Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Not that I buy the think and feel stuff that your shoveling, but I really don't understand how making the distinction that developing unborn babies (no matter what age) can't think or feel is in any way a justification to make it ok to abort. By that line of thinking, Im guessing you cannot see the distinction that the act of aborting an unborn is nothing more than stealing away their opportunity to becoming a living, breathing, human being? Or are you against protecting that kind of opportunity for an innocent? pro-choice sounds alot like pro-murder to me.

That is exactly the Catholic Church's reasoning for being against contraception.

Until you are a sentient being you don't deserve the same rights as me. Will a 4 week embryo be a sentient being at some point? Possibly. But not yet. Just like everytime you use a condom you are extinguishing POTENTIAL sentience.

By the way have you ever had sex with a girl on the pill?

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

That is exactly the Catholic Church's reasoning for being against contraception.

Until you are a sentient being you don't deserve the same rights as me. Will a 4 week embryo be a sentient being at some point? Possibly. But not yet. Just like everytime you use a condom you are extinguishing POTENTIAL sentience.

By the way have you ever had sex with a girl on the pill?

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy.

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby which is why I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Is an apple still attached to the apple tree a potential 2nd apple tree? Sure, but it cannot become an apple tree until the seed of that apple is buried and starts to grow. The moment it starts to grow is the moment it becomes an apple tree. However, if the apple is eaten and the seed is thrown in the garbage can is that the same as chopping down an apple tree? Of course not.

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts. This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby...

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now

Glad we can agree on something. Again, potential sentience is not the question, defining human life and when it begins is the question.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Again, straw man maybe? I am not trying to make the distinction that just developing is the sign of human life. Please see any of my above responses.

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

So, just curious, and not trying to be combative at all.... do you think that since abortion is murder, it should be illegal in all cases? What about cases of forcible rape, or incest (which has been proven scientifically to produce bad genetics)?

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by spreedom

So, just curious, and not trying to be combative at all.... do you think that since abortion is murder, it should be illegal in all cases? What about cases of forcible rape, or incest (which has been proven scientifically to produce bad genetics)?

These are terrible situations that I wouldn't wish on anyone. It puts them in the terrible place of deciding between 2 bad options. But, it is certainly a legitimate to look for exceptions in a world where abortion would be enforced as murder.

I certainly dont believe that murder of the unborn is imputed on mothers whose life is in danger from a pregnancy. So, that one I can say with certainty would qualify as an exception.

As for forcible rape, I wouldn't give an exception. I don't believe that the innocent unborn should have to pay a price of death for the sins of his/her father. I would want the mother to consider adoption if she can't get past where the baby came from.

As for incest, I wouldnt give an exception either. Even though the possible bad genetics you mentioned is imparted to the innocent baby I still think this is better then terminating its life. It does really sadden me to think that a baby could reap defects just because of the sins of the mother and father.

I would like to point out that I am a libertarian at heart and believe in states rights whereby I could choose to live in a state, municipality, community that would adhere more to my particular views, ie an exercise of freedom of conscious, religion, etc that is locally determined. Those that believe differently could satisfy their views the same way, just in another locale. The reality is we don't and we have to talk about this in terms of one half excersing complete control on the other half.

I will say that I do respect the other viewpoint in that if you don't believe life begins at conception that all the above would be exceptions or just completely pro-choice regardless of the situation. The saddest for me though is hearing about those that abort just because they don't want responsibility. There are plenty of couples out there that would give just about anything to get pregnant, but can't. Those are the ones that would be prime candidates to adopt unwanted children.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

But they are not a thinking feeling human yet and that is what I care about. I don't care if the cell is a zygote or not. That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. The fact that it may one day be a baby is irrelevant. Just like the fact that a sperm may be a baby one day is irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

Do you really think I am against contraception? I was referring to Catholicism's argument. That's their argument. Not mine.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

No it is true for everyone. You can't get prosecuted in the court of law for aborting a 4 week embryo. Just like you can't get prosecuted in a court of law for killing sperm with spermicide. Murder implies there are legal ramifications. There is not. my wife can have as many abortions as she likes and not get prosecuted. In our society aborting a 4 week embryo is not considered murder. That is not going to change any time soon, so that is something you are just going to have to deal with.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.

When did I ever say I defined life as sentience? Sperm is life as far as I'm concerned. But even though sperm may be life it shouldn't be given the same rights as you and me because it is not sentient.

And I don't care whether you consider a human vegetable as life. It doesn't think or feel so it should be given the same rights as me.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by SeanL

But they are not a thinking feeling human yet and that is what I care about. I don't care if the cell is a zygote or not. That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. The fact that it may one day be a baby is irrelevant. Just like the fact that a sperm may be a baby one day is irrelevant to me.

-------------------------------------------------

Do you really think I am against contraception? I was referring to Catholicism's argument. That's their argument. Not mine.

-------------------------------------------------

No it is true for everyone. You can't get prosecuted in the court of law for aborting a 4 week embryo. Just like you can't get prosecuted in a court of law for killing sperm with spermicide. Murder implies there are legal ramifications. There is not. my wife can have as many abortions as she likes and not get prosecuted. In our society aborting a 4 week embryo is not considered murder. That is not going to change any time soon, so that is something you are just going to have to deal with.

------------------------------------------------


When did I ever say I defined life as sentience? Sperm is life as far as I'm concerned. But even though sperm may be life it shouldn't be given the same rights as you and me because it is not sentient.

And I don't care whether you consider a human vegetable as life. It doesn't think or feel so it should be given the same rights as me.

My biggest problem with this typical liberal thinking that you are implying......is that it basically says that man makes the rules and decisions.

In our society we may not consider the killing of a 4 week old embryo murder, and I may have to accept that. Prior years back, the killing of a black wasn't considered murder because they weren't human. Last century, Hitler thought it was OK to kill Jews because they weren't human.

So I should think that all these law makers and judges are correct because they tell me that this embryo isn't human. They tell me that it can't feel -- but have no proof. They imply that they KNOW what is right and wrong.

Sorry, but that doesn't work from my experience, because anytime you say that man makes the rules -- then it is just up to which man is in power at the time and life becomes ruled by the ruthless.

Think taking a life is a little bit of a selfish act? Just curious, because everyone has to justify their own way.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

My biggest problem with this typical liberal thinking that you are implying......is that it basically says that man makes the rules and decisions.

In our society we may not consider the killing of a 4 week old embryo murder, and I may have to accept that. Prior years back, the killing of a black wasn't considered murder because they weren't human. Last century, Hitler thought it was OK to kill Jews because they weren't human.

So I should think that all these law makers and judges are correct because they tell me that this embryo isn't human. They tell me that it can't feel -- but have no proof. They imply that they KNOW what is right and wrong.

Sorry, but that doesn't work from my experience, because anytime you say that man makes the rules -- then it is just up to which man is in power at the time and life becomes ruled by the ruthless.

Think taking a life is a little bit of a selfish act? Just curious, because everyone has to justify their own way.

What do you mean "man makes the rules and decisions"? Who else would? Kind of a bizarre statement.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy.

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby which is why I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Is an apple still attached to the apple tree a potential 2nd apple tree? Sure, but it cannot become an apple tree until the seed of that apple is buried and starts to grow. The moment it starts to grow is the moment it becomes an apple tree. However, if the apple is eaten and the seed is thrown in the garbage can is that the same as chopping down an apple tree? Of course not.

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts. This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

I agree with every single word you said. Yet, I'm not sure where that is supposed to lead me...if anywhere.