Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Natoma]

You're making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins, no definitive hardcore fact. You and Vince both.

Bullshit. How many times must we go over this? It's been stated time and time again that the generally accepted concensus for life is the ability to:

I'm not going to get into another argument now after the other thread, but Biologists generally are in agreement that "life" is defined by an organisms that is capable of self-replication and completion of one Carnot cycle.

First of all, your biological knowledge is severely lacking and as with most pro-abortion supporters who argue based on pseudo-science, a lack of knowledge, and their political motivations - it's killing you. The current general convention holds that an entity is "alive" if it satisfies two conditions


Replication - the ability to self-replicate and reproduce.

Chemical Assimilation - the ability to aquire particular molecules and use them in controlled rxn's, a singular Carnot cycle is often used as the bound

How about you do some reading and stop arguing from such an ingnorant position?

As I said before Vince, biological reductionist logic is not shared by everyone in the abortion or anti-abortion camp. Some people believe it's only when you're self aware. Some believe it's before contraception and inside your ova and sperm.

If biological reductionism was the only qualifier for what is life, you'd be pissing off a hell of a lot of catholics now wouldn't you? If biological reductionism was the only qualifier for what is life, you couldn't ever perform a mercy killing on a vegetative state patient now could you?

So then why not call all forms of contraception murder then? If you remove the contraception, then the chances of creating a baby increase dramatically do they not? Is this not what the catholic church argues when they rail against contraceptive technology? You're killing potential human beings?

I don't really care about the biological reductionist logic Vince, because I know where we all start off from as genetic individuals. But the point is that there are huge portions of society, read: catholic church, who rail even against contraceptives by taking that allusion to its furthest point. You personally may stop at conception, but many people do not.

For hundreds of years in christendom, sex was only for reproduction, never for pleasure. Since the invention of the contraceptive, sex has slowly moved away from reproduction only to pleasure mostly, and reproduction only when people feel like it. Is everyone therefore mass murderers? Certainly, if you believe the catholic church. But you don't believe that way do you Vince, since you believe that it only matters at conception and later right?

No, I want you to point out where you think I've been inconsistent, because Joe certainly hasn't.

Again... it's inconsistency which stems from your inability to parallel the current pseudo-science debate about the fetus's rights inherient in humans and the former arguments, which you pretend you care about, concerning the African-American's supposed genetic inferiority which led to their "owning" and domination by the White American.

You have it completely reversed. Slavery began because it was profitable. It always begins that way. Genetic inferiority? That didn't come up until Darwin, and that was the mid 19th Century. If I recall, slavery existed well before that. And even then, if it was about that, slavery would have ended long before the civil war. Slavery was about profit first, inferiority second. Based on what? The very factors that stemmed from the slavery in the first place. Lack of education, lack of culture, lack of class, lack of freedom, etc etc etc.

The very argument of genetic inferiority in the early 20th century even came out of the fact that in the slums, blacks were in squalor and seemed unable to lift themselves out of their condition, even with the "schools" they were able to attend. Right circular logic there no?

It's a corollary that you have yet to learn and are inable to see the same negative manifestations occuring during yuor own time and take action against which you accuse the 'White' Americans of. You also admit to this when you stated:

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.

Thus, either conform to your own statements or admit that your a selfish asshole who doesn't care except when it benefits you:

God forbid fighting for our rights be allowed. Nope, can't have that. You'd think this country would have learned this lesson from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Guess not.

Yep, some people just don't learn.

And of course that was a sarcastic remark based on your attempts to compare 19th century slavery (or any slavery for that matter) to marital rights for gays and lesbians.

 

[Vince]

As I said before Vince, biological reductionist logic is not shared by everyone in the abortion or anti-abortion camp. Some people believe it's only when you're self aware. Some believe it's before contraception and inside your ova and sperm.

I already challenged those positions - respond to them then. You're debating me, if you wish to debate the other "some" people - then go debate them.

If biological reductionism was the only qualifier for what is life, you'd be pissing off a hell of a lot of catholics now wouldn't you? If biological reductionism was the only qualifier for what is life, you couldn't ever perform a mercy killing on a vegetative state patient now could you?

(a) I don't care, prove me wrong.
(b) Yes, if it was their wish or desire. Classical Darwinian Evolution my friend.

You have it completely reversed. Slavery began because it was profitable. It always begins that way. Genetic inferiority? That didn't come up until Darwin, and that was the mid 19th Century. If I recall, slavery existed well before that. And even then, if it was about that, slavery would have ended long before the civil war. Slavery was about profit first, inferiority second. Based on what? The very factors that stemmed from the slavery in the first place. Lack of education, lack of culture, lack of class, lack of freedom, etc etc etc.

I wasn't debating the history of Slavery Natoma Rather, the position you take concerning the "3/5ths a human" ideology. Don't go on a tangent, don't deviate.. you know exactly what I'm getting at.

The same societal beliefs, pseudo-science, and lack of understanding that allowed people to believe Black's are 3/5ths a human is what's driving you to believe that abortion is alright in the first part of pregnancy since it's not a human or whatever BS reasons you think hold weight like "self-awareness".

It's a corollary that you have yet to learn and are inable to see the same negative manifestations occuring during yuor own time and take action against which you accuse the 'White' Americans of. You also admit to this when you stated:

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.

Thus, either conform to your own statements or admit that your a selfish asshole who doesn't care except when it benefits you:

God forbid fighting for our rights be allowed. Nope, can't have that. You'd think this country would have learned this lesson from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Guess not.

Yep, some people just don't learn.

And of course that was a sarcastic remark based on your attempts to compare 19th century slavery (or any slavery for that matter) to marital rights for gays and lesbians.[/quote]

Ahh, right. Hypocrite. This argument is futile, you'll never understand because you choose not to.

 

[Natoma]

So then why not call all forms of contraception murder then? If you remove the contraception, then the chances of creating a baby increase dramatically do they not?

How dumb are you? It's been clearly stated time and time again what the bounds for "life" are:

• Self-replication
• Single Carnot Cycle

Do you not understand this? There is no probability in that, probability doesn't matter - this isn't QM and the biology we're discussing is deterministic; stop grasping at straws you can't reach.

Someone needs to read posts in full before responding. Obviously I wasn't saying that's what I believe.

Is this not what the catholic church argues when they rail against contraceptive technology? You're killing potential human beings?

Am I the church? Am I religious? I think not.

That's not the point. They believe it. Fervently. And they will argue you into the ground over it with spirituality and the One Truth Of God Which Is Infallible, just as infallible as science is.

I don't really care about the biological reductionist logic Vince, because I know where we all start off from as genetic individuals. But the point is that there are huge portions of society, read: catholic church, who rail even against contraceptives by taking that allusion to its furthest point. You personally may stop at conception, but many people do not.

Hey, John Reynolds is back! I don't care about your [correct] argument, but I'll fight it based on my ignorant knowledge because other people will do this, or think this, or state that. I <3 this part of the argument.

Again, if you can see past a line item response and actually read the overarching point I was making, you wouldn't make comments like this. What portion did you miss?

"I don't really care about the biological reductionist logic Vince, because I know where we all start off from as genetic individuals."

I know we start off as genetic individuals at contraception. I agree with you. Slow down and read what I'm saying before you go off on a rant please. Sheesh.

Certainly, if you believe the catholic church. But you don't believe that way do you Vince, since you believe that it only matters at conception and later right?

Exactly, I only stated the bounds for life like... 4 times.

Again, missing the point of what I wrote.

So then why not call all forms of contraception murder then? If you remove the contraception, then the chances of creating a baby increase dramatically do they not? Is this not what the catholic church argues when they rail against contraceptive technology? You're killing potential human beings?

I don't really care about the biological reductionist logic Vince, because I know where we all start off from as genetic individuals. But the point is that there are huge portions of society, read: catholic church, who rail even against contraceptives by taking that allusion to its furthest point. You personally may stop at conception, but many people do not.

For hundreds of years in christendom, sex was only for reproduction, never for pleasure. Since the invention of the contraceptive, sex has slowly moved away from reproduction only to pleasure mostly, and reproduction only when people feel like it. Is everyone therefore mass murderers? Certainly, if you believe the catholic church. But you don't believe that way do you Vince, since you believe that it only matters at conception and later right?

Read it in full, then try responding again.

 

[Natoma]

<snipped this because I dealt with it in the last post I wrote.

You have it completely reversed. Slavery began because it was profitable. It always begins that way. Genetic inferiority? That didn't come up until Darwin, and that was the mid 19th Century. If I recall, slavery existed well before that. And even then, if it was about that, slavery would have ended long before the civil war. Slavery was about profit first, inferiority second. Based on what? The very factors that stemmed from the slavery in the first place. Lack of education, lack of culture, lack of class, lack of freedom, etc etc etc.

I wasn't debating the history of Slavery Natoma Rather, the position you take concerning the "3/5ths a human" ideology. Don't go on a tangent, don't deviate.. you know exactly what I'm getting at.

And of course that was a sarcastic remark based on your attempts to compare 19th century slavery (or any slavery for that matter) to marital rights for gays and lesbians.

Ahh, right. Hypocrite. This argument is futile, you'll never understand because you choose not to.

I haven't gone on a tangent at all. You brought up genetic inferiority, and I shot it down as completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

You have it completely reversed. Slavery began because it was profitable. It always begins that way. Genetic inferiority? That didn't come up until Darwin, and that was the mid 19th Century. If I recall, slavery existed well before that. And even then, if it was about that, slavery would have ended long before the civil war. Slavery was about profit first, inferiority second. Based on what? The very factors that stemmed from the slavery in the first place. Lack of education, lack of culture, lack of class, lack of freedom, etc etc etc.

The very argument of genetic inferiority in the early 20th century even came out of the fact that in the slums, blacks were in squalor and seemed unable to lift themselves out of their condition, even with the "schools" they were able to attend. Right circular logic there no?

 

[Vince]

I haven't gone on a tangent at all. You brought up genetic inferiority, and I shot it down as completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make

Shot it down? Maybe in your convoluted mind. It's a clear parallel based on contemporary thinking being warped by the misuse of science by the population at large to "prove" that a subgroup of said population is less than human; it shall be noted as such by historians, you're a bad person. End of story.

Read it in full, then try responding again.

I did the first time. It's entirely irrelevent as that's not what I'm saying, not what I believe, and not questioning you on.

I'm so sick of this style argument. You're position is untenable, it's known to be inconsistent with greater undertsanding. Yet, you argue and argue the same things. Hell, now you're arguing based on things I never said, never believed.

I need to get back to actual work now, this is a waste of time. Anyone reading this can see how the arguments are supported (or not).

 

[Natoma]

Read it in full, then try responding again.

I did the first time. It's entirely irrelevent as that's not what I'm saying, not what I believe, and not questioning you on.

I'm so sick of this style argument. You're position is untenable, it's known to be inconsistent with greater undertsanding. Yet, you argue and argue the same things. Hell, now you're arguing based on things I never said, never believed.

I need to get back to actuall work now, this is a waste of time. Anyone reading this can see how the arguments are supported (or not).

I see you didn't get the point of what I wrote. In short, Vince if abortion rights are rolled back to non-existance, i.e. conception, this fight will start up all over again, this time involving the use of contraceptives. Viruses are deemed alive by some in the scientific community are they not? Even though they don't replicate on their own and need a host cell in order to do so? All they are is DNA surrounded by a protein sheath.

Why can't that same argument for "life" be then applied to sperm and ova by religious persons just as fervent as you are to consider conception the point of life?

If I recall correctly, "life" is determined as the ability to grow, develop, and die. Virii fit that description no? Get and use energy? I think so. Reproduce? They need another organism to do so, but then, so do we, so it could fit that as well. Respond to the environment? Certainly, in that they are able to find the markers on a cell surface to bind to. Sperm can certainly fit these criteria can they not?

 

[Natoma]

I haven't gone on a tangent at all. You brought up genetic inferiority, and I shot it down as completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make

Shot it down? Maybe in your convoluted mind. It's a clear parallel based on contemporary thinking being warped by the misuse of science by the population at large to "prove" that a subgroup of said population is less than human; it shall be noted as such by historians, you're a bad person. End of story.

Vince, contemporary thinking wasn't "warped" by the misuse of science. Slavery existed long before genetics. It's irrelevant because you reversed the timeline, which I pointed out earlier.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Can't speak, can't think, can't emote, etc etc etc. That's the point of a living will, to take care of that issue. If you can't speak for yourself, and you haven't left any form of writing about what to do should something happen, then it goes to debate of course.

Um, precisely?

So why is it when a baby can't spek for himself, you don't want there to be a legal debate? Just completely defer to the parents?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what happens with a baby because there was never any chance of that. You're making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins, no definitive hardcore fact. You and Vince both.

You are making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins.

I Am in favor of legislating a concensus in the matter.

 

[Natoma]

Can't speak, can't think, can't emote, etc etc etc. That's the point of a living will, to take care of that issue. If you can't speak for yourself, and you haven't left any form of writing about what to do should something happen, then it goes to debate of course.

Um, precisely?

So why is it when a baby can't spek for himself, you don't want there to be a legal debate? Just completely defer to the parents?

Whoever said there shouldn't be a legal debate? I don't recall ever saying that.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what happens with a baby because there was never any chance of that. You're making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins, no definitive hardcore fact. You and Vince both.

You are making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins.

I Am in favor of legislating a concensus in the matter.

There isn't an assumption on my part of when life begins. I don't have an assumption because I don't know. What did I say from the very beginning? I don't have the answers, and until we do, I believe that we should legislate in favor of the palpable human being over an amorphous "might be/might not be" being. I wish I knew because then I could solve this debate in an instant, but I don't.

You of course assume to know definitively and thus it's automatically murder.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Whoever said there shouldn't be a legal debate? I don't recall ever saying that.

Then why are you against any abortion laws (paraphrasing) "until such time we can all agree upon when "life" starts".

Your definition of legal debate is only after everyone legally agrees?

There isn't an assumption on my part of when life begins.

Of course there is. You defer all rights to the parent. You do not recognize the unborn as having any rights. Despite the fact that clearly, this is only one extreme position.

One extreme position is that from conception, the fetus has full rights. (That's my position on abortion itself, but that's not what I'd like to see from Abortion laws.)

The other extreme position is that there are no rights granted until after birth. This is perfectly acceptable to you...the extreme left position. It's not acceptable to me.

You of course assume to know definitively and thus it's automatically murder.

IMO, it is murder.

But as I've said millions of times (and maybe you would understand if you actually answered my questions earlier instead of blowing them off), that's irrelevant to my positionon on abortion laws..

 

[Natoma]

Whoever said there shouldn't be a legal debate? I don't recall ever saying that.

Then why are you against any abortion laws (paraphrasing) "until such time we can all agree upon when "life" starts".

Your definition of legal debate is only after everyone legally agrees?

Legal debate can occur without actually coming to a consensus Joe. It's going on now. It's been going on for the past 31 years.

There isn't an assumption on my part of when life begins.

Of course there is. You defer all rights to the parent. You do not recognize the unborn as having any rights. Despite the fact that clearly, this is only one extreme position.

One extreme position is that from conception, the fetus has full rights. (That's my position on abortion itself, but that's not what I'd like to see from Abortion laws.)

The other extreme position is that there are no rights granted until after birth. This is perfectly acceptable to you...the extreme left position. It's not acceptable to me.

Joe, there has to be reasonable doubt about the "non-life" of a fetus. Isn't that what's required for judicial rulings? At this point, there isn't enough reasonable doubt regarding that apparently. Even in the scientific community it's up in the air. You want to overturn Roe v Wade, you have to provide reasonable doubt about the "non-living/human" status currently assigned to fetuses that would please a jury. If I could help in this regard I would. But frankly I have my own doubts about both as well, going back far enough.

Personally, as I said before, I'd like to see abortion rights moved back to the late 2nd/early 3rd trimester. That's where my "reasonable doubt" comes in.

You of course assume to know definitively and thus it's automatically murder.

IMO, it is murder.

But as I've said millions of times (and maybe you would understand if you actually answered my questions earlier instead of blowing them off), that's irrelevant to my positionon on abortion laws..

I never said it was relevant or irrelevant to your belief regarding abortion laws. But you and Vince have certainly brought it up and I feel a need to respond to that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, there has to be reasonable doubt about the "non-life" of a fetus. Isn't that what's required for judicial rulings?

What are you talking about?

That's a standard for guilt or innocence, and it varies between civil and criminal cases.

At this point, there isn't enough reasonable doubt regarding that apparently. Even in the scientific community it's up in the air. You want to overturn Roe v Wade, you have to provide reasonable doubt about the "non-living/human" status currently assigned to fetuses that would please a jury.

Says who? Where does this "legal" analysis come from?

Personally, as I said before, I'd like to see abortion rights moved back to the late 2nd/early 3rd trimester. That's where my "reasonable doubt" comes in.

But personally, you find it perfectly acceptable with women / parents current right to abort any and all unborn children.

Why?

 

[V3]

Why can't that same argument for "life" be then applied to sperm and ova by religious persons just as fervent as you are to consider conception the point of life?

Sperm and ova have lifespan.

 

[Natoma]

Joe, there has to be reasonable doubt about the "non-life" of a fetus. Isn't that what's required for judicial rulings? At this point, there isn't enough reasonable doubt regarding that apparently. Even in the scientific community it's up in the air. You want to overturn Roe v Wade, you have to provide reasonable doubt about the "non-living/human" status currently assigned to fetuses that would please a jury.

What are you talking about?

That's a standard for guilt or innocence, and it varies between civil and criminal cases.

Says who? Where does this "legal" analysis come from?

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life- saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

That imo left the door wide open for an overturn, or whittling away, of Roe v Wade wrt establishing when a 'compelling point' in the pregnancy is reached. If science can provide that point (yes, I know Vince), then roe v wade can be overturned, or at least curtailed. Btw, I meant judges, not jury, in my quoted post above.

Personally, as I said before, I'd like to see abortion rights moved back to the late 2nd/early 3rd trimester. That's where my "reasonable doubt" comes in.

But personally, you find it perfectly acceptable with women / parents current right to abort any and all unborn children.

Why?

I've said this many times before. I guess one last time won't hurt. I don't like abortion. I would like to see abortion rights rolled back to the late 2nd/early 3rd trimester, because imo that's when a fetus can survive outside the womb with our level of technology. In my opinion, that is the "compelling point" given our current level of technology, and I would like to see abortion rights rolled back to that state. I support a woman's right to choose before that "compelling point" however. That is what I find perfectly acceptable. About 1% of abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester, which of course violates my own personal opinion wrt acceptable abortion. But this is being addressed in the congress at this moment. As I mentioned earlier, there is legislature winding its way through congress atm (one was initially tied to the partial-birth abortion ban bill passed last year) that would in fact limit abortions to pre-3rd trimester.

I have a very nuanced position on abortion, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I try to see both sides in this when it comes to the law, and I admit that I get screamed on by fervent anti-abortionists and abortionists I know for not being completely one side or another in this matter. If this isn't a satisfactory answer for you, well then I guess I can't provide one to suit you. This is about as best as I can explain it.

 

[Natoma]

Why can't that same argument for "life" be then applied to sperm and ova by religious persons just as fervent as you are to consider conception the point of life?

Sperm and ova have lifespan.

Catholics argue that in using contraception during sexual intercourse, you are interfering with the natural biological process of reproduction, therefore committing murder. If you didn't, odds are significantly higher that reproduction would have occurred, i.e. the potential to create a human being is there. The menstrual cycle is a natural biological event, and as you said wrt miscarriage, is not considered 'murder' by, as I like to call them, pre-conceptionists. Neither is a wet dream, nor the natural reabsorption of sperm into the body after their life cycle is complete.

Masturbation? Willful committance of sperm to an act not related to reproduction. The pill? Willful committance of hormones to suppress ovulation in order to have sex without fear of reproduction. I spent three years in a catholic school. I remember these sermons rather well. hehe.

 

[V3]

Catholics argue that in using contraception during sexual intercourse, you are interfering with the natural biological process of reproduction, therefore committing murder.

Its true that contraception interfere with the process, heck that's one of the main use of it, but that's the reason, not because you're committing murder.

In the process, there are many sperms to one egg, and it only takes one sperm fertillised the egg. For the rest of the sperms, you're not comitting murder, even in cases of husband and wife infertility, you're not committing murder, or breaking natural law.

If you didn't, odds are significantly higher that reproduction would have occurred, i.e. the potential to create a human being is there. The menstrual cycle is a natural biological event, and as you said wrt miscarriage, is not considered 'murder' by, as I like to call them, pre-conceptionists. Neither is a wet dream, nor the natural reabsorption of sperm into the body after their life cycle is complete.

Masturbation? Willful committance of sperm to an act not related to reproduction. The pill? Willful committance of hormones to suppress ovulation in order to have sex without fear of reproduction. I spent three years in a catholic school. I remember these sermons rather well. hehe.

Yes, you know all these things and these acts are not murder. Abortion is murder, these acts are as you described, they're immoral, but different from murder. Though all are immoral acts. And I know you don't agree with them. But as far as everyone here, we all agreed that murder is wrong. However you draw the line with abortion, and pointed out contraception.

So are you trying to point out that a ban in abortion, will lead to ban in contraception, which will lead to sex as reproduction only, which will lead to a ban in same sex intercourse, which you fear ?

That's your main motive for abortion isn't ?

 

[Natoma]

V3,

My main reason for bringing this up is to show that as fervently as someone like Vince calls me a murderer for not supporting the carte blanche dismissal of abortion all the way back to conception at this time, there are people waiting in the wings to "get" all of you conceptionists.

I have my doubts about what constitutes a human life earlier than the 5-7 month. You and others do not apparently, and believe it goes back to conception. Just pointing out that there are many others who believe that the potential for life is just as worthy of salvation, and find even your positions untenable in any way shape or form, and will not be satisfied until that is taken care of.

I don't have rock solid unmoveable positions on abortion. When I first started reading on the subject a few years ago, my initial response for a while was abortion rights throughout pregnancy. As I absorb more, my reactions are generally toward less and less ability to abort, and in fact went as far as supporting the partial birth abortion ban last year. But I need proof that satisfies me before I change my mind, and I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that human life begins at conception. That may change in the future, but I am personally not convinced of that at this time. Now getting back to what I said about, oh, 10 pages ago, I think technology is going to be the final qualitative decider on this matter, and that is what is required to finally settle this question of when does human life begin, once and for all.

It's funny. My boyfriend disagrees with me on even bans back to the 6-7 month, not because it's a question of when does human life begin or not begin, but because he's a libertarian.

 

[V3]

My main reason for bringing this up is to show that as fervently as someone like Vince calls me a murderer for not supporting the carte blanche dismissal of abortion all the way back to conception at this time, there are people waiting in the wings to "get" all of you conceptionists.

I see, so you're basically saying to Vince why he is a conceptionists and not a 'pre-conceptionist' Everyone should be 'pre-conceptionist'.

I have my doubts about what constitutes a human life earlier than the 5-7 month. You and others do not apparently, and believe it goes back to conception. Just pointing out that there are many others who believe that the potential for life is just as worthy of salvation, and find even your positions untenable in any way shape or form, and will not be satisfied until that is taken care of.

Potential human life are eggs and sperms. At conception, there is no longer sperm or egg, they're no longer potential human life. This is because the potential has already been used up, its a human life from that point.

That's how the potential get used. From that point, unique human life exist.

Its the same with some of these human cloned claims. Once they complete the eggs and zap it, and see it succeed, these scientists oddly enough claimed they've cloned a human.

I don't have rock solid unmoveable positions on abortion. When I first started reading on the subject a few years ago, my initial response for a while was abortion rights throughout pregnancy. As I absorb more, my reactions are generally toward less and less ability to abort, and in fact went as far as supporting the partial birth abortion ban last year. But I need proof that satisfies me before I change my mind, and I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that human life begins at conception. That may change in the future, but I am personally not convinced of that at this time. Now getting back to what I said about, oh, 10 pages ago, I think technology is going to be the final qualitative decider on this matter, and that is what is required to finally settle this question of when does human life begin, once and for all.

What proof would satisfy you ? You keep saying technology, can you be more specific, what are you looking for ?

It's funny. My boyfriend disagrees with me on even bans back to the 6-7 month, not because it's a question of when does human life begin or not begin, but because he's a libertarian.

 

[Blastman]

For hundreds of years in christendom, sex was only for reproduction, never for pleasure.

Nonsense. The Church has never said/taught that. (I'm speaking from a Catholic viewpoint here BTW). The Church has said the primary purpose of sex is for reproduction and after that are secondary things like union, pleasure, … etc.

So then why not call all forms of contraception murder then? If you remove the contraception, then the chances of creating a baby increase dramatically do they not? Is this not what the catholic church argues when they rail against contraceptive technology? You're killing potential human beings?

Catholics argue that in using contraception during sexual intercourse, you are interfering with the natural biological process of reproduction, therefore committing murder.

Without getting into a theological discourse on the subject a few points of clarification need to be made on the Catholic teachings on contraception here.

Specifically the Church teaches that the "act of sex" has to be "open" to reproduction. And in that sense they have taught artificial contraception is a sin (morally wrong) because it unnaturally interferes with that. The natural methods of avoiding conception like the rhythm-method are ok because they simply avoid the natural fertile periods of a women. For that reason interfering with the sexual act by using a condom would be morally wrong. Not that's it's murder. In this case you're not killing anything if it doesn't exist. In a similar vein not having sex with one's wife will prevent her from getting pregnant but it doesn't kill anyone. There is no such thing as killing a "potential" human being per se unless you get into the semantics that people use to justify abortion. The Church's position is consistent with the view that new life is created (with a immortal soul imparted by God) at the time of conception. The genes and genetic processes that define that particular human being are in place after the joining of sperm and egg. I would say trying to define a point after that in which the embryo becomes a human being is going to run into a lot of logical potholes.

But the situation with birth control can get a little more complicated. Now a bit on biology. If you accept the position that life starts at conception then one of the primary reasons why the Church is correct in its position against many forms of artificial contraception is that artificial contraception can end up destroying the small embryo that has already been produced at conception. The sperm and egg join together in the fallopian tube and start the life process there. The small embryo then travels down the fallopian tube and tries to attach to the uterus wall to get the nutrition it needs to continue development. Many forms of artificial birth control like the low dose estrogen pill (the only type of pill available in the US) affect the uterus in such a way as to prevent the embryo from attaching to the uterus wall. Basically, it's about like pulling the feeding tube out of a viable human being who's trying to attach to the uterus wall to continue development. While it may not be murder (because murder requires the intent to kill) it certainly might classify somewhere along the lines as negligible homicide or manslaughter. Once you understand this you can see using certain forms or birth control are quite a different situation from just using a condom.

On the topic of marriage laws. It needs to be pointed out that there are fundamental human rights like the right to life and social rights -- like voting, marriage and practicing medicine ….etc. If voting was a fundamental human right then we wouldn't exclude people under 18 from voting, would we. And for the good of society we have social rights accorded to some people and denied others due to various times and circumstances. For the good of society we don't let anyone practice medicine -- only those that have degrees and that are board certified. It’s pretty easy to understand the reasoning behind that. Marriage is also a social right (of the state) which is set up for the good of society. That's why the state doesn't allow some people (like 10 year olds) to marry. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is not trampling on your fundamental human rights anymore than not allowing women to vote was. (which someone mentioned earlier in the thread). They're social rights.

In Canada we have a public health system so the unhealthy extremely promiscuous lifestyle that is generally associated with homosexuality costs taxpayers (me) money. 77.9%… of the AIDS cases in men (Canada) are attributable to the gay lifestyle , not to mention all the …other … increased health/disease problems associated with that lifestyle. So yes, what you do behind closed doors does affect me. And when you vote you may vote for a gay politician that might enact laws that I'm against. Again, acting on your belief that homosexuality is ok does affect me. Simply put, allowing gays to marry amounts to promoting in society what many people view as a sexual perversion and a unhealthy lifestyle.

edit:couple typos.

 

[Sabastian]

And.... feces are yuk...