Now here's a pleasant topic

[bighairydog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

But that wasn't 5 minutes just now!

- Oh yes it was

No it wasn't!

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.