Is the jig up?

[RangerM]

My hand? No. I am...my cells are. My hand is part of me.

Then what makes you alive? You are a collection of cells, correct?

A prison isn't a vessel and it isn't comparable to a living human being. A prison is a prison.

In both cases, the being inside will live if moved to the outside, yet one is alive and one is not.

[suv_guy_19]

That's right, one is alive and one isn't. One is part of a living being and one is a living being. Regardless, I don't feel very comfortable debating this. I don't feel that we should abort viable fetuses outside of medical necessity. That's almost the way things are now. What I do believe is that we should have the proper support system and social safety net in place to help eliminate the need for abortion in the future.

Edited July 24, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[RangerM]

That's right, one is alive and one isn't. One is part of a living being and one is a living being.

I'd bet you would not get a positive reaction from an expectant mother, if you referred to her fetus as a parasite.

Regardless, I don't feel very comfortable debating this.

You should feel uncomfortable. Difficult issues rarely have simple answers.

I don't feel that we should abort viable fetuses outside of medical necessity. That's almost the way things are now.

Why? If it is merely a collection of cells (being part of a living being just as your hand is), then what would be wrong with harvesting the organs? Don't we have a shortage now? Don't thousands die due to lack of available donors?

What I do believe is that we should have the proper support system and social safety net in place to help eliminate the need for abortion in the future.

What is a proper support system? Mom and Dad aren't enough?

 

Why is there a "need" for abortion, and why is a social safety net required to eliminate it? Isn't it a matter of choice?

[suv_guy_19]

I'd bet you would not get a positive reaction from an expectant mother, if you referred to her fetus as a parasite.

 

I see a parasite as something different. A fetus is a developing life.

 

You should feel uncomfortable. Difficult issues rarely have simple answers.

 

Very true.

 

Why? If it is merely a collection of cells (being part of a living being just as your hand is), then what would be wrong with harvesting the organs? Don't we have a shortage now? Don't thousands die due to lack of available donors?

 

Because it could very easily become a life.

 

What is a proper support system? Mom and Dad aren't enough?

 

Mom and dad often aren't both available. Often mom and dad don't have the resources or the no how. That isn't an excuse, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be something there to help people who unexpectedly become parents or who don't have all the resources in place.

 

Why is there a "need" for abortion, and why is a social safety net required to eliminate it? Isn't it a matter of choice?

 

There is a need for abortion because we as a society haven't a ) developed perfect birth control b ) educated young people well enough about sex c ) put systems in place to support young mothers and people who have accidental pregnancies and d ) made it easy for people who can't raise their children to find alternative arrangements.

 

Not everything can be reduced to something as simple as choice. Life is far too complex for that.

[RangerM]

I see a parasite as something different. A fetus is a developing life.

 

Because it could very easily become a life.

Then what does it mean to say that something is neither dead (or merely a collection of cells) nor alive?

 

You see, you are bouncing around the issue. You want to avoid saying the developing fetus is alive, because to admit so is to open up yourself to a potential hypocrisy as valuing one life over another, or at least valuing life inconsistently.

 

Basically it comes down to what does it mean to be human. IMO, it requires a soul.

 

I once thought as you do (in my teens and early 20s), but I grew up, and became a father. It makes a difference. I suspect it will in yours as well.

Mom and dad often aren't both available. Often mom and dad don't have the resources or the no how. That isn't an excuse, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be something there to help people who unexpectedly become parents or who don't have all the resources in place.

But it wasn't always that way. Even before there was ever a social safety net, people took pride in raising children to be responsible adults. What has changed? It used to be that people were supported by their families. What has destroyed this paradigm?

There is a need for abortion because we as a society haven't a ) developed perfect birth control b ) educated young people well enough about sex c ) put systems in place to support young mothers and people who have accidental pregnancies and d ) made it easy for people who can't raise their children to find alternative arrangements.

The majority of illegitimate children born in the U.S. are to women in their 20s. What does that say about the system? You're in your 20s. Do you know what it takes to make babies? What makes you more responsible than they? Obviously you're a male, but do you acknowledge the man's role and responsibility?

Not everything can be reduced to something as simple as choice. Life is far too complex for that.

But is it not the left that says it's a choice? It's also the left that says is should be rare. (I agree with this) But to say it should be "rare", does that not imply there is something about it that is morally wrong? Yet, the blame is placed on society, and not the parents.

[suv_guy_19]

Then what does it mean to say that something is neither dead (or merely a collection of cells) nor alive?

 

A fetus is simply a developing organism that exists completely within another organism. It has the potential to become a life, but it is not yet a life.

 

You see, you are bouncing around the issue. You want to avoid saying the developing fetus is alive, because to admit so is to open up yourself to a potential hypocrisy as valuing one life over another, or at least valuing life inconsistently.

 

A developing fetus isn't alive.

 

Basically it comes down to what does it mean to be human. IMO, it requires a soul.

 

A soul is a relatively vague concept. It requires a spiritual view of things, and although I have such a view, not all people do.

 

I once thought as you do (in my teens and early 20s), but I grew up, and became a father. It makes a difference. I suspect it will in yours as well.

 

I'm sure that there are fathers that feel just as I do, despite loving their children very dearly.

 

But it wasn't always that way. Even before there was ever a social safety net, people took pride in raising children to be responsible adults. What has changed? It used to be that people were supported by their families. What has destroyed this paradigm?

 

Yes, it was always that way. You're looking to a past that doesn't exist. The only thing that has changed is the increase in viable fetuses and the increase in children that survive illnesses soon after birth.

 

The majority of illegitimate children born in the U.S. are to women in their 20s. What does that say about the system? You're in your 20s. Do you know what it takes to make babies? What makes you more responsible than they? Obviously you're a male, but do you acknowledge the man's role and responsibility?

 

I don't only acknowledge that, but I acknowledge the role that society plays and the responsibility that society bears.

 

But is it not the left that says it's a choice? It's also the left that says is should be rare. (I agree with this) But to say it should be "rare", does that not imply there is something about it that is morally wrong? Yet, the blame is placed on society, and not the parents.

 

The blame lies in many places.

[RangerM]

A fetus is simply a developing organism that exists completely within another organism. It has the potential to become a life, but it is not yet a life.

 

A developing fetus isn't alive.

It's easy to say it, but it's not as easy to live with it.

I'm sure that there are fathers that feel just as I do, despite loving their children very dearly.

If there are any fathers reading this who believe their children were not alive prior to birth, please speak up.

Yes, it was always that way. You're looking to a past that doesn't exist. The only thing that has changed is the increase in viable fetuses and the increase in children that survive illnesses soon after birth.

To an extent what you've said is true, however in many cultures it's still that way. It used to be in ours. The "grandmother" hypothesis is based on this.

I don't only acknowledge that, but I acknowledge the role that society plays and the responsibility that society bears.

 

The blame lies in many places.

I would assert is was society that plays every bit as much a role in undermining the family unit, as you would say it protects it.

 

Ultimately it's people who decide their behavior.

Edited July 24, 2009 by RangerM

[Edstock]

"Basically it comes down to what does it mean to be human. IMO, it requires a soul."

 

Uh, sure.

 

AT birth, you have a human animal. With time and training from parents and later, from society, the human animal becomes a human being. As they found with orphans raised in Romania after the collapse of the Communist state, infants have a very critical window of necessity for human contact. If they don't get it, they never develop properly, because the neural pathways weren't created. These unfortunates spend the rest of their lives unable to be fully human in interaction with humanity. Note that they are not afflicted with disease, like autism or cerebral palsy; they were infants with normal metabolism that didn't get the contact they needed at a critical time in their human development.

 

The soul? An interesting concept.

 

Bonobos are 99% genetically identical to homo sapiens. Do they have souls?

 

Did Homo Neanderthalis? Especially when you realize that Homo Neanderthalis split from the branch that lead to H. Sapiens a million years ago? What about H. Neanderthalis' brain size, which was as large or larger than ours?

 

What about Homo Africanus, or Homo Erectus, which stomped around the veldt back 2-3 million years ago?

 

At conception, when there is one cell, with the new fusion of parental DNA, is there a soul? The foetus, at that point is alive, but has no nervous system. Hours later, there are 16 cells, still no nervous system.

 

Questions, questions.

[Len_A]

"Basically it comes down to what does it mean to be human. IMO, it requires a soul."

 

Uh, sure.

Theologians have been questioning and arguing for centuries, as to the soul. I doubt that nay one has a grasp on what it is.

AT birth, you have a human animal. With time and training from parents and later, from society, the human animal becomes a human being. As they found with orphans raised in Romania after the collapse of the Communist state, infants have a very critical window of necessity for human contact. If they don't get it, they never develop properly, because the neural pathways weren't created. These unfortunates spend the rest of their lives unable to be fully human in interaction with humanity. Note that they are not afflicted with disease, like autism or cerebral palsy; they were infants with normal metabolism that didn't get the contact they needed at a critical time in their human development.

Some people have yet to acknowledge that there's more to being part of humanity, and more to being human, than just being alive.

The soul? An interesting concept.

 

Bonobos are 99% genetically identical to homo sapiens. Do they have souls?

An interesting question, to pose to some aspiring theologian.

Did Homo Neanderthalis? Especially when you realize that Homo Neanderthalis split from the branch that lead to H. Sapiens a million years ago? What about H. Neanderthalis' brain size, which was as large or larger than ours?

 

What about Homo Africanus, or Homo Erectus, which stomped around the veldt back 2-3 million years ago?

A valid question, again, for some aspiring theologian to attempt to answer.

At conception, when there is one cell, with the new fusion of parental DNA, is there a soul? The fetus, at that point is alive, but has no nervous system. Hours later, there are 16 cells, still no nervous system.

According to the writings and teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, teh answer is "no", not for the first three months of gestation, something that the Catholic Church, who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas (went through the process of investigating him and declaring him a saint, in lay persons terms), does not like to acknowledge, as my Jesuit professors used to note, with a good deal of amusement.

Questions, questions.

And there will always be questions, my friend.

[Deanh]

Theologians have been questioning and arguing for centuries, as to the soul. I doubt that nay one has a grasp on what it is.

Some people have yet to acknowledge that there's more to being part of humanity, and more to being human, than just being alive.

An interesting question, to pose to some aspiring theologian. A valid question, again, for some aspiring theologian to attempt to answer.According to the writings and teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, teh answer is "no", not for the first three months of gestation, something that the Catholic Church, who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas (went through the process of investigating him and declaring him a saint, in lay persons terms), does not like to acknowledge, as my Jesuit professors used to note, with a good deal of amusement. And there will always be questions, my friend.

especially on such a volatile subject.....so, for those opposing Abortio,wouldn't taking away the womens choice be against her constitutional rights, is there a DIFFERENT set of rules in regards to thissubject????...on OTHER threads people are bleating about the Govt taking rights and privilidges away by meddling, wonder what THOSE people take on this issue are...about face? ....no winners in this argument, I for one don't know which side of the fence to sit on...

[macattak1]

"Basically it comes down to what does it mean to be human. IMO, it requires a soul."

 

Uh, sure.

 

AT birth, you have a human animal. With time and training from parents and later, from society, the human animal becomes a human being. As they found with orphans raised in Romania after the collapse of the Communist state, infants have a very critical window of necessity for human contact. If they don't get it, they never develop properly, because the neural pathways weren't created. These unfortunates spend the rest of their lives unable to be fully human in interaction with humanity. Note that they are not afflicted with disease, like autism or cerebral palsy; they were infants with normal metabolism that didn't get the contact they needed at a critical time in their human development.

 

The soul? An interesting concept.

 

Bonobos are 99% genetically identical to homo sapiens. Do they have souls?

 

Did Homo Neanderthalis? Especially when you realize that Homo Neanderthalis split from the branch that lead to H. Sapiens a million years ago? What about H. Neanderthalis' brain size, which was as large or larger than ours?

 

What about Homo Africanus, or Homo Erectus, which stomped around the veldt back 2-3 million years ago?

 

At conception, when there is one cell, with the new fusion of parental DNA, is there a soul? The foetus, at that point is alive, but has no nervous system. Hours later, there are 16 cells, still no nervous system.

 

Questions, questions.

 

Greetings,

 

So do animals. They are called Feral. I have been around both. Not much different.

 

hard to go into Pre Man, with out first explaining how Soft Tissue from dinosaurs froom 70 million years ago survived? Probably the same with Ice Man. Ice is 32 degrees. Not much colder. So at this point, there is no Pre man. Just people.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

Abortion is nothing more than Slavery. One group declaring another group is not Human, not fit to live, not fit to be protected. Unborn children have less rights then unborn dogs and cats.

 

Any time we treat a group of people as Non Humans we are making a huge mistake.

 

Peace and Blessings

[RangerM]

"Basically it comes down to what does it mean to be human. IMO, it requires a soul."

 

Uh, sure.

 

AT birth, you have a human animal. With time and training from parents and later, from society, the human animal becomes a human being. As they found with orphans raised in Romania after the collapse of the Communist state, infants have a very critical window of necessity for human contact. If they don't get it, they never develop properly, because the neural pathways weren't created. These unfortunates spend the rest of their lives unable to be fully human in interaction with humanity. Note that they are not afflicted with disease, like autism or cerebral palsy; they were infants with normal metabolism that didn't get the contact they needed at a critical time in their human development.

 

The soul? An interesting concept.

The soul is what gives us the quality beyond mere physical. The body is a lens through which the (light of that) soul is allowed to focus, and interact on this plane of existence.

 

On a more basic (non-spiritual) level, you would still say a computer is still a computer, even if it isn't programmed, or programmed properly.

 

Those children of who you refer obviously were not developed. Does that mean they are not human, as in no particular quality that sets them apart from the animal world? If so, they are merely organ factories for the rest of us. Personally, I'd say they either still have a soul, trapped in a malfunctioning body, or the soul has left the body.

 

Remember that woman in a coma down in Florida? Did she have a soul or not? In either case, it didn't really matter. Tragic though it is, she was allowed to expire to either free the soul trapped, or simply a collection of cells no longer provided nourishment. One day, I'll have my answer. You apparently already believe you have yours.

Bonobos are 99% genetically identical to homo sapiens. Do they have souls?

No.

Did Homo Neanderthalis? Especially when you realize that Homo Neanderthalis split from the branch that lead to H. Sapiens a million years ago? What about H. Neanderthalis' brain size, which was as large or larger than ours?

 

What about Homo Africanus, or Homo Erectus, which stomped around the veldt back 2-3 million years ago?

I know of no correlation between brain "size" and relative intelligence, or the presence of a soul.

At conception, when there is one cell, with the new fusion of parental DNA, is there a soul? The foetus, at that point is alive, but has no nervous system. Hours later, there are 16 cells, still no nervous system.

 

Questions, questions.

A difficult question for sure. I honestly don't know. I know that it's possible for those 16 cells to split properly, and wind up with twins, with separate souls. I also know if you could provide a suitable environment for those 16 cells, the resultant child would have a soul. It cannot simply be environment and genetics. Environment would simply be programming the computer through stimulus. Genetics alone would mean that the computer is preprogrammed (which as you allude above is not the case).

 

A subtle indication of the soul is our ability to expand beyond the limitations of our environment and genetics, to become a greater sum than the two put together. The ability to "jump out of yourself" and become (or act like) something or someone you're not, so to speak.

 

I can't prove it either way, and neither can you, but if you wish to discuss it further (on a sincere level), I shall do so.

[Len_A]

especially on such a volatile subject.....so, for those opposing Abortio,wouldn't taking away the womens choice be against her constitutional rights, is there a DIFFERENT set of rules in regards to thissubject????...on OTHER threads people are bleating about the Govt taking rights and privilidges away by meddling, wonder what THOSE people take on this issue are...about face? ....no winners in this argument, I for one don't know which side of the fence to sit on...

It is a serious contrast that those who do complain the most about government intrusion in people's private lives, wil be the first to justify this intrusion. I've always felt that without the right to choose, woman get the short end of the stick and second class status, as an accident of birth.

[RangerM]

especially on such a volatile subject.....so, for those opposing Abortio,wouldn't taking away the womens choice be against her constitutional rights, is there a DIFFERENT set of rules in regards to thissubject????...on OTHER threads people are bleating about the Govt taking rights and privilidges away by meddling, wonder what THOSE people take on this issue are...about face? ....no winners in this argument, I for one don't know which side of the fence to sit on...

When deciding such volatile, and moral, issues I've found it's best to simply let the people decide; as in, it should be a State-level issue.

 

"One size fits all" rarely does.

 

I've always felt that without the right to choose, woman get the short end of the stick and second class status, as an accident of birth.

To the extent that men aren't held to a higher standard of behavior (as in being allowed to abandon the woman/child), I'll agree with what you've said here.

Edited July 24, 2009 by RangerM

[Len_A]

Abortion is nothing more than Slavery. One group declaring another group is not Human, not fit to live, not fit to be protected. Unborn children have less rights then unborn dogs and cats.

 

Any time we treat a group of people as Non Humans we are making a huge mistake.

 

Peace and Blessings

And what do you call forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term? Slavery based on gender.

[Deanh]

When deciding such volatile, and moral, issues I've found it's best to simply let the people decide; as in, it should be a State-level issue.

 

"One size fits all" rarely does.

its crazy guys...hell, I really don't even feel comfortable discussing it....and I really don't know WHAT my veiws are....

[RangerM]

its crazy guys...hell, I really don't even feel comfortable discussing it....and I really don't know WHAT my veiws are....

Start with your own sense of right and wrong, and go from there.

[Deanh]

Start with your own sense of right and wrong, and go from there.

not easy as both sides have valid and justifiable arguments...just an uncomfortable subject for me....

[30 OTT 6]

hard to go into Pre Man, with out first explaining how Soft Tissue from dinosaurs froom 70 million years ago survived? Probably the same with Ice Man. Ice is 32 degrees. Not much colder. So at this point, there is no Pre man. Just people.

 

National Geographic Article - Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found!

Edited July 25, 2009 by 30 OTT 6

[Len_A]

To the extent that men aren't held to a higher standard of behavior (as in being allowed to abandon the woman/child), I'll agree with what you've said here.

There's other areas that men aren't held to the same standard. I know of plenty of men who have played "Mr. Mom", for various reasons, and no one questions their parenting skills when their kids are out of control, but God help the stay-at-home mom whose kids act up. I've even seen female police officers cut guys some slack for not having their rug rat in a car seat, but turn around and right up every mom they see driving with kids either not in car seats, or not belted to begin with.

 

I also know guys who are "100%" in favor of equal rights for woman...until the women get pregnant. Then, damn it, don't you know that they have one reason for being, don't ya know? I am being sarcastic, but I'm certain you catch my drift.

 

I also know one lady, a good friend of mine from college, who got the crap kicked out of her by her now ex-husband, getting pregnant to begin with. As far as that dirt bag was concerned, contraception was all her responsibility. And yes, in addition to divorcing the sonovabitch, yes, she terminated the pregnancy.

[macattak1]

And what do you call forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term? Slavery based on gender.

 

If you like. Though it is not slavery that Kills her.

 

Further, I am betting that women that were victims of Rape that keep their child are a lot happier then those that did not. The child is innocent. It did nothing. The mother is innocent. She did nothing. Now what? What is the worse scar? Surviving Rape or Incest or Killing a baby?

 

What do you call 1/3 of our children's generation that does not graduate with them because they were never born?

 

What do you call 50+ million aborted since RvW?

 

What do you call underage girls impregnated by their fathers, mothers boyfriends, neighbors, adult boyfriends, etc. that will continue to be abused after the abortion that is never challenged? I.e. the problem is not the unborn child. The problem is the Rape, Incest, etc. that led to the pregnancy that is rarely ever addressed because it is hidden or not reported.

 

What do you call the masses of women that aborted a child with no real understanding of what an abortion even is, what it does, that the baby is often times born alive anyways who then have two dates, day the baby would have been born and the date they destroyed the baby, to deal with for the rest of their lives?

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

not easy as both sides have valid and justifiable arguments...just an uncomfortable subject for me....

 

So, if you are uncomfortable on the subject. I would say something in you leans towards being against abortion. Or better yet. Are you more comfortable with abortion or less so?

 

They should have a clock like they do for the debt.

 

Down bottom right shows nations that allow or disallow abortions. Africa has it closer to right then Asia, Europe, or the US.

 

To make an informed decision one really needs to find out what an abortion is, how it is done, what happens to the fetus/baby, and what happens to the women. I used to be on the line myself and know several women that had abortions. None of them are happy with their decisions.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

34,000,000 deaths this year compared to 23,000,000 abortions.

 

Appears that if one makes it past the first 9 months their odds of living increase dramatically.

 

(bottom right of Deaths page)

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

There's other areas that men aren't held to the same standard. I know of plenty of men who have played "Mr. Mom", for various reasons, and no one questions their parenting skills when their kids are out of control, but God help the stay-at-home mom whose kids act up. I've even seen female police officers cut guys some slack for not having their rug rat in a car seat, but turn around and right up every mom they see driving with kids either not in car seats, or not belted to begin with.

 

I also know guys who are "100%" in favor of equal rights for woman...until the women get pregnant. Then, damn it, don't you know that they have one reason for being, don't ya know? I am being sarcastic, but I'm certain you catch my drift.

 

I also know one lady, a good friend of mine from college, who got the crap kicked out of her by her now ex-husband, getting pregnant to begin with. As far as that dirt bag was concerned, contraception was all her responsibility. And yes, in addition to divorcing the sonovabitch, yes, she terminated the pregnancy.

 

Ask here in 20 years if aborting was the right thing to do to her own child, or if she now regrets it. She may have done it out of anger, etc. I personally would not count on her saying it was the best decision in light of the child she would now have.

 

Peace and Blessings