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 » Fetuses are too controversial? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Fetuses are too controversial?
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
DarkJello,

quote:
In almost every case the woman chose to get pregnant. The fetus did not invade out of the blue.
In the vast majority of cases, the women chose to have sex and the pregnancy was unintended. In many cases birth control was used.
You posit that most women believe contraception is 100% perfect?

Do they not know about the birds and the bees?

She chose to have intercourse, knowing it could result in pregnancy. Not rocket science.

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  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 
DarkJello,

quote:
You posit that most women believe contraception is 100% perfect?
No - I posit having sex, while using birth control implies choosing not to get pregnant. Trying to prevent A, while engaging in B that has a risk of A, does not mean one is trying to accomplish A.

For instance, driving a car, realizing there is a risk of an accident, doesn't mean you are trying to kill people with your car, even if other people dying is a small but forseeable risk from driving.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry, Pete. He may have just been calling me culturally muddled. [Wink]
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Muddle, muddle toil and trouble.
I'll rejoin the conversation
when burning wood comes to this
nonsense game.

In the meantime I have to get out my muddler and make another Mojito...

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Technology has advanced since the Stone Age. Having sex no longer means an automatic sentence of a child, and that's a good thing. Birth control and abortion are viable options. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't take precautions and use abortion as birth control (that's horribly inefficient, for one thing) but if a woman doesn't want to put her body and life on the line to produce a little poop machine, then I'm not going to be the one to force her. You're basically forcing a human being to put her health and life on the line for the good of a parasite that sucks nutrients and calories out of the mother's bloodstream and which represents a very real threat of death. Every human life is not special, especially when they do not think and are putting other thinking humans at risk by their very existence.

Here's where the line should be drawn. If you induce artificial labor, and a baby is born and it lives and can be taken care of, hand it over to the state and be done. If it doesn't survive, oh well, no big loss. A woman should be able to induce labor or have it C sectioned out at any point she wants, 20 weeks or no, and keep the abortion option open up to anyone up to the limit. I'd much prefer 24 weeks, especially because once it's set at 20 the gadflies will start up a chorus of how monstrous it is that it isn't 16. But whatever, just so long as the woman has options to expel a parasite at any time she chooses.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When technology and science move that line, I will move right along with it. Don't cast aspersions please, it does not become you."

DJ, the line is artificial. If you adhere to the position you are taking you will have to assume more and more responsibility for earlier and earlier live pregnancy terminations. One day it will be possible to take an embryo separated from the mother at the moment of conception, and if we get that far we can probably go farther. We might also be able to have a true test tube baby (in vitro) where there is in fact no actual female needed to mother it and bring it to term. Every cell can be induced to reproduce another human with the DNA embedded in it. Will you declare all of those embryos human and their lives sacrosanct?

Extremely premature births have substantial risks even at 20 weeks. There are implications for all sorts of developmental eye, brain, lungn and other organ deficiencies that can cause a person to suffer intellectually, emotionally as well as from a host of physical deficiencies. Are you willing to assume the financial and moral burden of delivering, caring for and then treating that child? That's not something to take lightly and simply declare that other women should adhere to your "timeline" for birthing.

If you instead simply want to deny women the right and opportunity to have an abortion, will you assume responsibility for the unwanted child they deliver into the world, with the problems and costs associated with that?

I'm not so certain I would be about that, myself.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
You're basically forcing a human being to put her health and life on the line for the good of a parasite that sucks nutrients and calories out of the mother's bloodstream and which represents a very real threat of death. Every human life is not special, especially when they do not think and are putting other thinking humans at risk by their very existence.

But whatever, just so long as the woman has options to expel a parasite at any time she chooses.

Fetuses are now actually medically classified as parasites? What are the similarities and differences?

Concerning the specialness of human life:
Which human lives are not special?
What human lives are special?
Why are they special?
Why are they not special?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Having sex no longer means an automatic sentence of a child, and that's a good thing.

...but if a woman doesn't want to put her body and life on the line to produce a little poop machine, then I'm not going to be the one to force her.

You're basically forcing a human being to put her health and life on the line for the good of a parasite that sucks nutrients and calories out of the mother's bloodstream and which represents a very real threat of death.

Every human life is not special, especially when they do not think and are putting other thinking humans at risk by their very existence.


Here's where the line should be drawn. If you induce artificial labor, and a baby is born and it lives and can be taken care of, hand it over to the state and be done.

If it doesn't survive, oh well, no big loss. A woman should be able to induce labor or have it C sectioned out at any point she wants, 20 weeks or no, and keep the abortion option open up to anyone up to the limit.

I'd much prefer 24 weeks, especially because once it's set at 20 the gadflies will start up a chorus of how monstrous it is that it isn't 16. But whatever, just so long as the woman has options to expel a parasite at any time she chooses.

#1) The point of having sex is to continue the species. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Actions have consequences. Your tone appears to be against nature, and leans towards hedonism.

#2) The woman made a decision. Unnatural termination of a human fetus is MUCH worse than "forcing" someone to be responsible for their actions. Are you a big poop machine?

#3) Human fetuses are not parasites. Most women choose to have sex. Hiding from your actions is not a solution. Killing the fetus is even worse.

#4) Every human life is special. Please link to research that proves a 20 week old fetus does not think. Why should I care what selfish and immoral adults think or want? They literally kill their own, and then want to be respected.

#5) Yet another call to shirk responsibility. The state will magically take care of the baby. Do the parents just exist to rut without any regard for consequences?

#6) Death is a big loss. That is the question. Where should the limit be?

#7) The "gadflies" are defending the weakest amongst us. Did you roll a dice to pick 24 weeks? Cutoff should be 20 weeks, maybe even lower, based on fetal development. Again, a human fetus is not a parasite. The unnatural methods used to terminate a healthy fetus are inhumane at a minimum.

Your cavalier attitude is disquieting.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
DarkJello,

quote:
You posit that most women believe contraception is 100% perfect?
No - I posit having sex, while using birth control implies choosing not to get pregnant. Trying to prevent A, while engaging in B that has a risk of A, does not mean one is trying to accomplish A.

Even if a woman takes Tri-sprintec po every single day, AND her partner always wears a condom, AND she uses the rhythm method... there is STILL a chance she could become pregnant. She knows this. She has sex anyway. Clearly she has accepted the risk. If the condom breaks, she can zoom down to wherevs and purchase Plan B. It aint no thang.

It is possible, but very unlikely, that she would not suspect being pregnant until the 4th month. Plenty of time to get an abortion, even if the 20 week line became the norm across the entire country. It never will, but I am just making the point. (Every state should decide the matter... but I digress). The longer she waits, the harder it will be to find a provide that will do the procedure. Her risk of complication goes up too, and so does the cost. Pragmatism points towards a "sooner the better" strategy. Not always possible, but pretty darn close. 20 weeks is a good line.

I have gone through this discussion at even greater detail with patients as young as 13. She had an abortion before 12 weeks. Guess who connected her with Planned Parenthood? I have seen everyone in her family at least once in a professional capacity. A good kid that made a mistake, and is now on oral contraceptives. Hopefully she does not beat herself up too much over these events. Thoughts?

[ July 09, 2013, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  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:
The point of having sex is to continue the species. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Actions have consequences. Your tone appears to be against nature, and leans towards hedonism.
Oh, bull. I have never once had sex to continue the species. Not once.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
#1) The point of having sex is to continue the species. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Actions have consequences. Your tone appears to be against nature, and leans towards hedonism.

Debatable. In order to show point one must show purpose, to show purpose one must show design, to show design one must show designer.

quote:
#2) The woman made a decision. Unnatural termination of a human fetus is MUCH worse than "forcing" someone to be responsible for their actions. Are you a big poop machine?
Poop machines are very valuable. Modern agriculture and society is built upon poop. Where would we be without poop?

quote:
#3) Human fetuses are not parasites. Most women choose to have sex.
Does the choice to have sex equate to a choice to have a baby? Could we somehow include this in some sort of mandatory pre-coitus legal paperwork? Assumption of risk or something?

quote:
#4) Every human life is special. Please link to research that proves a 20 week old fetus does not think
At what level is the thought of a 20 week old fetus? A dog's? Is thought the measure of the sanctity of life?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, bull. I have never once had sex to continue the species. Not once.

That doesn't actually disprove that the purpose of sex is to procreate. Just because you're not doing it for that purpose means nothing. The counter-argument is that you're simply doing it wrong [Smile] News to you, I know. But simply using a hammer as a doorstop does not negate the purpose of the hammer as designed to hit nails.

Oh, and hello, Tom. Still burning the heathen idols?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant -

Well, since they're the same species and it's part of the reproductive process, no, they're not medically classified as parasites. They do, however, act a lot like a parasite to the woman carrying them. They leech nutrients and calories, they are dependent on the host for survival, and there's a not insubstantial risk of them causing harm to or killing the host.

I don't think any human life is special. We exist, we are intelligent and the most powerful species that we know of, and we hold bias for our own. What I'm objecting to here is the concept that a fetus should not be aborted for the sole reason that "every human life is sacred," and no other. It's not a school of thought that I agree with.

DarkJello

"Cutoff should be 20 weeks, maybe even lower"

Thanks for proving my point, there.

The state doesn't necessarily have to care for the offspring of "rutting parents," as you referred to it. There is also the option of abortion before the lifeform in question becomes an independent being.

Well, yes, I am a big poop machine, although I have qualities that the fetuses in question do not, such as sentient thought, conciousness, and the ability to live independently of another person's body.

Please link to research indicating that 20 week old fetuses are sentient, independent creatures? As I've yet to meet a sentient, thinking infant, that would be very surprising indeed. Why should reasonable adults listen to hysterics about how a quarter or half formed mindless human should be allowed to leech off of an independent, fully formed human against her will?

Others have responded to your ridiculous assertion that the only reason for sex is reproduction. Is it your belief that couples only have sex when they want to have a child?

eta - Credit has to be given, though, for you providing information on abortion services even though it goes against your personal beliefs.

[ July 10, 2013, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: djquag1 ]

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  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 
Actually a 20 week old fetus should be incapable of thought.

Babys can't think for quite some time after birth. The first few months of life are reflexive action controlled by the brainstem, the neocortex, doesn't develop

quote:
Given its exceedingly long and ancient evolutionary history, not surprisingly, many brainstem functions are present before birth and occur without the aid of thinking, reasoning, or even forebrain/neocortical participation (Blessing, 1997; Joseph, 1996cd; Steriade & McCarley, 1990). That is, the motor programs which subserve many basic and vital functions, such as the regulation of heart rate, the sleep cycle, and respiration, are essentially genetically hardwired, reflexively initiated, and produced in accordance with the brainstem's synaptic organization and internally generated rhythms which have been acquired and molded over the course of evolution. Because so many brainstem functions occur in a rhythmic, diurnal, and/or reflexive fashion, they do not require the assistance of the forebrain (Blessing, 1997; Cohen et al., 1988; Joseph, 1996c; Klemm, 1990; Steriade & McCarley, 1990).
Indeed, these same reflexive and rhythmic activities are demonstrated by anencephalic infants who may possess only a brainstem, i.e. respiration, sleeping, waking, crying, leg kicking, rudimentary smiling, and even rapid eye movements while sleeping. Rather, it is only later life that the maturing forebrain begins to exert significant influence on brainstem functioning.

quote:
It is evident that the fetus is capable of considerable behavioral complexity. These complex actions appear to be mediated and governed by the brainstem with minimal forebrain participation, for similar behaviors are demonstrated by anencephalics and following forebrain destruction. However, although forebrain influences are minimal, the late-term fetal brainstem may also be capable of experienced-induced synaptic plasticity, and can become organized to respond selectively to certain auditory stimuli presented up to 6 weeks before birth. These latter findings could be interpreted as evidence for exceedingly rudimentary, learning-related cognitive-like activity.
Nevertheless, the fetus and neonate appears incapable of thinking, reasoning, understanding, comprehending, or experiencing or generating "true" emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity. Rather, although capable of learning, the increasingly complex behaviors demonstrated by the fetus and neonate, including head turning, eye movements, startle reactions, crying, screaming, and rudimentary smiling, are probably best described as brainstem reflexes.

Fetal Brain Behavior and Cognitive Development.doc
http://biology.franklincollege.edu/bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/Fetal%20Brain%20Behavior%20and%20Cognitive%20Development.doc

Thus the earliest gestational age one could say that 'thinking' occurs, is probably 6 weeks before birth.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The point of having sex is to continue the species. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Actions have consequences. Your tone appears to be against nature, and leans towards hedonism.
Oh, bull. I have never once had sex to continue the species. Not once.
You should take some biology classes sir.

@LetterRip:

The fetuses brain is developing and functioning. Not the same as a child, infant, or neonate as you so nicely highlighted, but functioning nonetheless. "Thinking" was an imprecise term on my part.

Unnaturally terminating a fetus does end life. It is the very opposite of progress.

[ July 10, 2013, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you don't think that part of the reason that humans have sex all the time, not just when they want or are capable of reproducing, is to build and reinforce pair bonding?
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
So you don't think that part of the reason that humans have sex all the time, not just when they want or are capable of reproducing, is to build and reinforce pair bonding?

Sex is fun so we will do it. And we do it to perpetuate mankind. Bonding is good, but it is not the top reason.

Define "sex all the time" please. That has not been my experience. [Wink]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Grant -

Well, since they're the same species and it's part of the reproductive process, no, they're not medically classified as parasites. They do, however, act a lot like a parasite to the woman carrying them. They leech nutrients and calories, they are dependent on the host for survival, and there's a not insubstantial risk of them causing harm to or killing the host.


An infant who is being breast fed also leeches nutrients and calories from the mother. I would say that all newborns are dependent on another human being to survive. I would also suppose that the risk of death/harm due to pregnancy, depending on the age of the mother and other factors, is rather low. I'm not sure what your definition of "insubstantial". The risk due to pregnancy is certainly not "substantial". It's not like you can't get life insurance on yourself if you are pregnant.

quote:
I don't think any human life is special.
That's certainly a clarification of your view. There could be some problems that arise due to that view, however. If human life is not special then how can you justify asking one person, or a group of persons, to make any kind of sacrifice for the health or well-being of another human being? Like social welfare or universal health care? How do you outlaw slavery?

quote:
Is it your belief that couples only have sex when they want to have a child?
That's actually kind of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Maybe not the beliefs of some/most Catholics). Possibly a few other religions as well. That may be inconsequential or not, depending on how much you value the opinion of others.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
So you don't think that part of the reason that humans have sex all the time, not just when they want or are capable of reproducing, is to build and reinforce pair bonding?

My response to this is very much like Tom's. What about all the times I've had sex and wasn't interested in building or reinforcing a pair bonding? [Smile] Dinner and a movie is much less strenuous, less risky, and cleaner.

I mean, if sex was really that great and building and reinforcing pair bonding, then lots of sex should be the perfect marriage therapy. Lots of sex=end of divorce. Brilliant.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
So you don't think that part of the reason that humans have sex all the time, not just when they want or are capable of reproducing, is to build and reinforce pair bonding?

Sex is fun so we will do it. And we do it to perpetuate mankind. Bonding is good, but it is not the top reason.

Define "sex all the time" please. That has not been my experience. [Wink]

Mmm. I think the wording here is a little off. Sex is how our species reproduce, true, but before all the cool kids started exchanging genes before reproducing in order to broaden genetic diversity, asexual reproduction worked just fine. Sex is an action, one that has more then one benefit. One of these is, yes, reproduction. Another is to reinforce pair bonding so that the parents can stand each other long enough to raise any children that do result. Declaring that the purpose of sex is to have children and that's it is factually wrong.

eta - For an example in the animal world, take a look at bonobos. Bonobos are even more sexual then humans, and that's saying a lot. They use sex to keep everyone calm and friendly with each other, as opposed to the chimpanzee method of conflict resolution which involves biting off faces.

[ July 10, 2013, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: djquag1 ]

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
So you don't think that part of the reason that humans have sex all the time, not just when they want or are capable of reproducing, is to build and reinforce pair bonding?

My response to this is very much like Tom's. What about all the times I've had sex and wasn't interested in building or reinforcing a pair bonding? [Smile] Dinner and a movie is much less strenuous, less risky, and cleaner.

I mean, if sex was really that great and building and reinforcing pair bonding, then lots of sex should be the perfect marriage therapy. Lots of sex=end of divorce. Brilliant.

That's not very good logic, there. Do you think a sexless marriage is more or less likely to end then one in which the participants have a normal (whatever that is) sex life?

Orgasm releases some sort of hormone in the brain, can't remember the time of it, (oxytocin, maybe?) that has been shown to make you feel more attached and loving to the person you're with. Humans being humans, that doesn't mean that you're handcuffed to the person you have sex with, but it does slide the scales a little.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant

No matter the level of risk, that risk exists, and pro life arguments revolve around forcing the woman to take on that risk against her will for the sake of a fetus. I don't agree with that. I mean, she can still get life insurance, but it's going to be more expensive.

A woman does not have to breastfeed. She can choose not to, a choice she does not have when she has a fetus attached to her and has had options to remove it taken from her.

Things like social welfare and socialized medicine have demonstrable benefits that are in no way attached to the concept of "every life is precious." As to slavery, you don't have to believe that life is precious in order to believe that independently bodied humans should have certain rights. A general belief in the golden rule is good enough for that.

Everyone can have opinions, and I'm far more likely to respect them if they have something to base their opinions on beyond the text of their particular chosen holy text. The Catholic idea of sex is only for babies happens to be one of those types of opinions.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
So you don't think that part of the reason that humans have sex all the time, not just when they want or are capable of reproducing, is to build and reinforce pair bonding?

Sex is fun so we will do it. And we do it to perpetuate mankind. Bonding is good, but it is not the top reason.
Declaring that the purpose of sex is to have children and that's it is factually wrong.
Apparently you are not reading what I typed up yonder.

Believing that "human life is not special" would slide the bar further from following the golden rule.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you kinda blows up your abortion stance. That is, ok to kill someone if he/she is perceived as a parasite.

[ July 10, 2013, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, since the golden rule just states that you should treat others as you wish to be treated, believing that humans aren't special in no way diminishes it. I don't have to believe that I or another person are in any way special in order to believe that not killing him is a good thing, because I don't like the idea of being killed.

If my life had been ended in the womb, I can say with certainty that I would not have cared one iota. I wouldn't even have been aware of it.

Also, I have not once said that it is okay to kill something because it is perceived as a parasite. For one thing, being perceived as is not the same thing as actually acting like. I have said that it is okay to kill a human being that shares most of the characteristics of a parasite, is attached to an unwilling host (the mother), and can not live independently of said host.

I would not be in favor of euthanizing severally retarded people, or vegetables, for example. They are independent lifeforms, and allowing that sort of killing, even if they don't have a conciousness and cannot really perceive what is going on, would raise exactly the kind of problems that you claim I'm raising with my opinions on abortion. That is, there would no longer be objective bright lines that you can use to say that the killing of this class or that class of people is not okay.

As it is, my stance has a very clear and objective line. If you are attached to another human being, and are a burden and a possible danger to them, then it is permissible to forcibly sever that attachment. If you survive that, that's great. If not, too bad.

[ July 10, 2013, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: djquag1 ]

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
That's not very good logic, there. Do you think a sexless marriage is more or less likely to end then one in which the participants have a normal (whatever that is) sex life?

Orgasm releases some sort of hormone in the brain, can't remember the time of it, (oxytocin, maybe?) that has been shown to make you feel more attached and loving to the person you're with. Humans being humans, that doesn't mean that you're handcuffed to the person you have sex with, but it does slide the scales a little.

I think you've missed my point. My point was that just because you do something for a particular reason, does not mean that lends inherent purpose to that action. I know for a fact that Bonobos don't have sex to relieve stress or increase bonding within the group. It implies a level of intent they are incapable of possessing. It is merely a side effect. Bonobos have sex because they have sex drives driven by their genetics.

I think your argument basically agrees with my assertions. For instance, you may assert that just because some people have sex for procreation does not mean that the purpose of sex is procreation. You could say it is just a side effect, often an unwanted one. But you back up your claim with evidence of more side effects.

Say you walked into a room and saw three men at a table. One was pushing food into his nose, another sucking cocaine up his nose, and another was smelling a rose with his nose. You cannot say that the individual who was smelling with his nose was doing something more correct then the individual who was snorting cocaine without showing that the nose IS FOR smelling.

You can't say sex is not for procreation by showing that some people use if for pair bonding or simple pleasure. You can't say that a nose is not for snorting cocaine by showing that some people smell with it or like shoving food up it.

Oh yeah. It's dopamine you're looking for. Dopamine.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good points, Grant. I agree that humans have sex because of their sex drives, not because of the results of sex.

It was actually oxytocin I was thinking of, though. It is also released during birth and breastfeeding to encourage the mother to bond with the child.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Oh yeah. It's dopamine you're looking for. Dopamine. [/QB]

I found the following article most informative:

http://www.reuniting.info/science/sex_in_the_brain

However, do not think that spraying oxytocin up your nose, or taking sublingual tabs will in any way reproduce the bonding benefits described here and elsewhere. These effects only occur when precise amounts are released in very specific brain structures. Flooding the blood and brain with oxytocin will cause unwanted side effects and may produce counterproductive mood and perception shifts. {C}

Again, oxytocin reduces cravings and increases sexual receptivity. This allows making love without orgasm to be surprisingly satisfying. The affection is always there, flowing between you and your partner. When we tiptoe around dopamine’s highs and lows, we encourage balance and clear perception of each other. We see each other as sources of safety and pleasure, not as sources of recurring stress with brief moments of sexual pleasure. The real magic of love happens at a neurochemical level—and we can choose balance in order to foil the extremes of our genes' plans for us.

[ July 10, 2013, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  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 
Out of interest, DJ, how many times have you had sex for the purposes of procreation?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Grant

No matter the level of risk, that risk exists, and pro life arguments revolve around forcing the woman to take on that risk against her will for the sake of a fetus. I don't agree with that. I mean, she can still get life insurance, but it's going to be more expensive.

Actually, I don't think that pro-life arguments revolve around that at all. I think pro-life arguments revolve around the fact that pro-lifers believe that fetuses are human beings, or will become human beings, and are subject to human rights and dignities.

I also don't think life insurance is more expensive if you are pregnant.

quote:
A woman does not have to breastfeed. She can choose not to, a choice she does not have when she has a fetus attached to her and has had options to remove it taken from her.
I think you missed my point again. My point was to show that an infant who DOES breastfeed could, by your definition, be considered parasitic because it leeches nutrients and calories from the mother. If we justify abortion because a fetus is parasitic, then you could justify infanticide before formula was invented. The fact is that I don't think the so called parasitic nature of a fetus features at all in the arguments put forth by pro-choice advocates. It has to do with the will of the mother, not the nature of the fetus.

quote:
Things like social welfare and socialized medicine have demonstrable benefits that are in no way attached to the concept of "every life is precious."
Lots of things have demonstrable benefits. War has demonstrable benefits. Infanticide and euthanasia have demonstrable benefits.

quote:
" As to slavery, you don't have to believe that life is precious in order to believe that independently bodied humans should have certain rights.
Actually, it does. But I think the problem is that we have different perceptions of the idea of "every life is precious", or you havn't thought it through.

quote:
Everyone can have opinions, and I'm far more likely to respect them if they have something to base their opinions on beyond the text of their particular chosen holy text. The Catholic idea of sex is only for babies happens to be one of those types of opinions.
Do you actually understand the Catholic position on abortion? OR the Hindu or orthodox Jewish or Muslim positions? Are they all based solely on scripture?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DJ:

quote:
The point of having sex is to continue the species. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.
Sex is a biological urge, the evolutionary purpose of that urge being the propagation of the species. It sounds like you might have an unnaturally low sex drive and might want to have that checked [Wink] .
quote:
#4) Every human life is special. Please link to research that proves a 20 week old fetus does not think. Why should I care what selfish and immoral adults think or want? They literally kill their own, and then want to be respected.

#5) Yet another call to shirk responsibility. The state will magically take care of the baby. Do the parents just exist to rut without any regard for consequences?

If every life is that special, the state should take an interest after the birth and provide the best health care and nurturing for every child that lives. If you disagree, be clear and explain why your concern for that special life stops when the baby is born.
quote:
It is possible, but very unlikely, that she would not suspect being pregnant until the 4th month. Plenty of time to get an abortion, even if the 20 week line became the norm across the entire country.
This is why I challenge you on your stated principles. Human life is not precious before 4 months? How did you come to that conclusion?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
No neonate can survive without massive help. No infant can survive without massive help. The argument that a fetus is not alive because it needs the mom is silly.

Needing to be fed is not equivalent to needed to be constructed. A neonate or infant, if properly nourished will continue to develop on its own terms. A pre-viable fetus will not continue to develop without the input of the mother's enzymes and RNA to finish the process. It would be like comparing a stack of cut lumber to a table- sure you could see how it resembles what it's being built to, but until the nails are put in it's not functionally a table no matter how you stack the pieces to resemble one.

Using forced birth to end a pregnancy can make sense at the end of the second trimester, once we can be sure fetal construction is completed and it's capable of independent growth and that the process does not represent any additional risk to the woman. Go much more than a week or two before that (which is within the standard range of uncertainty about exactly when fertilization or conception occurred) and the the odds of the fetus being able to survive birth are low enough that the risk of additional complications from premature simply don't merit choosing it over a direct abortion of the pregnancy.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:

quote:
Is it your belief that couples only have sex when they want to have a child?
That's actually kind of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Maybe not the beliefs of some/most Catholics).
Actually, it kind of isn't.

And being "special" doesn't keep a fetus from being a parasite. It is just a "special" parasite. We don't actually force women to breastfeed either.

[ July 10, 2013, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
#1) The point of having sex is to continue the species. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. Actions have consequences. Your tone appears to be against nature, and leans towards hedonism.


And the law has no place dictating which personal belief is right here. You can preach your belifs there all you like, but have no business imposing it on others.

quote:
#2) The woman made a decision. Unnatural termination of a human fetus is MUCH worse than "forcing" someone to be responsible for their actions. Are you a big poop machine?

Choosing to have an abortion is actively taking responsibility of the situation. Don't confuse choosing to take responsibility in a way you dislike with irresponsibility. Your position there amounts to saying that an unwanted pregnancy is a fair punishment to inflict on others for violating your personal moral standards as stated in your first point.

quote:
#3) Human fetuses are not parasites. Most women choose to have sex. Hiding from your actions is not a solution. Killing the fetus is even worse.
Any unwanted presence within your own body that draws on its resources can be considered parasitic. The definition is completely subjective based on the desires of the person whose body is in question. You can't make a statement like that about another person without implicitly declaring that you have more right to control over that person's body than the person in question does.

A fetus has no more right to occupy the womb of someone who does not want it there than you have the right to sleep in the bed of a person who does not want you in their house, even if the alternative means that you're out on the street. A person's right to be secure in their own person trumps another person's power to demand the former's organs because the later needs them to survive.

quote:
#4) Every human life is special. Please link to research that proves a 20 week old fetus does not think. Why should I care what selfish and immoral adults think or want? They literally kill their own, and then want to be respected.

You are free to respect them or not as you see fit. That's a completely person reaction that has no bearing on whether you have the right to restrict them from an action simply because you consider it to be immoral.

quote:
#5) Yet another call to shirk responsibility. The state will magically take care of the baby. Do the parents just exist to rut without any regard for consequences?
If people, as a state, choose to restrict a person's choices for dealing with the consequences, then they collectively should pick up the costs of that restriction; at that point it's their birth and their child to care for since they've explicitly abrogated the woman's freedoms to force that decision on her. Any less would the the state failing to take responsibility for the effects of its own dictates on the actions of others.

Again, you're presenting unwanted pregnancies and children as a punishment for the person not living up to your moral standards by pretending that the only possible way of "dealing with the consequences" is to do it the way you dictate.

quote:
#7) The "gadflies" are defending the weakest amongst us. Did you roll a dice to pick 24 weeks?
24 weeks is the reasonable bottom limit on fetal viability- the point where it hits better than 50% odds of surviving if born prematurely. Any earlier than that and forcing birth will, in and of itself will most likely result in its death because it hasn't been sufficiently finished yet to be independently viable.

20 weeks, on the other hand, has absolutely no medical basis, and is instead mostly based on topographical resemblance and some rudimentary instinctive reflexes being partially wired.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Out of interest, DJ, how many times have you had sex for the purposes of procreation?

The main purpose of sex is to procreate. Lots of other groovy reasons, but that is THE reason.

Wessex:

"Sex is a biological urge, the evolutionary purpose of that urge being the propagation of the species. It sounds like you might have an unnaturally low sex drive and might want to have that checked. [Wink] "

I noticed the winking. My sex drive is unnaturally high, if anything. Just clearing that up.

"This is why I challenge you on your stated principles. Human life is not precious before 4 months? How did you come to that conclusion?"

How did you come to this conclusion? Not what I said at all! I am making my best guess.

"If every life is that special, the state should take an interest after the birth and provide the best health care and nurturing for every child that lives. If you disagree, be clear and explain why your concern for that special life stops when the baby is born."

You are missing my point. The parents should be responsible first, then extended family, then society at large, charity groups, and finally the state. The system should try to reward responsible behavior and strongly discourage a generation of rutting adults that don't act like adults in the ways that matter most.

[ July 10, 2013, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My sex drive is unnaturally high, if anything. Just clearing that up."

Most men's sex drive is in the top 1-2%, as is mine.

"How did you come to this conclusion? Not what I said at all! I am making my best guess."

Because you said there was plenty of time for the mother to have an abortion before 4 months. I'm looking for you to explain why that would be ok. Also, still looking for an answer for how important it is to make sure the child is healthy (not sick, well-nourished, cared for (loved), etc) after it is born.

[ July 10, 2013, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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:
The main purpose of sex is to procreate.
Doesn't answer my question, DJ. I'm asking, rather, when you last settled down for a bout of sex and thought, "Hoo boy! Gonna procreate me up a storm!" When was the last time you brought a girl home by saying, "Hey, you and me want to go try to produce children?"

[ July 10, 2013, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The main purpose of sex is to procreate.
Doesn't answer my question, DJ. I'm asking, rather, when you last settled down for a bout of sex and thought, "Hoo boy! Gonna procreate me up a storm!" When was the last time you brought a girl home by saying, "Hey, you and me want to go try to produce children?"
My objective in sex does not change nature's goal. Sex is fun so we will procreate.

Pyrtolin:

Completely disagree with almost everything you typed on this page. Too lazy to type it all up.

Do you have a link r/t enzymes and RNA during fetal development? I will check later.

On topic:

I don't find the topic or the picture too controversial. Wonder why those media outlets did...

[ July 10, 2013, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Texas isn't the only state trying to make changes to its abortion laws. Forty-one states have enacted abortion restrictions at different stages of pregnancy, according to The New York Times. The Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for sexual and reproductive health internationally, reports that 43 laws limiting abortions went into effect in 2012.

"This is really a trend nationwide," Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin said Wednesday on The Daily Circuit, "particularly in a number of states where you have unified control between the governorship and the legislature."

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/07/10/daily-circuit-abortion-states


Since 2010, 10 states have enacted bills that ban abortion 20 weeks after fertilization, based on the theory that the fetus can feel pain at that point. This notion is not accepted by mainstream medical organizations. Like Arizona, laws in Georgia and Idaho are in limbo, pending the outcome of legal challenges.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/26/us/abortion_laws.html?_r=0

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The dilemma I have with the pro-life movement is that the concern for the child tends to end at birth.

The same group that demands a woman have the child is the same group that pushes for cuts in the programs that might help that child and give it a chance.

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ten states have made crappy laws. Doesn't say much.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  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:
My objective in sex does not change nature's goal.
Why the hell should any of us care what nature's goal is for anything? Nature's goal is to kill us.

I have sex because sex is fun and I enjoy it. I do not have sex to procreate.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

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