# Now here's a pleasant topic



## MDLarson (Mar 3, 2002)

*Abortion!*

Sorry to make the music grind to a halt and attract all stares, but I'd like to know what you folks have to say on the matter.

Right to choose, or death to the unborn?

(You might be able to tell from my avatar that I'm a Christian and tend to lean towards pro-life, which I do.)

<<edited because of stupid mistake - see page 3 of this thread for details>>


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

Intersting topic...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Personally, when a friend suggested that I abort my make-your-own-PC project, I was at first shocked at the cruelty of the concept. Then I realised that it was deformed, and that even if it did develop properly, it would never be able to lead a normal life, because the Mac OS won't run on X86 chips.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The experience was a hurtful one, but it made me ask the question "what is this thing that we call a CPU anyway, and can we truely say that it has a right to word-process?"
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the traumatic experience (I had to go ahead, I just wasn't ready to bring a PC into the world at this time in my life) I have been posessed by an urge to do good - I don't want the death of my PC to be for no reason. So I joined a really helpful online OS X support community (who have been very supportive) and now I recommended macs to all of my friends on a daily basis.

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

Oh, and as a serious reply to your post:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I can see why people might be a bit surprised at this post (In the words of Roots Manuva - "that's some shit I was not ready for") But nethertheless, it deserves an answer:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think the health of women giving birth is of paramount importence, then the next priority is that the people involved feel able to give a child a proper life, and then thirdly the life of the unborn child.

Bernie     |

(the sign-off smilie isn't grinning inanely as usual today as an expression of the grave nature of this thread)


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

I was going to ask which trimester your PC was in before you aborted it, but...  

Yeah, thanks for the answer.  I agree with you mostly except I'd switch one thing around:

1)  Health / life of woman giving birth
2)  Life of unborn child
3)  "Convenience factor"* - being able to give child a proper life

Number 3 is certainly subjective, and can mean vastly different things to different people, but I understand your point.  However, I believe there are many adoption agencies eager and waiting for mothers who don't want to keep the baby and don't want to abort it either.

*I also believe the majority of abortions are the result of irresponsibility and not wanting to make the gargantuan (sp?) task of raising a baby when they are not ready (like a teenage mother in high school).


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Mar 4, 2002)

if the mother doesn't want it, she shouldn't have done the dirty deed before it...

that's how i see it...

i don't care whether or not you do or don't have an abortion... it's up to the person....

that's how i feel about it


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BlingBling 3k12_
> *i don't care whether or not you do or don't have an abortion... it's up to the person....
> 
> that's how i feel about it *


Sage... ;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## AdmiralAK (Mar 4, 2002)

quite frankly I am very pro-choice.
I think people should have the right to do what they want.  IF they dont want a pregnancy the should terminate it.

What I am opposed to though are "stupid" circumstances like for example woman wants kid then in the 8th months decides she doesnt want it (for NON medical reasons.  Medical reasons OK. I would HATE to lose my loved one for something like this).  Then my dear it's too late.  Just have the child and put it up for adoption.


oh blingbling...unless you are castrated its very hard keeping it in your pants 

Admiral


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 4, 2002)

Very sticky issue!

I think ultimately the decision rests with the mother and father of the unborn child until the unborn reaches a certain stage in its development when it is legally considered an unborn human child as opposed to a lump of dividing cells.  However, I VERY STRONGLY believe that if one or two people aren't ready for children, then they shouldn't be playing around - PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION!  Abstinance is the best form of birth control and it also helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.  There are simply already enough children up for adoption, why bring another unwanted child into the world?  Could this unborn child be the next Einstein?  Possibly.  Could this unborn child be a further burden to the state and bring increased hardship to the parents?  Possibly.  Tough questions to answer for which I have no answer.


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 4, 2002)

Do first SEX and ask them at your wife to kill the sex. For your wife it's SEX or No sex.


----------



## ulrik (Mar 4, 2002)

That was maybe THE BEST answer from Herve so far....


----------



## mrfluffy (Mar 4, 2002)

my view
abortion is alright, if the woman decides in a reasonable time that's fair enough. wouldn't it be worse to bring a child into the world where the parents dont love him/her?

the worst thing though is the total control the mother has, if she doesn't want the baby she can have it aborted regardless of the father's choice, if she does want it and the father doesn't he has to raise him/her or pay the mother. damn sexism.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mrfluffy _
> *abortion is alright, if the woman decides in a reasonable time that's fair enough. wouldn't it be worse to bring a child into the world where the parents dont love him/her?
> 
> the worst thing though is the total control the mother has, if she doesn't want the baby she can have it aborted regardless of the father's choice, if she does want it and the father doesn't he has to raise him/her or pay the mother. damn sexism. *


I don't understand this view. By saying that abortion is OK under some circumstances, you imply that you think that the ball of cells is not a proper human being. Thats quite fair enough, however, you then go on to say that you think the father should be able to decide too- implying you think that there is something special about the ball of cells.

I think the decision has nothing to do with the father - all he has invested is a bit of DNA, whereas the mother has the whole ordeal to go through... (yes I'm a closet feminist ;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2002)

well i am pro choice - about almost everything in life. choices are how we are able to exercise personal power. 

however, i am neither a feminist nor a chauvinist. I am a humanist. and i think mr. fluffy's point about father's lack of rights has got some truth to it. both partners entered into conception on equal terms in most cases (not talking about rape here). So both should have some input into the final decision. perhaps equal input is not quite right, but the idea that a woman can have an abortion without even notifying the father still bothers me.

just remember one thing that people discussing this issue tend to forget, pro choice means just that, it is not advocacy of abortion or an implication that its proponents would choose abortion. it is advocacy of the right to decide. I would have a hard time deciding on abortion if that choice was before me, but i don't want to deny others the right to choose for themselves.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 4, 2002)

I'm going to extend this is stem cells, does anyone else feel an overwhelming sense of shock at the stupid policy the US has for stem cells? 

We are quite far away from having organ farms, why put red tape up now, possibly endangering lives later? Sure, the american people have the right to decide the policies of their government, but I sure as hell hope they don't look back and ask why the US is performing less research and has longer lines for organ transplants than european nations without the same inhibitions. 

The US's only hope is that the adult stem-cell ideas pan out.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *i am neither a feminist nor a chauvinist. I am a humanist. and i think mr. fluffy's point about father's lack of rights has got some truth to it. both partners entered into conception on equal terms in most cases (not talking about rape here). So both should have some input into the final decision.*


Good point Ed, but I think cases where both partners wanted to concieve and then the woman decides otherwise are rare. In most cases, it is entirely accidental, and then I think the father isn't qualified to make the decision - it's not his body we're talking about.

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

Matrix Agent - I couldn't agree more. My university here in England is doing some pioneering work using stem cells and it's opening new avenues. There's simply no alternative for doing some kinds of research.

When you see them in a lab (and I have) then you can't see them as humans - they're just a pale white smear on a petri-dish. I definitely don't believe in the existence of life before at least the development of nerve cells.

Bernie     )


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2002)

BHD - i think your point about it being the woman's body has its place in this issue. there are certainly too many variables for this to ever be clear cut. but even when it is an accident (again rule out times where a male deceives a woman on purpose), then both parties knew the risk to start with. a woman shouldn't have the right to say that only the man was responsible and so therefore she can do what she wants. this is not to mention that women hold a greater degree of potential control when it comes to birth control. They have a variety of choices that work better than condoms and require no responsiblity from the man.

i also think this point about a father's right to know is applicable if the woman decides to keep the child, not just if she decides to abort. of course that is less likely to happen since women normallly want support money, but it still happens that women do not tell the men in this case.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 4, 2002)

I see your point ed, but it has it's pitfalls.

Can you promise that the man will be around in 9 months?

And conversely:

Can you promise that the woman will not simply drop the child off at the father's after 9 months?

Without being completely certain of both, it is hard to know who truly should have rights in the decision.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *When you see them in a lab (and I have) then you can't see them as humans - they're just a pale white smear on a petri-dish. I definitely don't believe in the existence of life before at least the development of nerve cells.*



There's a problem with that _Life_ doesn't require nerves - take trees for example (I don't think they have nerves, unless you count the Wizard of Oz  )

I believe life begins at conception, and I _think_ I am biologically correct.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *There's a problem with that Life doesn't require nerves - take trees for example (I don't think they have nerves, unless you count the Wizard of Oz  )
> 
> I believe life begins at conception, and I think I am biologically correct. *


I respect your view, and often have debates with Christian friends of mine, whose opinions I respect - I'm not going to start bashing religion...

But, Who's crying when I chop down a tree? OK, so as a technicality, trees are alive, and so are bacteria. What I meant by life not being present at conception (and by a strict definition it's present before conception too) is Human life - something which it's a crime to destroy.

I must admit that I see the death of stem cells as being as wrong as the death of bacteria, or a tree

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

OK, we clarified it to say _human_ life.  Good, but I don't understand what my "view" would be.  You say you respect my view, but as far as I can tell, we're talking about scientifically defining the beginning of human life.  At this point, it is unnecessary to bring in religion, which I haven't.

Please note that I am totally not trying to be difficult, I am only trying to clarify the arguments.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

OK, well I assumed your view was that human life, (by which I mean something more sacred than a biochemical technicality) begins at conception. Given how much I hate it when people assume my views, I shouldn't have assumed yours (but then again dogbert as an avatar is not as political in this issue as your's ;o)

A question then - when do you think life starts? I'm interested.

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 4, 2002)

Oh, and by the way,

I "brought in religion" because you mentioned it in your first post, and quite rightly too because it can't be ignored. Taking into account religion adds a new dimension to the debate, because religion is all about the sanctity of life. If you view human life as stemming from god, then stem cells are human life, because they are a vessel for the life that god has given in order to become a human (I mean, it's not as if god would inject life into a previously inanimate thing at a specific age)

I used (when I was a cocky teenager) to mock religion. Then I realised that when I asked educated people from the scientific community their opinion, some loudly slagged off religion (e.g. Richard Dawkins), but it was the cleverest of them that said that they could never be sure. For that reason I always include religion in conversations of this nature, even when I'm talking whit militant atheists (and believe me there are too many in the field of Biology).

Hope that answered your question...

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *A question then - when do you think life starts? I'm interested.*



Well, I think it is impossible to try and assign the beginning of human life to a single point between conception and birth, as it is, of course, a very gradual process.  I've always believed that [human] life began at conception, and I don't think that view will change much.  I view it as quite simple:

Sperm cells and egg cell are separate, and considered part of the parents' bodies, so they are also to be considered "living" cells, albeit not a new person.  I think that it is simply after a romantic evening (or whatever) when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism.

Some might be suprised to hear that I do not oppose birth control per se, and indeed use it (my wife takes a birth control pill).  To clarify, I would oppose any type of birth control that takes affect after conception.  In other words, prevention is OK, abortion is wrong.  (Maybe now is a good time to bring religion back in    )

Thanks for the thoughtful replies!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 4, 2002)

My post includes several quotes and personal opinions on the ideas mentioned in the thread so far.

*Originally posted by MDLarson:*


> Well, I think it is impossible to try and assign the beginning of human life to a single point between conception and birth, as it is, of course, a very gradual process. I've always believed that [human] life began at conception, and I don't think that view will change much. I view it as quite simple:
> 
> Sperm cells and egg cell are separate, and considered part of the parents' bodies, so they are also to be considered "living" cells, albeit not a new person. I think that it is simply after a romantic evening (or whatever) when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism.



I think it is possible to assign the beginning of human life.  At what point during the development is the unborn child/fetus able to survive with current medical technology outside the uterus?  Answer: When it is sufficiently developed enough to sustain its own life with the assistance of a machine that can simulate the uterine environment (i.e. providing nutrition, environmental temperature, etc...).  I should also include in my proposed definition of "human life" a life that is capable of developing into a sentient being that can think and experience emotions.  Thinking and emotion are the two most important qualities that I can think of that we as humans use to distinguish between ourselves and the animals.  I don't know how the "cut-off" date is assigned for aborting unborn children, but I would think that it uses some rationalle similar to this.  I would have to do some digging to find this out.  Let you all know soon.

*Originally posted by testuser:*


> * Not everyone believes that a human life is supreme to all else. Some believe in the death penalty (usually the religious folks, oddly enough), and some believe in euthanasia.
> 
> Furthermore, I believe that science cannot solely determine law. Science is not concerned with right or wrong, simply how things work. There is a religious basis to law, however I believe there should be strong reluctance from adopting any single religious point of view on this matter. One needs only to look at religious governments like the Taliban, to understand why secular government is the best for all citizens.



Regarding this comment, I agree that this is true, but I also think that when proven with conclusive and damning evidence, there should be no "life terms without parole".  If people aren't fit to live with other humans in society, then they should be put to death and reduce the burden of the cost of their incarcerated lives on the resources of our society.  We spend more money to keep people in jail than we do to rid our society of homelessness and disadvantaged living conditions, meaning to help these people to better quality lives.  Our society is more concerned with punishment than PREVENTING and CORRECTING the problems leading to crime.

Some of the religous basis in our law is holding back our society from advancing, meaning, solving the real root of why crimes are commited rather than punishment.  I was recently summoned for jury duty and talked to my advisor about how to get out of it.  He said just to write back requesting that my jury duty be postponed until I graduate.  He also said that I will mostlikely NEVER serve on a jury because of my level of education and the field of my study.  Lawyers like to pick juries that can be swayed with emotion rather than logic. How else does our legal system convict people to life terms on circumstantial evidence?  If I were to serve on a jury, I would probably end of moving the jury from a "sure conviction - YEAH, HE DONE IT, HE'S THE ONE" to the "not guilty" verdict due to insufficient evidence for a conviction.  The problem is is that prosecutors don't like to work at getting to the truth, just the conviction.

Thinking about crime in general and the human condition, I think that the real cause of it is a combination of humans being sentient beings and not having the where with all to legally change their condition, resulting in law-breaking citizens.  This also includes mental impairment, IQ (lack of), education (lack of), reasoning (bad, flawed, or incorrect).  Humans are perceptive, they look around and see what others have, and will use whatever means they have to obtaining whatever it is they want, breaking the law if they must.

Sorry that this got a little off topic.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 4, 2002)

MDLarson, I'd like to know where you inspecif propose that the line be drawn in matters pertaining to the use of stem cells. I've never met anyone against it. Are stem cells from very early (ie. two weeks) fetuses acceptable for use?


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

I really don't know too much about it.  It sounds like stem cells (whatever they are) are pretty valuable to the medical field, and the debate revolves around whether or not fetuses should be "grown" for that express use.

OK, I just looked at a CNN flash movie thing explaining in the simplest terms what this stem cell stuff is all about:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/stemcell/

Given my previous convictions about abortion, I would probably be opposed to destruction of an embryo (a potential life), even in the name of saving other lives.  I heard somewhere recently that it's possible to extract stem cells from adults, which I guess would be more ethical in my opinion.

But, this is certainly a more gray area of debate.  Extracting stem cells from an embryo certainly sounds a lot more noble than deleting a life because somebody doesn't want to raise a child.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 4, 2002)

Yes, there is the possibility of using stem cells from bone marrow in adults. These stem cells are very adaptable, and naturally become anything from a normal blood cell, to white blood cells, and antibody producers. BUT, these stem cells are though to not be as adaptable as those found in fetuses.

As I was discussing earlier, you would think that the debate would revolve on whether a fetus could be produced expressly for harvesting for stem cells, but at least here in the US, the outlook is much more conservative in nature. There are many people who feel that an aborted fetus (who we will assume was not concieved for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells) should not be used for it's stem cells, even though the fetus will simply go to waste. How do you feel?


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2002)

MD Larson - which is it - do you lean towards prochoice as you originally stated in your 1st post or are you opposed to abortion (pro life)?

Chem man - many other animals think and feel emotions. lots of proof of this. what seperates us is the level of thinking and communication. not that other animals don't communicate -they do. but not at the same level.do not be misled into thinking that humans are not animals.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 4, 2002)

Do fish feel? This really preturbs my vegetarian friends. Especially one who studies toadfish at woods hole! Ugly buggers, those things are.


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2002)

Phil i would argue that most all life feels. cut it and it feels the slice - nerve reactions or something like. i would extend this to plants but there is no scientific proof of such. 

 but do they feel emotions is another question. i don't know about fish. i would guess yes at some primal level,  but how could any of us know?


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

Well lot's of things to talk about, that's for sure!

Matrix Agent, good line of questioning.  I would support using aborted fetuses for stem cell research, but there is a catch; being able to use aborted babies as vessels of stem cell research would probably encourage more pressure to get an abortion.

This page provides links to stories of an aborted-baby-black-market where they sell the remains to universities and stuff (I don't know how trustworthy the sources are).  From what I've heard and read, there is tremendous pressure that goes on within an abortion clinic to just get it over with, and the woman typically undergoes extreme emotions throughout the process.  I can totally see the rationalization going something like this:  "Well, it's going towards science, so I'll do it.  I'll get an abortion.".

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's kind of my take on it.  I may, of course, modify this view according to what we discover or whatnot.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *(You might be able to tell from my avatar that I'm a Christian and tend to lean towards pro-choice, which I do.) *



Ooops!  I totally meant "pro-life".  I'm going to try to edit my original post now.  Thanks for noticing!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Mar 4, 2002)

*Originally posted by Ed Spruiell:*


> Chem man - many other animals think and feel emotions. lots of proof of this. what seperates us is the level of thinking and communication. not that other animals don't communicate -they do. but not at the same level.do not be misled into thinking that humans are not animals.



Ed:

I too belive that animals can think, communicate, and experience emotions, and I know there is evidence to support this.  I was just referring to what our laws currently recognize.

The Geek Man


----------



## scruffy (Mar 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *This page provides links to stories of an aborted-baby-black-market where they sell the remains to universities and stuff (I don't know how trustworthy the sources are).  From what I've heard and read, there is tremendous pressure that goes on within an abortion clinic to just get it over with, and the woman typically undergoes extreme emotions throughout the process.  I can totally see the rationalization going something like this:  "Well, it's going towards science, so I'll do it.  I'll get an abortion."*



Well, I don't know about the other sources, but if an Alberta Report article stated that gravity would continue working, I would start looking for magnetic boots, that's how much I think of their reporting 

In response to the latter part of the quote above - I would hope and expect that any doctor who applied unseemly pressure on a woman, to get an abortion or not to get one, would be found guilty of malpractice and denied the right to practice medicine ever again.  Perhaps there are doctors who do so and have not been caught, but they must surely be in the minority (I sure hope so, anyway).  The only pressuring permissible might be pressure on a woman to make up her mind soon - if she does decide to have an abortion, the later she decides, the more developed the fetus will be.

Regarding my own view - I don't particularly like the idea of abortions, but then I think that banning them would lead to considerably more harm than allowing them.  This is similar to arguments against prohibition of alcohol and other drugs (which I also oppose):  Banning them does very little to eliminate them, but puts the business of supplying them into the hands of criminals who only want to make money, and have little or no respect for the lives of their customers.  Allowing them lets government reduce the harm involved, and make sure the providers don't act as 'pushers', protect peoples' safety, etc.

When abortions were illegal, it didn't stop them happening, but the process used to kill or maim many of the women who got them.  Now they are legal, there can be standards of safety, and standards on exactly what form counselling can take, what information must be presented, and so forth.


----------



## Jadey (Mar 4, 2002)

True! If humans aren't animals, we must be vegetable or mineral. I think I've met a few vegetables myself..


----------



## RacerX (Mar 4, 2002)

This is an interesting thread. I personally am pro-choice because it is wrong for anyone to tell anyone else what they should or should not do with their bodies. The implications of the pro-life stance could be illustrated best by organ transplants. If the state could tell women that they must use their bodies as incubators for babies, regardless of their wishes, then the state could also tell people that they must donate organs (like a kidney or part of a liver) for anyone who needs them (and is compatible). Of course it is completely safe (no more dangerous than having a baby).

Given that, I believe that the state does not have the right to tell anyone that they must put their life at risk (no matter how large or small) to save the life of someone else.

Lets look at one of the more juicy quotes in this thread so far. 



> _posted by MDLarson_
> *Sperm cells and egg cell are separate, and considered part of the parents' bodies, so they are also to be considered "living" cells, albeit not a new person. I think that it is simply after a romantic evening (or whatever) when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism.
> 
> Some might be suprised to hear that I do not oppose birth control per se, and indeed use it (my wife takes a birth control pill). To clarify, I would oppose any type of birth control that takes affect after conception. In other words, prevention is OK, abortion is wrong. (Maybe now is a good time to bring religion back in)*



There is an interesting thought. You see MDLarson appears to believe that the pill _blocks_ the sperm cell from reaching the egg. This is not true, and conception can (and does) take place when on birth control. The birth control pill keeps the uterine lining from accepting the fertilized egg, so the woman continues to have a regular mistral cycle. By MDLarson's definition of life and the taking of it... he is guilty of it just as much as anyone who has had an abortion. For MDLarson to fulfill his conceptual ideals he needs to start using a condom or practicing abstinence.

So MDLarson, how do you rationalize what you and your wife have done? Now that you know, are you going to change your definitions to make your life style fit your beliefs? Or are you going to morn the loss of countless (because we can't count how many times conception _has_ happened in your case) lives. The ethical position you have put yourself into is both interesting and sad.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *There is an interesting thought. You see MDLarson appears to believe that the pill blocks the sperm cell from reaching the egg. This is not true, and conception can (and does) take place when on birth control. The birth control pill keeps the uterine lining from accepting the fertilized egg, so the woman continues to have a regular mistral cycle. By MDLarson's definition of life and the taking of it... he is guilty of it just as much as anyone who has had an abortion. For MDLarson to fulfill his conceptual ideals he needs to start using a condom or practicing abstinence.*


Not entirely true Racer, you see there are 2 kinds of pill the Oestrogen one and the Mixed Oestrogen/Progesterone one. One prevents implantation of the fertilised egg, so is just as immoral from the traditional christian perspective as abortion, but the other prevents release of an egg, so no conception occurs.

Bernie     )


----------



## edX (Mar 5, 2002)

> I can totally see the rationalization going something like this: "Well, it's going towards science, so I'll do it. I'll get an abortion."



i am completely with my fellow long haired friend scruffy on this one. Plus I cannot imagine more than 1% of women using this as the reason to base their decision on having or aborting a child. because the flip side of that is "well, it won't go to science so i'm keeping it." can you really think a woman would base such a huge decision on the merits of science? give me a break!!  While logic and reason must play a part in this, emotions are going to play a much bigger one. How a woman _feels_ about the situation is going to influence her more than contributing to research or even to saving anothe person's life. 

and i would also appreciate it if you would decide to play the xtian card or not. are we debating your beliefs or are we debating a secular and moral issue?  keep in mind that morals may be contained within religious teachings but exist seperatly from religion.

and just out of curiosity, why did you want feedback on this issue? Reading between the lines would suggest that you are trying to make this choice right now. and perhaps that you and your wife disagree. If so, the focus of this thread could be made more meaningful for you. or is this just an attempt to spread prolife philosohy disguised as discussion?


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *1) ...and i would also appreciate it if you would decide to play the xtian card or not...
> 
> 2) ...or is this just an attempt to spread prolife philosohy disguised as discussion? *


1) I think he has already played the Christian card, but implied that he thinks that there is more to it than just the absolute 'no' commonly associated with religious belief.

2) Even people with unswayable views should be taking part in discussion - it broadens it.

Agreed though Ed - the "Well, it's going towards science, so I'll do it. I'll get an abortion" attitude simply doesn't exist, as don't many of the attitudes attributed to women in this thread as if they were commonplace.

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

Hey - cunning plan - I've decided to post a poll about this issue in the same forum. Anyone who wants to vote on it go to this thread.

There are options representing most viewpoints,so let's see how many think what.

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *Not entirely true Racer, you see there are 2 kinds of pill the Oestrogen one and the Mixed Oestrogen/Progesterone one. One prevents implantation of the fertilised egg, so is just as immoral from the traditional christian perspective as abortion, but the other prevents release of an egg, so no conception occurs. *



Actually, If it is not _entirely_ false, then it is true. By definitions given by MDLarson if _any_ fertilization occurs, but full term is prevented, it is equivalent to abortion. Because the pill (in any form) is not 100%, and because the definitions used here taking into account a broader subject of fertilization (rather than official pregnancy), the ethical problem is unaffected.

Given that my original post stands. Even in the light of bighairydog's attempt at rationalization. Sorry.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Actually, If it is not entirely false, then it is true. By definitions given by MDLarson if any fertilization occurs, but full term is prevented, it is equivalent to abortion. Because the pill (in any form) is not 100%, and because the definitions used here taking into account a broader subject of fertilization (rather than official pregnancy), the ethical problem is unaffected.
> 
> Given that my original post stands. Even in the light of bighairydog's attempt at rationalization. Sorry. *


It really all depends what pill his partner is using. If she is using one that prevents release of an egg, then conception never occurs. Of course there is a (tiny) chance that the combined pill will fail, and that the egg will be released, but most users can go a lifetime without ever accidentally concieving. In that sense it is morally the same as a condom. This is in contrast to users of the other pill, who will often concieve and then the blastocyte will not implant.

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

The problem is that there is no _never_, there is only the chance that it doesn't occur. Again, without total certainty, the issue remains unchanged. Most users actually do have releases anyway, and the only studies have been on actual pregnancy while using these methods (which shows the major flaws from the pro-life/MDLarson stance), and not on the more likely fertilization without pregnancy.

Because normal intercourse and intercourse while using the pill both involve chance, they are by MDLarsons definitions, equivalent. The only difference is that the couple using the pill are taking a life (again by MDLarson's standards).

Would you like to try the rationalization thing again? I can bat them back as fast as you can rationalize them, Bernie.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Would you like to try the rationalization thing again? I can bat them back as fast as you can rationalize them, Bernie. *


OK... ;o)

Your argument is a bit convoluted - You say you're pro choice and then echo the catholic dogma that (your words) "Actually, If it is not entirely false, then it is true.", i.e. that if when using the pill there is any chance of killing an embryo at all, then it is as bad as abortion.

All morality is, in my opinion, relative. If you don't want children, the only way to have a 100% chance of not killing an embryo, either by the regular pill or by a morning-after pill if you use condoms and they fail, is to abstain completely.

This is not an option for many, and so they are doomed to be immoral in some way - the dilemma is therefore not how to be completely moral, but how to be as moral as possible. In my opinion, the pill is compatible with being as moral as possible - very few eggs are released, and so very few fertilisations will occur. I don't have the statistics, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were less fertilisations than if you just use a condom.

BTW, of this point I am certain - there exist pills which only prevent eggs being released, like a chemical condom for women if you like. With these pills if an egg is accidentally released and fertilised, then it will develop normally. These are there precicely because of the widely held point of view that contraception is only OK if no fertilisation occurs.

(shouts down the corridor ar RacerX manning a conveyor belt full of counter-arguments): NEXT!

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 5, 2002)

Well, it took my full 10 minute break to catch up, and I can't talk long, but I just wanted to check in

I am realizing more and more that I am NOT an expert on embryology, and I have to approach most topics with a certain humble ignorance.  Being the originator of this thread, I of course must bear the responsibility of following up, which I have been trying to do, and will continue to do.

To answer Ed, I suppose I DID want a lively little debate (who doesn't), but I never want to push my beliefs on others.  I hate it when people do that to me.

Anyways, I'm totally open to _learning_, and would wish to live by my convicions.  If indeed Rachel's using the wrong pill, I'll have something to think about.

That's all for now!  More later.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

> _posted by the sadly confused Bernie_
> *Your argument is a bit convoluted - You say you're pro choice and then echo the catholic dogma that (your words) "Actually, If it is not entirely false, then it is true."...*



It is a sad day when we find the you were not up to speed on this from the beginning. I never said I was arguing *my* beliefs, I was arguing based on what MDLarson had given us as his beliefs. If you want to argue my beliefs, go and actually read the first half of my original post. I have been arguing that MDLarson's beliefs lead him to an ethical conflict (which you have been trying, not so successfully, to argue against  ).

Now that we have that straightened out lets get this conveyor belt full of counter-arguments up to speed, shall we! 



> *i.e. that if when using the pill there is any chance of killing an embryo at all, then it is as bad as abortion.*



Yes, from MDLarson's point of view, I would say so. Which is a sad position for him to be in. 



> *All morality is, in my opinion, relative...*



And here we start the break down again. I honestly do respect your opinion, but _your_ opinion is not the topic of discussion here (re-read the posts realizing that the only opinion that matters here is MDLarson's, and not yours or mine, maybe you'll see his ethical dilemma).



> *This is not an option for many, and so they are doomed to be immoral in some way - the dilemma is therefore not how to be completely moral, but how to be as moral as possible...*



Again, my argument deals with only one persons moral dilemma, and that is MDLarson's, everyone else can come to their own conclusions. Like I said I don't in anyway share MDLarson's views, I just don't think he has thought this through completely so I thought I would help. I don't think anyone using the pill is immoral, nor are those who seek abortion, I believe that it is the woman's right to choose (but then again, I not arguing my points now am I).

Given this, MDLarson's views on this are what should be interesting. If he realizes what he should, I would be interested in seeing how much remorse he actually feels for the lives he has ended (again, just for our slow friend Bernie, by MDLarson's definitions).

(shouts down the corridor at Bernie manning a conveyor belt full of misdirected-arguments): *ANYTHING ELSE!* 

(I do enjoy arguing, so thanks for the fun posts Bernie!)


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

Yes, I've noticed your leaning towards a lively debate in your posts on many issues (they call you the cheif troll hunter don't they ;o)

OK, the defense (rolls up his sleves)





> _Originally posted by the oxymoronically slow RacerX_
> *we find the you were not up to speed on this from the beginning*


And you've been not up to speed since you joined half way through, (page 3) I win! 


> *I never said I was arguing my beliefs, I was arguing based on what MDLarson had given us as his beliefs.*


Well of course you're free to play devil's advocate, but read over your post that I replied to - It sounds as if you're speaking about your own opinion. Now that you have let me know that you were arguing what you percieved MDLarson's side to be, I stand corrected - you were merely misinterpreting his argument and putting words into his mouth. FYI, never in this thread did he give his opinion on whether he bought the argument that you need 100% certainty of no deaths ocuring





> *Now that we have that straightened out lets get this conveyor belt full of counter-arguments up to speed, shall we! *


Some kind of mechanical failure? 


> *And here we start the break down again. I honestly do respect your opinion, but your opinion is not the topic of discussion here*


OK, so if the opinions of the people participating in the debate are not important, care to let me know what is? debates are all about opinions and justifying them. Need I remind you that MDLarson posted this thread as a probe of _other people's_ points of view as opposed to solely as an opportunity to let us know his own?





> *Again, my argument deals with only one persons moral dilemma, and that is MDLarson's, everyone else can come to their own conclusions. Like I said I don't in anyway share MDLarson's views, I just don't think he has thought this through completely so I thought I would help.Given this, MDLarson's views on this are what should be interesting. If he realizes what he should, I would be interested in seeing how much remorse he actually feels for the lives he has ended (again, just for our slow friend Bernie, by MDLarson's definitions).*


This is where it becomes clear that what I said in the post that you called my "attempt at rationalisation" hasn't sunk in. Let me spell it out nice and slow for you:

Whilst your intentions were to bring MDLarson into the light of your glorious correctness, you were in fact wrong: ByeBye argument - end of story. The pill *is* very effective at preventing any fertilisation of eggs, and hence there is no loss of life. 





> *(I do enjoy arguing, so thanks for the fun posts Bernie!)  *


A feeling that's mutual, I love a nice rant (especially between two people who have the same opinion, and can't decide who take the other side so that they can argue peoperly) 

have a nice day :o)


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

> _posted by our slow friend Bernie_
> *And you've been not up to speed since you joined half way through, (page 3) I win!*



Yes, but I read all the posts carefully before replying... I think I win.  Besides, can you show where I could be defined as _oxymoronically slow RacerX_? I didn't misread anyone's posts, or need to make corrections? It took you three posts to finally actually _read_ the posts (and you are still missing important parts of this thread). I stand by my characterization of slow, can you stand by yours? And my post follow a logical proof by contradiction which you where too slow to actually pick up on, so I'll take the _oxymoronically_ as a complement (even if you didn't mean it that way). 



> *Well of course you're free to play devil's advocate, but read over your post that I replied to - It sounds as if you're speaking about your own opinion. Now that you have let me know that you were arguing what you percieved MDLarson's side to be, I stand corrected*



What did you think I was doing every time I brought up MDLarson? If you had read my original post correctly the first time no correction would have been needed (but then again, it would not have been as fun either  ).



> *- you were merely misinterpreting his argument and putting words into his mouth. FYI, never in this thread did he give his opinion on whether he bought the argument that you need 100% certainty of no deaths ocuring*



Again I see you need to take more time in reading peoples post. He took great pains to define where life begins for him so that no error could be made. Any deaths (or possible deaths) by his definition produces an ethical conflict which he must resolve. The only possible resolutions are change in life style (ie using a condom or practicing abstinence) or a change in his definitions of the beginning of life (which would show that he has very weak convictions where his beliefs is concerned). I can assure you that at no point in time was I _misinterpreting his argument_, I was only pointing out the flaws in it.



> *OK, so if the opinions of the people participating in the debate are not important, care to let me know what is? debates are all about opinions and justifying them. Need I remind you that MDLarson posted this thread as a probe of other people's points of view as opposed to solely as an opportunity to let us know his own?*



I did post my point of view, you have posted yours, but I never directed _any_ of my arguments towards anyone other than MDLarson's definition. This does not make yours or any other person's opinions (including my own) any less valid, just pointless when talking about the opinions of MDLarson. I have (and please re-read the posts to see this) kept this to just MDLarson's belief structure. Thus, every time you tried to add the broader point of view it was pointless and off subject from my posts. If you need to post about others, you should not have tried (poorly) to address them to my posts (other than the first part of my first post which was a general statement of my feeling on the matter... which you missed through out most of this anyway).



> *This is where it becomes clear that what I said in the post that you called my "attempt at rationalisation" hasn't sunk in. Let me spell it out nice and slow for you:
> 
> Whilst your intentions were to bring MDLarson into the light of your glorious correctness, you were in fact wrong: ByeBye argument - end of story. The pill *is* very effective at preventing any fertilisation of eggs, and hence there is no loss of life.*



How can I put this... Oh yeah, here is how. You are wrong. The statement that _The pill *is* very effective_ is not the argument ending _totally effective_. Without that _totally effective_, you are just getting emotional and making incorrect statements that you hope are going to stick (which is a sad substitute for logic, don't you think Bernie?). This statement of yours is again a display of rationalization, you may want to work on that in your future posts (and emotional out burst statements like _Let me spell it out nice and slow for you_ are also a very week substitute for a real argument, something else you can work on after you get the rationalization thing under control).



> *A feeling that's mutual, I love a nice rant...*



Strange, your post displays a feeling of frustration. I truly love this stuff and can go on endlessly if need be. 



> *have a nice day )*



Why thank you. I am having a great one.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

So, Bernies long winded attempt to not appear as if he had put his foot in his mouth a side...

I would still like to hear MDLarson's opinions on the contradictions between his life style and his beliefs, which are not less valid after Bernie's bizarre arguments. Which would you change and why?


----------



## edX (Mar 5, 2002)

as a crowd starts to gather outside on the street in front of Herve's B & G with chants of "Fight, Fight, Fight..." -

*testuser tries to pull bighairydog back from the frukus only to be thrown to the floor.*
*ed attempts to stand between them and break this up only to have RacerX push him aside and he goes reeling backwards thru Herve's front door*
*MDLarson stands helplessly to the side, now totally ignored. He rubs his cross and prays that no physical harm will be caused by his choice of topic*
* Jadey and Scruffy stand nearby, wondering should they stay or should they go*

then as they hear Tismey scream "Last call for alcohol" from inside Herve's"...


Stay tuned for more boys and girls right after the commercial.


----------



## edX (Mar 5, 2002)

but wait, RacerX has turned his steel stare away from bighairydog for a moment.

Will bighairydog take this opportunity to pounce on RacerX (who has nerves of steel and reflexes like lightening) or will he too realize that this is all getting out of hand and not helping matters much.

will they shake hands and go back to debating with the christian, or will this turn into the gunfight scene from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally said by Ed_
> *will they shake hands and go back to debating with the christian, or will this turn into the gunfight scene from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"*



Hey! I'm not (that) _Ugly_!


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by lightning fast and virile RacerX _
> *can you show where I could be defined as oxymoronically slow RacerX?*


Well as a pedantic answer: in my post. I defined you as the abovementioned. (I know that's not what you meant, but Im deliberately misinterpreting your comment largely for my own entertainment: I apologise) OK, so you aren't "oxymoronically slow", but then again I'm not really a "sadly confused Bernie", so I felt the need to retaliate (he started it miss!). I'm tired (it's late in England), so I'll just take up one point (fear not spectators - The BHD/RacerX show will no-doubt resume at some other time)

You say:





> *How can I put this... Oh yeah, here is how. You are wrong. The statement that The pill *is* very effective is not the argument ending totally effective. Without that totally effective, you are just getting emotional and making incorrect statements that you hope are going to stick *


Then talking about MDLarson's position you say: (emphasis added)


> *Any deaths (or possible deaths) by his definition produces an ethical conflict which he must resolve. The only possible resolutions are change in life style (i.e.  using a condom or practicing abstinence) or a change in his definitions of the beginning of life (which would show that he has very weak convictions where his beliefs is concerned)*


How about if I put it to you that by using the progesterone pill, it is possible to have less fertilisations than using a condom. Condoms fail. The pill fails too, but much less (again, this is as I understand, I have no statistics in front of me).

You suggest using a condom, undeniably implying that you think they would not cause the same moral dilemma, and I inform you that less accidental conceptions occur when using the pill. This means that the pill is OK, by standards _you_ suggeated (ie judged by the standards of a condom). Go on, think of a way wriggle out of that. Perhaps you could post this line as an example of my arrogance and counter it with a witticism )



> *Strange, your post displays a feeling of frustration.*


 Funny you say that, I was reclining in a dressing gown, after a shower, with a huge cup of tea feeling very relaxed and happy with myself (showers have that effect on me). Guess it's true what they say about how you can't judge people's emotions from how they write )





> *I truly love this stuff and can go on endlessly if need be. *


Oh Joy... ;o)

Night Night (man I like this thread, perhaps we should have ones on the existence of god and the ethics of cloning ;o)

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> **MDLarson stands helplessly to the side, now totally ignored. He rubs his cross and prays that no physical harm will be caused by his choice of topic**



Yes, I definitely feel 3rd party now, yet I cannot help but chuckle at how many times "MDLarson" was said.  For future reference, you can call me Matt!

But I am simply amazed.  I've always been a light forum-goer in the past, and this thread is simply the most civil I've ever encountered, compared to others of the same political "hotness".

I believe the big question is whether or not The Pill destroys a human life or just prevents it.  It looks as if I am in the clear if The Pill blocks the unification of sperm and egg, but I will have some readjusting to do if The Pill acts as an abortion.  My impression was that it *prevents*, but I will try to find out for sure.  I'll talk to Rachel tonight.

My moral dilemma is now effectively put on a pedestal, and the outcome will be for all to see!  I, for one, don't enjoy such exposure, but I will do my best.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

> _by BHD_
> *How about if I put it to you that by using the progesterone pill, it is possible to have less fertilisations than using a condom. Condoms fail. The pill fails too, but much less (again, this is as I understand, I have no statistics in front of me).*



Then we can remove condoms. But again, you are arguing where you have no argument. You continue to want to be the center of attention, but I still want to hear Matt's side.



> *You suggest using a condom, undeniably implying that you think they would not cause the same moral dilemma, and I inform you that less accidental conceptions occur when using the pill...*



Empirical data please. But we again (and again, and again) digress.



> *This means that the pill is OK, by standards you suggeated (ie judged by the standards of a condom). Go on, think of a way wriggle out of that. Perhaps you could post this line as an example of my arrogance and counter it with a witticism )*



Have you ever thought about taking a critical writing/reading course? You more than almost anyone I've conversed with could really use one. I assigned no standards, and the standards that matter here are Matt's, and he has a zero tolerance for any fertilization. I personally do not have anything against the pill, condoms, or any other type of birth control, to read into my statements otherwise only shows that you need to read more carefully. Remember that each of our statements is saved here in this post for us to double check (something you really should consider before posting again). I have no ethical problem with abortion, so why would any type of birth control make a difference to me. Our dear friend Matt is the one with the actual standards (but again, you would have had to actually read the posts of this thread to see that).



> *Guess it's true what they say about how you can't judge people's emotions from how they write )*



Not true, you can tell a lot about the emotional state of someone by their posts and use it to your advantage. I take great care in reading post very carefully for this very reason. Emotional people crack much faster than rational people (which is why you are so much fun  ).

Maybe you can put up better post after a good night sleep (lets hope so for your sake).

I don't mean to put you on the hot sit this much Matt, but our friend Bernie really wants to play, and I hate to miss out on a good argument. Let us know how it turns out.


----------



## Jadey (Mar 5, 2002)

But this isn't an argument! It's just contradition!

- Look, if we're going to argue, we must take up a contrary position... *ding*  Thank you!

But that wasn't 5 minutes just now!

- Oh yes it was

No it wasn't!


----------



## RacerX (Mar 5, 2002)

My argument is that BHD didn't need to start this, and it was started by him not reading the posts carefully (and responding to a post directed to Matt to top it off). After that, he seemed to just want to change the subject (and I had no intention of doing so). 

But the confrontation is here, and I love the sport of it.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Mar 5, 2002)

Ok, I'd like to cut a deal with everyone. I've waited for the Racer X/ BHD debate to end, and it has. So how about we wait for matt to come back and say a few words so we can debate again? All we're really doing now is arguing a few of the finer points, and in truth, its not that interesting. So lets let matt find out how his contraceptive works, and then we can talk further. Agreed?


----------



## scruffy (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jadey _
> *But this isn't an argument! It's just contradition!
> 
> - Look, if we're going to argue, we must take up a contrary position... *ding*  Thank you!
> ...



That was downright tactful of you - you could have gone on the attack with the "every sperm is sacred" song.

Just be careful with that moderation stuff.  Too much of it will kill you.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 6, 2002)

OK, sorry for hijacking your thread Matt, this post is the end of my hair-splitting.


> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *You continue to want to be the center of attention
> 
> Have you ever thought about taking a critical writing/reading course? You more than almost anyone I've conversed with could really use one.*


These are a bit below the belt I feel. I don't appreciate being told that I need a course in critical reading, especially "more than almost anyone I've conversed with". I may accidentally misinterpret other's posts, but I don't skim over them and not read them with thought, as you imply you think I do many times. I do my best to understand what people are saying, and if I get it wrong, I am happy to be put right.
*



			Not true, you can tell a lot about the emotional state of someone by their posts and use it to your advantage. I take great care in reading post very carefully for this very reason. Emotional people crack much faster than rational people (which is why you are so much fun  ).
		
Click to expand...

*When debating, one of the things that gets to me is people who take this point of view. A debate suffers when people take the point of view that they can "win" by using emotional tactics to gain an advantage. I see debates as an interesting excercise in broadening points of view, not in trying to make others "crack".

However, my favorite RacerX quote of the day is, whilst discussing how to achieve zero tolerance for any fertilization: "Then we can remove condoms". Oh *that's* going to help ;o) (I know, I'm misquoting again, but I found it funny LOL )

OK, to Matt, now that I intend to stop ranting with two foot long, off topic posts in your thread, we can get back to it. To RacerX, I have enjoyed this thread - perhaps we can clash again on a point where we disagree, then we can really let the sparks fly (no more "what you failed to realise was that I was deliberately arguing against myself, and in the light of that I am quite correct ;o)

Bernie     )

P.S. - Jadey: I love that sketch, but I'm afraid it most certainly was... )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 6, 2002)

OK, Orthotricyclen is the pill.  As it was explained to us (her), it throws off the hormonal balance, so the conditions aren't right for fertilization.  I quick looked it up on the net, but haven't had time to learn much about it.

Sorry to drag the suspense out a little more, but I don't have the immediate time.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 6, 2002)

> _by Bernie_
> *These are a bit below the belt I feel. I don't appreciate being told that I need a course in critical reading, especially "more than almost anyone I've conversed with". I may accidentally misinterpret other's posts, but I don't skim over them and not read them with thought, as you imply you think I do many times. I do my best to understand what people are saying, and if I get it wrong, I am happy to be put right.*



I'm sorry, but I really did want to hear Matt's point of view on this subject, and you would not just leave it for him to respond. I didn't mean those in a personal way, and I'm sorry for the way they effected you.



> *When debating, one of the things that gets to me is people who take this point of view. A debate suffers when people take the point of view that they can "win" by using emotional tactics to gain an advantage. I see debates as an interesting excercise in broadening points of view, not in trying to make others "crack".*



The point I was trying to make (and didn't make clear) was that you didn't crack and therefore this was an enjoyable exchange. Besides, the primary time that getting someone to crack emotionally is helpful is in driving away trolls (who really didn't want to be here to begin with).



> *However, my favorite RacerX quote of the day is, whilst discussing how to achieve zero tolerance for any fertilization: "Then we can remove condoms". Oh *that's* going to help ;o) (I know, I'm misquoting again, but I found it funny LOL ) *



No, actually that is a perfect quote. I hadn't thought of it that way, and when reading it in this light it is very funny.

And not a problem with the time issue Matt, philosophical discussions don't have time limits on them.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 6, 2002)

Orthotricyclen is a combination pill, which prevents egg release and sperm migration. Not going to bring up the debate about how effective it is again (and I couldn't find data on the web), but it is not the pill that only prevents implantation and not fertilisation.

BTW, there are some results from the poll I posted, but if we had more then that would be good. So far all the votes have been pro-choice.

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 6, 2002)

Oh, and Cheers RacerX, I look forward to many more arguments to come (I'll be looking out for the next troll, then we can have a mutual target)

Bernie     )


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by bighairydog _
> *Orthotricyclen is a combination pill, which prevents egg release and sperm migration. Not going to bring up the debate about how effective it is again (and I couldn't find data on the web), but it is not the pill that only prevents implantation and not fertilisation.*



Well, it seems as if I do not need to adust my beliefs or actions, as this pill doesn't conflict with my self-stated beliefs!  

I came across this interesting quote, however, from this Catholic site:


> I was on the "pill" for most of my reproductive life. I went through my time of month one spring and it felt wrong. Like a part of me had been ripped out. I then found a Christian Page on the "pill" and found out my gut feeling was right. I was on an abortion pill! (orthotricyclen). I cried and repented. I never have taken any artificial hormone again. Gladly, I am four months pregnant (after years of trying--the Pill messed me up for a while). I am sooo thankful to our Lord Jesus Christ for my little miracle.



As a disclaimer, I would not be so taken in by one source--it is obviously important to gather information from a variety of sources.  I believe that Christian sites can be wrong, and perhaps this is a case of that.

That's all for now


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 6, 2002)

Oh, also, (as to avoid confusion) I am *not* Catholic.  I guess I'm more Baptist than anything, but I consider myself "non-denominational".


----------



## RacerX (Mar 6, 2002)

> _ by Matt on 3/6_
> *Well, it seems as if I do not need to adust my beliefs or actions, as this pill doesn't conflict with my self-stated beliefs!*
> 
> _ by Matt on 3/4_
> * To clarify, I would oppose any type of birth control that takes affect after conception.*




So you have proof that _when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism_ does not *ever* happen with your type of birth control then?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 6, 2002)

Oh, also, (as to avoid confusion) I am also *not* Catholic. I'm an Atheist... which is also sorta "non-denominational".


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *So you have proof that when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism does not ever happen with your type of birth control then?*



No, I have no proof that conception "slipped by" the pill, nor could I provide such proof unless there was clear evidence of a conception (pregnancy).  If the pill causes an abortion (after conception, of course), it is beyond my control and knowledge.

I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of questioning to such a degree.


----------



## Jadey (Mar 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *
> 
> That was downright tactful of you - you could have gone on the attack with the "every sperm is sacred" song.
> ...



Damnit, you stole my next idea!


----------



## RacerX (Mar 6, 2002)

Two points:

(1) This would have actually been my second post on the subject if I hadn't been mauled by that *bighairydog*, and it is your first actual response.

(2) You took great pains in defining the beginning of life and by your last post, it sounds as if you are trying to change those definitions (now we are back to a woman being pregnant instead of an egg being fertilized and dividing). One should not take subjects such as this lightly, and I have to believe that this subject is of interest to you (you did start this thread).

We should remember that being Pro-Life means that you are talking about matters of life and death, this is not a trivial matter in that case.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 6, 2002)

> _posted by Matt_
> *If the pill causes an abortion (after conception, of course), it is beyond my control and knowledge.*



How does that old saying go? _See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil._

So if you fire a gun into the night, would that also be _beyond_ your _control and knowledge_? Knowing your actions _could_ do harm, and then not acknowledging them goes completely against the ideals that the Pro-Life movement would have us believe that they stand for... don't you think?

(please don't take this as harsh, but the subject matter is quite serious)


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 6, 2002)

I'm beginning to get frustrated by this.

I was trying to answer the question you posed:


> So you have proof that when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism does not ever happen with your type of birth control then?



I probably should have just said "No, I wouldn't know".

Why does it seem as if I am trying to change my definition?  I'm not, and I used the terminology of pregnancy because it was an illustration of a failure of the pill.  Technically, the period from conception to birth is considered pregnancy, so my original definition still stands, even when my words are taken out of context.



> Knowing your actions could do harm, and then not acknowledging them goes completely against the ideals that the Pro-Life movement would have us believe that they stand for... don't you think?



I don't know what the success rate of Orthotricyclen is.  I am _assuming_ that it is trustworthy.  I am _assuming_ my actions are taking no harm.  *You* are assuming that I know and don't care, but I'm telling you I just _don't know_.

And lastly, I do *NOT* take this subject lightly!   
How can my recent posts possibly be construed as indifferent or insincere?


----------



## Jadey (Mar 6, 2002)

If you do, as you say, take this subject so seriously, how can you be content with not knowing what in fact the pill that your wife takes does? If I held the same beliefs as you and asserted that I took them seriously, I would research into every facet of that type of medication.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 7, 2002)

I didn't want you to be frustrated, but clear on what you are saying your beliefs are.

You said: _clear evidence of a conception (pregnancy)_. This to me means that pregnancy is being used as visible proof of conception.  If conception _is_ pregnancy, then the pill could cause the end of that pregnancy (which is an abortion). By this then a _failure of the pill_ would be that if, by chance, a pregnancy were to occur it would also go full term.

As for taking anything out of context, I can assure you I have no reason to want to do that. I am only trying to make sure that all your definitions match up to each other. I can quote larger or smaller sections, but when these sections come in conflict with each other, I am going to point them out.

_(NOTE: This is not a timed test, where if you don't answer right away you lose points. This is an issue that you can and should think about at length before responding.)_



> _ by Matt_
> *I don't know what the success rate of Orthotricyclen is. I am assuming that it is trustworthy. I am assuming my actions are taking no harm. You are assuming that I know and don't care, but I'm telling you I just don't know.*



But that is the point isn't it. You can no longer make that assumption because you have been alerted to the possibility that harm (taking of a life by your definitions) can occur by continuing with your current life style. So in reality, you _do know_ that there is a chance, but your life style is worth the possible harm (again, taking of a life by your definition).




> *And lastly, I do NOT take this subject lightly!
> How can my recent posts possibly be construed as indifferent or insincere?*



_Lightly_ could come from you asking why I was _pursuing this line of questioning to such a degree_. This degree seems light to me for a life and death issue. As for _indifferent_ or _insincere_, I never believed that of you. Someone who matched that description would not have started a thread like this one.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 7, 2002)

OK, in an effort to contribute something useful to this thread, I have some of that data people asked for. The thread has suffered so far, as people (i.e. me) talk about things as if they were facts, with no data to back them up. This post is a bit long (sorry) but useful, because now we have data:

First, some technical Orthotricyclen information from an online store that sells pills - it just confirms that it is the mixed oestrogen / progesterone pill, and the page is really boring.

Secondly, I think that the reason that Orthotricyclen is referred to as the "abortion pill" is because it prevents implantation if prevention of fertilisation fails:





> _Taken from a page of (pro-life slanted) info on the Orthotricyclen pill_:
> 
> It can prevent ovulation (releasing an egg from the ovary)
> It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, they are not allowed to enter, and
> It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.


So how often do 1 and 2 fail, thereby causing 3 - abortion?





> _Taken from "Planned Parenthood" page with info on the pill_ (my additions in italics):
> The _[progestin-only]_ Pill is one of the most effective reversible methods of birth control. Of 100 women who use the Pill, only five will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Combination pills _(like Orthotricyclin)_ are somewhat more effective than progestin-only pills. Fewer than one out of 1,000 women who use combination pills will become pregnant with perfect use** Five out of 1,000 who use progestin-only pills will become pregnant with perfect use.
> 
> * "Typical use" refers to failure rates for use that is not consistent or always correct.
> ** "Perfect use" refers to failure rates for use that is consistent and always correct.


OK, so 2 points from this, after some very rough analysis:

1) if we take the difference between the two figures (5 in 100 for the non-aborting progesterone pill,  and an extrapolated 1 in 100 for Orthotricyclen) as an indication of how many embryos are aborted as a result of the Orthotricyclen pill, one can conclude that you are likely to have one embryo being fertilised every 20 years, and there is a high - 4/5 chance that it will be aborted, making it on average one every 25 years.

2) perfect use of the pill makes it 10 times more effective. Assuming this extra effectiveness is due to an equal benefit to the prevention of fertilisation stage and the implantation stage, perfect use will decrease the probability of abortions by around p*(1/sqrt(10)), or in English - you'd have 3.3 times less abortions. This would give an expected abortion rate of once per 80-ish years. (I think this might be in the same order of magnitude as a chef working in a kitchen, technically killing people by food poisoning, just as something to compare it with)

Matt: your moral dilemma is therefore, is this acceptably low? Nobody can lead a zero tolerance life - if you did then every time you bought a product you would have to research the ethics of it's production (e.g. are my trainers made with slave labour - it happens and loads of people die from that - should I research every trainer pair I buy?).

Food for thought

Bernie     )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 7, 2002)

Oh yeah, and if you find the above morally unacceptable, then you can always switch to a progesterone only pill. These only inhibit ovulation, but will lead to pregnancy more often as they never abort the embryo.

To be morbid, multiply the number of years that your partner has been taking the pill by 0.04, and this is the probability that as embryo has been aborted.

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (Mar 7, 2002)

> _math by Bernie_
> *1) if we take the difference between the two figures (5 in 100 for the non-aborting progesterone pill, and an extrapolated 1 in 100 for Orthotricyclen) as an indication of how many embryos are aborted as a result of the Orthotricyclen pill, one can conclude that you are likely to have one embryo being fertilised every 20 years, and there is a high - 4/5 chance that it will be aborted, making it on average one every 25 years.*



Actually, when looking at this data consider this: 100 in 2000 women reach a point of at least fertilization, of that 100 embryos only 2 will *not* be _aborted_. So by Matt's standard for every 2000 women using Orthotricyclen over a five year period, 98 lives would be taken, and 2 are left up to some other possible abortion if the mothers decide to take further action.



> *Matt: your moral dilemma is therefore, is this acceptably low?*



It still leaves you at effectively 5 out of 100 over a five year period, so I echo Bernie's question Matt. Is this acceptably low?


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 7, 2002)

I stand by my maths, but perhaps didn't explain the logic behind it properly (now follows an exceptionally anal defense of the maths and logic in my earlier post, anybody who wants to take my word for it feel free to skip this post, or prepare to be bored by the boredom master )

The bit of logic that makes my maths work is that the progesterone pill doesn't cause abortion, and the combined pill is like taking the progesterone pill, plus an extra abortion agent - oestrogen - just in case some eggs get though (well it's not just for abortion, I think it contributes to sperm blocking too.)

The progesterone pill doesn't cause abortion, it just inhibits egg release, so any eggs that are released and fertilised under this pill become pregnencies. Therefore that 5 in 100 people get pregnencies under this pill is our benchmark for how effective pregesterone is.

The combined pill adds to the abovementioned pill the effect of oestrogen, which aborts the embryo if fertilisation occurs. Under the same conditions, this results in 1 in 100 people getting pregnencies, so the effect of adding oestrogen is to abort 4 out of the 5 would-be pregnencies from the progesterone pill.

Therefore the mean interval between pregnencies would be 20 years (5 in 100) times 5/4, i.e. 25 years.

There are admittedly problems with my statistics that I would have to confront if I were publishing them, but as an approximation, the figures I gave were valid for the purposes of us basing opinions on them

Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (Mar 7, 2002)

I'm _really_ not going to bore anyone here. I would point out that most people here know what my background is (Bernie does not... maybe he should do a search).

My numbers are clear for the given discussion.

(Maybe Bernie and I can start a Math thread... Oh, I would love that! )


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 7, 2002)

> _posted by RacerX_
> *I'm really not going to bore anyone here. I would point out that most people here know what my background is (Bernie does not... maybe he should do a search).*


agreed, an argument about maths would be even more off topic than our last one )

However I can't let you pull rank without knowing your pedigree here, so searched as you suggested -  I see you have a maths&nbsp;/&nbsp;physics background. I think I'm approximately equally qualified to do the calculation - a Biology BA (incorporating human physiology and applied statistics&nbsp;/&nbsp;data handling).

To preserve the (relative) sanity of others on this thread, let's agree to disagree shall we? ;o)

(and BTW, I'll start the maths thread if you start a Behavioural Ecology thread ;o) Oh, I would love that!

Bernie     )


----------



## edX (Mar 7, 2002)

I think one issue that has been overlooked so far is 'what about the potential dangers of side effects for the woman taking the pill?' none of them are 100% safe and they have been thought to cause cancers that end up killing some women?

if we assume all life is sacred, which i believe, then why isn't the life or even health of the women being considered by Matt? why is the focus so intent upon the micropscopic level of potential creation that the possible death of his wife is not even brought up?

there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective and 100% safe. i can hear someone screaming "ABSTINENCE" but i would argue that one can have some serious mental health damage associated with it.

also, maybe this would be more of a discussion if folks were presenting some of their own views and the reasons that have led to them rather than trying to read Matt's mind and offer up info on his point of view. I'm not 100% sure, but i think that is what his original question was asking for.

(hmm, anywhere else i can use "100%" before i post this? )


----------



## scruffy (Mar 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *I cried and repented. I never have taken any artificial hormone again.*



Ha.  I doubt it.  Did she mention anything about also becoming a vegetarian (at least switching to organic meat), or buying only free range eggs and organic dairy products, not to mention never microwaving anything in a plastic container or eating fruit with pesticides sprayed on it or wearing nail polish or, or, or?

We (Westerners) are the people with weird chemicals in our bodies, that is just who we are.  Unless you live in a hut in the woods and stay upwind and upstream of all heavy industry, you can't get away from it.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 8, 2002)

Crap, I got throught the last posts but don't really have time to post myself!  

Just want to let you all know that I've calmed a little more down now and thought my position over more clearly.  But that will have to wait till later, probably tonight.  How's THAT for suspense?  HA!


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 11, 2002)

I'd like to just sum up my thoughts on this topic.

I believe abortion is *wrong*.  I still stand by my conviction of when life begins, and yes, Orthotricyclin _may_ have caused an abortion, but I don't think so.

I want to say again that unless the safety of the mother is at stake, abortion should not happen.  *So what* if the mother chooses to not keep the baby - PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION!  The sanctity of life is, in my opinion, more important than a "woman's right to choose".  And I'll state again that you can still choose whether or not to have sex, and still after that, you can choose whether or not to keep the baby.

(And let's not forget about the baby's "choice")


----------



## googolplex (Mar 11, 2002)

I'm just jumping in here, and I haven't read the entire thread, but I'd just like to give my opinion. I am not a extreemly religious person, but my opinion on this might seem that way.

Just look at a baby just look at anybody. Why should a woman have the right to kill a person just because it was an accident, or she doesn't have time, or the father left. I dont think it is fair that she gets to kill an unborn human being.

Just take a look at a baby and ask yourself if you would wanted the mother to kill it. Take a look at yourself. Would you of wanted your mother to not have had you just because she didn't have time, or you were an accident. Life is not something to be thrown away, and the life of an unborn child should NOT be decided by someone else.

This is a really strong issue, and I'm not going to think any less of anyone who dissagrees with me, thats just my opinion.


----------



## bighairydog (Mar 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *ps.  MDLarson, don't worry about what BigHairyDog said about contraception.  He has it backwards*


Oops... I had taken the word of a medical friend on that one, and had not checked it myself. Still, most of what I said holds true even if I got that bit wrong.

I had a think about when I think a baby/embryo has rights. I decided the best criteria to use to guage my opinion is how late a partner of mine could miscarry, and not cause me to feel as if it was a tragedy. I thought about 3 months would be the cutoff for me, and after that I would begin seeing it as a real person, and therefore think that abortion would be wrong.


Bernie     )


----------



## RacerX (Mar 11, 2002)

> _posted by Matt_
> *I believe abortion is wrong. I still stand by my conviction of when life begins, and yes, Orthotricyclin may have caused an abortion, but I don't think so.*



So you don't think so because it is convenient for you? Strange your convictions work in an argument, but not with your life style (sounds like a double standard).

As for *my* feelings on this subject, life would end for me if I was brain-dead, so I would have to say it begins with the first evidence of brain-_life_. That having been said, it makes no difference to the point of this matter. No one should have the right to tell anyone (in this case a woman) what to do with their bodies just to save the life of another. Pregnancy is dangerous, there is no way around that. The best pregnancy can still end in the death of the woman, and therefore it is her choice, and her choice alone, that matters here. I don't care if you could guarantee that the unborn child would be the greatest person who ever lived, the state should have no more right to force the pregnancy to go full term than it would to force me to give up a kidney to save that same life if it were an adult. What we do with our bodies is our business, and the state has no right to make us use them (in any fashion) to save the life of another. 

When the state decides that women are incubators against their will, then the rest of us being living organ donors is not far behind.


----------



## googolplex (Mar 11, 2002)

But why does a woman get to choose to kill another human. I think that women should have the option of aborition, I just could never do it myself...


----------



## RacerX (Mar 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *But why does a woman get to choose to kill another human...*



What the woman does is choose not to _sustain_ another human life with her own, she is free to if she wants, but not forced to by the state. If the state said that you were the perfect donor match for someone, would you want them _telling you_ to sustain that other life? Or what if it was one of your loved ones who was the perfect match, would you sit back while the state made them into a living donor against their will? And how would you feel if people who didn't agree with your choice said that you had kill the person who needed the organ? This example is the best way to bring this issue into it's true light, and one in which men are at as much risk as women.

Remember, you may agree if it was up to you and you were asked, but when the choice is taken away... that is when it starts to get a little scary. That is what supporters of the Pro-Choice movement are fighting for. Woman are far more than _incubation tanks_.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *So you don't think so because it is convenient for you? Strange your convictions work in an argument, but not with your life style (sounds like a double standard).*



We use birth control, because it would be inconvenient to have a child at this point in our lives (going to school, being newly-weds), so yes, it is a matter of convenience in that respect.  But again, preventing a pregnancy is definitively different than aborting one.  Can't you see that?

And I can't help but feel a little angry  when you (and others) talk about "being forced to sustain another human life"

*It's a human life.*  It's the _mother's baby_.  In almost all cases*, the woman had an active part in bringing about her pregnancy.  Where is the responsibility?

*debatable


----------



## scruffy (Mar 12, 2002)

MDLarson, I'd like to know this:

I realize you are opposed to abortion per se, that much is quite clear.  What about whether abortion should be allowed by the state?

Obviously two different questions - you can be against drinking, but this does not necessarily say anything about your stance on prohibition, for example.

Perhaps this is not so much germane to the discussion at this point, but I'm curious.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *Will you still support childbirth when:
> babies are cloned from adult humans?
> babies are genetically engineered to remove diseases (and maybe undesirable traits)?*



I support it today.  Abortion is an issue today.  That's the context.  As far as cloning and altering babies' genetics goes, I humbly state "I don't know".  This could totally be a new topic of debate, and worth talking about, but for this post, I'll refrain.



> *I further believe that the Church is wrong about this, like they were wrong about contraception, like they were wrong about insurance policies, like they were wrong about so many other things.  So if you want to make your decisions based on your beliefs this is fine by me.  I just don't like the Church imposing its beliefs on the rest of society, as they do in Afghanistan and Iran, as they did during the Spanish Inquisition, and as they are doing in our society today by encouraging fringe groups to bomb abortion clinics, terrorize physicians, and instill shame and guilt in women for something that is a perfectly moral decision.*



I'm unfamiliar of how "they" were wrong about contraception and insurance policies  But, I can understand your frustration with the church as an institution / political organization.  The Church is supposed to be an organism, made up of Christians who care about people on a personal level, and some churches are just that (I belong to one of them).  But too often politics get swept into the mix.

But let me say this:  I, nor the Church, nor the Bible endorse such terroristic activities such as Al Quida or Abortion bombings (or terrorizing physicians).  The people who commit these atrocities are missing the greater picture.  Instilling shame and guilt?  I believe* these feelings come from a lot of the women themselves who have an abortion, not necessarily "inflicted on" by pro-life protagonists.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that your average crisis pregnancy center is a much more hopeful and positive (read:  accepting) place than your average abortion clinic.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *I realize you are opposed to abortion per se, that much is quite clear.  What about whether abortion should be allowed by the state?
> 
> Obviously two different questions - you can be against drinking, but this does not necessarily say anything about your stance on prohibition, for example.*



I think I understand your question.  Hinting to previous posts I've made, I would tend to legislate (or vote) in favor of pro-life law.  This would allow for abortions where the mother's life is at stake, or if she were raped or some other similar circumstance.  For the "pro-choice" crowd, I would again point out that the woman (in most cases) made a choice in the first place to have sex, which *resulted in a pregnancy*.  If a woman and a man are to have sex together (irresponsibly or not), and the woman is found to be pregnant, responsibility should take over and at the very least, put the child up for adoption.  There are many many couples waiting to adopt, simply because they cannot conceive on their own.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 12, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *It's a human life. It's the mother's baby. In almost all cases*, the woman had an active part in bringing about her pregnancy. Where is the responsibility?
> 
> *debatable*



I don't disagree, but as I stated before, pregnancy is dangerous. I would feel differently if it was just an _inconvenience_ (which death has been known as something of an _inconvenience_ for most people), but no ones life is worth any others. And for the record, I personally feel that a human's life becomes increasingly valuable with age. Society has a larger investment in the life of an adult than a baby. But in the end, the mother is the only person who can choose to risk her own life for another.



> *We use birth control, because it would be inconvenient to have a child at this point in our lives (going to school, being newly-weds), so yes, it is a matter of convenience in that respect. But again, preventing a pregnancy is definitively different than aborting one. Can't you see that? *



Yes... for anyone else but you. Your definition of the beginning of life means that your form of birth control _could_ cause (with out you ever having to feel the guilt of it) the death (again, your definitions, not mine) of a *baby*. It makes me a little angry (not really, but it sounds good here  ) when you would end *a human life* because it is _inconvenient_ for you.

Sadly, this is far from unexpected. From the time that I first posed the question, I had a feeling that your convictions were not up to the standard of your rhetoric. But hey, this is a pleasant topic though.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 12, 2002)

> _by Matt_
> *This would allow for abortions where the mother's life is at stake...*



Beautiful! I believe that this is the case in every pregnancy, so it is completely the choice of the woman... which is basically the Pro-Choice position.

Sounds good to me.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *Your definition of the beginning of life means that your form of birth control could cause (with out you ever having to feel the guilt of it) the death (again, your definitions, not mine) of a baby. It makes me a little angry (not really, but it sounds good here  ) when you would end a human life because it is inconvenient for you.
> 
> Sadly, this is far from unexpected. From the time that I first posed the question, I had a feeling that your convictions were not up to the standard of your rhetoric. But hey, this is a pleasant topic though.  *



I still am not understanding of your goal here--you seem to be hung up on a technicality.   I firmly remain on the side of _preventing_ a human life, not ending one.

Another issue has popped up:  How "dangerous" is a pregnancy?  I'm assuming RacerX believes a regular abortion is more safe than a regular pregnancy; I always assumed it was the other way around, and I've read that abortions can be downright nasty to a woman's body*.  What do others have to say about this?  (This could be a refreshing change in the debate - away from me and my wife's birth control methods, at least  )

*I will attempt to supply hard evidence, if requested, but no promises!  It's hard to spend time on this thread when there is no time to be had.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 12, 2002)

It is not a technicality, it's *a human life*. 



> _by Matt_
> *I'm assuming RacerX believes a regular abortion is more safe than a regular pregnancy... *



Wrong, I am just saying that a woman's life is at risk (and I am *not advocating* abortion) and she is the only one who should choose what is best for her. Seems clear to me. The information only makes a difference for a woman making that choice (which I am not), so I'm not that interested in what ever info you come up with.


----------



## edX (Mar 13, 2002)

well Matt, as long as we are airing our feelings, then let me say that i'm "a little angry" that we probably all got sucked into this whole 'debate' because you didn't proofread your original post and indicated that you had an open position by claiming 2 contrasting postitions - religious vs. pro-choice. or else you carefully manipulated that, knowing that not many would feel the need to butt heads with a trolling pro-lifer. You added to that deception by claiming you are non-denominational, yet you now announce you are a member of a church. Again i ask - which is it?

I am also "a little angry" that you made a post in site discussions in which you felt intimidated about members having high post counts. Then after some of us politely and genuinely assured you it meant nothing, you have since posted making fun of people with high post counts. I don't know why i would take this personally, do you?  

Yet again, i am "a little angry" that you seem to take pleasure in stirring up controversies and yet don't have (or take) the time to participate in them. You do a lot of watching quietly afterwards. And when things don't turn out how you would like, you get angry. Some advice - don't stir the coals if you aren't ready for the fire.

I am happy about your final post to your poll thread. It seems you decided to listen with an open mind for once. I was "a little angry" that you seemed to think it was your job to make this site into the very thing others here avoid.

I also do not know who c.k. chesterson is, but he is an idiot if he said the thing in your signature. to start with, the mouth comes down on nothing solid when you drink to quench your thirst. And when it is used to communicate. and i am sure that communication is one of the things it was designed to do. and a mind ceases to function properly whenever it closes. it simply becomes like an outdated computer - able to recall the data already stored on its local area, but unable to use new and useful advances that come along that need more memory and greater processing speeds to be of any value.

all this being said, i want to like you, i really do. but quite frankly your flashing fish and your tactics offend me. I do not deny you your beliefs. In fact i support your right to air them, regardless of how much they conflict with mine. but this is not a religious site. it is a computer site. and we have a thread for religion that you might have noticed. of course it probably doesn't interest you since i asked everyone to talk with respect for others' beliefs and not to let if become a place for proseltyzing and criticizing. I can only say that those people who feel the need to convince everyone else of the beliefs their minds have "closed on" are the ones who are still trying to convince themselves. And it is also not a flame wars site nor is it a site about status. It is many different things, but not those. So maybe you should watch and se how to be apart of it without setting yourself apart from the others who frequent here.

I apologize to anyone else who feels they were somehow attacked in this because they happen to agree with matt in any way. i assure you this is all just for him. I have been holding this back for days now, with some of us discussing matt's habits and tactics in private. So while i might have misconstrued matt in some ways, i know i am not alone in my perceptions. and it would probably remained held back if he had not "opened that door" as they say in the courtroom, by expressing his "anger" that others' opinions differ from his. I have had lots of people disagree with me on this site, but never anyone get angry because i held a different opionion than they did.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *well Matt, as long as we are airing our feelings, then let me say that i'm "a little angry" that we probably all got sucked into this whole 'debate' because you didn't proofread your original post and indicated that you had an open position by claiming 2 contrasting postitions - religious vs. pro-choice. or else you carefully manipulated that, knowing that not many would feel the need to butt heads with a trolling pro-lifer. You added to that deception by claiming you are non-denominational, yet you now announce you are a member of a church. Again i ask - which is it?*


My intent was never to deceive.  I'm sorry if it appears that way, but let me assure you, no, _plead_ with you, I am *not* trying to be deceptive!   That mistake in my first post was just a mistake, and I'm glad you pointed it out.  I fixed it long ago, so please let it go!  I normally do proofread my posts, I just missed that one.  Sorry.

I think I understand your point about how a religious person could possibly be pro-choice.  You misinterpreted my meaning--I was speaking generally, in that general Christianity _is_ generally pro-life.  I was trying to say nothing more.  Now I would ask that you also accept that it's possible for me to go to a Christian church and still consider myself "non-denominational".  I simply claim no allegience to any man-made institution--only to the Bible.
*



			I am also "a little angry" that you made a post in site discussions in which you felt intimidated about members having high post counts. Then after some of us politely and genuinely assured you it meant nothing, you have since posted making fun of people with high post counts. I don't know why i would take this personally, do you? 

Click to expand...

*Again, I'm sorry I offended you.  It was not my intent--I was only joking around.  In defence, a majority of replies in that thread indicated that folks with a high number of post counts were generally treated with friendly joking.  In reference to my animated GIF, again, totally a joke.  I don't really believe people with high post counts have "no life".
*



			Yet again, i am "a little angry" that you seem to take pleasure in stirring up controversies and yet don't have (or take) the time to participate in them. You do a lot of watching quietly afterwards. And when things don't turn out how you would like, you get angry. Some advice - don't stir the coals if you aren't ready for the fire.

I am happy about your final post to your poll thread. It seems you decided to listen with an open mind for once. I was "a little angry" that you seemed to think it was your job to make this site into the very thing others here avoid.
		
Click to expand...

*In the end, I'm a little embarrassed about that thread.  I should have been "not-so-gung-ho" about the whole thing.  This forum is a new place for me, and I love it but I was a little unfamiliar with it.  Thank you (to all who replied in that post) for your enlightening posts, seriously.  As far as stirring things up and watching quietly afterwards, where am I doing this?  I'm trying my best to take responsibility for what I type here.
*



			I also do not know who c.k. chesterson is, but he is an idiot if he said the thing in your signature. to start with, the mouth comes down on nothing solid when you drink to quench your thirst. And when it is used to communicate. and i am sure that communication is one of the things it was designed to do. and a mind ceases to function properly whenever it closes. it simply becomes like an outdated computer - able to recall the data already stored on its local area, but unable to use new and useful advances that come along that need more memory and greater processing speeds to be of any value.
		
Click to expand...

*Please don't get distracted by the technicalities of mouth functionality.  The point of the quote is this:  Instead of wading through life constantly "keeping an open mind", always searching, never finding, chomp down on something you can really believe in.  For me, *that is JESUS!*
*



			all this being said, i want to like you, i really do. but quite frankly your flashing fish and your tactics offend me. I do not deny you your beliefs. In fact i support your right to air them, regardless of how much they conflict with mine. but this is not a religious site. it is a computer site. and we have a thread for religion that you might have noticed. of course it probably doesn't interest you since i asked everyone to talk with respect for others' beliefs and not to let if become a place for proseltyzing and criticizing. I can only say that those people who feel the need to convince everyone else of the beliefs their minds have "closed on" are the ones who are still trying to convince themselves. And it is also not a flame wars site nor is it a site about status. It is many different things, but not those. So maybe you should watch and se how to be apart of it without setting yourself apart from the others who frequent here.
		
Click to expand...

*Yes, this is a computer site, but I posted in "All Thoughts Non-Technical".  And why do you claim I do not respect others' beliefs?  Nowhere have I talked down your paganism, atheism, nor any other belief system.  To be fair, my original intent in this thread was *not* to inflict my beliefs on others, but merely to spark a debate on something we all (apparantly) feel strongly about.  I'm sorry if you were turned off by some of my posts regarding abortion, but I was provoked into defending myself by RacerX.
*



			I apologize to anyone else who feels they were somehow attacked in this because they happen to agree with matt in any way. i assure you this is all just for him. I have been holding this back for days now, with some of us discussing matt's habits and tactics in private. So while i might have misconstrued matt in some ways, i know i am not alone in my perceptions. and it would probably remained held back if he had not "opened that door" as they say in the courtroom, by expressing his "anger" that others' opinions differ from his. I have had lots of people disagree with me on this site, but never anyone get angry because i held a different opionion than they did.
		
Click to expand...

*What? I was angry because I kept getting misunderstood and critisized for no reason (maybe my posts were not clear?).  Please listen to me; I know others have differing opinions.  Please believe me when I say that this in itself does not "make me angry"!

Ending note:  (as this message length is now reaches over 6,600 words)
I feel as if I cannot both maintain my dignity and actively participate.  On one hand RacerX was bent on scrutinizing how my birth-control methods conflicted with my beliefs (which they don't), and on the other hand, you (and others?) think I am pushing my beliefs on everybody here.  I _at least_ have to defend myself, which necessarily brings my Christianity into the mix.

I would love to actively participate in MacOSX.com.  I would love to be able to get along with you, Ed Spruiell and RacerX.  Please try to understand me and *notice* when I change my mind about things, like "Inviting Mac Haters" and "Silly Post Counts".


----------



## edX (Mar 13, 2002)

Matt, i accept your apology and your explanations. i too would like to get along with you. and i am willing to give you every benefit of every doubt. 

so let me just give you a hint on the joking about post counts - it is ok when people we know, and have friendly conversations with regularly, joke with us. we do it all the time. it feels different when somebody who just shows up (at least on my radar blip). it would be no different if you were with a group of friends and some friend of a friend started joking 'about' you. it is a matter of depth of knowledge and emotional closeness. these two things should grow at a steady proportional rate. now you are not the first person to make this well intentioned mistake and i will accept that you did it in a desire to fit in and be accepted. but next time think about how well you know somebody before you say anything about them that might be misconstrued. 

and maybe a way to work your way up to controversial subjects would be to hang out and talk about macs with us regularly. we all seem to like them. or even stop in Herve's Bar & Grill and chat with people about life and random thoughts. 

let me say that i was unexpectedly impressed by your response to my feelings about who and what you seem to have been up to this point.  You responded like an adult. but i still mean what i say about a mind should never be closed. It is one thing to believe in something, even Jesus, and another to reach a point where you blindly accept it as an absolute truth. In the case of Jesus, there are many different ways to interpret what he said and did as well as who he really was. which relates to my point about your being a member of church and thus having a denomination. 

Denominations are organized around interpretations of the bible. There is no one who has the absolute truth as to what it means but many have divided themselves over what it says. so if you are attending a particular church, you are being influenced by that particular interpretation. Only someone who studies the bible independently without aid in interpretation from a particular branch of Christianity is truly non-denominational.  of course i also understand the desire for the social fellowship of those who think similarly even if not identically. so i can understnd one's dilema in being non-denominational or joining a group. 

sorry if i attacked you, but it has felt like you have been attacking us from the day you posted the "silly post counts" thread.  Despite not being a Christian, i am the first to forgive and forget when given reason to. perhaps i will post a poem about Jesus that i wrote in the religions poll thread so you will understand that it isn't Jesus I am offended by. it is those who presuppose to know his will and yet don't practice his ways. so i hereby declare a truce and will be happy to get to know you on a less confrontive basis.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 14, 2002)

In the beginning of this thread I was happy to sit on the side lines and read what others had to say. My opinions on the subject seem to be shared by what appeared to be a majority, so I didn't see a need to chime in. On the second page, after a number of posts by Matt trying to show the "science" of his argument, he posted this:



> _by Matt, 3-5-2002_
> *I view it as quite simple:
> 
> Sperm cells and egg cell are separate, and considered part of the parents' bodies, so they are also to be considered "living" cells, albeit not a new person. I think that it is simply after a romantic evening (or whatever) when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism.
> ...



And then on the third page Matt, you posted a link to the Pro-Life web site. The fact that you believe that your life style is fine even though it conflicted with what you were saying, and the fact that you felt the need to bring propaganda into the thread was enough to make me push the issue. 

My point in pushing was to keep you off balance enough to make you stop posting propaganda and to see if you are true to the beliefs that you have posted here, which I have come to the conclusion that you are not (though I still had some hope back when I posted my original thought in this thread). Basically, you hold others to a higher standard than yourself, which is a weak position from which to preach ones beliefs to others. If you don't _walk the walk_ on this issue, you should not have been laying out such strong definitions. Each time you said something like *it's a human life*, you gave me more to work with in hammering away on your ethical conflict with this issue. The possibility that your life style would be in conflict with your beliefs was a technicality to you, but if it was someone else it would become murder in your eyes.

For as long as you characterize choice as something akin to murder, I shall continue to point out the fact that there is a good possibility that you and your wife may already be guilty of the same thing.

*on the subject of anger*



> *What? I was angry because I kept getting misunderstood and critisized for no reason (maybe my posts were not clear?). Please listen to me; I know others have differing opinions. Please believe me when I say that this in itself does not "make me angry"!*



Funny, I thought you said something like this:



> *And I can't help but feel a little angry when you (and others) talk about "being forced to sustain another human life"
> 
> It's a human life. It's the mother's baby. In almost all cases*, the woman had an active part in bringing about her pregnancy. Where is the responsibility? *



That doesn't sound like you were angry because we misunderstood you, does it? You were angry because we did not agree with your feelings on this issue. Given that, Ed was right to point it out and within his rights to air his feelings (on many subjects). He was very correct when he said: _And when things don't turn out how you would like, you get angry_. This is exactly what you did in this case.

*on threads like this one, and posting*

This site is big enough for all of us. If *testuser* wishes to talk about Macintoshes, there are more than enough threads to do that in. Ed, this has become far more than _just_ a computer site, and you of all people should know this. We have discussions within the realm of a civil social environment (and we all seem to like Macs allot). If there is something that is just not what you are willing to join in with, then don't. I personally have a hard time using colorful language, so I do not join in with the _cus_ thread. I would not ask that it be taken down, but I have no interest in what happens within it. This thread (though labeled badly) is no different. We have had some very heated debates over topics of all types, and yet we are still together. This thread is going to go on as long as someone has something to say, and none of us should try to put a stop to it just because it has gotten past our individual points of tolerance.

If things get out of hand, I trust Admin to step in and fix things. He has shown that he is able to judge a situation and act without taking away any of our personal rights or acting against any of our personal beliefs. I would hope that everyone would also trust in him to make those choices, and would stop trying to put a halt to threads just because they wish to have the last word on the subject... because that is _my_ job!


----------



## edX (Mar 14, 2002)

yes, i (of all people) know that this site has become something more than just a computer site. and i wouldn't want it any other way.  Neither do i want to see things reach a point where none of us could be friends with Matt. and i certainly do not want to force my beliefs on him or anybody else. One of the things that holds a community together is the ability to disagree and still be cohesive. I am with you entirely on not seeing threads stopped. For one thing it deprives people of an opportunity to rise above their emotional reasoning (or lack of reasoning) and to come to a point of understanding. 

I would still like to hear Matt give good reasons for his stance outside of pro-life propaganda and the presumption that all choices involving life and death are predicated by his religion's restrictive viewpoint. i would like to hear his own basis for his beliefs. and while it won't sway me one way or the other, it might be reaasurring that he has some reference for it other than what a preacher or pro-life promoter told him he should believe. If Matt lives with inconsistencies and hypocritical actions and words in his life from time to time, that is ok with me. It makes him like everyone else. and with time and discoveries he will open his mind to more possibilities (with any luck at all).

I think you did a good job of pointing out matt's lack of responsibility for his anger. i started to do that in my last post and instead opted to simply take him at his word that he did not mean it the way it sounded. but that does not change the way we interpret it as we read it. I am still miffed as to why Matt saw the need for this thread, since it appeared from early on he had his mind set despite his claim of open minded curiosty. He also started by asking what religion has to do with this and then clings to his religion as the basis for his viewpoint. I think he can do better. or at least he thought he could when he started this.

and that open mindedness that matt claimed ( at the time his sig. said minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open) is what pulled me into this thread. I would have probably ignored it after his first post if I had known he was a prolifer and would be posting fetus pictures and sounding superior because he is a defender of the unborn. He continues, like most pro-lifers, to not understand the difference between pro-abortionists and pro-choicers. Yes, i could drop out and leave you guys to argue in circles. or i can add my part and see how it play. I _make a choice_ when i do so. and that is certainly the biggest thing that i stand by in most of my arguments - that people be aware of their choices and be given the right to exercise them.

Matt - I must add that I empathize with you to some extent. I suppose you thought you would have a person or 2 on your side. and i am sure there are those who agree with you. But you got caught on one side by yourself and pushed from all sides by us. I know what that is like from my stance on Mozilla. It isn't always easy is it? You're really doing ok with that considered. 

Gentlemen, at this point i think i will pull a Theed (*) - graciously bow out of this thread, feeling i have said my part. but waiting and watching to see if anything brilliant or dim enough is said to draw me back in. Other than you can find me at Herve's most days. 

* - Theed, my old friend, has said that it will be his last post in the warez thread at least 3 times.


----------

