01-10-2002 10:18									#151
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I think the best place to turn to solve this age old question of whether a fetus is equal to a person is none other than the bible.

The Bible may be a fine source for metaphysical knowledge, but I'd question its relevance as a source for ethical knowledge (especially the Old Testament). Stoning is not an acceptable punishment for adultery, and ethnic cleansing is not an acceptable means to wage war. Don't forget that the ancient Hebrews probably had no means of determining whether a fetus had any brain activity.

	01-10-2002 10:18									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln No, calling a pro life person "anti-choice" is inflamatory because we would like the unborn to have a choice while the anti-life people would deny that choice because they cannot hear the voice of the one they are going to kill.

If you are for the unborn having the right to choice, then in order to avoid hipocrisy, you must also be for the born to have a right for choice, which must make suicide okay.

I'll bet you aren't

And as for the critics, they are of course right. Why? Because if the real agenda was for pre-natal health care, then they would give it to the mothers-to-be. To give it to the unborn is a blatant thin-edge-of-the-wedge. Next Bush will be giving fetuses social security numbers, miscarriaged fetuses death certificates and funerals, and make parents-to-be give names to fetuses even before their sex is known, not to mention eradicating birthdays in lieu of "conception days"!

	01-10-2002 10:19									#153
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by nationalist How can you say that no one has ever heard of it? Because you haven't heard of it? Clarify yourself please.

Yep. As a politically active person, I was familiar not only with most of the groups on the left, but also most of the groups on the right. If FFL were a new group, then I could see having never heard of it. But as it claims to have been around since 1972, I would have encountered some mention of it in the ten years I was politically active.

quote: I have to diagree with you here, Che. Not every leader who is against abortion is a misogynist.

You can disagree with me, but you'll need to find a prominent anti-choice leader who isn't also opposed to women's rights. I do know that there are anti-choice feminists, but they are really few and far between when compared to the movement as a whole.

Susan B. Anthony also felt Ida B Wells should stop being a prominent part of the suffrage movement when she got married and had children. Despite being in favor of a woman's right to vote, she had rather Victorian ideas on the role of wives and mothers (ironically enough). Many prominent leaders of the suffrage movement were also racists. Infact, the argument they used (just like Margaet Sanger in fight for constraception) is that it would be useful for helping to dillute the Black vote. Just because someone's a hero doesn't mean you need to agree with everything they thought or did.

	01-10-2002 10:23									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Fair point Loin, however for most people the question of abortion is soley a question of morality. All scientific and philosophical arguements be damned. The reason there are so many pro-lifers is because they think abortion is something that is morally apprehenisble. Assuming these people are using the Bible as their source for morality, they will find nothing to support their arguement that abortion is a "sin", and actually a few passages that show it's almost certainly not.

	01-10-2002 10:25									#155
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

loin, a zygote is human, but not a human. Cancer cells are also human, but not a human.

Seriously, I think the abortion debate in the US has suffered greatly because of this tiny semantic difference.

Furthermore, the distinction that the DNA is different is not valid. A clone would be just as human, but the genetic material is identical. (well, a female clone with an egg from the same female would be, but let's not get into that)



Nationalist, it is not a question of rationalization. As I said, it is a question of propabilites. If we start assigning status depending on propability, we are on a slippery slope indeed. 'Will surely be a human' is not the same as 'will be a human'.

Science is the only good basis we have.

	01-10-2002 10:25									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yep. As a politically active person, I was familiar not only with most of the groups on the left, but also most of the groups on the right. If FFL were a new group, then I could see having never heard of it. But as it claims to have been around since 1972, I would have encountered some mention of it in the ten years I was politically active.

Interesting. Have you heard of these groups before? FFL claims to be part of these groups: National Women's Coalition for Life, the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, and the Seamless Garment Network. FFL seems to have a fairly large prescence at least on college campuses that I have been on. My school has FFL rallies and things like that, and I don't go to a religious school.

quote: Just because someone's a hero doesn't mean you need to agree with everything they thought or did.

I agree with you here cough... Thomas Jefferson... cough

	01-10-2002 10:28									#157
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu 'Will surely be a human' is not the same as 'will be a human'.

Gnu,
I'm not quite clear as to what you mean here.

	01-10-2002 10:29									#158
	Inflate your Upload Space

I've heard of the other groups. . . . wait a minute, you know, I just might have run across them at the National March on Washington for Reproductive Rights back in Nov, 1989. I vaguely remember some pro-life feminists . . . Nope, I'm thinking of the pro-choice Republican women. They were nice. Too many drugs in my misspent youth.

	01-10-2002 10:30									#159
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Edit: made a mistake by thinking I made a mistake

If something doesn't have a 100% propability, one cannot equate them.

	01-10-2002 10:32									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by nationalist When I don't have intercouse, I'm not disrupting something that would naturally result; there is nothing to disrupt.

Define "naturally." In particular, explain why it is unnatural to abort an embryo/fetus but still natural to use contraception.

quote: When I abort a second trimester fetus, I am disrupting a result that will almost certainly happen.

When you fail to engage in sexual intercourse, then you are disrupting the exact same result. It's not as certain to occur, granted, but it's the same result nevertheless.

quote: My actions changed something that would have happened. If I don't have sex, my actions change nothing. The women is still not pregnant.

As a result of your not having sex, a human being has failed to come into existence. As a result of a second trimester abortion, a human being has failed to come into existence. All you're doing is drawing a line in the sand in terms of probabilities, and declaring that everything on one side of the line (everything with, say, a 15% probability of producing a human) cannot be interrupted, while everything on your side of the line is a-okay.

In a second trimester abortion, who is the victim?

	01-10-2002 10:32									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ten minutes before I got my PhD diploma, I was perfectly sure Igoing to be a PhD. Yet, even though I was very sure, I couldn't at that point call myself a PhD. Follow me?

	01-10-2002 10:37									#162
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Fair point Loin, however for most people the question of abortion is soley a question of morality. All scientific and philosophical arguements be damned.

Morality (ethics) is philosophy. The philosophy that "all of my morals can be gleaned from the pages of the Bible" is flawed, since the OT has several laws/practices that are clearly immoral, while the NT is somewhat vague ("love your neighbor as yourself" is a laudable moral system, but requires a moderate amount of independent thinking in order to be put into practice).

	01-10-2002 10:38									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Assuming these people are using the Bible as their source for morality, they will find nothing to support their arguement that abortion is a "sin"

I'm not using the Bible for the basis of my beliefs on this topic at all. I just can't split the hairs required to think that it is o.k. to destroy something that doesn't have brainwaves at the moment, but will have them in a week and will then be a sentient person. I think that you have to think on the long term rather than the short term, and 6 months is too short term to think on. To me it seems like these people are ignoring the longterm consequences of their actions. That is why I dismiss most of their arguments as rationalization. When I make decisions, I tend to think about what will happen with each choice at least a year from the day that I make that choice. With abortion it seems clear to me. If I have an abortion, there will be certainly be no child. If I don't have an abortion there certainly will be a child. It seems like choosing abortion is choosing to kill that child, because if I didn't have that abortion, outside accidents disregarded, the child would be alive. I couldn't make the decision to kill that child.

	01-10-2002 10:41									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Ten minutes before I got my PhD diploma, I was perfectly sure Igoing to be a PhD. Yet, even though I was very sure, I couldn't at that point call myself a PhD. Follow me?

Yeah, I follow you. I just don't agree with the instantaneous method of logic. You wouldn't call yourself PhD, but you would say that you were certainly going to be one unless somebody shot you. I think that you have to look at the consequences and results of a certain span of time. Do you see what I am saying?

	01-10-2002 10:49									#165
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu loin, a zygote is human, but not a human. Cancer cells are also human, but not a human.

The zygote is the beginning of the life cycle of a new human. Cancer is self-destructive and, no matter how mutated it becomes (no matter how much it diverges from the host's DNA), cannot be considered a new life form (since it cannot possibly mature and reproduce).

The life cycle of any organism starts out with a single cell. Mammals aren't an exception. You wouldn't say that a chicken zygote inside of a layed egg is just an organ (or cluster of tissues or whatever) of the chicken who layed the egg, nor would you say that the zygote is somehow not a chicken. The same holds true for human zygotes, the difference of course being that chicken zygotes mature completely outside of their mother's body, while human zygotes mature inside of their mother's body.

	01-10-2002 10:54									#166
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by loinburger [QUOTE]Define "naturally." In particular, explain why it is unnatural to abort an embryo/fetus but still natural to use contraception.

It is unnatural to abort a fetus because you artificially inserted chemicals that wouldn't be there otherwise. If the chemicals weren't there, the fetus wouldn't be aborted. When you wear a condom, you still experience the same processes. You still ejaculate, it was just caught by something other than the woman's reproductive organ. It is natural in the same way masterbating is natural.

quote: When you fail to engage in sexual intercourse, then you are disrupting the exact same result. It's not as certain to occur, granted, but it's the same result nevertheless.

Could you extend that to include anything that isn't having sexual intercourse. If I am eating or studying, I'm failing to create a life. The key word in that is certain. The second trimester fetus will become a third trimester fetus barring accident. Having sex doesn't guarantee fertilization. That is the difference for me. I can't really buy this argument.

quote: As a result of your not having sex, a human being has failed to come into existence. As a result of a second trimester abortion, a human being has failed to come into existence. All you're doing is drawing a line in the sand in terms of probabilities, and declaring that everything on one side of the line (everything with, say, a 15% probability of producing a human) cannot be interrupted, while everything on your side of the line is a-okay.

You have to look at the 9 month longterm before you make this decision. Decisions aren't made in a vaccuum. That is why I can't buy this argument. I know that it certainly will be a human, barring injury, in 3 months. That is why I can't abort it, and that is why I can't buy this argument.

quote: In a second trimester abortion, who is the victim?

The fetus, insomuch as it will be sentient soon otherwise. Again, decisions aren't made in a vaccuum. Time must be taken into account.

	01-10-2002 10:56									#167
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I've heard of the other groups. . . . wait a minute, you know, I just might have run across them at the National March on Washington for Reproductive Rights back in Nov, 1989. I vaguely remember some pro-life feminists . . . Nope, I'm thinking of the pro-choice Republican women. They were nice. Too many drugs in my misspent youth.

I guess our differences are in the definition of feminist. I say that anyone who thinks that women are just as good as men are feminists. Go figure that people would have different definitions for the same political term. Oh well, once agian we'll agree to disagree. Hey, at least this time things were pretty civil.

	01-10-2002 10:57									#168
	Remove this text

So am I the only "anti-life" one here?

Anyone promoting freedom of choice should first consult with the child before it is conceived. Failing in obtaining permission should postpone conception until further notice from the child. Not only is this the solution to the "I'm pro-******, you're anti-******" debate, but within a century or so, all of humanity's problems as well.

Down with totalitarian parents! Up with un-born children's rights! (this sounds sarcastic I know, but I'm dead serious, except about the chanting at the end, I'm too lazy to demonstrate no matter how worthy the cause)

	01-10-2002 11:03									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, it's also true there are a hell of a lot more right-wing feminists these days than even five years ago. Hell, those blonde Republican hotties on TV have to come from somewhere. While I disagree with their politics, their existence is still a victory of feminism.

	01-10-2002 11:24									#170
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by nationalist It is unnatural to abort a fetus because you artificially inserted chemicals that wouldn't be there otherwise. If the chemicals weren't there, the fetus wouldn't be aborted. When you wear a condom, you still experience the same processes. You still ejaculate, it was just caught by something other than the woman's reproductive organ. It is natural in the same way masterbating is natural.

So things that cause a biological change in a human are unnatural? So, f'rinstance, wearing a condom is natural (since its effects are external), but using birth control pills would be unnatural (since if the chemicals weren't there, the woman might become pregnant).

quote: Could you extend that to include anything that isn't having sexual intercourse.

Yes, which is why it's a slippery slope to start considering "the possibility of life" to be the equivalent of "life." Possibilities aren't certainties.

quote: The key word in that is certain. The second trimester fetus will become a third trimester fetus barring accident. Having sex doesn't guarantee fertilization. That is the difference for me. I can't really buy this argument.

Like I said, you're drawing an apparently arbitrary line in the sand. "You can interfere with processes that have X% chance of producing a human, but you cannot interfere with processes that have Y% chance of producing a human."

You're also using a cop-out definition of the term "certain," since you're essentially saying "It's certain, barring the chance that it isn't." Fertilization from intercourse is also certain, barring the chance that the woman's egg isn't viable and barring the chance that the sperm fail to do their job.

quote: I know that it certainly will be a human, barring injury, in 3 months. That is why I can't abort it, and that is why I can't buy this argument.

If you have intercourse then you know that you will certainly produce a human life, barring the possibility that you fail to do so. That's why it looks as though you're just drawing a line in the sand over this.

quote: The fetus, insomuch as it will be sentient soon otherwise. Again, decisions aren't made in a vaccuum. Time must be taken into account.

The fetus is not sentient at this stage of the game, so it cannot be a victim any more than a brain-dead patient can be a victim, or any more than sperm/egg cells can be victims. There is no victim, because until the third trimester there is no "being" to be victimized. If not creating life is murder, then everybody who is capable of reproducing and is currently not reproducing is a murderer.

	01-10-2002 11:24									#171
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Nationalist, 'instantaneous'?

But you got that part. Now regress in time. At what point should I start considering myself a PhD? When I've defended? When I finished my thesis? When I passed my candidacy exams? When I was accepted to graduate school? (And while you might think the example spurious, consider the propabilites: A student just accepted to grad school has a LARGER chance of becoming a PhD than a newly fertilized zygote has of becoming a human.)

I still maintain that one cannot use a propability as a means of classification, no matter what the odds are.

	01-10-2002 11:27									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Umm, loin, we are on the same side here, right?

En egg is not a chicken. It is avian, as far as classifications go, but it is not a chicken. Likewise, a human zygote is human, but not a human.

Regarding cancer cell, don't be too sure. Research suggests that cencer cells might be able to function just like stem cells... Which would make them the equivalent of a fertilized zygote.

	01-10-2002 11:34									#173
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Gnu,

Instantaneous meaning at that instant, without regard to the instant before or the instant afterwards. That is why I reject all of these arguments, they all seem to discount time as a factor. For your example, I'd say that you could consider yourself a PhD after you've defended, because you have met all of the requirements to become one. It is just a short amount of time until you actualy get that peace of paper. I don't think that I am simply using probability as a factor; I think it is just one of the factors.

	01-10-2002 11:38									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Regarding cancer cell, don't be too sure. Research suggests that cencer cells might be able to function just like stem cells... Which would make them the equivalent of a fertilized zygote.

Wouldn't that be odd, if it turns out that Parkinson's or Alzheimers can be cured with cancer cells.

	01-10-2002 11:40									#175
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

nationalist, I'm going to take your time example to an absurd extreme. Since we will all end up dead one day, then there is no problem with murder. By allowing someone to live you are merely delaying the inevitable 100% chance that a person is going to become dead.

	01-10-2002 11:47									#176
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Nationalist, then you ARE actually using propability as a factor. You picked the instant when the probability (at least as far as procedures go) went to 100%.

Before I defended, my propability was over 99%. I would have had to resort to racial slurs or public indecency in order to fail. Yet you didn't pick that point, because there was a propability involved.

	01-10-2002 11:48									#177
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Che, yeah, it would... I think stem cell research is much more likely to yeild good results, though...

Good example, too

	01-10-2002 11:49									#178
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger [QUOTE]So things that cause a biological change in a human are unnatural? So, f'rinstance, wearing a condom is natural (since its effects are external), but using birth control pills would be unnatural (since if the chemicals weren't there, the woman might become pregnant).

sort of. To me the difference is the fact that when using birth control pills you are using chemicals to prevent pregnancy that hasn't happened yet, but abortion uses those chemicals to stop a pregnancy that is already in progress. In progress is another key phrase in my beliefs. I'll need to refine my definition of natural more than what you have interpreted it as. Mine is something along the lines of creating a "destructive biological change" rather than a "preventative" biological change. BCPs don't destroy anything; they prevent ovulation by tricking the body. That is basically what makes them acceptable to me.

quote: Yes, which is why it's a slippery slope to start considering "the possibility of life" to be the equivalent of "life." Possibilities aren't certainties. Like I said, you're drawing an apparently arbitrary line in the sand. "You can interfere with processes that have X% chance of producing a human, but you cannot interfere with processes that have Y% chance of producing a human." You're also using a cop-out definition of the term "certain," since you're essentially saying "It's certain, barring the chance that it isn't." Fertilization from intercourse is also certain, barring the chance that the woman's egg isn't viable and barring the chance that the sperm fail to do their job.

By certain I mean a practical certainty. 99.9% probability may not be completely certain, but it is practically certain. None of us know the actual figures, so we can't really debate them here.

quote: If not creating life is murder, then everybody who is capable of reproducing and is currently not reproducing is a murderer.

That's not what I am going for. I don't think that not creating life is murder, I thiunk that stopping life while it is in the process of developing is murder. That process begins with fertilization, not with intercourse. That is why contraceptives are alright. The development of the different cells into one being starts at fertilization.

Well, I have an 8 a.m. class tomorrow, and I can't believe that I stayed up until 3 debating on a computer forum! Anyway, this was probably the best argument that I have been in on here so far. Everyone responded cooly, and no one really tossed spiteful ad hominems at each other. (Boris was pretty obnoxious, but that doesn't really surprise me) Anyway, goodnight all and thanks for your time.

	01-10-2002 11:54									#179
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Nationalist, then you ARE actually using propability as a factor. You picked the instant when the probability (at least as far as procedures go) went to 100%

I thought that you meant the process of defending your thesis when you said defending. In that case it wouldn't be 100%. The probability would only be 99.99% because you didn't take that last , near certain step into becoming a PhD. Your defending your thesis, and the late secondtrimester fetus surviving 3 or 4 days to become sentient are alot alike. Its not positive, but it is 99.99% likely, and that's practically certain.

I feel like we are just spinning our tires.
Edited because I misread his quote when I typed my response.

	01-10-2002 12:08									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I highly doubt that, since it was feminists who intiated the movement to legalize abortion and who are at the heart of the fight to keep it legal. The right to control one's own body is at the heart of feminism. As for the anti-choice momvement being anti-woman, it's very simple. Most of the anti-choice movement is also opposed to the use of contraception, sex education, women being able to get divorces, women having jobs (other than being secretaries at their church), women wearing pants. While (for example) you won't be able to look up the now defunct Operation Rescue and see those things as part of it's platform, you can go track down things Randal Terry and other leaders say in their churches, in their ministries, etc. The "pro-life" position is merely the spearhead of a larger crusade against the freedom of women.

That is pure and utter nonsense che . . . plain and simple!