The next mis-step on abortion's slippery slope... [Archive]

George Jung

11-05-2006, 11:16 AM

Slippery slope, indeed. Interesting that is a British site; FWIW, that would be against medical ethics in this country. Note that physicians are held to do no harm; even in death penalty cases, it's against medical ethics to actively participate in the execution in any way, shape or form, though a physician can pronounce an executed person dead, after a lay person has first done so.

So where do you want this to go? On another thread you have Norm doing battle with Sam F over the legitimacy of using embryos for stem cell research, this in view of Norms acquiescence to admitting an embryo is human. That's the start of your slope. Euthanasia for 'deformed' infants? Not that big of a step - or slide. In China, euthanizing infants for the defect of being female has been all too common; that has resulted in some interesting population based problems the chinese govt. hadn't considered; How about in the near future, as population growth outstrips resources? Of course, the resultant wars will alleviate that strain somewhat. But I digress...
I don't know how this will shake out, but when we start playing God, enabled by our so called intellect, it unfortunately comes with an incredible lack of knowledge, and the potential for far reaching, unforseen outcomes and sequela. So we can manipulate our genes, cure disease, enable those who can afford it, the potential to live for 200 years..... at what cost, and with what unforseen consequences?
Doctors are supposed to care for life. I don't believe you want the person, the profession, charged with your health, also charged with making value judgments about your life.

LeeG

11-05-2006, 12:37 PM

Milo, could you please clarify exactly what you mean by "abortions slippery slope"?

This is clearly a different issue than abortion.

Modern medicine makes it possible for a wide range of care to maintain life that would never be possible otherwise. You could keep alive an infant for months that will never make it past a few days a generation ago. But that newly born infant could have deformities so severe that it would never develop into a lowest functioning level human being.

My ex worked in a childrens hospital with severly disabled new borns. She said there's a category of new born that has such severe deformities that they should be allowed to die but for medical intervention they are kept going for months.

As a troll I'd give this four points out of ten.

George Jung

11-05-2006, 12:50 PM

Perhaps the discussion should be on the relative merits of providing only 'supportive care' (as opposed to aggressive, invasive, life supporting measures for an infant with no chance of recovery) versus simply euthanizing that infant. In my opinion, that is your slippery slope.What's the difference? (I imagine LeeG saying)...it's active intervention. In my opinion, that is 'the line'.

ishmael

11-05-2006, 01:37 PM

IIRC one of the western European countries already euthanizes such babies. Maybe Holland?

My mother, who died with a severe dementia, had a living will which stipulated no heroic measures. If there were ever a candidate for euthanisia in old age, she was it. She was mentally gone the last four years of her life. I prayed for her to pass most every day, and I'm glad the decision was left to nature.

While it is somewhat seperate from the abortion debate, I suspect, what with the huge demographic bulge now building, the debate over such things as assisted suicide, and euthanasia will heat up. Mom was in a good nursing home, but it was still incredibly sad and frustrating to watch that once vibrant woman decline into a non-responsive lump. As I said, I'm glad it wasn't my decision, because the temptation would have been great near the end to put the poor dear out of her misery.

I'm not advocating one way or the other(though I have an opinion), but let's assume some form of euthanasia were instituted. Who would decide it was time to go? A panel of doctors, with a judge thrown in? With all the potential for abuse you surely couldn't leave it up to the family re the aged.

George, maybe you can illuminate this. I remember reading that some huge percentage of our healthcare costs are accrued in the last few months of life.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

Milo Christensen

11-05-2006, 01:55 PM

Milo, could you please clarify exactly what you mean by "abortions slippery slope"?...

The slippery slope, as you know, is the concept that once you allow A, it makes it easier to allow A1.a, and on and on and on.

The following quote illustrates my point. Very late term abortion is allowed in Britain. He is advocating the extension of abortion, although at this point it has been renamed euthanasia.

John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University, welcomed the college's submission. "We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"

For the record, I reject his statement that it's "OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal.."

The term "active" intervention gives me the shudders. As does having someone define "severely" disabled. Would they have extended that to include my disabled wife, the love of my life? As it was, her parents were told to put her in an institution because it would be "so hard" to raise a child with cerebral palsy. The I-have-all-my-parts-and-my-brain-works-pretty-good-but-you-don't-so-I-get-to-kill-you crowd makes me retch. Nuthin' but Nazis.

Bob Cleek

11-05-2006, 02:10 PM

'Twas only a matter of time, Milo. Only a matter of time.

Forty years ago, an entire generation rose up in protest against the dominant culture and what it produced. It's time we continued that revolution. Human life really does have to be the highest value or the slope is slippery indeed.

Without picking on Joe specifically, his comments are illustrative. I mean, really, what does he contribute to the world? From what shows in here, not much. He spends most of his time advertising himself. Would life be less complicated without Joe? Yea... hey, why not? Let's euthanize him.

Hey, Joe... we're going to whack you now, rather than when you're really screwed up from that big accident you're likely to have. That way, you don't suffer as much and we save a whole bunch feeding and caring for you in the meantime...

George Jung

11-05-2006, 02:16 PM

George, maybe you can illuminate this. I remember reading that some huge percentage of our healthcare costs are accrued in the last few months of life.

I did some searching, but I think the statistics change a bit based on exactly how you word it, what parameters, etc. The only thing I found was a gov. doc. which noted 25% of the yearly Medicare budget is devoted to the last year of healthcare. Not surprising, really. You have Alzheimers, perhaps, which follows a predictable course. Or CHF, also predictable. I've seen other such statistics, covering what percentage is spent on the last week of life; I don't recall that number. The question is - why do you ask? The implication I took from your question - can we afford this?/ are there savings to be had? or some such variant.

SOLYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

Ya got me on this one; care to explain?

paladin

11-05-2006, 02:20 PM

In and old Charlton Heston sci fi movie...people weren't buried when they died...they were "recycled" with other material as food.....the product was "soylent green"....

Milo Christensen

11-05-2006, 02:31 PM

Uhh, Bob, since the trolling level on this thread is being rated, I have to give you 9.99 out of 10.

The issue of the last year or week of life is an interesting one. My mom died of cancer in England and I think that if she'd still been in the U.S. and given aggressive oncology care her life could have been extended. Apparently the British NHS routinely makes decisions about the value of life, and these decisions are based on cost of treatment vs. value to society.

George Jung

11-05-2006, 02:31 PM

John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University, welcomed the college's submission. "We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"

Actually, this one is a gem, a keeper. It is a statement the prochoice stance has refused to acknowledge. Interesting that apparently they've 'progressed' in England where that charade is no longer necessary. And that is your slippery slope; others here have expanded on that nicely.

The slippery slope, as you know, is the concept that once you allow A, it makes it easier to allow A1.a, and on and on and on.

I kinda like another way I"ve seen it presented; the camels nose in the tent.

First the camel sticks his nose in the tent; then his head, neck etc., until finally you have the entire camel in the tent, and everyone else pushed out. Brace yerself.

ishmael

11-05-2006, 02:33 PM

George,

"Soylent Green" is a grade B sci-fi film from the seventies, starring Charleton Heston and Edward G. Robinson(Eddy G's last role IIRC). Set in the not too distant future, the premise is that euthanasia has been instituted in a time of over-population. Old people get to go to a sort of holo-deck for a few hours and have their fondest wishes played before being croaked. The twist is the Heston character, after much secret agent stuff against the ruling elite, finds out at the end of the film that not only are they euthanizing people, they are turning the corpses into a staple food of the day, soylent green. The film ends with Heston running, screaming for anyone to hear, Soylent Green is People!

Norman Bernstein

11-05-2006, 02:42 PM

So where do you want this to go? On another thread you have Norm doing battle with Sam F over the legitimacy of using embryos for stem cell research, this in view of Norms acquiescence to admitting an embryo is human.

1) It was never a battle.

2) The discussion was terminated the minute he started comparing me to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

3) I didn't 'aquiesce', I have never denied that a foetus was a 'human being'. My entire point was that we make judgments about human life all the time, and short of being an absolutist (someone who would never kill a human being under any circumstances, whatsoever), the real issue is what our judgment in any given situation is. In the example cited above (infant born with deformities and/or defect so severe that it could not sustain life), it would be my judgment that it would be better to terminate that pregnancy, if known prior to birth.

Some of these judgments are hard... but we make judgments all the time. We don't always agree on the judgment. I have no problem with differences of opinion, but here's the problem: I draw a distinction between someone who says, 'I disagree with your judgment, and I hope to convince you to see it my way', and someone who says, 'I disagree with your judgment, but whether you see it my way or not, I'm going to insist that it be my way'.

JimD

11-05-2006, 02:47 PM

George,

"Solylent Green" is a grade B sci-fi film from the seventies, starring Charleton Heston and Edward G. Robinson(Eddy G's last role IIRC). Set in the not too distant future, the premise is that euthanasia has been instituted in a time of over-population. Old people get to go to a sort of holo-deck for a few hours and have their fondest wishes played before being croaked. The twist is the Heston character, after much secret agent stuff against the ruling elite, finds out at the end of the film that not only are they euthanizing people, they are turning the corpses into a staple food of the day, soylent green. The film ends with Heston running, screaming for anyone to hear, Soylent Green is People!

It wouldn't have been so bad if they'd been organic people but they were pumped full of antibiotics and other chemical additives. Fortunately it was just a movie and could never happen in the real 21st Century because we now have overpopulation under control and have learned to respect human life.

Bob Cleek

11-05-2006, 03:00 PM

"Soylent Green is People!" So?

Well, think about it. Have YOU signed your "organ donor" card yet? What difference is there in recycling human bodies as transplant replacements and recycling them as food?

JimD

11-05-2006, 03:06 PM

Corneas are too chewy.

glenallen

11-05-2006, 03:57 PM

Nice one, best way to start a Sunday morning glen verbally whack the Christians. You are a vile person.

From the article, this guy really sounds like a right wing nut:

"verbally whack the Christians"

Are Christians equally vile when they whack me, numbnuts, or do you take that as a god-given right?

Larry P.

11-05-2006, 04:09 PM

nice intelligent reply but why would i expect more:rolleyes:

George Jung

11-05-2006, 06:33 PM

Well, think about it. Have YOU signed your "organ donor" card yet? What difference is there in recycling human bodies as transplant replacements and recycling them as food?

I hope I can get that mental image out of my head, but it's gonna be tough. Where to start? Prions for individuals vs the masses; maybe the simplest is 'the palate' - mine, not the donors.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

11-05-2006, 07:47 PM

Personally, I think we have to have these debates, and we also need to have people suggest such things as euthanasia, abortion, etc, and legitimate issues of human life. I hope I don't have to linger on with a terminal disease. If I could deal with it myself, I would do so, but often that isn't the case.

What seems to be at stake here, more than anything, is the sanctity with which we view human life. I find there are many contradictions. For instance, I wonder what the demographics would be of people who are against abortion, but support the war in Iraq? I suspect the results would be troubling, and I personally believe those arguments are connected. You can't have sanctity for a foetus, then support the slaughter of people already living can you?

The morality of my country permits the idea of abortion based on the human rights of the mother, but in many areas, such as euthanasia, I think our national opinion would be closer to that of the USA than say, Holland, or Denmark. Whatever the case, I support euthanasia for terminal ill people, and I'm willing to listen to the other arguments like this one. Difficult?... definitely... an abomination... no.

LeeG

11-05-2006, 08:14 PM

The slippery slope, as you know, is the concept that once you allow A, it makes it easier to allow A1.a, and on and on and on.

The following quote illustrates my point. Very late term abortion is allowed in Britain. He is advocating the extension of abortion, although at this point it has been renamed euthanasia.

For the record, I reject his statement that it's "OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal.."

The term "active" intervention gives me the shudders. As does having someone define "severely" disabled. Would they have extended that to include my disabled wife, the love of my life? As it was, her parents were told to put her in an institution because it would be "so hard" to raise a child with cerebral palsy. The I-have-all-my-parts-and-my-brain-works-pretty-good-but-you-don't-so-I-get-to-kill-you crowd makes me retch. Nuthin' but Nazis.

Milo, I don't know "the slippery slope", that's why I asked. "as you know" puts us in a circle,,you know.

I'm not a doctor but I think it would be more constructive to actually define "A" and not argue an unknown "A which leads to A1a".

Aborting a fetus is not the same as allowing a newborn with severe deformities to die. This is where it's actually necessary to talk about specifics and not generalities.

What's wrong with defining a condition? If the word "severly disabled" bothers you how about some specific set of conditions that require medical technology to maintain life but there's no functioning brain or chance of a human existance. The newborn equivalent of Terri Schaivo that could only exist because multimillion dollar technology makes it possible.

It sounds like non-specific words are what makes this slope slippery.

George Jung

11-05-2006, 09:25 PM

An anencephalic infant is terminal; I'm unaware of any intervention that would change that, or any mindset that would attempt to. An anencephalic birth is rare, but the few I was aware of, peripherally, were provided supportive care until their natural demise, only.
I think the slope gets slippery when one diverges from these obscure, 'worst case scenarios' and instead direct our attention to the more mundane, frequent, less clear cut occurences. Say, severe cleft palate with facial deformities. There's a normal brain behind the deformity, but without surgery the long term survival is threatened. Maybe that plastic repair won't look 'normal'; but euthanasia is now an option....
Or the conditions stipulated in China; one child per family; everyone wants a son..... so euthanizing the female infants becomes (is) common.

Terry Schiavo - equivalent - not really a part of the equation.

ishmael

11-05-2006, 09:44 PM

Life at any cost seems the motto today. Many, many old and young wouldn't survive save our modern measures. Who's to decide? The old man, lost in a sea of dementia, yet who's body is still alive. Should we...do what for him?

There's something undignified in the whole prospect of keeping people alive no matter what. I'm sure my mother, if she'd had a choice when she was healthy, wouldn't have wanted to be a drooling mouth in a nursing home for four years.

It was common in many native cultures to take the old and the infirm young to the woods, or an ice flow, and let them die. We are more civilized. But I'll tell you, there is nothing particularly civilized in late-stage dementia.

What I fear is what Cleek mentioned. Oop, this person isn't worthy, let's kill them.

11-05-2006, 09:56 PM

Sam F

11-05-2006, 10:20 PM

1) It was never a battle.

Sure it was Norm. They don't call it the "culture wars" for nothing.

2) The discussion was terminated the minute he started comparing me to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Let me refresh your memory:

Hmmmm... looks like 'judgment' applies in lots of areas of life... including things like ESC.
Noting that ESC is taking a life, I said:

Yeah, taking a human life isn't trivial Norm. At least not in my judgment.
I find that I'm in better company thinking that way...
I never cared for Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler.
YMMV.

As you acknowledge, your position is from my point of view, "heartless". There’s lots of those heartless sorts out there Norm. I just named a few who slid all the way down that slippery slope - You've got a few steps down to go yet.
It is not comparing you to Hitler etc. It is making you aware of the company you keep.
In case you don't know, abortion, euthanasia and eugenics paved the way for Hitler's final solution. You put yourself in that company. Don't blame me for noticing the historical fact and your common denominator.

3) I didn't 'aquiesce', I have never denied that a foetus was a 'human being'. My entire point was that we make judgments about human life all the time, and short of being an absolutist (someone who would never kill a human being under any circumstances, whatsoever), the real issue is what our judgment in any given situation is.

Situational ethics makes life so complicated, doesn’t it? Take human ESC research. You don’t advocate taking human life for utilitarian reasons if they’re mature humans (so far at least), but it’s OK if they’re helpless and voiceless. The operative “principle” is: Take another’s life so I may live better or longer myself – provided they can’t put up much of a fuss about it. That puts one in some pretty tough company too.

Innocence is the point Norm – not “judgments about human life all the time”. The "judgment" is about innocence. If you can't judge that, don’t be surprised if you can't judge anything else.

Some of these judgments are hard... but we make judgments all the time. We don't always agree on the judgment. I have no problem with differences of opinion, but here's the problem: I draw a distinction between someone who says, 'I disagree with your judgment, and I hope to convince you to see it my way', and someone who says, 'I disagree with your judgment, but whether you see it my way or not, I'm going to insist that it be my way'.

Here, I'm tempted to start quoting Donn. :D
That hypocrisy is just a bit too blatant to let slide.
You insist that that it be your way on ESC. Period.
I can live with that, if the situation warrants that you'll let me live... just drop the moralizing scold of others you claim are doing what you're a master at.

Peter Malcolm Jardine

11-05-2006, 10:30 PM

So Sam, do you consider a foetus at 10 weeks to be a human being?

Sam F

11-05-2006, 10:30 PM

Old time midwives use to have a long hatpin in their hat for just such eventualities. Inserted through the soft part of the skull, it was quick. I assume we are talking serious deformity here and not just a bit of Downes Syndrome.

A quick search turns up all sorts of evidence for eugenics:

Abortion Of Disabled Babies Increasing at Alarming Rate

By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
June 1, 2004

Abortions of babies with Down's syndrome, deformed feet, cleft lips and palates, as well as other medical abnormalities, have become more and more commonplace, according to statistics recently released by the Office For National Statistics in England and Wales.

The latest numbers from 2002 found that more women are choosing to abort their babies who may have some form of handicap. These kinds of abortions spiked by 8 percent over the previous year.

Of Down's syndrome babies, 690 were aborted in 2002, an increase of 17 percent over the 2001 total of 591.

More babies were aborted in 2002 who had Down's syndrome (372) than those that were born with the disease (329).

In 2002, five babies were aborted for deformed feet and another was killed because of a cleft lip and palate.

Also, in 2000 and 2001 combined, nine babies were the victims of abortion because of a cleft lip and palate while two more babies were also aborted for having a cleft lip.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier Screening for Down’s Syndrome May Fuel Eugenic Program Against Disabled
89% of Down Syndrome babies in Canada, and 90% in U.S. are killed before birth

By Hilary White

November 10, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A US National Institutes of Health-financed study has shown that first-trimester screening with a blood test and ultrasound can detect Down's syndrome in an unborn child 87% of the time. Another test in the second trimester can give up to 95% accurate diagnosis researchers report in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Lead author Fergal Malone says that the study of more than 38,000 U.S. women could lead to more screening using less invasive procedures. In most cases, Down’s syndrome is detected using amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS), both invasive procedures that carry a risk of miscarriage. Malone stressed that screening should not be the only factor in a woman’s decision to “terminate” a pregnancy.

While the test itself does not necessarily have any moral weight, human rights advocates have said that in most cases, the practice is the first step in an inevitable trip to the abortionist. 89 percent of Down Syndrome babies in Canada, and 90 percent in the U.S. are killed before birth.

The late Tanis Doe, who had been a professor of social work at the University of Victoria, British Columbia said in March 2004 that a prenatal, Nazi-style extermination campaign is being waged against the disabled in most of the western world.

Doe, who died in August 2004, was deaf and paraplegic. She spoke at the University of Alberta, warning that eugenics is far from dead. “Women are expected to -- pressured to -- abort pregnancies when foetal disability is diagnosed.”

Doe’s assertion is backed up by an announcement in 2001 from the British Government which advised all pregnant women to undergo tests for Down’s syndrome. Some bioethicists have speculated that there are economic considerations that contribute to a government’s interest in eliminating the disabled.

As public health insurance and social programmes in socialist countries like Britain and Canada become increasingly overburdened, families who refuse screening and abortion of ‘defective’ children, may face financial penalties or loss of benefits.

In the meantime, families struggle with diminished programmes to help care for their disabled children. As the euthanasia movement gains strength in public acceptance, even violence against disabled people also becomes more acceptable.

In one tragic case, the Guardian reported November 2, that a mother was convicted of killing her 36 year-old Down’s syndrome son, Patrick Markcrow, who had developed severe autism. Wendolyn Markcrow killed her son using a method recommended by euthanasia advocates: sleeping pills and a plastic bag. Mrs. Markcrow received a two-year suspended sentence for the murder, which she said she committed when she received no help with her son from social services agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion is Primary Direction for Obstetricians After Down's Diagnosis Study Finds

CAMBRIDGE, April 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study published in the latest edition of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology shows a bias in favour of abortion from doctors who inform women on their options with a prenatal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome. The study's author writes that after the possibility of Down's Syndrome is shown, mothers reported that "the doctors did not tell them about the positive potential of people with Down syndrome."

After a pre-natal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome, doctors and other health professionals, the study found, also often fail to give up-to-date information on the latest findings on Down's Syndrome or refer mothers to Down's Syndrome support groups. The medical presumption seems to be in favour of abortion, a practice which is lauded by many in the bioethics community as a moral form of eugenic 'racial cleansing.'

The study, authored by Brian Skotko of the National Down's Syndrome Congress, surveyed 2,945 mothers of children with Down syndrome. It showed a predisposition to abortion among medical professionals after amniocentesis shows even a possibility of Down's Syndrome. It has become routine to offer pregnant women, especially those over 35 prenatal screening for Down's Syndrome. Such testing, however, does not give a certain diagnosis of Down's Syndrome, but only a percentage possibility. Nevertheless, the abortion rate with even an uncertain pre-natal Down's Syndrome diagnosis is extremely high, with some studies showing as many as 90% of children aborted.

Sam F

11-05-2006, 10:34 PM

So Sam, do you consider a foetus at 10 weeks to be a human being?

Weeks 9-12

The heart is almost completely developed and the heart rate can be heard on a Doppler machine at the doctor’s office. Most major organs and tissues have developed and red blood cells are now produced in the liver. The face is well formed and the eyes are almost fully developed. The eyelids will close and not reopen until the 28th week. Arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, and toes are fully formed. Nails and earlobes start to form and tooth buds develop in the gums. Fetus can make a fist with its finger. Testosterone (male sex hormone) is produced by the testes in male fetus.

http://www.wprc.org/image/photos/12week186x247.jpg

Sam F

11-05-2006, 10:35 PM

Ain't ya sorry you asked PMJ?

Peter Malcolm Jardine

11-05-2006, 10:43 PM

No, because I don't consider a 10 week old foetus to be a human being. This is where we part company on our views, and any further discussions that follow are part of that difference in our fundamental premise. Late term abortions? I have a problem with them, but that's a personal choice. Early in pregnancy? I don't favour abortion, but it's again a personal choice, and it isn't killing a human being.

ishmael

11-05-2006, 11:05 PM

A book I've splashed before, but it's really fine re the worth of a human life, and how we decide. A woman at Harvard, hot ****e in sociology, gets pregnant in the midst of her doctorate. If that weren't enough, the baby is Mongloid(sorry, what's the PC term, Down's syndrome).

Anyway, if anyone is genuinely curious about the mystery of how life isn't so cut and dried, read Martha Beck's "Expecting Adam." I can't recommend it highly enough. It's very well written, and doesn't skirt the issues.

Norman Bernstein

11-06-2006, 07:27 AM

That hypocrisy is just a bit too blatant to let slide.
You insist that that it be your way on ESC. Period.

No, SamF, I don't. I simply insist that it be the way that the majority of people decide it should be. Regardless of your personal certainty that abortion and ESC constitute infanticide and murder, most people in this country don't feel that way. Your only option is to make a convincing argument, and hope to change minds.... but so far, your side has failed to do so, in sufficient numbers to be able to change the law.

I can live with that, if the situation warrants that you'll let me live... just drop the moralizing scold of others you claim are doing what you're a master at.

Wait a minute...you're calling me a moralizing scold? I'd be tempted to laugh, but for some reason, this morning I don't find it all that funny. Others may chuckle, though. SamF, if there is a single person on this forum who could be characterized as a 'moralizing scold', it's you... you've given new meaning to the phrase 'holier than thou'.

ishmael

11-06-2006, 07:39 AM

ESC? Ya lost me.

There's a cadre here who really likes to see their gums flap on screen. They're good at it! My cap is doffed to their verbal jousting, some of it is rather impressive. But my god, where're your hearts in all of this flapdoodle? You seem robotic, repeating, over and over, the same arguments. I think computers are just about able to do this.

jack grebe

11-06-2006, 07:47 AM

. I simply insist that it be the way that the majority of people decide it should be. Regardless of your personal certainty that abortion and ESC constitute infanticide and murder, most people in this country don't feel that way.

I have yet to see this question posed on a referendum. If it were, I believe the pro choice side would be in for a rude awaking. Just because it was made law does not mean that the majority rules, it means the special interests group won. If you for one minute think that laws are created and the country is governed by the majority wishes of the people, you need to wake up.

George Jung

11-06-2006, 07:56 AM

I simply insist that it be the way that the majority of people decide it should be. Regardless of your personal certainty that abortion and ESC constitute infanticide and murder, most people in this country don't feel that way.

You are, of course, correct. The majority of people promote the same soundbites you've been posting. And why wouldn't they? Because to do otherwise, to acknowledge that, in fact, a 10-week infant is, in fact, a human, would to be also acknowledging that they support the infanticide of that human being. It's all an artificial divide; I know it; you (and the majority) know it. But to acknowledge that would be unthinkable. It's there; and I believe all know it. But again, to confirm that, unthinkable. And as long as 'the vote of the majority' is there, you can have your legal mandate, your group hug, your group absolution.... maybe. Deep down, I wonder. And I think a decision such as this stays with you a lifetime. The people I know who have made that choice certainly confirm that. Which is a clear signal that 'maybe just because it's 'legal', it may not be right'.

LeeG

11-06-2006, 08:01 AM

I didn't survive puberty and parenthood unscathed. I suspect some people who have abortions may not survive it without scars. Life's a bitch.

hansp77

11-06-2006, 08:02 AM

I can't be bothered reading through this whole thread.
Sorry,
My eyes still hurt from the stem-cell saga and I am about to go to sleep.

I am however going to solve this all in one go;)

I say, if there is a certainty (which is always a loaded term) that the baby is going to be irrepairably severely, crippilingly and painfully disabled- to the point where euthenasia is contemplated- then let the baby decide if it has the sufficient desire, willpower or capacity to live.

Don't lock the poor thing in a plastic box and stuff it with tubes, wires, monitors, drugs and whatever the HELL-else.
Put the poor little thing into its warm mothers arms , wrap in it a blanket and give it a full breast to feed on, and then let nature, chance, god or whatever you want to call it take whatever course it chooses. Somehow I think this more old fashioned way sorts out the deep divers from the shallow. And for those that are deemed to do the deep dive, at least they may feel just a little bit of the warmth of life and the love of a mother. As a crippled deformed and pained baby, in retrospect at least, I would take that option any day over the alternative (of pointless preservation).

It may be off the point, or maybe someone has already mentioned it,
but,
I wonder at what point we will finally have to confront this line- the crossing of where due to the ongoing advancement of life sustaining technology it becomes no longer humane to continue to preserve life at all costs (in terms of human suffering or even dignity).

These thoughts crossed my mind and troubled my heart when a few of years ago I watched my grandfather who for a time I was raised by die of bone cancer. He was a doctor, a scholar, an aetheist and a religious believer in science and rationality (in the last years of his life we found out he was out looking at boats to buy to fullfill his dream of sailing round the world). A marvelous man. He rode the technology as far as it would take him, and I do wonder if he rode it too far.

Where is this need to avoid death at all costs going to take us?
where is it going to end?

Norman Bernstein

11-06-2006, 08:04 AM

I have yet to see this question posed on a referendum. If it were, I believe the pro choice side would be in for a rude awaking. Just because it was made law does not mean that the majority rules, it means the special interests group won. If you for one minute think that laws are created and the country is governed by the majority wishes of the people, you need to wake up.

Jack, I undertand your position, but on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, it would be sheer denial to argue that the significant majority of people in this country don't support it; they do... by 70%, last I heard.

Furthermore, I'd like to modify my statement just a little bit... I don't like the use of the term 'majority rule', because our legal and legislative system is just a bit more sophisticated than that; we have a representative democracy governed by a constitution, specifically to avoid a 'tyranny of the majority'. How it all plays out is certainly affected by public sentiment, just in a somewhat more indirect manner.

A good example of this is Bush's 'decision' (he's the 'decider, remember?) that embryonic stemm cell research would only be supported by federal funds if it used the 'existing' cell lines that had been developed. He has the constitutional right to make this decision, albeit with the caution that it's a dictatorial decision; Congress could indeed legislate an override of that decision... and in this particular case, it would indeed reflect the will of the people more closely.

Norman Bernstein

11-06-2006, 08:09 AM

And I think a decision such as this stays with you a lifetime. The people I know who have made that choice certainly confirm that. Which is a clear signal that 'maybe just because it's 'legal', it may not be right'.

I agree, George... but the proposition of 'freedom' means that we have to accept and tolerate the fact that some people will believe things, and act in some ways, that some of us find offensive, or immoral, or unacceptable. The problem we're facing, to a certain degree, in this country, is that to some people, 'freedom' means freedom to think and act like they do.

Once again, it's a judgment... and you obviously disagree with certain judgments. You can make your best argument and try to persuade people of the correctness and justice of your argument.... but they may not agree. You have to learn to live with that.

I haven't the slightest doubt, for example, that the decision to abort a foetus weighs heavily on the conscience of some women who follow that path, and they have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. For others, there's no guilt or shame whatsoever... and in all likelyhood, nothing you could say or do would make those sorts of people grow a conscience.

jack grebe

11-06-2006, 08:11 AM

Jack, I undertand your position, but on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, it would be sheer denial to argue that the significant majority of people in this country don't support it; they do... by 70%, last I heard.Where did you come up with this #?
Was using aborted babies part of the question or was it just stem cell research in general? Who took this poll and where was it taken? These are questions that can greatly influence the #'s that are received.

George Jung

11-06-2006, 08:13 AM

Where is this need to avoid death at all costs going to take us?

That's a black and white call that needn't exist. Humane measures for the terminal; adults always have that option, one they can make for themselves, unless demented. I don't see 'avoiding death at all costs' in my practice - actually, almost never. There a few who want 'everything' done, but we're all individuals, so that's to be expected. Right?

where is it going to end?

We all make choices; they end when we do. In the case of your GF, without knowing specifics (sounds like a neat guy, btw) I'd say it ended when he decided it would. I expect he didn't pursue heroic measures, nor did you, his family. Everyones journey is a bit differnet, yes?

Norman Bernstein

11-06-2006, 08:21 AM

Where did you come up with this #?
Was using aborted babies part of the question or was it just stem cell research in general? Who took this poll and where was it taken? These are questions that can greatly influence the #'s that are received.

Try looking at http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem

26 major national polls... with every single one of them supporting embryonic stem cell research. The question was asked 26 different ways, with at least some of the polls specifically mentioning human embryos.

jack grebe

11-06-2006, 08:34 AM

Try looking at http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem

26 major national polls... with every single one of them supporting embryonic stem cell research. The question was asked 26 different ways, with at least some of the polls specifically mentioning human embryos.
thanks, that affirms what I was saying. Look at the # of people being polled. very small. These polls can/are targeted to areas where the desired result can be acheived. If you do a poll with the question "Is Bush a good pres." the results in Dade Co. Fl. will be Drasticly different than say Tx.You can make the #'s say whatever you want, that doesn't make them true for the whole nation. I for one do not believe in polls for this reason.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 08:34 AM

No, because I don't consider a 10 week old foetus to be a human being … I don't favour abortion, but it's again a personal choice, and it isn't killing a human being.

Then you don’t favor science or medical evidence. A human fetus is human. That’s a fact. If that 10 week-old fetus knew what sort of “choice” you had in mind for her, she’d clench her little fist and shake it at you!

P.I. Stazzer-Newt

11-06-2006, 08:45 AM

Were it capable of "knowing" it might count as human.

Keith Wilson

11-06-2006, 08:47 AM

Then you don’t favor science or medical evidence. A human fetus is human. That’s a fact. If that 10 week-old fetus knew what sort of “choice” you had in mind for her, she’d clench her little fist and shake it at you!Feh. Sam repeats his mantra over and over and over and over as if we were to believe that it's that simple. By exactly the same definition, my skin cells are human. Sam's liver cells, and Oyster's brain cells, and the cells in Norm's kidneys are all human, every one of them. They are all undeniably human cells. They are all alive, and all are capable of living and growing on their own in the right environment. In a few years it will be technically possible to take the DNA from one of them, stick it in an denucleated egg, and grow an embryo, or even a baby if one were so irresponsible. "Human" in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do. On a cellular level, the categories and distinctions that make perfect sense when speaking of whole organisms break down and become more confusing than helpful. When one claims that a fertilized egg is a person, one is led into absurdities like the two-cell paradox. "Person" is a useful concept with developed organisms, but not with cells.

A 10- week fetus cannot possibly know anything or react to anything, as Sam knows very well; it doesn't have the necessary neural structures. The only thing that makes human beings unique is our consciousness and intelligence. The rest is essentially identical to other mammals. Before that develops, or after it is permanently lost, what we have is human tissue, not a human being.

Norman Bernstein

11-06-2006, 08:50 AM

I for one do not believe in polls for this reason.

*sigh* We've been through this all before, but if you don't believe me, try asking Milo, who teaches statistics at a university level. The sample size may seem small, but the science of statistics can show that it's more than adequate, and with other methodological constraints, provides a true representation of national opinion, already blended for regional differences. The questions of these polls were asked of a representative sample all across the country, so regional differences were accounted for.

Sorry, Jack, I understand your point of view on the issues, but your knock on the polling data is a combination of bias, denial, and lack of understanding of statistics. I know you don't want to believe that the majority of people in this country support embryonic stem cell research... but it is nonetheless true. Just look at it: 26 national polls.... if they're all false and rigged, then you're a conspiracy theorist!

Milo, will you weigh in here?

uncas

11-06-2006, 09:01 AM

Norman.. I have not read the entire thread... It basically seems to be a back and forth scenerio.. Stats are fine... to a point but I would rather look at real life.
I remember my father's old lab..well, young at the time. She had a litter of nine puppies.. Eight of which were healthy and fine.. no issues.. The nineth, however, had some serious issues regarding health problems. That dog, took care of eight as any diligent mother would do. She avoided the sick one... When we tried to get her to take care of it, she refused literally. She wanted nothing to do with it.. It died....
We as humans think and with our medical expertise overshadows what happens in nature all of the time. We have the ability to take care of our young regardless and often successfully. I think we should go back to basics....
Perhaps, just maybe, we have taken this too far... I don't know but to me, the dog, instinctively took care of her own.. For better or worse....
My single post.. I'm sure I will hear about this but that is okay.....

ishmael

11-06-2006, 09:03 AM

Blather and bollux, all this talk about what constitutes a human. We, simply, don't know. All the talk about heart beat, brain waves, or viability outside the womb is just a salve. The recognition that many fertilized embryos terminate naturally doesn't change this. We aren't talking about natural, we're talking intervention.

I don't have any pipline to the answers, but I say give the kid a chance. In the end, I come down with Sam.

The Upanishads talk of human incarnation. They say it is a rare gift(gawd it sure doesn't feel that way some days, and then I count my blessings), that needs to be honored. Aborting millions of perfectly healthy humans blows against the wind of the divine.

Ya see, I don't believe the way many of you do, that we are simply material creatures. We are the stars, God, yearning to know what they are. As such, to kill anyone is a sin.

uncas

11-06-2006, 09:10 AM

Ish.. we are animals.. we are Homo sapiens.. we are theoretically no diffferent than a dog. except we think.. Then again, perhaps other animals do as well.
What makes us any different? If killing by ignoring a foetus because it would not make it in the world we have created, is it any different than stepping on a slug or a worm.
We, as humans, think we are the cat's meow... Worthy of special treatment. Dogs, cats, you name it do not make it to the plateau we have created for ourselves.
Humans have an ego.. that ego, and a self determined value on what we are makes a difference.
We supposedly, if deserved go to heaven.. what happens to a dog or a cat or an elephant? Are they allowed in?

Killing anything living should be a sin based on how we perceive ourselves... But we hold the hand of life and death over our farm animals, our pets.... etc. They don't hold this over us....

ishmael

11-06-2006, 09:15 AM

Jamie,

I don't draw such distinctions. It's why I stopped eating meat.

Do no uneccesary harm. You can't live without doing harm, but make it as small as possible.

uncas

11-06-2006, 09:21 AM

Ish.. I've got canines.. what are they for?
Wolves have canines and eat moose and deer...
Bears have canines and eat what ever they can get...

It is life Ish....
Here is a book you should read.. The Wolves of Isle Royale.. about the relationship between wolves and moose... Actually there are two books but that is besides the point....
Man in his infinite wisdom decided to rif the island of all wolves... The moose popiulation increased and then due to starvation, sickness and what have you, the moose population dropped substantially...What was left were in poor health and barely able to sustain themselves. Wolves were re-introduced... the moose population became more vigorous, better able to survive and maintain a strong population.

We acted as Gods.. we should have just left playing god to someone with a higher authority and kept our cotton picken hands off if it....

Sam F

11-06-2006, 09:40 AM

No, SamF, I don't. I simply insist that it be the way that the majority of people decide it should be...

As Lord Russell once conceded when answering a well thought out question, (paraphrasing here) “If a majority decided it was moral to kill Jews, then it’s moral to do so.”
Need I remind you that Hitler was elected? That he was supported by a majority of his people? No Norman, don’t rely on a majority to protect you.
Given the events of living memory, only a fool would do that.

Wait a minute...you're calling me a moralizing scold? I'd be tempted to laugh, but for some reason, this morning I don't find it all that funny. Others may chuckle, though. SamF, if there is a single person on this forum who could be characterized as a 'moralizing scold', it's you... you've given new meaning to the phrase 'holier than thou'.

I am perfectly content with my role as a moralizing scold. :D I’m not named Samuel for nothing - and I have no claims to the contrary.
You however said:

Some of these judgments are hard... but we make judgments all the time. We don't always agree on the judgment. I have no problem with differences of opinion, but here's the problem: I draw a distinction between someone who says, 'I disagree with your judgment, and I hope to convince you to see it my way', and someone who says, 'I disagree with your judgment, but whether you see it my way or not, I'm going to insist that it be my way'.

That is blatant hypocrisy. You do in fact insist that it be your way and then complain about others who do exactly what you do.
This isn’t “holier then thou”, this is proof. Good solid proof in your own words.
I have no problem with differences of opinion, but here's the problem: you condemn others for acting as you do. No Pharisee could do worse.

ishmael

11-06-2006, 09:41 AM

No, Jamie, we're caught between God and earth. There's no question in my mind that we retain canine teeth because we are related to the carnivorous. But, we have a choice. Do you realize how godlike that is?

To have choice. It's not a matter of nature, and evolution, it's choice!

LeeG

11-06-2006, 09:46 AM

I am perfectly content with my role as a moralizing scold. :D I’m not named Samuel for nothing - and I have no claims to the contrary.

.

Ted Haggard was paid for it, I appreciate volunteers like you are able to live by your dictates and not have abortions.

uncas

11-06-2006, 09:51 AM

Ish.. as one who does not like to kill anything.. do you sweep the walks when you go out so as not to kill anything living? Serious question as many religious folk do. I mean, think of all those organisism you kill by walking out doors...
I'm rattling your chains but in a nice way..
Also, do you wear leather shoes, do you wear anything leather? Where do ya think that leather comes from if you do?
If you do, are you not being a hypocrit?

and if you still have a cat.. do you buy cat food with meat in it? Think about it.. Ish.....

Sam F

11-06-2006, 09:55 AM

In a few years it will be technically possible to take the DNA from one of them, stick it in an denucleated egg, and grow an embryo, or even a baby if one were so irresponsible.

Why is that irresponsible?

uncas

11-06-2006, 09:57 AM

"Brave New World" surfaces....

Gonzalo

11-06-2006, 10:08 AM

ishmael

11-06-2006, 10:08 AM

Jamie,

Life is a work in progress. As I said, you can't live without killing. Do no unecessary harm. I'm working on it. That dictum doesn't have to be perfect in practice to be valid in essence. I've tried to stop eating mammals and birds, but what about fish? I still eat fish. Arbitrary lines.

Perfection is the enemy of the possible. It's part and parcel of all the great religious traditions. We've got figureheads, and we fail to live up to them. In my experience, the more we dwell on our shortcomings, the stronger they become.

While doing no harm as an ideal is unreachable, I think it's a good way to try after, especially with our fellow humans.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 10:19 AM

I've tried to stop eating mammals and birds, but what about fish?

Seen on a bumpersticker the other day:

Meat is Murder. But the meat had it coming

erster

11-06-2006, 10:23 AM

Feh. Sam repeats his mantra over and over and over and over as if we were to believe that it's that simple. By exactly the same definition, my skin cells are human. Sam's liver cells, and Oyster's brain cells, and the cells in Norm's kidneys are all human, every one of them. They are all undeniably human cells. They are all alive, and all are capable of living and growing on their own in the right environment. In a few years it will be technically possible to take the DNA from one of them, stick it in an denucleated egg, and grow an embryo, or even a baby if one were so irresponsible. "Human" in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do. On a cellular level, the categories and distinctions that make perfect sense when speaking of whole organisms break down and become more confusing than helpful. When one claims that a fertilized egg is a person, one is led into absurdities like the two-cell paradox. "Person" is a useful concept with developed organisms, but not with cells.

A 10- week fetus cannot possibly know anything or react to anything, as Sam knows very well; it doesn't have the necessary neural structures. The only thing that makes human beings unique is our consciousness and intelligence. The rest is essentially identical to other mammals. Before that develops, or after it is permanently lost, what we have is human tissue, not a human being.

Yep and I also used my brain each day, much to the misery and intolerance of others, too.

By the way, what ever happened to the program that provided cds for the unborn? In many of the liberal education classes that gets a lot of backing by the Democrats, which many of you represent, do you now not support these crazy ideas that others are willing to admit, that the unborn are actually human beings with the same traits that exists after being born, just another phase in their life cycle?

Just for some of you naysayers that spend way too much time trying to argue against other human beings, instead of posting continually ask the people that carry the unborn.

For example playing Mozart's
music on the mother's stomach and
exposing her stomach to sunlight to cast
shadows with her hands to excite the baby.
maybe some of you meatheads should check out some facts from women that knows just a bit more about what is living in the darkness of their tummies.

http://www.womenfitness.net/touch_baby.htm

Studies of unborn babies and their parents suggest that babies remember certain aspects of their life in the uterus. In one study, babies whose pregnant mothers (http://www.womenfitness.net/wfmember/programs/articles/pregnancy.htm)regularly sat down each afternoon to relax and watch their favorite program on TV were found to relax (http://www.womenfitness.net/sleep_during_preg.htm)after the birth (http://www.womenfitness.net/after_the_baby_arrives.htm) whenever the familiar sound of the show's signature tune was played to them

http://www.teachmorelovemore.org/HealthSafetyDetails.asp?catid=91#817

Does playing music to my unborn child matter? (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/)

The use of ultrasound has helped solve the mystery surrounding the womb. Research has made us aware of scientific evidence about the benefits of prenatal stimulation.
The ears appear in the third week of pregnancy. Around the 16th week the fetus begins to respond to a sound pulse; by the 24th week it is actively listening.
The inner ear of the fetus functions fully in the last trimester. Hearing is the most developed sense before birth. The sound of the mother's voice is very distinct, setting the stage for bonding with the unborn child. Prenatal sounds provide a foundation for later learning and behavior. Women from all over the world have sung lullabies to their babies even before birth. Elements used in a language also are elements in music. These elements include tonal pitch, timbre, intensity and rhythm. Music stimulates the baby’s hearing system and soothes the baby. It prepares the ear, body and brain to listen to, integrate and produce language sounds. There’s a documented connection between sound/music and prenatal memory/learning.

uncas

11-06-2006, 10:24 AM

Gonzalo..
In so many ways we are just a species on this planet.. We live we die... Our species will perhaps evolve and change or we will destroy ourselves in the attempt.
The only thing we have.. and for all I know, we are not the only ones, is the ability to think..
Our ancestors evolved.. some disappeared and died out....
Are we God's creation on earth? Did he not, as so many think, create all living things? Perhaps we were the wrong choice as we screw up more than most?

and yes, a slug has as much right to be here as we do....

Osborne Russell

11-06-2006, 10:38 AM

An interesting question (the one originally implied by the thread).

I've often wondered what constitutes the bottom of the metaphorical slope, i.e., what's the worst that can happen?

And, what represents the point on the slope where it is impossible to regain traction and get back up to the top?

The government already puts a dollar value on life, which is in practice the same as putting a time limit on it. When they build highways, license pollution, etc. But it's done on a mass scale.

I suppose the bottom of the slope is the erosion of individual rights, leading to state "termination" of individuals. Am I close?

LeeG

11-06-2006, 10:44 AM

and what determines the coefficient of friction on the slope? What is the nature of the detritus on the slope? Is it a smooth surface like a concrete ramp or a rock field of the Sierras. Could the slope connect to other slopes like a mountain range of metaphors with different exposure and vegetation?

Osborne Russell

11-06-2006, 10:47 AM

Taking these things in the aggregate, what is the resultant angle of repose?

LeeG

11-06-2006, 10:49 AM

sitting with your back on a big rock in a field where there isn't worry about rattlers you can smell the pines when a breeze shifts from the hot rocks to the forest and back.

Milo Christensen

11-06-2006, 10:56 AM

...I suppose the bottom of the slope is the erosion of individual rights, leading to state "termination" of individuals. Am I close?

Well, let me share my experience with taking several severely disabled friends out to eat. First of all, you should see their eyes light up, these folks don't get out much. Then watch the "beautiful" young people as they walk by the disabled persons. I've even had princesses request a different table, they can't even eat a meal next to a disabled person. These "beautiful" people would kill my friends in a heartbeat if they had been born to the "beautiful" people. I don't think it's so much the state as it is the state of mind of the "entitleds".

My two friends are married to each other, they've worked a total of 45 years between them for the State of Michigan, one went on early disability, the other retired with 30 years, they adopted and raised a great kid. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

Milo Christensen

11-06-2006, 10:59 AM

... What is the nature of the detritus on the slope?...

The bodies of millions upon millions of tiny little people. The further down the slope the bigger they get.

Osborne Russell

11-06-2006, 11:00 AM

You see in severely impaired animals, including humans, not just a desire to live, but the same joy in living as in the unimpaired. I've always been troubled by people saying that somebody else's life isn't worth living. It seems presumptuous.

LeeG

11-06-2006, 11:04 AM

so it is a picnic after all.

Milo, this is what I asked you about earlier and you didn't respond, instead of focusing on the words "severely disabled" ,are there medical conditions for newborn that are clear cut for medical professionals to say "this baby does not have the capacity to live or grow, it will die in a few weeks/months no matter what we do"

I believe it's those instances the article is refering to, not the people who have grown and developed from the definition of "hopeless" from fifty years ago but from TODAYS definition and capabilities.

Given that you can't freeze newborns for future capabilities of medical interventions I'm speaking of what is known NOW.

I'm asking if there are conditions where a newborn is missing something fundamental, like a brain or organ necessary for living and there is no known medical technology that could allow them to survive?

Sam F

11-06-2006, 11:04 AM

An interesting question (the one originally implied by the thread).

I've often wondered what constitutes the bottom of the metaphorical slope, i.e., what's the worst that can happen?

If this were 1945 we’d know what the worst that could happen is.
Now it could be much worse. 1940's technology for eugenics was crude and didn’t work very well. Human genetics is so complex that old fashioned selective breeding would have taken decades if not longer to achieve the desired results.
Now it soon may be technically possible to do within a single generation.

And, what represents the point on the slope where it is impossible to regain traction and get back up to the top?

When some fool breeds a master race that lacks humanity. They can then enslave the remaining “inferior” natural men or exterminate them.
That’s what Daleks do, you know.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Daleknew.jpg/200px-Daleknew.jpg

LeeG

11-06-2006, 11:04 AM

The bodies of millions upon millions of tiny little people. The further down the slope the bigger they get.

I bet millions of fetuses would be slippery

LeeG

11-06-2006, 11:06 AM

When some fool breeds a master race that lacks humanity. They can then enslave the remaining “inferior” natural men or exterminate them.
That’s what Daleks do, you know.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Daleknew.jpg/200px-Daleknew.jpg

I'd settle for redefining prisoner status and degrees of humane treatment for degrees of humanity.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 11:08 AM

...and yes, a slug has as much right to be here as we do....

Just hope that someday, someone doesn't opt for the slug. Right?

Sam F

11-06-2006, 11:10 AM

I'd settle for redefining prisoner status and degrees of humane treatment for degrees of humanity.

There is a reasonably good probablility your hands are way to bloody to be worrying about that level of distinction just yet.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt

11-06-2006, 11:13 AM

Click (http://www.scribbler.co.uk/shop/services/moreinfo.php?pid=cnypu10105)

Superior???

Milo Christensen

11-06-2006, 11:25 AM

Lee:

I started this thread, in part, due to this quote, which leads off this thread:

It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years (emphasis added) of emotional and financial suffering.

I don't see any consideration for what the severely disabled baby wants.

It's just so strange to be arguing civil rights with a bunch of liberals wanting to take them away.

You seem to be trying to get back up the slippery slope to some kind of higher moral ground.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 11:31 AM

to hear Keith's answer. Why is it irresponsible to make a baby if being "'Human' in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do" ?

Gonzalo

11-06-2006, 12:17 PM

Milo,

I have recently made the acquaintance of a delightful woman with CP. Her speach is difficult to understand, but worth it to make the effort. She is a valued member of a local theatre group I work with, and is on the board of directors. She acts in a show or two a year, usually in a wheelchair. She and her "fully abled" husband are like a couple of teen agers, to watch them bill and coo. My impression of the "disabled" has been broadened enormously.

Like most "fully abled" people, I don't see disabled people very often. We "beautiful people" can be a pretty hard-hearted bunch.

The theatre, by the way, is run by a couple of gay Christian men with the biggest hearts I ever ran across.

LeeG

11-06-2006, 12:23 PM

Lee:

I started this thread, in part, due to this quote, which leads off this thread:

I don't see any consideration for what the severely disabled baby wants.

It's just so strange to be arguing civil rights with a bunch of liberals wanting to take them away.

You seem to be trying to get back up the slippery slope to some kind of higher moral ground.

Milo, I'm speaking of the medical description where there is no functioning brain to "want",,you are focusing on one part of the article, I'm focusing on another.

You would like an argument with liberals over civil rights and morals and I would prefer to have a specific case from which to apply such abstractions.

Keith Wilson

11-06-2006, 12:29 PM

Sam, to answer your question, there appear to be pretty good evidence that cloned mammals are not "normal"; that they may have genetic defects possibly as a result of taking genetic material from somatic cells, or because of some problem in the cloning process itself, or another reason we don't know about. Deliberately creating a human being (and we both agree that a baby is 100% a human being, I presume) through a difficult and complicated process that has a good chance of causing problems later in his or her life seems like a really bad idea. There are larger and more complex ethical issues around reproductive cloning, but this one point is quite sufficient to convince me that it would be a mistake.

Back to the original topic, I think the "slippery slope" analogy is misapplied here. More probably we have have an ordinary continuum where the extremes (Nazi eugenics, "every fertilized egg is sacred") are ridiculous and/or evil, and some middle ground makes more sense. Exactly where that middle ground is, OTOH, is the subject of much dispute. Everyone who makes a "slippery slope" argument thinks it slopes away from their position, of course.

LeeG

11-06-2006, 12:29 PM

There is a reasonably good probablility your hands are way to bloody to be worrying about that level of distinction just yet.

likewise the conviction of good people to perform evil acts in Gods name.

Leon m

11-06-2006, 12:45 PM

http://www.foundus.com/DennisSheehy/welcom3.gif

Milo Christensen

11-06-2006, 12:59 PM

...I think the "slippery slope" analogy is misapplied here. More probably we have have an ordinary continuum where the extremes (Nazi eugenics, "every fertilized egg is sacred") are ridiculous and/or evil, and some middle ground makes more sense...

Except for the fact that the middle ground keeps moving. In my carefully considered opinion, this proposal goes way too far. The fact that so much of the discussion in Great(?) Britain seems to be revolving around financial matters leaves me profoundly saddened and asking "What's next?"

Norman Bernstein

11-06-2006, 01:01 PM

Everyone who makes a "slippery slope" argument thinks it slopes away from their position, of course.

That's probably the truest statement made in this entire thread.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 01:04 PM

Sam, to answer your question, there appear to be pretty good evidence that cloned mammals are not "normal";…

But Keith, you’re changing your rules in the middle of the game.
If one is consistent: “In a few years it will be technically possible” to eliminate those problems.
Since you’re speaking hypothetically at the outset (none of it being possible at the moment), one can just as hypothetically posit a solution to those problems.
Thus, “in a few years it will be technically possible” to create a human being with no “problems later in his or her life”. Now that "this one point" is dealt with... the question remains unanswered:
Why is it irresponsible to make a baby, if being "'Human' in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do" ?

Sam F

11-06-2006, 01:08 PM

Exactly where that middle ground is, OTOH, is the subject of much dispute.

You're making this too complex Keith.
You either think its moral to take innocent human life or you don't.
Where is that middle ground?

LeeG

11-06-2006, 01:24 PM

You're making this too complex Keith.
You either think its moral to take innocent human life or you don't.
Where is that middle ground?

you have to be on the same ground to find it. You made the decision to leave a common ground a long time ago. Stay the course SamF. Don't get an abortion and you'll do right by God and whoever is enforcing your religious doctrine.

Leon m

11-06-2006, 01:32 PM

Hey I got an Idea...Let every body make their own decisions based on there own morals and beliefs, and let them answer to whatever God or nonGod they believe in...then whenever an election comes around we wont have to be bogged down with this TIRED old topic again.:)

LeeG

11-06-2006, 01:53 PM

More Cowbell!!!!!

Sam F

11-06-2006, 05:34 PM

Gonna pass on that question Keith?

Osborne Russell

11-06-2006, 06:05 PM

If this were 1945 we’d know what the worst that could happen is.

Hiroshima?

Osborne Russell

11-06-2006, 06:11 PM

When some fool breeds a master race that lacks humanity. They can then enslave the remaining “inferior” natural men or exterminate them.

The human race already

1. lacks humanity
2. has a master race, in fact several
3. who are already committed to the enslavement and/or extermination of the natural men and nature too.

Happily they haven't acheived dominance yet. If they do, it won't be because abortion and euthanasia are legal; it won't matter.

Meerkat

11-06-2006, 06:15 PM

Corporations are what will kill the human race. They're well on their way.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 06:20 PM

Hiroshima?

Well, that's eugenics with a hammer!
I had in mind subtler methods - like concentration/death camps for non-persons and a bit of selective breeding the old fashioned way.

Meerkat

11-06-2006, 06:22 PM

Well, that's eugenics with a hammer!
I had in mind subtler methods - like concentration/death camps for non-persons and a bit of selective breeding the old fashioned way.You must be happy that we've made a start with the concentration/death camps. :rolleyes:

Sam F

11-06-2006, 06:32 PM

The human race already

1. lacks humanity

Actually that's not correct. The Nazis started by simply shooting Jewish non-persons. It seemed a cheap and easy final solution and the Nazi Party had no shortage of thugs who should have enjoyed the task. Turns out they couldn't take it. Shooting innocent women and children all day long was just a bit much even for Nazism's worst and dullest.
That's why the chose to use more modern methods - like the gas chambers.

2. has a master race, in fact several
Had several wannabes. No actual takers. But a bit of careful snipping here in there in the DNA combined with a just a smidgen of the right animal DNA (a predator's naturally) and you might have a monster any criminal megalomaniac could be proud of.

Happily they haven't acheived dominance yet. If they do, it won't be because abortion and euthanasia are legal; it won't matter.

Oh no, won't matter a bit. Like that human/cow chimera they're planning on creating in Britain. Having that sort of experimentation legal has nothing to do with it.
However, it does save the bother of creating a secret hideout surrounded by armed guards in some out-of-the-way place with lousy restaurants.

Sam F

11-06-2006, 06:33 PM

You must be happy that we've made a start with the concentration/death camps.
You must have serious reading comprehension problems Meer.

Leon m

11-06-2006, 06:43 PM

Meerkat

11-06-2006, 06:45 PM

I thought I solved this problem already.Nope.

Leon m

11-06-2006, 06:51 PM

Nope.

OK...Then I'll just have to Gnome ya.

BAM !

http://www.foundus.com/DennisSheehy/welcom3.gif

11-06-2006, 06:56 PM

We're all on a slippery slope, the experts now say the worlds fish stocks have 50 years then they are gone. It may soon come to pass when the question of more humans or less humans and how that is decided becomes academic.

Meerkat

11-06-2006, 07:01 PM

There's nothing slippery or sloped to unrestrained greed. Corporations have no morals.

George Jung

11-06-2006, 07:29 PM

Corporations are people - hiding behind a fascade, perhaps .

glenallen

11-06-2006, 07:33 PM

There's nothing slippery or sloped to unrestrained greed. Corporations have no morals.

You're so cynical Meerkat!
And your statement is contradictory.
Don't you know greed is the force behind consumerism, our new morality?
Get with it, man, buy something useless before it's all gone!

sdowney717

11-06-2006, 07:53 PM

There are always those women that do not really care whether they have a boy or girl, but it is their husbands who force them to abort the child. There have been several cases where a wife has been brutally beaten by her husband just so she would abort her child. (Wong 1995:3) The men take having a male child a lot more seriously than the women. In some cases the husband forces the wife to go into hiding when she is about to give birth. This way no one knows that she gave birth. Then if she has a girl, she can simply abandon it without anyone knowing.

SO its INFANTICIDE practiced in China on normal babies.
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=27595
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A77925-2001May25
http://www.tibet.com/Women/twwomb.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/12-04-2000/vo16no25_infanticide.htm

Just a few articles showing how in China, gender is a serious handicap worthy of a killing!

sdowney717

11-06-2006, 07:59 PM

See how inconvenient people, like even normal newborn children are treated.

And I wonder how it comes to this, but it always starts innocently sounding enough, like kill the inconvenient malformed and sickly children.

A recent incident in Caidan, a township in central China, typifies the ongoing horror of Chinese population control. A child who had survived a forced abortion by saline injection was discarded in a lavatory. Attracted by the child�s cries, a retired woman doctor, Liu Juyu, rescued the newborn infant and took him to a local clinic for treatment. She then took the baby home herself to care for him, but on arriving home was confronted by five members of the local family planning committee. Furious at the thwarted abortion, they wrested the nameless infant away from the horrified doctor and proceeded to drown him in a nearby rice paddy, with local people looking on.

Keith Wilson

11-06-2006, 09:18 PM

You either think its moral to take innocent human life or you don't.
Where is that middle ground?Sam, this is like every argument you've made on the subject, and every question you've asked. If one is absolutely certain that everything from a fertilized egg onward is a Citizen of the Republic, morally and legally equivalent to a full-term baby and worthy of the same protections, then it makes perfect sense, and there can be no possibility of middle ground. We who disagree are exactly like Nazi collaborators; we are complicit in the murder of millions of innocent children. Have a pleasant evening.

Osborne Russell

11-06-2006, 10:08 PM

What's the big deal with fertilization? How come sperms & eggs aren't humans?

glenallen

11-06-2006, 10:33 PM

Same reason a chicken egg is not Foghorn Leghorn.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 09:27 AM

What's the big deal with fertilization? How come sperms & eggs aren't humans?

What? Another biology class drop-out?

The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

Sam F

11-07-2006, 09:31 AM

See how inconvenient people, like even normal newborn children are treated.

Absolutely right. Stories of equal calousness toward human life occur here in the States too.
There is no "middle ground" here. One either values human life or one doesn't. China's experience shows yet another step down toward total depravity.
Amazingly, the proaborts are proud of this "achievement".

LeeG

11-07-2006, 09:58 AM

SamF, there can be no middle ground, you will not have an abortion. Stand firm.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:01 AM

Sam, this is like every argument you've made on the subject, and every question you've asked. If one is absolutely certain that everything from a fertilized egg onward is a Citizen of the Republic, morally and legally equivalent to a full-term baby and worthy of the same protections, then it makes perfect sense, and there can be no possibility of middle ground.

Keith, it would help a great deal if you responded to what I actually wrote. I did not say fertilized eggs were citizens. I didn’t make a “moral” case. I know that legally they are not equivalent to full term babies since even full term babies can be aborted legally.
What I have said is that fertilized eggs are human.
You agree, don’t you?
The science of Biology certainly agrees.
You also agree that it’s OK to take a human life.
I don’t.

We who disagree are exactly like Nazi collaborators; we are complicit in the murder of millions of innocent children.

The Nazi’s thought it was OK to take human life, both by abortion and the later elimination of the unfit and other unwanted non-persons.
You’re more than half way there Keith. Don’t blame me for noticing.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 10:05 AM

There is no "middle ground" here. One either values human life or one doesn't. And that's the best incentive I can imagine to work to keep you and your ilk a very very long way from any position of political power. Time to write another check, I think, and maybe volunteer some time. Yep, more than halfway to Nazis.

Sam, it would help a great deal if you responded to what I actually wrote:
What I have said is that fertilized eggs are human.
By exactly the same definition, my skin cells are human. Sam's liver cells, and Oyster's brain cells, and the cells in Norm's kidneys are all human, every one of them. They are all undeniably human cells. They are all alive, and all are capable of living and growing on their own in the right environment. In a few years it will be technically possible to take the DNA from one of them, stick it in an denucleated egg, and grow an embryo, or even a baby if one were so irresponsible. "Human" in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do. On a cellular level, the categories and distinctions that make perfect sense when speaking of whole organisms break down and become more confusing than helpful. When one claims that a fertilized egg is a person, one is led into absurdities like the two-cell paradox. "Person" is a useful concept with developed organisms, but not with cells.

The only thing that makes human beings unique is our consciousness and intelligence. The rest is essentially identical to other mammals. Before that develops, or after it is permanently lost, what we have is human tissue, not a human being.

ishmael

11-07-2006, 10:20 AM

The temptation, for those who think human life begins at conception, is to label abortion murder and be done with it. I think there are complexities that simple labels don't carry well. Personally, as I've said, I wouldn't abort a fetus my lady and I had made, but I did once. I'm not sure what has shifted in my ethics, but to me, now, it's killing an innocent.

That said, if we outlaw it again it won't stop women seeking an abortion. It will stop POOR women, who can't afford the blackmarket, more than it will stop the middle and upper classes.

Dunno. It's a tough nut. My inclination at this point is to leave it to the individual conscience, simply because I see banning it as a worse evil.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:28 AM

Why is it irresponsible to make a baby, if being "'Human' in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do" ?

Sometimes an inability to, or a deliberate refusal to, answer a question is itself an eloquent answer.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:32 AM

By exactly the same definition, my skin cells are human. Sam's liver cells, and Oyster's brain cells...

Gee Keith, and you're supposed to be scientific minded!
And there you go flunking Bio 101.

TomF

11-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Sometimes an inability to, or a deliberate refusal to, answer a question is itself an eloquent answer.Isn't it just.;)

LeeG

11-07-2006, 10:33 AM

And that's the best incentive I can imagine to work to keep you and your ilk a very very long way from any position of political power. Time to write another check, I think, and maybe volunteer some time. Yep, more than halfway to Nazis.

:

In 1990 when clinics were being picketed,bombed, my brothers friend who is a doctor was getting death threats and I was taking care of two little girls 24/7 the old farts in the Republican Party saw political profit to be made from such "ilk".

These chicken-sh*t cowards willing to tell folks how to handle their sexual and reproductive decisions with leaders like Ted Haggard leading the charge are a fine motivation for the younger generation to become politically involved.

There is no more a chance that a daughter of a Republican politician would forego the opportunity to choose than the daughter of a Democratic politician.

One side benefit of this political cycle is a place for gays in the Republican Party once the Christofascists are sloughed off.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:33 AM

My inclination at this point is to leave it to the individual conscience, simply because I see banning it as a worse evil.
What's a worse evil than taking 1.3 million (or so) innocent lives a year?

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:35 AM

the proaborts have created:

In April 2004, a nurse named Abby* made an appointment with Richard
Collier of the Legal Center for Defense to tell him of an incident she
thought violated the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Abby worked in the labor and delivery department of a major regional
hospital in New Jersey. Abby told Collier about a baby boy who was
aborted alive there earlier that year and placed in the "dirty room"
until he died several hours later.

The attending nurse was so disturbed she described the event to Abby.

The boy was between 20-23 weeks old and aborted after a doctor noticed
on ultrasound his limbs were not measuring properly. He told the mother
the baby would be born with abnormal arms and legs and sword-like feet.

The procedure of choice was induced labor abortion, wherein a pill
called Misoprostol (aka Cytotec) is inserted in the mother's birth
canal every 4-8 hours to irritate the cervix until it opens.

The abortionist may kill the baby beforehand by injecting a
heart-stopping drug into the baby's heart through the mother's abdomen.
Or the abortionist may not, anticipating the baby will die during the
birth process or soon after.

In this case, the baby obviously was not killed en utero and survived.

The nurse wrapped the baby in a blanket and took him to the dirty room,
realizing after several minutes he was alive. She reported this to her
charge nurse, who did nothing. The family was not told.

The nurse noticed the baby was clutching something in one fist. She
pried the baby's fingers opened and saw he was grasping a Cytotec pill.

The nurse requested a reassignment.

Still, she felt compelled to check on the baby four or five hours
later. Thinking the blanket was keeping him alive, she unwrapped the
baby and placed him naked on a stainless steel table.

When she checked 15 minutes later, he was dead…

Of course, all these actions violated the Born Alive Infants Protection
Act, which indicates all live born babies, no matter what gestational
age or reason for birth, are legally protected and, therefore,
deserving of equal medical treatment.

In July 2005, a year after the DOJ began to investigate, the hospital
instituted a new abortion policy. Live aborted babies were no longer to
go to the dirty room; they were to go to a hospital room within the
department for comfort care.

This still violated the principles established in BAIPA.

Almost two years after the DOJ began to investigate, this past
Christmas, Abby reported the good news that amazed staff finally
provided treatment to an aborted healthy baby girl who lived six hours
on comfort care alone. She thrived and ultimately went home.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 10:36 AM

What's a worse evil than taking 1.3 million (or so) innocent lives a year?

SamF, do you have an other hobbies ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:38 AM

"CWA Illinois State Director Karen Hayes uncovered disturbing news about Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, a suburb of Chicago. Physicians there perform so-called “therapeutic abortions,” or “labor-induction abortions,” in which the baby is born alive and left to die. We term them “live-birth abortions.” Regardless of the label, the procedure is clearly infanticide—murder. Babies survive an hour or more after the premature delivery. In one case, a baby survived for six hours after delivery Chicago Tribune, 9/29/99)"

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:39 AM

SamF, do you have an other hobbies ?
Sure do but they're off topic.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:40 AM

Sam F

11-07-2006, 10:43 AM

What I like best is when "Liberals" claim to be for the little guy. Well not if you're really little they aren't!

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 10:44 AM

Sure do but they're off topic.

Start a thread then ;)

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 10:44 AM

Sam, you can take your crack about flunking Biology 101 and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Once again: The only thing that makes human beings unique is our consciousness and intelligence. The rest is essentially identical to other mammals. Before consciousness develops, or after it is permanently lost, what we have is human tissue, not a human being.

And that's enough. Time to go write that donation check, and it will be significantly bigger because of Sam. 'Bye, folks

LeeG

11-07-2006, 10:48 AM

What's a worse evil than taking 1.3 million (or so) innocent lives a year?

Allowing people who use this logic to guide foreign policy where 100's of millions of muslims are equated with evil.

sdowney717

11-07-2006, 10:53 AM

How is a live birth abortion (prostaglandin) performed?

A Prostaglandin or Live Birth Abortion is done in the second or third trimester. Prostaglandins are naturally occurring chemical compounds which assist in the birthing process. For the abortion procedure, artificial prostaglandins are injected into the amniotic sac which induces violent labor and leads to the birth of a child usually too young to survive.

Often salt or another toxin is first injected to ensure that the baby will be delivered dead, since some babies have survived the trauma of a prostaglandin abortion and been born alive.

Gee, how unfortunate if the infant is born alive, seeing he was not pickled properly at the first.
Anyway, there are many unwanted humans living on the planet.
Why not get rid of them too.

Norman Bernstein

11-07-2006, 10:53 AM

"One night, Jennifer, a nurse, entered a utility room nurses use for breaks. A few nurses were smoking and drinking coffee with their feet propped up on a stainless steel table. A naked newborn baby was also on that table. Jennifer was shocked. When she asked about the baby, they said, “That’s a preemie born at 19 weeks. We don’t do anything to save them unless they’re 20 weeks.” Jennifer learned they had presented the child to its mother as a dead, premature child. She picked up the child who was still gasping for air. Then one nurse yelled at her, took the baby and tossed him in a container of formaldehyde. The baby was killed instantly."

You might try providing an attribution. I have no idea if these things are true, or are extraordinary rare circumstances, or whatever. The only thing I know about them is that they're decidedly rigged for maximum emotional appeal. I'd expect that they came from some anti-abortion site and can't be verified.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 10:56 AM

You might try providing an attribution. I have no idea if these things are true, or are extraordinary rare circumstances, or whatever. The only thing I know about them is that they're decidedly rigged for maximum emotional appeal. I'd expect that they came from some anti-abortion site and can't be verified.

Additionally what hospital allows smoking ???

Me thinks we caught SamF in a fib OOOOH MY :D

LeeG

11-07-2006, 11:01 AM

crack, they were smoking crack, doing lines on the table and drinking coffee,,,

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 11:03 AM

crack, they were smoking crack, doing lines on the table and drinking coffee,,,

No no no smoking meth with gay prostitutes, yea that was it yea yea yea

Sam F

11-07-2006, 11:05 AM

Sam, you can take your crack about flunking Biology 101 and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Once again: The only thing that makes human beings unique is our consciousness and intelligence...

Keith you admitted you can't define consciousness. You base your determination of humanity on something you can't define?
That's scientific all right.

Time to go write that donation check, and it will be significantly bigger because of Sam.

To what? Planned Parenthood? You know that's the organization that shields rapists and lobbies for the continued legality of Partial Birth Abortion - a procedure you claim you disapprove of.
With thought processes like that, no wonder you flunked biology.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 11:30 AM

You might try providing an attribution.
The quote is from a broadcast entitled The Death of Humanness by Gregory Koukl from Stand to Reason. It's a Christian group so, a priori, you can ignore anything he says.
Right?
But you’re still left with the Chicago Tribune, 9/29/99 and Richard Collier of the Legal Center for Defense references. Or did I just make those up?

The only thing I know about them is that they're decidedly rigged for maximum emotional appeal. I'd expect that they came from some anti-abortion site and can't be verified.

Actually those are quite toned down. I could provide far more graphic examples but didn’t in deference to your feelings.
Oh, and never never make the mistake that pro-life data "can't be verified". It can be verified all right, but you may not like looking at the bloody proof.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 11:36 AM

The quote is from a broadcast entitled The Death of Humanness by Gregory Koukl from Stand to Reason. It's a Christian group so, a priori, you can ignore anything he says.
Right?

Whew its nice to know Sam is marginally capable of admitting he promotes lying propaganda to prove his point. :D

Ya had to now we would smell bull****e on that kooky Koukl quote :D :D :D

ishmael

11-07-2006, 11:40 AM

What would overturning Roe v Wade look like? People don't realize, but the federal dictum didn't change much in many places. Abortion had been legal in some states, and even were it wasn't if you had the dough you could get a proper medical abortion. My mother had one circa 1943. Because she was middle class, I'm quite sure it was on the up and up, medically.

If it were overturned it might cut the number of abortions, but those with the means would still get them. The poor, who are least able to support another kid and will end up abusing them, are the ones who will suffer. That's why leaving it to individual conscience is the lesser of two evils.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 11:41 AM

Whew its nice to know Sam is marginally capable of admitting he promotes lying propaganda to prove his point. :D

Ya had to now we would smell bull****e on that kooky Koukl quote :D :D :D

Do you really want me to provide more graphic proof Joe?
You might not think that's so funny.

TomF

11-07-2006, 11:47 AM

Do you really want me to provide more graphic proof Joe?
You might not think that's so funny.Proof of what?

You could provide graphic proof that abortions occur. Most of us have likely seen such photos, and aren't arguing that abortions don't occur.

To be honest, if you haven't been working as hard as possible for a few years now to provide graphic proof that your opinion on this issue (and a couple of others) is correct, and that those who oppose you are dreadfully wrong (at best) or crypto-Nazis (at worst), then just what have you been doing with your time?

Graphic isn't what we need - there's been quite a lot of it. A more generous spirit in interpreting what your adversaries say would be a good start. It would likely become more reciprocal too.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 11:50 AM

Do you really want me to provide more graphic proof Joe?
You might not think that's so funny.

I would like for you to graphically prove this actually happened or admit it is propped up propaganda that you posted to attempt to prove your point and are now caught in a LIE ooooooh my

Originally Posted by Sam F
"One night, Jennifer, a nurse, entered a utility room nurses use for breaks. A few nurses were smoking and drinking coffee with their feet propped up on a stainless steel table. A naked newborn baby was also on that table. Jennifer was shocked. When she asked about the baby, they said, “That’s a preemie born at 19 weeks. We don’t do anything to save them unless they’re 20 weeks.” Jennifer learned they had presented the child to its mother as a dead, premature child. She picked up the child who was still gasping for air. Then one nurse yelled at her, took the baby and tossed him in a container of formaldehyde. The baby was killed instantly."

LeeG

11-07-2006, 11:54 AM

To what? Planned Parenthood? You know that's the organization that shields rapists and lobbies for the continued legality of Partial Birth Abortion - a procedure you claim you disapprove of.
With thought processes like that, no wonder you flunked biology.

yeah baby,,that's the one. Don't forget NARAL. Finally, whatever you do stay true to your word and don't get an abortion SamF.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:00 PM

Proof of what?

For instance that late term abortions occur in this country. Babies that are capable of surviving on their own.

Graphic isn't what we need - there's been quite a lot of it.

If I didn't agree I would have already posted links.

A more generous spirit in interpreting what your adversaries say would be a good start. It would likely become more reciprocal too.

My generous spirit ran out quite some time ago after being lied to, lied about, defamed and misquoted deliberately not to mention attempted bullying and threats from proaborts.
One would go a long way toward reciprocation if someone would object to such behavior.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:03 PM

You want to start Tom?

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-07-2006, 12:09 PM

Have you stopped lying yet SamF

TomF

11-07-2006, 12:10 PM

Great. I hereby object. I think virtually all of us in these conversations share your feelings about being lied to, lied about, defamed, mischaracterized, bullied etc. It's happened, and it's unlikely that the views we were trying to defend are about to change. What to do?

Oyster and I recently talked about much the same issue, and I'm perfectly happy to say to you what I did to him: look at your posts. Wouldn't you rather be talking about boats? Me too. Let's stop throwing mud - I'll stop first, if that makes it any easier. It's good for us both to remember, as your post above points out, that what goes around comes around. Maybe it shouldn't ... but it generally does.

t.

LeeG

11-07-2006, 12:10 PM

there is no common ground.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:16 PM

Great. I hereby object.

Could you make that a bit more specific?
Hint: You don't have to look far for an example to object to.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:22 PM

...Planned Parenthood? You know that's the organization that shields rapists and lobbies for the continued legality of Partial Birth Abortion - a procedure you claim you disapprove of.
With thought processes like that, no wonder you flunked biology.
yeah baby,,that's the one. Don't forget NARAL. Finally, whatever you do stay true to your word and don't get an abortion SamF.

Since you'd like more information...

San Francisco, CA (LifeNews.com) -- A testimonial posted on a California Planned Parenthood abortion business' website regarding an 11-year-old rape victim has sparked a call for an investigation into the organization's handling of sexual abuse cases.
In the “Shared Stories” section of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's website, a client's shared her story.

“I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood [sic] helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way.”

In response, pro-life leaders have called for an investigation, as Planned Parenthood is required by law to report cases of child abuse. The abortion business has since removed the post from their web site.

When contacted, a representative of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate would not comment to LifeNews.com on whether the rape was reported to authorities.

Neat huh? Planned Parenthood violated the law by not reporting a child's rape. Aren't you proud to support an organization that does that routinely?

TomF

11-07-2006, 12:23 PM

Could you make that a bit more specific?
Hint: You don't have to look far for an example to object to.No. I can read up and down the various threads, and rhyme off post #s which include a barb, but so can everyone else. There would be lots of posts cited ... and more than a few names from all sides of the floor. But public ritual humiliation serves no useful purpose, and when I can hold my tongue, I try not to indulge. Besides, what if I missed someone? Don't want folks to feel slighted.

I would prefer that it all stops. But I'm no cyber-cop, and will try to resist making myself into one. But Sam, what goes around does indeed come around.

t.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 12:25 PM

. . . . lied to, lied about, defamed and misquoted deliberately not to mention attempted bullying and threats from proaborts.Yep, just like Nazis, we are. Heil Sanger! (Better wipe the foam off your chin, Sam, people might not take you seriously.)

Note how often when someone opposed to abortion gets pressed too hard on the alleged personhood of a fertilized egg or blastocyst they start changing the subject to late-term abortion? Hugely enlaged bloody fetus pictures are probably next.

So becasue I'm unable to define consciousness to my satisfaction, it doesn't exist?

Leon m

11-07-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sam F
"What's a worse evil than taking 1.3 million (or so) innocent lives a year?"

Destroying the planet that all people live on, and not caring.

War

Holy war

Poverty

Greed

Shall I continue ?

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:29 PM

I would prefer that it all stops. But I'm no cyber-cop, and will try to resist making myself into one. But Sam, what goes around does indeed come around.

t.

The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Leon m

11-07-2006, 12:34 PM

The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

So that explains 911

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:35 PM

Yep, just like Nazis, we are. Heil Sanger! ...

Yes, just like the Nazis. Sorry Keith, but the founder of Planned Parenthood - an organization you support - was a dedicated eugenicist who, besides killing babies, was a racist who wanted black people to stop reproducing.
Or do you want me to quote her own words on the "Negro Project"?

Note how often when someone opposed to abortion gets pressed too hard on the alleged personhood of a fertilized egg or blastocyst they start changing the subject to late-term abortion? Hugely enlaged bloody fetus pictures are probably next.
Note how I have never done that.

So becasue I'm unable to define consciousness to my satisfaction, it doesn't exist?

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I merely pointed out the fact that you decide life or death based on a quality you can't even define.
Oh and for someone who claims the mantle of science, that's awfully subjective of you.
Imagine a court deciding the death penalty on such criteria!
Would you support its decisions?

TomF

11-07-2006, 12:36 PM

The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.Who said anything about doing nothing?

You raised the civility issue, and I've agreed. I've suggested we all stop throwing darts from our keyboards, and acknowledged that darts have indeed flown from "my" side as well as from "yours." Accordingly, I'm trying to reign my malicious side in, while still expressing my opinions honestly. Feel free to hold me accountable for further darts I throw.

How 'bout you? Gonna go the same route?

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:36 PM

So that explains 911

non sequitur

Leon m

11-07-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sam F
The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

So that explains 911

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:40 PM

Who said anything about doing nothing?

You did.
Remember?

Great. I hereby object.

Could you make that a bit more specific?
Hint: You don't have to look far for an example to object to.

And you don't want to be a cop. OK, isn't that doing nothing?
Afraid of the big bad bully or something?

If I'm wrong, or you mis-spoke, and you want to do something...
Hint: You don't have to look for for an example to object to.

Leon m

11-07-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sam F
The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Thats why I voted democrat.

LeeG

11-07-2006, 12:46 PM

Neat huh? Planned Parenthood violated the law by not reporting a child's rape. Aren't you proud to support an organization that does that routinely?

SamF, When you don't believe in a common ground there isn't any need to communicate objective information. I have volunteered for PP in two cities. My pride or lack thereof is irrelevant, act or shut up.

TomF

11-07-2006, 12:48 PM

Sam, I've just looked through the current page on my screen, starting at post 151.

I see what I'd call "barbs" in 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, and 171. While writing this note, 171 was the most recent post. Suggests to me that everyone's wound pretty tightly.

So I'm going to try and stop. You?

LeeG

11-07-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Sam F
The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Thats why I voted democrat.

like Congressional oversight? It's August '02, the Pentagon is already planning for war and Congress has no NIE on Iraq.

Leon m

11-07-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sam F
The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Actually their is one other requirement...Christians need to be dupped into voting Republican via abortion issues and homophobia.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 12:57 PM

So I'm going to try and stop. You?

First, who did I lie to, lie about, defame, misquote deliberately, bully or threaten?

You know Tom the problem with these calls for "civility" is that they're afaik always based on double standards.
And you know how I am about double standards.

TomF

11-07-2006, 01:00 PM

Sam,

In post #158, 168, and 174 I said I was going to try to take a "high road" in how I conduct myself here, and asked if you were also going to try, considering that the barbs were flying thick and fast. I alluded to this in 162 also.

No substantive response yet on your intentions. It's been working better for Oyster and me in the past couple of days - for the 4th time, you want to try too? Seems to me, the alternative is pretty much the tenor you see in this thread.

Leon m

11-07-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sam F

And you know how I am about double standards.

Like its not ok to kill the unborn,but it is ok to back a president that promotes war and death penalties .

LeeG

11-07-2006, 01:04 PM

Isn't it time for a Ted Haggard/Jones photo?

Leon m

11-07-2006, 01:07 PM

I think it's time for cheese

Norman Bernstein

11-07-2006, 01:07 PM

Oh, and never never make the mistake that pro-life data "can't be verified". It can be verified all right, but you may not like looking at the bloody proof.

I wouldn't mind... I'm OK with that sort of thing... not that it's easy to look at, but I don't faint, if that's what you mean.

But in regard to 'verification', yes, I'd be likely to suspect the accuracy of an advocacy groups' 'evidence'.... some reputable journalism would be far more believable.

However, I have no doubt that one could readily find events like this transpiring. Whether they characterize anything is hard to say.... after all, would I be correct in presuming that all evangelist ministers are having sex with gay prostitutes and smoking crystal meth?

The issue is simple: do the examples you post constitute anything other than rare anecdotal circumstances? If so, then why are they more meaningful than the gay dopesmoking minister... or the serial killer... or the rapist.... do each of those anomalies in human life constitute some sort of prooof of anything, other than themselves?

TomF

11-07-2006, 01:13 PM

First, who did I lie to, lie about, defame, misquote deliberately, bully or threaten?

You know Tom the problem with these calls for "civility" is that they're afaik always based on double standards.
And you know how I am about double standards.Look, Sam. To be rather blunt, neither of us can control other folks' posting behaviour.

You point-blank asked me in post 159 to talk about civility on my side of the floor. I did. And I've asked you to hold me accountable for further barbs I launch. Obviously, other folks haven't stopped with the lobbing.

You can help, though you will likely be tested pretty hard for a while. What goes around comes around. For the 5th time, what do you intend to do? Building on your own request to me back in #159, will you also try to restrain your tone, to help sweeten the bilge?

Heck, if Oyster and I can do it ...

TomF

11-07-2006, 01:30 PM

bump.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 01:43 PM

…But in regard to 'verification', yes, I'd be likely to suspect the accuracy of an advocacy groups' 'evidence'.... some reputable journalism would be far more believable.

“But you’re still left with the Chicago Tribune, 9/29/99 and Richard Collier of the Legal Center for Defense references. Or did I just make those up?”

Is the Tribune not reputable? I mean I’m not from Chicago. Maybe it’s on the par with the National Inquirer. Huh?

However, I have no doubt that one could readily find events like this transpiring. Whether they characterize anything is hard to say...

Not hard to say at all. All you have to do is look:

Speaking of “live-birth abortions”…
Other Chicago-area hospitals routinely kill “unfit” newborns. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center performs about 100 such abortions annually, while Christ Hospital routinely kills 20 infants in the same manner each year. Other hospitals such as the Illinois Masonic Medical Center and Women’s Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas, inject heart-stopping drugs before delivering the babies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that labor induction accounts for one-tenth of 1 percent of all abortions (Chicago Tribune, 9/29/99). btw, you can find that quote from CWA - Concerned Women for America

Now the point of all that isn’t that such murders are rare. As a percentage of the total, of course it’s rare. The point is that there is no useful line of demarcation between legally killable babies and those afforded legal protection. Since it is a fact that human life is being taken it is inevitable that such infanticide will occur. Note that viability or stage-of-pregnancy are at best “guidelines”, not hard and fast limits. Note that Keith’s vague and personal “consciousness” standard is also completely useless in such determinations.

Norman Bernstein

11-07-2006, 01:49 PM

Note that Keith’s vague and personal “consciousness” standard is also completely useless in such determinations.

So would the 'innocence' argument... even though it's fairly common to hear about the murder of 'innocent' human beings. I don't know where 'innocence' starts and stops.... although I suspect there's a religious definition somewhere.

If comparing the two, I think consciousness is a pretty good standard, actually. As my father laid on an emergency room gurney, he was most decidedly 'alive'; his heart was beating, his skin was warm to the touch. However, even though he might have been kept that way for years, the essential element that made him the man he was, was irrevocably gone. It didn't make it any easier to order the respirator disconnected, and to stand there until the monitor indicated that his heart had stopped.... but I had the small comfort in knowing it was what he wanted. However, even if he hadn't left detailed instructions, I would have done the same thing.

Did I kill him?

Sam F

11-07-2006, 01:52 PM

Couldn't find any examples of my violating my standards?

Look, Sam. To be rather blunt, neither of us can control other folks' posting behaviour.
Of course not.
So why do you seek to control mine?

You point-blank asked me in post 159 to talk about civility on my side of the floor. I did. And I've asked you to hold me accountable for further barbs I launch.

Don't worry Tom, when haven't I held you accountable?

Obviously, other folks haven't stopped with the lobbing.
You can help, though you will likely be tested pretty hard for a while.

Oh! You won't do anything, but I need to do something. ;)

Sorry, that's a double standard. I already refuse to use certain tactics and I know from experience that what is intolerable to proaborts is the truth. I guess that's just tough.

What goes around comes around.

Actually that's not so. See above comment about my refusal to use certain tactics.

For the 5th time, what do you intend to do? ...

Just what I always do. Stick to reason and the facts - come what may.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 01:55 PM

So would the 'innocence' argument... even though it's fairly common to hear about the murder of 'innocent' human beings. I don't know where 'innocence' starts and stops.... although I suspect there's a religious definition somewhere.

Norm there's a faith-based reason to everything in human behavior. It's inescapable.
But if you can find a way that my view of innocence is more religious than yours, be my guest in providing it.

If comparing the two, I think consciousness is a pretty good standard, actually... If you could actually define it. But you can't.
Non-defined criteria are a poor choice for deciding life and death decisions. Don't you agree?

Sam F

11-07-2006, 01:59 PM

consciousness... irrevocably gone

In human embryos, consciousness will irrevocably be developed - if not stopped.
Something lost to something being developed is a poor comparison.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 02:08 PM

Whether or not I can define consciousness is quite irrelevant. Consciousness (and intelligence, I said) exists, and there are cases in which its presence or absence is quite clear. A tomato does not have it. You and I do. A fertilized egg does not have any. An embryo before the brain develops cannot possibly have consciousness. The best evidence is that it is always associated wth electrical activity in the more recent parts of the brain, which begins in the fetus at six months or thereabouts. It's existence is in doubt only in marginally relevant cases - other species and some cases of brain injury.

Something living with human DNA but without the capacity for consciousness is human tissue, not a human being.

Norman Bernstein

11-07-2006, 02:11 PM

Norm there's a faith-based reason to everything in human behavior. It's inescapable.

Those 'reasons' are valid only if you have faith. I don't.

But if you can find a way that my view of innocence is more religious than yours, be my guest in providing it.

I don't have a view of 'innocence'. There are 12 year olds who have killed their playmates, and not necessarily by 'accident'... yet we don't hold them accountable; instead, we look for 'reasons' (excuses, really) to absolve the child, usually hoping to pin the blame on a parent. I have no idea where 'innocence' starts or ends... or whether the concept itself has any meaningful application to the discussion.

Non-defined criteria are a poor choice for deciding life and death decisions. Don't you agree?

No, I don't. There are few things in life that are discretely definable. You choose the moment of conception as your criteria... but why? Because it makes sense, to you? Doesn't make sense to me, particularly. Or perhaps because it's the dogma of your faith? Well, great.... nothing wrong with being dogmatic. Expecting everyone else to accept that dogma, however, is another matter.

TomF

11-07-2006, 02:13 PM

Sorry to hear that you're not about to acknowledge any responsibility for the flavour of things down here, Sam.

You'd asked for an example of the "lying about" behaviour you occasionally indulge in - post #187, voila! I feel that the intent and substance of my post #183, which I suspect is as clear as glass to everyone else, has been misinterpreted and twisted in your rebuttal. I consider that a wilful misinterpretation, essentially lying about the meaning of my post and about the behaviour changes I'm taking myself.

A for-instance ... you've quoted me mentioning that we can only control our own behaviour. So it's rather obvious that I know I can't control yours, and am not trying to. Why would you say my intention is anything other than what it is, except to justify continued belligerance?

To be painfully clear, I am encouraging you to choose to do something yourself. The ripple effect, particularly if the attitude was sustained over time, would be substantial for us all. I'd benefit from it - as would you. As would the rest of us.

Again, Oyster and I have chosen to do something about our feuding, and so far it's working. I invite you to try it on too.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 02:17 PM

FWIW, here's a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on consciousness, if anyone is interested. It's a fairly complex subject (my entry for understatement of they week).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

TomF

11-07-2006, 02:25 PM

Fascinating stuff, Keith.

t.

Sam F

11-07-2006, 02:36 PM

Whether or not I can define consciousness is quite irrelevant.

OK. Prove to me that you're conscious. Naturally, to do so you must define what consciousness is.
Have at it.

ishmael

11-07-2006, 02:37 PM

Are you so sure of yourself to say a tomato doesn't have consciousness?

From what I've read and tasted, more than a little, of various mystics east and west, when you break through the conditioning of the ego, so strict and rational, you see that consciousness pervades everything.

Such awareness doesn't answer the questions about killing, but it does give a pause for thought.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 02:38 PM

I argue with Sam, therefore I am. :D

Sam F

11-07-2006, 03:08 PM

Sorry to hear that you're not about to acknowledge any responsibility for the flavour of things down here, Sam.
I am responsible for defending a pro-life position. I have done so consistently.
What more do you expect?

You'd asked for an example of the "lying about" behaviour you occasionally indulge in - post #187, voila! I feel that the intent and substance of my post #183, which I suspect is as clear as glass to everyone else, has been misinterpreted and twisted in your rebuttal. I consider that a wilful misinterpretation, essentially lying about the meaning of my post and about the behaviour changes I'm taking myself.

A for-instance ... you've quoted me mentioning that we can only control our own behaviour. So it's rather obvious that I know I can't control yours, and am not trying to.

Yes Tom, we both know that short of force, we can’t make robots of each other.
That wasn’t my point and presumably you know it. My point is that you’re trying to get me to change - only me.
Double standard , double standard and double standard again. Got it?
To illustrate, please explain this from your own post # 183:

You can help, though you will likely be tested pretty hard for a while. What goes around comes around. For the 5th time, what do you intend to do?

Isn’t it true that are you trying to convince me to change my behavior?
It is “lying” to notice that you are trying to control my behavior by doing that?
If that’s not so, are you asking to no purpose?
Now, do you want to take back your statement about my “lying” Tom?
I strongly suggest that you do so.

Why would you say my intention is anything other than what it is, except to justify continued belligerance? To be painfully clear, I am encouraging you to choose to do something yourself.

And what would you have me choose to do to appease the proaborts, Tom?
Stop presenting facts? That would make them happy.
Stop pointing out their illogic? That too would delight them
Stop creating threads like this? I didn’t. I never have.
The “middle position” just happens to be yours and to meet you half way means, as usual, total capitulation. You’re not going to get it.

I already made perfectly clear that there are tactics that people on your side use that I will not use. Don’t you think it worthwhile to at least mention: “Hey guys you’re hurting our case!”
Why don’t you ask them to change, Tom?

erster

11-07-2006, 03:35 PM

Tom F, feel free to stand on your own feet and do not use me to prop up the myth that I accept your idea of selective censorship on this forum. So please look for a smaller hat if you think that I have been silent in this thread and with few others because of our exchange last week. Thats not the case. I think I can attest to the fact of a well worn out line around here that goes something to the order of;

Its fine when a Democrat insults and not when its thrown back at the Democrats using almost verbatum what the Democrats do each and everyday around this place.

I get plenty other attacks from others to make up for your small moratorum for a week from you, including ones that are participating in this thread as a daily diet. It just so happens I have another life outside this website and forum that makes a difference to my life, unlike these type threads. The ones sharing this thread, rank in two areas, one to argue, or I will say exchange ideas.

The problem that I see here is that you are extremely upset by what Sam F is posting. I have a cure for that, and its exactly what you choose to do with my threads. Keith can also follow your lead and that is not reply. I have watched these discussions take place for multiple years. The discussions irritates you to no end. You still come right back and do it again. The idea that you keep stating is nothing more than selective censorship, pure and simple in the name of calling for civil discourse. You have admitted that you have no control over what others post, but you continue to hammer Sam F on his style and approach, and give a pass to a couple of others that are not even on topic but continue to insult here.

But back to what I see taking place with you, since you have used me several times to divert your call for silencing Sam F but continue to post here. This is a sign of a , a,, ah, whats the word that best defines those people with the whips and the bed posts story that leaves after a night of fun to once again return the next night for the same behavior, something that we also discussed over a year ago?;) :D :D

If these topics bother you, don't reply, or just don't look, as has been stated by Norman.:D He cannot get your goat if you don't reply to him. By some chance, are you addicted to internet forums?

TomF

11-07-2006, 06:44 PM

Gents both.

I'd appreciate it if you read what I'd said. Sam, shortly afte thread 171 I cited 14 of the previous 20 posts as having barbs in them. Most weren't yours. I said I'd prefer they were all not there - including mine. I'm not singling you out - but then, nobody else is truly arguing with me on it.

Oyster, looks like I was mistaken, and your calmer presence here had zippo to do with my request. Fine - not the first time I've been wrong.

Would the bilge be better if it were sweeter all round, yes of course. As I've said to you both, I'm happy to start in my dealings with you. If you'd rather take whacks at people, be my guest.

t.

erster

11-07-2006, 07:11 PM

I took no swipe swipe at anyone. I called it the way even Norman has called it. You don't like his message, just don't reply. Its just that simple. I do not wish to be a puppet by you when you selectively call for Sam to silence it using me as a prop. I am not in this conversation. You can slug it out with Sam F, conplaining about his posting, but its your choice to hit the reply button.

You stand on your own when it comes to calling for Sam to be silent, like you implied that I had done. I am not silent because of you or anyone else here. I post my thoughts on topic, as good as I get, which in this case you are implying that you shut me up. When you leave that road and use me as a prop, telling Sam to follow my lead, well you are flat out wrong and you do not speak for me. You rant on with Sam about his message but you continue to reply. Thats the facts. You keep coming back for more.

erster

11-07-2006, 07:53 PM

Hey Tom F, check this out.:)

Norman Bernstein (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/member.php?u=9217) http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
gadfly
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sharon, MA
Posts: 6,267

http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/icons/icon1.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn
Don't like it? Don't read, or post to my threads.

You might take your own advice sometime, Donn.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 08:25 PM

Oyster, if you really think that Tom is "calling for Sam to be silent" you misunderstand COMPLETELY.

erster

11-07-2006, 08:42 PM

Oyster, if you really think that Tom is "calling for Sam to be silent" you misunderstand COMPLETELY.

will you also try to restrain your tone,

How many examples do you wish to view? Maybe you, Joe, Norman and Tom could get a grip on how you decide you should handle facts, such as Sam F has presented to you, holding stedfast his core beliefs and never wavering, which just gets your goat. What is the issue with people conveying core beliefs? Why continue screaming down for years if you do not like his message? The issue is that you wish to silence one and all that do not post as you do or accept the lifestyles that you subscribe to? Thats the issue here. You know that you are not going to change his mind.

But more to the point, do not drag me into the arguement. I will stand my ground on my beliefs no different even with the daily name calling that comes from you, calling me brain dead as just one example. Neither Tom, Norman and you are without sin, as you like to say.

Keith Wilson

11-07-2006, 08:54 PM

You misunderstand completely. I thought so. Never mind.

erster

11-07-2006, 09:01 PM

You misunderstand completely. I thought so. Never mind.

I understand completely. Speaking directly to you, you do not like Sam F and his message, the same way with me. You cannot stand it. Sam F gets your goat and you and Tom wants to silence it, dictating how he should respond. He is completely on message, on topic expressing his beliefs, holding stedfast, no different as I do, and will not waiver. I understand that Sam F and my beliefs do not jibe with your beliefs leaving you lost for words. Our message is the same, for how long as I have posted, the same as Sam F. Now I challange you to refute that.

TomF

11-08-2006, 07:22 AM

I understand completely .... Sam F gets your goat and you and Tom wants to silence it, dictating how he should respond...Oyster, you misunderstand.

I'm happy to have Sam, and you, everyone else, talk about whatever topic they please. I think it would be boring if we all shared the same views. I happen to like talking about religion and politics, and will continue.

I don't think it's necessary that we all throw rocks at each other when we disagree. I'll say this for the 3rd time. I did a quick look at about 20 posts earlier in the thread, and three quarters of them included a sharp dig or two. From all sides of the floor, not just Sam's side. I offered to stop my rock throwing, and invited Sam to do the same.

Yes, I said that you and I had had a similar exchange, and since our rock throwing had settled down just after, I thought you'd decided, like me, to approach disagreements differently. That's not making you my "puppet," I (mistakenly, it seems) assumed that you and I had each chosen to show mutual respect.

I've got no power to silence, Oyster, nor do I want any. But I am calling on what I assume is your, and Sam's, better natures ... as posters from the "other" side of the floor here whose presence is as prominent and outspoken as mine. If regular posters from both sides of the floor choose to change their own behaviour, this place will get sweeter.

But the only "silencing" going on, from my part, is the restraint I'm trying to impose on myself.

t.

erster

11-08-2006, 07:44 AM

You know what you get with Sam F. You know what you get from me. Opinons vary with how people should proceed in reply depending on what side of the argument the person is on here. You [in general speaking] call me brain dead for posting my thoughts, in turn you get the same. If you feel the issue is with Sam F, feel free to address them point by point. My lack of replies do not constitute that I will conform to selective censorship when in turn we continue to see the garbage that is slung around this place.

Its been also stated that an election cycle will not change this until some third party steps in to address this crap. This morning is a fine example of it, in living color. At the end of the day, its still impossible to come to this forum and discuss boats, which is my main interest, without the trash continuing in the boat sections, stemming from the bilges. This is just a fact. So yes I will continue to counter with whatever measures thats in place, in response to any of my posts, when I choose to do so. If this also dictates that I never leave the bilges, then consider that when gauging any reply to me. You are under no obligation to respond, as has been proven to be a weapon of people that care not to discuss issues when I have posted them.:)

The same applies to Sam F posts if they bother you. You can either ignore them or respond in kind. Its not from not knowing what you get. But again, don't use me as any guildlines to call for others to silence their expression of opinions. This forum carries enough intensity with the no holes barrred approach of the survival of the thickest and the fitest, or just the ones that have no other life except to fight each day. The neat thing about it, is that I have another life. :cool: Thank you for your time to read and reply to my previous posts. I will head on out for now.

TomF

11-08-2006, 07:53 AM

There's no censorship, selective or otherwise, except what we impose on ourselves.

So Oyster, post all you like, to whatever topic you like, directed to whoever you like. I'll be doing that myself. I'll also be trying to do so in a way that doesn't compromise my views, or belittle the other person.

FWIW, that means for example that I'm not calling you "brain dead," and if you choose to read that into my posts, that's your issue. I'm not going to wear it. Same goes for Sam, or anyone else.

t.

JimD

11-08-2006, 07:55 AM

FWIW I usually just use 'BD' for 'brain dead'. Por ejemplo I might say 'Is GWB totally BD?'

Keith Wilson

11-08-2006, 09:01 AM

I understand completely. Speaking directly to you, you do not like Sam F and his message, the same way with me. You cannot stand it. Sam F gets your goat and you and Tom wants to silence it, dictating how he should respond. He is completely on message, on topic expressing his beliefs, holding stedfast, no different as I do, and will not waiver. I understand that Sam F and my beliefs do not jibe with your beliefs leaving you lost for words. Our message is the same, for how long as I have posted, the same as Sam F. Now I challange you to refute that.

One reply, and then I think it's time to let it die.

I disagree with Sam's message, but I am very glad that there are intelligent and thoughtful people here who don't think at all like me. I have learned a lot from them; arguing helps to clarify my own thinking at the very least. I appreciate the fact that he has strong convictions and defends them tenaciously and articulately.

I dislike the obnoxious snide, dismissive, and condescending tone that Sam sometimes uses. This is not to say that he is the only one who sometimes acts like a jerk; I am sometimes guilty of that myself, as are many who agree with my positions on the issues.

I do not wish to silence Sam, nor does Tom; the WBF would be a poorer and less interesting place without him.

I do wish he would be more respectful of those who disagree with him. However, civility is not silence. I thought Tom's invitation to mutually turn down the rhetoric while continuing to expound our positions was an excellent idea.

And, my good bivalve, if you have read any of our threads, you would know that Sam has never, ever, left me "lost for words". ;)

Sam F

11-08-2006, 09:25 AM

Post # 200
I said I'd prefer they were all not there - including mine. I'm not singling you out - but then, nobody else is truly arguing with me on it.

Post # 207
I don't think it's necessary that we all throw rocks at each other when we disagree. I'll say this for the 3rd time. I did a quick look at about 20 posts earlier in the thread, and three quarters of them included a sharp dig or two. From all sides of the floor, not just Sam's side. I offered to stop my rock throwing, and invited Sam to do the same.

Who else did you ask? I know you’d prefer that it “all” stop – but who else did you ask by name Tom?

And then there’s…

Post 158
Let's stop throwing mud - I'll stop first, if that makes it any easier

Post 162:
I would prefer that it all stops. But I'm no cyber-cop, and will try to resist making myself into one. But Sam, what goes around does indeed come around.

In pointing out your selective standards, I challenged you to tell me…
Post 177
…who did I lie to, lie about, defame, misquote deliberately, bully or threaten?

In response you tossed a pretty big chunk of mud:

Post 192
You'd asked for an example of the "lying about" behaviour you occasionally indulge in - post #187, voila! I feel that the intent and substance of my post #183, which I suspect is as clear as glass to everyone else, has been misinterpreted and twisted in your rebuttal. I consider that a wilful misinterpretation, essentially lying about the meaning of my post and about the behaviour changes I'm taking myself.
You continued by saying:

… for-instance ... you've quoted me mentioning that we can only control our own behaviour. So it's rather obvious that I know I can't control yours, and am not trying to.

I replied by saying:

Isn’t it true that are you trying to convince me to change my behavior?
It is “lying” to notice that you are trying to control my behavior by doing that?
If that’s not so, are you asking to no purpose?
Now, do you want to take back your statement about my “lying” Tom?
I strongly suggest that you do so.

Tom, Canadian English isn’t that different from US English.
If a police negotiator persuades a hostage-taker to give up, the newspapers don’t say:
“Negotiator loses control of situation.” No, the headlines would trumpet his successful control of the situation. Thus, your special definition of “control”, as in forced behavior, is utterly invalid.
So Tom, you’ve got to do something now.
You need to apologize for saying I lied.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 09:30 AM

I do wish he would be more respectful of those who disagree with him. However, civility is not silence. I thought Tom's invitation to mutually turn down the rhetoric while continuing to expound our positions was an excellent idea.

Me too. Too bad he didn't follow his own advice.

And, my good bivalve, if you have read any of our threads, you would know that Sam has never, ever, left me "lost for words".

That's true, you're never at a loss for words, but your facts and reasoning tend to run a bit thin.
And consistency? "We don't need no stinking consistency!" :D :D

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-08-2006, 09:32 AM

Sam's a lying jackass. See it's so liberating to be Joe(CSOH) I do not have to play by anyones rules. AAJ Baby

Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha :D :D :D

Sam when are you going to prove the veracity of this bit of Pro-No-Choice lying propaganda you posted.

Originally Posted by Sam F
"One night, Jennifer, a nurse, entered a utility room nurses use for breaks. A few nurses were smoking and drinking coffee with their feet propped up on a stainless steel table. A naked newborn baby was also on that table. Jennifer was shocked. When she asked about the baby, they said, “That’s a preemie born at 19 weeks. We don’t do anything to save them unless they’re 20 weeks.” Jennifer learned they had presented the child to its mother as a dead, premature child. She picked up the child who was still gasping for air. Then one nurse yelled at her, took the baby and tossed him in a container of formaldehyde. The baby was killed instantly."

Or should we just take everything you say as lying propaganda. Ya know like you say ONE misused bit of information sets the whole tone for how we will forever consider your opinion.

OH and your side lost the big MJ Fox stem cell issue in Missouri. BWAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA :D :D :D

TomF

11-08-2006, 09:52 AM

Sam, with the greatest respect, I felt that you'd deliberately misinterpreted what I'd written. I felt that deliberate misinterpretation was made so that my position was easier to dismiss.

I still feel that happened, not least because I've felt it many times before, in many other threads. But if it will make you feel better I'll retract the word "lie" and simply call it a deliberate misinterpretation.

As to naming names ... well, put me at the head of the list.

Who do you want me to give up? Joe CSOH? Sure - he and I've talked about this before. He's even put up "ass" polls naming himself ... You want Keith or Norman? They've more than once acknowledged sending out periodic barbs. Say, I'll trade you LeeG for Sharpie, maybe Leon (pretty infrequent barb thrower) for Peb (also infrequent). Can we go off this thread, and pick up offenders who're not right here? Trade you George. for Donn, PMJ for High C (when they're both on a good rip).

Where does this get us? I've probably ticked off half the forum, either for naming them ... or for not naming them.

I'm done talking about this. Do as you want to ... we all reap as we sow. Me? I'd prefer fewer noxious weeds in the seed I spread 'round.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 10:00 AM

Sam's a lying jackass. See it's so liberating to be Joe(CSOH) I do not have to play by anyones rules. AAJ Baby

Bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha :D :D :D

Sam when are you going to prove the veracity of this bit of Pro-No-Choice lying propaganda you posted.

Joe, I was asked for the source for that quote. I provided it.
If you don't like the source, attack the source. It is not only intellectually dishonest to attack me, but it is hugely counter productive to use such tactics.
In addition, I provided documentation for this sort of infanticide from two other sources - one of which was the Chicago Tribune from which I drew several examples.
But you can't find any reason for the Tribune to engage in lying propaganda, can you?
And what conclusion can any reasonable person reach from that total failure on your part?

Hold on a second and let me check something.........

Yep, the credibility meter is still pegged on zero.

If you want to attack the source's credibility feel free.
Note that Jennifer P. has prudently withheld her last name to protect her job but Mr. Koukl is a public figure. His organization's phone # is - (562) 595-7333
Call them and find out for yourself.

Here's the eyewitness account in a fuller form

Jennifer and Baby Garcia

by Jennifer P., with Greg Koukl

I was a new nurse on a new job. The night shift nurses were hard on the newcomers, and I was particularly easy to intimidate.

One night a nurse on my shift came up to me and said, "Jennifer, you need to see the Garcia baby." [not its real name] There was something suspicious about the way she said it, though. I see babies born every hour, I thought. Why do I need to see this one?

She led me to a utility room the nurses used for their breaks. Girls were smoking and drinking coffee, their feet up on the stainless steel counter. There, laying on the metal, was the naked body of a newborn baby.

"What is this baby doing here on this counter," I asked timidly.

"Oh, that's a preemie born at 19 weeks," she said. "We don't do anything to save them unless they're 20 weeks."

I noticed that his chest was fluttering rapidly. I picked him up for a closer look. "This baby is still alive!" I said. I thought they hadn't noticed.

Then I learned the horrible truth. The nurses knew, and it didn't matter. They had presented the baby to its mother as a dead, premature child. Then they took him away and tossed him on the cold, steel counter in the lunch room until he died. His skin was blotchy white, and his mouth was gaping open as he tried to breathe.

I stared at the little boy, trying to collect my thoughts. Inside I was in complete turmoil. What should I do? Should I talk to the supervisor? But she was involved in this, and I knew the doctors wouldn't do anything.

I slowly realized that this child was going to die and there was nothing I could do to stop it. The only movement I could see was the rapid fluttering of his little chest.

I did the one thing I could think of. I held him in his last moments so he'd at least have some warmth and love when he died, which I was sure would happen any second.

Just then one of the nurses--a large, harsh woman--burst into the room. "Jennifer, what are you doing with that baby?" she yelled.

"He's still alive..."

"He's still alive because you're holding him," she said. Grabbing him by the back with one hand, she snatched him from me, opened one of the stainless steel cabinets, and pulled out a specimen container with formaldehyde in it. She tossed the baby in and snapped the lid on. It was over in an instant.

I was in such shock, hardly breathing. I was a new nurse. I didn't understand the system. I was intimidated by these worldly and aggressive people.

Worst of all, though, I hadn't given issues like this much thought, even though I was a nurse. I'd just rolled along like everybody else. I'd never consciously asked myself, "Jennifer, what is really going on here?" I'd been floating through life as a Christian not facing the hard issues.

When I was confronted with a horrible situation, I wasn't prepared. I didn't respond with what I knew to be true about myself in Christ. Instead, I was easy to push around. I gave in to intimidation.

I can't express the failure, guilt and powerlessness I've felt over these years. In a profession that's supposed to save lives, many people don't really care. To them, this child wasn't human. In seven more days he would have qualified, but at 19 weeks he was just trash.

That baby was meaningless to the world. But God allowed this life to begin because it had a purpose. It was God's desire that this child be created.

That little boy was meaningful to God even though his own mother didn't even know he was alive. He was meaningful to me, too, because it was his death that God used to completely turn my own life around.

Thank you, baby Garcia.

from:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6757

Or should we just take everything you say as lying propaganda. Ya know like you say ONE misused bit of information sets the whole tone for how we will forever consider your opinion.

Consider a few facts. You have done no more that assert that I lied.
No proof. No reasoning. No nuthin'.
This is in and of itself a dishonest tactic and intellectually disreputable in the extreme.
But I don't have to rely on "ONE misused bit of information" in your case. In YOUR case, its part of a continuing pattern of dishonest argument. So yes Joe, the conclusion to be drawn from that FACT is reasonable and inescapable.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 10:10 AM

Sam, with the greatest respect, I felt that you'd deliberately misinterpreted what I'd written. I felt that deliberate misinterpretation was made so that my position was easier to dismiss.

Tom I felt you were being manipulative.
All feelings being equal that leaves us with hard evidence.
The fact is that I used the English language correctly and my interpretation is consistent with both English grammar and English definition.
Speaking of English syntax:

I'll retract the word "lie" and simply call it a deliberate misinterpretation.
Deliberate misinterpretation is a lie. Unless you don’t know that, which I very much doubt, that’s something you in fact have just done yourself.
You owe me an apology.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 10:13 AM

This is pretty simple...

Who do you want me to give up?
Actually, it’s too late Tom. You singled me out and claimed you didn't.
You blew it.

TomF

11-08-2006, 10:18 AM

Sam, I've nothing more to add. I'm sorry that my attempts to reach a middle ground haven't been effective.

t.

Tom Montgomery

11-08-2006, 10:22 AM

The Death of Truth (http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=226)

Joe, see the footnotes after the article.

Gregory Kouki identifies the nurse as "Jennifer Personius." He says the incident occurred "in a major hospital in the Los Angeles area." He says Ms. Personius related this story to him in November of 1988.

It is an anecdote. There is likely no way of determining the veracity of the story. You either believe Mr. Kouki or you do not.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 10:22 AM

Sam, I've nothing more to add. I'm sorry that my attempts to reach a middle ground haven't been effective.

t.

I'm very sorry that you won't seek reconciliation for what you have done. It remains available upon request.

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )

11-08-2006, 10:22 AM

Sam you Lying SOS

You KNOWING used a source that can not be verified. That at the least is deceptive if not the lying propaganda from a KNOWN propaganda source. You sir have been tainted by your own actions and CHOICE to use such quotes in this thread

YOU SIR ARE A LYING SOS
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY

Keith Wilson

11-08-2006, 10:53 AM

. . . your facts and reasoning tend to run a bit thin.
And consistency? We don't need no stinking consistency!Well, I would say the same for you. Ah well, if we thought each other's arguments were valid, we'd agree.

Once again, it's interesting to note when someone opposed to abortion gets pressed too hard on the alleged personhood of a fertilized egg or blastocyst they so often change the subject to late-term abortion.

News: Voters in South Dakota rejected by 55% to 45% a law under which doctors could be sentenced to five years in prison if they terminated a pregnancy for any reason except to prevent the woman's death. It probably would have been overturned by the courts eventually, but this way is better.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 11:03 AM

Inconsistency?

Well, I would say the same for you...
You could say it. We both agree you're not at a loss for words, but could you prove it? That's another matter entirely, isn't it?
You're welcome to try.

Once again, it's interesting to note when someone opposed to abortion gets pressed too hard on the alleged personhood of a fertilized egg or blastocyst they so often change the subject to late-term abortion.

Personhood? I don't recall making that argument. Can you document that?
Once again, its interesting to note that when someone who is pro-abortion gets pressed too hard he starts objecting to positions his opponents do not hold. It's much easier that way.

Keith Wilson

11-08-2006, 11:06 AM

Do you not claim that an embryo or fetus, at any stage of development from fertilization on, is a human being that deserves the same legal and moral protections as a full-term living breathing baby?

Sam F

11-08-2006, 11:07 AM

Maybe I was wrong... Sometimes Keith, it seems you are at a loss for words:

Why is it irresponsible to make a baby, if being "'Human' in this sense tells us nothing useful about what we should do" ?

Sometimes an inability to, or a deliberate refusal to, answer a question is itself an eloquent answer.

Sam F

11-08-2006, 11:09 AM

Do you not claim that an embryo or fetus, at any stage of development from fertilization on, is a human being that deserves the same legal and moral protections as a full-term living breathing baby?

Keith we both agree that a fertilized egg is human.
But I don't see the word person in any of that Keith.
Care to explain why?

Keith Wilson

11-08-2006, 11:13 AM

You didn't answer the question.

The distinction is between human tissue, and a human being i.e. a "person".

Tom Montgomery

11-08-2006, 11:17 AM

per·son

Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA

1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>

2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE

3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures

4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>

5 : the personality of a human being : SELF

6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence <the movie star appeared in person>