Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

[The Ozzman]

Did Krig vote Obama on this poll as a joke or something?

He said he's voting for McCain in the general election. I'm thinking he just misread the poll.

 

[AchrisK]

First of all, I'm "defensive" about this information because it's wrong, it's claiming that there is a general consensus regarding things on which there is no such consensus. Secondly, no, "a form of human life" is not a human being, if the way that they use the phrase is to make any sense. As the analogy goes, a fetus is an acorn and a baby is an oak tree. They are not the same thing.

I think you should go read that site. At least that page. It is not (as much as possible) a biased source, which is why I was happy to find it. It also covers much more than just the abortion issue. It is NOT equating human life with personhood. It is making a distinction. That is what I was saying. There is no need to be defensive because it was not equating human life to personhood.

But the acorn analogy falls short, just as the "masturbation is murder" one does. An acorn that is planted and watered and starts growing into a tree is more analogous to an embryo or fetus. An acorn is more analogous to a sperm or egg. It is one of the things required to "create" an oak tree. One it is planted and starts the actual process toward treehood, it has moved from the category of acorn. I am not saying you would yet call it a tree, but it is not an acorn and it is a poor analogy to an embryo or fetus. If a person really loved trees, I would say that once they know the acorn started taking root there would be a distinct difference between their feelings toward the box of acorns on the table, and the one that started its journey toward treehood, and their level of care and concern would increase dramatically. When the acorn is planted, they have hope, but once it starts growing they have a new life to care for.

Also, it's not merely semantics when you consider what the "aliveness" possessed by a fetus equates to. When one says that a fetus is "alive", one is not talking about a consciousness, a being that is alive, but rather tissue, cells that are alive. A fetus is not at all a living thing in the sense that a human is alive.

I still feel it is a bit of a semantics game. Because we can agree that an embryo is not a human being in the same sense that a (insert stage at which you feel personhood exists) person is, and thus not alive based on that definition, but when you just flat out say it is not alive, you remove its significance. Yes, biologically an embryo shares similarities with tissue and cells, but it is not simply that. An embryo is unique "human life". I did not say "a unique human life" so as to equate it to a person, I said "unique human life" to contrast and compare to other things considered "human life". It is not like any other thing. It has similarities to other things, but it is unique.

I did not claim that it was not biased, but your source was biased as well, and you didn't address the actual claim being made. Abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a living thing, it is a parasitic potential life.

See above. My source was not biased. But it is ok to use biased sources. I just think that place may not be the best source. It speaks of a fetus as an unwelcome guest, as if the fetus crawled in there at night when nobody was looking. It is most often a result of the actions taken by said "host". Yes, people have the right to have sex, but that right comes with a potential consequence which people should take all actions to prevent, or be willing to deal with the outcome.

Why would there be rights for parasites? How is that "ridiculous and weak," because you don't want to think of a fetus that way?

I don't think of it that way because that is a brutish oversimplification with a negative connotation which totally ignores the uniqueness of a fetus. Based on the following, you agree to a certain extent:

Nobody views a fetus as "nothing more than a parasite," let me first make that clear. Yes, for most of its gestational period, a fetus can be said, in itself, to be nothing more than a parasite, but obviously we do not look at it merely as what it is, but what it has the potential to be. Unlike you, however, I don't make the mistake of drawing a direct parallel between what it is and what it can be. Just because it can be a human being doesn't mean that it is a human being. Just being it can be a human being doesn't mean that doing something to prevent it from being a human being is a bad thing. It's not just semantics, man. It is not a living being, and that is why it's all right to prevent it from becoming a living being if it is not in your interests. Don't mistake the fact that those who support women's rights call a fetus a non-living thing as just a way to make the act conscionable. It's not said to be so just so it will be easier to get rid of it, it's said to be so because it is so.

This has nothing to do with the value placed on human life because a fetus is not a human life. I place an immense amount of value on every human's right to life. I avidly oppose the death penalty in all cases. Don't tell me a fetus is a valid equivalent to a human baby. Let's not pretend.

"I can't drink alcohol because it might hurt my baby." "I am eating a lot of spicy food, I think my baby might be a boy." "I felt my baby kick." "I am eating for two." "I was devastated when I lost my first child to a miscarriage." "That bastard kicked me in the stomach and killed my baby."

I do not quote these things as a tactic, I use them to illustrate that in a real practical sense, people do not agree with a simple scientific evaluation of the situation. Even those who are pro-choice, but want to have kids of their own, will say these same things. This is not science class, this is life. I think that is where we fundamentally disagree. Although I can agree that a fetus is not a person in the same sense as a born person, I disagree that the unique "human life" that is a fetus does not have a value at or near that of a born person. When exactly do I believe this value is present in the journey of a fertilized egg, I do not know.

I will also say, just so you know, that I believe this applies to all fetuses. The cause of the pregnancy is not the fault of the fetus. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a fetus does not erase a rape. This may outrage people, but if I were to take any other position I would be a hypocrite.

That said, I must make it clear that I am glad I am not the one making decisions about laws regarding abortion. I will vote with my views in mind, but not solely based on this issue. I do believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions, but I understand that things happen. Rape is a horrible crime and I like to think that death is too good a fate for a rapist. Same for incest. I know that guys can be big dicks and rush women into sex without being careful. I know there is a whole infinite range of situations in which women become pregnant. I understand that men don't have to carry babys. I know that I cannot expect people to have the same morals as I do regarding sex before marriage, or anything else, and that is their right. I understand this is an issue that is not just an issue, but is a collection of millions of peoples' lives with a myriad of circumstances. Don't think that I don't know this. But that doesn't change my convictions and beliefs about the value of these unique human lives. I hate that this is an issue.

EDIT: and before you say anything, I would like to point out the irony in my sig quote, which is entirely by coincidence.

 

[Dak]

This has nothing to do with the value placed on human life because a fetus is not a human life. I place an immense amount of value on every human's right to life. I avidly oppose the death penalty in all cases.

Ironically I am for the death penalty in cases of murder for the same reason....

because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite

What about the right to live in another human being's home as a parasite? I know a lot of those.....

 

[metal_wrath]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r8hhShMyZw&feature=related[/ame]

 

[viewerfromnihil]

and just to be fair...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Dak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r8hhShMyZw&feature=related

Hannhh?

 

[The Ozzman]

http://thisfuckingelection.com/

 

[waif]

Don't be a tool!

You're not fucking arguing this correctly tbh.

My point being that you can go to obnoxious extremes with everything if you want, but it's stupid.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I was talking about Ack who just kind of ignores contradictory evidence and just calls people tools because it's more convenient. Then again lots of Christians do
this.

edit: disregard because he made some good points above.

 

[skeptik]

I think you should go read that site. At least that page. It is not (as much as possible) a biased source, which is why I was happy to find it. It also covers much more than just the abortion issue.

I did read the site.

It is NOT equating human life with personhood. It is making a distinction. That is what I was saying. There is no need to be defensive because it was not equating human life to personhood.

What I was "defensive" about (I still don't know why you accused me of being defensive to begin with) was that the site claimed that there was a near consensus on issues on which there is no near consensus, it's really that simple.

But the acorn analogy falls short, just as the "masturbation is murder" one does. An acorn that is planted and watered and starts growing into a tree is more analogous to an embryo or fetus. An acorn is more analogous to a sperm or egg. It is one of the things required to "create" an oak tree. One it is planted and starts the actual process toward treehood, it has moved from the category of acorn. I am not saying you would yet call it a tree, but it is not an acorn and it is a poor analogy to an embryo or fetus. If a person really loved trees, I would say that once they know the acorn started taking root there would be a distinct difference between their feelings toward the box of acorns on the table, and the one that started its journey toward treehood, and their level of care and concern would increase dramatically. When the acorn is planted, they have hope, but once it starts growing they have a new life to care for.

An acorn is an acorn whether or not it is planted. I thought that was implied in the analogy. Whether or not an acorn or a fetus is on a 'journey' to treehood or personhood is irrelevant because it is still not a tree or a person and is therefore not subject to the rights that apply to a person or a tree. If you don't want the tree, then you uproot the acorn seed while it's growing. If you don't want the baby, then you abort the fetus. Obviously there is a difference between a box of fetuses sitting on the table and the fetus in the womb, but they are both equally 1) not a living being and 2) not a human being. The only difference is the potential, and the potential is a hypothetical from which the scheduled course of action can be derailed permissibly.

when you just flat out say it is not alive, you remove its significance. Yes, biologically an embryo shares similarities with tissue and cells, but it is not simply that. An embryo is unique "human life". I did not say "a unique human life" so as to equate it to a person, I said "unique human life" to contrast and compare to other things considered "human life". It is not like any other thing. It has similarities to other things, but it is unique.

I do not think it is a matter of removing its significance at all, I think rather that it's a matter of recognizing that its significance is not absolute and incontrovertible. Just because an egg was fertilized does not mean that it can and must be allowed to gestate through the end of its course. Again, it is merely a thing which can potentially be something which possesses rights. It is a thing that potentially can be a living human being. Until it is a living human being, there is no reason to treat it as though it is simply because it can be if it is taken care of properly and desired. Uniqueness is entirely irrelevant, as far as I can deciphre from your argument. Whether or not a fetus can be distinguished from another fetus has no bearing on whether or not it has to be carried to the full term.

See above. My source was not biased.

Sure it is. Why else is it claiming that there is a consensus for the views that they support when there isn't? Regardless, whether or not it's biased is irrelevant.

Yes, people have the right to have sex, but that right comes with a potential consequence which people should take all actions to prevent, or be willing to deal with the outcome.

I would like you to explain to me how being forced to make a life changing decision such as having an abortion is not a consequence of one's actions. This is not an issue about promiscuity, it's about rights, which turns a blind eye toward such things. Unwanted pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies regardless of how it comes to be, and the mothers in question are all equally entitled to choose to end the pregnancy.

I don't think of it that way because that is a brutish oversimplification with a negative connotation which totally ignores the uniqueness of a fetus.

The truth is the truth regardless of whether or not it comes with negative connotations and icky feelings. The truth of the matter is that one accurate term to describe a fetus is a parasite.

"I can't drink alcohol because it might hurt my baby." "I am eating a lot of spicy food, I think my baby might be a boy." "I felt my baby kick." "I am eating for two." "I was devastated when I lost my first child to a miscarriage." "That bastard kicked me in the stomach and killed my baby."

These sound like things a pregnant mother who wants to have a child would say, so they are irrelevant, don't you think?

I do not quote these things as a tactic, I use them to illustrate that in a real practical sense, people do not agree with a simple scientific evaluation of the situation.

I think you are getting lost. I am not suggesting that we should view a fetus simply as a parasite, as something that is unwanted, as a nuisance. I am not saying that we should view a fetus from a staunchly scientific perspective. I'm saying that we shouldn't forget the scientific backing that goes along with it, because when we do, we forget certain things, which leads us to enforce our beliefs on others and prevent others from having the choice to possibly greatly benefit their lives.

Even those who are pro-choice, but want to have kids of their own, will say these same things.

Well...duh? If I wanted to have a baby but believed that a woman should have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, should I not get upset if somebody kicks my wife in the stomach and kills my "baby"? If this is what you think my argument works out to in practice, then I think you have misunderstood my position. Everyone is entitled to treat their fetus however they want and care for it with whatever discretion, but what they don't have the right to do is to tell others that if they became pregnant accidentally, that if they have an abortion they are committing murder by personifying a non-living thing.

This is not science class, this is life. I think that is where we fundamentally disagree.

Should we forget about science? I fail to see how real life is opposed to the teachings of science when the purpose of science is to explain the world.

Although I can agree that a fetus is not a person in the same sense as a born person, I disagree that the unique "human life" that is a fetus does not have a value at or near that of a born person.

Obviously a fetus that is a wanted pregnancy has just as much value as a baby to parents who want to have a baby, but the value of a fetus is determined differently from the value of a human life.

I will also say, just so you know, that I believe this applies to all fetuses. The cause of the pregnancy is not the fault of the fetus. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a fetus does not erase a rape. This may outrage people, but if I were to take any other position I would be a hypocrite.

I suppose you are right to say that you would be a hypocrite otherwise given your beliefs, but I still find this pretty horrendous.

That said, I must make it clear that I am glad I am not the one making decisions about laws regarding abortion. I will vote with my views in mind, but not solely based on this issue. I do believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions, but I understand that things happen. Rape is a horrible crime and I like to think that death is too good a fate for a rapist. Same for incest. I know that guys can be big dicks and rush women into sex without being careful. I know there is a whole infinite range of situations in which women become pregnant. I understand that men don't have to carry babys. I know that I cannot expect people to have the same morals as I do regarding sex before marriage, or anything else, and that is their right. I understand this is an issue that is not just an issue, but is a collection of millions of peoples' lives with a myriad of circumstances. Don't think that I don't know this. But that doesn't change my convictions and beliefs about the value of these unique human lives. I hate that this is an issue.

I never doubted the sobriety with which you came to your beliefs, and I respect that. I would just like to point out again that the decision to have an abortion is certainly part of the consequences of your actions. It's anything but a pleasant (both physically and emotionally) experience. I also wonder about your position on abortion in the instances in which it would save the mother's life.

 

[AchrisK]

I have responded to a few things. I may or may not respond to more. We differ on basic ideological levels which makes arguing fruitless after a certain point.

An acorn is an acorn whether or not it is planted. I thought that was implied in the analogy. Whether or not an acorn or a fetus is on a 'journey' to treehood or personhood is irrelevant because it is still not a tree or a person and is therefore not subject to the rights that apply to a person or a tree. If you don't want the tree, then you uproot the acorn seed while it's growing. If you don't want the baby, then you abort the fetus. Obviously there is a difference between a box of fetuses sitting on the table and the fetus in the womb, but they are both equally 1) not a living being and 2) not a human being. The only difference is the potential, and the potential is a hypothetical from which the scheduled course of action can be derailed permissibly.

No, the analogy still falls short. A sprouting acorn is not simply an acorn. It is a seedling or it is a germination or whatever they call it at that point. There is no box of fetuses. It would be a box of human eggs or sperm. You must see this. This is not an argument about abortion, this is simply an evaluation of an imperfect analogy.

...
Uniqueness is entirely irrelevant, as far as I can deciphre from your argument. Whether or not a fetus can be distinguished from another fetus has no bearing on whether or not it has to be carried to the full term.

Not unique in that it looks different from other fetuses or tissue. Unique in that nothing else in the world will produce a human, and a human fetus will produce nothing other than a human baby. This is how a fetus is unique human life and not to be compared to hair and skin cells.

Well...duh? If I wanted to have a baby but believed that a woman should have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, should I not get upset if somebody kicks my wife in the stomach and kills my "baby"? If this is what you think my argument works out to in practice, then I think you have misunderstood my position.

No, that is not at all what I thought.

I suppose you are right to say that you would be a hypocrite otherwise given your beliefs, but I still find this pretty horrendous.

Totally. It is. The whole idea is horrible. I hope I never have to back up such a belief. It would be a severe test of convictions, but I do not believe it is impossible. I do believe I could love a child who was the result of the rape of my wife and not see it as simply the result of a heinous act. But the test would obviously be so much more severe on my wife. She would have to make the final decision. The whole thing would suck ass!

I never doubted the sobriety with which you came to your beliefs, and I respect that. I would just like to point out again that the decision to have an abortion is certainly part of the consequences of your actions. It's anything but a pleasant (both physically and emotionally) experience. I also wonder about your position on abortion in the instances in which it would save the mother's life.

I think this case is different than all others because there are two "innocent" lives at stake. If it were my wife, I would choose her in an instant. She has relationships and many people would be affected by her death. The baby (I use "baby" because it would have to be able to be a baby for it to be a choice in this scenario) only has a few "relationships" at that point, and they are not developed in the same way. Obviously neither her nor the baby would be suffering if they were to die, so the decision lies mostly in those left behind. I honestly can't imagine anyone who loves their wife choosing the life of a newborn over that of their wife. I am glad we are not in the old west (or wherever else) where women would sometimes die in childbirth.

 

[Achtland]

Obviously you haven't read anything on Biden or you would realize the Dem ticket is the same thing.

That's why I'm a socialist.

 

[cookiecutter]

Tomorrow!

 

[IntoPhagist]

obama

 

[AchrisK]

2020

 

[Achtland]

Obama's grandmama died last night in Hawai'i. R.I.P. granny - you raised a good one (hopefully).

 

[Einherjar86]

Tomorrow!

My friends and I are having a party to watch the Stewart/Colbert debate.

 

[General Zaroff]

Bob Barr

 

[The Ozzman]

Bob Barr

 

[Satanstoenail]

Tomorrow!

It's already Tuesday here and I can tell you Obama's doing pretty well