Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[nationalist]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by loinburger

Define "naturally." In particular, explain why it is unnatural to abort an embryo/fetus but still natural to use contraception.

It is unnatural to abort a fetus because you artificially inserted chemicals that wouldn't be there otherwise. If the chemicals weren't there, the fetus wouldn't be aborted. When you wear a condom, you still experience the same processes. You still ejaculate, it was just caught by something other than the woman's reproductive organ. It is natural in the same way masterbating is natural.

When you fail to engage in sexual intercourse, then you are disrupting the exact same result. It's not as certain to occur, granted, but it's the same result nevertheless.

Could you extend that to include anything that isn't having sexual intercourse. If I am eating or studying, I'm failing to create a life. The key word in that is certain. The second trimester fetus will become a third trimester fetus barring accident. Having sex doesn't guarantee fertilization. That is the difference for me. I can't really buy this argument.

As a result of your not having sex, a human being has failed to come into existence. As a result of a second trimester abortion, a human being has failed to come into existence. All you're doing is drawing a line in the sand in terms of probabilities, and declaring that everything on one side of the line (everything with, say, a 15% probability of producing a human) cannot be interrupted, while everything on your side of the line is a-okay.

You have to look at the 9 month longterm before you make this decision. Decisions aren't made in a vaccuum. That is why I can't buy this argument. I know that it certainly will be a human, barring injury, in 3 months. That is why I can't abort it, and that is why I can't buy this argument.

In a second trimester abortion, who is the victim?

The fetus, insomuch as it will be sentient soon otherwise. Again, decisions aren't made in a vaccuum. Time must be taken into account.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've heard of the other groups. . . . wait a minute, you know, I just might have run across them at the National March on Washington for Reproductive Rights back in Nov, 1989. I vaguely remember some pro-life feminists . . . Nope, I'm thinking of the pro-choice Republican women. They were nice. Too many drugs in my misspent youth.

I guess our differences are in the definition of feminist. I say that anyone who thinks that women are just as good as men are feminists. Go figure that people would have different definitions for the same political term. Oh well, once agian we'll agree to disagree. Hey, at least this time things were pretty civil.

[Aeson]

So am I the only "anti-life" one here?

Anyone promoting freedom of choice should first consult with the child before it is conceived. Failing in obtaining permission should postpone conception until further notice from the child. Not only is this the solution to the "I'm pro-******, you're anti-******" debate, but within a century or so, all of humanity's problems as well.

Down with totalitarian parents! Up with un-born children's rights! (this sounds sarcastic I know, but I'm dead serious, except about the chanting at the end, I'm too lazy to demonstrate no matter how worthy the cause)

[chequita guevara]

Well, it's also true there are a hell of a lot more right-wing feminists these days than even five years ago. Hell, those blonde Republican hotties on TV have to come from somewhere. While I disagree with their politics, their existence is still a victory of feminism.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by nationalist
It is unnatural to abort a fetus because you artificially inserted chemicals that wouldn't be there otherwise. If the chemicals weren't there, the fetus wouldn't be aborted. When you wear a condom, you still experience the same processes. You still ejaculate, it was just caught by something other than the woman's reproductive organ. It is natural in the same way masterbating is natural.

So things that cause a biological change in a human are unnatural? So, f'rinstance, wearing a condom is natural (since its effects are external), but using birth control pills would be unnatural (since if the chemicals weren't there, the woman might become pregnant).

Could you extend that to include anything that isn't having sexual intercourse.

Yes, which is why it's a slippery slope to start considering "the possibility of life" to be the equivalent of "life." Possibilities aren't certainties.

The key word in that is certain. The second trimester fetus will become a third trimester fetus barring accident. Having sex doesn't guarantee fertilization. That is the difference for me. I can't really buy this argument.

Like I said, you're drawing an apparently arbitrary line in the sand. "You can interfere with processes that have X% chance of producing a human, but you cannot interfere with processes that have Y% chance of producing a human."

You're also using a cop-out definition of the term "certain," since you're essentially saying "It's certain, barring the chance that it isn't." Fertilization from intercourse is also certain, barring the chance that the woman's egg isn't viable and barring the chance that the sperm fail to do their job.

I know that it certainly will be a human, barring injury, in 3 months. That is why I can't abort it, and that is why I can't buy this argument.

If you have intercourse then you know that you will certainly produce a human life, barring the possibility that you fail to do so. That's why it looks as though you're just drawing a line in the sand over this.

The fetus, insomuch as it will be sentient soon otherwise. Again, decisions aren't made in a vaccuum. Time must be taken into account.

The fetus is not sentient at this stage of the game, so it cannot be a victim any more than a brain-dead patient can be a victim, or any more than sperm/egg cells can be victims. There is no victim, because until the third trimester there is no "being" to be victimized. If not creating life is murder, then everybody who is capable of reproducing and is currently not reproducing is a murderer.

[CyberGnu]

Nationalist, 'instantaneous'?

But you got that part. Now regress in time. At what point should I start considering myself a PhD? When I've defended? When I finished my thesis? When I passed my candidacy exams? When I was accepted to graduate school? (And while you might think the example spurious, consider the propabilites: A student just accepted to grad school has a LARGER chance of becoming a PhD than a newly fertilized zygote has of becoming a human.)

I still maintain that one cannot use a propability as a means of classification, no matter what the odds are.

[CyberGnu]

Umm, loin, we are on the same side here, right?

En egg is not a chicken. It is avian, as far as classifications go, but it is not a chicken. Likewise, a human zygote is human, but not a human.

Regarding cancer cell, don't be too sure. Research suggests that cencer cells might be able to function just like stem cells... Which would make them the equivalent of a fertilized zygote.

[nationalist]

Gnu,

Instantaneous meaning at that instant, without regard to the instant before or the instant afterwards. That is why I reject all of these arguments, they all seem to discount time as a factor. For your example, I'd say that you could consider yourself a PhD after you've defended, because you have met all of the requirements to become one. It is just a short amount of time until you actualy get that peace of paper. I don't think that I am simply using probability as a factor; I think it is just one of the factors.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Regarding cancer cell, don't be too sure. Research suggests that cencer cells might be able to function just like stem cells... Which would make them the equivalent of a fertilized zygote.

Wouldn't that be odd, if it turns out that Parkinson's or Alzheimers can be cured with cancer cells.

[chequita guevara]

nationalist, I'm going to take your time example to an absurd extreme. Since we will all end up dead one day, then there is no problem with murder. By allowing someone to live you are merely delaying the inevitable 100% chance that a person is going to become dead.

[CyberGnu]

Nationalist, then you ARE actually using propability as a factor. You picked the instant when the probability (at least as far as procedures go) went to 100%.

Before I defended, my propability was over 99%. I would have had to resort to racial slurs or public indecency in order to fail. Yet you didn't pick that point, because there was a propability involved.

[CyberGnu]

Che, yeah, it would... I think stem cell research is much more likely to yeild good results, though...

Good example, too

[nationalist]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by loinburger

So things that cause a biological change in a human are unnatural? So, f'rinstance, wearing a condom is natural (since its effects are external), but using birth control pills would be unnatural (since if the chemicals weren't there, the woman might become pregnant).

sort of. To me the difference is the fact that when using birth control pills you are using chemicals to prevent pregnancy that hasn't happened yet, but abortion uses those chemicals to stop a pregnancy that is already in progress. In progress is another key phrase in my beliefs. I'll need to refine my definition of natural more than what you have interpreted it as. Mine is something along the lines of creating a "destructive biological change" rather than a "preventative" biological change. BCPs don't destroy anything; they prevent ovulation by tricking the body. That is basically what makes them acceptable to me.

Yes, which is why it's a slippery slope to start considering "the possibility of life" to be the equivalent of "life." Possibilities aren't certainties.


Like I said, you're drawing an apparently arbitrary line in the sand. "You can interfere with processes that have X% chance of producing a human, but you cannot interfere with processes that have Y% chance of producing a human."

You're also using a cop-out definition of the term "certain," since you're essentially saying "It's certain, barring the chance that it isn't." Fertilization from intercourse is also certain, barring the chance that the woman's egg isn't viable and barring the chance that the sperm fail to do their job.

By certain I mean a practical certainty. 99.9% probability may not be completely certain, but it is practically certain. None of us know the actual figures, so we can't really debate them here.

If not creating life is murder, then everybody who is capable of reproducing and is currently not reproducing is a murderer.

That's not what I am going for. I don't think that not creating life is murder, I thiunk that stopping life while it is in the process of developing is murder. That process begins with fertilization, not with intercourse. That is why contraceptives are alright. The development of the different cells into one being starts at fertilization.

Well, I have an 8 a.m. class tomorrow, and I can't believe that I stayed up until 3 debating on a computer forum! Anyway, this was probably the best argument that I have been in on here so far. Everyone responded cooly, and no one really tossed spiteful ad hominems at each other. (Boris was pretty obnoxious, but that doesn't really surprise me) Anyway, goodnight all and thanks for your time.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Nationalist, then you ARE actually using propability as a factor. You picked the instant when the probability (at least as far as procedures go) went to 100%

I thought that you meant the process of defending your thesis when you said defending. In that case it wouldn't be 100%. The probability would only be 99.99% because you didn't take that last , near certain step into becoming a PhD. Your defending your thesis, and the late secondtrimester fetus surviving 3 or 4 days to become sentient are alot alike. Its not positive, but it is 99.99% likely, and that's practically certain.

I feel like we are just spinning our tires.
Edited because I misread his quote when I typed my response.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I highly doubt that, since it was feminists who intiated the movement to legalize abortion and who are at the heart of the fight to keep it legal. The right to control one's own body is at the heart of feminism.

As for the anti-choice momvement being anti-woman, it's very simple. Most of the anti-choice movement is also opposed to the use of contraception, sex education, women being able to get divorces, women having jobs (other than being secretaries at their church), women wearing pants. While (for example) you won't be able to look up the now defunct Operation Rescue and see those things as part of it's platform, you can go track down things Randal Terry and other leaders say in their churches, in their ministries, etc. The "pro-life" position is merely the spearhead of a larger crusade against the freedom of women.

That is pure and utter nonsense che . . . plain and simple!