EC-Bills Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I don't know the details of the abortion law in South Dakota. But, here is my general stance on the scenarios you offered:- rape => not for abortion; it's still a life - incest => not for abortion; it's still a life; however there may be medical reasons that would put the mother at risk, in which case it would be OK Your logic is simply astounding. You are telling women victims of rape or incest that they have no choice in the matter. Who cares about the psychological ramifcations or trauma they went through. They must do what *you* think is the correct choice. Wow, what tolerance. Now I am sure this segment is where you will be talking about where your religious beliefs say this and that... - threat to the life of the mother => abortion is OK in this case because of "double-effect"; your main goal is to save the life of the mother, not terminate the life of the fetus If the goal is to save the mother, then the goal *is* to terminate the fetus, no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Now I am sure this segment is where you will be talking about where your religious beliefs say this and that...If the goal is to save the mother, then the goal *is* to terminate the fetus, no matter how you try to sugar coat it. 721660[/snapback] Which establishes that the mother's life is actually worth more than the fetus'. Everything else - cases of rape or incest - just becomes dickering over the relative worth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Prove. It. 721653[/snapback] prove it isn't - nya, nya !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 prove it isn't - nya, nya !!! 721687[/snapback] It's pretty sad when your response makes BF look like an intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Yes, I am intolerant of many, many things. Murderers, rapists, terrorists, criminals; or probably more accurate I am intolerant of crime. I know it happens, but it does not mean that we have to look the other way because we can't get it down to zero. 721636[/snapback] You do realize that if you live in a state where abortion is legal, and you legally get an abortion, you aren't a criminal, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Did anybody watch the DEAD ZONE on USA Sunday July 9? The opening scene is a "preacher" interested in politics speaking about "tolerance". John Smith, the main character, points to a crowd holding up "Abortion = Murder" signs and says something to the effect of "not everybody is getting the message on tolerance". Can somebody tell me how believing that abortion is murder is an example of intolerance? Um,yes. It's fine if you believe abortion is murder, just don't try to tell me that I have to believe it. Abortion is legal, so get over it and stop being so concerned with other people's personal decisions. It's the very definition of intolerance IMHO.The world would be a better place if lunatics would stop trying to force their religious beliefs on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I'm dumbfounded nobody has called you on this. People have the right to express their views, religious or otherwise. They have the right to try to get others to follow these views, and have had this right ever since the Bill of Rights was enacted. Those who would chip away at this freedom of expression are the ones guilty of intolerance. 721643[/snapback] It's one thing to express your views, it's another to try to impose your religious beliefs through legislation, which is the aim of the "pro-lifers" a term I believe is an oxymoron since many pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty. When you tell me I should believe in your God, I can tell you to buzz off. When you legislate your religious beliefs and throw me in jail, kill me, or ban me from your country as a result of my not accepting your religion you become (our friends) Saudi Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 prove it isn't - nya, nya !!! 721687[/snapback] I don't need to. You're the one making the claim that it is. Burden of proof is on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 This whole thread reminded me of a column Chuck Klosterman wrote last year. Here's an excerpt: I am an apolitical person. Absolutely nobody believes me when I say that, but it's true. Every conservative person I know thinks I'm mixing Noam Chomsky's personal Kool-Aid, and every liberal I know seems to assume I want to shampoo Ann Coulter's hair while watching outtakes from "The Passion of the Christ." I have no idea how this happened. For example, I don't have an opinion on abortion. I really, truly do not. You want to have an abortion? Fine; take my car keys, You think abortion is murder? Well, you're probably right. Who knows? Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with me. Do I think George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime? Well, of course I do -- but that's not because he's a Republican. It's because he somehow (a) got into Yale, yet (b) claims "the jury is still out" on the theory of evolution. Everything is situational, and that reality informs how I interpret the world. At least within my mind, it seems as though any people who consciously and consistently perceive themselves as right-leaning or left-leaning are simply admitting that they don't want to think critically about complexity. It always strikes me as staunchly unsophisticated and mildly insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 This whole thread reminded me of a column Chuck Klosterman wrote last year. Here's an excerpt: 721851[/snapback] That's great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 It's one thing to express your views, it's another to try to impose your religious beliefs through legislation, which is the aim of the "pro-lifers" a term I believe is an oxymoron since many pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty. When you tell me I should believe in your God, I can tell you to buzz off. When you legislate your religious beliefs and throw me in jail, kill me, or ban me from your country as a result of my not accepting your religion you become (our friends) Saudi Arabia. Abortion is one of the few controversial issues I don't have strong feelings about, so I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong or that the pro-lifers are right. That said, these people do believe the rights of unborn babies are being violated through current abortion law, and would like to see this change addressed via legislation. They have every bit as much right to advocate such legislation as Jessie Jackson does to advocate affirmative action programs, or some leftist has to advocate a new wasteful social program. In any of these cases, people are proposing legislation to protect what they believe to be people's rights. But, you say, the concept of unborn babies' rights was inspired by religion, and therefore lies outside the legitimate scope of governmental legislation. However, according to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." The U.S. has a long and rich history of people being open to religious inspiration when determining people's legal and constitutional rights. Such determinations can be misguided; they can sometimes do more harm than good. But they are not intrinsically intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 But, you say, the concept of unborn babies' rights was inspired by religion, and therefore lies outside the legitimate scope of governmental legislation. 721879[/snapback] Actually, I think the debate's more fundamental than that: when does life begin, and should the religious right be allowed to dictate their personal moral beliefs on that to the public at large. Or, to put it another way, if the pro-life lobby is pushing a point of view - namely, that life begins at conception - that is demonstrably scientifically wrong and only defensible on the grounds of their religious beleifs, is it right for their point of view to be forced on others that don't share those beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 CTM I have a question which has nothing to do with this thread. What did you mean by iraq has 40 tons of it's own yellow cake to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Your logic is simply astounding. You are telling women victims of rape or incest that they have no choice in the matter. Who cares about the psychological ramifcations or trauma they went through. They must do what *you* think is the correct choice. Wow, what tolerance. There's Jimshiz looking out for the interests of rapists and incestors intent on making a baby. He's always right. His name is Jim Shizzle, in the hizzle, baby! Read his sig line and try to tell me that's not all tolerance, all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Or, to put it another way, if the pro-life lobby is pushing a point of view - namely, that life begins at conception - that is demonstrably scientifically wrong Please elaborate on this. Precisely what do you feel science has established with respect to when life begins? Do you feel scientists have established a range--life begins no earlier than three months after conception, and no later than six months after, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 CTM I have a question which has nothing to do with this thread.What did you mean by iraq has 40 tons of it's own yellow cake to use? 721914[/snapback] Just that. Iraq has 40 tons of its own yellow cake to use. Or had - before the CPA transferred control to the provisional Iraqi government a couple years ago, about a quarter of it was shipped out of the country...the rest remained in Iraq for legitimate use (yellow cake isn't just used for nuclear bombs). The reason I know this is because 1) the removal of the ten or so tons of it was reported in the media, and 2) one of the guys responsible for the operational planning of the removal told me the rest. I believe it was actually discussed on this board back then (may have been another one, though...I'm not sure), if you want to do a search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Please elaborate on this. Precisely what do you feel science has established with respect to when life begins? 721959[/snapback] I thought it was clear. Precisely, and regardless of how I feel, science has established that within the context of the abortion debate life cannot be considered to begin at conception. It is a demonstrable scientific fact that conception is not pregnancy, and does not mark the initiation of pregnancy. The "life begins at conception" nonsense is just that: nonsense. This was discussed here a while back, in a discussion about the "morning after" pill, if you want to do a search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Just that. Iraq has 40 tons of its own yellow cake to use. Or had - before the CPA transferred control to the provisional Iraqi government a couple years ago, about a quarter of it was shipped out of the country...the rest remained in Iraq for legitimate use (yellow cake isn't just used for nuclear bombs). The reason I know this is because 1) the removal of the ten or so tons of it was reported in the media, and 2) one of the guys responsible for the operational planning of the removal told me the rest. I believe it was actually discussed on this board back then (may have been another one, though...I'm not sure), if you want to do a search. 721963[/snapback] Thank you for the info. I checked the ISG and the iaea, and read a bit on the al-qaim uranium mine that was bombed in 91 and dismantled in 96-97. Although the ISG has released reports on saddam apparently waiting for sanctions to be lifted to reinstitute his programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 The fertilized egg has a unique set of human chromosomes. The fertilized egg is living. It carries out the the processes necessary for life (haven't read this in a long time, but I believe there are 7). Look at it from the other side, aren't you are imposing your morals on the pro-life people? Want an abortion-pay for it yourself. No insurance or public funds. Look into the history of Planned Parenthood. Margret Sanger was a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I thought it was clear. Precisely, and regardless of how I feel, science has established that within the context of the abortion debate life cannot be considered to begin at conception. It is a demonstrable scientific fact that conception is not pregnancy, and does not mark the initiation of pregnancy. The "life begins at conception" nonsense is just that: nonsense. This was discussed here a while back, in a discussion about the "morning after" pill, if you want to do a search. I don't want to do a search! Anyone who says, "Life begins at X period," leaves himself open to serious objections, no matter how X is defined. To illustrate: View: Life begins at conception. Objection: a conception is, as you point out, not a pregnancy. In any case, a single celled organism such as a zygote sure seems less human than someone you'd see on the street. View: Life begins at the onset of pregnancy. Objection: we're still talking about a very small organism here; only a few cells. It seems silly to believe that a simple organism becomes a human being by sticking to the uterine wall. View: Life begins when the fetus could exist outside of the womb. Objection: this is a moving target, because babies can survive being born more and more prematurely. View: Life begins at birth. Objection: if a baby born five months after conception is considered human, how can an unborn baby be considered inhuman eight months after conception? Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. But science can only give a certain amount of help in deciding where. The further away from conception someone gets, the more they resemble an adult human being. All science can do is to tell us this same story, but in greater detail. The deeper question of where to draw the line is not something science can solve for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts