normal, kind individual into a complete bastard with no inhibitions.
Quote:
It's not a separate being until it's born, but it's a person past week 26?
It's not legally a person until it's born. It's not separate and autonomous until it's born. It's almost a person at week 25, and should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Is that clear enough? Personhood is analog, not digital.
Quote:
Mirriam Websters Dictionary...
Uh... I think you mean Merriam-Webster Dictionary?
Quote:
Read the etymology of the word...
Etymology is often worthless wrt current meaning. Think of words like 'awesome' or 'gnarly' used by teens a decade or two ago, or 'pimp' used by kids today.
Quote:
Scraping the child off the wall and sucking it out is abuse. The D&C abortion method would be child abuse unless someone wants to change the law on it.
Urrr... weren't you trying to prove above that you are not making that claim? The claim that an abortion is child abuse/infanticide?
Quote:
If the law wants to redefine a word, as it does all the time.. they are welcome to it.
http://www.lawguru.com/dictionary/term. ... text=child
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/script ... 8e2c5348cc
Quote:
The law usually defines a child by "anyone who is under the age of 18" sometimes stating exceptions such as if they are married and so forth.
Actually, someone under 18 is a 'minor.' A 'child' is under 14.
Quote:
...you fail to realize there are people debating against your opinion.
{looking around}
What?
What are we doing her, if not debate?
I assure you, I am well aware of the arguments pro and con for abortion, and pain, and of the existence of debate. I've been doing this for years.
Quote:
Then you state your opinion as fact because it agrees with some, not all, scientists.
Find me a significant proportion of neurologists who think that a zef before the 3rd trimester can feel pain, and I'll accept that there's a scientific debate over whether zefs of that age can feel pain.
Quote:
Since nobody knows what Dahmer was thinking, we'll leave all his decisions to himself instead of a bunch of old male politicians.
Not only equating abortion with murder, but with cannibalism as well! ...you're not making this better, you know.
Quote:
Mental distress is a normal treatable symptom of pregnancy. A third trimester abortion should not be an option for that.
The treatment is to remove the fetus. The other option would be to confine the woman on suicide watch, and then force her to give birth to a child she didn't want.
Quote:
You miss the point. Abortion was about having it available in extreme cases. Now women are using it for other reasons too that are far from extreme. I'm starting to think you are arguing just to argue.
...what argument of mine was this in response to?
arguing just to argue? Hmmm. I've been accused of that before. It's one of my aspie compulsions: when someone says something incorrect, I correct them. It doesn't endear me to many people, but it's like a reflex. I usually start with, "Well, actually..."
Quote:
Me personally, I don't need a gun to kill someone.
Neither do I. I don't need a weapon at all. But a gun would sure make it easier.
Quote:
I'm so bad with a hand gun that it would be easier for me to break a neck than hit my target. I don't think I'm good at breaking necks either.
Well, it's not exactly difficult (easy to set up, not a lot of force required) - but the problem with that is that you have to get close enough to touch them, which means that they're close enough to touch you.
Quote:
And if you are a trained fighter, then you know it's will that wins not training. I've taken down a few guys with lots of training, one even dumped me because he thought I was possessed by Satan.
Wow, congrats! I've been accused of being a satanist, but never a demon myself!
Will is very important, but training is good because it hardwires in certain defenses in cases where one is surprised but not killed with the initial attack. Training also increases confidence.
Aikido actually has a reputation for being a relatively useless martial art, because a lot of dojos are quite 'soft.' People from my dojo occasionally get into trouble when we go train somewhere else, and end up hitting people in the face because we expect them to move. That said, I really do hope I'm never in a postition to test my training IRL.
Quote:
He's like a CIA stalker type. I don't think he'll ever hurt her. He does it for control. They have a kid together, and he usually uses the info he gets against her in the custody battles, which all the more makes him a different threat.
Uggh. Don't know what I'd do about that; enlist my brother's help, maybe. I'll also remember never to date any CIA agents (who admit that they're agents, anyway).
Quote:
I think we need better police and also more better police. It really depends on the area. Some areas police better than others.
Definitely. The police in Portland, OR, were way more professional than the ones where I currently live. Do Police have continuing ed requirements, like HCPs? They should, if they don't.
Quote:
There also has to be some law against stalking.
IIrc some states have enacted anti-stalking laws.
Quote:
Even threats. In Wyoming, I saw this kid being threatened by 5 boys a little older than him at a gas station. The clerk called the cops, and the cop said, it's only illegal to threaten the President.
WTF?!? A paramedic can't even tell a patient that she's going to treat him against his will without it being legal assault. If she actually touches him - even with the intent to help - it's legally battery. Barring someone's egress is Assault. Making threats is Assault. I think that cop was just being a lazy ass. I can't believe that California is that different from Wyoming.
Quote:
Heartbeat is not totally meaningless to life. We have so many abstract figurative comparisons to it. We couldn't survive without the heartbeat. I agree, it may not be the most accurate definition to when life begins, but it is a measurable method which is what we need in law. Something measurable without bias. Until science can do better, we go with what we got. Don't even spit out the EEG thing again because again, it is useless to the womb. All the studies were done on premature births. Even then, the EEG pattern outside of the womb prematurely could possibly be different than inside the womb. Again, I repeat, POSSIBLY.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that an EEG would be different inside or outside the womb, and anatomical evidence backs up the EEG data. There simply aren't a whole lot of connections within the brain before the 3rd trimester.
Quote:
They say the best time to increase folic acid intake is early in the pregnancy. And I hate the fact that I drank with my first child before I knew I was pregnant.
Actually, one is supposed to be taking folic acid *before* the pregnancy, because the early foundation is so important for a healthy baby later on. The Bush II admin put out standards that said GPs are supposed to treat all women of child-bearing age as "pre-pregnant" (I am not making this up) in their recommendations of health practices, sending PCs like myself into a paranoid tizzy. Luckily, most of the medical community pretty much ignored the Bush II admin as much as legally possible.
Quote:
And your source of info on when women come in would be bias because women trying to have a baby to get tested weekly would know pretty early on. Women who are married and thinking, well if I get pregnant so be it, if not, so be it aren't going to be there that early. Women who aren't trying to get pregnant at all will wait even later. It's a very important issue to women who want to keep their babies for proper prenatal care.
agreed - it was the women who come in through the ER that I was referring to in my initial statement, but I think I mentioned that I don't know how late the average woman finds out. If not, I should have. Women who are very in-tune with their bodies, and who are not afraid to go to the doctor or ER for discomfort or wierd feelings, will notice something different and get diagnosed quite early - but I don't know how many women pay that much attention to themselves. Most probably chalk it up to indigestion or something.
Quote:
if I were Catholic, and I thought it was bull sh**, and I took birth control, before Communion, I would go to Confession explaining that I am in sin for I disagree with the church for I take Birth Control.
A sin is a crime against god, not against the church. And, anyway, even my grandparents don't go to confession any more! But I freely agree that different parishes have different atmospheres. Last two times I was in church were for funerals, and both times the priest harrangued the 'flock' about how nobody goes to mass anymore except for funerals, weddings, and holy high days.
Quote:
Sorry about my snide remark about going Baptist. I'm a former Baptist, and I detest the Baptist religion. It was more a comment like my one about killing brain dead people. I was just being facetious.
I figured. It's funny about the various sects, though - different sects really do seem to inspire different ways of looking at the world. I generally tend to get along with Catholics, former Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews, and non-religious Jews far better than, say, Baptists or Pentecostals - despite being about as non-religious as a person can be. Another odd thing is that the Catholics who convert to Episcopalian churches seem to be way harsher on Catholicism than the Catholics who leave the church all together.
Quote:
But priests are more there for spiritual consultation rather than details on raising a family. The idea of a soul and spirit and birth control interfering with that would be their business.
If they would just stick to spiritual consultation, they might have fuller churches. Spirituality should be a source of joy, not punishment.
Quote:
You are more than welcome to debate religious ideas, but I try to respect things people hold sacred. It's about respecting other people. God is someone I hold sacred. And while I'm against some of the things extreme Muslims do in practice, I would never disrespect Allah. Now, if I were on a plane and I killed the terrorist, I might publicly wish them to get the Catholic treatment for their sins and request God judge them instead of reincarnation as I wish them judgement in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but that would be the purpose of that. And I am no terrorist. But thank you for comparing my respect for God to a bunch of terrorists.
I vacillate on how much respect I should give religion. In general, I see it as overall being a source of more evil in the world than good. The idea that 'faith' (defined as belief in a position without, or even despite, the evidence) is a good thing is terribly pernicious and harmful to society. I simply can't respect something that does so much harm, even if it sometimes comforts the person who holds it.
Tell me this: if you honestly believed that the teachings of your god required you to kill or convert infidels, and that not only yourself but your entire family would be rewarded with eternity in paradise (with or without virgins) if you did so, would you think that suicide bombing was such a bad idea?
And since you honestly believe (or so I understand from reading your posts here) that killing someone who is about to commit an act of terror is ok, and that the vast majority of abortions are for poor reasons, and that abortion is child abuse and/or murder after five weeks, do you honestly think that it's a bad idea for PL activists to bomb abortion clinics or ram them with their vehicles, or to shoot Ob/Gyns who perform abortions?
Quote:
Through it. Well, marriage ends at death. So would no sex. I never said it was healthy for a marriage. I just said it shouldn't be a requirement for a good marriage.
Most couples have as many children as they want by the time they're in their early 30s. They should have themselves sterilized after that, but if they don't for whatever reason, they're supposed to stop making love for the rest of their lives together? Or if the man's vasectomy fails (as they sometimes do), they're supposed to just shrug and start with a new child in their 40s?
Quote:
To be honest, it's quite personal. I have been raped.
That's a non-sequitur to me; I don't equate 'rape' and 'sex,' especially not in the context of an otherwise loving marriage. But every woman feels differently about it, I guess. If they are similar to you, I can totally see how sex wouldn't be all that important or desirable to you.
Quote:
As far as abortion destroying the marriage, the man has no right to the baby, so the couple doesn't have to discuss it right?
No, they don't HAVE to. But if they don't, there was a pretty big problem with the relationship before the pregnancy ever came along.
Quote:
My friend had a fiance, and they were together for years, and they got pregnant. She also had an abortion quite late into the term for when abortions go. Anyway, it did destroy their relationship. She did talk to him about it first. It was his decision equally. But he felt guilt, she got nightmares, and they broke up. They were perfect for each other with no problems until the abortion. She will tell you it was the abortion that destroyed her life because she still to this day wishes she was with him. After him, she got with the CIA stalker type.
Do you know why she had the abortion, if it was late? Afaik women usually have pretty good reasons at that stage.
Also, I honestly believe (until I'm presented with evidence to the contrary) that a strong marriage gets stronger through adversity, including abortion OR having an unplanned child. A weak marriage will fail eventually from adversity, including abortion or an unplanned child or even a planned one.
Quote:
I'm sure most of the abortions that have taken place would have been able to have a nursery far bigger than a cardboard box and an old blanket. Especially in the US where you can get on HUD, welfare, foodstamps, and go to places that sell used or gives away old cribs, pack n plays, etc.
You're right; that was extreme. It's probably about as frequent as the abortion-from-rape scenario.
Quote:
If the pharmacists holds your script hostage, you call the police. That's what I would have done.
Thanks to Bush II, pharmacists and any other HCPs can legally refuse to participate or to refer for any procedure or treatment, including birth control, that violates their morality. Obama has promised to overturn it.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/013944.html
Quote:
Abortions do not give women equality. That's a load.
Not abortions, per se, but controlling their own fertility.
Quote:
No you won't get a dishonorable discharge if you are pregnant unless it's between an officer and enlisted because they had sex, not because they were pregnant.
But the pregnancy is seen as proof that she had sex, so she has to either hide (get rid of) the pregnancy, or face a dishonorable?
Quote:
Even then, that's at worse case scenario as that happens and they don't all get dishonorable over it.
What divides the ones who get dishonorables from the ones who don't?
Quote:
If you are in basic training or tech school and get pregnant, you'd get a general discharge.
Glad to hear that.
Quote:
They won't deploy you while you are pregnant, which is also why I don't want to tie my tubes. If they call me back in, I don't want to leave my children to blow up some things in Afghanistan. My plan of action is sex, sex, sex, and get pregnant.
Uhh... Wow. I can't say that I approve of your solution, but on the other hand I can't say that I like the army's policy or the wars we're fighting either.
Quote:
One of my female officers was pregnant more than not when I was in, and she did PT and all that pregnant.
My sensei's wife also trained in Aikido, and she trained until the week she gave birth.
Quote:
I know oral sex is illegal in the military, and you have to have sex in the missionary position.
What?!? You're joking?!
Quote:
So when I say they got enough rules to tell you how to wipe your ass, I'm not joking.
...
....
.....!
Quote:
That's what makes it harder because all those rules, they can find something from even the best of the best to kick them out over. But generally, they don't freak out over pregnancy. They also do offer paid maternity leave.
(shaking head)
You make me very glad I never joined the military.
Quote:
I don't think my irresponsibility should justify the rapist, but I think it was my fault on the count of common sense on my part. I was very stupid about things that night. I didn't deserve rape, no. But i try to learn from it. I dont' think it's fair that I can't get drunk and people mess with me while I"m that way, but such is life right?
Well, it's true that women should be responsible for themselves and not do stupid things, and it's true that life is not fair - but the entire legal system exists in the first place in an attempt to make life more fair than it would otherwise be. The JUSTICE system. Saying that a man can go out drinking and be fine, but a woman can expect to be raped if she does (and that it's somehow not rape if she had a drink) is not fair, and it's within the purview of the justice system to recognize that.
Quote:
It's also entirely possible to show someone your love without sex.
True... but. If I loved someone and wanted sex, but was afraid to have it for fear of getting pregnant, either the strain would kill me or I'd leave the relationship. I can't imagine facing down two or three decades of unrequited love - I'd move on with my life. (Not. In reality, I'd get my tubes tied - I don't get why people (at least, those not facing war unless they get pregnant) don't want to do that).
Quote:
They do exist. I hate the fact that I used to always make fun of them because they probably needed a friend more than another enemy.
What was this in response to?
Quote:
Combat pay is tax free too. And you increase your risk to rape by going to college, but that shouldn't be reason not to go.
But 'most' women who go to college are not raped. Not even half of them. Heck, not even a quarter of them. I've heard some pretty ugly things about how the majority of women are treated in the military.
Quote:
Well, you were Catholic, you know in their mind, it's not that their dogma is more important than kids, but that kids are more important and should not be raised by sin to the extreme of homosexual homes.
yes, that's an accurate summation of their beliefs - but I've already made it clear what I think about 'faith' determining public policy.
Quote:
Either way, I think children are more important than a principle, and if we can increase adoption services all together, then that's what we do.
I agree, and the fact that the church would rather stop adoptions all together than risk 'polluting' their business by dealing with gays is one more nail in the coffin of my respect for it.
03 Mar 2009, 12:42 am
Tantybi wrote:
On FOCA:
Quote:
http://www.answers.com/topic/fundamental-right
Basically stating that fundamental rights are rights held higher than other rights including the bill of rights which include freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Basically stating that fundamental rights are rights held higher than other rights including the bill of rights which include freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
from your source:
Quote:
...through the process of selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has determined that with only a few exceptions the provisions of the Bill of Rights meet the definition of fundamental liberties and are constitutionally immune from encroachment by state and local governments as well as federal. In recent years, the right to privacy and protections against various forms of discrimination have increasingly been seen as fundamental.
— Thomas G. Walker
Wikipedia: Fundamental right
A fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. These fundamental rights usually encompass those rights considered natural human rights.
— Thomas G. Walker
Wikipedia: Fundamental right
A fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. These fundamental rights usually encompass those rights considered natural human rights.
The job of the SCOTUS is to determine if a legislated law is permitted by the constitution. The legislature can pass a bill, and the President can sign it into law, but the SCotUS can knock it down if it goes against the constitution, even if the words 'fundamental right' are written into the law.
Quote:
SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
Quote:
Now as a fundamental right, would a hospital be allowed to deny a woman her fundamental right? If not, then say goodbye to many good Catholic hospitals.
This bill specifies only that governments may not interfere with this right. However, if it will make you happy I'll see if I can ask one of the Sisters (my hospital is run by a group of nuns) whether or not they're worried about its passage wrt. us being forced to shut down or do abortions. Next day I work is Wednesday evening (there might not be any Sisters in the hospital by the time I get to work, but if I see one I'll ask her).
There are lots of things that governments cannot do that private organizations can. Look at all the discrimination that the Boy Scouts get away with, for example, that would be absolutely illegal for a government entity.
Quote:
Ask the Catholics at the online Catholic Forum, http://www.catholic-forum.com/. I'm sure they will provide you with lots of literature as to where the Catholic Church truly stands on the matter. If you want a great debate, you'd be up against some of the best. Usually the best debaters on that site have a "CCF" behind their name.
Oh, I don't doubt at all that the Catholic church is vehemently opposed to FOCA; I just doubt that FOCA will affect Catholic hospitals.
Quote:
To be honest, I really don't have the time to debate this much. I keep pretty busy...
Tell me about it.
Quote:
I've got some serious projects coming up, and I don't want them to suffer because I feel like I have to prove a point to someone I never really met and whose never going to agree with me.
Likewise.
Quote:
Having sex is natural, so is getting pregnant and having a baby. Abortions are not natural.
Getting an STD is natural. Treating an STD is not natural.
Quote:
I could just as easily say if I went to Puerto Rico and robbed the woman, it would be okay because Im stupid.
The act is the solution to being stupid, not stupid itself.
Quote:
You are the one equating abortion to infanticide and murder.
No, I am not. If you continue to disagree on this point, please quote me where I initiated a claim that abortion is infanticide.
Quote:
Uneducated people can do all those things like get a GED, scholarships, grants, go to college with loans, etc., even with kids.
Oh, it's possible; it's just a hell of a lot less likely.
http://www.stayteen.org/get-informed/default.aspx
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/costs/default.aspx
Quote:
Kids are the best motivation to get your life straight.
That's why we had to shut down the foster care system for lack of unwanted/uncared for children! I always wondered about that.
Quote:
In fact, out of all my friends, those who had abortions versus those who didn't, the ones who didn't have a better life. IN fact, my middle class friend who had abortions is now living in poverty, and my lower class friend straight up out of some ghetto is now lower middle class with three kids the first of which she was pregnant at 15.
That's really great for them, but it's not in line with statistics.
Good point on divorce
Quote:
{snip bad car/bad phone story}
Yeah, I hear you about the cars. I just got a new car (for the first time in my life!). It's itty-bitty and relatively cheap, but it's a Honda so hopefully the thing will run for a 300K miles. It's also a lovely color of dark, dark purple. Most importantly, though, I can leave work on a dark night and be confident that my car will start when I get in; the simple security of it is wonderful.
I don't have a cell phone now; I dropped mine after the 'pre-paid' option was changed to cost a minimum of $25 a month (I don't talk on the phone that much). Since I already pay that much for a landline (cells won't work at my house), I didn't think it was worth it. I *do* have a PDA, I admit; my mother got it for me for my birthday, because I'm so bloody absent-minded that I can literally agree to take an extra shift tomorrow and then forget that I did so when I wake up tomorrow morning. It hasn't quite saved my life, but it has saved my job. I also have an iPod, which I bought used from a co-worker for $25.
Quote:
Yeah, but Puerto Rico is a wonderful place to visit. Beautiful beaches, beautiful men, cheap rum. I love my husband, don't get me wrong. But sometimes I like a little eye candy.
I'll keep that in mind; I don't really drink much, but I've actually been thinking about going to south/central America to practice my Spanish, and Costa Rica was one of the places I've considered. I speak enough to barely get by with Spanish-only patients at the hospital, but I'd like to be actually conversant. And eye-candy doesn't harm anyone.
Actually a friend of mine from high school married a man from Honduras, and he is just about the sweetest guy you'll ever meet. I also have to admit that the Hispanic families that come into the hospital seem, on average, extremely well-adjusted. Quote:
On the sell out thing, I'm a little Taoist in nature. So I do consider middle class worldly goods. Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with having worldly goods, just not at the expense of my children. I harp on my husband so much about that because sometimes we struggle from pay to pay, and I want to build a savings to fall back on, but he's the type to think if we have some money in savings, then he should buy himself a guitar or something like that. I'm trying to explain to him that the kids come first. When we are set with a basic financial portfolio that lets me sleep at night knowing my kids will be okay even if my husband loses his job (which is highly probable in this day and age), then we can splurge some money we might of saved if kept saving.
LOL I'm a little more 'middle-way' Buddhist in philosophy. My keyword is 'balance.' But I see your point wrt. Guitar vs. say, new shoes when the kids grow out of them. What it all comes down to, though, is that I don't consider a first-trimester zef a person, child or otherwise; I don't see the decision as being between 'guitar or unborn child's college fund.' I'm struggling to think of a good metaphor, because as I've said I would probably keep a pregnancy at this stage in my life... I guess it would have been, 'embryo vs. future college degree' for me, back in the day, if I had been forced to make the choice.
Quote:
Having a baby would dramatically change my life is another way of saying, oops. Since most of the abortions in that study took place for that reason, yeah, many women do go through an, oops, let's have an abortion.
That's a little bit like saying that it's 'oops' when someone realizes that they've done their taxes wrong and will have to sell their house and business in order to pay back the IRS. 'Oops' doesn't quite cover it.
Quote:
On the killing a living being and me being vegan.
I was actually arguing a little bit of semantics. Cows are 'living beings,' so saying that an abortion kills a 'living being' doesn't mean a lot if one also eats cows. The point is that abortion kills a 'living human being,' and then the question arises of what human is.
Quote:
I prefer it to white meat because I am white meat.
?? Do you mean that metaphorically?
'Cause I've seen plenty of living human flesh from trauma, and plenty of dead human cadavers, and none of them had 'white meat.'
Quote:
In fact, if you look at all the creatures on earth, most of them are white meat.
Well, sure - mammals are a tiny branch of all extant species, no matter how biased we humans are about our particular clade.
Quote:
I don't like wild red meat like deer or buffalo. Too gamey in taste.
I agree, unfortunately. I've never had buffalo, but I had to spit out the last piece of venison I tried to eat. I'd love to be able to appreciate someone's gift when they bring me jerkey from a deer they've killed themselves, but I just can't stand the stuff.
Quote:
I prefer whatever I can go buy down at the grocery store.
I don't actually eat very much meat at all, but I know it's been too long when I walk by the butcher's counter and start thinking how tasty the raw liver looks.
Quote:
Next time I'm in Puerto Rico too, I want to buy a live chicken and have someone show me hands on how to kill it, strip it or whatever you call it, and cook it.
I used to fish a lot with my dad, so I know I can kill and gut a fish; I think it'd be different with something that was warm, though.
Quote:
before I had kids, I was like a dude. But now that I had daughters, all the sudden, I like pink, romantic movies, girly songs, conversations about style, etc.
Huh. I've never been into that stuff; you make me wonder.
Quote:
As far as abortion is concerned... I was pro choice, I switched my stand to Pro Life. There's nothing you can't really spit out at me that is a major point that I haven't already used against people like me. Some minor points, I'm pretty impressed. Either way, it's one of those things that we can debate on and on about, and it's not going to change either one of our minds. That's how the pro life and pro choice thing is. It's a serious debate that's been going on for quite some time.
If you can believe it, my current position (allowing significant restrictions in the 3rd trimester) is a backdown from where I used to be, after I first started arguing abortion on the internet years ago. There was a brief time period on one particular board where everyone on both sides was actually calm and logical, and I think we all made some progress. Eye of the hurricane, I guess.
Quote:
As for law, I think the middle ground would be for Congress to define a person including when a person becomes a person and when they stop being one (like when life begins and life ends type thing) for purposes of law, especially regarding murder, child abuse, assault, etc. Whether they determine a person a person at conception, at 24 weeks into a pregnancy, or at child birth, they need to make up their mind on that and use it consistently. Creating laws that contradict other laws because nobody can define this for law only adds to the debate rather than a solution. When I say creating laws that contradict each other, I am referring to my main example of it's a person in the womb when the mom is assaulted, but it's not a person when aborted. Then abortion before the zef is a person type thing would then just be part of healthcare, and offering more services such as that would be a non-government issue except that government health benefits should cover that in addition to birth control. The government should not require anyone to provide said services (that doesn't mean that they do, I know they don't, and it should stay that way).
I don't know enough about the laws as they currently stand to comment much on that, except that I agree that the 'fetal harm' laws are inconsitent.
Quote:
If women are concerned about women's rights on the fundamental right level, then it should be more about a woman's right to reproduce rather than a right to abort so that women can have the freedom to succeed as a mom and should be offered the same opportunities as the man.
I agree that mothers should have more support and more opportunities to succeed, but defining 'women's rights' as 'mother's rights' turns women who do not have and/or do not want children into legal non-entities. We already get discriminated against (so do mothers, but in a different way) for not having kids ('What's wrong with you?' 'Can't find a man?' 'You must be selfish!' 'You're not a real woman until you've had a child.' etc.); I really wouldn't want it codified.
Quote:
I'm not about banning abortions. I'm just about taking the focus of women's rights off abortions and place it where it's needed more, and that's on the right of being a mom. I'm sick of all these men expecting us to do all the freaking work, and then they set up obstacles against it. They want us to bring home money while we raise our kids, but they don't want to hire pregnant women, women with newborns, or grant maternity leave. They also don't care that child care is really expensive and the free crap the states offer is a you get what you pay for type thing. Some men don't even care if the kid is fed or clothed, but they care about the mom having the kid.
Ahhh, the good old conservative 'it's alive from conception until birth' phenomenon. Talk about straw men! Only unfortunately, these straw men actually exist. They give women crap for having abortions, and they give women crap for working rather than staying home with their children, and they give women crap for taking welfare so that they won't have to work as much. That's where PCs get the idea that PLs are all about controlling women rather than concern for the kid.
Quote:
In many cases of even abortion, a woman wants to have a kid but is afraid she's not ready for it because of all the obstacles men have placed in front of us. Reality is, men should be making it easier for us to bring children into the world rather than easier for us to have abortions. That doesn't mean remove the option of abortion. It just means women need to wake up and take what we really need. We need the freedom to reproduce more than the freedom to abort. That's what I believe, and you may disagree, but it's not a stupid belief here on my part. It may not be the answer to all the problems, but i think it offers more of a solution than most anyone else has offered.
Mmmm. I flinch at the use of the word 'men' as exclusive causative agents for all our woes; even if it's almost entirely men in positions of power, women do vote.
Also, I think that we *do* have the 'right to reproduce,' as much as we want (ever heard of the Duggars?); we absolutely could use more societal support, though. I think that's part of where the hispanic families excel.
I also think that we could use more bc access and education, and more social willingness to use the more effective, longer-term options like IUDs and sterilization.
If PCs and PLs come to an agreement, that seems to be where they meet: prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
03 Mar 2009, 3:05 am
03 Mar 2009, 12:33 pm
03 Mar 2009, 2:26 pm
04 Mar 2009, 12:47 pm
05 Mar 2009, 3:11 am
05 Mar 2009, 3:30 am
05 Mar 2009, 3:21 pm
06 Mar 2009, 3:25 am
06 Mar 2009, 3:28 am
06 Mar 2009, 10:28 am
06 Mar 2009, 9:48 pm
10 Mar 2009, 12:39 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Women's pronouns |
20 Nov 2024, 3:16 pm |
| Where to meet women irl who are single |
19 Nov 2024, 6:08 pm |
| Link between Hernias and Autism in Women? |
24 Oct 2024, 11:33 am |
| Now its official that women are dying from abortion ban. |
19 Sep 2024, 4:44 pm |
