PDA

View Full Version : South Dakota



Muley69
03-02-2006, 09:48 AM
Keep it civil...but I fear this will be locked all too soon.



As some of you may know, South Dakota has voted to make abortions illegal...even in cases of rape and incest. So, if you get violated by a rapist, the woman will have to carry his child to term. Or, if daddy gets your preggers, same deal.

The idea, said legislators, was that the girl could give the child up for adoption even in those cases.

What do you think about this new law? Here are my thoughts.


1. Re: the rape and incest. It seems legislators are so concerned with the unborn child...but what about the mental trauma the girl will be subjected to? :thumdn: :thumdn: Seems that there wasn't enough consideration there.



2. A lot of the abortion debate centers on "when is a fetus considered a live person"? For some, they say the moment the egg is implanted with sperm. Others say after the first trimester. Still others say not until it's kicking and screaming outside the womb.

I'm more in lines with this latter category. I personally view that life begins when the baby has a shot of making it outside of the womb -- i.e. in some cases, a 30 week old pregnancy. However, I would say that a 20 week pregnancy would not count as the fetus would have no chance of survival outside the womb.

However, regardless of my views and yours on when life begins, I don't beleive that even the Supreme Court has ruled when, exactly, life begins...so has South Dakota arbitrarily waded into the fray to say life begins at time of impregnation?



3. Finally, this law troubles me because I do not believe that forcing some people to have kids is in the best interests of society. Basically put, there are some people that just should not have kids. Yes...this really means that they shouldn't be having sex to begin with...but we know that we can't stop that. And by making these people have the kid, then there is a risk that they WON'T give the kid up for adoption even if it's in the best interest of all concerned.

For e.g. some girl gets knocked up by her teenage boyfriend. They haven't even passed grade 10 yet...and yet we say that they have to become parents? How are they possibly capable of raising a child when they are children themselves?

Or what about a crack addict that offers her body for drugs. She gets pregnant...you can't tell me that this person will be a good mom.

Given the possibilities that stem cells may hold for autistic children, or crippled individuals, I would rather see more acceptance of stem cell use from aborted fetus rather than abandoning abortions all together to force some people to be parents.




This is a contentious issue. Please respect the opinions of others when providing your own.

esks4life
03-02-2006, 09:53 AM
Very touchy subject but it's the womans decision. People shouldn't be allowed to tell you how to run your life. All the bleeding hearts out there that think it's the end of the world need to get a life IMO.

This is all I'm saying on the matter. Bitch me out or agree with me. I don't think this topic will be agreed upon.

Esks4ever
03-02-2006, 09:54 AM
:corn:

Opus
03-02-2006, 10:03 AM
touchy subject for sure.

Just to sidestep, yet remain on topic there are likely still pharmacutical alternatives that might be able to bypass this law (which I do not agree with philosophically for many of the reasons listed in the first post).

chickenman23
03-02-2006, 10:25 AM
See my problem is that, ok abortion may not be right in the eyes of God. But what is a woman is drinking, smoking or doing drugs while pregnant. Why can she not be charged with asault causing bodily and most likely mental harm. So people should just not be able to have children, but we force them to. Would it not be better if some crack whore that got knocked up decide to abort the pregnancy then to carry to full term, and either raise the child in a slummy lifestyle. Or give the child up for adoption and make some other family have to live with a child with birth defects because of neglagence.

I believe that it is the womans right to choose and not the governments. We live in a society that is supposed to have seperation of church and state, yet laws keep getting passed that go against this.

Steve Vale
03-02-2006, 10:52 AM
Wonder how many women might take a trip to Minneapolis (or even to Winnipeg). If it wasn't for the Black Hills and Sturgis, would there really be any reason to visit South Dakota?

I always think of George Carlin's line about abortion in situations like this (paraphrased), "Why is it the people most against abortion are the people you wouldn't want to f*ck in the first place?"

esks4life
03-02-2006, 11:08 AM
I always think of George Carlin's line about abortion in situations like this (paraphrased), "Why is it the people most against abortion are the people you wouldn't want to f*ck in the first place?"
:rofl: I remember that. So true...

pizmo
03-02-2006, 11:42 AM
Keep it civil...but I fear this will be locked all too soon.


so has South Dakota arbitrarily waded into the fray to say life begins at time of impregnation?


This is a contentious issue. Please respect the opinions of others when providing your own.It is the womans choice IMHO. If life begins at time of impregnation, then the initial splitting of cells is the beginning of life. This is how cancer begins also.

lloyd
03-02-2006, 12:04 PM
As someone mentioned, if your pro-life and get raped, by all means, take what you see as the moral high ground and dont get an abortion, but back the hell off when others want an abortion. This is private matter and its up to the individual. I have absolutely no problem with those who dont believe in abortions, I respect their opinion, but it disgusted me when they try to impose their views on others. Just as it disgusts me that a state would impose their views on others, in what can be seen as a violation of freedom.
The problem is that this isnt something that you can put to a referendum, because you simply cant listen to the majority but repect the minority, its an all or nothing kind of deal.

Deathsdoorstep
03-02-2006, 12:07 PM
My view is that all abortion is wrong, since I believe that human development begins with conception and ends with death. I also believe that no matter how inconvenient for someone to be pregnant, it is even more inconvenient for a human to die once created. So bravo! South Dakota.

Hard line, I know. But I can't back exception for killing innocents. No matter how its made, that human once made, is still a human.

Uncle Bobby
03-02-2006, 12:15 PM
Very touchy subject but it's the womans decision. People shouldn't be allowed to tell you how to run your life. All the bleeding hearts out there that think it's the end of the world need to get a life IMO.Well, the fact is that the bleeding hearts agree with you.

Banning abortion is a conservative agenda.

chickenman23
03-02-2006, 12:49 PM
My view is that all abortion is wrong, since I believe that human development begins with conception and ends with death. I also believe that no matter how inconvenient for someone to be pregnant, it is even more inconvenient for a human to die once created. So bravo! South Dakota.

Hard line, I know. But I can't back exception for killing innocents. No matter how its made, that human once made, is still a human.


Do you agree with war, because it is basically the same thing innocent people getting killed for no reason.

Also your comment that "No matter how its made." So do you believe in cloning?

Why do people get this special treatment, while at the same time, if I feel that my cat or dog is to sick to live then I have the choice to euthanize? Why are humans so speciual that we can decide when an animal deserves to die, but not if we want to stop a pregnancy?

It is the womans right to choose, not the government/chuches, and it is time for the people of the world to realise this.

Muley69
03-02-2006, 01:10 PM
My view is that all abortion is wrong, since I believe that human development begins with conception and ends with death. I also believe that no matter how inconvenient for someone to be pregnant



Yes...in some cases it IS an inconvenience people get pregnant. No denying that...have sex, get pregnant, it's your responsibility.

But consider these scenarios:

1. You ARE taking birth control. You DON'T want to get pregnant and are using methods to prevent it. But the pill fails or the condom breaks.

Now...abstinence is the best way...but we all know prohibiting something doesn't work.

FYI, I have less support for this scenario.



2. But a legitimate view that I have is in the return to the example of the crack whore. Has no business having a kid, but can't see past her addiction to have a logical thought in the first place. Sleeps with some stain for drug money, gets high all through her term, and delivers a crack-baby.


I simply cannot unilaterally condone a system that fails to bring into consideration what the life of the child to yet-be-born would be like.

I shudder to think that the crack-kid will be born with an addiction and developmental problems. If he's lucky, he becomes a ward of the province...but is shuffled from foster home to foster home, potentially needing expensive medicines to combat whatever screwed up with him/her while in the womb.

It's just plain WRONG to condemn this kid to a lifetime of misery and suffering 'cause we got high and mighty to opine that this kid had to live!




And it also makes me weep to think there are people immobilized in a wheel chair, having been paralyzed by a drunk driver, but laws like the ones in South Dakota would necessarily forbid the development of stem cell research that could lead to the formation of new spinal-column cells, potentially regenerating the dead portions of the body.

So we have a situation of a kid that no one wants, or a mom that can't take care of him....and a person bound for life in a wheel chair with no possibility of hope to walk again.

Talk about lose/lose!




I have a large degree of sympathy to allow the abortion happen (subject to a litmus test of when the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb) but don't just discard it as trash...use it for stem cell development so that there can be positives out of an otherwise negative situation.

Muley69
03-02-2006, 01:12 PM
I also believe that no matter how inconvenient for someone to be pregnant, it is even more inconvenient for a human to die once created.


Is it the wrong time to point out you supported the war on terror / war on Iraq / etc.??? People died in those conflicts...and you supported the administration leading the cavalcade into those regions!


Your support of those initiatives and comments above appear inconsistent.

Steve Vale
03-02-2006, 02:07 PM
Didn't a comedian say that if it were men that had to get the abortion or the pill, it'd be advertised far and wide 24/7 and fully covered by any medical plan - with complementary Viagra thrown in.

I do find it interesting that a lot of conservatives (often under the guise of libertarianism) who supposedly distrust the government, don't mind having a government tell a women what she should do with her uterus. :scratch:

Thrust
03-02-2006, 02:36 PM
Hypothetically speaking, She is raped by an idividual with HIV. Not only does she have to live with the physical, and mental damages for the rest of her life, she now has her life shortened, and carries an unborn fetus from a rapist with HIV. All three lives are ruined. Two of them, not by choice. Why should she not have the right to end the chain of suffering, and sickness? Why should "society" also condem her to live with the results of the traumatizing event?

just asking...

lloyd
03-02-2006, 03:08 PM
By the way, if one was to take the bible literally, fetuses arent alive for the first 18 days, as life is in the blood.

Deathsdoorstep
03-02-2006, 03:12 PM
Do you agree with war, because it is basically the same thing innocent people getting killed for no reason.

Also your comment that "No matter how its made." So do you believe in cloning?

Why do people get this special treatment, while at the same time, if I feel that my cat or dog is to sick to live then I have the choice to euthanize? Why are humans so speciual that we can decide when an animal deserves to die, but not if we want to stop a pregnancy?

It is the womans right to choose, not the government/chuches, and it is time for the people of the world to realise this.

Yes, I agree with war whern warranted. That doesn't conflict with my opposition to abortion. No I don't agree with cloning, but once its done, killing that clone would be wrong, even if it was wrong to make it in the first place.

With respect to mercy killing, abortion doesn't fit. That human in the woumb isn't suffering.

Deathsdoorstep
03-02-2006, 03:13 PM
Is it the wrong time to point out you supported the war on terror / war on Iraq / etc.??? People died in those conflicts...and you supported the administration leading the cavalcade into those regions!


Your support of those initiatives and comments above appear inconsistent.

Point that out all you want. I see a difference between military casualties and murder.

Traxy
03-02-2006, 03:28 PM
jcr, Just wondering if you still support the war now, knowing what we know (no WMDs, no al Qaeda ties to Iraq, etc.)?

As far as the anti-abortion thing goes, it doesn't surprise me in the least. The US continually retreats into the dark ages while the rest of the western world moves towards more enlightened liberal positions (gay unions, de-criminalization of pot, etc.). I'll take the Bill Hicks position that "a person is not a person until you're in my phone book." Its unfortunate that the religious right feels the need to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

Traxy
03-02-2006, 03:30 PM
Point that out all you want. I see a difference between military casualties and murder.

Going to war based on half-truths and outright lies qualifies as murder, does it not? Over 30,000 Iraqi civillians dead through no choice of their own qualifies as murder in my book.

Deathsdoorstep
03-02-2006, 03:33 PM
Going to war based on half-truths and outright lies qualifies as murder, does it not? Over 30,000 Iraqi civillians dead through no choice of their own qualifies as murder in my book.

No it does not. Plus, I don't think that Bush lied, and I agreed with going to Iraq. Civilians die in war. That's unfortunate. But its not murder.

Traxy
03-02-2006, 03:41 PM
No it does not. Plus, I don't think that Bush lied, and I agreed with going to Iraq. Civilians die in war. That's unfortunate. But its not murder.

Hmmmm, how can you agree with a war after the main justification for going in has been proven false? Not only that, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the Bush administration cherry picked evidence that supported their position and ignored the multitudes of evidence that did not. You agree with the war despite:

1. The doctored intel (Downing Street memo, fake Niger Yellowcake claims, BS aluminum tubes argument)
2. Kicking out UN weapons inspectors before they were finished doing their job.
3. Multiple ex-Iraqi scientists now stating that the weapons program had been dismantled for years.
4. The torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghraib
5. 30,000 dead civillians (and that is the low end of the estimates)
6. The fact that terrorism has INCREASED since the start of the war.
7. A looming civil war in Iraq.
8. Infrastructure that is nowhere near being restored.

Hell, only 30% of Americans still support the war. How can you possibly have that position and keep a straight face?

Sgt. Nuke
03-02-2006, 04:25 PM
K, we're getting TOTALLY off topic here.

I can't believe this one has made it so far and stayed civil... :p

Let me outline a few things.
The essence of this debate is specifically this.
When does life begin?
If one believes it begins at birth, then yes, there's nothing wrong with abortion.
If one believes that it begins at conception or at some other point during the pregnancy, then yes, there is a problem with abortion. Because that makes it nothing less then murder.
Solve this debate, and you have solved the abortion issue.
As for seperation of church and state, that's not a valid argument. Because "when life begins" is a scientific fact, not a religious preference. If a child is undeniably alive, then to end that life is murder.

Comparing abortion to war is a bit ridiculous.
War is SUPPOSED to leave civilians alone. In an ideal war, (if there is such a thing) only those who have chosen to fight should be in the line of fire. Any civilian death is an absolute tragedy and should be, if intentional, prosecuted with murder charges. An unborn child is not an armed combatant. And if you believe that life begins before birth, there is no difference between abortion vs. killing a child that is 3 days old.

Personally, I believe that life begins at conception. I believe the difference between humans and animals is that humans have a soul; a portion of their existence that lives forever. I will admit that I develop this belief system from positions held by religious tradition and what is found in almost EVERY religious system in the world. If you want to debate religion, start another thread.

But one cannot deny the fact that an unborn child responds to certain stimulus. It's a documented fact that unborn children recognize specific voices and sounds. They have the ability to feel pain. They move. I'm not sure what criteria one establishes for the validity of life, if one says that life begins upon birth.

As to the concern of rape and incest, I would agree. They are tragic. But life is a blessing. If it's not a blessing to the mother, that child will become a blessing to a person who is unable to conceive. And while it may not be convenient or part of one's plan, one can take a bad situation and make it good.

I understand there are difficulties with every position. But I'd rather error on the side of life, then on the option.

Before you disagree with me, please take the time to read this carefully and don't make assumptions that I have not made.

Muley69
03-02-2006, 04:47 PM
As to the concern of rape and incest, I would agree. They are tragic. But life is a blessing. If it's not a blessing to the mother, that child will become a blessing to a person who is unable to conceive. And while it may not be convenient or part of one's plan, one can take a bad situation and make it good.

I understand there are difficulties with every position. But I'd rather error on the side of life, then on the option.

Before you disagree with me, please take the time to read this carefully and don't make assumptions that I have not made.



Rape and Incest:

I know no woman that has been raped. But I can't even begin to imagine what kind of screw job it does on your pysche.

And it appalls me even more that we'd force the raped women to relive that horror every single day by making her look down at her belly and see the baby -- the seed of the rapist that brutalized her -- growing in her belly.

Now, no doubt...some women MAY want to bring that kid to term. But not all will...so why force them to? We talk about abortion being cruel and unusual to the fetus...but what about the cruelty to the person forced to birth that child!



Quality of Life of the Child.

If some arsehole knocks up a bunch or women, or some slut sleeps with a lot of men, indiscrimantly, then it's not a stretch to say that person won't be a good parent!

So to force these people to become parents is wrong -- or at least, you're not doing anyone any favors, least of all the child -- if it turns out that the childs' life could is miserable if they don't get the care, love, and attention that honest and good parents should be giving.

Why are we so quick to say "the fetus must live" and then take no care, responsibility, or afterthought on the next question: Okay...so the baby was born. Now what...

And take this further. Lets say the negligent parents "do the right thing" and actually give the kid up for adoption. I know SO many adopted kids that are emotionally unstable because they want to know why their original mommy and daddy didn't want them!

How does that kind of emotional turmoil justify forcing someone into giving them life?




There is no blanket policy that can apply, which is why I support choice.

Besides, as the architect identifies in the Matrix, the "problem" with the Matrix WAS the fact that humans needed choice! :p :p

56Parkies
03-02-2006, 04:55 PM
I know no woman that has been raped. But I can't even begin to imagine what kind of screw job it does on your pysche.
I don't want to wade too deeply into this whole minefield, but wanted to say this on the topic: You might be surprised how many women you know that have been raped and/or abused. It's likely they'll never tell you about it, and it's one crime against a person that the majority will go unpunished..

chickenman23
03-02-2006, 05:03 PM
No it does not. Plus, I don't think that Bush lied, and I agreed with going to Iraq. Civilians die in war. That's unfortunate. But its not murder.


So to what you are saying, what Hitler did to the Jewish people of Europe was not murder but just a casualty of war. How can you claim that killing inocent people is just a casualty of war. They are not involved in the war, they are bystandards.

Back on to topic though. Abortion is a choice to be made in the situation which it is warranted. Why can you JCR tell some woman that she has to go to full term with a child. What if she has a medical problem, and may risk losing her life plus the childs if she carries out the pregnancy.

If the government can tell people what to do with thier sex life then sign me up. I think you should have to pass a competency test before you can have children, but that may be strewed as discrimination. Let the women who has the child chose what she wants to do and stay out of her life.

Muley69
03-02-2006, 05:31 PM
I don't want to wade too deeply into this whole minefield, but wanted to say this on the topic: You might be surprised how many women you know that have been raped and/or abused. It's likely they'll never tell you about it, and it's one crime against a person that the majority will go unpunished..



Sadly, that is too true.

MoneyGuy
03-02-2006, 05:45 PM
My view is that all abortion is wrong, since I believe that human development begins with conception and ends with death. I also believe that no matter how inconvenient for someone to be pregnant, it is even more inconvenient for a human to die once created. So bravo! South Dakota.

Hard line, I know. But I can't back exception for killing innocents. No matter how its made, that human once made, is still a human.

JCR needs some help here so I'll says that I also believe that life begins at the time of conception and that abortion is wrong under any circumstances. Okay, flame me if you want. I'm a little surprised that there is someone else on this site who agrees with this position (haven't read all the posts yet so maybe there is someone else). A human life is a human life and taking it is wrong, IMO.

Deathsdoorstep
03-02-2006, 06:20 PM
So to what you are saying, what Hitler did to the Jewish people of Europe was not murder but just a casualty of war. How can you claim that killing inocent people is just a casualty of war. They are not involved in the war, they are bystandards.

Back on to topic though. Abortion is a choice to be made in the situation which it is warranted. Why can you JCR tell some woman that she has to go to full term with a child. What if she has a medical problem, and may risk losing her life plus the childs if she carries out the pregnancy.

If the government can tell people what to do with thier sex life then sign me up. I think you should have to pass a competency test before you can have children, but that may be strewed as discrimination. Let the women who has the child chose what she wants to do and stay out of her life.

Nice sophestry. What Hitler did was murder. What the allies did to the Nazis was not. Big difference. But if you can't see that, then I'm not the one to teach you.

You disagreed with invading Iraq, fine. You think Bush is a murderer. Fine. I don't. And since I don't, my view on abortion is consistent with my views on war.

Sgt. Nuke
03-02-2006, 06:38 PM
Rape and Incest:

I know no woman that has been raped. But I can't even begin to imagine what kind of screw job it does on your pysche.

And it appalls me even more that we'd force the raped women to relive that horror every single day by making her look down at her belly and see the baby -- the seed of the rapist that brutalized her -- growing in her belly.

Now, no doubt...some women MAY want to bring that kid to term. But not all will...so why force them to? We talk about abortion being cruel and unusual to the fetus...but what about the cruelty to the person forced to birth that child!



Quality of Life of the Child.

If some arsehole knocks up a bunch or women, or some slut sleeps with a lot of men, indiscrimantly, then it's not a stretch to say that person won't be a good parent!

So to force these people to become parents is wrong -- or at least, you're not doing anyone any favors, least of all the child -- if it turns out that the childs' life could is miserable if they don't get the care, love, and attention that honest and good parents should be giving.

Why are we so quick to say "the fetus must live" and then take no care, responsibility, or afterthought on the next question: Okay...so the baby was born. Now what...

And take this further. Lets say the negligent parents "do the right thing" and actually give the kid up for adoption. I know SO many adopted kids that are emotionally unstable because they want to know why their original mommy and daddy didn't want them!

How does that kind of emotional turmoil justify forcing someone into giving them life?




There is no blanket policy that can apply, which is why I support choice.

Besides, as the architect identifies in the Matrix, the "problem" with the Matrix WAS the fact that humans needed choice! :p :p

Re: Quality of life:

There's a lot of adults out there who have taken troubled childhoods and made some pretty amazing lives out of them. There's a lot of adults out there who had perfect childhoods and are very screwed up individuals. If we want to talk "Matrix," I'd say it's a lot more controlling to say "you're probably going to be screwed up anyways, so we're not going to give you a chance to live."

Re: Rape

This is all irrelevant if you believe the unborn child is a human being. If they are a human being, which I believe, they are not simply the "product" of a rape. They are a truly innocent human being. Killing them to eliminate memories, no matter how HORRIFIC they may be, is not justified.

This debate will go on and on, simply because the debate misses the point, on if the child is a person or not.

Sgt. Nuke
03-02-2006, 06:42 PM
So to what you are saying, what Hitler did to the Jewish people of Europe was not murder but just a casualty of war. How can you claim that killing inocent people is just a casualty of war. They are not involved in the war, they are bystandards.

Back on to topic though. Abortion is a choice to be made in the situation which it is warranted. Why can you JCR tell some woman that she has to go to full term with a child. What if she has a medical problem, and may risk losing her life plus the childs if she carries out the pregnancy.

If the government can tell people what to do with thier sex life then sign me up. I think you should have to pass a competency test before you can have children, but that may be strewed as discrimination. Let the women who has the child chose what she wants to do and stay out of her life.

This discussion will last a lot longer if you skip over the rhetoric and the fallacious arguments. He NOWHERE claimed that killing INNOCENT people is just a casualty of war. That was your entirely unjustified assumption.

You go on to give a circumstance where you feel abortion is justified, that is a fraction of a percentage of pregnancies.

You then say that the government should give a competency test to determine who should be allowed to have children. Why? Because you don't want children to get "messed up" by incompetent parent. But you think it's OK for those same parents to take the life of an unwanted child?

Think your position through before you blast away at others.

chickenman23
03-02-2006, 07:51 PM
This discussion will last a lot longer if you skip over the rhetoric and the fallacious arguments. He NOWHERE claimed that killing INNOCENT people is just a casualty of war. That was your entirely unjustified assumption.

You go on to give a circumstance where you feel abortion is justified, that is a fraction of a percentage of pregnancies.

You then say that the government should give a competency test to determine who should be allowed to have children. Why? Because you don't want children to get "messed up" by incompetent parent. But you think it's OK for those same parents to take the life of an unwanted child?

Think your position through before you blast away at others.

He made the point that the thousands of people that needlessly died were just a casualty of war. That is what I based that on.

If there weren't those circumstances then yes I would agree that abortion is wrong, but they exist. Hence why a woman should have the right to choose.

The comment about the compentancy test was to point out that if they can decide whether or not you continue a pregnancy then why shouldn't they have a right to say who can and can't have a pregnancy. If they are going to control on thing in a womans life then why not control everything.

chickenman23
03-02-2006, 07:55 PM
Nice sophestry. What Hitler did was murder. What the allies did to the Nazis was not. Big difference. But if you can't see that, then I'm not the one to teach you.

You disagreed with invading Iraq, fine. You think Bush is a murderer. Fine. I don't. And since I don't, my view on abortion is consistent with my views on war.

But wht Bush did was murder too, he sent his troops in to kill people, with absolutely no reason. That is murder. What the allies did to the Nazis is what war is, they killed the people they were actually after. They didn't say, hey he is an Arab, lets kill him because he is a terrorist.

But this whole debate has nothing to do with war, it has to do with abortion. So lets end the war debate, and in reality, lets just end this whole debate, because we all have our own views and it will never be resolved in a sensible manner.

earl2
03-02-2006, 08:35 PM
JCR needs some help here so I'll says that I also believe that life begins at the time of conception and that abortion is wrong under any circumstances. Okay, flame me if you want. I'm a little surprised that there is someone else on this site who agrees with this position (haven't read all the posts yet so maybe there is someone else). A human life is a human life and taking it is wrong, IMO.
I agree. To me, since I believe life begins at conception, abortion is no different than killing a four year old. I also believe a woman has a right to choose. But her right to make choices ends where that babies right to live begins.
I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this issue, just as no one will change mine. But I will say that Sgt. Nukes original post in this thread was excellent. Well thought out and well said.

esklover
03-02-2006, 09:36 PM
I feel that as a woman, I should voice my opinion here...

First of all, I feel that I should say that I am pro-choice. I am a spiritual person, but do not belong to any specific denomination nor do I attend church. I have never been raped or abused, but have many close friends who have been - but none that have become pregnant as a result of their terror. I have no children, but I have been pregnant. I believe that life neither begins at conception or at birth. I believe that for each fetus, the spiritual being arrives at no specified time - but when it does, the mother knows...

That said...I would have to agree that although it may be true that life is a blessing, how would imposing upon the life of a woman for nine months and then taking a child who was unwanted by her in the first place and giving that baby to a couple unable to conceive be any better. In effect you are compromising the life of that woman. Sure, there are probably woman who could do this and see it as a gift, but for many others - I would think that it would be a painful and tragic reminder. Let us say that the woman who was impregnated through rape was married and had a career...not only is this now affecting her life and opportunities, but those of her husband and her children if she had any. Most of the women I know plan their pregnancies to work for their lives - not all woman even want children. Why should somebody vicious and cruel be given the power to make these choices for them? I feel that especially in the case of rape - that the woman should have the CHOICE to do what is best for her.

For those women who choose abortion for reasons completely different from rape, I truly believe that they have that right. Mistakes are made, accidents happen, not everything is planned... a woman in Alberta has the right to make the choice to take whatever action that she feels would be her best interest. A woman must take into account her situation and how she will have someone to be responsible for the rest of her life - even if she were to give it up for adoption, which would be a noble and brave choice, it will dramatically effect her life. Not that having an abortion would not, but the effects are generally easier to deal with then having to figure out how to emotionally, financially and spiritually support a child. Men are not always reliable, relationships don't always work out...you cannot bank on the fact that they will be around to help you. A woman does not have that option.

I understand that this makes abortion seem like the easy 'out' to fix a problem. I don't believe that at all. I believe strongly that abortion is NOT a form of birth control. It is a VERY serious matter - and should not be taken lightly. It is sometimes a pretty easy decision to have sex, but the consequences are real - pregnancy is REAL. I just feel that we all make mistakes for whatever reason...we are human. It just seems that if a woman becomes pregnant unexpectedly that she should have the CHOICE to do what she feels will be best for her. If that choice is to end the pregnancy, which some woman are going to do - I believe that they should have a safe, and proper outlet to exercise that choice. Woman should be provided with clean facilities with adequate counseling, support and information. By outlawing it woman will inevitably turn to options that are far more dangerous.

I think that is all I have to say on this...

EskiPhenom
03-02-2006, 09:41 PM
Great post, EL. I agree with everything you've laid out there. :thup:

Esksgurl
03-02-2006, 09:44 PM
I feel that as a woman, I should voice my opinion here...

First of all, I feel that I should say that I am pro-choice. I am a spiritual person, but do not belong to any specific denomination nor do I attend church. I have never been raped or abused, but have many close friends who have been - but none that have become pregnant as a result of their terror. I have no children, but I have been pregnant. I believe that life neither begins at conception or at birth. I believe that for each fetus, the spiritual being arrives at no specified time - but when it does, the mother knows...

That said...I would have to agree that although it may be true that life is a blessing, how would imposing upon the life of a woman for nine months and then taking a child who was unwanted by her in the first place and giving that baby to a couple unable to conceive be any better. In effect you are compromising the life of that woman. Sure, there are probably woman who could do this and see it as a gift, but for many others - I would think that it would be a painful and tragic reminder. Let us say that the woman who was impregnated through rape was married and had a career...not only is this now affecting her life and opportunities, but those of her husband and her children if she had any. Most of the women I know plan their pregnancies to work for their lives - not all woman even want children. Why should somebody vicious and cruel be given the power to make these choices for them? I feel that especially in the case of rape - that the woman should have the CHOICE to do what is best for her.

For those women who choose abortion for reasons completely different from rape, I truly believe that they have that right. Mistakes are made, accidents happen, not everything is planned... a woman in Alberta has the right to make the choice to take whatever action that she feels would be her best interest. A woman must take into account her situation and how she will have someone to be responsible for the rest of her life - even if she were to give it up for adoption, which would be a noble and brave choice, it will dramatically effect her life. Not that having an abortion would not, but the effects are generally easier to deal with then having to figure out how to emotionally, financially and spiritually support a child. Men are not always reliable, relationships don't always work out...you cannot bank on the fact that they will be around to help you. A woman does not have that option.

I understand that this makes abortion seem like the easy 'out' to fix a problem. I don't believe that at all. I believe strongly that abortion is NOT a form of birth control. It is a VERY serious matter - and should not be taken lightly. It is sometimes a pretty easy decision to have sex, but the consequences are real - pregnancy is REAL. I just feel that we all make mistakes for whatever reason...we are human. It just seems that if a woman becomes pregnant unexpectedly that she should have the CHOICE to do what she feels will be best for her. If that choice is to end the pregnancy, which some woman are going to do - I believe that they should have a safe, and proper outlet to exercise that choice. Woman should be provided with clean facilities with adequate counseling, support and information. By outlawing it woman will inevitably turn to options that are far more dangerous.

I think that is all I have to say on this...



Excellent post EL. As a woman I have to agree with everything said here. :thup:

Deathsdoorstep
03-02-2006, 09:45 PM
EL,

I respect your viw, but have real issues with it. IF (and for many this is a BIG if) life begins at conception, then no circumstance can make abortion ethical, no matter how cruel or inconvenient it is for the woman.

Muley69
03-02-2006, 09:51 PM
I agree with EVERYTHING you say, EL.

There is no one solution that works for everyone, at all times. Which is way forcing through this legislation is wrong.


Sgt Nuke I pray that no one you know gets raped and gets impregnated by it. It is a fate worse than death to saddle someone with the responsibility of the child when they neither planned for it, nor have the capability to raise and care for it, and even worse if they are forced every single day to be reminded HOW you got in the situation of being a parent in the first place.

I shudder to think that society would, in fact, be so cruel and sadistic.

Esksgurl
03-02-2006, 09:51 PM
Ok here is an example.................

A woman conceives.... wants to carry that child. Unfortunately due to circumstances beyond control the fetus dies and she doesn't miscarry. She is told to carry for nine months or abort. How cruel is that. To carry a child that is no longer living because her way out is taken out of her hands.

This is an extremely touchy issue. It's easy enough for people to say what they do , until they are placed into that situation.

I think the right is the woman's, NOT the laws. I don't agree with it as EL said as a form of birth control. It is a HEAVY decision for a woman to make. That decision will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

Steve Vale
03-02-2006, 09:52 PM
But wht Bush did was murder too, he sent his troops in to kill people, with absolutely no reason. That is murder. What the allies did to the Nazis is what war is, they killed the people they were actually after. They didn't say, hey he is an Arab, lets kill him because he is a terrorist.

I wonder if our attitudes toward war would be different in N. America if we'd actually have to have fight them on our own soil. I don't find it surprising that Europe & Japan tend to be much more pacifistic. The city I studied German in (Kassel) was one of the 3 extreme firebombed cities in WW2 (10,000 dead in one night in firestorms - a lot of residential collateral damage for planned destruction of locomotive/tank & propeller works).

Hegemonic aims have always led to 'extra-curricular' invasions throughout history, and the general civilian has almost always been a loser.

As for the abortion issue...I do find it frustrating that conservative men somehow believe they know what's best for a women and her uterus. Would the same men stand for legislation that men must have vasectomies? If a raped or incested mother is forced to bring a fetus to term, or if she's HIV positive is that ethical and fair to infect the child to meet the law?

Abortion didn't seem to be a huge issue in America until the Roe v Wade case? You can't tell me that women in previous decades didn't have abotions, so why the shrill outrage over the last 30+ years?

A woman's body can naturally miscarry, is that next on the legislative table since she "ended" the life of a child? Will there be a coathanger tracking system - to make sure that a women doesn't scrape her uterus herself? (Sorry that was the Hunter Thompson in me speaking out).

Are we somewhat special as humans - since we are supposedly the only soul capable animals - while it appears that other hominids possess remorse, soul and the ability to kill others?

Listening to George Carlin, he raises a few questions/points:
"How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken it's an omlette?"
"If a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them?"
"If a fetus is a human being, how come if there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral?"
"If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have 2 children and one on the way" instead of saying "we have 3 children"?"
"People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process"

Huge props to everyone here for keeping the debate civil, and for the respect of each other. Though I disagree with some of the viewpoints, I am proud of ideals that people fought for so that we can have the ability to disagree.

Muley69
03-02-2006, 10:00 PM
EL,

I respect your viw, but have real issues with it. IF (and for many this is a BIG if) life begins at conception, then no circumstance can make abortion ethical, no matter how cruel or inconvenient it is for the woman.


But that's the thing...why do people think this? (Seriously, I'm interested).

I've always thought that sentient life would be a trigger point...but, of course, we can't "measure" this yet in a fetus. So the next step back is "what can it survive on it's own outside the fetus".

And, given advances of modern medicine, I'd willing contend that "survive on its own" means the use of incubators, respirators, etc.




I'm sorry for the crudeness, but if you were to try to remove a fetus after 12 weeks, the thing -- and it truly is a thing at that point (it takes 18 - 20 weeks to develope into a female or male) -- will not survive. Under any circumstances.

Organs have not developed -- indeed, what stage is the brain development at? From what I've read, at that point in a justation, cognition is not possible because the brain hasn't developed to the point necessary to sustain life.

As a man of science, and a reasonably spiritual person (but not religious), I cannot under any circumstance state that it's life. I'm sorry, but it's not (beyond anything but your notion of spiritual).



And that becomes the crux of the argument, doesn't it? It's not a science thing to say that life begins at conception...clearly science doesn't support that notion. Only spirituality will.

But your spirituality isn't mine...so to try to impose that kind of thinking on the rest of the populace -- without giving any choice in the matter -- is not the way human kind has been hardwired and evolved, IMO.

Esksgurl
03-02-2006, 10:08 PM
EL,

I respect your viw, but have real issues with it. IF (and for many this is a BIG if) life begins at conception, then no circumstance can make abortion ethical, no matter how cruel or inconvenient it is for the woman.


Sorry to be graphic here.

So if you were a woman............ gun or knife ( whatever ) held to your head, raped and perhaps beaten. You would have no problems carrying a child to term to either give it up or have as your own???? You would be able to love that child unconditionally with NO reminders of the events that conceived that child. Well then you have to be one of the STRONGEST people on this earth, to be able to move on from a traumatic experience like that.

I have to agree with all EL's points and I like her think I am done with saying any more. I can only say her post and those of a few others here pretty much says it all for me.

Traxy
03-02-2006, 10:10 PM
See, this is where the debate becomes a religious one. Does the soul exist? I personally don't think so, so to me a fetus is simply a clump of cells. To people who believe in the existence of the soul, this becomes an issue of murder. My question to the spiritual folk is this: would a cloned human being have a soul? If we can create a human being in a lab, can science create a soul as well? If human beings are capable of existing without a soul, would that not make religion a bit...well...irellevant?

Steve Vale
03-02-2006, 10:38 PM
See, this is where the debate becomes a religious one. Does the soul exist? I personally don't think so, so to me a fetus is simply a clump of cells. To people who believe in the existence of the soul, this becomes an issue of murder. My question to the spiritual folk is this: would a cloned human being have a soul? If we can create a human being in a lab, can science create a soul as well? If human beings are capable of existing without a soul, would that not make religion a bit...well...irellevant?
I saw your comments about religion, and felt compelled to share this cartoon from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:


<img src="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060222/cartoon20060222.gif">
And yes, it's a satire of fundamentalism - nothing directed to people here ;)

Sgt. Nuke
03-02-2006, 10:42 PM
I'm sorry for the crudeness, but if you were to try to remove a fetus after 12 weeks, the thing -- and it truly is a thing at that point (it takes 18 - 20 weeks to develope into a female or male) -- will not survive. Under any circumstances.

Organs have not developed -- indeed, what stage is the brain development at? From what I've read, at that point in a justation, cognition is not possible because the brain hasn't developed to the point necessary to sustain life.

As a man of science, and a reasonably spiritual person (but not religious), I cannot under any circumstance state that it's life. I'm sorry, but it's not (beyond anything but your notion of spiritual).



And that becomes the crux of the argument, doesn't it? It's not a science thing to say that life begins at conception...clearly science doesn't support that notion. Only spirituality will.

But your spirituality isn't mine...so to try to impose that kind of thinking on the rest of the populace -- without giving any choice in the matter -- is not the way human kind has been hardwired and evolved, IMO.


And HERE, we get to the crux of the issue.

First off...don't label me as a Conservative man who thinks he controls a woman's uterus. Not saying anyone has labeled me that...but just in case anyone gets that idea.

Second...I respect EG's and EL's opinion more then most on here because they have a vested interesting in this. I'll address both of their arguments respectively.

EL (sorry...Kim :p): I have a tough time arguing with your concept of when a fetus becomes a human being. Honestly, it's as subjective an argument as mine, when I say that it begins at conception. So I have no argument. However, in regards to your argument of a child being an inconvenience, whether it's caused by a rape or simply an unplanned pregnancy, I agree. But it's 9 months of inconvenience. Granted, if the child is the result of a rape, it's nine months of reminder. But I would imagine that an event as horrific as a rape would be remembered for years and even decades. I understand that even the child would remind the woman of what was done to her. Which is why I think that the victim should have the absolute utmost in support and care that is humanly available to her. And I cannot stress this enough. However, rape is not the only case that EL mentioned. And whether it is rape or not, I would say that 9 months of inconvenience is a far lesser price then no life at all. What difference is there, then, for a mother who drowns her one year old because she was not ready to be a mother? It's a slippery moral slope. Keep in mind...this response was directed SPECIFICALLY to EL's response. I'm not implying that anyone else was suggesting something that would lead to this.

To Esksgurl:


A woman conceives.... wants to carry that child. Unfortunately due to circumstances beyond control the fetus dies and she doesn't miscarry. She is told to carry for nine months or abort. How cruel is that. To carry a child that is no longer living because her way out is taken out of her hands.


That's not an abortion...that's a DNC. Similiar procedure. Drastically different moral ramifications.




So if you were a woman............ gun or knife ( whatever ) held to your head, raped and perhaps beaten. You would have no problems carrying a child to term to either give it up or have as your own???? You would be able to love that child unconditionally with NO reminders of the events that conceived that child. Well then you have to be one of the STRONGEST people on this earth, to be able to move on from a traumatic experience like that.


I would never say that it is no problem. I would never say that I could love the child unconditionally with no reminders. But because the events that caused the conception are not the fault of the childs, I don't see how they can pay the price.

I'll tell you what...I'm in favor of the death penalty for rapists. In fact, if we want to go back to religion here, the Bible itself prescribes death for rapists. But it's the rapist that should pay. Not the child.

Now to a few others who had good points...

Traxy:


Does the soul exist? I personally don't think so, so to me a fetus is simply a clump of cells.


So following your belief system, what gives value to ANYONE? At what point does ANYONE become more then a clump of cells?

To Steve:


A woman's body can naturally miscarry, is that next on the legislative table since she "ended" the life of a child? Will there be a coathanger tracking system - to make sure that a women doesn't scrape her uterus herself? (Sorry that was the Hunter Thompson in me speaking out).


I'm sure you realize the problems with this analogy. But it's a dangerous one, because it appeals to people's emotions but is logically inaccurate.

But I'd totally join you in giving props to all who are engaged in this discussion. The utmost respect has been shown on a HOTLY contested issue, which speaks to the calibre of the posters. I wouldn't even BOTHER joining this discussion on most forums.

Traxy
03-02-2006, 11:05 PM
So following your belief system, what gives value to ANYONE? At what point does ANYONE become more then a clump of cells?

I honestly wish I could answer that, but having no faith doesn't provide me with any easy answers. If pressed, I'd say that once a fetus is capable of survival outside the womb it has become a human being. No one ever becomes anything more than decaying matter at any rate.

Oh, and I don't have a belief system, I have lack of belief. I know it seems like parsing words, but for some reason seems more truthful to me to say it that way.

Steve Vale
03-02-2006, 11:11 PM
To Steve:


I'm sure you realize the problems with this analogy. But it's a dangerous one, because it appeals to people's emotions but is logically inaccurate.


Nuke: I absolutely see the problems with the analogy, and I should have put an :rolleyes: at the end, because I was being totally ostentatious and sarcastically absurd to show an extreme path where it could go. However, given the environment in the US right now, I would not put it past someone to come up with some similar law (sometimes it feels like watching a 3-ring circus when US politics is on).

I wasn't insinuating you're a conservative wanting to control a woman's uterus (nor other posters) - rather the SD lawmakers.

I thought about this when I left to drop some mail in the mailbox a half hour ago. There are documented cases of governments forcing women to have abortions or sterilization - and they're horrific. Can we honestly say that this law and its controlling effect on women is altogether that different?

esklover
03-02-2006, 11:21 PM
EL,

I respect your viw, but have real issues with it. IF (and for many this is a BIG if) life begins at conception, then no circumstance can make abortion ethical, no matter how cruel or inconvenient it is for the woman.



EL (sorry...Kim :p): I have a tough time arguing with your concept of when a fetus becomes a human being. Honestly, it's as subjective an argument as mine, when I say that it begins at conception.



Huge props to everyone here for keeping the debate civil, and for the respect of each other. Though I disagree with some of the viewpoints, I am proud of ideals that people fought for so that we can have the ability to disagree.

I just wanted to say that I am in agreement with jcr and Nuke and many of you that we are probably going to agree to disagree on this very personal debate. I realize that we all grow up with differing beliefs and ideals - that is what is great about living in a free country. It would be a pretty terrible world to live in if we did not have the right to such opinions...

Life affects each of us in very specific ways and that is what makes each of us special and who we are. That is what I love about this site...we all bring something a little different to the table. That said, I must concur with SV on the fact that it I am thoroughly impressed of the level of maturity that everyone has taken with this very hot topic. I must admit that I was a little afraid when Muley posted it. I feel very strongly about my take on this topic and was afraid to voice my opinion. I appreciate that I felt that the forum allowed me to do so without discrimination.

Thank you.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 12:13 AM
Nuke: I absolutely see the problems with the analogy, and I should have put an :rolleyes: at the end, because I was being totally ostentatious and sarcastically absurd to show an extreme path where it could go. However, given the environment in the US right now, I would not put it past someone to come up with some similar law (sometimes it feels like watching a 3-ring circus when US politics is on).

I wasn't insinuating you're a conservative wanting to control a woman's uterus (nor other posters) - rather the SD lawmakers.

I thought about this when I left to drop some mail in the mailbox a half hour ago. There are documented cases of governments forcing women to have abortions or sterilization - and they're horrific. Can we honestly say that this law and its controlling effect on women is altogether that different?

No worries...and I didn't think you were insinuating anything...just wanted to "head that one off at the pass."

Which brings us to Westerns.
Which brings us to livestock.
Which will likely bring E4L.
Which will likely lighten up a very serious topic. :D

Good discussion, all! :thup:

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 12:38 AM
No worries...and I didn't think you were insinuating anything...just wanted to "head that one off at the pass."

Which brings us to Westerns.
Which brings us to livestock.
Which will likely bring E4L.
Which will likely lighten up a very serious topic. :D

Good discussion, all! :thup:
Nice job to try to derail the thread...
But there's nothing to be 'sheepish' about - we had a great discussion (pun provider as it appears TT is nowhere to be found) :D

earl2
03-03-2006, 06:31 AM
I have to say this is the most respectful, well thought out discussion on this issue I've ever witnessed. Thanks to all of you who have/are participating.

To re-state what Nuke had said before, I find it hard to claim life doesn't begin at conception when science has proven that the fetus can move under it's own power, the fetus has a heartbeat, can feel pain. To me, that's life.
My opposition to abortion stems from a religious background, but for me, it goes beyond religion. It's based equally on science.

I just wish that all people in this country could sit down and talk about issues the way that it's been handled here; contstructively and respectully. For me, the protesters and slogans on both sides of the fence aren't helping anyone understand the issues any better.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 07:30 AM
I have to say this is the most respectful, well thought out discussion on this issue I've ever witnessed. Thanks to all of you who have/are participating.

To re-state what Nuke had said before, I find it hard to claim life doesn't begin at conception when science has proven that the fetus can move under it's own power, the fetus has a heartbeat, can feel pain. To me, that's life.
My opposition to abortion stems from a religious background, but for me, it goes beyond religion. It's based equally on science.

I just wish that all people in this country could sit down and talk about issues the way that it's been handled here; contstructively and respectully. For me, the protesters and slogans on both sides of the fence aren't helping anyone understand the issues any better.
:thup: I think the problem is that protesters from opposing sides don't have the ability to rep each other :lol:

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 07:54 AM
Sorry to be graphic here.

So if you were a woman............ gun or knife ( whatever ) held to your head, raped and perhaps beaten. You would have no problems carrying a child to term to either give it up or have as your own???? You would be able to love that child unconditionally with NO reminders of the events that conceived that child. Well then you have to be one of the STRONGEST people on this earth, to be able to move on from a traumatic experience like that.

I have to agree with all EL's points and I like her think I am done with saying any more. I can only say her post and those of a few others here pretty much says it all for me.

And to someone who believes that life begins at conception, murder is easier?

Opus
03-03-2006, 08:30 AM
And to someone who believes that life begins at conception, murder is easier?
let me ask you yourself (as I've never understood this from the life begins at conception crowd).

What are your views on pulling the plug on someone who has become brain dead?


*Let me explain further, there are some who will take the more scientific approach to when a fetus becomes sentient and go by the start of brain wave activity. Others may go from the time that the fetus passes beyond the point when the fetus no longer requires direct support to survive.

Now to this end, by outlawing abortions from the point of conception you are essentially forcing support of a non-functioning embryo.

Why then would we extend a different set of values to someone who has lived or breathed and then lost their brain activity?

MoneyGuy
03-03-2006, 08:30 AM
I've weighed in with one post on this topic in favour of the rights of the unborn. I believe that life begins at the time of conception and that abortion is wrong. I don't have the time to spend on this site that some of you obviously do, but maybe this weekend I'll get a chance to read all of the posts. SV, I have to say that your cartoon (I know you didn't create it) annoyed me. If you had put a wink smiley in there, I'd know you were kidding. Or were you? But keep up the debate. It's healthy. Maybe I'll have time make a longer post on my take on this another time. And, thank you, EL. :D Until then, I'm with JCR.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 08:44 AM
I've weighed in with one post on this topic in favour of the rights of the unborn. I believe that life begins at the time of conception and that abortion is wrong. I don't have the time to spend on this site that some of you obviously do, but maybe this weekend I'll get a chance to read all of the posts. SV, I have to say that your cartoon (I know you didn't create it) annoyed me. If you had put a wink smiley in there, I'd know you were kidding. Or were you? But keep up the debate. It's healthy. Maybe I'll have time make a longer post on my take on this another time. And, thank you, EL. :D Until then, I'm with JCR.
MG - yes I was full of a lot of satire (and unfortunately was smiley-impaired last night). I have nothing against religion, rather the 'over-the-topness' that gets practiced by people irrespective of religion, and I thought the cartoon was satirical enough that I wouldn't have to smiley it up. :rolleyes: :D

Religion is a touchstone for people to do great good for the world. However it is often unfortunately perverted by fundamentalists in all religions to use it to justify evil or things that purposely harm their innocent fellow (hu)man. (note - I'm not saying you're evil, I think you're a pretty good guy. If you are in fact evil ;) ...well that's none of my business :lol: )

Thrust
03-03-2006, 08:54 AM
On a side/lighter note....Is tossing off knuckle children "mass murder" then?
Sperms are alive, and move on their own.....

Just funnin all.......
be gentle...
;)

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 09:00 AM
On a side/lighter note....Is tossing off knuckle children "mass murder" then?
Sperms are alive, and move on their own.....

Just funnin all.......
be gentle...
;)
<img src="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8308/everyspermissacred10mc.jpg">

Everybody all together now
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3

Every Sperm is Sacred - Monty Python

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...

You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...

because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine
And mine
And mine

Let the Pagan spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain,
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Thrust
03-03-2006, 09:04 AM
"Dierdrie, would you get that for me..." :rofl:

MoneyGuy
03-03-2006, 09:06 AM
Swallow, don't spit. They're precious.
















Can't believe I said that. Someone hit my typing fingers with a hammer.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 09:06 AM
Ok here is a though. Keep abortion legal, however if you want to get one, it will have to be paid for by yourself. Make it so that healthcare does not cover the procedure. Unless it is medically necessary or in the case of an assault or rape. I believe that there are ways to get around the issue that will make everyone happy. But this is a sticky situation.

I still don't get why as humans we have the right to end the life of anything non human, but if we want to end a pregnancy that is wrong. Killing an animal to eat, why do we have that right?

I am pro choice and I support gay marriage or civil union. Call me what you want, but why should people not have rights to do what they want, just because it goes against the beliefs of others.

Muley69
03-03-2006, 09:11 AM
Ok here is a though. Keep abortion legal, however if you want to get one, it will have to be paid for by yourself. Make it so that healthcare does not cover the procedure. Unless it is medically necessary or in the case of an assault or rape. I believe that there are ways to get around the issue that will make everyone happy. But this is a sticky situation.

I still don't get why as humans we have the right to end the life of anything non human, but if we want to end a pregnancy that is wrong. Killing an animal to eat, why do we have that right?

I am pro choice and I support gay marriage or civil union. Call me what you want, but why should people not have rights to do what they want, just because it goes against the beliefs of others.



All things considered, I find this to be very reasonable.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 09:12 AM
let me ask you yourself (as I've never understood this from the life begins at conception crowd).

What are your views on pulling the plug on someone who has become brain dead?


*Let me explain further, there are some who will take the more scientific approach to when a fetus becomes sentient and go by the start of brain wave activity. Others may go from the time that the fetus passes beyond the point when the fetus no longer requires direct support to survive.

Now to this end, by outlawing abortions from the point of conception you are essentially forcing support of a non-functioning embryo.

Why then would we extend a different set of values to someone who has lived or breathed and then lost their brain activity?

Fish,

Your question really boils down to "Why do I believe that life begins at conception?"

I believe that human development begins at conception and ends at death. Therefore to me, its all human.

Muley69
03-03-2006, 09:13 AM
Fish, I'm not a "life at conception" guy...but I support pulling life support.


Having had two family members in palative care for MONTHS...hooked up to machines, and the like, and to see how hard it was on my family just waiting for the inevitable, I support a system where the final wishes of a person can be carried out or where the family can make that decision when the possibility of reversing the condition isn't possible (ala Terry Schiavo).

Muley69
03-03-2006, 09:13 AM
I believe that human development begins at conception and ends at death. Therefore to me, its all human



But that doesn't get into WHY you believe this.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 09:17 AM
But that doesn't get into WHY you believe this.

Its self-explanatory, is it not? Conception begins the develoment of the human. day 1 is differentn from day 200. That's different from birth day. That's different from 1 year. That's different from 10 years....you get the idea.

Muley69
03-03-2006, 09:19 AM
Its self-explanatory, is it not? Conception begins the develoment of the human. day 1 is differentn from day 200. That's different from birth day. That's different from 1 year. That's different from 10 years....you get the idea.


Yes, I understand that aspect of it...but you know that taking a one-day old egg/sperm combo out of the uterus can't live, it doesn't resemble anything human like at all....etc.


That's why I find it hard to call that life. But that's me, of course.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 09:25 AM
Yes, I understand that aspect of it...but you know that taking a one-day old egg/sperm combo out of the uterus can't live, it doesn't resemble anything human like at all....etc.


That's why I find it hard to call that life. But that's me, of course.

Well if I leave a baby to fend for itself it will die too. So.... that's not really valid to me. It doesn't matter if it can sustain itself. That's not an issue to me. It matter if they are human. If so, no abortion.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 09:32 AM
Is it alive before it has its own heart beat? I believe not.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 09:35 AM
Is it alive before it has its own heart beat? I believe not.

So an amoeba isn't alive? No heart?

Is hasn't developed yet. But that human is developing. Still human. Definitely living.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 09:46 AM
So an amoeba isn't alive? No heart?

Is hasn't developed yet. But that human is developing. Still human. Definitely living.

But you feel that you have the right to kill that amoeba, just because it isn't human. You kill bacteria in your house, by your logic is that not killing a living thing, why kill it. Does it not have a right to live just like an unborn child?

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 09:48 AM
But you feel that you have the right to kill that amoeba, just because it isn't human. You kill bacteria in your house, by your logic is that not killing a living thing, why kill it. Does it not have a right to live just like an unborn child?

Exactly. You can kill other animals, but not humans. Although I have a "If you're not going to eat it, and if its not a pest, then leave it alone" attitude.

I see a difference between humans and animals. Furthermore I see a difference between different animals.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 09:52 AM
Exactly. You can kill other animals, but not humans. Although I have a "If you're not going to eat it, and if its not a pest, then leave it alone" attitude.

I see a difference between humans and animals. Furthermore I see a difference between different animals.

By why do you as a human have that right to decide the fate of an animal? What gives you that right. Humans are not the smartest mamals on this planet yet we decide what the outcome of everything should be. Why do we have the right to decide the fate of anything not human?

Esksgurl
03-03-2006, 09:57 AM
That's not an abortion...that's a DNC. Similiar procedure. Drastically different moral ramifications

Actually Nuke they are two completely different things. A D&C is done to remove and test the uturine lining in the case of disease or pollups etc... or after complications from surgeries.....abortions or miscarriages being two as examples.

They are not the same. An abortion is removing a fetus no matter what the time frame is, or whether or not it is alive or dead.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 09:59 AM
By why do you as a human have that right to decide the fate of an animal? What gives you that right. Humans are not the smartest mamals on this planet yet we decide what the outcome of everything should be. Why do we have the right to decide the fate of anything not human?
Because other hominds haven't discovered gunpowder and nuclear fission yet... :lol:

Thrust
03-03-2006, 10:19 AM
I truely think there should not be a list of criteria in this debate. It should be black and white, no gray...(sorry Pizmo, no offense)

Either,
yes, it should be legal, IE the Womans choice
~or~
No, it is illegal, period.

As bad, and ruthless as it may seem, it can tuely be the only way.

Having an "excuse" style sytem would be ridiculous, like differentiating the value of certain situations. Who would deem which "excuse" carries more merit, and therefore warrants a termination of the pregnancy?

Now myself, not being overly religeous, but do have some spiritual beliefs, will not agree with certain religeous arguments. Cathelics may not agree with Protestants on this issue. Which "side" is right, when argueing the religous aspects between these two? If you talk to both sides, they will each tell you that they are right, and there should be no other way.

I am a male. I have never experience being pregant (I am fairly sure anyway). I also have never been raped, had a miscariage, or been told the child I am carying is horendously disfigured and has exteme health problems(prior to delivery) ie: brain dead, heart on the outside of chest with visable holes, and 0 chance of survival, or told that the pregnancy is literally killing me, and without its end, I, and my "unborn" will surely die...etc.
I gaurantee that I will have a totaly different style of feelings regarding this debate, than someone who has experience the above points. I also know that I would never impose "my" idea of what is right for that Mother/baby, and as such, would not want others telling me what is good/right for my wife.

This debate will be feircely argued for the rest of time, and there can not be a "right" answer, as it is an individuals moral beliefs, and values that will determine the outcome of their thoughts/actions.

Now, back to my nonsensicle posts...

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 10:21 AM
By why do you as a human have that right to decide the fate of an animal? What gives you that right. Humans are not the smartest mamals on this planet yet we decide what the outcome of everything should be. Why do we have the right to decide the fate of anything not human?


because we're human, an intelligent, and they're not. That's good enough for me.

Thrust
03-03-2006, 10:21 AM
By why do you as a human have that right to decide the fate of an animal? What gives you that right. Humans are not the smartest mamals on this planet yet we decide what the outcome of everything should be. Why do we have the right to decide the fate of anything not human?

Because we are better looking?
:D

Opus
03-03-2006, 10:22 AM
Fish,

Your question really boils down to "Why do I believe that life begins at conception?"

I believe that human development begins at conception and ends at death. Therefore to me, its all human.
yes, but would you:

a) support a DNR order or do you think that the state should outlaw that as well....?


b) support a families decision to remove a loved one from life support if they no longer showed brain activity?

These are both cases which happen very frequently, in most cases they are not to ease suffering of the person in question, but the suffering of those around them. SHould the state take away the option of a family whose loved one is on life support even when they are clinically brain dead? Should the state make these families financially responsible for the extended care?

We allow choice in certain matters directly pertaining to death and justify it as responsible and merciful, but are limiting the choices pertaining to life without taking the same justification into account.

Opus
03-03-2006, 10:23 AM
Fish, I'm not a "life at conception" guy...but I support pulling life support.


Having had two family members in palative care for MONTHS...hooked up to machines, and the like, and to see how hard it was on my family just waiting for the inevitable, I support a system where the final wishes of a person can be carried out or where the family can make that decision when the possibility of reversing the condition isn't possible (ala Terry Schiavo).
my views and yours seem to be very similar on both matters I believe Dave.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 10:24 AM
yes, but would you:

a) support a DNR order or do you think that the state should outlaw that as well....?


b) support a families decision to remove a loved one from life support if they no longer showed brain activity?

These are both cases which happen very frequently, in most cases they are not to ease suffering of the person in question, but the suffering of those around them. SHould the state take away the option of a family whose loved one is on life support even when they are clinically brain dead? Should the state make these families financially responsible for the extended care?

We allow choice in certain matters directly pertaining to death and justify it as responsible and merciful, but are limiting the choices pertaining to life without taking the same justification into account.

Fish, to me those are loaded question. If one no longer has any potential, and ceases to develop, then it is drastically different from a human at the beginning of its development that clearly is developing and has every potential. Not the same moral question IMO.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 10:25 AM
I truely think there should not be a list of criteria in this debate. It should be black and white, no gray...(sorry Pizmo, no offense)

Either,
yes, it should be legal, IE the Womans choice
~or~
No, it is illegal, period.

As bad, and ruthless as it may seem, it can tuely be the only way.

Having an "excuse" style sytem would be ridiculous, like differentiating the value of certain situations. Who would deem which "excuse" carries more merit, and therefore warrants a termination of the pregnancy?

Now myself, not being overly religeous, but do have some spiritual beliefs, will not agree with certain religeous arguments. Cathelics may not agree with Protestants on this issue. Which "side" is right, when argueing the religous aspects between these two? If you talk to both sides, they will each tell you that they are right, and there should be no other way.

I am a male. I have never experience being pregant (I am fairly sure anyway). I also have never been raped, had a miscariage, or been told the child I am carying is horendously disfigured and has exteme health problems(prior to delivery) ie: brain dead, heart on the outside of chest with visable holes, and 0 chance of survival, or told that the pregnancy is literally killing me, and without its end, I, and my "unborn" will surely die...etc.
I gaurantee that I will have a totaly different style of feelings regarding this debate, than someone who has experience the above points. I also know that I would never impose "my" idea of what is right for that Mother/baby, and as such, would not want others telling me what is good/right for my wife.

This debate will be feircely argued for the rest of time, and there can not be a "right" answer, as it is an individuals moral beliefs, and values that will determine the outcome of their thoughts/actions.

Now, back to my nonsensicle posts...
Have to spread the rep around first so :thup:

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 10:34 AM
Fish, to me those are loaded question. If one no longer has any potential, and ceases to develop, then it is drastically different from a human at the beginning of its development that clearly is developing and has every potential. Not the same moral question IMO.

I agree. There is also the difference of the consent of the individual in DNR cases. (which was the essence of the Schiavo debate)

But it's interesting how we're realizing that one moral decision sets precedent for other moral decisions.

Steve: I laughed out loud over your rep comment on page 3. I'll rep you again when the system lets me. :thup:

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 10:34 AM
Exactly. You can kill other animals, but not humans. Although I have a "If you're not going to eat it, and if its not a pest, then leave it alone" attitude.

I see a difference between humans and animals. Furthermore I see a difference between different animals.

I think these are some if the key values where differing opinions spawn from.

Personally, I see no real difference between humans and other animals (humans are animals, we evolved, we are no different, only a larger brain mass seperates us), and that giving our species a 'soul', whatever your connotation of it, is a pretty self-serving/arrogant idea. Not to deliberately offend anyone here, but that's just my view on it.

I agree with the idea that when a fetus can survive on it own outside of the womb, it's alive. That includes through the use of modern science and medicine to me (incubators, etc.), and so the timeline gets shorter for when an abortion is morally ok (to me), as technology moves forward.

For example, if to kids my age are getting in on in Lister Hall and the rubber breaks, the morning after pill would not only be fine, but likely the way to go instead of probably ruining both of thier lives.

Just a quick question for you, jcr, what about the killing of humans that are pests to society? (Repeat offenders of serious crimes, etc.) I see it as that I'd rather kill them off than pay the taxes to feed them in prison, but that's just me.

Since I have no religous beliefs (classifying the rejection of religous belie as a religous belief doesn't fly in my book) , I'll just pre-empt the question on how I think anything is sacred. I guess I could say that a child is born with a blank slate (excepting where the mothers had been idoits and had abused drungs and alcohol for a moment), and its pretty damned cruel to kill anything that is innocent like that.

Yet I eat beef, fish, lamb, etc, so I realize my own hypocracy. I probably couldn't kill one of those animals myself, yet I'd have no problem with slamming a steel pipe into the back of a crook's head if he was robbing someone. I think everybody has things like that, and most things need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, just as belief vary on on a person-by-person basis. If laws were absolute, soceity would have no need for the judiciary system.

Thanks.

Opus
03-03-2006, 10:39 AM
Fish, to me those are loaded question. If one no longer has any potential, and ceases to develop, then it is drastically different from a human at the beginning of its development that clearly is developing and has every potential. Not the same moral question IMO.
It is absolutely the same. Unless of course you believe that the person laying brain dead in a hospital bed is no longer "alive". Both will still mature, age, etc....

Both are beings who do not possess brain wave activity, therefore neither are self-aware or sentient. Both rely on others to determine their fate completely. The only difference as you say is their point of the cycle, one has lived and grown bonds with others....some cases likely a long loving web of bonds, while the other has none.

Why however should one have the choice to continue and not the other? Without the assistance either one would cease all functions, yet the issue is only forced upon one of the situations.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 10:44 AM
Personally, I see no real difference between humans and other animals (humans are animals, we evolved, we are no different, only a larger brain mass seperates us), and that giving our species a 'soul', whatever your connotation of it, is a pretty self-serving/arrogant idea.


If this is the case, then let's follow this line of logic out to the end. And I'm not trying to insult you at all, cause this type of thinking is extremely prevalent.

Let's say that nothing seperates us from animals.

1. We kill animals when it is to our advantage. (Pests, for food, for sport, etc.)
2. We use animals to our advantage. (Get your minds out of the gutter :D)
3. There is no inherent value to an animal other then what benefit it is to us.

So according to you belief system, humans shouldn't get anything more then that. To me, that's a scary thought.

Granted, I get my theology from the Bible. Some don't believe that's valid. But according to the Bible, God created humans higher then the animals, because we were created to share his image. The earth, the animals, etc. were created for our enjoyment. Now it's interesting. Because even God told humanity to look after the rest of the universe. In fact it was one of his first commands to humanity. Even as specifically as "A good person respects the life of the animals." This is in Proverbs. But according to my belief system, human beings deserve more respect and consideration then anything else in the universe because we carry the image of God.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 10:45 AM
It is absolutely the same. Unless of course you believe that the person laying brain dead in a hospital bed is no longer "alive". Both will still mature, age, etc....

Both are beings who do not possess brain wave activity, therefore neither are self-aware or sentient. Both rely on others to determine their fate completely. The only difference as you say is their point of the cycle, one has lived and grown bonds with others....some cases likely a long loving web of bonds, while the other has none.

Why however should one have the choice to continue and not the other? Without the assistance either one would cease all functions, yet the issue is only forced upon one of the situations.

Consent, Fish. That's the difference. And when our society moves from fulfilling DNR's to making that decision for people, I'll be VERY concerned.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Not only consent, but condition and circumstance are different. Its not the same moral question.

Opus
03-03-2006, 11:07 AM
Consent, Fish. That's the difference. And when our society moves from fulfilling DNR's to making that decision for people, I'll be VERY concerned.
So you are all for allowing people to choose what they do with their own body then.......wouldn't you call that pro-choice?

Opus
03-03-2006, 11:10 AM
Not only consent, but condition and circumstance are different. Its not the same moral question.
It is, but you're dodging it for convienience....neither have brain activity or self awareness. Neither are clinically deemed to be alive. It's pretty cut and dried IMO.....

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:10 AM
Absolutely. I'm just not for allowing people to choose what to do with other people's bodies when they are inside theirs.

Think about it, Fish. You have a baby in an incubator. Someone opens up the incubator, and kills the baby. How is that any different then an abortion?

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:11 AM
It is, but you're dodging it for convienience....neither have brain activity or self awareness. Neither are clinically deemed to be alive. It's pretty cut and dried IMO.....

Then don't dodge my post. Consent.

Thrust
03-03-2006, 11:13 AM
Honest question here.
Does anyone know how far along is the most a woman can be before an Abortion is not an option?
Curious to find that out.

Opus
03-03-2006, 11:14 AM
Absolutely. I'm just not for allowing people to choose what to do with other people's bodies when they are inside theirs.

Think about it, Fish. You have a baby in an incubator. Someone opens up the incubator, and kills the baby. How is that any different then an abortion?
If a baby is old enough to be in an incubator he/she already has brain activity and is clinically alive, abortions are illegal at any rate after a certain term in the pregnancy. IMO it should be set at brain wave activity (sentience).

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:14 AM
I'd be very curious to hear the pro-life crowd weigh in on the death penalty as well, just to get an idea of how much they value human life. Being pro-life should almost certainly make you anti-death penalty, should it not? Unfortunately the pro-life fundamentalist lot in the States seem to adopt a pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-war stance that confuses the hell out of me.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:15 AM
If a baby is old enough to be in an incubator he/she already has brain activity and is clinically alive, abortions are illegal at any rate after a certain term in the pregnancy. IMO it should be set at brain wave activity (sentience).

I'd buy into that.

Opus
03-03-2006, 11:15 AM
Then don't dodge my post. Consent.
you are assuming that everyone on life support has given consent one way or another. That is not the case.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 11:16 AM
Fish, to me those are loaded question. If one no longer has any potential, and ceases to develop, then it is drastically different from a human at the beginning of its development that clearly is developing and has every potential. Not the same moral question IMO.


So what you are saying is that if the child is going to be mentally of physically disabled, because of the mothers neglect during pregnancy that it would be alright to end that pregnancy. Because in your own words, "If one no longer has any potential, and ceases to develop". If the child will be so diabled that they will have no potential then it should be ok to end the pregnancy. Why should we have the right to decide when a persons life should end, but not decide if we don't want to start one?

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:17 AM
Think about it, Fish. You have a baby in an incubator. Someone opens up the incubator, and kills the baby. How is that any different then an abortion?

Depends on whether you classify an aborted pregnancy as a human being. The baby in the incubator is a human being with brain activity and a heartbeat, thus classified as a human being under the law.

Uncle Bobby
03-03-2006, 11:17 AM
I'd be very curious to hear the pro-life crowd weigh in on the death penalty as well, just to get an idea of how much they value human life. Being pro-life should almost certainly make you anti-death penalty, should it not? Unfortunately the pro-life fundamentalist lot in the States seem to adopt a pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-war stance that confuses the hell out of me.Its called the dichotomy of a Redneck. Because a Redneck has no idea what dichotomy means makes both stands acceptable.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 11:18 AM
Absolutely. I'm just not for allowing people to choose what to do with other people's bodies when they are inside theirs.

I don't know, I could comment on that, but we will leave this as a debate about what happens after that act.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:20 AM
Its called the dichotomy of a Redneck. Because a Redneck has no idea what dichotomy means makes both stands acceptable.

Right. They value the 'life' of a clump of cells and will KILL a doctor to protect it, but have no issue with seeing thousands of fully formed people carpet bombed into the stone age (as long as they are thousands of brown people), and are OK with a fully formed human being gassed to death for committing a crime.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:21 AM
If a baby is old enough to be in an incubator he/she already has brain activity and is clinically alive, abortions are illegal at any rate after a certain term in the pregnancy. IMO it should be set at brain wave activity (sentience).

Incorrect. There is no legal standard regarding abortion in Canda.

Found that at several sources but this was the clearest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Thrust
03-03-2006, 11:22 AM
So I was watching Demolition man on TBS the other day.
The lack of "fluid transfer" really speaks volumes in this debate, does it not?
Planned pregnancy by invitro fertilization, and banning "fluid transfer" would solve this whole mess, wouldn't it.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:24 AM
you are assuming that everyone on life support has given consent one way or another. That is not the case.

That may be. That consent is the basis that I would base my belief on. I have consented to be taken off life support if my wife thinks it's best. That is a legal document. No comparison to abortion.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:25 AM
I'd be very curious to hear the pro-life crowd weigh in on the death penalty as well, just to get an idea of how much they value human life. Being pro-life should almost certainly make you anti-death penalty, should it not? Unfortunately the pro-life fundamentalist lot in the States seem to adopt a pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-war stance that confuses the hell out of me.

Comparing an unborn baby to a convicted criminal or an enlisted soldier shouldn't confuse the hell out of anybody.

Thrust
03-03-2006, 11:26 AM
That may be. That consent is the basis that I would base my belief on. I have consented to be taken off life support if my wife thinks it's best. That is a legal document. No comparison to abortion.

I am in no way trying to weigh in on either side here, but by allowing your wife to make the decision whether you live or die, puts your "living" state in the hands of another...much like abortion.
No?

Uncle Bobby
03-03-2006, 11:27 AM
Incorrect. There is no legal standard regarding abortion in Canda.

Found that at several sources but this was the clearest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
Interesting. So a scared young mother who throws her newborn into a dumpster is a murderer. But if she went and got it "aborted" a day before that would be legal.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:28 AM
Right. They value the 'life' of a clump of cells and will KILL a doctor to protect it, but have no issue with seeing thousands of fully formed people carpet bombed into the stone age (as long as they are thousands of brown people), and are OK with a fully formed human being gassed to death for committing a crime.

Form a position that defines when the lump of cells ceases to become a lump of cells and then get back to me. At this point all you're doing is putting out poor generalizations accompanied by rhetoric.

Not trying to be a dick about this, but this was a serious conversation with respect shown by all sides. You're not helping it continue in that pattern.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 11:28 AM
I'd be very curious to hear the pro-life crowd weigh in on the death penalty as well, just to get an idea of how much they value human life. Being pro-life should almost certainly make you anti-death penalty, should it not? Unfortunately the pro-life fundamentalist lot in the States seem to adopt a pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-war stance that confuses the hell out of me.
I find it disturbing as well. The problem with fundamentalists is that they pick and choose what they want to hear in a religious context. They'll select parts of the Bible that support them, and ignore other parts altogether (e.g. Jesus with the Beatitudes comes across nearly communist-like :rolleyes: )

Opus
03-03-2006, 11:29 AM
Incorrect. There is no legal standard regarding abortion in Canda.

Found that at several sources but this was the clearest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
That would be a different argument then......I cetainly believe that limits to term where it is viable should be set....

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:29 AM
I am in no way trying to weigh in on either side here, but by allowing your wife to make the decision whether you live or die, puts your "living" state in the hands of another...much like abortion.
No?

No. Not at all. Because I have been informed of my choices and made the decision to entrust my life into the hands of my wife. How is that anything like an abortion?

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:30 AM
Comparing an unborn baby to a convicted criminal or an enlisted soldier shouldn't confuse the hell out of anybody.

Why not? They are all human beings, are they not? How does a convicted criminal have less right to life than a clump of cells? And for the record, I was speaking of 'collateral damage', not a volunteer soldier. He signed up to be used by his government in whatever manner they saw fit.

Opus
03-03-2006, 11:30 AM
That may be. That consent is the basis that I would base my belief on. I have consented to be taken off life support if my wife thinks it's best. That is a legal document. No comparison to abortion.
consent is not needed however to pull one from life support.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:31 AM
That would be a different argument then......I cetainly believe that limits to term where it is viable should be set....

;) And again, we are back to the debate of when life begins. See, it's like I said at the outset, that's the crux of this argument. But most people aren't formulating positions on that. EL is the only one IIRC....

esklover
03-03-2006, 11:31 AM
Honest question here.
Does anyone know how far along is the most a woman can be before an Abortion is not an option?
Curious to find that out.

In Alberta it is 20 weeks...there are places in the US where they do them beyond that time. For woman in Alberta, they can go to Montana to terminate their pregnancies if they wanted if they are past 20 weeks. Here is a link that might interest you....

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/gestation.asp

Thrust
03-03-2006, 11:32 AM
No. Not at all. Because I have been informed of my choices and made the decision to entrust my life into the hands of my wife. How is that anything like an abortion?

Because you have ultimately made no choice other than to give your wife full ability to end, or continue your life. You really don't have say at that point.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:32 AM
consent is not needed however to pull one from life support.

And I disagree with that as well. Not as strongly, because I have tried to work that one through and it's VERY challenging...but I disagree nonetheless. Why? Because I value life and hope of life. Heck, I'd have a tough time doing it even if they HAD given their consent. 1000 times moreso if they haven't.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:32 AM
Form a position that defines when the lump of cells ceases to become a lump of cells and then get back to me. At this point all you're doing is putting out poor generalizations accompanied by rhetoric.

Not trying to be a dick about this, but this was a serious conversation with respect shown by all sides. You're not helping it continue in that pattern.

For the record, my comment was in regards to religious zealots adopting contradictory positions south of the border, not directed at anyone here. My apoligies if it sounded that way.

Uncle Bobby
03-03-2006, 11:33 AM
Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love
He said don't worry about a thing baby doll I'm the man you've been dreamin' of
But three months later he said he won't date her or return her call
And she sweared god damn if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin' through the doors
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore

God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose

Everlast - What It's Like

Thrust
03-03-2006, 11:33 AM
In Alberta it is 20 weeks...there are places in the US where they do them beyond that time. For woman in Alberta, they can go to Montana to terminate their pregnancies if they wanted if they are past 20 weeks. Here is a link that might interest you....

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/gestation.asp

Thanks EL :thup:

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:33 AM
In Alberta it is 20 weeks


Where did you find this?

esklover
03-03-2006, 11:34 AM
Where did you find this?
http://www.plannedparenthoodalta.com/education/abortion_opt.htm

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 11:36 AM
;) And again, we are back to the debate of when life begins. See, it's like I said at the outset, that's the crux of this argument. But most people aren't formulating positions on that. EL is the only one IIRC....
Just like a chicken and egg...we're playing in an uncomfortable greyscale world.

To lighten it up...
<img src="http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1599/whocamefirst9zx.jpg">

Thrust
03-03-2006, 11:38 AM
Just like a chicken and egg...we're playing in an uncomfortable greyscale world.

To lighten it up...
<img src="http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1599/whocamefirst9zx.jpg">

My money is on the guy who is dating the farmers daughter.... :p

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:39 AM
Why not? They are all human beings, are they not? How does a convicted criminal have less right to life than a clump of cells? And for the record, I was speaking of 'collateral damage', not a volunteer soldier. He signed up to be used by his government in whatever manner they saw fit.

Dangit....you people are gonna put me over 5000 posts by the END OF THE HOUR!!! :p

Traxy: No offense taken. It's easy to generalize. And you're correct in many of your assumptions. But not all of us are alike.

First, I don't think a baby is a clump of cells. We all have to decide where we think life begins. For reasons that I stated on a previous page, I'd say it's at conception. Because I believe we have a soul. Where does that put me with cloning, invitro etc? Don't know. Haven't had the time to work through that yet.

Second, I think that killing civilians in a war is a crime. I think that the nukes on Japan were war crimes. And a know a lot of Americans who feel the same way. I think that capital punishment is justified in cases that are confirmed by DNA or some other ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE proof. Only those. I think that the execution of innocents is a travesty and if someone is found out as causing that to happen by false testimony, they too should be executed. That's my worldview in a nutshell, for future reference. :D

esklover
03-03-2006, 11:42 AM
http://www.plannedparenthoodalta.com/education/abortion_opt.htm

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~prolife/abfacts.shtml

Just found this and called healthlink for clarification....

Most hospitals and abortion clinics will only perform terminations up until the 20th week. There are doctors out there that will and may legally choose to terminate a pregnancy beyond that time though. I apologize for my error.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 11:44 AM
Dangit....you people are gonna put me over 5000 posts by the END OF THE HOUR!!! :p

Traxy: No offense taken. It's easy to generalize. And you're correct in many of your assumptions. But not all of us are alike.

First, I don't think a baby is a clump of cells. We all have to decide where we think life begins. For reasons that I stated on a previous page, I'd say it's at conception. Because I believe we have a soul. Where does that put me with cloning, invitro etc? Don't know. Haven't had the time to work through that yet.

Thanks for the clarification. I do not beleive in the existence of the soul, so I suppose this is the main sticking point that we differ on.

Second, I think that killing civilians in a war is a crime. I think that the nukes on Japan were war crimes. And a know a lot of Americans who feel the same way. I think that capital punishment is justified in cases that are confirmed by DNA or some other ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE proof. Only those. I think that the execution of innocents is a travesty and if someone is found out as causing that to happen by false testimony, they too should be executed. That's my worldview in a nutshell, for future reference. :D

[B]I used to have the same opinion on the death penalty, but have mellowed and become more of a bleeding heart over the past few years. Thanks for the responses to my questions too.[B]

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 11:46 AM
Totally understand. That's a whole different discussion that EskiePhenom and I addressed on page 5.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 12:16 PM
This debate was always going to be solved on Esksfans. ;)

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 12:20 PM
This debate was always going to be solved on Esksfans. ;)
Intelligent thinking fans, lead to an intelligent thinking team? :lol:

Muley69
03-03-2006, 12:22 PM
One thing that can't be overlooked.


Lets say that pro-lifers "win" and the law is changed to make abortions illegal.

Well, as we can see from this board, not everyone agrees...so, by making abortions illegal, you put in on the black market -- the so called "coat hanger abortions".

(Man, does that term ever sicken me)

So now you still have abortions being performed anyway but away from a medically sterile and controlled environment where the woman is (a) shunned from the law for having to make the terribly difficult choice to begin with and (b) likely could die herself in the process!

Can we rest on our laurels and pat ourselves on the back to say, "Aha...we have made abortion illegal" while they still continue to happen in our back alleys with the women undergoing them in very real medical danger?

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 12:24 PM
One thing that can't be overlooked.


Lets say that pro-lifers "win" and the law is changed to make abortions illegal.

Well, as we can see from this board, not everyone agrees...so, by making abortions illegal, you put in on the black market -- the so called "coat hanger abortions".

(Man, does that term ever sicken me)

So now you still have abortions being performed anyway but away from a medically sterile and controlled environment where the woman is (a) shunned from the law for having to make the terribly difficult choice to begin with and (b) likely could die herself in the process!

Can we rest on our laurels and pat ourselves on the back to say, "Aha...we have made abortion illegal" while they still continue to happen in our back alleys with the women undergoing them in very real medical danger?

This will sound inflammatory but....do you feel sorry for a killer who gets sick and dies while trying to commit a murder? I don't.

Opus
03-03-2006, 12:31 PM
;) And again, we are back to the debate of when life begins. See, it's like I said at the outset, that's the crux of this argument. But most people aren't formulating positions on that. EL is the only one IIRC....
I thought I was pretty clear that my position is when one becomes sentient (brain wave activity)

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 12:33 PM
I honestly wish I could answer that, but having no faith doesn't provide me with any easy answers. If pressed, I'd say that once a fetus is capable of survival outside the womb it has become a human being. No one ever becomes anything more than decaying matter at any rate.

Oh, and I don't have a belief system, I have lack of belief. I know it seems like parsing words, but for some reason seems more truthful to me to say it that way.

I'm going to approach this from a women's point of view. I don't believe in abortion. It IS my body and I should have the right to decide what or what doesn't happen to it but I also have an obligation if I am pregnant to sustain that life. As soon as conception occurs that IS a new life not at 18 days or 3 months or 9 months. To deny that is to negate all the losses mothers have endured over the years through miscarriages or children born still. Ask any women who has gone through this and I'm pretty sure they will tell you that that mass of cells as some people refer to a fetus was a person. I had a daughter that was stillborn at 30 weeks nearly 4 years ago today and for someone to say that she was not a person is unimaginable to me. She had 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes a nose and 2 ears.

We as women do have a responsibility to nuture that life within us not destroy it at will.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 12:35 PM
This will sound inflammatory but....do you feel sorry for a killer who gets sick and dies while trying to commit a murder? I don't.
There's no correlation between the two IMHO (a 16 year old girl who was raped & pregnant gets my sympathy rather than a psychotic killer)...and while the comment pushes inflamatory, I'd say it seems much more cold and heartless (as a comparison)...but that's just me :)

MoneyGuy
03-03-2006, 12:45 PM
I thought I was pretty clear that my position is when one becomes sentient (brain wave activity)

That's a pretty narrow definition under which lots of people would not qualify: Riders' fans, certain politicians (no one on this site), Numberz, Pizmo after 9 p.m. (at his age he's probably brain wave-less at an early hour), me before 8 a.m. and certain posters on this site who will remain nameless to protect me from v-assaults.

Sorry, Numberz, you know I love you. It was just kidding. You know me. :D Let me know if you feel insulted. I'll make it up to you. I will anyway. :p

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 12:45 PM
There's no correlation between the two IMHO (a 16 year old girl who was raped & pregnant gets my sympathy rather than a psychotic killer)...and while the comment pushes inflamatory, I'd say it seems much more cold and heartless (as a comparison)...but that's just me :)

It depends mate. IF you think life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. THEN there's no difference whatsoever! No dif between that and that 16 year old dumping her baby in a trash bin to die.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 12:48 PM
One thing that can't be overlooked.


Lets say that pro-lifers "win" and the law is changed to make abortions illegal.

Well, as we can see from this board, not everyone agrees...so, by making abortions illegal, you put in on the black market -- the so called "coat hanger abortions".

(Man, does that term ever sicken me)

So now you still have abortions being performed anyway but away from a medically sterile and controlled environment where the woman is (a) shunned from the law for having to make the terribly difficult choice to begin with and (b) likely could die herself in the process!

Can we rest on our laurels and pat ourselves on the back to say, "Aha...we have made abortion illegal" while they still continue to happen in our back alleys with the women undergoing them in very real medical danger?

Excellent point. And here we get into issues like safe injection sites. Which is a whole different ball game...one that I'm not quite ready for.

My argument is on the morality of it. And I don't think that laws can settle moral issues. I think that love can. And I wish that Christians throughout the ages had been a hell of a lot more loving, which would then give us more of a leg to stand on with issues like this. Hopefully, we can change that well-deserved reputation.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 12:48 PM
Of course....there is still no love extended to Stamps and Rider fans. I'm pretty sure that's in the Bible somewhere.... :D

Muley69
03-03-2006, 12:49 PM
This will sound inflammatory but....do you feel sorry for a killer who gets sick and dies while trying to commit a murder? I don't.


Because we can possibly imagine what it would be like for someone to:

1. get knocked up and have her family completely disown her -- perhaps kick her out of the house,

2. her "boyfriend" that got her pregnant eff's off and she's completely on her own,

3. she lets go from her job because she's preggers.

4. never mind that she didn't have enough money to raise the kid in the first place.



Come on JCR...not everyone will have an abortion 'cause it's an easy convenient thing to decide on! It does a disservice to think otherwise!

I mean...just look at Robert Latimer. Look at Terry Schiavo. Look at the decision to send MILLIONS to their death fighting Hitler.



Clearly the notion of taking a life / aborting is not an easy one and there is no one universal correct answer to the problem.



And if it's a GIVEN that people will have abortions or not...then it is a complete abdication of societies responsibilty (or, if you prefer, a terrible stunning hypocracy) to say that we "care for life, hence, abortions are illegal" and yet we don't care that a coat-hanger abortionist dies as well.

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 12:51 PM
Muley,

I get what you're saying....but thew matter of when life commences trumps anything else. IF life begins at conception, then all other matters are secondary to that human's right to live.

Muley69
03-03-2006, 12:53 PM
Muley,

I get what you're saying....but thew matter of when life commences trumps anything else. IF life begins at conception, then all other matters are secondary to that human's right to live.



Fair enough, I'm not trying to change your opinion, just trying to fully flesh out mine. :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

MoneyGuy
03-03-2006, 12:54 PM
I'll attempt to distract this conversation to more fun topics:

Hey, isn't Numberz a kook, isn't Pizmo old, isn't MoneyGuy brilliant and aren't EL and EG beautiful?

Feel free to discuss this new topic. Or not. :D

Opus
03-03-2006, 12:55 PM
Muley,

I get what you're saying....but thew matter of when life commences trumps anything else. IF life begins at conception, then all other matters are secondary to that human's right to live.
except that you are letting a view that's basis for foundation lays more through the teachings of the catholic church as a model to dictate to others what they can and can't do to their bodies.

chickenman23
03-03-2006, 12:56 PM
My argument is on the morality of it. And I don't think that laws can settle moral issues.


Exactly, we all have our morals, and not everyones is the same. So how can a government tell people what they can and can't do in a situation such as abortion. Morally I think it is ok to do to a point. What point that is I don't know because I am a male and I am not the one that really has to decide this. I agree with what the Government of Canada says, it is not legally a human until is is born alive and well.

If they are considered human or alive after conception, then you should be able to consider then a dependant.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 12:57 PM
Because we can possibly imagine what it would be like for someone to:

1. get knocked up and have her family completely disown her -- perhaps kick her out of the house,

2. her "boyfriend" that got her pregnant eff's off and she's completely on her own,

3. she lets go from her job because she's preggers.

4. never mind that she didn't have enough money to raise the kid in the first place.


You describe my mom's story to the letter. And I only say this, because she'd tell you herself in a heartbeat. She had an abortion. And it still haunts her.

What she needed was exactly what I described above. Somebody or some group to say, hey, we love you. It's OK. We're going to help you get through this. And the DO IT.

For some it might be their family. For others it might not. But these groups exist. Just no enough of them.

Jesus had some interesting words for people in that kind of situation. He said, to a woman who was about to get stoned for breaking the law, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." But then he said, "Go and don't sin anymore."

Funny thing. Jesus wasn't judgemental. But he called a spade a spade. He knew that what she did was wrong, and told her so. But he didn't condemn her for it.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+8%3A1-11&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:05 PM
Exactly, we all have our morals, and not everyones is the same. So how can a government tell people what they can and can't do in a situation such as abortion. Morally I think it is ok to do to a point. What point that is I don't know because I am a male and I am not the one that really has to decide this. I agree with what the Government of Canada says, it is not legally a human until is is born alive and well.

If they are considered human or alive after conception, then you should be able to consider then a dependant.

Hey, I'm all for that. :D Ask my wife. They're pretty damn dependant. :p

Here's another place we're going to differ though. I think that things are either right or wrong. I may not KNOW whether it's right or wrong, but it's my responsibility to figure it out, as it is the duty of society.

With some issues, it's not a huge deal to me. For instance, I think gay marriage is wrong. But it doesn't actually HARM anyone. And I live in a democracy. So I don't get active about it politically. But I think abortion DOES harm someone. So that's why I care.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 01:09 PM
Jesus had some interesting words for people in that kind of situation. "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
And then he got down in the hack and slid the rock down the ice... :D

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:12 PM
:p

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:14 PM
I'm going to approach this from a women's point of view. I don't believe in abortion. It IS my body and I should have the right to decide what or what doesn't happen to it but I also have an obligation if I am pregnant to sustain that life. As soon as conception occurs that IS a new life not at 18 days or 3 months or 9 months. To deny that is to negate all the losses mothers have endured over the years through miscarriages or children born still. Ask any women who has gone through this and I'm pretty sure they will tell you that that mass of cells as some people refer to a fetus was a person. I had a daughter that was stillborn at 30 weeks nearly 4 years ago today and for someone to say that she was not a person is unimaginable to me. She had 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes a nose and 2 ears.

We as women do have a responsibility to nuture that life within us not destroy it at will.

I would never dream of telling you that your 30 week old daughter was not a human being. She had fingers, toes, a heartbeat and brain activity. However, you cannot say that life begins at conception and have that be the end of the argument. To some (myself included), at conception all that you have is a single cell that begins dividing. At some point that cell will become a human being, but it is far from that stage initially (at least IMHO).

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 01:14 PM
If this is the case, then let's follow this line of logic out to the end. And I'm not trying to insult you at all, cause this type of thinking is extremely prevalent.

Let's say that nothing seperates us from animals.

1. We kill animals when it is to our advantage. (Pests, for food, for sport, etc.)
2. We use animals to our advantage. (Get your minds out of the gutter :D)
3. There is no inherent value to an animal other then what benefit it is to us.

So according to you belief system, humans shouldn't get anything more then that. To me, that's a scary thought.

Granted, I get my theology from the Bible. Some don't believe that's valid. But according to the Bible, God created humans higher then the animals, because we were created to share his image. The earth, the animals, etc. were created for our enjoyment. Now it's interesting. Because even God told humanity to look after the rest of the universe. In fact it was one of his first commands to humanity. Even as specifically as "A good person respects the life of the animals." This is in Proverbs. But according to my belief system, human beings deserve more respect and consideration then anything else in the universe because we carry the image of God.

Certainly not offense taken. Your statement that I bolded is how I feel, and while you find it scary, it doesn't really bother me so much.

A big reason for our difference is because of our differing religous beliefs. You've found a system that works for you, and I've done the same. No worries.

But, and I'll expand this question to everyone here pro-life or pro-choice, I ask this: Would you think it best for all in a society, that the laws on abortion to be changed (ie. that it become illegal) according to your views of when life begins? Think about that knowing how many differing opinions there are forum alone (some say conception, Fish says brain waves, many hospitals say 20 weeks, I say at whatever point science could ensure thier survival, etc.). Is it fair for anyone to set a time on this? Shuld we take a middle ground stance?

Food for thought.

esks4life
03-03-2006, 01:16 PM
Hard to believe your only a year older then Numberz, Phenom. :D

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:17 PM
Good post.



I say at whatever point science could ensure thier survival, etc.).


Here's what I don't get. This time is constantly changing right? So are you saying that what was just a pile of cells 10 years ago is now a viable human being with a right to live today?

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:19 PM
And why I find that scary, is because a society that places that little value on human life will be a scary place indeed. If humans are nothing more then animals, why care about them if they don't effect us at all?

Saving the whales isn't a huge priority to me. Why? Cause they don't effect me. But neither do those suffering from famine in Africa. If there is not something about "humanity" that gives it higher value, then it's just fine for me to forget about them along with the whales.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:21 PM
But, and I'll expand this question to everyone here pro-life or pro-choice, I ask this: Would you think it best for all in a society, that the laws on abortion to be changed (ie. that it become illegal) according to your views of when life begins? Think about that knowing how many differing opinions there are forum alone (some say conception, Fish says brain waves, many hospitals say 20 weeks, I say at whatever point science could ensure thier survival, etc.). Is it fair for anyone to set a time on this? Shuld we take a middle ground stance?

Food for thought.

I'll expand on that thought a bit...if you are pro-life (and from the sounds of it there are a fair number that fall into this category on esksfans), is the fact that abortion is legal forcing your hand in any way? Are you as an individual forced to do something you do not want to do? Not in the least. If you get pregnant, see it through to term. No one is forcing you to do anything less. However, making abortion illegal potentially forces a whole lot of people into a life choice they do not want. Since there are so many differing viewpoints on the topic, and no one can claim the literal truth, why not allow for choice in the matter?

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:23 PM
And why I find that scary, is because a society that places that little value on human life will be a scary place indeed. If humans are nothing more then animals, why care about them if they don't effect us at all?

Saving the whales isn't a huge priority to me. Why? Cause they don't effect me. But neither do those suffering from famine in Africa. If there is not something about "humanity" that gives it higher value, then it's just fine for me to forget about them along with the whales.

Instead of caring about humanity less, why not care about the whales more? God's creatures, no?

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 01:24 PM
except that you are letting a view that's basis for foundation lays more through the teachings of the catholic church as a model to dictate to others what they can and can't do to their bodies.

When did I mention God in all this? I didn't.

IF you consider the unborn to be human, then its no different than killing a human outside the womb. That's all I'm saying. If you don't buy into that, then you'd have a clean conscience doing it up until such time as you felt that the unborn qualified as human. Since my view is that human development begins at conception, then the natural view that follows is that abortion is no differnt than killing a 10 year old.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 01:24 PM
I think a reason why this might be a huge issue is that western societies tend to fear death. So we do all we can (with the exception of capital punishment) to ensure that the life continues. Fear of death I think integrates often with hell fires, brimstone and purgatory that are evident in many Christian doctrines.

I wonder, if we get rid of that fear, do we solve the abortion issue or at least get closer to a resolution?

Deathsdoorstep
03-03-2006, 01:25 PM
Meh...people complain about private healthcare costing so much, but are willing to spend 10x as much to insure their cars as their bodies. I don't get people.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:26 PM
I'll expand on that thought a bit...if you are pro-life (and from the sounds of it there are a fair number that fall into this category on esksfans), is the fact that abortion is legal forcing your hand in any way? Are you as an individual forced to do something you do not want to do? Not in the least. If you get pregnant, see it through to term. No one is forcing you to do anything less. However, making abortion illegal potentially forces a whole lot of people into a life choice they do not want. Since there are so many differing viewpoints on the topic, and no one can claim the literal truth, why not allow for choice in the matter?

This isn't going to be the greatest analogy, and please don't get offended at this one. But in reference to the bolded part...the holocaust didn't force German citizen's hands any either did it? Or the rest of the world for that matter.

Person X killing person Y doesn't force my hand. And by making killing illegal, I'm forcing person X to make a life choice that he may not want. But killing should still be illegal.

Again...I'm not calling ladies who have had abortions murderers, nor am I comparing them to Hitler. I don't believe that many of them were aware of the ramifications of what they did. And I don't fault them for that. But the logic still stands.

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 01:26 PM
Hard to believe your only a year older then Numberz, Phenom. :D

Oh, it's closer to two. :lol: Don't forget where I live now. :cool: :D

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:26 PM
I think a reason why this might be a huge issue is that western societies tend to fear death. So we do all we can (with the exception of capital punishment) to ensure that the life continues. Fear of death I think integrates often with hell fires, brimstone and purgatory that are evident in many Christian doctrines.

I wonder, if we get rid of that fear, do we solve the abortion issue or at least get closer to a resolution?

Actually, the essence of Christian doctrine is the END of fear of death...but hey, who wants to get into Christian doctrine? :p

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:28 PM
Instead of caring about humanity less, why not care about the whales more? God's creatures, no?

You have a good point. And I probably should. I was responding specifically to my conversation with phenom.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 01:29 PM
Actually, the essence of Christian doctrine is the END of fear of death...but hey, who wants to get into Christian doctrine? :p
True enough, but the fear of hell is used like a hammer for people's behaviours in some churches rather than the goodness of heaven.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:31 PM
This isn't going to be the greatest analogy, and please don't get offended at this one. But in reference to the bolded part...the holocaust didn't force German citizen's hands any either did it? Or the rest of the world for that matter.

Person X killing person Y doesn't force my hand. And by making killing illegal, I'm forcing person X to make a life choice that he may not want. But killing should still be illegal.

Again...I'm not calling ladies who have had abortions murderers, nor am I comparing them to Hitler. I don't believe that many of them were aware of the ramifications of what they did. And I don't fault them for that. But the logic still stands.

Ouch. Floating the Nazi's is an extreme example, don't you think? My whole point on this is that there is no concensus on abortion being murder, and there is no concensus on a fertilized egg being a human being. Everyone can agree that the Jews in WW2 were people and they were murdered . Germans were complicit in this, which makes them the bad guys. Same thing with X killing Y, the concensus is that it constitutes murder, therefore is wrong and punishable under the law.

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 01:33 PM
Good post.



Here's what I don't get. This time is constantly changing right? So are you saying that what was just a pile of cells 10 years ago is now a viable human being with a right to live today?

Yes, as I said earlier, when technology moves forward, the breaking point for changes as to when that fetus is alive. IMO, if a docter could pluck that kid out of the womb and at the end of the line of treatment it is a perfectly healthy baby, with the same genetics within it that it's parent gave him/her than that should be considered life.

Uncle Bobby
03-03-2006, 01:34 PM
And then he got down in the hack and slid the rock down the ice... :DI laughed.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:42 PM
True enough, but the fear of hell is used like a hammer for people's behaviours in some churches rather than the goodness of heaven.

And I expect there will be a special place in hell for people who do that. Seriously. I wrote a paper awhile back on how guilt and fear were effectively used as motivators within the church but we're paying for it now.

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 01:42 PM
Ouch. Floating the Nazi's is an extreme example, don't you think? My whole point on this is that there is no concensus on abortion being murder, and there is no concensus on a fertilized egg being a human being. Everyone can agree that the Jews in WW2 were people and they were murdered . Germans were complicit in this, which makes them the bad guys. Same thing with X killing Y, the concensus is that it constitutes murder, therefore is wrong and punishable under the law.

So if I'm for example pregnant and I get robbed walking down the street. A scuffle ensues and I get kicked in the stomach which subsequentially leads me to have a miscarriage don't you think the person who robbed me should be guilty of murder. That "mass of cells" I was carrying would have ended up a viable human being but he ended that possibillity with his actions.

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 01:44 PM
And why I find that scary, is because a society that places that little value on human life will be a scary place indeed. If humans are nothing more then animals, why care about them if they don't effect us at all?

Saving the whales isn't a huge priority to me. Why? Cause they don't effect me. But neither do those suffering from famine in Africa. If there is not something about "humanity" that gives it higher value, then it's just fine for me to forget about them along with the whales.

As much as this sounds fluffy, and somewhat tooty-fruity, I see humans as no different than animals in the sense that animals deserve as much compassion as a decent human being does.

Using your example, buth the whales and the famine would bother me. (Even though the whale population in-directly affect me, with the change in the eco-system etc. One is just more obvious than the other.) Both are noble, both have feelings, both deserve the same amount of help, IMO.

I realise that I'm a hypocrite in the sense that I won't cry over stepping on an ant and killing it, even if it wasn't being a pest, but killing a cat, or a dog? Forget it. I'm not even sure where that line gets drawn for me, but I think it's there with everyone.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:45 PM
No, because technically that fetus is not considered a human being under the law.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:45 PM
Ouch. Floating the Nazi's is an extreme example, don't you think? My whole point on this is that there is no concensus on abortion being murder, and there is no concensus on a fertilized egg being a human being. Everyone can agree that the Jews in WW2 were people and they were murdered . Germans were complicit in this, which makes them the bad guys. Same thing with X killing Y, the concensus is that it constitutes murder, therefore is wrong and punishable under the law.

But you prefaced your whole question with "If you are pro-life." Which, in most cases, means that you consider a fertilized egg as a human being.

You're right...that was an extreme example and I hate when people use those out of context. But I still think it's an appropriate analogy given the question you posed...

See that's the whole deal. This ALL comes back to when is it a life. But here's the interesting thing. I think we're agreeing on the fact that it is a life BEFORE birth right? In which case I think most of us united in agreeing that late-term abortions, even some mid-term abortions are morally wrong.

Which is more progress then the debators have EVER made. :rolleyes:

Opus
03-03-2006, 01:47 PM
When did I mention God in all this? I didn't.

IF you consider the unborn to be human, then its no different than killing a human outside the womb. That's all I'm saying. If you don't buy into that, then you'd have a clean conscience doing it up until such time as you felt that the unborn qualified as human. Since my view is that human development begins at conception, then the natural view that follows is that abortion is no differnt than killing a 10 year old.
You didn't have to.

It is common knowlege that this is the principle held fast in the Catholic church. I know that you are a spiritual man, simple deductive reasoning....and that's fine, I too have been raised with a strong christian belief structure. However, the stretch that aborting an embryo with no self awarness is the same as murdering a 10 year old child is completely ludicris. By that same logic, you are leaving a whole myriad of variables to assign culpability to anyone no matter how accidental which causes a fetus to not be brought to term. Let me ammend that to an embryo since it is not even considered a fetus until week 10.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:47 PM
As much as this sounds fluffy, and somewhat tooty-fruity, I see humans as no different than animals in the sense that animals deserve as much compassion as a decent human being does.

Using your example, buth the whales and the famine would bother me. (Even though the whale population in-directly affect me, with the change in the eco-system etc. One is just more obvious than the other.) Both are noble, both have feelings, both deserve the same amount of help, IMO.

I realise that I'm a hypocrite in the sense that I won't cry over stepping on an ant and killing it, even if it wasn't being a pest, but killing a cat, or a dog? Forget it. I'm not even sure where that line gets drawn for me, but I think it's there with everyone.

I agree. That line is there with everyone. For me, it starts at humans. :p

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 01:49 PM
No, because technically that fetus is not considered a human being under the law.

so no reprucussions for the robber at all???

Thrust
03-03-2006, 01:49 PM
Just another debatable sub topic from this thread.
If you were to vote pro life, would you care for the children that would be delivered by people that were pro choice, and did not continue the care for the child?

It is easy to say with conviction a YES, or a NO. But seriously stop and think about it for a second or two.

Regardless of the childs mental capacity, health concerns, mutations, or family medical history, would you open the doors to all that knocked?Would you openly raise them as your own, with your existing family as it is, right now?

To give an extreme example (as I have seen plenty in here)
You say "I would without question!" You are then delivered a Blind, Deaf, and mute child, whom is barely able to lend itself any sort of life support. But the child is still "alive". Would you be happy? Would you still accept more children, blindly, into your home? Would you secretly wish for an alterior outcome?

I would honestly have a struggle either way....

That is potentialy what we would create, as there is not enough adoption agencies, foster homes, or even "responsible" adults looking to adopt.
Seriously, where would these children all go?

Just more to chew on...

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:50 PM
No, because technically that fetus is not considered a human being under the law.

Yet, manslaughter charges have been filed in exactly the same kind of case....

Would it matter to you how far along the mother was?

See...here's my theory. I think, that whether we like it not, we declare it a life if we want it, and not a life if we don't want it. Why? Because it's easier to deal with. And this isn't just the case with abortion. My wife and I experienced this with her miscarriages. She had two. The first one was a lot harder then the second, simply because it happened later and we had really begun to ascribe a persona to the first baby. Did this change the reality of the baby? No. Did it make it easier on us? Absolutely.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:51 PM
so no reprucussions for the robber at all???

I'm sure there would be some...he robbed you and kicked you in the stomach.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 01:52 PM
And I expect there will be a special place in hell for people who do that. Seriously. I wrote a paper awhile back on how guilt and fear were effectively used as motivators within the church but we're paying for it now.
I'm trying to remember parts of the theology class I took in 1st year that I had my eyes open for :) Remind me to rep you when I can rep you again...

Opus
03-03-2006, 01:53 PM
So if I'm for example pregnant and I get robbed walking down the street. A scuffle ensues and I get kicked in the stomach which subsequentially leads me to have a miscarriage don't you think the person who robbed me should be guilty of murder. That "mass of cells" I was carrying would have ended up a viable human being but he ended that possibillity with his actions.
point.......counterpoint,

you're 8 weeks pregnant, you accidentally fall down some stairs, you miscarry........should you be charged with manslaughter?

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:54 PM
point.......counterpoint,

you're 8 weeks pregnant, you accidentally fall down some stairs, you miscarry........should you be charged with manslaughter?

Better example...at 8 weeks pregnant, you unknowingly drink the embryo to death on a bender. Should you be charged with manslaughter?

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 01:55 PM
point.......counterpoint,

you're 8 weeks pregnant, you accidentally fall down some stairs, you miscarry........should you be charged with manslaughter?

I believe the difference would be the word accidentally. He did not acciadentally rob me and the scuffle ensued directly in relation to his actions

Opus
03-03-2006, 01:56 PM
I believe the difference would be the word accidentally. He did not acciadentally rob me and the scuffle ensued directly in relation to his actions
but you are drawing guilt on the basis of him knowing you were pregnant as well and willfully causing harm.

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 01:56 PM
Better example...at 8 weeks pregnant, you unknowingly drink the embryo to death on a bender. Should you be charged with manslaughter?

I don't know if you can drink an embryo to death. You certainly could cause FAS but death I'm not sure

Thrust
03-03-2006, 01:57 PM
so no reprucussions for the robber at all???

Here in lies part of the debate.
When a woman gets inpregnated, she does not immediately know that she is carrying. If, and a big if, she gets absolutley wrecked and parties for three weeks, smoking "whatever", and drinking herself sick...but is unaware of her pregnancy, then finds out she is pregnant 1 and a half months after the "conception". The baby is then born with extreme FAS and has an addiction before it is a minute old.

Does the woman get charged with assult? Or worse yet, does she get charged with attempted murder?

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 01:57 PM
Just another debatable sub topic from this thread.
If you were to vote pro life, would you care for the children that would be delivered by people that were pro choice, and did not continue the care for the child?

It is easy to say with conviction a YES, or a NO. But seriously stop and think about it for a second or two.

Regardless of the childs mental capacity, health concerns, mutations, or family medical history, would you open the doors to all that knocked?Would you openly raise them as your own, with your existing family as it is, right now?

To give an extreme example (as I have seen plenty in here)
You say "I would without question!" You are then delivered a Blind, Deaf, and mute child, whom is barely able to lend itself any sort of life support. But the child is still "alive". Would you be happy? Would you still accept more children, blindly, into your home? Would you secretly wish for an alterior outcome?

I would honestly have a struggle either way....

That is potentialy what we would create, as there is not enough adoption agencies, foster homes, or even "responsible" adults looking to adopt.
Seriously, where would these children all go?

Just more to chew on...

Excellent point. I'll address it as I'm trying to get over 5000 posts by the end of the day. :D

I'll totally agree with you that it would be a struggle either way. But we get back to value. What has value? If we just say that only that which benefits us and which we connect with has value, then you're right, even "viable" human beings can be without value if they are severely handicapped.

Phenom brought up an interesting poing. He doesn't mind stepping on an ant, but he wouldn't kill a dog, nor would he kill a cow, but he's glad people do cause he needs to eat. I'm right there with him. Superficially, I ascribe value to that which I get attached to. I like dogs. I don't like ants. And this applies quite nicely to animals.

But if you believe that humans are on the same level as animals, then why wouldn't you give them the same consideration or lack of consideration based on their value to you?

Get's pretty risky.

It would be a HUGE struggle. A struggle that I have experienced personally with my sister who is borderline autistic. But that doesn't make her any less of a person. That doesn't mean she has any less value. That doesn't mean she cannot contribute to society.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 01:58 PM
Here in lies part of the debate.
When a woman gets inpregnated, she does not immediately know that she is carrying. If, and a big if, she gets absolutley wrecked and parties for three weeks, smoking "whatever", and drinking herself sick...but is unaware of her pregnancy, then finds out she is pregnant 1 and a half months after the "conception". The baby is then born with extreme FAS and has an addiction before it is a minute old.

Does the woman get charged with assult? Or worse yet, does she get charged with attempted murder?

Right. If the embryo is a life with the same rights as a fully formed human, how is this any different than running down a child with your car because of negligence?

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:00 PM
A recent development (November, 1996) involves a pregnant Ottawa woman, Brenda Drummond, who tried to kill herself or her foetus by discharging a pellet gun into her vagina. The pellet lodged into the foetus' head and the baby was born alive a few days later. Emergency surgery saved it's life when an x-ray revealed the pellet in the child's head. Attempted murder charges were brought under section 223 of the Criminal Code which says that "a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being." The same section defines a "human being ... when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed." Defence lawyers are saying that this was merely a failed abortion which, as explained above, is no longer a crime in Canada.

Taken from... http://www.duhaime.org/family/ca-abor.aspx

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 02:00 PM
but you are drawing guilt on the basis of him knowing you were pregnant as well and willfully causing harm.


No I wasn't. His actions still caused the death of my unborn child and he should be accountable wether it was willfull or not. He was engaging in an illiegal activity that led to the demise of the child.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:02 PM
Right. If the embryo is a life with the same rights as a fully formed human, how is this any different than running down a child with your car because of negligence?

Intentionality is the big "if." But I'd have no problem at all with a woman who knows she is pregnant and abuses herself and her body at the cost of her baby being charged.

In fact, this kind of case has already been won BY THE CHILD in the U.S., relating to FAS.

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 02:05 PM
Here in lies part of the debate.
When a woman gets inpregnated, she does not immediately know that she is carrying. If, and a big if, she gets absolutley wrecked and parties for three weeks, smoking "whatever", and drinking herself sick...but is unaware of her pregnancy, then finds out she is pregnant 1 and a half months after the "conception". The baby is then born with extreme FAS and has an addiction before it is a minute old.

Does the woman get charged with assult? Or worse yet, does she get charged with attempted murder?

I believe absolutely that women who knowingly engage in activities such as smoking crack or drinking excessivly while pregnant should be charged with child abuse.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 02:09 PM
I believe absolutely that women who knowingly engage in activities such as smoking crack or drinking excessivly while pregnant should be charged with child abuse.

What about smoking crack not knowing she was pregnant, and killing the embryo? She did something illegal that caused the death of a human being, should she not be charged with manslaughter?

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:10 PM
What about smoking crack not knowing she was pregnant, and killing the embryo? She did something illegal that caused the death of a human being, should she not be charged with manslaughter?

Where is this going? We're a LONG ways away from abortion now...

Thrust
03-03-2006, 02:13 PM
Excellent point. I'll address it as I'm trying to get over 5000 posts by the end of the day. :D

I'll totally agree with you that it would be a struggle either way. But we get back to value. What has value? If we just say that only that which benefits us and which we connect with has value, then you're right, even "viable" human beings can be without value if they are severely handicapped.

Phenom brought up an interesting poing. He doesn't mind stepping on an ant, but he wouldn't kill a dog, nor would he kill a cow, but he's glad people do cause he needs to eat. I'm right there with him. Superficially, I ascribe value to that which I get attached to. I like dogs. I don't like ants. And this applies quite nicely to animals.

But if you believe that humans are on the same level as animals, then why wouldn't you give them the same consideration or lack of consideration based on their value to you?

Get's pretty risky.

It would be a HUGE struggle. A struggle that I have experienced personally with my sister who is borderline autistic. But that doesn't make her any less of a person. That doesn't mean she has any less value. That doesn't mean she cannot contribute to society.

Point taken. I am in agreance with you that we need to value human life, and hold it higher than all else.
In a situation like yours, you did not have a choice in the matter with your sister, nor do I think you would have it any other way. I too have relatives with disabilities. Down syndrom to be exact. I love him, and her, to pieces. However, I honestly say that I would not choose to raise a "child" for the rest of my life. And neither would most given options.
It may be selfish, but I am also looking after the "betterment" (if that is a word) of my current family, and there quality of life, given our options.

Traxy
03-03-2006, 02:14 PM
Where is this going? We're a LONG ways away from abortion now...

Merely showing that granting an embryo the same rights as a human being under the law opens a whole legal can of worms.

Thrust
03-03-2006, 02:22 PM
Let me also state that this has got to be the best debated topic in Esksfans history. Everyone has kept cool heads and while standing by their own beliefs, have been open to hearing about the "other" side of the fence.
Please do not derail this thread as it is an intellegent thread, of 5 pages, and can go for a while longer!

Kudos to all :beer:
:hello:

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:23 PM
Merely showing that granting an embryo the same rights as a human being under the law opens a whole legal can of worms.

Yeah, but these cans have already been opened. There have been quite a few cases EXACTLY like what you outlined...I even posted a link to something like that.

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 02:25 PM
Yeah, but these cans have already been opened. There have been quite a few cases EXACTLY like what you outlined...I even posted a link to something like that.
Right but that link was to a case where she had an obvious foetus in her body that she knew about. What about the cases of ones where the woman doesn't know yet...?

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:30 PM
Dude....I barely get by on theology and ethics. Now you want me to speculate on law? :p

See, that's not linked to the topic, really. Granted, it's a can of worms. But our legal system is filled with cans of worms.

Personal opinion...she didn't know. It was an accident. Is there a criminal charge that would fit? I don't think so, but again, I don't know.

Thrust
03-03-2006, 02:32 PM
Dude....I barely get by on theology and ethics. Now you want me to speculate on law? :p

See, that's not linked to the topic, really. Granted, it's a can of worms. But our legal system is filled with cans of worms.

Personal opinion...she didn't know. It was an accident. Is there a criminal charge that would fit? I don't think so, but again, I don't know.


*coughoopsigotpregobyaccidentcough*
;)

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 02:34 PM
Merely showing that granting an embryo the same rights as a human being under the law opens a whole legal can of worms.

I don't think we can ignore issues just because we may open a can of worms.

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:35 PM
Now you're testing my reading comprehension....sheesh...

Nobody's talking about making getting pregnant by accident illegal are they? :p

Opus
03-03-2006, 02:37 PM
No I wasn't. His actions still caused the death of my unborn child and he should be accountable wether it was willfull or not. He was engaging in an illiegal activity that led to the demise of the child.
Tons of technicallities none the least of which being at what stage you were at in your pregnancy.

That in which is the total crux of the argument in the first place.

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 02:37 PM
Thanks for the discussion all. I'd love to continue but I'm off to curl.

I think I doubled my post count on here today... :)

and fishman I'll get back to you on that...

Opus
03-03-2006, 02:39 PM
Thanks for the discussion all. I'd love to continue but I'm off to curl.

I think I doubled my post count on here today... :)

and fishman I'll get back to you on that...
have fun :thup:

hope you're not pregnant ;) (willful endangerment of a minor) ;) :D :lol:

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:48 PM
Willful emBOREment of society...more like it. :D

riderfangal
03-03-2006, 02:57 PM
Willful emBOREment of society...more like it. :D


hey now.... :tongue: It's those kind of comments that may cause all the warm and fuzzy felings I had about you guys today to disappear faster than a free agent QB in the CFL ;)

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 02:58 PM
Hey, the truth hurts. :D :p

Thrust
03-03-2006, 03:02 PM
hey now.... :tongue: It's those kind of comments that may cause all the warm and fuzzy felings I had about you guys today to disappear faster Edmonton signing another free agent QB in the CFL ;)


;) :D

Edit* Dammit, I just highjacked the thread I begged not to be Highjacked.... :1:

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 03:19 PM
Dude....I barely get by on theology and ethics. Now you want me to speculate on law? :p

See, that's not linked to the topic, really. Granted, it's a can of worms. But our legal system is filled with cans of worms.

Personal opinion...she didn't know. It was an accident. Is there a criminal charge that would fit? I don't think so, but again, I don't know.

If I could just add a couple of sceondray sources into this for thought.

I'm not sure if many of you here have seen the film Vera Drake. It was an Oscar contender last last about a kind elderly lady that performed illegal abortions in Britain in the 1950s and is a true story. It wroks as an excellent examination to some ofthe what-ifs that have been brought up in the thread today.

As for accidental death, the charge that the Canadian Government uses in the case of accidentally killing a person is (a common example is when one is DUI and fatalty injures someone. They didn't want to kill them but it was thier fault.) called criminal negligence causing death, and can run up to 5 years in jail (though it rarely does).

MoneyGuy
03-03-2006, 04:04 PM
I'll attempt to distract this conversation to more fun topics:

Hey, isn't Numberz a kook, isn't Pizmo old, isn't MoneyGuy brilliant and aren't EL and EG beautiful?

Feel free to discuss this new topic. Or not. :D

Well, that didn't work. :D

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 04:07 PM
Well, that didn't work. :D
If at first you don't succeed, try try again ;)

MoneyGuy
03-03-2006, 05:10 PM
If at first you don't succeed, try try again ;)

Okay:

I'll attempt to distract this conversation to more fun topics:

Hey, isn't Numberz a kook, isn't Pizmo old, isn't MoneyGuy brilliant and aren't EL and EG beautiful?

Feel free to discuss this new topic. Or not.

:D

Opus
03-03-2006, 06:08 PM
...or we could have an important civil discussion without the need for hijack...

a rarity I admit, but just a thought...:lol:

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 07:30 PM
Or we could turn this to politics and have a pissing match in 3 posts. :D

Sgt. Nuke
03-03-2006, 07:31 PM
Better yet....let's talk about the Oscars. :D

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 07:44 PM
Or let's talk about grape stomping :lol:

EskiPhenom
03-03-2006, 08:14 PM
Seems like the thread has run it's course. Well done all, I nominate this one for the official archives. :)

Steve Vale
03-03-2006, 08:23 PM
Seems like the thread has run it's course. Well done all, I nominate this one for the official archives. :)
I'd like to second the nomination...:)

Numberz
03-03-2006, 08:45 PM
Okay:

I'll attempt to distract this conversation to more fun topics:

Hey, isn't Numberz a kook, isn't Pizmo old, isn't MoneyGuy brilliant and aren't EL and EG beautiful?

Feel free to discuss this new topic. Or not.

:D

No, but I am a cook



sorta.

esks4life
03-03-2006, 09:30 PM
The reason this thread stayed on track is cause E4E and I didn't participate. You should all be so lucky. :D