What is the meaning of life for the atheist
in [Math]
|
Prev: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) is positive
Next: EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF "HALF SQUARED " VALUES IN MATHEMATICS--HOPE RESEARCH
From: abc on 5 Aug 2010 16:28 > On Aug 1, 4:34 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 31 July, 23:40, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's plain speech, of the variety that the > forced-birthers don't want > > > to hear. Not being in soverign over your own > body is the very > > > definition of human slavery. > > > > > > that's what forcing a > > woman to > > == > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > == > An interesting point of view. > > == It's plain speech, of the variety that the > forced-birthers don't >> > > > > Yes, it does. And in this case, the "slaver" is the > population who > takes away the woman's right to be soverign over her > own body. > Wow. I have never understood this way of framing the issue: why doesn't the male have any choice in here.? Unless the woman decides to fully support the baby, financially and otherwise, the man should have a say in this decision. He will have to pay a good chunk of money over time. Additionally, the baby will be carrying the DNA of the father. So, why do you exclude the men from this decision of whether to abort the child or not.? In the positive case, where the woman wants to have the child, the male's life will be impacted, as he will have to cough-up a good chunk of money over some 20 years of his life. Why shouldn't he have a say.? In the negative case, where the woman wants to abort, the baby is partially produced by the male, and will carry his DNA. Why shouldn't the male here have a say.? I never understood the framing of the issue as " a woman having a right over her body".
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 20:30 On 5 Aug, 23:21, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > "Excognito" <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > The question > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > ANSWER THAT or shut up. > > At the moment it is born, according to the law and the Constitution > says that all person's born in the US are citizens of the US. It > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. he US. It > > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. > > Incorrect. Several states have laws on fetal homicide, some of which > define it as murder, some others as manslaughter; I haven't looked in > detail, but at least one explicitly contains an exemption for legal > abortion. Seehttp://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386 (link > posted previously in this thread) > > ---- > > Yeah, some states have laws saying killing a pregnant woman > is a double homicide. > > Regardless, he's point is silly. The Constitution is just defining > US born babies as citizens, not people. The distinction between > citizen and non-citizen is what is being made, not people verses > non-people. > > --oTTo-- I agree with this position, based upon my particular religious, scientific and experiential background. However, not everybody does and I also believe it necessary to try to understand the various positions to both challenge my own beliefs and to counter arguments I disagree with (intuition (gut-feel) *may* be right but may also be wrong and needs to be backed up by more objective reasoning). The extreme positions are that the unborn entity is not legally or morally human until it is delivered, or that it is human from the moment of conception. The middle ground attempts to define humanity as beginning at some developmental stage (based on, say, viability probability or brain maturity). This subject really does need sorting out as there are a number of human rights issues that are stalled due to (legitimate) fears of both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice argument. The definition of what distinguishes a human being worthy of protection by law impinges upon many 'freedoms' the mother-in-potential has. For example, there is no law (*) against drinking to excess in the privacy of your home, but extending legal protection to a 2nd or 3rd trimester child could see the woman charged with some felony and even jailed for the physical protection of her unborn child. Now there are those who would say 'too damn right' and those who would howl the houses down about infringement of personal liberty. And that's just for 'normal' development, once one introduces other cultural factors it gets even more complicated - should gender selection by abortion be countenanced, do 'severely' handicapped unborn children have different rights to life, can one carry out genetic 'enhancement', etc? However, getting back to the point about where we become human, ... It's not this simple and the analogy's not that tight, but consider the following. A law is passed protecting a certain species of butterfly and a certain amphibian. Would it be a legitimate defence to claim that it was OK to stamp on the associated larvae as they weren't, technically, butterflies or newts? What if it were a species of bird and somebody crushed the eggs? What if it were a species of mammal and somebody dropped a 'day after' pill in its food? I'm afraid I have this nagging feeling that the pro-choice attempts to define humanity are driven by self-serving needs rather than an impartial attempt to answer the question; ie, an attempt to get the 'right' answer through not having to accept that abortion involves the destruction of a human life. (*) By this, I mean in general in UK, US and European law - the fact that missisillybilly, the middle shegrooms islands or the canton of moronovia have by-laws against touching beer bottles on Wednesday is not significant to the thrust of the argument.
From: abc on 5 Aug 2010 16:40 > On Aug 2, 6:24 am, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Aug 2, 1:45 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:22 pm, "Dr. HotSalt" > <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 31, 11:17 am, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 4:55 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" > <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about > spirituality. > > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the > death of an innocent) by > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the > species. > > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, > that's what forcing a woman to > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. > > > > > Not even remotely the point. > > > > I think you'll find it's closely related (taxi!). > I may be wrong, > > but I suspect the implication is that if one knows > what leads to > > pregnancy then it should be possible to interfere > with the process of > > becoming pregnant in the first place, hence leading > to abortion being > > (in general) a moot point for the large class of > people who currently > > find it 'necessary'. > > As I pointed out to "Dr HotSalt" upthread, all > current forms of birth > control sometimes fail - even when used properly. I > was using not > one, but *two* forms of birth control (The Pill and > the verkakten > Dalkon Shield) in 1973, and they both failed at the > same time. Trust > me, I did *not* "forget" to take my pill. > > We'll give up abortion rights when (1) birth control > works 100% of the > time with no side effects; (2) birth control is > provided free to any > woman or man who wants it; (3) when no woman (who may > otherwise not be > sexually active) is *ever* raped and when no underage > girl is *ever* > molested. And no mention of the father's rights yet. > > Until then, we'll fight to keep our rights. > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > BAAWA Knight > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
From: Mark Edwards on 5 Aug 2010 21:30 At what point is it murder, to abort a corporate entity? Mark Edwards -- Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
From: Excognito on 6 Aug 2010 11:00
On Aug 6, 1:25 am, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Aug 5, 9:45 am, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > > > Competing rights?! Murder is murder. It's either a human being or > > it isn't. > > A first-trimester fetus is *not* a human "being," although it is human > tissue. It doesn't even have a functioning nervous system. > > > Killing a human being is the worst thing you can do. > > Actually, try wrapping your pointy little head around the fact that > there are way, *waaaaaay* worse things than merely not existing, > especially if you're just a blob of tissue that's never yet come close > to consciousness or sentience. > > > The question > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > Up until the beginning of the third trimester, fetii do not even have > functioning nervous systems. Without a nervous system, they are not > human "beings," they're merely human *tissue*. > > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 > BAAWA Knight > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding > skyeyes nine at cox dot net You are entitled to your opinion as to what constitutes a human being. I disagree with it. The embryonic and fetal stages are simply part of the development of a human being - it's how one gets from zygote to adult. The actual capabilities do not, IMO, define what a human being is, merely its maturity. |