4 more years of...

[selkirk]

When does it become murder? We need a specific point....

[scott_harpell]

I would say that as soon as it attaches to the uterus. This would allow for the morning after pill. I know I take a position most would not but that's just where I am at. I think that this means that we can take responsibility for our actions and if "hey! shit! we just had unprotected sex!" we can do the responsible thing and take care of it rather than just saying, " oh hell if i get prego i can just get an abortion." I doubt many hold my position but i support it.

[Jim]

Scott - no problem with you holding that position. But don't try to cram your religious beliefs on others. Don't like abortion - fine - don't have one.

[selkirk]

Isn't that an arbitrary definition though? How about the moment of fertilazation? How about the moment sperms enters the uterus and there's the potential?

[scott_harpell]

Scott - no problem with you holding that position. But don't try to cram your religious beliefs on others. Don't like abortion - fine - don't have one.

 

Well if I support the right for a guy to murder whomever he wants you can't cram your beliefs on me MmmmK?

[selkirk]

Do I get an answer? I know the moment of implantation is your definition, but isn't that an arbitrary point that you've chosen to suit your beliefs?

[scott_harpell]

Yes. Well first of all, a woman is not pregnant until the implantation. Her hormones and body changes have not even started. There is also a sense that she hasn't started to "carry" the child yet. Also IUD's do not kill a fetus but rather prevent the implantation of the cells into the uterus. There is also a large amount of 'fertilized' eggs that do not ever attach to the uterus in the first place. I am not sur on figures but I know it is quite high especially in humans. Maybe this makes sense to you, maybe not.

[selkirk]

It makes sense to me, but that's not the point.

 

What does the mother have to do with anything? If you want make abortin illegal, then once the baby is concieved she's just a vessel and nothing else in the eyes of the law? The point is why is your definition more valid than say the point of fertilization? At that point a new life has been created, it's chances of survival may be small, but isn't preventing it absolutely from implanting definitely "murder" while letting it try to implant is at least "natural causes". Aren't there actually quite a few fetuses that die shortly after implanting as well? Are you saying statistics are important in determing what "murder" is? If an unknowing mother drinks heavily or abuses drugs and her fetus aborts is that murder? The point is that your definition is no more or less valid than the point of conception, or the point when the fetus has a 50% chance of survival, or a 90% chance of survival. So who are you to enforce your views? Maybe the view that the point of conception should be enforced and there should be no morning after pills, or low hormone birth control pills. Or maybe just contraception in and of itself is wrong as it's preventing life from naturally occuring? Do people who use it hate babies? are they unfit parents?

[scott_harpell]

Well the deal is that it isn't even a fetus prior to implantation. Once implantation occurs the embryo is created and the embryo grows organs. I would say that when it is just cells replicating I don't think of it as a human.

[selkirk]

Why not? It could be taken out of the mother and grown in a test tube for crying out loud! Why is your definition of fetus superior to mine? Why is your definition of human superior to mine?

[scott_harpell]

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

[selkirk]

Are you saying and implanted embryo has

 

basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

 

? Or is it now okay to abort an implanted embryo so along as it doesn't have a "structural resemblance" to an adult? Or what defines "structural resemblance"? Somehow I don't think 5 cells is sufficient. Bone structure, brain stem, beating heart, now were getting somewhere.... But that wouldn't that make abortion up until that point acceptable? So maybe, only the first trimester?

[scott_harpell]

Actually a heart beat is detectable after only 2 weeks. The reason that I am in favor of morning-after alternatives and an outright ban on abortion is that you have to wait to have an abortion (chemical or otherwise) until it is way past this level of development. That is why I am all for a total ban on abortion but ok with IDU's etc.

[selkirk]

You haven't answered the fundamental question though.... why is your definition morally superior to the position that it requires a heartbeat? or that it life begins at conception? Were talking murder here, practicality (such as when an abortion could occur) should have no place in the discussion so.

 

Once weve figured out when life "begins" or when the fetus is "human" that will determine all by itself when it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.

 

So, please, what makes your position superior?

[scott_harpell]

developmental individuality does not begin until after the cells are latched onto the uterus. It is merely a conglomeration of cells until it is attached. As soon as it is attached, it begins the process of growing into the form of a human. At two weeks (or shortly after implantation) the heart is formed, functional and operating.

 

I make a distinction between the mass replication of cells prior to attachment and the specific creation of bodyparts by replication that happens post implantation. These replications actually make human body parts like the heart which as i said before is functioning very soon after the implantation.

[chucK]

Now that we got this "life begins at ..." thing sorted out, I thought I'd toss in another thing we're looking forward to four more years of... Bushisms. Today

 

"I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals,"

 

Maybe tomorrow he'll say, "I'm fully in agreement with all those who agree with me!"

[selkirk]

But attachment to the uterus isn't always necessary, there's the whole possibilty of test tube babies as well... You still haven't said why this is morally superior to conception? Why is it necessary for it to start differentiating into organs and body parts before it's human? Why not the moment that it becomes independantly alive, at that point isn't it on the path to becoming human, one step of which is implanting on the uterus? Why shouldn't you submit the moral superiority of the Catholic church which believes that even contraception is immoral?

 

Unless you can give me a compelling moral and ethical reason that your position is the only valid one, and ones that are both more and less restrictive are morally invalid then how do you justify imposing your stance on those whose positions are less restrictive while those who are more restrictive aren't allowed to impose their beliefs on you?

 

Now on something like stealing, or murder, or exploitation of children, there's a societal consesus, it's pretty much cut and dry. Everyone agrees on the same moral and ethical stance. Regardless of their background, religious or otherwise.

[scott_harpell]

Maybe I just look at it differently than you. I see the conception resulting in merely a mass replication of cells. Only after attachment does the replication begin to assume the human form/organs.

 

This also has certain social considerations. It is far more likely that people will agree on my "compromise" as opposed to the extremes pointed out by the other sides.

 

Like I said maybe we look at it differently somehow but that's cool. I think I'd better scoot to class.

[selkirk]

your right, your position may be more acceptable then some, but it still amounts to YOUR position, which isn't any more or less valid than the catholic one, or more less valid than requiring a heartbeat, or a brainsteam, or the ability to breathe independantly. So i just don't see if yours (or any other position) is no more or less valid, how can you justify enforcing it on others? Just because you think your right? Just because the Pope says so?

 

If theres no clear (i.e. everyone can agree on it, or damn near everyone. Being clear to you or I isn't sufficient)right or wrong, then it's a personal or familial decision, not governmental.

 

well, my 2cents... I think were approaching dead horse country...

though it's interesting that it's only the two of us left....

[Stefan]

HOW BOUT THOSE SONICS!

[klenke]

I tried watching them last night but got bored at around halfway through the first quarter when they were already down by three touchdowns and a three-pointer. I chose to finish my night by spraying at will.

[pope]

It's very simple. Within 60 days a woman definitely knows that she is pregnant, and at that point, regardless of what you think of the little critter and its level of development and potential to devlop into Einstein or whatever....at that point, a woman should have to make up her mind as to what she wants to do. Have the baby or abort it and figure it out fast. There is no doubt in my mind that the closer to full term the fetus gets, the greater the crime in aborting it. It is murder, no doubt about it, and at some point you have to say that it is human. I think 60 days is a reasonable amount of time for a woman to be aware of her situation and to decide what to do, and at that point the little critter stands no chance of surviving. After that, I think we need to take a serious look at what we're doing here. Some 40 million abortions since RVW? Wow.

 

If I were a single-issue voter, I could see going with the Republicans on this, but I think there are other incredibly important issues on which I do not feel represented by them.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Scott, I lived in Newt Gingrich's district between the ages of 10 and 17. I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

I go to church, I don't just live near one. You are full of it and are letting stereotypes dictate the way you think about another person. Give me a break.

 

Scott, I don't have a problem with people who have conservative religious views. I have a problem when they impose their views on everyone else, and feel righteous while doing so.

 

A smattering of things that happened where I grew up:

1) On a country-western dress-up day in school, about 25 kids show up in KKK garb.

2) Jewish kids get approached at their lockers and told, "If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you're going to Hell."

3) Angry parents because they're teaching evolution in school. Students distributing creationist casette tapes in school.

4) County passes a resolution condemning the gay lifestyle. They don't repeal it, despite being threatened to lose an Olympic venue and millions in revenue (they lost the venue).

5) Father of roommate freshman year in college suggests that we hang a sign on our door saying, "Faggots not allowed."

6) Friend of mine (white) ridiculed for dating a black girl.

7) Dear friend of mine who came out in high school having to deal with hatred, people trying to "change him back," telling him he's going to Hell even though he's one of the most true Christians I know.

8) Friend of mine gets caught dealing at a private religious school. School expels him, but does NOT report it to the police because the school refuses to admit that their good Christian students have a drug problem.

9) Motivational speaker comes to a neighboring high school to speak at an official school function during school hours. The entire school is there, and he asks people who have been saved to raise their hands.

10) Our out-going SGA president gives a speech to the whole school body (during school hours) saying that he got this far in life because he believes that JC is his savior.

 

Should I stop or keep on going?

 

THAT'S SOME FUCKED UP SHIT!!

[Harry_Pi]

Hello capitalist!

Time out for a group hug, people.

Thank you for allow commie to post.

[Dru]

steaksauce!