Where do you stand on other controversial issues?

Mike, if the pro-lifers, as a culture, really believed that zygotic and embryonic life was as important as a baby's they would be funding a massive campaign to cure failure to implant and spontaneous abortion (spontaneous abortion accounts for between 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies (cite), the actual number is certainly much higher as spontaneous abortion can and does happen before pregnancy is clinically recognized).

Spontaneous abortion is more common than medical abortion and yet there's no campaign to fund research to end it. Most people aren't even aware that it happens, and learning about it causes no discomfort. 91% of medical abortions occur in the same window of time as spontaneous abortion (cite).

 

Can't say that I disagree.

 

There is a difference to you. There is no objective difference. You may have strong feelings about it, but i don't see that that's permission to deny rights to those who don't see it the same way. Especially when, by definition, you will never be pregnant yourself.

 

Yes, there is.

And comparing someone masturbating, and two people having sex and the female getting pregnant is, to put it bluntly, ridiculously laughable.

Obviously, you clearly aren't changing your stance and I'm not changing mine. So, there's no point in continuing on and getting this thread closed.

 

No, there isn't. (at least not for everyone)

Not everyone shares your definition of life. Realising this might help you realise that there is no justification for impinging on the rights of citizens over their bodies in favour of the rights of an utterly dependent clump of cells which in no logical way constitutes what you can call a discrete life form.

 

OK, if you want to tell yourself that masturbating and having sex are the same thing then, uh, by all means do so. Let's also look at it in terms of choice. People having sex know full-well there is a chance of pregnancy, and people that masturbate know that there isn't. So, two people that have sex and then decide to run away from their problem is reckless. Masturbating doesn't carry the same risk.

You're right, though - everyone has a different definition of life. So maybe you, too, should realize that your definition is also just like mine - your own.

 

if you read my post carefully you'll understand i said no such thing, what i did say is that while zygotes and sperm/eggs are "alive", they are not "a life". They're not sentient, so they're not humans, so an abortion* is no more immoral than masturbating. Applying an absurdist slant to a point you're not getting doesn't make it go away.

And yes, it is my own definition, but i am not the one saying that people's rights should be restricted, based on nothing but my own subjective ideas; that would be you.

* a legal abortion, anyway

---------- Post added 21st Jul 2012 at 10:47 AM ----------

what about the morning after pill? Would you ban that along with abortions?

 

Ha ha, talk about slanting. Hilarious.

And that's not even really my point or belief. I believe that that upon an egg being fertilized, it is a life.

 

As an aside, i notice a lot of people mentioning they don't know enough about 'obamacare' to make a judgment on it. This might help:

CaspianX2 comments on ELI5: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

---------- Post added 21st Jul 2012 at 10:55 AM ----------

I know you do, that's the crux of the entire matter and what i've been addressing this entire conversation. The only problem is you have nothing to base that on but your own feelings, and in spite of that you're comfortable saying you think that people's rights should be curtailed because of them.

Your definition of a 'person' seems not to need to include the concept of sentience.

 

But they are still alive - therefore it's a life. I mean, people in a coma aren't conscious or aware, but they are still living.

About the only point that you have made is that they aren't sentient, and I would agree with that. But that's not my argument.

 

Moot. People in a coma have a brain. They don't lose sentience upon losing consciousness.

I know that's not your argument. They are "a life" to you even without sentience, as i pointed out. I don't know how to stress any harder that you have nothing to back that up besides your own personal feelings on the matter, and that other people think differently about it. Just tell me if this is wrong: You agree that other people have different definitions of life to you, but you are so convinced that yours is right and theirs is wrong that you feel comfortable telling them they shouldn't have the right to do what you see as morally questionable. No?

Also, did you actually have something of substance to say in rebuttal, or just going to leave it at that?

 

Well, you know what... people are going to have sex. We are programmed to have sex (unless you are asexual but that is a low percentage of the population). And you know what? Sex is awesome. It rocks. It feels good, it's fun, it's relaxing, it's a way to express your love for your partner, yadda yadda yadda. We all have sex. SEX SEX SEX. There are consequences and risks to sex and sometimes prevention does not work. Fact of life.

Now are you saying abstinence is the answer? Cause I got news for you, it does not work and it will never work. I will not bore you with articles but they are a google search away. Just look for correlations between teen pregnancy and abstinence only education on a state by state basis.

You can't suppress human nature or natural feelings which, on a board comprised of primarily homosexuals, bisexuals, and trans people, I think present company alone will support that fact. Abortion is not a first resort, it is a last resort. It’s not a glorious procedure but sometimes a necessary one. It is hard for a woman to decide if she wants an abortion. Are there people out there who don’t care and are on their third abortion… yeah, maybe, anything is possible…. but the vast overwhelming majority of women are not stupid and know what an abortion is and what an abortion means. It is termination of a possible human life. That is not something that should ever be taken lightly. So, with that heavy fact established, it is not our place, it is not the government’s place, and it certainly isn’t the church’s place to determine what is best for an individual woman in a specific circumstance. She is the only one who can make that decision and if she wants an abortion, she should have access to a safe affordable clinic that can provide her with that service. Also, she shouldn’t have to live in shame or guilt or be demonized because of her rational personal decision.

Also, I know you said adoption is the answer… well, birth is really really really really expensive. It’s a nice idea, but who’s going to pay for the birth? The adoptive family maybe, if an adoption is lined up in time. What if not? The woman giving birth has to pay the bill. What if she is low income? Most unwanted pregnancies happen to low income women. So her life should be destroyed, she should be saddled with debt, she should be unable to break the cycle of poverty, she should be left to the care of the state though welfare and Medicaid because abortion is something you think is wrong. Well, I think that is wrong, very very wrong.

That is very condescending and unworthy of this type of debate. Everything has very deep consequences, including your position, so don't come to this like your shit doesn't stink. Have empathy, not disdain.

 

What? Yes, they do.

And, again, you have your own definition and so do I -- I'm not denying that. I also am not saying that I would restrict their rights. Do I think they should be? Absolutely. But it's my own opinion, so I would not. I never said I would, anyway.

---------- Post added 20th Jul 2012 at 09:29 PM ----------

Also, did you actually have something of substance to say in rebuttal, or just going to leave it at that?[/QUOTE]

Already have, look above.

 

You're failing to understand the concept of sentience. If you've "lost consciousness" that doesn't mean your status as a sentient being has been altered.

---------- Post added 21st Jul 2012 at 11:32 AM ----------

So really, yes. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Abortion? Not a fan of it, but I can't imagine what it like to be in a position where I have to make that decision. I think it should be left up to the woman to decide.
Death Penalty? Against it. I feel that the death penalty is just thinly veiled vengeance.
No fault divorce? People should be able to get divorced if they want, and if they want it to be simple even better.
Stem Cell Research? Why aren't we funding this.
Pornography? Is this even controversial anymore?
Affirmative Action? Don't have an opinion as I am ignorant on the issue.
Medical Marijuana? If it makes you feel better, go for it. Many pain killers are much harder on your body.
Marijuana legalization? It should be legal. I believe it to be less of a hazard than alcohol.
Gun Control? Means hitting your target.
Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)? It dosen't bother me. I not religious, but lots of people are. Plus it is part of our heritage. So I'm cool with it.
Obamacare? Dosen't go far enough.

 

No, but it still means that the person has no idea what is going on or is conscious.

I think sentience is moot, anyway.

 

forgive the flippancy but i couldn't resist:

[YOUTUBE]fLrpBLDWyCI[/YOUTUBE]

---------- Post added 21st Jul 2012 at 11:40 AM ----------

An interesting article re: the morning after pill, and whether or not it prevents conception itself, or prevents the zygote from forming connection with the womb:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html

And a good quote in the comments:

Spoiler

The whole area of abortion is where religious fantasy interferes with fact. It is especially true of the morning after pill. It is a religious view that the second sperm meets egg it's a human being. The fact is it is not, it merely a clump of cells, a zygote. No organs, no brain, no central nervous system, no consciousness. Just some cells.

It is their religious belief that is interfering with fact and with the rights of others. They are putting the zygote's rights above that of a living breathing woman who will have to risk her health having a child. No one should have the right to make their religious beliefs law. If they don't want to take a morning after pill no one is forcing them. Yet they have little consideration for the rights of others. and while they may argue that a zygote is a person and therefore has rights they ignore the fact that it's NOT a person.

They are free to believe that upon conception God breathes a spirit into that cell, but that is a delusion. A delusion that they have no right to force upon others.

 

I'm interested in your reasoning here. You base your support of life on well, being alive, and at a minimum also being a human and perhaps of high enough intelligence to reach some level of sentience. The last part is tricky to define, but since the primary focus is on humans it is also irrelevant for the moment.

You hold this position, and yet simultaneously support the death penalty. You also oppose Obamacare. I assume you would also support some degree of violence as conducted by the Federal government either through the CIA or the Military; likely both.

So you have no problem with murder or killing. So what makes a fetus so special? What elevates the fetus to be in such a sacred position, that say - someone who may or may not be innocent sitting on death row doesn't also occupy? Or some little Afghan kid who has a really bad day when one of our drones blows him up into tiny little bits by accident?

What makes the fetus special, and what makes these other people less special in comparison? If it is not the fetus you value, but life instead; then why do you support any sort of violence that leads to death of humans, or stand in opposition to things that might prolong and save lives such as Obamacare?

Specifically, I'm looking for the thread of logic or philosophical underpinning of your stance.

 

Not at all, i didn't think you were religious, but the concept remains the same no matter which irrational source you derive your belief from.