Now here's a pleasant topic

[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).

My numbers are clear for the given discussion.

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

 

[bighairydog]

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 / physics background. I think I'm approximately equally qualified to do the calculation - a Biology BA (incorporating human physiology and applied statistics / 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.