Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd rather not see a partial birth infanticide conducted because some doctor said that his patient wasn't emotionally ready to be a mother.
I'm with Pete on this. The moment the fetus can be removed in such a way as to preserve its life without significant physical risk to the mother she should have no say in it. ("It" being the life or death of the removed fetus.)

In stupid analogy terms. She can choose when to evict and have the authorities drag off the former tenant. She cannot shoot the tenant then claim trespassing.

[ March 11, 2013, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Do you honestly see these situations as equivilent? "...

Yes D.W. , I do. Arrangements to send an unborn child "to relatives, given up for adoption or put in foster care." can be made just as readily as a five year-old child placement... in fact, it is *easier* to place a newborn.

The distinctions seem to be purely subjective sensibility calls.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find it interesting that you consider yourself pro-life, while I consider myself pro-choice, and yet when it comes to details, the only difference between us is that I'd say 6 months for (2) whereas you say 5 months.
I'd say that a better term for both of us is "sensible about this topic."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

- "What I said is correct, because a sperm and an egg can obviously reproduce according to the parameters that you laid out. A non-implanted zygote cannot. "...

No, neither a sperm cell, nor an ovum, can reproduce. Only a zygote can do that, and this can be accomplished through either asexual, or sexual reproduction.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.

I fall into category F probably. I tend to agree with TomD with only minor quibbles as to particular thresholds - I'd put the first threshold a bit later (22 weeks gestation probably - 4.5 to 5 months). Part of why I'd argue against 3rd month is that younger women might not even realize they are pregnant at that point (missed periods aren't that uncommon, many of the other signs of pregnancy can delay till quite a bit later, etc.).

So, I'd probably split it into two thresholds

1) unrestricted access to abortion prior to fetal development to the point where distinctive neural patterns we associate with concsiousness occur (around week 22).

2) restricted access only for reasons of threat to the mothers physical health or fetal abnormality.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Part of why I'd argue against 3rd month is that younger women might not even realize they are pregnant at that point (missed periods aren't that uncommon, many of the other signs of pregnancy can delay till quite a bit later, etc.).
My own wife's first pregnancy would fall into this category.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd rather not see a partial birth infanticide conducted
Sigh.

There is no medical procedure called a "partial birth abortion;" this is what Pete means when he refers to using political terms rather than medical ones.

And infanticide? REALLY?

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Arrangements to send an unborn child "to relatives, given up for adoption or put in foster care." can be made just as readily as a five year-old child placement... in fact, it is *easier* to place a newborn.
I agree with everything said in this quote. The only quibble is in “just as readily”. This point is valid, even if I find it irrelivent to the topic of the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "There is no medical procedure called a 'partial birth abortion;' "...

True, "intrauterine cranial decompression/intact dilation, and evacuation" sounds much more clinically impersonal.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, I'd probably split it into two thresholds

1) unrestricted access to abortion prior to fetal development to the point where distinctive neural patterns we associate with concsiousness occur (around week 22).

2) restricted access only for reasons of threat to the mothers physical health or fetal abnormality.

I'd have to add another.
3) unrestricted access to abortions prior to fetal development to the point where viability outside of the mother is possible.

Less politically palatable than most lines to be sure.

[ March 11, 2013, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
#3 is currently close enough to #2 to not make much difference.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "I find it irrelivent to the topic of the right to terminate a pregnancy. "...

Who's right? It all goes back to "personhood" boundaries, at which point we are balancing rights.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The mother's rights. As far as I'm concerned the fetus/infant has no rights at all until it is living* independant of it's biological mother. Even if it can only do so with the aid of medical intervention. Which scifibum, is why I don't see how #3 is close to #3.

*had to strike, "can live" and replace it with "is living".

[ March 11, 2013, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Living independent of the mother prior to birth involves an invasive procedure on the mother. At that point, the physical threat to the mother of extracting the fetus needs to be equal to or less than the physical threat to the mother from undergoing an abortion, in order for me to consider there to be an important distinction at the point of viability.

Other than that, I largely agree with Tom and Letterrip, as to when the state should intervene in restricting access to abortion. As noted earlier in the thread, I do consider regulation of the procedure to be valid, even if I don't consider the fetus to be a person.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Pete,

- "What I said is correct, because a sperm and an egg can obviously reproduce according to the parameters that you laid out. A non-implanted zygote cannot. "...

No, neither a sperm cell, nor an ovum, can reproduce. Only a zygote can do that, and this can be accomplished through either asexual, or sexual reproduction.

You are wrong. By the definition of reproduction which you provided above on this thread, citing the dictionary, a sperm and egg can reproduce.
You also seem to have failed to notice that the medical citation you cited does NOT use that new whored definition of conception that you cited earlier. As a professional doctor, your source uses the correct classic definition of conception, i.e. IMPLANTATION, rather than fertilization. You would have realized this if you would read your own source.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
quote:
I'd rather not see a partial birth infanticide conducted
Sigh.

There is no medical procedure called a "partial birth abortion;" this is what Pete means when he refers to using political terms rather than medical ones.

And infanticide? REALLY?

Yes really. Think about it. If it is partially born, then it is an infant, not a fetus. Once out of the uterus the fetus becomes a child and abortion is infanticide. This should be as obvious to you as the fact that failure to implant is not abortion.

Like you said yourself, SP, an abortion can only take place when the mother is PREGNANT. You can't strangle a newborn on the delivery table in call it an abortion, regardless of what some New York judges might have said.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "As far as I'm concerned the fetus/infant has no rights at all until it is living* independant of it's biological mother. "...

An "independence" distinction is artificial in my view. All children, and many adults, are parasitic.

In terms of inconvenience; an intrauterine child is much less labor intensive than a crying, eating, pooping version. As medical intervention drives down the "viability" age, this:

"The moment the fetus can be removed in such a way as to preserve its life without significant physical risk to the mother she should have no say in it."

Places a considerable distance in "its" life-value here:

"No, a measure of "personhood" is critical to SOME of the positions. Not mine for instance."

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
quote:
I'd rather not see a partial birth infanticide conducted
Sigh.

There is no medical procedure called a "partial birth abortion;" this is what Pete means when he refers to using political terms rather than medical ones.

1. Pete was not pretending to use medical terminology with "partial birth infanticide." 2. What Pete was refering to was (to translate it to medical terms) is any intentional killing of the "fetus" when the woman is no longer technically pregnant, i.e. when the "fetus" (child) is in the birth canal.

As far as I know, SB, infanticide is not and has never pretended to be a medical term, and last time I checked, it was OK for me to use legal terms. [Cool]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
An "independence" distinction is artificial in my view. All children, and many adults, are parasitic.
The practical matter of our disagreement seems to only be that it is important to me that the host of the parasite be a volunteer and that sex was NOT the act of volunteering.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

"By the definition of reproduction which you provided above on this thread, citing the dictionary, a sperm and egg can reproduce. "...

A haploid cell will *never* reproduce the diploid organism. I really have trouble understanding why you are insisting otherwise.

- "As a professional doctor, your source uses the correct classic definition of conception, i.e. IMPLANTATION, rather than fertilization. You would have realized this if you would read your own source. "...

All due respect Pete, you are getting "classically correct" on a highly discriminative basis. My citation does not say this, and neither does any other source that I can find. Conception/implantation are sometimes used set/subset terms, but not as equivalents, whereas conception/fertilization is.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "Because I don't see any professional SCIENTISTS using the word "conceived", Noel. "...

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception

That would be medical professionals which I am talking about. Try the word in a conversation with your doctor, and see if he takes offense at being addressed as a whore.

My doctor is not a whore, and agrees with my usage of the word whore, specifically with regard to doctors that prostitute their medical credentials. Like the doctor that testified at my son's hearing that despite what his pre-hearing report had said, and despite the unambigous MRIs, my son could not have Limbic Encephalitis, "and even if he did," that it must have been caused by something else prior to getting the MMR vaccine, even though he started having speech trouble hours after receiving the vaccine. I have spoken to a number of doctors on the topic who all assent to my statement that Dr. _______, MD, is a whore. I didn't invent that usage; it's a lawyer's term of art for expert witnesses that will swear to anything for the right price.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W., just to clarify, I meant that your #3 was pretty close to the preceding #1. (#2 was a typo.)

In other words, premature births are sometimes survivable as early as 21-22 weeks, although it's still pretty unlikely. So the possibility of living after separation line is pretty close to the mental milestone LR was talking about around 22 weeks.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "... sex was NOT the act of volunteering."...

This is a point of disagreement between us.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Pete,

"By the definition of reproduction which you provided above on this thread, citing the dictionary, a sperm and egg can reproduce. "...

A haploid cell will *never* reproduce the diploid organism. I really have trouble understanding why you are insisting otherwise.

I am not insisting otherwise. Please read the source you cited, because you're changing the prerequisites for reproduction. Yes, by some definitions of reproduction, a sperm and egg do not reproduce. But by the characteristics that you listed above, they do reproduce. If you cannot do me the courtesy of reading what I'm saying, please do yourself the courtesy of reading what you have posted. [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Got ya scifibum. As we are speaking of law (some of the time) I like to get the intent down more than the practice. Some of these pesky writings stick with us far after the "facts on the ground" have become alien to the original drafters of that writing. [Wink]

Given enough medical breakthroughs my position becomes quite the tar pit of entitlement and state run foster care and health care. What isn't possible now will first be "prohibitively expensive" before it could ever becomes common place. If it should...

[ March 11, 2013, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "... you're changing the prerequisites for reproduction. "...

Just call me Alpha and Omega. [Wink]

- "But by the characteristics that you listed above, they do reproduce. "...

"They" (gametes) do not "reproduce" unless "they" become something else (a zygote), which does meet this criteria: "7) The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.".

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifibum,

Yes DWs proposed addition right now is practically no difference from my proposed 22 weeks. However, that should drastically change within the next 10 years or so due to artificial wombs and related technology.

DW,

quote:
Given enough medical breakthroughs my position becomes quite the tar pit of entitlement and state run foster care and health care. What isn't possible now will first be "prohibitively expensive" before it could ever becomes common place.
That is my concern - though I think the timeline for such things will be quite short.

We can already do interspecific pregnancy for many species, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is some secret research going on somewhere with human fetuses being gestated in pigs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_pregnancy

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "Because I don't see any professional SCIENTISTS using the word "conceived", Noel. "...

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception

That would be medical professionals which I am talking about.

Oh, well a medical professional is different from a scientist, in that medical professionals need to regularly explain things to their lay patients, so it would make sense for them to have to use common words like "conception." Notice that the doctor isn't a whore, since the doctor uses the word conception in the correct classic sense:

quote:
Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) is a pregnancy hormone present in your blood from the time of conception; it is produced by the cells that form the placenta. This is the hormone detected in a pregnancy test, but usually, it takes three to four weeks from the first day of your last period for the levels of hCG to be high enough to be detected by pregnancy tests.

The development stages of pregnancy are called trimesters, or three-month periods, because of the distinct changes that occur in each stage.

Clearly the doctor is talking about IMPLANTATION and the beginning of pregnancy as "conception." The hormone doesn't start at the moment of fertilization. And the trimesters don't include the time the zygote remains unimplanted. That's not a stage of pregnancy. Conception in the classic sense, and in the sense that YOUR OWN MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL uses the term, occurs at implantation, not at fertilization.

That does not in itself prove that you should run off and change your position on the rights of the unimplanted zygote. I'm simply saying that if such rights exist, that they should be founded on something better than the modern mangling of the word "conception."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "... you're changing the prerequisites for reproduction. "...

Just call me Alpha and Omega. [Wink]

- "But by the characteristics that you listed above, they do reproduce. "...

"They" (gametes) do not "reproduce" unless "they" become something else (a zygote), which does meet this criteria: "7) The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.".

Good night, man. Are you claiming that the fertilized egg isn't even an organism?

The sperm and egg combine to create a new organism, the zygote. This is even more dramatic in the plant world where entire multicellular haploid organisms carry out a second stage mating.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What interests me is how many women who are against abortion would volunteer themselves to bring a fetus to term if the procedure was low risk and common place.

This is where our disagreement of consensual sex being the act of volunteering becomes critical. Is a pregnancy "punishment" to be endured by an unwilling mother for consensual sex? If science allowed for transplantation into an artificial wombs, absent any other volunteer, is the government, as the agency protecting the rights of the child, responsible for the costs of bringing it to term and caring for it until adulthood? Is it punishment to demand the biological mother and father pay child support?

If it is not financially viable for the government to provide for these wards then do we sacrifice “morality” and allow for abortions even when we COULD save these fetuses? Or do we demand the parents be financially responsible? If we already assign responsibility then why allow for a more expensive artificial womb and transplantation procedure when you could dictate that the fetus stay where it is?

My suggestions are not without serious faults. I get that many of you don’t want to engage in what you may consider science fiction but my money is on these becoming serious considerations within the next decade or two.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

- "Are you claiming that the fertilized egg isn't even an organism? "...

No, I am stating (not claiming) that a fertilized egg is a "zygote", which is (under the seventh criteria) an "organism" capable of asexual reproduction (twinning, for example), or sexual reproduction (at ~10-13 years in humans).

What is *not* true is that human gametes conform to the seventh criteria, and this has been your on-going assertion.

- "This is even more dramatic in the plant world where entire multicellular haploid organisms carry out a second stage mating. "...

It is not "more dramatic" to attempt comparisons between humans and yeast, or fungus (neither of which are even plants)... it is just silly.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- " Is a pregnancy "punishment" to be endured by an unwilling mother for consensual sex? "...

No, but it is a predictable consequence.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

It is not "more dramatic" to attempt comparisons between humans and yeast, or fungus (neither of which are even plants)... it is just silly.

As a general observation, Drama is often silly, and scientifically valid comparisons may seem silly to those that do not understand or appreciate science. I can't respond more specifically to what you said, since I don't know what your point is, nor am I sure that you know what your point is at this point. [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- " I can't respond more specifically to what you said, since I don't know what your point is, nor am I sure that you know what your point is at this point. "...

Our little detour began with the following comments:

- "How in hades do you suppose that contradicts my point that when LIFE begins is not relevant to whether our society should protect it? If you think those other categories are relevant, and support your point, then use them, rather than "life."

Nobody that I have read here is arguing over when "life" begins, but "humanity". Man, as an organism, begins as a zygote, and meets all seven criteria at that level of organization.

- "Incidentally, a sperm and egg do meet every one of those criteria except for growth. "...

False.

- "And a rabbit meets every one of those criteria... "...

True, but abortion of rabbits is not at issue.

- "Incidentally, a sperm and an egg meet more of your 8 criteria than an unimplanted fertilized egg. "...

This is *twice* as wrong as its first iteration. I inferred your point to be that a sperm cell, or ovum, is more of a human "organism" under the seven metrics than a zygote. If that was your intent, your errored on a relatively minor fact in a *major* way.

- "... valid comparisons may seem silly to those that do not understand or appreciate science. "...

We do want to avoid the behaviors of a particular individual that invariably ends up saying things like this, right?

He can spout stuff like "I don't have to explain myself to be right, and besides... I don't like you. [Razz] ", and we can just *sigh* [Smile] . You, and I, have a different relationship Pete.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly, I like Pete well enough to have shared with him the reasons for my position, noel. Whereas you're an irredeemable dickhead.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

- "How in hades do you suppose that contradicts my point that when LIFE begins is not relevant to whether our society should protect it? If you think those other categories are relevant, and support your point, then use them, rather than "life."

Nobody that I have read here is arguing over when life begins ...

I know that *you* havent, Noel; in fact on this thread it was iirc a Pro Choicer that introduced that damnable phrase to this thread.

I cant discuss the truth or falsity of my categorisation absent reference to the specific categories that you provided.

Yes, i am much relieved that i do not argue with you or Tom in the manner that you argue with each other. I have committed a great deal of regretable foolishness on this form over the years, some of which I thought Tom would never forgive me for. Thank you for teaching him to appreciate me. [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-[Noel]; "What attributes are you seeing in an unborn child that cause your protective instincts to kick in?

-[Tom]; "Personhood. There's a longer answer, but frankly I don't like or trust you enough to share it with you."...

-[Tom]; "Interestingly, I like Pete well enough to have shared with him the reasons for my position, noel. "...

Define "personhood" for Pete if you feel you can "trust" him with the information.

-[Tom]; "Whereas you're an irredeemable dickhead. "...

*Sigh*

-[Pete]; "Thank you for teaching him to appreciate me. "...

Work your magic. [Smile]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll tell you my definition of personhood. Person who dis a legal fiction used by the law and the courts in order to justify the proposition that a corporation is more worthy of human rights than a fetus.

[ March 11, 2013, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's keep it civil. Name calling is not appropriate here.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Person who dis
I don't know if your phone-etic spelling will ever get old Pete. [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1