A Nation Rises

[gregthegator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

When I talk about this with others, I avoid that particular argument, valid as it is. Employing that argument goes down the road to being judgmental, which tends to introduce too much emotion into the discussion.

You know what...that's EXACTLY the BIGGEST problem...avoid the HARD discussion on ANY topic....and so it goes..................

[gregthegator]

by the way...my take on THIS subject...if men were the one's WITH THE burden...there wouldn't be ANY of THESE qualms or discussion...

[JerseyGator01]

Yet another way to stir up the emotions with that line of thinking. If city slickers had plantations, would they have been anti-slavery?

[gator1986]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

This is by design.

Wonder what the CEO of the American Family Association makes? Or their top lobbiests?

Ditto for the CEO of Planned Parenthood and their top lobbiests?

Want real answers? Follow the money.

Perfectly said... Like your train of thought..

[gator1986]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

Here in the south... God hates gays!!

Once again, this is sarcasm before people start attacking me...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by gator1986

Here in the south... God hates gays!!

Once again, this is sarcasm before people start attacking me...

Definitely must be careful with what you type on a message board as who knows how one will take it...

[tegator80]

I agree that the abortion issue is a no-win argument. Not because of the extreme emotions but because the opposite of one stand is not in essence the stand of the opposition. After it is all said and done if you take a hard stand you just can not recognize the existence of an opposite side. I wish I could explain what I mean but it would take a small novel.

If I could assist the pro-lifers (whom I sympathize with), it would be to change your behavior away from attempting to portray a careless but probably scared woman as a murderer. If you honestly believe that a life is sanctimonious then why stop at protesting? Why are there so many people going out of the country to get infants but somehow we can't get our own to embrace our own, or a least have that message received in earnest? It seems to me that that is a sign of a poor social structure. I do not have the answers as to how to rectify it but it IS a sign that we just want to legislate others' behaviors and then go back to our tidily defined lives. Life is just not that simple.

[JerseyGator01]

The biggest PAC in the country is not the NRA, but quite often Emily's List. Guess what they stand for? Probably the largest PAC most have never her of.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

The largest salary for the American Family Association was $121K per their FY 2011 990 on guidestar.org.

The CEO of Planned Parenthood, working about 33 hours per week per their 990, was paid total compensation of $420K in FY 2011. Typically nearly half of PP's funding comes from the government. Not bad for a nonprofit.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by tegator80

I agree that the abortion issue is a no-win argument. Not because of the extreme emotions but because the opposite of one stand is not in essence the stand of the opposition. After it is all said and done if you take a hard stand you just can not recognize the existence of an opposite side. I wish I could explain what I mean but it would take a small novel.

If I could assist the pro-lifers (whom I sympathize with), it would be to change your behavior away from attempting to portray a careless but probably scared woman as a murderer. If you honestly believe that a life is sanctimonious then why stop at protesting? Why are there so many people going out of the country to get infants but somehow we can't get our own to embrace our own, or a least have that message received in earnest? It seems to me that that is a sign of a poor social structure. I do not have the answers as to how to rectify it but it IS a sign that we just want to legislate others' behaviors and then go back to our tidily defined lives. Life is just not that simple.

I think you are onto something with much of this.

Most of all it is the social structure comment. IMO this country lost its way long ago wrt culture. It is sad and hard to watch. If we built people up after making mistakes rather than accepting and rewarding them (whether it be easy way out or government programs) we would be better off. But as soon as you say someone made a mistake by creating a life they cannot afford to take care of or do not want then emotions go...

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

The biggest PAC in the country is not the NRA, but quite often Emily's List. Guess what they stand for? Probably the largest PAC most have never her of.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

The largest salary for the American Family Association was $121K per their FY 2011 990 on guidestar.org.

The CEO of Planned Parenthood, working about 33 hours per week per their 990, was paid total compensation of $420K in FY 2011. Typically nearly half of PP's funding comes from the government. Not bad for a nonprofit.

This is about what I expected. Would be very interested in how much their respective lobbiests make. Probably the biggest check of all.

Though you and I differ on much with regards to this issue, we probably are in agreement on this (bolded). I've never understood why they have to depend on government support so much and given the division on the issue in this country, I've always felt it was patently unfair to ask that side (which represents a large number of citizens) to support financially something they find so distasteful.

If the cause is good and the message equally good, then they should be able to survive like any other non-profit. . . on donations not - as is the case - forced donations.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by gregthegator

You know what...that's EXACTLY the BIGGEST problem...avoid the HARD discussion on ANY topic....and so it goes..................

Actually no, that is not the reason. As I demonstrated, that argument is not necessary and often derails substantive discussion.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by gregthegator

by the way...my take on THIS subject...if men were the one's WITH THE burden...there wouldn't be ANY of THESE qualms or discussion...

Terrible argument.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I'd like to hear the non-religious case for an organism without a brain having rights. I mean that seriously.

Sure. There are two tests.

1.) At what point after conception does life begin?
2.) At what point after life begins does human life begin?

Both tests have to be met.

So, let's tackle the first test, which is the easiest. The smart thing to do is produce a definition of life. That said, it is interesting to note that most biology books waffle about making a definitive definition of life. But they all agree that ALL life exhibits a number of common characteristics. Life is able to take in nutrition and in fact requires nutrition. Life exhibits growth. Life has the ability to reproduce. Individual life is genetically unique, (as opposed to being just an appendage of the host, in this case, the mother.) There are others, but these seem to be the most important ones.

The blastula, at the moment of conception, has all these characteristics, including the ability to reproduce, in the sense that it has an innate ability to reproduce, once it reaches a certain level of maturity. Just like a new born baby has only an innate ability to reproduce and no one questions whether a newborn baby is life. All unborn children at every stage of a pregnancy exhibits all of these characteristics. So, there is definitely life, from the moment of conception.

Said another way, had the Mars rover discovered something that grows and develops like an unborn child, we would confidently say we discovered life on Mars.

Now, about that second test. You are correct that we must try and define the life as human life. As you say, most of us do not give the right to life to non-human life. Hell, most of us think it is perfectly reasonable to raise animals for the expressed reason to kill and eat them.

There is only one objective test that I know of that can be applied to determine the presence of a human; test the DNA. At the moment of conception, with only one cell, the DNA of the blastula is uniquely human and uniquely individual. The DNA is different from the mother, the father and from all other humans, except for an identical twin. And the DNA is definitive and objectively human. Ergo, the life is human.

All this said, I do understand that for some, it is real hard to qualify a one celled animal as human. And if one does not, then perhaps it has no right to life and the other rights of the mother are more important.

But consider this; those that think that if the life is not yet human at conception, they also have to acknowledge that the life will eventually become human. So, at what point do we give the unborn the right to be human? That is where the debate continues to rage.

So, my final though is this; at whatever point we decide to give human rights to the unborn, what are the consequences for being wrong?

Let's take the extremes to answer that question;

If the unborn do no become human until birth, as some people argue, then restricting abortions takes away some very important rights from women and men. That is not a good thing.

However, at the other extreme, if human life beings at conception, as I argue, then we are sanctioning the killing of innocent human beings.

I have come to the conclusion that if I am to be wrong in my thinking about this issue, then I would prefer to be wrong by doing the least harm.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

. A fetus or child in the womb is entirely dependent on the mother for life, oxygen, and nourishment.

A newborn baby is completely dependent on the mother or father or guardian for nourishment and shelter from the moment of birth. It cannot live very long without someone else feeding it, sheltering and and caring for it. And if it has some serious respiratory problems, it might depend on a breathing apparatus to get oxygen. Is this newborn not life? Is it legal to kill it?

Also, here is another example. All life is specialized to one degree or another. For example, bacteria that live in your stomach cannot live in any other environment other than a stomach. It completely depends upon the host for food, oxygen and nourishment. Is it not life?

If a mother decides she doesn't want to be a mother while the fetus or child is in the womb, or simply no longer wishes to carry another organism around in her body, then it is her right and her right alone to terminate the pregnancy.

As someone else pointed out, the responsible moment of decision is before sex. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies occur with two people having a complete understanding of how conception happens and an agreement between two parties that engage in an activity can create a life.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Sure. There are two tests.

1.) At what point after conception does life begin?
2.) At what point after life begins does human life begin?

Both tests have to be met.

So, let's tackle the first test, which is the easiest. The smart thing to do is produce a definition of life. That said, it is interesting to note that most biology books waffle about making a definitive definition of life. But they all agree that ALL life exhibits a number of common characteristics. Life is able to take in nutrition and in fact requires nutrition. Life exhibits growth. Life has the ability to reproduce. Individual life is genetically unique, (as opposed to being just an appendage of the host, in this case, the mother.) There are others, but these seem to be the most important ones.

The blastula, at the moment of conception, has all these characteristics, including the ability to reproduce, in the sense that it has an innate ability to reproduce, once it reaches a certain level of maturity. Just like a new born baby has only an innate ability to reproduce and no one questions whether a newborn baby is life. All unborn children at every stage of a pregnancy exhibits all of these characteristics. So, there is definitely life, from the moment of conception.

Said another way, had the Mars rover discovered something that grows and develops like an unborn child, we would confidently say we discovered life on Mars.

Now, about that second test. You are correct that we must try and define the life as human life. As you say, most of us do not give the right to life to non-human life. Hell, most of us think it is perfectly reasonable to raise animals for the expressed reason to kill and eat them.

There is only one objective test that I know of that can be applied to determine the presence of a human; test the DNA. At the moment of conception, with only one cell, the DNA of the blastula is uniquely human and uniquely individual. The DNA is different from the mother, the father and from all other humans, except for an identical twin. And the DNA is definitive and objectively human. Ergo, the life is human.

All this said, I do understand that for some, it is real hard to qualify a one celled animal as human. And if one does not, then perhaps it has no right to life and the other rights of the mother are more important.

But consider this; those that think that if the life is not yet human at conception, they also have to acknowledge that the life will eventually become human. So, at what point do we give the unborn the right to be human? That is where the debate continues to rage.

So, my final though is this; at whatever point we decide to give human rights to the unborn, what are the consequences for being wrong?

Let's take the extremes to answer that question;

If the unborn do no become human until birth, as some people argue, then restricting abortions takes away some very important rights from women and men. That is not a good thing.

However, at the other extreme, if human life beings at conception, as I argue, then we are sanctioning the killing of innocent human beings.

I have come to the conclusion that if I am to be wrong in my thinking about this issue, then I would prefer to be wrong by doing the least harm.

That is a very narrow definition of life. Here is another criteria, in which a Pre-Brain/Pre-Organ fetus does not qualify.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7c...cs_of_life.htm

Again, if the criteria is they will eventually do each of these things, then this changes the analysis. But clearly, cells with no differentiation and with the inability to respond or adapt to their environment would possibly not fit into even the category of "life" much less human life from a scientific perspective.

I would argue that faced with substantial uncertainty, we should allow individuals to make the decision as to whether something is right or wrong. If your approach is the correct approach, it will naturally win out in the market of ideas.

Based on your final statements, it would seem like you should be a big advocate of major action for preventing or at least lessening the effects of global warming. If you are wrong, we improved the environment for a little bit and lowered economic development for a short period of time by a smallish amount. If you are wrong, we are talking about the loss of most of the major cities in the world.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

That is a very narrow definition of life. Here is another criteria, in which a Pre-Brain/Pre-Organ fetus does not qualify.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7c...cs_of_life.htm

So, ALL one celled animals are not life?

I think a good many biologists will disagree with you

But clearly, cells with no differentiation and with the inability to respond or adapt to their environment would possibly not fit into even the category of "life" much less human life from a scientific perspective.

You are confusing the life argument with the human life argument.

I would argue that faced with substantial uncertainty, we should allow individuals to make the decision as to whether something is right or wrong. If your approach is the correct approach, it will naturally win out in the market of ideas.

I do understand this argument, but what are the consequences of being wrong? Do a honest assessment of that question and see where you come out.

Based on your final statements, it would seem like you should be a big advocate of major action for preventing or at least lessening the effects of global warming. If you are wrong, we improved the environment for a little bit and lowered economic development for a short period of time by a smallish amount. If you are wrong, we are talking about the loss of most of the major cities in the world.

Different situation. Let's take it up in another thread.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

The honest person that wishes to debate this issue realizes that abortion is a rare case where somebody's rights are being violated, no matter what legislation is enacted..

In another thread, many of us lamented the lack of fealty to the 9th amendment that our government has shown. Clearly, those of us that argue this cannot argue that a woman (and a man) do not have the rights to privacy, the rights to body determination and the rights on when and if to become a parent. And just as clearly, prohibiting abortion does indeed infringe on those rights.

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

So how does a civilized society resolve this? No matter which avenue is taken, someone's rights will be infringed.

Western civilization has employed the concept of the hierarchy of rights to resolve the rare cases of competing rights.

Does the right to privacy out weigh anothers right of life? My thought is it is pretty selfish.

[DaveFla]

Wow. Able to sneak global warming into the discussion. Amazing.

BTW, MJW Knocked your pitch right out of the park.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Wow. Able to sneak global warming into the discussion. Amazing.

BTW, MJW Knocked your pitch right out of the park.

That answers if this is a religous thread

[reformedgator]

What parents on this forum ever considered the life in the mothers womb to be anything other than their unborn child & referred to it as such in unmistakeable language?