Caroline Kennedy, you know?
Caroline Kennedy’s run for NY senator has surprised me on a few counts.
1. I’m surprised Caroline decided to run in the first place. This would seem to go against her lifelong very private grain. In this regard, for all of her 51 years, she has behaved like her mother, not her father. Her sudden dive into very public big time politics seems out of character.
2. I’m surprised by how much of an airhead Kennedy sounds like in interviews. I know she is well educated and cultured. But she sure comes off as not.
3. I’m surprised liberals are joining in the chorus to rebuff her candidacy. I was shocked to hear Alan Colmes question her legitimacy last night, for instance. And wow, even CNN is poking fun at her?…
Of course, CNN had to find a way to draw in Sarah Palin, calling her wink a tic, which it certainly isn’t.
Here’s the Perfunction video mentioned in the CNN blurb…
You know, as an aside, I’m intrigued that pro-abortion Kennedy draws in her experience as a mother as an asset to her candidacy for U.S. Senator, although in the aforementioned interview she couched this with an interesting pro-abortion tag:
And so, you know, I think that, you know, I bring, you know, my life experience to this, and you know, that includes, um, you know, being a mother. Um, I understand sort of those choices that women make.
You know, it is an incredible opportunity, you know.
She will not have to campaign. you know.
Campaigning for over a year is a lot of work, you know. If you are a brand, you shouldn’t Like have to campaign, you know like the off brand candidates. If you are a brand, shaking a lot of hands with the low enders is tacky and distastefull, you know.
Caroline and Oprah are now suddenly the bimbo bookends.
Jill why are you surprised that liberals are rebuffing her candidacy as well?
As for being both pro choice AND a mother…. lots of voters are.
I’m surprised, asitis, because she’s both a Kennedy and a fellow liberal.
Well, it just goes to show you that some people (in this case liberals) can look beyond things like a name and like-mindedness. To me that’s not surprising. What is interesting is that to you it is.
You KNOW! Just had to say that! Maybe someone should be COACHED on HOW to speak. She obviously DIDN’T get her DAD’S ability – YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN JELLY BEAN?
EVEN the sentence at the bottom of your post was POORLY constructed – can hardly tell what she’s trying to say at the end of it.
I’m a father and pro choice.
well, you know, I think, you know, that it’s not, you know, surprising that, you know, Caroline Kennedy comes across, you know, like, you know, an airhead. She probably, you know, didn’t really make the grade, you know to get into all, you know, those really good, you know, schools, you know, on her own merits.
Ya, you know, that’s about all, you know, I, um, wanted to comment on.
Hal: there are many fathers and mothers who are prochoice and have acted on it.
It just makes them fathers and mothers of dead babies.
That’s not the point being made here, it’s that once a woman conceives she no longer makes a choice about motherhood, she already IS a mother. The only thing the choice abortion makes her is the mother of a dead baby.
Get it? No, I know you don’t. Forget it. Discussion over.
Just as Barack Obama is unqualified to be President, Caroline Kennedy is unqualified to be a Senator, therefore, she will be the next NY Senator as insanity seems to be the rule of practice in today’s world.
Ah, but any change from Hillary would be an improvement.
How come I haven’t heard any Libs on this site complain about Barack’s rental of a $9 million mansion in Hawaii?
Oh, I remember, nothing is good enoguh for a pro-abort.
HisMan: sort of similar to Al Gore running around the earth in his fancy gas guzzling jets and living in his energy-sucking home(s), telling us all, we are doomed because of global warming.
{And then we learn, some 600-800 meterologists don’t even believe this idiot! (I didn’t even know there were that many on the planet – maybe THAT’s the problem!)}
TSTL,
In no definition of father or mother does it say that even if the babies you conceived are dead, you’re still considered a father or a mother. It’s allllll about how you look at it. :)
By the way, I like your “Get it? No, I know you don’t. Forget it. Discussion over.” …. And people think I’m arrogant. Ha.
“Just as Barack Obama is unqualified to be President”
Why?? How so?
“How come I haven’t heard any Libs on this site complain about Barack’s rental of a $9 million mansion in Hawaii?”
Obama has his own money. He’s a wealthy man. No one cares who spends their own money. No one cares that Bush just bought (or is buying) a multi-million dollar home. It doesn’t matter because it’s their own money. People only cared about Palin spending the GOP donations.. if she’d used her own money, I don’t think anyone would’ve cared, honestly. I mean, no one cared that Cindy McCain wore a $300,000 Oscar de la Renta… because she paid for it.
In no definition of father or mother does it say that even if the babies you conceived are dead, you’re still considered a father or a mother. It’s allllll about how you look at it. :)
It’s not how you look at it Josephine. If you are truly a Catholic, then you would know that the Catholic church teaches, based on scientific evidence, that a human life (formerly known in reasonable times as a “baby”) begins at conception. Therefore once conceived, the woman carrying the baby is now a “mother” and the man who impregnated her, is now the “father” of the baby. Hence, pregnant women use the terminology of “baby” throughout their pregnancy -recognizing of course that they are the baby’s mother.
If abortion is a choice, then the baby dies but the mother is still a mother – she’s just the mother of a dead baby.
And yes it is a matter of viewpoint too – either you believe a baby begins at conception or for expedient selfish reasons, you don’t so that you can always leave the door open for that all important “choice”.
And BTW, I think alot of people would be very, very upset with you for not recognizing that when a baby dies, the man and woman are still the parents of that baby. You ought to know better…
Al Gore was holding the thermometer upside down in his 8th grade science glass which is why he’s got it all topsy turvy about global warming and he never talks about the inconvenient truth of how the ice field in Antarctica (the South Pole) is expanding.
He also failed algebra that explained sine waves and indirectly the conservation of energy principle. I’ll explain that later.
And, I actually think he swallowed some mercury which explains the silver spoon boy’s brain damage.
No surprise that a pro-abort liberal think’s he can wield power and control over the weather when in fact only the God of Heaven has such power. And then get half the corporations buy into his “green” crap and convicen us all that we should be penalized for living. What a pure SOB.
They’re all self-absorbsed, self-worshipping narcissists dommed to an eternal warming who think everyone else whould pay.
I can’t wait for Obama to calm the storm. Perhaps he’s spending his off time memorizing some Harry Potter chants so he can magically call of the evil cooties of economic collapse, global terrorism and oh yes, God’s judgement on our country because of how we love to mutilate unborn children.
I can’t wait to see how long it takes for the media to crucify the poor, naive “chosen” one.
Uhhhhhh Josephine? Please take a load off of the reefer please.
His own money? Where in the hell did he get it? During those horrible Bush years I guess?
You Libs make me puke at your utter hypocisy.
Millions of people are losing their homes and this “chosen One” is luxuriating in Hawaii. How convenient.
Can you hear me puke all over the computer?
You forget that this economic fiasco was created by the Libs and the Media so they could get their “deliverer” in office. I’m telling you they overstepped and we will not recover from this. This is economic devastation of Biblical proportions ladybug.
I wonder how long it will be before you want to wring this guy’s neck. Or are you permanently blinded?
“It’s not how you look at it Josephine. If you are truly a Catholic, then you would know that the Catholic church teaches, based on scientific evidence, that a human life (formerly known in reasonable times as a “baby”) begins at conception”
TSTL, the Catholic church’s teaching that life begins at conception is based on its religious beliefs. It may attempt to use science to argue its belief, but its belief is founded on their religion.
“You forget that this economic fiasco was created by the Libs and the Media so they could get their “deliverer” in office”.
Holy crap HisMan! Is this REALLY what you think?
And, I actually think he swallowed some mercury which explains the silver spoon boy’s brain damage.
If it was elemental mercury like the type used in therometers, no sweat. I believe it’s inert.
However, Mr Gore likely doesnt know anything about thermodynamics, atmospheric physics nor mathematical modelling.
oh man, Caroline Kennedy…another arrogant, pro-abort catholic politician..thats the last thing we need.
she never worked a day in her life
Posted by: Jill Stanek at December 30, 2008 1:48 PM
Unlike unprincipled conservatives who voted for a quite unconservative (fiscally speaking), liberals reject Kennedy on the principle that just as with Bush in 2000, kennedy is nothing more than a family name as a cover for lack of experience and lack of curiosity about the issues. Conservatives voted for somone inexperienced to be president, liberals don’t want an unexperienced senator.
TSTL, the Catholic church’s teaching that life begins at conception is based on its religious beliefs. It may attempt to use science to argue its belief, but its belief is founded on their religion.
Posted by: asitis at December 30, 2008 9:34 PM
The belief may have come first, but as is often the case, science can often support religious belief. Science and religion often work together. Since religion is about God, and science attempts to study and know about the world which God created I see no big problem here. Science merely reinforces religious belief and what God himself instructed us – to value all life from it’s very beginning.
The belief espoused by the Catholic Church that an individual human life (genetically seperate from both father and mother) exists from the moment of conception (for as Dignitas Personae asks “how could a human individual not be a human person?”)is based upon theological, philosophical, and biomedical principles.
I suggest reading Donum vitae and Dignitas Personae as well as Evangelium vitae before you begin to criticize a position you barely understand. I seem to remember you not being open to doing a little reading but quite quick to criticize the religion you abandoned so expediently.
How come I haven’t heard any Libs on this site complain about Barack’s rental of a $9 million mansion in Hawaii?
Oh, I remember, nothing is good enoguh for a pro-abort.
Posted by: HisMan at December 30, 2008 7:43 PM
Yes HisMan, I’ve noticed also the liberals arent complaining. We sure heard enough about the homes that McCain and his wife own though didnt we…. and with their own money.
As for Caroline Kennedy….. I agree with Jill on all counts. I never thought Caroline would run for public office. On the other hand, were it not for his untimely death undoubtedly by now John Jr would be a senator or house member.
With Ted ailing, I wonder if Caroline feels she needs to keep up the “camelot legacy” of the Kennedys? Hard to say.
And even without all the “you knows” she definitely sounds like a bimbo. Yet we know her to be well educated, and she has written a couple of books, I think one on the constitution.
The only position I heard her take was gay marriage….. not suprisingly she’s in favor of it. And of course abortion.
Yet another far left liberal. I think its almost inevitable she will get the seat, even though there are others way more qualified.
She sure sound ignorant in her interview. she would make a great mainstream Democrat.
We have Obama bloviating slogans
Biden can’t work with large numbers over 5.
caroline that must have had too much prescription medicine and Algore that had a heat stroke and is in recovery.
The only position I heard her take was gay marriage….. not suprisingly she’s in favor of it. And of course abortion.
I’d love to see the Catholic Church ask Caroline to recant her public support of abortion. If not, she should be denied Holy Communion. won’t happen but it certainly would show that the CC in America means business on the sanctity of life issues.
There are a lot of politicians who call themselves Catholic who are pro gay marriage and pro abortion. This is true in both Canada and the US. Several years ago, our then Prime Minister announced he was going to have a vote on legalizing gay marriage. All members of his party where threatened with expulsion if they voted against. This same PM and his predecessor supported abortion also. Both Catholic. The church made a fuss but to the best of my knowledge, they were never disciplined.
Likewise in the US, John Kerry was threatened to be denied communion, not sure about Biden.
I am not aware of any politician that actually was denied communion or in any way disciplined.
If Caroline Kennedy gets the seat and they do this to her, there will be an outcry because it hasnt been done before. The church needs to be consistent.
This goes equally for the Mormons and protestants who support abortions. But the churches do nothing unless I have missed something, but I dont think so
I am, you know, like, a pro-life republican, and um, would rather have someone who matches my values in that senate seat. But it like, you know, really annoys me that you seem to be, um, evaluating someone’s ability to govern based on their use of verbal pauses. That seems to me to be, you know, shortsighted and um, shall we say, stupid.
Verbal pauses give someone more time to think of a response during a conversation or interview, but do not prevent prospective politicians from thinking further after the conversation is over. For a person who has not been accustomed to speaking about issues live, it seems quite reasonable that she would use verbal pauses. When she wrote her books, she was able to stop in the middle of a sentence whenever she felt like it, and even go back to a previous sentence and change it. (As I do when I write blog comments.)
The important qualities seem to me to be an ability to ask good questions, think over the issues intelligently, and use that thought to decide how to vote. Use of the words ‘um’, ‘like’, and ‘you know’ (I know, that’s a phrase) do not prevent her from doing any of those things. In fact, if they ever reinstitute a real filibuster, those words would come in handy. I’d certainly rather vote for an inexperienced pro-life republican housewife than Joe Biden. Alas, Caroline Kennedy is not that, but please complain about her issues and ethics rather than her grammar.
“And BTW, I think alot of people would be very, very upset with you for not recognizing that when a baby dies, the man and woman are still the parents of that baby. You ought to know better…”
Who the heck do you think you are dude? I ought to know better? Seriously. You’re ridiculous. It’s up to the mother and father if they still consider themselves parents after their baby dies, whether it be because of abortion or an outside reason. It’s certainly not up to YOU to decide if someone should still be considered a mother or father after their baby dies! That’s ridiculous.
Science and religion don’t mix. If you want to use religion to support science, that makes way for EVERYONE in the world to use science to prove that the bible is… pretty much a book of fairy tales. The “head priest” (I don’t know what he’s actually called. I should check..) at the Vatican basically said the stories in the bible aren’t real… and the Vatican astronomer (also a Catholic priest) said you can NOT get your science out of the bible. So which is it? You can use science if you want, in which case the whole bible is… well, “crap” or you can’t, in which case you REALLY need a new argument.
(BTW, that’s why I believe you should keep abortion away from religion with a ten foot pole. Go for personhood. It will work.)
“His own money? Where in the hell did he get it? During those horrible Bush years I guess?
You Libs make me puke at your utter hypocisy.
Millions of people are losing their homes and this “chosen One” is luxuriating in Hawaii. How convenient.”
How, exactly, am I being a hypocrite!? Obama is paying taxes. Even though he’s paying taxes, you think instead of enjoying the money he earned, he should have to give it all away? He’s on vacation. What’s the big deal? I go on vacation. I don’t feel guilty. I’m sure he earned it. He’s been working pretty much non-stop for… what, two years trying to get the Presidency. That’s quite an accomplishment. What’s ironic is, I’m an Illinois taxpayer. If anyone should care, it’s me.. but, oh well. It’s a freakin’ vacation…. I’d feel the exact same way if it were a Republican.
BTW, I listen to liberal news and I read CNN online daily… the only time I heard about John McCain’s homes was on the debates and on Conan O’ Brien. :)
Asitis, do you ever feel like your head is just going to explode when you read some of this, and sorry I have to use this word, but… crap!?
Jose,
So parent is until death do us part? You liberals are really master’s of definition changing. So when your mother dies then your no longer be her daughter? Will you cease to be a daughter at all when your parents die? Does that somehow change the fact that your parents conceived you and therefore they will always be your mother and father regardless of, Gid forbid, you or either of yur parents dies?
I never said any of the things you’re claiming. I said only the parents can know. If I died right now, it would be up to my PARENTS to decide if they’d still be a “mother” or a “father”. It’s not up to some random person on the internet. It’s how they’d look at themselves. It would be none of YOUR business whether they were still parents.
I’m sure if I died, my parents would still think of themselves as a “mother” and a “father”. If they didn’t though, I don’t think that means I was less important them.
My point is that wether a person is a mother or father has nothing to with any choice they can make about wanting to continue to be a parent. The fact that they conceived a child means, biologically speaking, that they are now and will always be the parents. That does not change cause a person would choose to deny the fact.
No. That’s just not even something that’s opinion. Biology in NO WAY specifies if a parent is still a parent after their child dies. Show me where “biology says that”. And remember that I’m a student of Biology.
There is absolutely nothing I’ve ever read in a biology book that says that a parent is still a parent after their child dies. It’s about the personal perception of yourself.
Biologically speaking, a parent is “one that begets or brings forth offspring “. Look it up in ANY book, a biology book or a dictionary.
“a term of address for a female parent or a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent.”
From my biology text book. It coincides exactly with what I was saying. You CHOOSE what you are. No one can tell you. I could call you a jackass, and from my perspective.. that is correct according to the dictionary. But to you, maybe it’s not. :) Allll about perspective.
…. You’re probably smarter than the University of Illinois though. It’s cool. ;)
Your definition includes the word “parent” in the definition. Now define parent and you will have the defintion of a mother that your biology book was trying to point out to you. Let me help you.
“a term of address for a female parent or a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female that begets or brings forth offspring.”
“a protector or guardian.”
Hm. Sounds like you could choose not to be a protector or guardian to me. ;)
“It’s up to the mother and father if they still consider themselves parents after their baby dies, whether it be because of abortion or an outside reason. It’s certainly not up to YOU to decide if someone should still be considered a mother or father after their baby dies!”
Jo,
It’s not ‘up to’ anybody, it’s a matter of fact.
Being a protector ir guardian have to do with biology? Though it is a common characterisic of most parents (pro-aborts excluded).
So if I have a baby and it dies… let’s say, when it’s three years old of… cancer…… I still have to consider myself a mother ten years from now because… why? Because YOU think I do?
TS, maybe you need to re-read your last post because I have no idea what kind of point you were making?
So if I have a baby and it dies… let’s say, when it’s three years old of… cancer…… I still have to consider myself a mother ten years from now because… why? Because YOU think I do?
Yes Josephine, your baby, let’s call her Angie, dying at the age of three does not change the fact that when somebody sees a picture of Angie ten years later and says who is this baby’s biological mother, the only answer will be Josephine.
TS, I’m not going to post the same thing fifteen times. Good to know if someone’s baby die you’d basically not care about their feelings on whether they’re still a mother or not. I’m glad you have that right and it’s not up to the actual mother. Now I’m going to bed because I have a long night of partying tomorrow.
I would care about their feelings, but you can’t feel away the fact that you had offspring.
So glad I stayed outta this one. TS I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have 3 in heaven. I am their momma. If one of my four children died, I would always be their momma, they would always be my child.
Alas, Caroline Kennedy is not that, but please complain about her issues and ethics rather than her grammar.
Posted by: Channah at December 30, 2008 11:35 PM
Since she will be a public speaker, she ought to be able to express herself in a reasonably competent way. If Sarah Palin spoke like this can you imagine the SNL skits that we’d be seeing this weekend? If a person is a Dem, the get a break from the liberal left-wing media.
If Caroline K can’t speak well then some one ought to train her up better. Just saying, you know.
It’s up to the mother and father if they still consider themselves parents after their baby dies, whether it be because of abortion or an outside reason.
No it’s not Josephine. And you know this. What a truly silly notion. The only possible reason you believe this is to support the notion of “choice” – abortion.
I ask you to go up to any woman who has miscarried at 2 months or 3 months and tell her “Well it would be worse if you were a parent.” Hmmm I wonder how many body punches you can take?
Biology in NO WAY specifies if a parent is still a parent after their child dies. Show me where “biology says that”. And remember that I’m a student of Biology.
Yes Josephine biology does make this statement in a way – it is implicit in genetics and also in embryology. And Catholic theology and bioethics most certainly does. Of course when you shed your willingness to accept some of Catholic moral teachings your perspective changes. Perhaps not now, but I hope someday you will come to realize this.
Asitis, do you ever feel like your head is just going to explode when you read some of this, and sorry I have to use this word, but… crap!?
Posted by: Josephine at December 30, 2008 11:38 PM
Yes, Josephine some of the stuff I read here is so unbelievably outrageous. I am amazed.. and mildly entertained by it. This one (from TSTL is a good example):
Science merely reinforces religious belief and what God himself instructed us
I’d love to see the Catholic Church ask Caroline to recant her public support of abortion. If not, she should be denied Holy Communion. won’t happen but it certainly would show that the CC in America means business on the sanctity of life issues.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 30, 2008 10:20 PM
You’re right TSTL. The Catholic Church won’t deny her communion and send out that message. They know full well that they rely on “Cafeteria Catholics” for their churches to survive.
Asitis, what is “outrageous” about that?
suppose a woman is eight weeks into her first pregnancy. she miscarries, and her doctor informs her she will always be unable to carry a pregnancy to term. can you imagine that, in her grief, she might sob “now I’ll never be a mother!”?
Yes, Wendy, of course. I can also understand that a woman who loses their newborn baby could, in her grief, sob “now I’ll never be a mother”. Neither is true.
Hmm, interesting:
moth·er 1 (mr)
n.
1. A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child.
2. A female parent of an animal.
3. A female ancestor.
4. A woman who holds a position of authority or responsibility similar to that of a mother: a den mother.
5. Roman Catholic Church
a. A mother superior.
b. Used as a form of address for such a woman.
6. A woman who creates, originates, or founds something: “the discovery of radium, which made Marie Curie mother to the Atomic Age” Alden Whitman.
7. A creative source; an origin: Philosophy is the mother of the sciences.
8. Used as a title for a woman respected for her wisdom and age.
9. Maternal love and tenderness: brought out the mother in her.
10. The biggest or most significant example of its kind: the mother of all battles.
11. Vulgar Slang Something considered extraordinary, as in disagreeableness, size, or intensity.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
No it’s not Josephine. And you know this. What a truly silly notion. The only possible reason you believe this is to support the notion of “choice” – abortion.
I ask you to go up to any woman who has miscarried at 2 months or 3 months and tell her “Well it would be worse if you were a parent.” Hmmm I wonder how many body punches you can take?
Amen to that, Tstl!
“I would care about their feelings, but you can’t feel away the fact that you had offspring. ”
Did you have an offspring if it’s never born? :)
Yes.
Main Entry:
off·spring Listen to the pronunciation of offspring
Pronunciation:
\?o?f-?spri?\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural offspring also offsprings
Etymology:
Middle English ofspring, from Old English, from of off + springan to spring
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant : young , progeny b: child2 a: product , result b: offshoot 1a
Wait, this one’s better. The biological definition of offspring is:
Offspring
New organisms produced by a living thing.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Offspring
Please show me where the zygote or embryo or fetus is NOT an organism produced by the reproductive processes of other living human beings.
When I was about 6 or 7 years, I caught myself saying “you know” repeatedly and realized how insane this habit made me sound. Guess no one was kind or truthful enough to show Caroline how ridiculous it makes her appear. Guess that’s what happens when you have money–no one mentions the phlegm hanging from your nose–they just keep patting you on the back and telling you how wonderful you are.
I agree with you Jill that Sarah’s wink isn’t a tic. It’s deliberate. But she does have her own verbal tics – CNN could have picked something better. Read a transcript of her unscripted ramblings and it’s even harder than Caroline’s to decipher what she is trying to say or find the sentence structure. Her most obvious tic would probably be throwing in a whole jumble of points hoping one is right – someone said it’s like a student who obviously doean’t have a clue what the correct response is, but says everything they can think of hoping to get marks somewhere.
asitis: “TSTL, the Catholic church’s teaching that life begins at conception is based on its religious beliefs. It may attempt to use science to argue its belief, but its belief is founded on their religion.”
Science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human life. If a religion holds that killing human beings is wrong, then the forbidding of killing embryonic human beings is merely a logical extension of that. The Church also condemns the killing taking place in Darfur; does that mean that the victims there are human beings only in the eyes of religion?
They know full well that they rely on “Cafeteria Catholics” for their churches to survive.
Posted by: asitis at December 31, 2008 8:01 AM
not really. We much rather you guys just LEFT
You’ve tried to change the church in the past 40 years to no avail – the CC hasn’t relented on BC, abortion, women priests, confession and euthanasia. Instead, you’ve actually done us a world of good because you’ve allowed us to strengthened and more fully define the Churchs position on it’s teachings, especially the ones relating to sexual morality. This is a huge blessing.
And we have many many young people very interested in living according to those teachings, having seen and in some cases grown up with the end result of a promiscuous lifestyle and so forth.
Bethany: you are awesome as usual. I also have been able to find a few premed and medical textbooks that state that life begins at conception.
Proaborts don’t like this fact and like their brothers in totalitarianism, no doubt this will someday disappear from textbooks. I am reminded of Soviet textbooks which were rewritten to make history as they deemed it happened. The parallels are quite astonishing and would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that at the expense of both ideologies (proabortliberal and communism) millions have/are died/dying.
asitis: read Fides et ratio and you will understand why faith and reason go together (like love and marriage !)
Just going throw it out there…
My mom had 7 pregnancies, 3 of which were successful. She doesn’t go around saying, “Oh, I have 7 kids, 4 dead, 3 living” because that’s really macabre. She doesn’t consider her 4 miscarriages “her baybeez”.
TSTL, you said science and faith go together.. you didn’t say reason, originally. And you’re wrong. Science and faith pretty much contradict each other constantly.
Channah 11:35am
What are her issues and ethics? This woman is being picked because of her DNA. Why don’t they refer to her as Ms.Schlossberg, which is her legal name? Probably because people would respond with “who the devil is Caroline Schlossberg?”
“My mom had 7 pregnancies, 3 of which were successful. She doesn’t go around saying, ‘Oh, I have 7 kids, 4 dead, 3 living’ because that’s really macabre.”
Yes, it is. It’s also painful, which is another reason some people only mention the living.
“She doesn’t consider her 4 miscarriages ‘her baybeez’.”
What we call them doesn’t alter scientific fact, Rae. Imagine a baby born, but whose life is in grave danger just an hour after birth. (S)He does, indeed, die a few days later, and the parents haven’t even assigned him/her a name. Perhaps years later the mom won’t mention that baby, either, but that doesn’t mean (s)he wasn’t a human being.
I would like to hear Josephine explain how faith and science contradict each other.
I think that tstl began to explain it quite well at 10:01 PM. Dec. 30th.
You don’t have to hear me explain. You can look it up. The Vatican astronomer and the “head priest” at the Vatican said it. It was in Bill Mahr’s Religulous. :) I’m not going to find the clip of them saying for you, but that’s exactly where it is. It’s towards the end when he’s at the Vatican. :)
@Bri: I flat out asked her why she doesn’t mention them and it wasn’t because “they’re too painful”- it’s because they don’t matter. She has 3 born kids that haven’t managed to off themselves yet and that’s all she cares about. She doesn’t “live in the past” and constantly reminisce about what “could have been”. She. Doesn’t. Care. Anymore. She. Moved. On.
And I don’t think I ever said anything about “scientific fact”, Bri. Yes, the miscarriages are scientifically considered “offspring” by many definitions, but my mom certainly does not consider them children- which is what people were arguing.
They know full well that they rely on “Cafeteria Catholics” for their churches to survive.
Posted by: asitis at December 31, 2008 8:01 AM
not really. We much rather you guys just LEFT
You’ve tried to change the church in the past 40 years to no avail – the CC hasn’t relented on BC, abortion, women priests, confession and euthanasia. Instead, you’ve actually done us a world of good because you’ve allowed us to strengthened and more fully define the Churchs position on it’s teachings, especially the ones relating to sexual morality. This is a huge blessing.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 1:36 PM
Actually TSTL, in my case, I did “just leave” the church.
But many many do remain and pick and choose what teachings they will follow. The U.S. Catholic Bishops themselves admit that 96 per cent of married Catholics use contraception. You’re right that the Catholic Church has not “relented” on these issues in response to their parishoners’ personal beliefs. But at the same time they don’t require that their teachings be followed in order to be a member of the church, to be married by the church, to receive communion, etc. etc. because, as I said, they without these Cafeteria Catholics, they’d have a lot of empty pews (and collection plates!).
Science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human life. If a religion holds that killing human beings is wrong, then the forbidding of killing embryonic human beings is merely a logical extension of that. The Church also condemns the killing taking place in Darfur; does that mean that the victims there are human beings only in the eyes of religion?
Posted by: Bri at December 31, 2008 1:16 PM
Here’s the thing Bri: It’s a universal belief, not merely a religious belief, that killing other people is wrong. The killing in Dafur is not just wrong in the eyes of religion.
your loss asitis, as you will eventually learn.
While the Church does ask Catholics to follow it’s teachings, however, it does not presume to judge the state of each person’s conscience. It also does not force people to adhere to faith (unlike the Muslim faith). After all a person can go to confession and withhold sins. Ultimately, we will each face a judgement by God, alone. It is then, with perfect clarity we will understand our motives and our failings and our responsibilities.
In the past, people were a little more honest with themselves in that they left if they didn’t follow the teachings of their faith. Modern people, having lost a sense of personal honesty and integrity, and also having lost a sense of sin and a sense of the greatness of God, simply continue to act as if they are doing nothing wrong. It is not that they make their decisions based on an informed conscience, most of them could care less. It is a simple case of rebellion, a poorly developed conscience and poorly catechised Catholics who have absolutely NO understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church and how these teachings help them to live a life that is happy and at peace.
The irony is that these Catholics still consider themselves part of the church. But while physically they may be a part of the church, present in body, at Mass even, spiritually they have separated themselves from the mystical body of Christ and are no longer in communion with that body. This separation dulls their intellect and their soul, further widening the breach. It is only when someone struggles to understand the truth and reaches out to God that things change.
However, God is very merciful and there have been many wonderful conversions in the past century especially by some well known celebrities who have led very debauched lives. The sad thing is that so many of these people may have come “home” sooner if they had had the proper witness of the faith by those Catholics around them. The wonderful thing is that in spite of this omission by teachers, parents, priests and bishops, these people made it back to Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI is quite aware of the current situation and he is quite aware that the number of true Catholics is quite small. He has accepted this. Unfortunately, the only way the Church is built is through persecution when the chaff are separated from the wheat. I guess one must decide if they will be chaff or wheat!
My mom had 7 pregnancies, 3 of which were successful. She doesn’t go around saying, “Oh, I have 7 kids, 4 dead, 3 living” because that’s really macabre. She doesn’t consider her 4 miscarriages “her baybeez”.
Posted by: Rae at December 31, 2008 2:11 PM
maybe your mom doesn’t but I have friends who have miscarried and they are quite certain they have those children in heaven and that they are the mom of those children. They look forward to the day they will meet them…
Ultimately, we will each face a judgement by God, alone.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 4:18 PM
Oh we will, will we?
Ultimately, we will each face a judgement by God, alone.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 4:18 PM
Oh we will, will we?
Posted by: asitis at December 31, 2008 4:49 PM
I wouldn’t bet on it.
asitis: well I guess, we will all find out won’t we. Except that there have been people who have experienced judgement and come back, a rather interesting aside…
asitis: I know it’s hard to believe you will be held accountable for all that you’ve done in your lifetime. Goes so against the grain of your life, doesn’t it.
Strangely, it doesn’t bother me abit! :-D Have a nice evening.
asitis: well I guess, we will all find out won’t we. Except that there have been people who have experienced judgement and come back, a rather interesting aside…
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 5:01 PM
Ooooh, scientific proof! You crack me up. Well, good thing you know exactly what God’s looking for on the entrance exam!
Me, I’m just a good person for the sake of being a good person…
define “good”
see that’s what amazes me asitis: you liberals are constantly telling us Catholics/Christians that YOU know what “good” is.
Very ironic. Of course in your minds, good CANT possibly waiting until you are married to have sex. Good can’t possibly be NOT choosing to abort your child. Good can’t possibly be being outside an abortion clinic offering to help a distressed pregnant woman. Good can only be what you liberals define it as it is. (Like choice and reproductive freedom and all that jazz)
So forget it. I’m not really all that interested, cuz I’ve already guessed what “good” is in your mind.
See ya next year!
asitis: I know it’s hard to believe you will be held accountable for all that you’ve done in your lifetime. Goes so against the grain of your life, doesn’t it.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 5:05 PM
I’d be happy to account for all I’ve done in my lifetime. But, I don’t expect there will be this “final accounting” you believe in.
“see that’s what amazes me asitis: you liberals are constantly telling us Catholics/Christians that YOU know what “good” is.
Very ironic.”
That’s hilarious TSTL! Because you’re one who strongly believes that you know what’s good and that the rest of us better watch out! And that without a belief in your god and adherence to your church’s golden rules, how can we possibly be good? I think you have it all backwards!
You really do crack me up. Thanks!
Uhhhmm… TSTL, your church may not have changed to cater to the “cafeteria Catholics” but I’m Catholic, and I attend a Catholic church in Urbana, Illinois while I’m in school and up by Chicago when I’m at home… I also attend a Catholic church when I go to drill. Those churches ALL catered to “cafeteria Catholics”. None of my churches have had problems with birth control at all.. I’ve had two priests who were Democrats!
no actually I don’t KNOW what is good – I learn what is good from the teachings of my faith and from the natural law written on the human heart.
But you liberal proaborts claim all the time to know what is good – and not only for yourselves but for all of us too.
Can’t possibly have that baby ya know, because it just isnt’ the right time for it, or it’ll kill the way your figure looks or you might lose mr. right…(gotta get rid of it….) You KNOW what it right in this situation!
Can’t possibly accept that you can’t have a baby and that you don’t have a RIGHT to a baby, so you have to make 8 embryos, freeze the leftover ones and leave them like that forever and ever and ever… You KNOW what is right in this situation!
Can’t possibly accept that suffering might have some redemptive quality – nope. Have to end it here and now…as in euthanasia. You KNOW what is right in this situation!
It’s because of your pride that you won’t accept what is written in your heart by the good Lord,as truth.
The dare for 2009: you are an ex-scientist. What is truth? Who holds that truth? With intellectual honesty, you need to search for the answers to these questions. Unless, of course, you don’t really care.
None of my churches have had problems with birth control at all.. I’ve had two priests who were Democrats!
Posted by: Josephine at December 31, 2008 5:53 PM
so what? My experience is that these kind of parishes experience no vocations and they will eventually close.
In the same way, the libs who are contracepting themselves will someday be overrun by us neocons who are having kids by the dozens and loving it. And our kids go on to have kids by the doz’s too. Aint it great how evolution just works! Survival of the fittest! Yeah!
It’s because of your pride that you won’t accept what is written in your heart by the good Lord,as truth.
The dare for 2009: you are an ex-scientist. What is truth? Who holds that truth? With intellectual honesty, you need to search for the answers to these questions. Unless, of course, you don’t really care.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 6:02 PM
Lordy, lordy TSTL, you ARE a piece of work aren’t you!
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m looking much too lovely and festive for this scene….time to go get a glass of champagne!
hey I hear you! Bottoms up! off to my party now too!
oh and before I go, I did NOTICE asitis: that you blew me off, YET AGAIN! VERY CLEVER!
Rae: “Yes, the miscarriages are scientifically considered ‘offspring’ by many definitions, but my mom certainly does not consider them children- which is what people were arguing.”
Many parents do grieve over miscarried children; some even hold memorial ceremonies. Are we to believe that a miscarriage is a human being IF his/her mother and father grieve, but not if they don’t?
asitis: “Here’s the thing Bri: It’s a universal belief, not merely a religious belief, that killing other people is wrong. The killing in Dafur is not just wrong in the eyes of religion.”
That is precisely my point: one need not be of a certain faith to oppose the killing of human beings. Since we know that, scientifically, human embryos and fetuses are human beings, protecting them falls under the same category: you need not be of a certain faith in order to favor protecting them.
Ahhhh…. but it’s not a universal belief nor a scientific fact that embryos and fetuses are human beings as are born people, so protecting them does NOT fall in the same category. Otherwise, there would be no debate.
Nice try.
Good night and Happy 2009.
“Many parents do grieve over miscarried children; some even hold memorial ceremonies. Are we to believe that a miscarriage is a human being IF his/her mother and father grieve, but not if they don’t?”
@Bri: Are you done pulling strawmans out of your butt? I never said a miscarried fetus isn’t human, it most certainly is human. And that’s fine that they grieve over miscarriages, that’s their prerogative and it’s understandable. I’m sure my mom was sad too shortly after the miscarriages. The difference here is how people deal with the loss and move on- and in my highly UNprofessional opinion, when you say you have “7” kids but only 3 of which were actually born- and I find that creepy and I almost pity you for your inability to move on and get over the deaths and instead focus ALL of your attention on what IS ie: the 3 kids that actually made it through uterine-Frogger.
Hi Rae,
I have 7 kids. 4 are here and 3 are in heaven. Call me creepy, macabre and tell me I haven’t moved on and pity me. Do I focus ALL of my energy on my children in heaven MORE than my living children? No. That would be absurd.
The final stage of grief is acceptance. I have “moved on” to acceptance. I believe that to be a healthier alternative than stuffing any feelings I had over my children who died. There are women that call me to help them deal with their grief after miscarriage. I have a stack of the books I loan out dealing with grief after losing a child. Creepy to some brings great comfort to others.
What we are talking about is forbidden grief. Others are uncomfortable that a woman grieves a child that society may not acknowledge as a child. We are absolutely told to “get over it” and “try again” because that is what others would do.
Acknowledging our losses goes a long way for a woman longing to heal.
I will see MY BAYBEEEZZZZ someday!!! I have hope! I know…..Macabre!!
Carla,
There is also the aspect that people grieve and cope differently, often in ways we cannot comprehend.
You may not remember the case of the little girl, who died in a circus fire during WW2. For years her body went unclaimed and her identity a mystery. Finally a fireman became obsessed with the case and began his own investigation.
It turned out the child’s mother, who survived the fire, was still alive but had never claimed her daughter’s body. It was denial to the extreme and her way of coping. I vaguely recall the story, I’m not certain if the woman lost other children in the fire or not or if she ever came to accept her daughter’s death.
Also my aunt lost her 11y/o son when he was hit by a car. That was 39 years ago and to this day she will not visit his grave. She was in fact upset with my mother for putting flowers on it while visiting her brother’s grave, the father of the child.
Carla,
If you google “circus fire victim” you will get more info. Apparently the mother, who lost another child in the fire as well, was certain this little unidentified girl, “little Miss 1565” was not her daughter. The investigator was certain she was.
Anyway, the mother, who died in 1997, never made any effort to claim or identify her children. A very tragic and fascinating story as to how one mother coped with her loss and grief.
How very sad and tragic, Mary.
@ Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at December 31, 2008 6:11 PM
Seriously, do you believe that crap? First of all, how in the world do you get off saying those churches will eventually close? They don’t close military churches, first of all… second of all, the church I attend while at school is very, very, very old. You kinda… don’t know what you’re talking about.. :)
It’s hilarious you think we’ll be “over run”. You do know that, first of all, it’s not logical for anyone to have that many kids. That’s why it’s so rare. Second of all, while you’re trying hard just to support your family of 12… the rest of the people that just have two kids will be the wealthy ones. No problems going to college…no problems with not getting personal attention from their parents. Sooo… go ahead with your twelve kids. Have fun!
asitis: “Ahhhh…. but it’s not a universal belief nor a scientific fact that embryos and fetuses are human beings as are born people, so protecting them does NOT fall in the same category. Otherwise, there would be no debate.”
Perhaps you need to be more specific. Are you arguing that (human) embryos and fetuses are human beings, but not the same TYPE of human beings as those already born? I need to know what argument you’re making before I can properly address it.
rae: “@Bri: Are you done pulling strawmans out of your butt?”
I am not engaging in straw-man. I am trying to deduce whether or not you ascribe to what George and Tollefson (in their great book, EMBRYO) describe as the Attribution View of personhood: the flawed view that a human being is only a human being only if the rest of us say so.
“The difference here is how people deal with the loss and move on- and in my highly UNprofessional opinion, when you say you have ‘7’ kids but only 3 of which were actually born- and I find that creepy and I almost pity you for your inability to move on and get over the deaths and instead focus ALL of your attention on what IS ie: the 3 kids that actually made it through uterine-Frogger.”
What would your view be of a mother who once had seven living children but lost four in an automobile accident when the kids were ages 3-8, and nonetheless mentioned all seven?
bri if you have seen any of my comments elsewhere you will know that my point is that there is no consensus as to whether embryos and fetuses are yet human beings and if they are valued in the same way born human beings are.
I am not going to debate the status or value issue with you because that goes nowhere. All I am saying is there is no consensus.
You do know that, first of all, it’s not logical for anyone to have that many kids. That’s why it’s so rare. Second of all, while you’re trying hard just to support your family of 12… the rest of the people that just have two kids will be the wealthy ones. No problems going to college…no problems with not getting personal attention from their parents. Sooo… go ahead with your twelve kids. Have fun!
Posted by: Josephine at January 1, 2009 11:57 AM
well guess what, you are the one who is very wrong here. In fact, large families USE to be the norm.
If a married couple act in a normal and natural way they will have may children over their reproductive years. In fact, that is the way our bodies are designed and the way the complementarity between man and woman enables it to be so.
And if the mother practices breastfeeding a couple will be blessed with adequate spacing between the children usually with two years between children, so the parents are able to cope.
I’m hoping you remember God’s instruction in the Bible in Genesis when he stated “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air….” Genesis 1:27-28.
Unless of course, you’ve jettisoned the Bible too.
As for not being able to look after a large number of children that myth has been propagated by the Margaret Sangers of the world who are furious at the natural fecundity of good people who see children as a blessing. And I am sure many parents of large families would consider your comments, Josephine to be quite a slap in the face.
asitis,
I am pretty certain that it is safe to assume that there is a consensus among scientists (who are intellectually honest) that an embryo is a human being. It is personhood that pro-choicers want to debate. The DNA present after fertilization determines its “humanness”.
Ahhhh…. but it’s not a universal belief nor a scientific fact that embryos and fetuses are human beings as are born people, so protecting them does NOT fall in the same category. Otherwise, there would be no debate.
Nice try.
Good night and Happy 2009.
Posted by: asitis at January 1, 2009 12:46 AM
I’m hoping this was posted after one too many glasses. As a scientist, this is appalling that you would have the audacity to post something this ridiculous. I give you the benefit of the doubt! :-D
agreed Eileen#2. It is amazing that the “humanness” of a human embryo, begot by two human parents would actually be disputed.
If an embryo is human then it follows that the individual human embryo is a human being.
‘Science and religion don’t mix. If you want to use religion to support science, that makes way for EVERYONE in the world to use science to prove that the bible is… pretty much a book of fairy tales. The “head priest” (I don’t know what he’s actually called. I should check..) at the Vatican basically said the stories in the bible aren’t real… and the Vatican astronomer (also a Catholic priest) said you can NOT get your science out of the bible. So which is it? You can use science if you want, in which case the whole bible is… well, “crap” or you can’t, in which case you REALLY need a new argument.”
I agree that you can not use the bible as a scientific reference but I do not agree that “science and religion” contradict each other. God gave us an intellect and a conscience to use in the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists who attempt to know how the material world operates are often led to acknowledge the One whom set it all in motion. Albert Einstein acknowledged that himself.
sorry — “the One who…” not whom
Sigh. No eileen it is not safe to assume that. As has been pointed out before, there is no consensus among scientists as to when human life begins.
asitis — you said “human being”
WTF eileen?? Okay, so change my “when human life begins” to ” when the thing is a human being”. Same diff
Asitis, just because one super liberal scientist wrote a paper saying “there is no consensus” doesn’t mean that there one doesn’t exist.
Every text from Gray’s Anatomy to a modern Anatomy and Physiology text can point to amphimixis as the moment in which a new, unique human life begins.
We use “a human being” rather than “a human life” because when we use the latter someone almost invariably changes it to “human life” and tangentially states that “human life” actually began millennia ago.
Science textbooks properly place the beginning of a human being’s life at the moment of fertilization. The ones that aren’t as specific merely refrain from answering the question. No textbook cites the beginning of a human being’s life as quickening, viability, birth, when “it” starts to look cute, when “it” can count to ten, etc….
lauren, don’t kid yourself. We aren’t talking about just one super liberal scientist.
Bri, textbooks ” merely refrain” from saying when life begins because there IS no consensus. Thank you. I also like the way you state human life began millenia ago…. You wouldn’t by any chance mean a mere few millenia ago would you? Hahahahaha
Rae,
People move on after losing college age children too. But their love for that child often continues beyond that loss. It just means they no longer have to care for their childs physical and emotional needs on earth.
Sigh. No eileen it is not safe to assume that. As has been pointed out before, there is no consensus among scientists as to when human life begins.
Posted by: asitis at January 1, 2009 1:14 PM
De Nile is a river that runs long and deep :{)
Asitis, scientifically speaking, if the life of an embryo is not human, then what species is an embryo?
Or maybe you think an embryo is a dead human? Or possibly in a human in some kind of a state of suspended animation?Or are you satying that an embryo is a species other than human? lol
how bout not YET a human being truthseeker. I think that is what scientists don’t agree on.
asitis: “Bri, textbooks ‘merely refrain’ from saying when life begins because there IS no consensus. Thank you.”
They also may not state outright that Inuit grandparents are human beings, but it doesn’t hold that the personhood of Inuit grandparents is up for debate.
“I also like the way you state human life began millenia ago…. You wouldn’t by any chance mean a mere few millenia ago would you? Hahahahaha”
Human life began many, many, many millennia ago, asitis. If your religion tells you that it was just a “mere few” millennia ago, then fine, but we believe from anthropology that it actually started well before that…kinda sorta like we know from biology that a single human being’s life begins at fertilization. Rock on…
Phew! Well at least your faith allows for evolution.
I agree that you can not use the bible as a scientific reference but I do not agree that “science and religion” contradict each other. God gave us an intellect and a conscience to use in the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists who attempt to know how the material world operates are often led to acknowledge the One whom set it all in motion. Albert Einstein acknowledged that himself.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 1, 2009 1:10 PM
absolutely Eileen#2! Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the world around us that serves humanity. This is it’s main purpose – to serve. As such it must be subject to the ethical principles that will protect and enhance the dignity and equality of all human beings. At no time should humanity become subject to science as in the experimentation of human embryos and so forth. Thus the Church is on the side of science. Indeed, she has led the way in the area of scientific endeavour throughout the centuries.
The difference here is how people deal with the loss and move on- and in my highly UNprofessional opinion, when you say you have “7” kids but only 3 of which were actually born- and I find that creepy and I almost pity you for your inability to move on and get over the deaths and instead focus ALL of your attention on what IS ie: the 3 kids that actually made it through uterine-Frogger.
Do you feel the same way if this is the way a person talks about their born children who have passed on? Do you pity them for not “moving on already”?
Phew! Well at least your faith allows for evolution.
I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution..
how bout not YET a human being truthseeker. I think that is what scientists don’t agree on.
I asked you this before, Asitis, but you kind of let it go… I’d like to know if you could tell me from a scientific standpoint, what exactly is it that separates a zygote or the embryo from the late term fetus, besides time? What is the basis for this belief that there is something different between them, besides the age and size?
To be more specific- What biological changes occur to change it (the embryo/zygote) from non-human to human by viability?
Is something added to it’s structure?
Is something changed dramatically?
Can you tell me what it is that would change it from non human or potential human to ACTUAL human at the point of viability?
Also, since I’ve brought up viability, I might as well ask you again whether you are against abortions after viability (since you said that you believe it is human after that time)?
I’ll await your answers…
My mom had 7 pregnancies, 3 of which were successful. She doesn’t go around saying, “Oh, I have 7 kids, 4 dead, 3 living” because that’s really macabre. She doesn’t consider her 4 miscarriages “her baybeez”.
Maybe, like many women I have talked to over the last year or so, your mother is afraid to admit that she felt for her babies. Perhaps it is others who devalued her children and made her ashamed to grieve them, so that she had to hide her grief inwardly. I have talked to dozens of women who have been mocked and ridiculed, even by their own doctors, for grieving their unborn children’s deaths as actual losses. It makes them less likely to open up to anyone about their true feelings, for fear of being laughed at.
A+ for persistence Bethany but the answer is still no.
No, what? No, you refuse to answer simple scientific questions, or no, you do not support viable abortions?
Do scientists who believe that human life does not begin at conception (fertilization) not have to have a Scientific basis for such a belief? Or do you think that Science should be purely philosophical when it comes to human life?
Asitis said: “how bout not YET a human being truthseeker. I think that is what scientists don’t agree on.”
Asitis, What species are these beings that humans develope from if they are not human? lol
no, I refuse to enter into this futile debate with you. You know that
What makes it futile, Asitis?
I think I am asking very valid questions. What is wrong with them? Why do you find them so difficult to answer?
Asitis, if you aren’t willing to discuss honestly the topic that this entire blog is about, what exactly do you come here to discuss?
oh for pete’s sake Bethany! Go back to the other post and reread all my replies again.
I guess this is a checkmate then? You have no more moves left?
Oops, forgot to wink ;-)
Asitis, I’m well aware of why you can’t answer the questions. You know the answers. That is why you can’t answer them.
why do I come here? Well beyond entertainment ( you are currently getting me through a long trip home) I do learn some things here about issues and people. And you guys need to hear from the outside world every once in awhile!
Teach me, Asitis. Teach me!
Answer my questions so I can learn of the outside world and it’s knowledgeable answers to those basic questions about life!
hahahaha Bethany ! Yes I know MY answers. And I am quite content with them. As you are with yours.
I haven’t heard your answers though, Asitis! I need you to edu-ma-cate this poor ignorant hick who hadn’t never learnt nothin in her whole life. Pweetty please?
teach you? C’mon that’s what I’m saying Bethany. I’m not going to teach yyou on this issue Bethany just as you aren’t going to teach me. There is no one right answer here. You have yours. I have mine. To try to teach other is futile.
Asitis, so you are saying science is philosophical? There are no scientific facts with which to answer my questions?
Jill,
Please send this video to everyone you know and to your pro-life contacts who don’t like Obama
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
Okay, getting off now… I have asked basic questions which have already been answered by science, Asitis. Your refusal to answer the question, claiming there is no real answer, is just kind of silly.
The only reason you refuse to answer the questions is because you know that if you answer, you would have to concede that human life begins at fertilization. And that is something you cannot- or just will not- do.
I need to go ahead and make dinner so I will talk to you again tomorrow. Maybe by then you will have thought of an answer to my question? Maybe you could even call a Scientist and ask if he can help you answer… Until then…have a great New Year!
no, I refuse to enter into this futile debate with you. You know that
Posted by: asitis at January 1, 2009 5:00 PM
because you don’t have an explanation. Your views are illogical. You’ve come on this board making quite a deal that you are a scientist – yet you do not act in the manner of a scientist. Scientist seek the truth about the nature of the world around us. Is that what you seek? or do you seek a truth which suppports your lifestyle?Your answers and your arguments are illogical – they are insupportable by science and they are insupportable by the observations that biologists and neonatologists and geneticists have made over the past 40 years.
And what’s more I believe you know this. Bethany’s questions are valid ones.
Way to go asitis, making all scientists look like fools!
The only reason you refuse to answer the questions is because you know that if you answer, you would have to concede that human life begins at fertilization. And that is something you cannot- or just will not- do.
Posted by: Bethany at January 1, 2009 5:30 PM
That is not the case at all Bethany. And there are people who know and understand more about the science than you or I ever will, and even they can’t agree with each other. As I have said before, science has NOT provided the answer and perhaps it never will because it’s not just about science. You of all people know this. Your Christianity and your feelings for Blessing are as, if not more, important than the science is to your position on this. You can’t argue that Bethany. And I’m not going to try to convince you that you are wrong. Because you are not. Just as I am not wrong.
Asitis, What species are these beings that humans develope from if they are not human? lol
Yawn…. ts I already answered that nonsense this afternoon.
asitis: “Phew! Well at least your faith allows for evolution.”
What “faith” might that be, if I may ask? I don’t recall revealing to you what my “faith,” if any, is.
You are right Bri. I realized that after I posted the comment. I had assumed you were a conservative christian like so many here. Sorry if I got that wrong.
TSTL, Yes, they use to be the norm. Not anymore. Because it’s not logical. What’s your point? Yes. I know. Men and women have sex. It makes babies. Again, what’s your point? So… do you not have your pets spayed and neutered? Because, if you do… that’s unnatural. They’re designed to have babies, TSTL. :) (Even though the world has WAY too many animals that can’t be cared for… I’m just arguing by your incorrect logic!) Annnnd, I’m a pre-med major. My dad is a doctor. Neither of us have ever heard of breastfeeding preventing pregnancies. That ISN’T SCIENCE. IT’S SUPERSTITION!
My comments are a slap in the face to parents of large families? No. If two people work let’s say… as accountants, one has two kids.. the other has twelve… who do you think is going to be able to financially support their family, TSTL?? Are you freakin’ kidding with this stuff? First of all, daycare so parents can continue to work.. or, no day care and having one stay at home parent. WHO CAN AFFORD THAT WITH 12 KIDS! You know when people originally had these giants families, they also had big family farms, small family businesses, etc?? Stuff like that is rare/few and far between now! Seriously…. you’re ridiculous! :) TSTL, Yes, they use to be the norm. Not anymore. Because it’s not logical. What’s your point? Yes. I know. Men and women have sex. It makes babies. Again, what’s your point? So… do you not have your pets spayed and neutered? Because, if you do… that’s unnatural. They’re designed to have babies, TSTL. :) (Even though the world has WAY too many animals that can’t be cared for… I’m just arguing by your incorrect logic!) Annnnd, I’m a pre-med major. My dad is a doctor. Neither of us have ever heard of breastfeeding preventing pregnancies. That ISN’T SCIENCE. IT’S SUPERSTITION!
My comments are a slap in the face to parents of large families? No. If two people work let’s say… as accountants, one has two kids.. the other has twelve… who do you think is going to be able to financially support their family, TSTL?? Are you freakin’ kidding with this stuff? First of all, daycare so parents can continue to work.. or, no day care and having one stay at home parent. WHO CAN AFFORD THAT WITH 12 KIDS! You know when people originally had these giants families, they also had big family farms, small family businesses, etc?? Stuff like that is rare/few and far between now! Seriously…. you’re ridiculous! :)
BTW, Eileen, I’ve said SEVERAL times that the astronomer/scientist of the VATICAN (also a priest) says that science and the bible COMPLETELY contradict. You can watch the video of him saying it. I’m not going to keep telling you. I mean, you’re disagreeing with a scientist and a priest!
And there are people who know and understand more about the science than you or I ever will, and even they can’t agree with each other.
hogwash! This is not rocket science. It’s pure and simple genetics and basic philosophy. And of course, in your mind, there is no right and wrong asitis. What a total cop out! Go ahead and live in your dumbed-down reality. I hope you don’t teach this psuedo-science crap to your kids.
“Annnnd, I’m a pre-med major. My dad is a doctor. Neither of us have ever heard of breastfeeding preventing pregnancies. That ISN’T SCIENCE. IT’S SUPERSTITION!”
Josephine, let’s dial it down a little, K?
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/mch/ch/techareas/breastfeed_brief.html
“Benefits of Breastfeeding…
Birth Spacing. In developing countries, exclusive breastfeeding reduces total potential fertility as much as all other modern contraceptive methods combined.”
TSTL, Yes, they use to be the norm. Not anymore. Because it’s not logical. What’s your point? Yes. I know. Men and women have sex. It makes babies. Again, what’s your point? So… do you not have your pets spayed and neutered? Because, if you do… that’s unnatural. They’re designed to have babies, TSTL. :) (Even though the world has WAY too many animals that can’t be cared for… I’m just arguing by your incorrect logic!) Annnnd, I’m a pre-med major. My dad is a doctor. Neither of us have ever heard of breastfeeding preventing pregnancies. That ISN’T SCIENCE. IT’S SUPERSTITION!
Oh way to go comparing women having babies with pets being spayed! Yeah , actually that’s not the first time I’ve heard this comparison. But hey, it usually comes with those who are advocating/practicing birth control and living the contraceptive lifestyle. So I totally understand where it comes from!
Ever heard of ecological breastfeeding? You better become better informed honey if you are gonna be a family physician. Cause breastfeeding can and is used to space pregnancies! Check out LaLeche League and you will soon learn that it does work.
Are you freakin’ kidding with this stuff? First of all, daycare so parents can continue to work.. or, no day care and having one stay at home parent. WHO CAN AFFORD THAT WITH 12 KIDS! You know when people originally had these giants families, they also had big family farms, small family businesses, etc?? Stuff like that is rare/few and far between now! Seriously…. you’re ridiculous! :)
Actually, the families I know who have 8 or more kids do not have daycare. Mom stays at home and yes the kids are going to college. So far the first 3 are in college. Mom runs a business on the side and oh, she just had her 8+ kid on the side. They live in a very nice, new home in suburbia as dad is a cop fulltime.
Another family I know with 7 children, dad is a teacher. Mom stays at home. One daughter is in remission with aplastic aenemia. The have a home in the country and own a hundred acres which they rent out.
Third family 8 children: father is co-owner of a greenhouse business. So far the first 5 kids have gone to college. Mom stays at home and just had the 8th child after 13 years of having no more children after the first 7!
Fourth family with 8 children: all girls. all of them are mucsically gifted. FAther is now a chicken farmer. Mom stays at home. children range in age from 15 to 6 months.
I could go on, but this is getting rather tiresome.
I guess it depends upon what you really want in life. If you are open to the Lord, all things are possible. If you would rather trust in yourself, then really, as I see it, your options are very limited. They are limited by your own narrowness of soul and mind. God doesn’t like these limits – they mean absolutely nothing to him, Josephine.
hogwash! This is not rocket science. It’s pure and simple genetics and basic philosophy. And of course, in your mind, there is no right and wrong asitis. What a total cop out! Go ahead and live in your dumbed-down reality. I hope you don’t teach this psuedo-science crap to your kids.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 1, 2009 6:09 PM
If that were the case tstl, then scientists would have reached consensus on when life begins. They haven’t. How many times does that have to be said before you get it?
And there really is no absolute right and wrong on this. It’s not a cop-out. Not at all.And it is better to realize that than to try to force your personal belief on others. And it’s also an important thing to teach your kids.
Drop the dumbed-down reality / pseudo- science crap tstl. It’s nonsense.
TSTL, why is it okay to spay but it’s not okay to use contraceptive?
That’s funny that you listed all those, but… the thing is, you strike me as a liar and I don’t believe you. :)
So, you’re open to the Lord, soooo you think you should have a bunch of babies, even though the world is full of unwanted children already. God bless you, that’s truly noble! *eyeroll*
BTW, what do you mean “if I’d rather trust in myself”… that doesn’t make sense. You don’t trust in yourself? Uhm… okay? What’s that have to do with anything, TSTL?
Oh, and @ Posted by: bri at January 1, 2009 6:24 PM I just e-mailed a professor about this, and he basically said that breastfeeding doesn’t do ANYTHING in the body to stop you from having kids, basically. There’s no physiological anything that is dictated by breastfeeding.. except, you know, the amount of milk you produce and how long it’s produced. :)
I don’t know if you actually read what you posted, but it said breastfeeding “promotes child spacing”… it didn’t say it stopped anyone from getting pregnant except for in DEVELOPING countries. Perhaps you should’ve read that more thoroughly.. ??
BTW, Eileen, I’ve said SEVERAL times that the astronomer/scientist of the VATICAN (also a priest) says that science and the bible COMPLETELY contradict. You can watch the video of him saying it. I’m not going to keep telling you. I mean, you’re disagreeing with a scientist and a priest!
Posted by: Josephine at January 1, 2009 6:08 PM
This time you need to go back and re-read my post, Josephine :)
I did say that it is true that the Bible should not be used as a scientific reference. However to make a blanket statement as you did about science and religion is wrong. Some religious beliefs and scientific evidence may contradict each other but not in every instance. The Catholic Church has always encouraged the pursuit of knowledge/truth. Who do you think started the university/educational system all over Europe? It was the Catholic Church.
BTW, you disagree with the Pope if you think that artificial birth control is morally permissible. I must add that I disagree with your priests if they are condoning the use of artificial birth control as you seem to imply. Unfortunately, there are priests and religious in the Catholic Church who either by design or ignorance, dissent from Church teaching. That is why it is so important for Catholics to know their Catechism, read Papal encyclicals, and most importantly partake of the sacramental life of the Church (prayer, penance, the Eucharist, confession).
@Asitis: I’m pretty pro-choice and I’m an atheist and I’m fully willing to say (in fact, I would be intellectually dishonest to say otherwise) that a fetus is in fact human and that it is human at fertilization. It doesn’t make any sense at all to say otherwise, what else is an embryo? A friggin’ fish?
@Josephine: It’s not superstition that breastfeeding has contraceptive effects- it’s fact. It’s called the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM).
http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/factsheets/breastfeeding.htm
Your arrogance is really friggin’ obnoxious- I pity your future patients in the event you become a doctor.
“I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.. ”
*twitch*
That’s…cute, Bethany.
My arrogance, Rae? I e-mailed a professor just to make sure. I don’t spew things without fact checking. If you would have read what you posted, you’d see that one of the criteria for breastfeeding being effective birth control is:
“The mother has not experienced the return of her menstrual periods (bleeding up to the 56th postpartum day is considered part of the postpartum recovery process and is not counted as menstrual bleeding);”
That’s a factor regardless of if you’re breast feeding or not! :)
BTW, I pity your future pelvis if you think that breastfeeding will keep you from getting knocked up for two years.
@Josephine: It’s a method that works for some women and it’s free, which is why they advocate it in poor countries to aid in spacing of children.
And may I ask, what your professor is a professor of? Do they study gynecological and obstetrical medicine?
My future pelvis will be just fine, Josephine, I’m sterile. :)
@Josephine: I also did not say anything about it being foolproof birth control- of course there are certain criteria necessary for it to work! That’s the same with most birth control methods:
-Hormonal birth control pills require you to take them at the same time of the day every day, if you take it at a time other than that it will NOT be as effective.
-IUDs will only be given to women who are monogamous and typically only if they have children- unless there are extenuating circumstances. And even with an IUD, you have to have normal uterine anatomy, you can’t have a tipped uterus with an IUD.
-DepoProvera just fails at life.
All methods of birth controls have their caveats, just like LAM. Yes, LAM is short-term, but it does help for a period of time so you’re not having kids 10 months apart or something.
Jeezy Creezy…
You pick medical specialties AFTER college, and I definitely have no desire to study obstetrics.. so no. She was, however, an OB/GYN before she started teaching at the U, and she’s now my BioChem II professor.
I’d say she’s a pretty good source. :)
Rae, the point is that starting your menstrual cycle isn’t just related to breastfeeding. If you formula feed and haven’t started your cycle yet, you are just as safe as if you’re breastfeeding.
Btw, Depo really doesn’t have any criteria to work. You have a three week window to get it, almost anyone can get it, and it’s over 99% effective.
@Josephine: DepoProvera may be “effective” but it most certainly isn’t worth the trouble it can cause (and does cause). I wouldn’t use Depo if it was the only birth control method on the market.
Fortunately, I never have to worry about using birth control. :)
I use Depo. It’s pretty much fantastic.
@Josephine: It’s not superstition that breastfeeding has contraceptive effects- it’s fact. It’s called the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM).
http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/factsheets/breastfeeding.htm
Your arrogance is really friggin’ obnoxious- I pity your future patients in the event you become a doctor.
Posted by: Rae at January 1, 2009 8:28 PM
Rae: you are quite correct in the information you have given here (I haven’t looked at the link but what you’ve typed is certainly accurate correct)
The most important think is that the breastfeeding be “on demand” and especially so through the night. The delay in return to fertility caused by breastfeeding is predominantly a factor of nipple stimulation – so it isn’t just necessarily feeding but the sucking as well.
Of course as the child grows they will nurse less and less. And as they start solids, feeding and sucking will also diminish this benefit. The effect varies from woman to woman but generally speaking practiced “ecologically” it does delay the return of fertility considerably.
I know somewhat of what I speak since I was formerly a LaLeche League Leader. So I saw the effects of ecological breastfeeding quite often. Wonderful for mom and baby. There’s the benefit of bonding between mom and baby and the fact that it prolongs the “rest” period for a woman’s body.
Josephine: you should also be aware that most doctors dismiss not only the idea of breastfeeding to space children but also the entire idea of natural family planning as well. My experience is that this dismissal is based almost entirely on pure ignorance and an unwillingness to accept even the most rigorous research that supports these lifestyle choices. My conclusion: it is simply too politically incorrect for a doctor to promote these options within his/her practice. Ridicule from peers is one strong disincentive. A lack of openness to something seen as very counter-cultural and that borders on myth is also a reason
From LaLeche League”
“The Lactational Amenorrhea Method was developed as a result of a meeting held at Georgetown University.1 It is designed to bring the health and fertility benefits of breastfeeding to the attention of family-planning providers and demographers. A mother is asked these three questions: Is your infant less than six months old? Are you amenorrheic? Are you fully or nearly fully breastfeeding? If she can answer yes to all three, she is counseled that her risk of pregnancy is less than two percent and she does not need a complementary family-planning method yet. She is also told that if any of these three parameters changes, she should introduce a complementary form of family planning to achieve this same low risk of pregnancy.
The available research has made it virtually impossible for scientific analysts to deny the impact of the LAM method. This method has undergone clinical trial in Santiago, Chile.4, 5, 6 A case-control intervention study was established whereby the control cohort was ascertained prior to the development of an organized breastfeeding support program at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. The intervention included prenatal education, immediate postpartum breastfeeding, rooming-in, decreased in-hospital use of formula, the establishment of a follow-up clinic, and the offer of LAM as an introductory family planning method.
LAM proved highly efficacious, with a pregnancy rate of less than 1/2 of 1 percent by six-month life table. The intervention more than doubled the percent of women who achieved six months of meeting LAM criteria. At six months postpartum, family planning coverage had increased from 78 percent to 91 percent with the inclusion of LAM in the “cafeteria” of methods available. Pregnancy rates remained lower for the intervention group for over a year, and the percent who were breastfeeding remained higher long after the intervention was over. The duration of amenorrhea was also extended. Where the control group performed similarly to other published studies on the duration of amenorrhea during full breastfeeding among similar women, 7 the intervention group had longer durations of amenorrhea, even when comparing the full breastfeeders in each group. Clearly, optimizing breastfeeding practices, even among full breastfeeders, extends the duration of amenorrhea and the impact of breastfeeding on fertility, even after LAM use has ceased.
Much work remains to fully educate providers of health care on the use of the method, especially those who doubt women’s ability to monitor their own behavior. LAM may be offered to women who prefer to postpone introducing a complementary family planning method postpartum. In countries where family planning is not widely accepted, LAM is useful for populations who have no experience with family planning and may be hesitant to accept a so-called “modern” approach. LAM may also promote more effective use of other methods of family planning by breastfeeding women, since the method delays the use of a complementary method until the mother’s fertility returns. LAM use results in improved breastfeeding support in the organizations that provide it and improved breastfeeding practices among the women who accept it. It also results in cost savings. When the costs of offering LAM, including retraining and reorganization, are accounted for, there remains a cost savings of 10 to 20 percent from the reduced need for personnel, drugs, formula, and bottles.
Research indicates that the LAM guidelines are very conservative and that each of the three parameters has considerable flexibility.8 Six months is an arbitrary time period; we know that continuing to breastfeed prior to each supplemental feed can extend amenorrhea and infertility. Full breastfeeding is not mandatory. Although a recently published manuscript seems to say that any breastfeeding will do during the first six months,9 it is clear from our work and that of many others7, 8, 9, 10 that more intensive breastfeeding is associated with longer durations of infertility. Even using menses as an indication of fertility return has some flexibility: the first ovulation is often associated with inadequacies in the luteal phase and other hormonal parameters. Based on worldwide experiences with relying on lactational amenorrhea beyond six months, we are now exploring what we call LAM II, a new more flexible method. Some centers have already begun independently to experiment with “LAM 9,” a nine-month variant, and women who have self-selected to extend LAM are being studied in several settings.11, 12
The unique side effects of LAM, improved infant and maternal health and satisfied family planning workers, contribute in yet another way to the health of the community.
A mother’s postpartum family planning choices now include a reliable interim method based on the behavior that is healthiest for her and her newborn.
————————————————-
Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM)
The most common myth surrounding the use of contraception in lactating women is that lactation alone cannot be depended on to prevent pregnancy. The Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM) has been found to be better than 98 percent effective.(1) It has been used in a wide variety of settings, cultures, socioeconomic groups, and healthcare venues. This method is a good choice for the patient who prefers a natural method or does not want to take hormonal medication in the early months postpartum while she is exclusively nursing her baby.
Three main criteria must be met in order for LAM to be effective: 1) the baby should not be receiving any supplemental foods or artificial infant formula, 2) the baby must be less than 6 months old, and 3) the mother must not have resumed her menstrual cycle.
Ovulation in the non-lactating woman may occur as early as three weeks postpartum. The risk of ovulation in the high-frequency breastfeeding, amenorrheic woman is less than one to two percent.(2) Frequent nursing and/or pumping stimulates prolactin levels, which in turn suppress the surge of the follicle-stimulating and luteinizing hormones so that effective ovulation does not occur. Once the baby is six months old, it is more likely his diet will include foods other than human milk; he will breastfeed less and ovulation is more likely to occur.
LAM is not effective for the patient who plans to give supplemental feedings. Once the baby is over six months of age, the mother should plan on using an additional method of contraception if she wants to avoid pregnancy.
————————————————-
A natural consequence of breastfeeding is the spacing of births. However, in some cultures, especially those that practice a variety of nursing styles, misconceptions about breastfeeding and fertility abound. A 1997 edition of Healthy Pregnancy magazine states, “Contrary to popular belief, breastfeeding does not halt ovulation, so it is not an effective birth control method.”
As many fully breastfeeding mothers know, lactational amenorrhea (absence of menstrual periods as a result of breastfeeding) does affect their ability to get pregnant. Scientific data supporting this has been mounting for years. The Bellagio Consensus Conference on “Breastfeeding as a Family Planning Method” established that fully breastfeeding mothers who remain amenorrheic have less than a two percent chance of becoming pregnant in the first six months postpartum. “Fully breastfeeding” is defined as supplementing no more than one or two mouthfuls a day and waiting no more than four to six hours between nursings. A woman who is practicing the Lactation Amenorrhea Method (LAM) relies on exclusive or nearly exclusive breastfeeding for postponing or avoiding pregnancy during the first six months after childbirth or until her periods return, whichever occurs first.
Many breastfeeding mothers find they remain amenorrheic longer than six months, especially mothers who practice a style of nursing that Sheila Kippley calls “ecological breastfeeding.” In Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing, Kippley describes ecological breastfeeding as the kind of nursing that most effectively spaces babies: nursing on cue, keeping baby close, providing all nourishment and liquids at the breast for the first five to eight months, and nursing to comfort the baby. It does not include the use of bottles or pacifiers, mother-baby separation, parent-imposed feeding schedules or restriction of night nursings. All of these practices limit the nipple stimulation that suppresses ovulation.
The chance of pregnancy occurring during the first three months of ecological breastfeeding are practically nil. During the second three months, there is a less than 2 percent chance of becoming pregnant before the first menstrual period. After six months postpartum there is a six percent chance of becoming pregnant before the first period. That means that an amenorrheic woman who is relying on ecological breastfeeding alone has a 94 percent chance of not becoming pregnant during the second six months postpartum.
Women who practice ecological breastfeeding average 14.6 months of amenorrhea. Seven percent experience a return of their menses in the first six months following childbirth. Thirty-seven percent get their periods back during months seven to twelve. Forty-eight percent get their periods back sometime during the second year after childbirth. Eight percent go longer than two years without periods.
Despite the variability in the return of menses, there is not as much variation in the return of fertility as might appear. Women who experience a return of their periods in the first six months tend to be infertile for a few cycles, while the early cycles of women experiencing a longer period of amenorrhea are often fertile.
________________________________________________
Hopefully this will provide some information to counter some of the myths and disinformation provided by the media.
My own personal experience is that my fertility did not return until a minimum of 18 months post-partum and I’ve known women who have gone longer.
I hope you don’t think I read all that, because I’ve already said once: it’s not the breastfeeding that’s effecting the child spacing. It’s the menstrual cycle. That’s it.
That’s why doctors dismiss breastfeeding.
What are you talking back, about the media, btw? I don’t ever see stories about breastfeeding… anywhere.
BTW, a girl I went to school with breast fed and had TWO babies senior year. First one in August, second in April. :) You know what the most likely reason? The younger you are, the sooner your menstrual cycle comes back. Nothing to do with breastfeeding.
Asitis, What species are these beings that humans develop from if they are not human? lol
And, “I’m not gonna get into that futile argument with you” is not a species. rotfl
Josephine, I’m sorry but you are just a very uninformed and inexperienced young woman. I’m done discussing this topic with you. And I didn’t post this information JUST FOR YOU!
You have absolutely NO idea how a woman’s body works and not only that but you refuse to even be open to learning about the possibilites and how God designed our bodies to work in a natural way that promotes the health of both mother and baby.
Please seriously reconsider being a doctor. IMO, you have neither the humility nor the grace for the profession. You’d be surprised what doctors can learn from their patients.
WTF truthseeker????? Don’t be such a moron. My answer was at 2:09pm.
Uh, TSTL, you specifically said “Josephine” at the beginning. :)
Also, I think it’s you who needs to study science. Seriously, you apparently don’t understand it at all.
I come from FIVE generations of doctors. IMO you have no expertise to tell me what I should be. If you want to deny the world of a doctor though, please… keep trying. :)
That’s the most hilarious thing I’ve heard. A Christian wants to deny the world a doctor! That’s hilarious. You’re funny, TSTL. I hope you’re an act.
I don’t see any mention of species at all in your 2:09 post asitis. You say these embryos etc are not yet human, so I’ll ask again.
What species are these beings (embryos etc) that humans develop from if they are not human?
I come from FIVE generations of doctors. IMO you have no expertise to tell me what I should be. If you want to deny the world of a doctor though, please… keep trying. :)
Oh so I see now, thank you DOCTOR. What are you saying, that medical ability is genetic?
I don’t flippin care if you come from 10 generations of doctors, you do not KNOW what you are talking about. I never claimed to KNOW it ALL. But I do KNOW something about breastfeeding AND fertility.
If you care, I CAN supply the references for the articles. But I doubt you care. Go hang out with SoMG. If this is the type of physician you are going to be, we don’t NEED you. What we need are doctors who will understand how a woman’s body works and practice medicine that preserves the dignity of her body. We need medical practioners who understand the unique gifts of nurturing new life that women have and will help them to fulfill their vocation as women and mothers in the world. I just don’t see you being able to do that.
Josephine, keep it up, girl. I think you’ll make a fine doctor!
YOU’RE the one who doesn’t understand how a woman’s body works or SCIENCE. You think because you’re a woman, you’re an expert? Or because you read articles?!? A doctor’s job is NOT ALL ABOUT WOMEN AND BABIES. Or are you so sexist you think because I’m a woman I plan on being an OB?? AND WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Fulfill there vocation as women AND MOTHERS? What the hell, dude? Are you kidding?
I’m apparently talking to a sexist from fifty years ago. :) Wow!
Josephine,
I think you would make a great veterinarian :{)
Asitis, What species are these beings (embryos etc) that humans develop from if they are not human? lol And, “I’m not gonna get into that futile argument with you” is not a species. rotfl
TS,
You made me LOL.
Asitis, Thank you!
Josephine, that “fulfill their vocation as women and mothers” is just the kind of outrageous and mildly entertaining stuff we get to read here! It’s funny isn’t it, that we can all live on the same planet but in very different worlds isn’t it?
No Josephine – you are talking to the “new feminist” wave!
truthseeker: yes vets spay and neuter all day. Sounds right up Josephine’s alley.
Tell me asitis, if having babies is not a woman’s vocation then why should any male give a rats ass about being a father?
tstl, I was serious about Josephine making a great veterinarian. She loves her dog very much.
Asitis, YES it is crazy. I didn’t even know people still considered that. A woman’s job is to be a mother? That’s ridiculous.
TSTL, do you not have your pets spayed or neutered? :) If you do… well, then you apparently don’t believe anything you said. If you don’t, then you’re part of the population that is responsible for many animals sufferings, and you’ve probably shortened the life span of your pets. :) So, no matter which way it is… well, I just don’t hope you have any pets! :)
Josephine, do you think it is “outdated” for a woman to feel their vocation in life is to be a mother?
Tell me asitis, if having babies is not a woman’s vocation then why should any male give a rats ass about being a father?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 1, 2009 10:55 PM
Are you serious???? For the same reason any woman might want to be a mother, of course.
But to say something like “fulfill their vocation as women and mothers” sounds like you are saying that every woman’s true purpose or “calling” or occupation is to give birth. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have a funny feeling that’s what you are saying.
Researchers have found that the abortifacient injectable birth-control drug Depo-Provera caused mice to be 100 times more susceptible to infection with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2).
The study, published in the Journal of Virology (2003;77:4558-4565), also found that the mice injected with the drug had a significantly weaker immune response when exposed to the virus.
While spokesman for Pfizer, the pharmaceutical which manufactures Depo-Provera, were quick to condemn the study, the researchers noted that the study merely confirmed former research noting the drug increased risk of STDs.
Oh, and then there’s the risk of loss of bone density with the use of Depo Provera.
But of course, Josephine, coming from FIVE generations of doctors you KNOW all the above.
Not every woman’s asitis. But would you agree that most people, men and women alike, consider having children is the most fulfilling thing in life.
TS, I have two things to say to you. I think you’re right, and I actually think I’d be a good vet. I could never consider it, because I think the thought of having to be with animals that die would make me so depressed that I’d honestly want to die. I’m going to take that as a compliment from you.
tstl,
she wouldn’t have a clue about that because previous generations of women were not encouraged to stay on high level hormone doses from puberty to menopause.
Not every woman’s asitis. But would you agree that most people, men and women alike, consider having children is the most fulfilling thing in life.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 1, 2009 11:07 PM
Based on my experience, I would say most parents would claim that having children has been a very fulfilling, perhaps the most fulfilling, thing in their life.
Josephine,
then how can you be a medic? Seeing people die doesn’t bother you the same way?
no that’s not what I am saying asitis.
But I am saying that for many many women, yes, even those who have careers, the main fulfillment in life is to have children. Career often becomes secondary in their lives, to the point that many women do not wish to return to work at all or at least until their children are older. And many women express the desire to have more children than they are currently having.
In the end, many older women reflecting back on their lives do not care a whit about a paper published, or a conference attended. They care about their families, their grandchildren.
And certainly some careers mesh nicely with the “feminine genius” of women which is the openness to new life and the nurturing of life – doctors, nursing, teaching etc.
ts: I have no opinion on spaying and neutering except to say that I wouldn’t want to be doing it. But some people don’t mind the career choice of a vet and certainly we need good vets to look after our pets (and wildlife). After all we are called to be good stewards of the earth and the wildlife on it. Just not a career choice that I could see choosing.
And I’m glad Josephine loves her doggy! We would love to have a golden retriever or a Siberian husky.
Actually, TSTL, I do know about the problems with Depo. First of all, STDs isn’t a thing. It’s Sexually Transmitted Infections. …Second of all, I’ve had the same boyfriend since I was fourteen years old. We live together. I’m very far past worrying about STIs anyway..
There is the risk of loss of bone density. Over years. Good thing I’m on medication to prevent Osteoporosis. Something I’m especially conscious about since I’m a gymnast.
I’ve been on the shot since I was fifteen years old. I’ll be twenty this month. I haven’t been sick since I was about ten.
Please, google some more things to tell me.
I don’t get it then asitis. If it is such a fulfilling thing then why do you consider having and raising their children to be a vocation?
Josephine: in all seriousness, maybe you should consider being a vet.
You would probably learn to come to terms with the death of an animal.
Have you ever gone in to a vet clinic to help out for a few days just to see if you’d like it?
I don’t get it then asitis. If it is such a fulfilling thing then why do you consider it to be a “throwback” to consider having and raising their children to be a vocation?
I’ve been on the shot since I was fifteen years old. I’ll be twenty this month.
you realize that you are part of a big experiment. It’s not normal for your body to be subjected to this sort of thing. At 15, your body was not done developing. I wonder.
TSTL: This semester I will be a pre-med junior. I’m a shoe-in for Northwestern med, everyone in my family has been there. I know humans, I don’t know animals and I have no interest in starting over. Also, my parents own a medical clinic, not a vet clinic.
Also, about the shot: they let me know a long time ago it could cause infertility. I don’t like kids, and I never want one. Therefore, the infertility thing was a plus for me.
I don’t like kids, and I never want one.
You have my deepest sympathy. Children are one of the most beautiful, fulfilling experiences in life. They have changed forever the way I look at life, God and others. I cannot imagine a world without any one of my children. It would be a lesser place IMO. To me, they are a sign that life will go on.
I hope and pray you will someday change your opinion on this one.
I don’t get it then asitis. If it is such a fulfilling thing then why do you consider it to be a “throwback” to consider having and raising their children to be a vocation?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 1, 2009 11:19 PM
As I already said, phrasing it as ” to fulfill their vocation as women” when referring to giving birth and raising children, makes it sounds like maybe you think that’s a woman’s true purpose in life. And that a woman who chooses not to have children is not fulfilling her true purpose.
I don’t think it’s outdated at all for a woman to consider having and raising children to be a voaction. I do think it’s outdated to think all women should feel that way.
Josephine,
You don’t like kids? At what age do you start liking peoplem?
And you say that you couldn’t be a vet because you couldn’t stand to be around sick or dying animals and yet you told me the other day that you are a medic???
“you realize that you are part of a big experiment. It’s not normal for your body to be subjected to this sort of thing. At 15, your body was not done developing. I wonder.”
TSTL, considering that many girls are reaching puberty younger, they’re done “developing” sooner.
That said, even though I am PC- I agree that doctors need to step it up and do a better job investigating women’s health and trying to actually find solutions to female reproductive problems instead of just hysterectomies or birth control pills. I don’t appreciate having to use an IUD or BCPs until I turn 35 or whatever magical age I have to be in order to be allowed a hysterectomy because there is nothing the doctors can do for my menorrhagia.
Female bodies are different from male bodies, and in fact, there has been a recent study saying that women feel pain differently than men and because of that, painkillers are less effective for women than men.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7796229.stm
Josephine, like tstl I love being a mother and cannot imagine a world without one of my children. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate and respect that you may not want to be a mother. You may end up changing your mind as time goes on, but either way, your life can be very full and as a doctor you will do such good for others!
TSTL, not everyone needs kids. Some people are meant to have kids, some aren’t. Children, to me, get in the way. I’m lucky I found a boy that agrees with me.
@TSTL: I don’t like young kids either.
I don’t think it’s outdated at all for a woman to consider having and raising children to be a voaction. I do think it’s outdated to think all women should feel that way.
Posted by: asitis at January 1, 2009 11:32 PM
And it is a nearly universal inclination for women of all cultures to feel that way….and it is natural to feel that way…survival of the species etc.
Josephine, The other day you told me you were a medic. Tonight you say you couldn;t be a vet because it would koll you to be around sick or dying animals. Are you just a made up personaility for the blogging boards cause that makes no sense at all. What gives?
Yes, TS, I’m a medic. Humans don’t get to me the same way animals do. Humans aren’t helpless. Animals are. Human medicine is far easier than veterinary, because animals can’t tell you what’s wrong. I am much more passionate about animals than anything else in the world. Passionate to a fault, really. I don’t have that same connection with humans, so working with humans is completely clinical to me. When I do, let’s say, stitches… I just imagine I’m working on a machine. I have to do things a very specific way. They can tell me where they feel pain, etc…
Also, I really don’t like people younger than high school age. Actually, it’s not that I don’t like them. I’m just uncomfortable around them. I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I have no desire to be a mother. A lot more young girls feel this way, I’m sure.
And it is a nearly universal inclination for women of all cultures to feel that way….and it is natural to feel that way…survival of the species etc.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 1, 2009 11:43 PM
What’s your point ts?
not everyone needs kids. Some people are meant to have kids, some aren’t. Children, to me, get in the way. I’m lucky I found a boy that agrees with me.
Posted by: Josephine at January 1, 2009 11:40 PM
He probably feels lucky too… sex and no responsibility is many young males idea of living it up. I would have gone for that free ride too till I was in my late twenties, then I matured and wanted to start a family.
“I don’t have that same connection with humans, so working with humans is completely clinical to me. When I do, let’s say, stitches… I just imagine I’m working on a machine.”
That’s interesting Josephine. I think the normal assumption is that people who become medical doctors have a real connection to people and helping them. But obviously that’s not so…. Are you thinking about being a surgeon? I’m guessing not a pediatrician! :)
He probably feels lucky too… sex and no responsibility is many young males idea of living it up. I would have gone for that free ride too till I was in my late twenties, then I matured and wanted to start a family.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 1, 2009 11:57 PM
I think you are both fortunate Josephine to have found someone you love and are compatible with. Truthseeker says he didn’t know what he wanted until his late twenties. Some people know before then. Some later. It’s good when it works out that the one you love ends up wanting the same.
TS, you have no idea about my relationship. He knows fully well that if he ever wanted a family, I’d be open to it. It’s something WE will decide together. I don’t want to deny him anything. It’s really none of your business though, mk? :)
Asitis, I definitely don’t think I’m the norm at all. Most of the people I’m in school with say they want to be doctors because they want to help people. I think that’s what makes it harder to be a good doctor. I think caring too much is a negative… I think you think more clearly when you’re completely unobjective. I’d love to be a surgeon! I don’t think I have the dexterity for it… but I haven’t decided what my specialty will be, or if I’ll even have one. I still have, about another five years!
Yes, TS, I’m a medic. Humans don’t get to me the same way animals do. Humans aren’t helpless. Animals are. Human medicine is far easier than veterinary, because animals can’t tell you what’s wrong. I am much more passionate about animals than anything else in the world. Passionate to a fault, really. I don’t have that same connection with humans, so working with humans is completely clinical to me. When I do, let’s say, stitches… I just imagine I’m working on a machine. I have to do things a very specific way. They can tell me where they feel pain, etc…
Also, I really don’t like people younger than high school age. Actually, it’s not that I don’t like them. I’m just uncomfortable around them. I don’t see why it’s a big deal. I have no desire to be a mother. A lot more young girls feel this way, I’m sure.
Posted by: Josephine at January 1, 2009 11:51 PM
This whole post makes you even less genuine as a person. You say human medicine is much easier cause animals can’t tell you what is wrong. That is ludicrous. Young children can’t tell you what is wrong either. Neither can unconscious or severely hurt adults. And taking care of humans requires a lot more than listening to them tell you where it hurts. lol
Actually, pretty much every doctor will tell you veterinary medicine is harder. I know everyone in my family believes that. If a human is severely hurt, trust me, a doctor will figure out where it is.
Josephine,
I still don’t buy the whole I can seperate myself from the pain of hurting people but not of hurting animals thing, it seems very disingenuine. Do you have any younger brothers or sisters or nieces or nephews or friends who have younger brothers and sisters? Why aren’t you comfortable around children of elementary age?
I just am not. I have nieces and nephews both. I have a couple friends that have kids. I’ll babysit if someone needs me to. That’s about it. I feel no connection to kids. I don’t see how that effects anyone except me and my boy.
@Truthseeker: I’m not sure why you find it so difficult to imagine why some people don’t like young children. I’ll tell you that nothing annoys me more than a crying or whining kid in public. I have been known to LEAVE restaurants because of crying/whining children that have parents who won’t smack them and give them something to cry/whine about or at least do the friggin’ courteous thing and take their damn kids out of the store or restaurant and discipline their damn kids.
Kids today have too much of a sense of entitlement, even at young ages. My parents NEVER let me get away with that crap, ever. If I cried or whined in public they would haul my ass out of wherever we were, take me home, and punish me accordingly. THey wouldn’t just let the kid sit and cry or whine and just occasionally going, “beeee quiiiiet, we’re in puuuublick!” and do nothing but try to appease the little brats.
Josephine,
You said last night that you trust God to take care of you. What religious faith do you practice or associate yourself with?
I’m a Catholic. I went to Catholic school ’til the eighth grade.
Rae,
But elementary aged kids aren’t crying and whining in public very often. And infants usually only whine when they are hungry or have gas or need their diaper changed.
@Truthseeker: Elementary kids are the ones who whine. Toddlers and babies cry. I can’t stand crying. It makes me want to shake things…which is obviously NOT a good thing- hence the reason I avoid small children.
Jesus, however, said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these.”
Matthew 19:14
What are you getting a TS? You think I should have kids even though I have no desire? That doesn’t really sound like the best environment for a kid to me! I said if my boo wanted kids, I’d consider. If it would make him happy, obviously it would make me happy. That is the ONLY way a kid would make me happy. I have no desire. I don’t think I’d be a good mom. Soooo we should just start having kids because I’m a girl and I’m supposed to?
I don’t think anybody likes kids who whine Rae. If you think kids are whining all the time then you have a distorted view of kids. My kids don’t normally whine in public and they are a source of joy to go places with. They are more creative than most adults and fun to be around.
No Josephine. Not at all. I just don’t think it is healthy that you feel uncomfortable around kids.
Hrm. Lots of men are uncomfortable around kids. I think I’m probably getting judged more than say, a boy my age.. simply because I’m a girl. I’m the farthest thing from maternal though.
If your relationship with your boo can withstand holding off on sex till you are ready for kids, then I recommend getting off the BC. Keepng your body pumped up with high dose hormone regimens is unhealthy and should be avoided unless there is a medical need. And intercourse on BC is NOT safe sex. Women get pregnant on BC all the time.
Until we’re ready for kids? I’ve been saying I didn’t want kids all /night long!
Hrm. Lots of men are uncomfortable around kids. I think I’m probably getting judged more than say, a boy my age.. simply because I’m a girl.
Posted by: Josephine at January 2, 2009 1:25 AM
No Josephine, it’s also unhealthy for boys to feel uncomfortable around kids.
Until we’re ready for kids? I’ve been saying I didn’t want kids all /night long!
Posted by: Josephine at January 2, 2009 1:46 AM
Yeah, but you did say you would be open to kids if your boo wanted them :{)
I actually said earlier that he doesn’t want kids. That’s a STRICTLY hypothetical situation. If he changed his mind, I’d be open to it. I don’t think he will, and the ONLY way I’d consider it is if he changed his mind.
So, there is no waiting until we want kids.
“Women get pregnant on BC all the time.”
Because they don’t take it right most of the time.
That is not the case at all Bethany. And there are people who know and understand more about the science than you or I ever will, and even they can’t agree with each other.
You keep saying this, but saying it doesn’t make it true. I could say Scientists have no consensus on whether gravity exists- I’m sure there’s some wacko scientist out there somewhere who denies it exists, but that doesn’t mean there’s no consensus. You’ll have to do more than just tell me that you think there’s no consensus for me to believe something so silly and obviously untrue.
As I have said before, science has NOT provided the answer and perhaps it never will because it’s not just about science.
I guess all of the biology textbooks that I have purchased over the years were lying to me when they said that the union of the sperm and ovum produced a unique living human organism. I should have been reading the book of Asitis instead. lol
You of all people know this. Your Christianity and your feelings for Blessing are as, if not more, important than the science is to your position on this.
Absolutely not. I was pro-life years before my baby died, and seeing my baby only reinforced what I had already been taught in – BASIC biology.
You can’t argue that Bethany.
Um, yes I can. I’d be just as willing to be honest about human life if I were not a Christian, and if I had not had a miscarriage, because I don’t make up this stuff to suit my beliefs. I seek truth, not “truth that fits my beliefs”.
And I’m not going to try to convince you that you are wrong. Because you are not. Just as I am not wrong.
LOL If you don’t think I’m wrong, why are you arguing with me? LOL
Rae @ 8:28 PM, very good post.
I actually said earlier that he doesn’t want kids. That’s a STRICTLY hypothetical situation. If he changed his mind, I’d be open to it. I don’t think he will, and the ONLY way I’d consider it is if he changed his mind.
So it’s not really you so much that doesn’t want kids but your boyfriend. :( That sounds very typical of most women I have ever known who were on birth control, sadly.
The really sad thing is that you are so young right now, and obviously you aren’t going to want to have children because you are focused on your future career, etc. However, when you get older and set in life, you’re going to find that you actually want a child very much, and it’s possible that by then, you’re not going to be able to.
Right now, that possibility makes you say, “yay, infertility!”, but I can assure you that as your biological clock starts ticking, you’re going to have a hard time with it if you actually do become infertile as a result of the shot.
But don’t listen to me. I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about.
@Truthseeker: I’m not sure why you find it so difficult to imagine why some people don’t like young children. I’ll tell you that nothing annoys me more than a crying or whining kid in public. I have been known to LEAVE restaurants because of crying/whining children that have parents who won’t smack them and give them something to cry/whine about or at least do the friggin’ courteous thing and take their damn kids out of the store or restaurant and discipline their damn kids. Kids today have too much of a sense of entitlement, even at young ages. My parents NEVER let me get away with that crap, ever. If I cried or whined in public they would haul my ass out of wherever we were, take me home, and punish me accordingly. THey wouldn’t just let the kid sit and cry or whine and just occasionally going, “beeee quiiiiet, we’re in puuuublick!” and do nothing but try to appease the little brats.
Parents are in a difficult situation when they are in public though. Smack your child in public- no matter how much it would help-, and you are asking for someone to call Child protective services and risk someone taking your child away. Even for a small tap on the butt. It happens every day now because of busybodies who are standing by nosing in your business, everywhere. I take mine to the bathroom myself, when they act up, but sometimes that isn’t always possible. If you ever become a parent one day, you’ll understand a little better how difficult the task of making sure that little ones behave publicly actually is. It’s not as easy as just taking them out immediately every time. Sometimes it is nearly impossible.
By the way, that isn’t all there is to young children, Rae. Here is something that I love about toddlers (video of my baby about a year ago hugging his daddy):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBbw7YPn6LQ
Any amount of frustration that a toddler can put you through, is made worth it for moments like these. And those good moments always outweigh the bad.
And I’m not going to try to convince you that you are wrong. Because you are not. Just as I am not wrong. LOL If you don’t think I’m wrong, why are you arguing with me? LOL
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 6:42 AM
What I am arguing is that you are not ABSOLUTELY right. Your belief is not the right answer for everyone. My belief is not the right answer for everyone.
And BTW Bethany, you act as though my way of thinking is way out there. Well, newsflash honey…. it’s the way most people think. That’s what I mean when I say you guys need to hear from the outside world sometimes. I’m not saying you should change your beliefs, I’m simply saying that you should appreciate that they are hardly universal.
What I am arguing is that you are not ABSOLUTELY right. Your belief is not the right answer for everyone. My belief is not the right answer for everyone.
Actually, that is the same as arguing that moral relativism is an absolute truth, which kind of voids your point, don’t you think?
And BTW Bethany, you act as though my way of thinking is way out there. Well, newsflash honey…. it’s the way most people think. That’s what I mean when I say you guys need to hear from the outside world sometimes. I’m not saying you should change your beliefs, I’m simply saying that you should appreciate that they are hardly universal.
Rofl Asitis @ the comment that believing in biological truths is “way out there” when they are taught in basic biology all over the US, and have been for the past 40 years or so… but okay! Whatever makes you happy. ;)
Hey, Asitis, if the whole world believed, truly believed that 2 + 2 = 7, would you go along with it?
Asitis, in fact, there is no right or wrong in mathematics. One object plus another object doesn’t always equal two objects, because that idea is just my opinion, based on what I’ve been told by others who are religious.
I can’t force someone else to believe it, and there is no right or wrong on the matter. If I tried to teach that opinion to my children, I would be imposing my beliefs onto them, and that would be wrong.
So I guess I’ve been wrong for a long time, because I keep insisting that one object plus one object equals two objects, when there is no consensus on that anyway.
I should let my children decide whether they believe that one plus one equals two.
Asitis, if there are no real truths, why do you want to be a Scientist?
Bethany the interesting thing is that asitis, who is a moral relativist, also applies this to science, which is usually upheld as at least having some truth to it, over say, religion. Or maybe more truth to it than religion.
So not only does she pick and choose her religious doctrines, she also picks and chooses her scientific facts too – the ones that support her lifestyle – such as at conception there does not yet exist a “human being”. No doubt she will pick and choose her definition of what constitutes a human being at the other end of life as well.
It is interesting to note the disintegrated approach and how people live their lives based more on fiction than in the realm of reality. No wonder the consequences of acting on this fiction hit some so hard.
Think about it: you don’t believe an unborn baby is a human being so you abort. Then under another circumstance, it is a human being because it’s now convenient to think this was, in fact, maybe necessary to believe it so, and then you lose that child through miscarriage, you see the arms, legs, the form of that previously thought non human being.
Toostunnedtolaugh, I couldn’t agree with you more.
And for the record, relativists make me laugh – a lot. It’s just so funny how self defeating their logic is.
They say on one hand that there is no absolute truth, however, they can’t deny that stating that is acting as though relativism is an absolute truth. It’s totally illogical.
Bethany: she WAS a scientist.
Unfortunately, the moral relativism we see in society today, is applied to all aspects of life, including research. To help this relativism along, we even have developed or bastardized language.
Hence a newly concieved baby becomes a “conceptus”.
A person in a deep coma is referred to as a “vegetable” or in a “vegetative state” both very demeaning and highly inaccurate terms, since a human being can NEVER be a vegetable.
They say on one hand that there is no absolute truth, however, they can’t deny that stating that is acting as though relativism is an absolute truth. It’s totally illogical.
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 9:01 AM
yes, that’s a very interesting observation. I’ve never thought about that.
Also while they bitch about religion and how it has no place in the public arena, in fact, their religion which is secular humanism is what they wish to replace the Christian religion with. There will always be some belief system imposed by the state – the laws of the state will be based upon some moral code – if not Christianity, then secular humanism or whatever.
*shaking my head in agreement*
Bethany: she WAS a scientist.
Well, the reason I phrased it that way is because I have a difficult time imagining her as a Scientist, when she can’t answer such simple questions, that any 6th grader should be able to answer.
“Was a scientist” tstl????? Well, I suppose you could say that if you consider a scientist to be one that is employed as a scientist. But generally scientist refers to one who has advanced knowledge in one or more areas od science. In which case I am a scientist, no ex about it! Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the fact that I do have some expertise or that at a relatively young age I am able to choose not to work for awhile or ever again?
BTW, I like your discussions above. Very entertaining.
Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the fact that I do have some expertise or that at a relatively young age I am able to choose not to work for awhile or ever again?
who gives a flying fig? why is this relevant to the discussion?
Have you published a paper within the last 3 years? Have you attended conferences in the past year? Have you undertaken research relevant to your field of expertise within the past 5 years? If not, you are an ex. You have your scientific knowledge, but that knowledge is considered outdated with 5 years or so. Unless of course, you can keep up your certification.
Just my “scientific” opinion!
Who gives a flying fig? Oh I think deep down you do tstl!
FYI There is no “certification” to being a scientist tstl. It’s not like passing the bar or board exams of certain professions. You relaize that, don’t you? As I have noted here before, I “retired” 4 years ago by choice. But just because I haven’t published in 3 years does not mean i am no longer a scientists. FYI, some scientists NEVER publish. I think you are a bit confused.
I have been been asked to apply my scientific expertise and assist in some research since leaving employment. And if and when I want to, could easily work again as a scientist.
Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the fact that I do have some expertise
If you have expertise, you could answer the questions.
What branch of science is your expertise in exactly, Asitis?
Just a guess – marine biology?
Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the fact that I do have some expertise
If you have expertise, you could answer the questions.
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 9:47 AM
Bethany, maybe you have forgotten, but my expertise is in a dfiferent field of science. But even if it were in bioscience, I would not have a definitive answer for you.
Earth Science, Bethany.
But even if it were in bioscience, I would not have a definitive answer for you.
If you had expertise in bioscience, you would be studying LIVING ORGANISMS, which would include human beings from fertilization.
And yes, you would know.
why would I care asitis?
Most scientists DO publish. In fact, many grad students are often published.
I’m not confused. I think you are simply trying to attribute a measure of self-importance and expertise that quite simply just doesn’t exist, thats all.
Earth Science, Bethany.
Okay, but you took biology in school, didn’t you?
What did you text book tell you an organism is?
What did your text book tell you about the classification of living things?
Give it up Bethany. I have told you before, I am not getting into that debate with you. I know where it’s headed and it’s something that even the experts can’t agree on. Yawn……..
Bethany, Earth Scientists study a wide range of sciences including biology, chemistry, applied mathematics and geological sciences.
So asitis, SHOULD know better, but unfortunately, she does not.
If the experts don’t agree, then why doesn’t it teach that in biology, Asitis? My biology books state it clearly as fact.
YOU are the one who seems confused, not the experts.
why would I care asitis?
Most scientists DO publish. In fact, many grad students are often published.
I’m not confused. I think you are simply trying to attribute a measure of self-importance and expertise that quite simply just doesn’t exist, thats all.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 2, 2009 9:56 AM
Most RESEARCH scientists do publish, that’s correct. As do many grad students. I have published several papers myself and contributed to others. But not all scientists work in research. And not all scientists publish.
I am trying to attribute a measure of expertise that simply doesn’t exist? Oh, that’s a good one.
I am trying to attribute a measure of expertise that simply doesn’t exist? Oh, that’s a good one.
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 10:06 AM
glad you have recognized this! That’s a first step!
Why are public school teachers and college professors everywhere telling children LIES?
Why are they spreading such horrendous lies that human life begins at fertilization?
Why are the accepted text books filled with lies, Asitis?
Why do embryologists lie?
Asitis, just admit it. When you say “human life”, you really mean a certain level of consciousness that you are comfortable with. You do not mean biologically living.
Those are your words not mine tstl. Note the question mark!
After 6 years of college and 15 years in the field, my expertise is well-established.
You’re not a scientist are you tstl?
After 6 years of college and 15 years in the field, you should be able to answer the question of when human life begins.
You’re not a scientist are you tstl?
I am.
At least, based on your definition of Scientist at 9:25 AM. I’ve been studying embryology for 10 years at home, so I have advanced knowledge in that area. :D Cool beans, huh? And you can’t say I’m wrong, because remember- there is no wrong and no right.
Bethany, if you have advanced knowledge in embryology acquired through 10 years of study than yes, you could say you are a scientist. You would find it difficult to get employed or published as an embryologist without having a college degree(s) and experience though.
My question was to tstl. I suspect she is not a scientist.
Asitis, was my biology book lying when it said that the sperm and ovum combine in fertilization and produce a new, unique living human organism?
Still not taking the bait Bethany….
Still not giving it up, Asitis….
There’s absolutely no good reason for you to avoid answering the question, Asitis.
Great. But you won’t get anywhere.
off for a hike with my dog……..
I may not, but it won’t stop me from trying.
I know you know the answer, and that is why you won’t tell me the answer. You are deliberately attempting to mislead others and yourself… it isn’t even about being ignorant. You know.
With that, I’m off too. Got lots of laundry to catch up on. TTYS!
There’s absolutely no good reason for you to avoid answering the question, Asitis.
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 10:38 AM
In your mind, probably not. That’s okay.
After 6 years of college and 15 years in the field, you should be able to answer the question of when human life begins.
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 10:17 AM
yes, one would expect that she would be at the very least, be able to reason her way through some of the philosophical arguments.
and based on her “definition” of the qualifications of a scientist, virtually anyone could be a scientist today, which does not give us reason to hope for scientific endeavour
and based on her definition of what constitutes expertise, my study of philosophy and moral ethics would likely make me a bioethicist!
and based on her “definition” of the qualifications of a scientist, virtually anyone could be a scientist today, which does not give us reason to hope for scientific endeavour
and based on her definition of what constitutes expertise, my study of philosophy and moral ethics would likely make me a bioethicist!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 2, 2009 10:55 AM
Tstl, that’s not “my definition” of scientist. That’s the definition of scientist. Look it up.
And no, not vitually everyone could be considered to be a scientist. Not everyone has advanced knowledge in some area of science, do they? Now Bethany claims to have acquired an advanced knowledge of embryology through her 10 years of home study. If this is indeed the case, then she could indeed consider herself to be a scientist. But while she has read the material, she hasn’t submitted work or taken exams to test her understanding of the science as would happen in order to receive a college degree in science. And she hasn’t furthered that understanding through advanced degrees, research or work experience and she is not likely to without having the undergraduate degree.
While she may very well have the advanced knowledge of embryology and could therefore consider herself to be a scientist, she would not necessarily be recognized by others as such without the degree(s)and experience.
you’re not a scientist are you tstl?
In your mind, probably not. That’s okay.
Show me how your mind sees it. Give me a good reason (from your perspective) that you can’t answer the question, and I’ll leave you alone about it.
Repeating “It’s futile” doesn’t really explain anything, because it doesn’t explain “why” it would be futile to answer the question – and also, it makes you look as though you are hiding something.
“So it’s not really you so much that doesn’t want kids but your boyfriend. :( That sounds very typical of most women I have ever known who were on birth control, sadly.”
WHAT? When did I say or allude to that? Neither of us want kids. You’re one of those people who thinks life isn’t fulfilling without kids. I’m not. I don’t need a kid, and I don’t want one. NOT because of my boyfriend. It’s really sad to me when people think life isn’t full without children.
Asitis, you can’t argue that you’re a scientist to most people on here, because they don’t believe education counts for anything. I get attacked for using my dad as a medical reference even though he’s a doctor! I get attacked for bringing up things I’ve learned in class because I’m nineteen, so I still don’t know as much as them. It’s like you can’t ever win, even if you’re completely right!
Oh, and..
Hey, Asitis, if the whole world believed, truly believed that 2 + 2 = 7, would you go along with it?
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 8:29 AM
Hey Bethany, if the bible said 2+2=7 would you go along with it?
oh smack Bethany!
Pretty safe to say she would Josephine, her faith is that strong.
Welcome back girl.
Poor Bethany.
Everyone knows that Asitis is a faker and propagandist of unextradordinary talent.
As for a child of a person who practices a art known as medicine; doctors bury their mistakes, mechanics/plumbers/electricians have their mistakes come back to them.
Here’s a clue for the child named Josephine.
Open the Merck Manual, go to etiology, and you’ll find that no disease has a conclusive answer to it’s origin or cause.
From diabetes to atherosclerosis, the etiology of disease leaves much unanswered to this day. Which leaves those that practice medicine scratching their head, and searching their Merck Manual after years of being educated to know and treat those diseases.
So much for education Asitis, and actually plain old experience making one better at what they do.
Which is why many doctors are drunks and drug addicts, once they admit their stupidity has killed from their ignorance in med school and their failure to UNDERSTAND what they were being fed in med school.
I predict that Josephine will fail to diagnose a disease, that will end in death for a person she arrogantly mis-diagnosed from a failed educationial understanding of that disease.
Wow sillyllas. Still choosing to live in your own weird little world for the New Year?
Maybe you’ll come down with a curable cancer or infection in 2009 and come to the realization that doctors are anything but stupid.
Why are you so bitter about those that are more educated, experienced, successful and happy than you? Were you not given opportunities? Do you have some physical or mental disability that holds you back? What is it that makes you so bitter?
Pretty safe to say she would Josephine, her faith is that strong.
Welcome back girl.
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 3:53 PM
way to mock someone asitis!
‘scuse me? Bethany is the one who suggested (ridiculously) that I what believe 2+2=7 if everyone did.
No, it’s more likely that she would believe it were so if that’s what the bible said. I mean, isn’t that how it works for fundamental christians?
asitis: stop mocking people because they are Christian.
You too have a religion: it is secular humanism and moral relativism. Isn’t that what you secular humanists are alway claiming: you are SOOO tolerant!??
I most certainly do not have a religion.
And it is pretty safe to say that if the bible said 2+2 =7 that a christian fundamentalist would believe it, because the bible is absolutely correct. Or have I got this wrong?
Josephine,
So are you saying that majority opinion for you = Biblical accuracy to us?
In other words, if it is universally accepted, it means it is absolutely true?
So it’s not really you so much that doesn’t want kids but your boyfriend. :( That sounds very typical of most women I have ever known who were on birth control, sadly.”
WHAT? When did I say or allude to that? Neither of us want kids. You’re one of those people who thinks life isn’t fulfilling without kids. I’m not. I don’t need a kid, and I don’t want one. NOT because of my boyfriend. It’s really sad to me when people think life isn’t full without children.
Some women just have very little maternal instinct. We’re in the minority, but we do exist, and I don’t think anyone (especially a future child) is served well by suggesting we procreate.
No point feeling sad for us either, since the lack of interest in the whole matter preculdes us being very sad over our childlessness.
The people I feel the most sadness for are couples who really want children and, for whatever reason, are unable to have any (including, for example, financial barriers to adoption). They probably feel the lack keenly.
No, it’s more likely that she would believe it were so if that’s what the bible said. I mean, isn’t that how it works for fundamental christians?
As many other Atheists do, you obviously believe that Christians are completely ignorant dimwits who never think about anything, and just blindly trust whatever we hear. (Which I’m sure you believe is valid enough and unbiased information.)
Oops — paragraph 2 was supposed to italicize too, to indicate it was Josephine’s response. Everything after is mine.
‘scuse me? Bethany is the one who suggested (ridiculously) that I what believe 2+2=7 if everyone did.
Why was that ridiculous, Asitis?
I most certainly do not have a religion.
Ha! You most CERTAINLY DO have a religion! Ha that is too funny!
asitis: you have to believe in SOMETHING. Everyone has some kind of belief system – it may not be a mainstream religion such as the Catholicism you shed. You are a SCIENTIST and you can’t reason this one out! Too funny!! :-D
Also what Bethany suggested is merely following the crazy way you reason (for a scientist!). Which is that 2+2 must equal 7 even if there is physical proof that it does not.
You take two points and every time, come to a distorted answer. This is because you don’t search for the truth asitis, you search for an answer that will make you comfortable, ease your conscience, or one that requires you give no ground. Don’t you want to understand the true nature of things? Don’t you want to understand how things work and why they work that way? Why things were designed the way they have been?
@TooStunnedtoLaugh: I don’t believe in anything, so no, I don’t have to believe in anything, and you are in no position to tell me or other individuals otherwise. It’s quite arrogant of you to say that, actually.
Rae: you believe in SOMETHING! NOTHING is something. YOu have some sort of belief system whether you acknowledge it or not, that you operate by.
And it’s not being arrogant. It’s pointing out, that while secular humanists claim they don’t like organized religion or religion in any form being a part of the public sphere, in fact, they do have a belief system which they too attempt to impose on society.
@TSTL: That makes no sense- nothing by definition is…nothing. It can’t be something otherwise it wouldn’t be “nothing”. And that’s incredibly circular.
I’m also not a secular humanist, because yes, that is an ideology and I do not agree with it and I find it as full of crap as religion.
I honestly don’t believe in anything. I never say “I believe” intentionally. I admit, I will use it in a colloquial manner when I’m talking and not really thinking about what I’m saying, but when I am thinking hard and articulating an opinion, you will NEVER see the words “I believe” from me. You will never see me say, “I believe science has all the answers”, or “I believe humans are generally good but flawed”, etc.
I have no faith. I have no hope. I believe in nothing…not even Harvey Dent. :)
(BTW, just saw “Dark Knight” for the 3rd time…daaaaang Gary Oldman is awesome!)
I have no faith. I have no hope. I believe in nothing…not even Harvey Dent. :)
Do you need professional help? This seems to me to be a terrible way to live. Good grief!
@TSTL: Nope, I’m fine. A little depressed, but that’s due to a genetic chemical imbalance.
Josephine,
So are you saying that majority opinion for you = Biblical accuracy to us?
In other words, if it is universally accepted, it means it is absolutely true?
Posted by: Bethany at January 2, 2009 6:59 PM
Bethany I would say that things that are universally accepted are GENERALLY absolute truths. They may be proven to be true like say, the earth is round or they may be inherently true like murder is wrong.
And I think things in the Bible are absolute truths to you and other fundamentals. Correct?
Now, as for majority opinion, that’s not necessarily an absolute truth. I never claimed it was. What I did say was that you act like what I sayis way out there, when in fact it is the voice of the majority. That is something
And it is pretty safe to say that if the bible said 2+2 =7 that a christian fundamentalist would believe it, because the bible is absolutely correct. Or have I got this wrong?
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 6:54 PM
Asitis, pray tell me where the Bible says 2+2=7 or anything else that is wrong.
oh dear! Well I hope you are ok Rae. If it’s not offensive to you, I would certainly like to keep you in my prayers.
Have a good evening – I’m off to read an interesting book.
Now, as for majority opinion, that’s not necessarily an absolute truth. I never claimed it was. What I did say was that you act like what I sayis way out there, when in fact it is the voice of the majority. That is something
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 10:37 PM
so what? you run your life based on what the majority opinion is? You form your beliefs on what the majority opinion is? What kind of way is that for a well educated person to operate? You claim to be a scientist and this is how you form opinions and determine a course of action? I am very puzzled, indeedy!
What I did say was that you act like what I sayis way out there, when in fact it is the voice of the majority. That is something
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 10:37 PM
Holy smokes…ooh ho hoo….that is something all right
asitis, saying a living human embryo is not a human life is way out there.
Asitis, pray tell me where the Bible says 2+2=7 or anything else that is wrong.
Posted by: truthseeker at January 2, 2009 10:38 PM
We never said the Bible says 2+2=7 truthseeker. What we said was that if it did, some of you would believe it because you believe the Bible to be absolutely true.
so what? you run your life based on what the majority opinion is? You form your beliefs on what the majority opinion is? What kind of way is that for a well educated person to operate? You claim to be a scientist and this is how you form opinions and determine a course of action? I am very puzzled, indeedy!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 2, 2009 10:42 PM
Nooooooo….. I am not saying that I form my beliefs nor run my life in accordance with majority opinion tstl. Where do you get this stuff? Once again, I am simply stating that what I was saying was not “way out there”. It was more in line with the majority. That is all I am saying. Do not make it something I have not said.
Hey, now that we have established that I am in fact a scientist (!), care to let me know if you are. Because you seem to have lot to say about how scientists should think.
@TSTL: I don’t think it’s offensive, I just feel there are people who probably need and deserve your prayers much more than I.
Have a good evening.
Rae, when you say you believe in nothing, do you mean that you just don’t believe in the existence of a supernatural or divine power that dictates how we should live? Or do you really mean you don’t believe in anything at all, including the power of love, human decency, etc etc????
Don’t you want to understand the true nature of things? Don’t you want to understand how things work and why they work that way? Why things were designed the way they have been?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 2, 2009 9:02 PM
Designed? The true nature of things? Oh you do crack me up tstl.
Off to bed and peaceful slumber, knowing you are not teaching our children science!
Why are you so bitter about those that are more educated, experienced, successful and happy than you? Were you not given opportunities? Do you have some physical or mental disability that holds you back? What is it that makes you so bitter?
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 4:45 PM
I only write the truth of what people are Asitis.
I know doctors as friends(College of Surgeons, specializing in ER and ATLS instructors) and they agree with my simple words concerning the art of medicine.
It has been a test of humility and personality to tell them the old joke about burying their mistakes. No laugh, and you know your dealing with a chump such as you Asitis.
I have no mercy on arrogance and fakers such as you Asitis.
Afterall, a surgeon is a person who uses his hands to make a living when it is all been said.
In fact, some surgeons are dyslexic, and failed many a xourses from not being able to be fully edumacated in med school, or residency.
But, that sense of humility, from being unable to read fully and comprehensively, also brings out the “sight memory” to a degree, which also makes a person a great observer of his work, by his hands.
Many neuro-surgeons practice woodcarving to keep those hands limber and precise.
Afterall, Asitis, you have two options in medicine, cut or take a pill. The third option of physical or occupational therapy occurs from one of the above.
Really ASSitis, your unable to function as anything more then a propagandist. Your wedded to your propagandistic reality that ends in death for others but not yourself.
Your a hypocrite, a faker, plain and simple ASsitis.
Soo here’s a tip for ya faker, ABCDEv. Hope your next emergency medical arts praticioner doesn’t use a 32F tube shoved in ya ASsitis for all the wrong reasons, and your death is ascribed to your “medical condition” on entry into the medical art’s science.
Remember ASsitis, stay calm,someone will be here to help your shop worn propagandistic efforts soon, God is with us all this day.
Off to bed and peaceful slumber, knowing you are not teaching our children science!
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 11:30 PM
Ya, teach those kids about those useless facts about Dino the dinosaur, Asitis. Or how to murder your own by abortion, and teach those students they are not human being growing inside them, but some type of reptilian growing inside them.
Now kids, did you know your amygdala is from once being a dinosaur, and your unable to control yourself when you murder your own from being nothingmore then a reptile?
“Rae, when you say you believe in nothing, do you mean that you just don’t believe in the existence of a supernatural or divine power that dictates how we should live? Or do you really mean you don’t believe in anything at all, including the power of love, human decency, etc etc????”
@Asitis: Well that’s tricky because human decency and the power of love are not really ideologies- religion is an ideology. I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural or divine power. I do not “believe” in the “power of love” (that sounds like a Celine Dion song). However, I would be willing to accept that love can and does have affect on human behavior. I also do not “believe” in human decency. I am also unwilling to consider humans to be inherently decent based on evidence that you see on the news and world events.
Maybe you’ll come down with a curable cancer or infection in 2009 and come to the realization that doctors are anything but stupid.
Posted by Asitis.
Cancers are never cured Asitis, they are stopped at a stage of development by so called treatment.
And you write your a scientist?
Please, never use the word cured, it reveals your lack of education concerning life sciences.
Some doctors are stupid from being arrogant, such as you ASsitis. That a certain amount of time has been decided upon as “being cured of cancer” is based on monetary factors. Not science.
Thanks doc, you cured me of atherosclerosis with that drug soaked stent that only stops, by mechanical means, a natural condition of human beings aging. NOT.
Tell me ASitis, who is the “chef cell” who controls which food a neuron gets to eat to survive?
See, neuro science can be made interesting when thought of in manners devoid of your pedantic vomit, which drives young minds away from science.
How many young minds have you ruined Asitis?
But, tell me Asitis, what is the name of the chef inside your personal piece of unconscious meat, between your ears?
Only the stars know, and those that know Latin ASitis. You do know Latin ASitis, or you only fluent in that fake French history you learned as a child of the politically correct?
I am also unwilling to consider humans to be inherently decent based on evidence that you see on the news and world events.
Posted by: Rae at January 3, 2009 12:22 AM
You need to turn off the agenda of those that make you come to such conclusions about human beings.
On the bright side, you’ll always attract humans that think like you.
@Yllas: What “agenda”? My goal isn’t to attract humans- frankly, I’d rather them be far from me. I don’t like talking to people in real life. It’s uncomfortable. I would be perfectly content never having in-person human contact for the rest of my life so long as I had the opportunity to talk with people on the internet.
@Asitis: Well that’s tricky because human decency and the power of love are not really ideologies- religion is an ideology. I do not believe in the existence of a supernatural or divine power. I do not “believe” in the “power of love” (that sounds like a Celine Dion song). However, I would be willing to accept that love can and does have affect on human behavior. I also do not “believe” in human decency. I am also unwilling to consider humans to be inherently decent based on evidence that you see on the news and world events.
Posted by: Rae at January 3, 2009 12:22 AM
Actually, I think it’s a Huew Lewis song!
Off to bed and peaceful slumber, knowing you are not teaching our children science!
Posted by: asitis at January 2, 2009 11:30 PM
guess again! :-D
Cancers are never cured Asitis, they are stopped at a stage of development by so called treatment.
And you write your a scientist?
Please, never use the word cured, it reveals your lack of education concerning life sciences.
Some doctors are stupid from being arrogant, such as you ASsitis. That a certain amount of time has been decided upon as “being cured of cancer” is based on monetary factors. Not science.
Posted by: yllas at January 3, 2009 1:04 AM
sillyllas, to cure means to make well, restore health. Doctors most certainly do cure. You are being ridiculous, yet again.
You have friends who are surgeons? Sure you do.
You show the same misguided comtempt for doctors and medicine that you have shown elsewhere. What has made you such a bitter man?
asitis, is a living human embryo a human life? Try not too overthink it. lol
Is an acorn an oak tree?
The pro abortionists sometime use the analogy of an acorn not being a tree in order to demonstrate that a fetus is not human. They say that just as the acorn has the potentiality to be a tree, the fetus also has the potentiality to be a human; but since potentiality is different from actuality, it follows that, actually, the fetus is not a human, and the acorn is not, actually, a tree.
Also, let’s assume for the moment that the tree in question is an oak tree and the acorn is from that an oak tree. The problem with the above argument is that the acorn is by nature oak. It is not a tree. By definition, a tree is a fully developed plant. An acorn, by definition, is an undeveloped plant. Therefore to say that an acorn is not a tree is correct. But, it is still oak by nature. This is not a correct analogy anymore than to say a baby is not an adult and therefore the baby is not human. By definition, a baby is human as is an adult. Therefore, the problem with this defense of aborting babies is that it uses an improper pair of words without dealing with the nature of what those words represent.
Let’s look at it again. The oak acorn is by nature, oak since it has oak DNA. Likewise, a fully developed oak tree is also by nature oak, since it has oak DNA. The difference is that one is fully developed and the other is not. The same goes with the life in the womb of the mother as compared to a full grown adult. A baby is not an adult. But both have the nature of human. Therefore, the attempted justification of the pro-abortionist is illogical and invalid
http://www.carm.org/abortion/acorn.htm
Now, can you answer truthseeker’s question?
asitis, is a living human embryo a human life? Try not too overthink it. lol
Posted by: truthseeker at January 4, 2009 12:39 AM
no she’s made that very clear. Quite an astonishing conclusion for a scientist to make.
Hhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry. The image of treehuggers lashing themselves to acorns like anti- abortionists protesting at and bombing clinics got the better of me!
Hhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: asitis at January 4, 2009 7:55 AM
see what I mean Bethany, she’s a completely rational scientist!
She cannot defend her argument except to make this analogy which does not hold.
Bethany here is an interesting discussion on this issue:
In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans… see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, eg, religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.
The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.
Just think of something being constructed (fabricated, assembled, composed, sculpted – in short, made), such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions.
However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. (You can see how little I know about car manufacturing.) Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car.
I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.
What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.”
There’s a deep truth at the base of Kinsley’s puzzlement. Nothing can be a certain kind of thing until it possesses the form of that kind of thing, and the form of a thing under construction just plain isn’t there at the beginning of the construction process. It isn’t there because that form is being gradually imposed from the outside and the persons or forces doing the construction have not yet been able to shape the raw material into what it will eventually be.
There is a special relevance of the construction idea to the embryonic stem cell debate. Conley admits there can be a peculiar, lesser sort of dignity even in a work-in-progress. For example, if we thought God were engaged in fabricating a new Eve, out of a bone and a breath, we wouldn’t want to destroy His work-in-progress, simply out of respect for Him. Again, many of us would think a Corvette-To-Be pretty special even on the assembly line, something not lightly to be destroyed, because it’s on the way to becoming something that we really care about. But if the auto factory shuts down early on, those two pieces of joined metal on the assembly line are not “to be” anything; they’re just recyclable waste. Likewise, an embryo conceived outside the womb – with no plans to implant it so that it could be born – is not on its way “to be” anything. Thus it has little or no work-in-progress dignity, and work-in-progress type dignity is all that it can ever have for Conley and those who agree with his construction model of gestation.
So there is a reason that people like John McCain, and some others who are strongly opposed to abortion, even in early pregnancy, could feel free to vote for embryonic stem cell research funding. They could think that an intrauterine fetus or embryo is a great divine or human work in progress, and thus shouldn’t be aborted, even when just recently conceived, but only because it is under construction. Since the thousands of frozen, test-tube-generated embryos that scientists want to use for experiments are not under construction, are just scrap left over from IVF treatments, they can be recycled without a qualm.
Development as an alternative to construction
Despite the great explanatory power of Conley’s construction metaphor for an understanding of contemporary life-issue debates, it is radically misleading concerning the nature of gestation. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops.
In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy.
Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.
This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I were the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.
Why do we sometimes find the constructionist view plausible, while at other times the more accurate developmental view seems to make more sense? The constructionist view is intuitively appealing, I think, whenever the future is shut out of our minds, even if we are using the scientifically correct term “development.” Whenever the embryo or fetus is described in terms simply of its current appearance, it is easy to fall into constructionism. For example, if a snapshot is taken in which an embryo looks like just a ball of cells, its dynamic self-direction is obscured. It seems inert. Since an entity that had merely embryonic characteristics as its natural end state would indeed not qualify as a human being, it is easy to imagine that the entity in the snapshot is not human. Scientific knowledge of its inner activity may not be enough to overcome this impression, for it is hard to recognize a form still hidden from view.
However, when we look backwards in time or otherwise have in mind a living entity’s final concrete form, development becomes intuitively compelling. Knowing that the developing Polaroid picture would have been of a jaguar helped us to see that calling it a “brown smudge” was inadequate. If we somehow had an old photo taken of our friend Jim just after he had been conceived, and was thus just a little ball, we’d have no trouble saying, “Look, Jim. That’s you!” Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend.”
Hhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, Asitis makes some compelling points.
Sorry. The image of treehuggers lashing themselves to acorns like anti- abortionists protesting at and bombing clinics got the better of me!
“Lashing themselves” to acorns? lol You’re right, Asitis…that is hilarious (because it makes no sense)! :D
That is an interesting piece, TSTL.
no she’s made that very clear. Quite an astonishing conclusion for a scientist to make.
Or a ‘so called’ scientist. I’m still not convinced about that one.
Bethany: yes I think that people like asitis, see the baby as a bunch of cells – but although we were all a bunch of cells at one time, in a sense we never were “just” a bunch of cells. Because a “bunch of cells” will always remain just that – a group of cells. But the embryonic human consisting of 3 or 10 or 20 cells is much more than just a grouping – it is rapidly organizing very young human being.
What is interesting to me is that prolife people look forward to see the baby that is and that will be. A baby is a sign that there is a future.
Proaborts see no future – which is why Pope John Paul II called them part of the culture of death.
Or a ‘so called’ scientist. I’m still not convinced about that one.
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 8:51 AM
ya know, neither am I….
Asitis,
“Is an acorn an oak tree? ”
This is to confuse the accidents of a being with its substance. Your question is like asking “Is a toddler an adult?” No, but they are both members of the homo sapien species. The fact that one is more developed than the other has no bearing on the substance or what-it-is-to-be that thing. The difference between an acorn and an oak tree is accidental; that is, they are differences that don’t change their very ESSENCE. It’s like dark skin vs. light skin, tall vs. short, skinny vs. heavy, etc. None of those differences found in people have any bearing on whether they are people or not, just like the accidental differences between an acorn and an oak tree have no bearing on the fact that they share the same substance; they are the same thing in the sense of substance, just like an embryo and a fully grown human have the same substance. Different accidents just like any two people, but same substance.
The difference between an acorn and an oak tree is accidental; that is, they are differences that don’t change their very ESSENCE.
Yup. Interesting though that we have denied personhood to others with different “accidents” such a sex (female) and skin color.
“Or a ‘so called’ scientist. I’m still not convinced about that one. ”
I wouldn’t necessarily say that this is the case. And the reason is because the acorn/oak tree question is not a scientific one, but a metaphysical one. Science often gets easily tangled up with metaphysics. And it seems to me that this is one of the major problems in science today; that it is so easy and subtle for scientists to (without knowing it) digress from science into metaphysics and still speak on the matter with a scientific authority. Part of the problem as I see it is that we are so scared of philosophy in our culture. It is almost NEVER taught in high school, and kids think its this grand area of intellectualism in college, so we never properly learn it, never know what it is, and as a result, can not differentiate between it and other disciplines such as science.
Yup, amen toostunned. Very sick.
And it seems to me that this is one of the major problems in science today; that it is so easy and subtle for scientists to (without knowing it) digress from science into metaphysics and still speak on the matter with a scientific authority. Part of the problem as I see it is that we are so scared of philosophy in our culture.
This never use to be the case so much when I was in school.
I wonder if the philosophy fright is because philosophy asks hard questions and tries to understand the nature of man and his existence (I think)? It seems to me that our society or our culture does not really want to seek out the truth of things. Because knowing the truth about something may mean we have to act in a different way – a way that we might not want to or that will entail some sort of sacrifice. I think this is directly applicable to pregnancy.
A woman becomes pregnant. Although her action (having sex) is one that will have a consequence (concieving a baby, even a possibility if on bc)she doesnt’ confront the “truth” of the situation. She can’t deny the pregnancy because her body tells her otherwise. So she must deny another truth – the baby’s humanness. I mean we have a scientist on here who has emphatically stated that pregnancy is not a human life or a human being. Generally speaking this is now an old argument because the proabort side has backed down from the “blob of cells” approach and is now onto the bodily autonomy and right to privacy arguments.
“”Or a ‘so called’ scientist. I’m still not convinced about that one. ”
I wouldn’t necessarily say that this is the case. And the reason is because the acorn/oak tree question is not a scientific one, but a metaphysical one”
Thank you Bobby. This is what I have been trying to say all along – that science has not and probably never will provide us with the definitive answer as to when human life begins because it is not just a scientific debate. It is philsophical and religious as well.
“Because a “bunch of cells” will always remain just that – a group of cells. But the embryonic human consisting of 3 or 10 or 20 cells is much more than just a grouping – it is rapidly organizing very young human being.”
Even adults are just a bunch of cells. :) What’s more, the adult human has more bacterial cells than human cells- go figure!
” that science has not and probably never will provide us with the definitive answer as to when human life begins ”
Wrong. New human life begins at fertilization- any embryology textbook will tell you that. Quit saying “human life” when you clearly mean personhood- which is the religious/philosophical concept you’re referring to.
Wrong. New human life begins at fertilization- any embryology textbook will tell you that. Quit saying “human life” when you clearly mean personhood- which is the religious/philosophical concept you’re referring to.
Posted by: Rae at January 4, 2009 12:08 PM
absolutely. If the germ cells/gametes are from two human beings, how can the new life be anything BUT human life. It simply isn’t logical.
“absolutely. If the germ cells/gametes are from two human beings, how can the new life be anything BUT human life. It simply isn’t logical.”
There is a scientific term for that actually…I can’t remember what it is but Bobby Bambino posted on it a few months back.
” that science has not and probably never will provide us with the definitive answer as to when human life begins ”
Wrong. New human life begins at fertilization- any embryology textbook will tell you that. Quit saying “human life” when you clearly mean personhood- which is the religious/philosophical concept you’re referring to.
Posted by: Rae at January 4, 2009 12:08 PM
Sure Rae. I was referring to a human person. When truth seeker asked me “is a living human embryo a human life?” It’s safe to assume that by “human life” he specifically meant a separate human being/person.
Had he said or meant “is a living human embryo some form of human life” I would have said yes. But to ask if it is a human being or a human person is like asking if an acorn is an oak. And science does not provide us with a definite answer for that, nor will it likely ever.
Asitis, you’re confusing two issues as one.
Rae, 12:08, thank you for explaining that..
It’s safe to assume that by “human life” he specifically meant a separate human being/person.
This follows logically – if it is an individual human life which it MUST be since it has DNA that is different and unique from the mother and father.
If you bothered to read the article posted, you would see it’s a developmental thing.
But to ask if it is a human being or a human person is like asking if an acorn is an oak.
An acorn IS an oak! Denying reality is just silly. Refer to my 7:42 AM which explained it pretty clearly.
Just as a baby is a human but not an adult, so is an acorn an oak but not a tree.
But to ask if it is a human being or a human person is like asking if an acorn is an oak.
An acorn IS an oak! Denying reality is just silly. Refer to my 7:42 AM which explained it pretty clearly.
Just as a baby is a human but not an adult, so is an acorn an oak but not a tree.
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 1:44 PM
I understand that that is your position on this debate Bethany. I really do.
And,as I have said many times before and Bobby has also reiterated here, it’s not just about science.
but as a scientist dealing in physical realities, asitis, you must therefore concede that Bethany’s analogy is correct.
It is on the philosophical level you disagree- which really doesn’t make much sense to me.
When it comes to that one question, Asitis, yes it is just about Science.
What you need to do is just be honest about your position. Say that you do not believe that an unborn child has what it takes to be a full person, not that it is not a human being. It is intellectually dishonest.
personhood- philosophical opinion
Human being- scientifically provable
Say that you do not believe that an unborn child has what it takes to be a full person, not that it is not a human being.
this is exactly her position.
it is not a person, because it’s not convenient to believe it so
Sorry, I wasn’t terribly clear above. Rae at January 4, 2009 12:08 PM said it perfectly; that is, that the newly formed zygote is a human being. Science can tell us that we were all once began life as a zygote, and biologically, that zygote is the same entity as we are now. It is one and the same organism, hence a human being biologically.
However, the question that is usually debated in abortion/ ESCR concerns applying the term “human person” or personhood to that same zygote which is a human being. Taken into account are considerations of consciousness, sentience, viability, brain activity, etc. So when we start to discuss the embryo in terms of the acorn/oak tree comparison, we’re no longer talking about what it is biologically, but what value we give it or what it needs to have in order for us to deem it on the same level as “us.”
So the biological question is there and answered, I believe, but it easily digresses into the philosophical question. As Bethany succinctly points out above, the term “human being” refers to our understanding that the embryo is biologically human, and human person or personhood refers to a human which one considers to have full rights. (incidentally, you can even have people referring to certain animals as persons when they wish said animals to have the same rights as human persons). This is all somewhat semantical, but it’s important for us to all be on the same page and know what we mean we we use certain words.
You’re always so good at explaining things, Bobby.
I think the problem is that asitis continues to use human being, human life and human person interchangeably.
To me, these are one and the same thing – for how can an individual human being not be a person?
“There is a scientific term for that actually…I can’t remember what it is but Bobby Bambino posted on it a few months back.”
Wow, good memory Rae. Actually, I described it but noted that I couldn’t remember the name of the term either. But I have remembered since and it’s biogenesis. Biogenesis.
Now we know… and knowing is half the battle…
To me, these are one and the same thing – for how can an individual human being not be a person?
I agree– but we can’t even get to that part of the debate unless Asitis decides to be honest about her true position about “personhood”.
“Wrong. New human life begins at fertilization- any embryology textbook will tell you t”hat. Quit saying “human life” when you clearly mean personhood- which is the religious/philosophical concept you’re referring to.”
Rae, I have a really hard time believing a text book is going to define when life begins. I don’t think you’ve ever seen that in a textbook. I’ve had a lot of science books, and none has ever defined when life starts. If it were defined in textbooks– it wouldn’t be a debate.
Josephine, did you never take biology?
I’m just amazed at the ignorance here… I mean, what have our schools been teaching people, exactly? They know all there is to know about birth control but are completely clueless about fetal development?
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
Rae, I have a really hard time believing a text book is going to define when life begins. I don’t think you’ve ever seen that in a textbook. I’ve had a lot of science books, and none has ever defined when life starts. If it were defined in textbooks– it wouldn’t be a debate.
Posted by: Josephine at January 4, 2009 3:49 PM
actually Josephine, near as I can tell, this is standard fare for medical science textbooks.
Perhaps this might interest you and others (I apologize for the length but it is instructive):
The Beginning Of Life And The Establishment Of The Continuum.
C. Ward Kischer
Book: The Human Development Hoax:
Time to Tell the Truth
C. Ward Kischer and Dianne N. Irving
Reproduced with Permission
The beginning of life and the establishment of the continuum of life are not difficult facts to comprehend for the biologist (embryologist). Unfortunately, these facts have been reinterpreted and redefined in order to satisfy a political point of view. Thus, Human Embryology is in danger of being rewritten as a socio-legal political statement.
Roe v. Wade, adjudicated in 1973, has proven to be the watershed between law and science. Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, said: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”1
By essentially eliminating the question of life as the time related value for defining rights of the conceived – as opposed to disposal of the conceived – the court was free to establish an arbitrary point, or condition, which fumed out to be convenient for the mother, prior to which disposal would be the legal right of the mother. This point was decided to be viability, which was cited to be between 24 and 28 weeks post-fertilization.2 Blackmun tied viability to personhood, and marked it as the time at which the fetus could survive “outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”3
167 DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS
Later, in the Webster decision, the majority opinion also written by Blackmun, the decision of Roe v. Wade was affirmed. However, in this decision, Justice Blackmun used an Amici Curiae Brief of 167 Distinguished Scientists and Physicians including 11 Nobel Laureates In Support of Appellees.4
Using a reliable source to list the credentials of the 167, the volumes of American Men and Women of Science were consulted.5 True, the 1992-93 edition was used and this might account for 66 not found if they had died and their listing removed in the interim. But, with that caveat understood 101 were found in the listing. Of that number only 31 used ‘development’ or ‘developmental’ in their bios. Of those 31 scientists, 9 were index-described embryologists and one was self-described, but not one was a human embryologist!6 Clearly there is a major problem in establishing credibility for what these scientists say about human development (or what they do not say) “in support of appellees.” The human embryologist knows human development best; but, this source of science was not consulted even though the compelling reasons were obvious.
THE BEGINNING OF A HUMAN LIFE
In the above-referred-to Brief, it is written: “there is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth.”7 Conception, fetal development and birth are wholly biological (more specifically, embryological) terms. There are no implications of philosophy or theology implied or intended in their statement. The error of this statement is manifest by simple deductive reasoning and through countless observations, experimentally, that the result of fertilization is the beginning of a new life.
THE ESSENCE OF HUMAN LIFE
Later, in this Brief, it is further written: “The question of when a human life truly begins calls for a conclusion as to which characteristics define the essence of human life. While science can tell us when certain biological characteristics can be detected, science cannot tell us which biological (sic) attributes establish the existence of a human being.”8 Here it is absolutely clear that the amici refer to “biological” characteristic(s) to the exclusion of philosophy and theology.
The answer to their statement has been known in human embryology for decades. The best response is to be found in the statement by Wendell M. Stanley, Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of the tobacco mosaic virus:
“The essence of life is the ability to reproduce. This is accomplished by the utilization of energy to create order out of disorder, to bring together into a specific predetermined pattern from semiorder or even from chaos all the component parts of that pattern with the perpetuation of that pattern with time. This is life.”9
THE FALLOUT FROM ROE v. WADE
The Supreme Court has disdained to reconsider what they decided in Roe v. Wade that the beginning of life could not be determined.10,11 Thus, in this artificial vacuum many nonsensical statements have been made, such as that by Eleanor Smeal (then President of the National Organization of Women, NOW) in 1989: “Everybody knows that life begins only after birth.”12 Such a vacuum also generates specious arguments as to when the individual becomes human or a human being. Thus one finds published such bizarre claims that the fertilized ovum, or zygote does not have the information for full development;13 that genetic control of development is the equivalent of “molecular control” and that such control is retained by the pregnant mother;14 that sentience, self-awareness, marks the onset of individuation, which is the equivalent of becoming human.15 These are all interesting academic exercises but have no relevance or significance in defining the beginning of life.
By denying the knowledge of when life begins, the Supreme Court established as a priority that point at which the new individual becomes a human being or is invested with personhood. This has led to invoking such ancillary qualities as genetic, developmental, functional, behavioral, social and psychic individualities.16 Thus, this is in concert with Blackmun’s applying the fields of medicine, philosophy and theology towards the “difficult question of when life begins.”(1)
LIFE AND FIRST CONTACT
Life as a phenomenon began in the evolutionary sense approximately 3.5 billion years ago when a replicative (reproductive) event became sustained. Many replicative events probably occurred and were not sustained. But, eventually, one of those events marked the beginning of the continuum of life, within which we exist, today. Now we can see the significance of recognizing reproduction as the essence of life. It sustains the continuum of life.
Thus, in sexual reproduction, which evolved later, and produced the advantage of variety, fertilization became the time at which the new individual began and sustained the continuum. This means that first contact between sperm and ovum, the initial event in fertilization, became (and is) the supreme moment for initiation of the continuum.
With the timed sequence of events after first contact, a process occurs which brings together the chromosomes of the spermatozoan with the chromosomes of the ovum. This is called syngamy. This so-called stage has been suggested as the onset of individuation. In the technical sense this might be correct; however, syngamy occurs as a consequence of first contact, so it will occur anyway.
The failure to recognize first contact as the initiation of the new individual has permitted other arbitrary moments for individuation. Thus, the condition of monozygotic twinning (2 individuals split from one fertilized egg) was introduced as a defining moment of individuation because it was assumed that the early embryo had the potential to divide up to, but not after, 14 days post-fertilization. Therefore, individuation was delayed until the 14 day time.(15) It was, however, ignored that the known embryological facts state that 35% of monozygotic twins occur from splitting of the embryonic cells (blastomeres) early in development from the first one or two division stages.17 Retrospectively, this speaks for early determination of the so called individual.
CONCEPTION, FERTILIZATION AND PREGNANCY
Another attempt to delay the identification of the new individual (thus, that of new life) may be found in the conversion of the definition of conception. Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines conception as: “The union of the male sperm and the ovum of the female; fertilization.”18 Mosby’s Medical Dictionary also declares conception is equivalent with fertilization.~9 Stedman’s 22nd edition medical dictionary defines it as: “implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine lining.” It says nothing about fertilization.20 However, Stedman’s 26th edition defines conception as: “the act of conceiving or becoming pregnant; fertilization….”21 This same edition defines pregnancy as “conception until birth of the baby”.(21) Dorland’s Medical Dictionary uses two definitions of conception: 1. “the onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst”; and 2. “the formation of a viable zygote.”22 Dorland’s dictionary is somewhat contradictory in that pregnancy is defined as: “having a developing embryo or fetus in the body.”(22) Taber’s dictionary defines pregnancy as: “carrying a developing embryo in the uterus.”(18) Mosby’s Dictionary defines pregnancy as: “the gestational process, comprising the growth and development within a woman of a new individual from conception through the embryonic and fetal periods to birth.”19 From where might such contradictions arise? The following might provide a clue: In Albert Rosenfeld’s book Second Genesis.23 in a discussion of chemical contraceptives, a footnote states as follows:
“Because these substances do not prevent the sperm from penetrating and fertilizing the ovum -the classic definition of conception – they are not strictly contraceptives. What they do is prevent the newly fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus. Since the interference occurs after conception, some hold that such practice constitutes abortion. A way around this impasse has been suggested by Dr. A.S. Parkes of Cambridge: Equate conception with the time of implantation rather than the time of fertilization – a difference of only a few days.”
Political correctness weaves its way in and out of the science of human embryology!
WHAT HUMAN EMBRYOLOGISTS SAY
Embryology is the study of development of the new individual from beginning to end. We should, therefore, be alerted as to what contemporary and renowned human embryologists have to say about the beginning of a new life and the beginning of the human being:
Moore, Keith L. “This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being”24
Larsen, William J. “…. gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”25
Carlson, Bruce M. “Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm ….”26
Patten, Bradley M. p. 13 “Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual”. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”27
Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.”28
Sadler, T.W. “The development of a human being begins with fertilization.”29
Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud. “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.”30
O’Rahilly, Ronan and Fabiola Müller. “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”31
Conversely, it is worthwhile to note that this author has never seen a statement denying the truth of the above. Only when the biological facts have become politicized has there appeared any equivocation.
The Supreme Court of the United States must ultimately come vis-a-vis with the known biological facts of human embryology and admit to the disingenuous interpretation of the beginning of life embodied in Roe v. Wade and affirmed in the Webster case.
SUMMARY
In summary: The fertilized egg is a living entity, a human being, a human individual, and, a person, all one and inseparable. The reason why this is true is the following:
from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the ovum, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli. That is to say, after that initial contact of sperm and egg there is no subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger, needed from the male in order to continue and complete full development to birth. Human development is a continuum in which so-called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.
——————————————————————————–
REFERENCES
1 Syllabus: Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County. No. 70-18. Decided January 22, 1973. p. 44. [Back]
2 Ibid_. p. 45 [Back]
3 Ibid_. p. 45. [Back]
4 William L. Webster et al. v. Reproductive Health Services et al. Amici Curiae Brief of 167 Distinguished Scientists and Physicians, Including 11 Nobel Laureates In Support of Appellees. October, 1988. [Back]
5 American Men and Women in Science. 1992-93. R.R. Bowker, New Providence, New Jersey. [Back]
6 Solomon, Susan A. 1996. Laws In Embryology, But Embryology In The Law? In preparation. [Back]
7 William L. Webster et al. v. Reproductive Health Services et al. Amici Curiae Brief of 167 Distinguished Scientists and Physicians, Including 11 Nobel Laureates In Support of Appellees. October, 1988. p. 2. [Back]
8 Ibid_. p. 6. [Back]
9 Stanley, Wendell M. 1957. The nature of viruses, cancer, genes and life – a declaration of dependence. Proc. Amer. Philosoph. Soc., 101:357-370. [Back]
10 J.M. Individually v. V.C. et. al. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Supreme Court of The United States. October Term, 1993. No. 93-1149. [Back]
11 Alexander Loce v. The State of New Jersey. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Supreme Court of The United States. October Term, 1993. No. 92-1934. [Back]
12 Smeal, Eleanor. 1989. Speech before convention of NOW. [Back]
13 Gardner, Charles A. 1989. Is an Embryo a Person? The Nation, November 13th issue, pp. 557-559. [Back]
14 Bedate, Carlos and Robert Cefalo. 1989. The Zygote: to be or not be a person. J. Med. Phil. 14:641-645. [Back]
15 Grobstein, Clifford. 1988. Science and The Unborn. p.33. Basic Books, New York. [Back]
16 Ibid_. pp. 21-39. [Back]
17 Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1993. The Developing Human, 5th ed. p. 135. W.B. Saunders co., Philadelphia. [Back]
18 Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 1989. 16th edition. F.A. Davis Co., Philadelphia. [Back]
19 Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary. 1994. Fourth edition. Mosby, St. Louis. [Back]
20 Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 1972. 22nd edition. Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore. [Back]
21 Ibid_. 1995. 26th edition. [Back]
22 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary. 1988. 27th edition. W.B. Saunders co., Philadelphia. [Back]
23 Rosenfeld, Albert. 1969. Second Genesis. The Coming Control of Life. p. 108. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. [Back]
24 Moore, Keith L. 1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto. [Back]
25 Larsen, William J. 1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York. [Back]
26 Carlson, Bruce M. 1994. Human Embryology and Developmental Biology. p. 3. Mosby, St. Louis.
27 Patten, Bradley M. 1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.
28 Lillie, F.R 1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. [Back]
29 Sadler, T.W. 1990. Langman’s Medical Embryology, 6th Ed. p 3. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
30 Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.
31 O’Rahilly, Ronan and Fabiola Muller. 1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.
@Bethany: seems without much difficulty you and I have both been able to locate a few textbooks that teach the fact that human life – a new human person begins at conception.
two points:
if the unborn is growing then it must be alive
if the unborn has two human parents then it must be human – based on the law of biogenesis. Period.
I never saw anything in any of your texts that say a “human life” is formed. I saw life. I saw human. Ever wonder why they’re so careful to separate those words? That’s what the debate has always been. When LIFE starts.
Thanks for providing all those texts that argued my point though. That was awesome!
“Josephine, did you never take biology?
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 3:56 PM”
Yeah, okay.. I’m a junior pre-med major but I’ve never taken biology. (Sarcasm, in case you didn’t pick up on that..)
TSTL, I didn’t read your post. I’m not going to sift through all that crap. I have my own biology books.
Josephine, as usual, you refuse to read and learn. You are so young and so determined NOT to have an open mind. I can’t help but wonder why? Is it ideology that scares you?
Moore, Keith L. “This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being”
Sadler, T.W. “The development of a human being begins with fertilization.”
O’Rahilly, Ronan and Fabiola Müller. “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”
Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud. “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.”
The reason you won’t read through all my “crap” is because strangely enough the phrases human being and human organism are in there, together.
Try again.
@Bethany: seems without much difficulty you and I have both been able to locate a few textbooks that teach the fact that human life – a new human person begins at conception.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 4:26 PM
Once a human is born it is a human person. It may be connsidered by some to be a human person before then (say, at conception), but this is NOT a fact tstl.
I never, EVER said it didn’t say human. Maybe you should read and learn, TSTL.
It never says a human life. That’s always been the debate. Is it LIFE inside the womb.
Again, thanks for posting more that proved my point! None of those said human life, a phrase textbooks pretty much won’t touch! :)
Again, thanks for posting more that proved my point! None of those said human life, a phrase textbooks pretty much won’t touch! :)
What in the world? You obviously didn’t even read any of it!
Bethany, I did. Nothing in there EVER called it a human life. Just like I said it wouldn’t. Textbooks stay away from that. Saying “a human is formed” in NO WAY states that a human LIFE is formed. When a human life is formed is a RELIGIOUS debate that scientists tend to stay away from.
Let’s start with terms. Josephine, how do you understand the meaning of the phrase “human life”? You admit that the embryo is human, you admit it is alive. What extra information do you understand the phrase “human life” to entail?
Again, thanks for posting more that proved my point! None of those said human life, a phrase textbooks pretty much won’t touch! :)
What in the world? You obviously didn’t even read any of it!
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 5:07 PM
the point you guys aren’t getting is that for Josephine, an ex-Catholic, the term is everything. It justifies the use of bc and other problematic behaviours.
It’s about ideology and nothing more. Terms are mere instruments to impose ideology.
this is a young person, intent on becoming a doctor and she is here, quibbling about the terms human life = human being = human organism
all I can say is heaven help us, if this is representative of young women entering medicine.
I like that… “the use of bc and other problematic behaviours”. Most would agree that NOT using birth control is a problematic behaviour (unless you are aiming to get pregnant)!
TSTL, wow. Way to be wrong and then a cop out!
I’m not an ex-Catholic, TSTL. You don’t know me at all, thank you very much.
I like how half the time with you, terms are EVERYTHING. When it doesn’t work out how you want, then terms don’t matter.
this is a young person, intent on becoming a doctor and she is here, quibbling about the terms human life = human being = human organism
all I can say is heaven help us, if this is representative of young women entering medicine.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 5:18 PM
How about human person tstl. I see you’ve dropped that from your lexicon!
Josephine I think tstl has us confused.
tstl, I’m the mother/wife/scientist/former catholic. (I’d add world traveller too, but that just makes yllas mad!)
TSTL, are you kidding? Don’t you think it’s a bit odd that EVERY SINGLE THING YOU POSTED stays away from saying “HUMAN LIFE IS FORMED”. Don’t you think that’s odd?
When LIFE begins is a religious argument. Do you know what LIFE means? There is no correct definition of life when it comes to human. If there were, than NO ONE could ever argue that a baby in the womb is not “alive”. You know why that argument goes on everyday? Because it’s never been defined that a baby in the womb is a “human life”. Look up the definition of life. Look up the definition of “human”.
No one is going to let YOU define human life, so you might as well stop trying.
Honestly, I am starting to think we are discussing this with 14 year olds.
Josephine, if it’s a human,
And it’s a LIVING organism…
then please could you explain to me how is it NOT a human life? Honestly, could you just TRY to answer the question?
And if you’re not an ex-Catholic, you’re obviously only Catholic in name, because there is no way a practicing, devout Catholic would be okay with abortion on demand. You can’t just pick and choose what parts of your faith you want to follow, you know. (I’m not Catholic and I know this)
no josephine, you are the one who simply won’t accept the biological facts.
Should be interesting in med school when you get up to debate your peers and profs on when life begins. Hope you have some references other than the ACOG politically motivated definition.
I specifically referred to the terms quoted in the textbooks since we are not arguing human person here asitis (if you read the previous posts) we are slowing down our arguments to accomodate YOU because you can’t move from human life onto human person, as Bethany already pointed out. Just thought I’d let you know.
Here’s a basic English lesson which might help.
An adjective is a word that describes a noun.
A noun is a person, place, or thing.
Human can be a noun, but it can also be an adjective.
In the phrase, “Human life”, “human” is an adjective that describes the noun “life”.
And if you’re not an ex-Catholic, you’re obviously only Catholic in name, because there is no way a practicing, devout Catholic would be okay with abortion on demand. You can’t just pick and choose what parts of your faith you want to follow, you know. (I’m not Catholic and I know this)
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 5:30 PM
Bethany, in that case there are very few catholics left that are anything but “only catholic in name” then. Probaly time they split and started a new religion. Hey, that might take care of the priest shortage!
Bethany, all I said was you NEVER saw it in a textbook that it’s a “human life”. Which, you obviously didn’t. Science won’t ever tell you it’s a human life. You can deduce what you want, but don’t go around saying things as facts when they’re not. It just makes you look ignorant.
Oh, and I’m pro-life. It’s not up to YOU if I’m Catholic or not, and my beliefs really aren’t your business. Mmmkay?
Bethany, in that case there are very few catholics left that are anything but “only catholic in name” then. Probaly time they split and started a new religion. Hey, that might take care of the priest shortage!
I agree, Asitis. There are obviously very few Catholics who are anything but in name.
Oops, let me rephrase: There are obviously very few Catholics who actually practice their faith correctly. That makes more sense than the way I worded it last time.
Bethany, all I said was you NEVER saw it in a textbook that it’s a “human life”. Which, you obviously didn’t. Science won’t ever tell you it’s a human life. You can deduce what you want, but don’t go around saying things as facts when they’re not. It just makes you look ignorant.
Oh, and I’m pro-life. It’s not up to YOU if I’m Catholic or not, and my beliefs really aren’t your business. Mmmkay?
1.) Define pro-life.
2.) Explain how something can be living, and human, but not have human life.
Since WHEN are we arguing about biological facts? ALL I said is a textbook isn’t going to take a stance, or there’d be no argument. Apparently NEITHER of you read my original post, you just started flipping out for no reason. Calm down and read before you freak out. I personally believe life begins at conception. That’s a religious belief.
Oh, and I don’t think you realize what you go to medical school for. I’ll give you a hint: you don’t debate philosophy!
Since WHEN are we arguing about biological facts
ROTFLMBO YOMANK
I personally believe life begins at conception. That’s a religious belief.
No. It’s not.
Josephine:
1.) Define pro-life.
2.) Explain how something can be living, and human, but not have human life.
I specifically referred to the terms quoted in the textbooks since we are not arguing human person here asitis (if you read the previous posts) we are slowing down our arguments to accomodate YOU because you can’t move from human life onto human person, as Bethany already pointed out. Just thought I’d let you know.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 5:32 PM
Ahhhhhh…. but you are in fact arguing about human personhood tstl. that is what this is essentially all about: when does human personhood begin? That is, is this human lifeform/human being granted individual rights? You already slipped up on this at 4:26pm, stating that it is a FACT (!) that a human person begins at conception. And you used human life and human person interchangeably.
“@Bethany: seems without much difficulty you and I have both been able to locate a few textbooks that teach the fact that human life – a new human person begins at conception.”
And if you’re not an ex-Catholic, you’re obviously only Catholic in name, because there is no way a practicing, devout Catholic would be okay with abortion on demand. You can’t just pick and choose what parts of your faith you want to follow, you know. (I’m not Catholic and I know this)
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 5:30 PM
hallelujah! Sister in Christ! Amen!
ALL I said is a textbook isn’t going to take a stance, or there’d be no argument.
well apparently, these textbooks DO take a position BECAUSE they are biology textbooks!
And you’d better believe you are going to get into philosophy – you will likely have to take a medical and moral ethics course in med school. These were required back in the 1980’s! sheesh!
but you are in fact arguing about human personhood tstl. that is what this is essentially all about: when does human personhood begin?
You finally figured out that this is your position?
Bethany, it’s not my fault you didn’t read. The ONLY THING I said was that you NEVER saw in a textbook when human life begins, and than you posted a bunch of things, none of which ever said human life. When LIFE begins is a religious question, NOT a scientific question.
I never, EVER said something can be living and human and not have human life, did I? If I did, please show me where! I said you NEVER SAW IT IN A TEXTBOOK. Science doesn’t have the answer.
If you don’t know the definition of pro-life, (which, since you’re a conservative, I’m going to guess you’re not completely pro-life..) than I suggest you look yourself.
TSTL, have you ever been to medical school? If not, maybe you shouldn’t tell me what I’ll be doing. I know what I’ll be doing– from professionals. Not random strangers who aren’t doctors.
“well apparently, these textbooks DO take a position BECAUSE they are biology textbooks!”
NO. I can’t figure out why you AND Bethany can’t read, but NOTHING you posted said when a HUMAN LIFE begins. Holy crap guys, are you kidding?
I never, EVER said something can be living and human and not have human life, did I? If I did, please show me where! I said you NEVER SAW IT IN A TEXTBOOK. Science doesn’t have the answer.
It’s IN THE TEXTBOOK. Read between the lines, for goodness sakes. Saying it’s a human being who begins at conception is the SAME THING AS SAYING THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. How can anyone be so blind?
If you don’t know the definition of pro-life, (which, since you’re a conservative, I’m going to guess you’re not completely pro-life..) than I suggest you look yourself.
No, I wanted to hear YOUR definition.
but you are in fact arguing about human personhood tstl. that is what this is essentially all about: when does human personhood begin?
You finally figured out that this is your position?
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 5:44 PM
No. And I haven’t just “finally figured out this is your position either Bethany.
It’s precisely the reason I have not entered into the debate with you that you so want me to. Because it all boils down to personhood and involves so much more than science. I have told you that all along. Science, philosophy, religion…… And I would argue that in cases of strong faith, religion trumps all.
Asitis, I don’t want to bring you in a fight, but do you understand what I’m saying? I want to make sure I’m being clear. I thought I was…
So, I’ll reiterate. We were NEVER arguing about MY PERSONAL POSITION. I said textbooks didn’t define when human life begins. Which, as we’ve seen many times.. none of those textbooks ever clarified when LIFE begins.
So, I’ll reiterate. We were NEVER arguing about MY PERSONAL POSITION. I said textbooks didn’t define when human life begins. Which, as we’ve seen many times.. none of those textbooks ever clarified when LIFE begins.
Josephine…life is a continuum. However, a new, unique human life is begun at the moment of fertilization, which you would have seen was pretty clear if you had read any of what we posted! Sheesh.
No, Bethany. That’s what you deduced. You figured, after reading, that life beings at the moment of fertilization. No textbook ever told you that. You decided that on your own.
The ONLY THING I said was that you NEVER saw in a textbook when human life begins, and than you posted a bunch of things, none of which ever said human life. When LIFE begins is a religious question, NOT a scientific question.
oh; my good grief girl. What will it take for you to accept this is a biological fact? Can you really and truly be this pigheaded?
will this help you Josephine?:
“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilised by a sperm from a male… a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
The Developing Human, K L Moore, W B Saunders, 1988, page 1
or must I find MORE references for you?
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
I see alot of “human development” begins at fertilization Bethany. I believe Josephine might be arguing that that is not the same as saying a it is a human life/human being at fertilization.
Is that what you are saying Josephine?
Okay, Asitis, I can sort of see how that would work in her mind. Thanks for clarifying. However, how does one argue with the 5:55 quote?
Awesome TSTL!!
Repeat this after me…
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
a zygote is the beginning of new human life”
That is a biological fact.
NOT an opinion.
Not a religious idea.
BIOLOGICAL REALITY.
for those interested this is where this whole nonsense started:
In 1979 Clifford Grobstein, a frog embryologist, invented the term “preembryo” in his publication in Scientific American entitled: “External Human Fertilization”7. He boldly admitted that this term was conceived in order to reduce “the status” of the early human embryo. At this time the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, Jr., had publicly called for an evaluation of the early human embryo because of the proliferation of in-vitro fertilization clinics and laboratories and he was worried about the moral status of what was essentially experimentation on the early human being.
Therefore, Grobstein accommodated this concern by presenting the term “preembryo” and declaring it a “pre-person”. His justification for these terms was predicated on false Human Embryology. In the same article Grobstein also invented the term “individuation”, and declared that because the early human embryo could divide into two (or more) “individuals” (identical twins – or what we call monozygotic twins [MZ]) prior to 14 days post-fertilization that “individuation” had not occurred. Therefore, his reasoning was that because the “individual” was not present, ergo, the human being, or as he put it, the “person” was not present. From this tortuous reasoning has come the belief by some that not even a human life is present prior to 14 days. The questioning of the arbitrary term “person” (or “personhood”) is never specified to be solely a legal interpretation, but left to one’s imagination that somehow the biological inference is in question.
The terms “preembryo” and “individuation” have been totally discredited, not only by all human embryologists, but have also been rejected by the Nomenclature Committee of the American Association of Anatomists for inclusion in the official lexicon of anatomical terminology, Terminologia Embryologica. These terms are not used in any official textbook of Human Embryology.
“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”
“This [ a zygote] highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998, p. 2, p. 18]
[Note: This text is used for medical students at the University of Nebraska Medical Center]
Asitis, yes. Thank you.
Out of everything you posted, between TSTL and Bethany… you only gave me one example of anything saying “human life”.
Congratulations?
“oh; my good grief girl. What will it take for you to accept this is a biological fact? Can you really and truly be this pigheaded?”
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE SAME THING? Are you so pigheaded that you can’t realize that I never denied what your point is? ONE textbook you showed says “human life”. That’s it. Did you READ MY ORIGINAL POST? It said that Bethany didn’t read in a textbook when life begins. (Which, she didn’t because YOU were the only one to be able to find a book that said when human life begins.)
This was NEVER about what I believed. I’m not sure why you both seem to keep turning it into that.
Wow, Bethany. That’s amazing that an hour after you claimed you saw “human life” in a textbook, SOMEONE ELSE was able to find something to back you up.
Wow. Really. Good job? Now what about the FIFTY textbooks you posted before to that ONE? You know, all those others that didn’t say anything about when human LIFE starts?
I’m not sure why you keep posting things that don’t say human life, Bethany. …Seriously, is there a reason?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE SAME THING? Are you so pigheaded that you can’t realize that I never denied what your point is? ONE textbook you showed says “human life”. That’s it. Did you READ MY ORIGINAL POST? It said that Bethany didn’t read in a textbook when life begins. (Which, she didn’t because YOU were the only one to be able to find a book that said when human life begins.)
You’re an idiot. I’m sorry. I have read it many, many times in various textbooks, Josephine. Just because I wasn’t able to pull up those exact words in the exact order you wanted at this precise moment doesn’t mean that I didn’t read it in textbooks.
As for “only one book” remark, what kind of an dishonest response is that?
Hint: If it’s in a medical textbook, your argument failed, period!
What in this world is the difference between “human life” and “human being” when used to describe the zygote in a biological textbook? Please, explain that to me. Why does it mean anything different to you to see human life, than human being? What is wrong with you?
No. It means that it’s a bad textbook. It’s a textbook from 1988.
You think that’s how it works. If I found one version of the bible that says abortion is okay, than I guess your guys’ bible argument fails?
Oh, by the way: “You’re an idiot”… that is an awesome argument, and it makes you look intelligent and mature. I’m sorry, didn’t you say YOU felt like you were having an argument with a 14 year old?
Allright, correction. Your responses are completely idiotic!
What is wrong with me? LOL. See– you keep repeating the same thing. You were the one who claimed to see “human life” in a text book, than you couldn’t find it and suddenly you’re asking why it makes a difference? Why didn’t you say that from the beginning, instead of trying to prove you saw it?
There’s a big difference between the terms. That’s why it’s so hard to find when human life begins. Didn’t you get that? Don’t you think it’s weird that through ALL of those books, only ONE agreed with you?
No. It means that it’s a bad textbook. It’s a textbook from 1988.
The fact that a sperm and ovum unite to create a new human life is a fact that has not changed since 1988! How ridiculous!
And my Bible doesn’t get outdated, so your analogy is incorrect.
There are new versions of the bible everyday. So, no, my analogy is fine, thanks.
And, it has never been “scientifically proven” that “life” begins at conception, so it DOES matter that the textbook is 20+years old.
You were the one who claimed to see “human life” in a text book, than you couldn’t find it and suddenly you’re asking why it makes a difference?
It’s in ALL of them. Ugh. You refuse to see it.
And, it has never been “scientifically proven” that “life” begins at conception, so it DOES matter that the textbook is 20+years old.
I can’t continue arguing with the deaf and blind. I’ve got to get something done today.
No. It means that it’s a bad textbook. It’s a textbook from 1988.
what kind of nonsense is this. Has human biology changed in the last twenty years? I don’t know Bethany maybe we’ve evolved or something?
The fact is that Josephine cannot and will not admit she is wrong here – that she has been proven wrong. Why is it Josephine that you continue to put forth a postion that is untenable. You don’t have the authority or expertise to prove that the 1988 and the 1998 texts are wrong. Or do you?
Hey tstl, you never replied to my comment from 5:42pm, did you?
Well…. I guess there really is nothing you can say!
Just thought I’d let YOU know!
“what kind of nonsense is this. Has human biology changed in the last twenty years? I don’t know Bethany maybe we’ve evolved or something?”
We stopped throwing around words. We got more refined when phrasing things. Again, don’t you think it’s odd that only ONE textbook said ‘human life”?
Bethany, ONE said “human life”. You deduced “human life” from EVERYone except that one. It’s not MY fault you don’t even know why you’re arguing! You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. You are somehow saying I’m wrong, even though you can’t prove it. Wow. Really, Bethany?
I won’t admit I’m wrong, TSTL? One textbook out of like, fifty.. and that is a textbook from 20+ years ago. How do you not understand that? You really have to be dumb to not get it.
Josephine, you have yet to explain what the difference is between the multitudes of references to human beings, human organisms, life beginning at fertilization, etc, and how they differ from the term “human life”. If you can’t be honest enough to explain that, then there’s no reason to debate with you at all.
Why? My argument was never about that. I simply said “human life” is rarely seen in textbooks, and there’s a reason.
Why do you insist on making it more than that? You’re pretending I’m saying lots of things I didn’t say, sweetie.. and I really don’t appreciate it.
Ahhhhhh…. but you are in fact arguing about human personhood tstl. that is what this is essentially all about: when does human personhood begin? That is, is this human lifeform/human being granted individual rights? You already slipped up on this at 4:26pm, stating that it is a FACT (!) that a human person begins at conception. And you used human life and human person interchangeably.
yes i did. but you didn’t read it or chose to ignore it.
I’m sorry but we have slowed down the debate to accomodate you asitis. We are debating the use of life and organism and so forth. If we can’t come to an agreement when human life begins, the argument is pointless.
I asked the question earlier: how can an individual human being not be a person?
You can try answering this question.
Why? My argument was never about that. I simply said “human life” is rarely seen in textbooks, and there’s a reason.
You have to explain what in the world difference that makes, when the reality is the same either way! Either you believe there is a difference in “human life” and “human being” or you don’t. If you don’t, then there should be no issue with whether the term “human life” is mentioned in that particular phrasing, as long as the same THOUGHT/IDEA is there.
If you do, then that is the only reason that I can see that would make you have an issue with this particular phrase.
Sheesh.
I don’t have an issue with a particular phrase at all. I have studied a lot of biology though, and I know that’s rarely or never seen. That’s why I brought it up. I had no ulterior motive, Bethany.
It matter that the words aren’t there because if the words were there– it wouldn’t bale to be debated. That’s the entire point. If every textbook would say “life begins at conception” than abortion would never be an issue.
That’s my point, Bethany.
yes i did. but you didn’t read it or chose to ignore it.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 6:50 PM
Oh really? Where, prayer tell? Please point out the comment you wrote explaining to us how it is a FACT that human personhood begins at conception.
Oh and I think you’ve been caught up enough times by me to know that a claim that you have “slowed down the deabte to accomodate me” is utterely ridiculous! Nice try.
I don’t have an issue with a particular phrase at all.
yes you do! Oh my goodness, otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing like an banshee to prove you do! Good grief Josephine! You make the most ridiculous statements and then back track.
TSTL,
No. I don’t have an issue with it. If I did, I wouldn’t say I didn’t. Again, stop pretending I’m doing something I’m not. I said that textbooks don’t say that. That is it. That was my entire argument. You’ve had me post that like, fifteen times because you don’t know how to read, apparently.
yes i did. but you didn’t read it or chose to ignore it.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 6:50 PM
Oh really? Where, prayer tell? Please point out the comment you wrote explaining to us how it is a FACT that human personhood begins at conception.
Posted by: asitis at January 4, 2009 7:03 PM
I guess you are still looking for where you wrote it!
Oh and I think you’ve been caught up enough times by me to know that a claim that you have “slowed down the deabte to accomodate me” is utterely ridiculous! Nice try.
Posted by: asitis at January 4, 2009 7:08 PM
I think you should reread this day’s entire posts asitis. You are lost.
As for the case that the human zygote is a human person I do have a resource that I am willing to share with you. It is heavy reading but you will find it has alot to chew on. If you are interested I will post the link.
think you should reread this day’s entire posts asitis. You are lost.
As for the case that the human zygote is a human person I do have a resource that I am willing to share with you. It is heavy reading but you will find it has alot to chew on. If you are interested I will post the link.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 7:38 PM
I am lost???? Hahahahahahhaha!
As for your claim that it is a FACT that human personhood begins at conception, we are not looking for an opinion piece tstl.
We are looking for something to support your claim that it is a FACT that personhood begins at conception.
Good luck with that, because there is no consensus on when personhood begins. It is a matter of philosophical, scientific, medical and religious debate.
I’m not looking for an opinion piece
This from Wikipedia:
The term person in common usage means an individual human being. In the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, the term also has specialized context-specific meanings.
In many jurisdictions, for example, a corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy and medicine, person may mean only humans who are capable of certain kinds of thought, and thus exclude embryos, early fetuses, or adults with certain types of brain damage. [1][2] This could also extend to late fetuses and neonates, dependent on what level of thought is required.
Who is a person?
Human beings – Once human beings are born, personhood is considered automatic.
Exceptions: – Exceptions to this are often emotive and controversial. Some people have given opinions that fetuses, the disabled, the profoundly and long term brain damaged, those in coma or other persistent vegetative states, may be dubious as regards personhood. Such views are strongly debated from both sides
This from http://www.religioustolerance.org:
At conception, at birth, or at some time between, a new human person is present. After personhood is achieved, terminating life through an abortion is, by definition, a form of murder which some people believe can never be justified. Others feel that such an abortion is a moral act if it is needed to prevent the death of the woman, or perhaps if it will prevent her from becoming permanently disabled, or prevent extremely serious injury to her health. Some would also allow an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Still others feel that an abortion can be a moral act for other reasons.
Unfortunately, there is no consensus of when human personhood starts. People have different beliefs’ often they regard their own belief as absolutely true and obvious. Even if there were, there is no agreement on the conditions under which an abortion of that new person should be allowed.
Science can tell us, with increasing detail, the processes that start with a sperm and ovum and end up with a newborn baby. But it cannot tell us:
Does the fetus have a soul, however the concept of a soul is defined?
When do the products of conception become a person?
Should a zygote be given a full set of human rights?
Abortion kills a human life. But is an abortion murder?
These are questions with philosophical, religious and political aspects. Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them. Because these questions have a religious component, the diversity of faith groups in North America and the rest of the world assures that there will always be a wide variety of beliefs based on conflicting religious teachings
I’m so confused… I (and I would think the other pro-lifers here) agree 100% with what the wiki and religious tolerance websites are saying insofar as the way they are starting the current question of debate in abortion goes. Indeed, the question that needs to be addressed between pro-lifers and (most) pro-choicers is that of personhood. But look at this quote from religious tolerance.
“Abortion kills a human life.”
It is my understanding that this is what we have been discussing on this thread, not the issue of personhood. When pro-lifers say that the embryo is a human being, the above quote is what they mean. A human being dies in abortion. Is it a person though? That’s what the question usually is, but I thought we were discussing if it’s a human being or not. I’m just a befuddled old man…
a scientist using wikipedia as an authoritative source. wow!
Do you know that anyone can put info up on a wiki – anyone? The funny thing is that your comment right before the wikipedia mention using opinion pieces. hmmmm *scratches chin*
perhaps a new scientific method?
Bobby: you are NOT a befuddled old man. asitis came on here today and also for the past days and has been stating that at conception a human life does not exist. I know I can go back through several different threads and find comment after comment where she has stated this.
Since Bethany and I have posted our info for the benefit of Josephine and asitis, the argument has now been reframed to a question of personhood.
Bobby if you are interested I found a very very interesting piece on a website about personhood. I will send it to you.
TSTL, stop saying my name. I wasn’t part of your argument even a little bit. It seems as though you still aren’t even aware of what *I* was talking about.
Yes, I’d love to read it.
I’m sending it as we speak. Maybe you will understand it better than I – I’m sure you will because you have read a lot more philosophy than I have.
I think I get the gist of it though. You are probably a “screen reader” but I like to print stuff out and read it because I am an old befuddled (wo)man!
Josephine: the postings were for both you and asitis. and you WERE involved, but you never changed the parameters, nor did I say you did. asitis reframed the parameters. *peace sister*
Yes, I noticed Asitis was changing her wording too. She was all about “human life” there for a while, then she changed it to “human person”, and pretended like it was us who was changing our argument.
No, you’re not befuddled Bobby. There was a discussion going on, essentially between Josephine and others about what is human life and does scince say when it begins. Early on, tstl wrote that human personhood is the same thing as human life. Furthermore, he sttaed that it is a FACT that personhood begins at conception. Now, since personhood is the point at which individual rights are assigned, this is an important issue. More important than when human life begins.
As has been stated numerous times, and you yourself mentioned earlier, this debate is not a purely scientific one. It is more about philosphy and religion. And it most definitely is NOT a fact that personhood begins at conception. In occurs some time between then and birth. Will we ever reach consennsus. Likely not, largely due to different religious beliefs.
And for the record tstl, I am well aware of wikipedia. I chose two references that I though were relatively neutral. Bethany and others have cited wikipedia here, so I thought that would be acceptable. And the Religious Tolerance website looks like a reliable source. Stop trying to mock my status as a scientist. It doesn’t serve you well.
Hmmmm…. still waiting for that reference for HUMAN LIFE IS THE SAME AS PERSONHOOD AND IT’S A FACT THAT IT BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, tstl!
wiki is not a reliable source. Good for initial info but not much else.
The article you cited from wikipedia is rated as C class:
“The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.”
“Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.”
just so you know.
you never said you were interested asitis.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/nel/nel_01person1.html
enjoy!
oh and please don’t put it down because it’s Catholic. :-D
TSTL,
In several of my biology classes, we were told to use wikipedia as source. As in, we were SUPPOSED to use it, and then work from there.
Awesome tstl! Another citation (though hardly neutral!) that when personhood begins is a debate with religious, philisophical and scientic aspects. I suppose I should thank you.
Again, the personhood argument is philosophical, but not when human life begins, Asitis. That is provable. When are you going to admit this, since you have obviously changed your arguments and rephrased your questions?
Hmmmm…. still waiting for that reference for HUMAN LIFE IS THE SAME AS PERSONHOOD AND IT’S A FACT THAT IT BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, tstl!
When are you going to stop avoiding the original question?
How can you possibly feel justified trying to bug TSTL to answer your question (even though she has, repeatedly) when you don’t have the decency to answer the very first that we have asked you?
The burden is on you, to answer the original question.
sillyllas, to cure means to make well, restore health. Doctors most certainly do cure. You are being ridiculous, yet again.
You have friends who are surgeons? Sure you do.
You show the same misguided comtempt for doctors and medicine that you have shown elsewhere. What has made you such a bitter man?
Posted by: asitis at January 3, 2009 7:44 AM
More vague words such as “health”. Your a faker dudette. Impress me with some knowledge in that jack of all trades degree you have. Make a statement that shows any education value which goes beyound what is already known by science!!
At best you regurgitate what others have put in your head Asitis. Ther’re are millions who hold a degree(s) that accomplish nothing in life but regurgitating what others have educated/propagandized them to think and write.
That’s what education does dudette. Take Mike DeBakey, as a person trained as a surgeon, knowing all that a med school taught him, and then using nothingmore then his mind to actually increase the knowledge of the “medical arts”.
His pioneering efforts in cardiovascular techniques/methods, were never taught to him in med school, ASitis.
DeBakey taught the med schools his “techniques”, ASitis.
Or the discovery of “molds” as being anti -life, by Fleming. A mistake in the lab. Or modern plastics, another mistake in the lab.
Formal Education lags behind, and must lag behind scientific discoveries forever. Education of a MD is not research, and never will be. It’s a orthodoxy of what is accepted in the art of medicine.
You appear to be that lazy mind that has lost any inquiry into human development via the orthodoxy of abortion, and being a mere propagandist devoted to a culture of death.
Now, here is a question for ya ASsitis.
Once a person has suffered a infection, is full health restored to the area of the body(lung,heart, uterus, etc,) as it was before the infection by even a virus, much less a so called “bug”?
Of course I have friends who are surgeons and many more friends who are so called professionals, ASsitis.
It’s the nature of what I did, and my family member’s before me.
Which is why I know your a pompous faker and propagandist, and have no real knowledge of what your doing,or have done in your life as many faker’s are.
Care to answer that question about who is the chef inside your brain, since your such a educated person ASitis?
Hey, you know, a neuro-surgeon/reseacher explained to me how the brain sometime screws up the recipe it gives to those neurons which are unaware of themselves,Asitis.
Then the chef blames the other type of neuron which gathers the food for them to live.
Which neuron is that Asitis? Or is your education limted to knowledge of dead things, like Dino the dinousaur, and other factoids of your education?
See, there are those that explain and make education become a simple explaination for a complicated matter of “health sceince”, and those that feed dead factoids to young minds until they Bart Simpson out on life.
Care to discuss the science behind the MAF in modern automotive engine management, ASitis?
Why is the MAF preferred to early designs which relied on BARO and MAP senors in engine management?
Why are FOMOCO MAF’s notoriously known for giving false rich input to the “computer”?
Why are Ford electrical connectors always a culprit in hard to diagnose electrical problems in all FOMOCO products?
Tell me something “scientific”, you have solved in life that has made a difference to one person in this world ASsitis?
Let’s pick something that matters to everyday life ASsitis, and not some dead dinosour story, which does nothing for young minds. MMMM K?
I have nothing against education, but I detest fakers such as you Asitis.
How many minds have you turned to hearing that blah blah blah, Assitis?
Awaiting your answers to my simple questions ASitis.
.
When are you going to stop avoiding the original question?
How can you possibly feel justified trying to bug TSTL to answer your question (even though she has, repeatedly) when you don’t have the decency to answer the very first that we have asked you?
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2009 10:25 PM
Bethany, One final time…. it all boils down to personhood and that is a never-ending debate and precisely the reason I am not starting down that path with you.
Tell me something “scientific”, you have solved in life that has made a difference to one person in this world ASsitis…..I have nothing against education, but I detest fakers such as you Asitis.”
I’m not going to give you any further clues as my personal life sillyas, because I fear you are fairly close to Unabomber status. But trust that in my career I provided scientific results to people to be used for practical applications on a daily basis. That was what attracted me to my career, rather than research. I don’t know if you can apppreciate this, given your lack of experiences and interest in others.
“Of course I have friends who are surgeons and many more friends who are so called professionals, ASsitis.
It’s the nature of what I did, and my family
member’s before me.”
Sure, sure you do. What you “did”? What your family members did? What????? Does your family have a history of dropping out of society early in life, holing up with a bunch of books, teaching themselves about the world and then ranting about not being appreciated for their self-proclaimed brilliance?
Oh and BTW Bethany, tstl has NOT “answered my question” (provided a reference thatit is a FACT personhood begins at conception) yet. She cannot, because it is not a fact. That is why we have a debate. That is why abortion is legal.
TSTL,
In several of my biology classes, we were told to use wikipedia as source. As in, we were SUPPOSED to use it, and then work from there.
Posted by: Josephine at January 4, 2009 9:25 PM
I am quite sure you were Josephine. But it is not authoritative. You wouldn’t believe the number of students who cite wikipedia.
asitis: this is a case where science helps to reinforce a church teaching. Not one church teaching goes against scientific fact. Not one. That is because while science explains the whys and hows of the world and religion is about the creator of that world and our relationship to Him, they must invariably be connected.
It is why faith and reason also go together. Faith is the signpost that tells us if we are heading in the correct direction with our reasoning and our use of the world around us. I strongly suggest you read the entire document through to the end. Like many documents about our CATHOLIC faith and bioethics it IS quite interesting.
Oh and abortion is legal, not because we don’t know when personhood begins. We well know when personhood begins. We knew intuitively 35 years ago. It is that the idea of what constitues human life, being human and being a human person have been hijacked by scientists more interested in maniupulating the truth and seeking to use science for an evil end – the distortion of human sexuality and a false sense of freedom.
The purpore: so women and men can have freedom from the responsibilities of their promiscuity – millions upon millions of human persons formerly known as babies have been murdered.
What sort of woman are you that you want reproductive freedom at the expense of these millions of lives? You are no better than the Nazi commandant or the Southern slave owner. You have lost your true feminine identity and that’s a tragedy.
Oh and abortion is legal, not because we don’t know when personhood begins. We well know when personhood begins.Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 5:45 AM
No, tstl. We do not “know” when personhood begins. It is not a scientific fact and never will be. It is not just about science. Personhood begins sometime between conception and birth, depending on your beliefs. Society in general agrees on this and as such, abortion is legal.
“That is because while science explains the whys and hows of the world and religion is about the creator of that world and our relationship to Him, they must invariably be connected.”
Um, yeh, sure… if you have faith you could look at it that way. So what?
“Not one church teaching goes against scientific fact. Not one” Hmmm… didn’t the church used to teach that the earth couldn’t possible revolove around the sun? No, the universe HAD to be geocentric because we are God’s creation and he would put us at the centre of the universe? So what happened when it was proven otherwise? OMG! The Church must have changed it’s teaching.
Bethany, One final time…. it all boils down to personhood and that is a never-ending debate and precisely the reason I am not starting down that path with you.
One final time? You never admitted that this was the debate for days, Asitis. That was what my whole debate with you was about – you not being able to admit that you were arguing personhood, and NOT human life.
I want you to admit that HUMAN LIFE begins at fertilization. Not personhood, just human life. Be a decent person, an honest person, and answer the simple question which has NOTHING to do with personhood.
Oh what a tangled web we weave
when we practice to deceive.
Oh and BTW Bethany, tstl has NOT “answered my question” (provided a reference thatit is a FACT personhood begins at conception) yet. She cannot, because it is not a fact. That is why we have a debate. That is why abortion is legal.
You have not answered my question. Who are you to talk?
Yllas, I agree with your sentiment.
What sort of woman are you that you want reproductive freedom at the expense of these millions of lives? You are no better than the Nazi commandant or the Southern slave owner. You have lost your true feminine identity and that’s a tragedy.
(((((Applause)))))))
No, tstl. We do not “know” when personhood begins. It is not a scientific fact and never will be. It is not just about science. Personhood begins sometime between conception and birth, depending on your beliefs. Society in general agrees on this and as such, abortion is legal.
Stop arguing personhood when our debate is about human life. You switched it in the middle in a deceitful manner, and we never have gotten to the meat of the issue at hand.
Explain when *human life* begins. NOT personhood. NOT consciousness. NOT viability. NOT anything else, but new biological human life.
If you want to discuss personhood, I’ll be happy to accomodate you- however, we first have to get past the human life issue, because it is a completely separate issue.
Dishonesty is unbecoming of you, Asitis.
Betahny, I have never disputed what you have been saying about human life: that the development of human life begins with conception (well, actually it could start before than with an egg or sperm, couldn’t it?). But when we are talking about abortion rights (which we ultimately are),we are talking about when is this human life, whatever form it is, a person?
You yourself have been dishonest, trying to entice your opponents into a “simple” question of when does “human life” begin (which in itself can be vague), knowing full well that you will then jump from there into ah ha! that’s when personhood begins. TSTL tried to make this leap yesterday:
@Bethany: seems without much difficulty you and I have both been able to locate a few textbooks that teach the fact that human life – a new
human person begins at conception.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 4, 2009 4:26 PM
but I caught it, called her on it and then you accused me of changing the discussion. When in reality, that is what the discussion was about all along.
You can study embryology all you want Bethany and discuss the scientific facts of human development. But personhood goes beyond science Bethany. And I suggest that you are being dishonest when you don’t admit (to yourself or others) that your stance on abortion has alot to do with your Christian faith.
“You have lost your true feminine identity and that’s a tragedy”.
Such a tragedy for all men then, that there are so few “real woman” anymore. Maybe that’s why we have more gays???????? Out of necessity? ;)
Betahny, I have never disputed what you have been saying about human life: that the development of human life begins with conception (well, actually it could start before than with an egg or sperm, couldn’t it?)
Oh my goodness. YES YOU DID!!! Do I need to gather the quotes to prove it to you? Do you have such a poor memory?
. But when we are talking about abortion rights (which we ultimately are),we are talking about when is this human life, whatever form it is, a person?
No, we begin with the most basic of facts- that a human being is present at fertilization.
You yourself have been dishonest, trying to entice your opponents into a “simple” question of when does “human life” begin (which in itself can be vague), knowing full well that you will then jump from there into ah ha! that’s when personhood begins. TSTL tried to make this leap yesterday:
No, Asitis. I simply wanted an honest answer from you about when a human life biologically begins, and you were unable to do that for me, until now when you are pretending to have already answered it. You DID dispute that ***human life*** begins at fertilization.
but I caught it, called her on it and then you accused me of changing the discussion. When in reality, that is what the discussion was about all along.
No, that was YOUR discussion all along. We were talking about biological life until you kept saying, Let’s talk about personhood! Then TSTL tried to accomodate you, and you say “ha! SEE!”
lol How ridiculous.
You can study embryology all you want Bethany and discuss the scientific facts of human development. But personhood goes beyond science Bethany.
And again, personhood has nothing to do with what I was asking, asitis. You’re just too dishonest to admit it.
nd I suggest that you are being dishonest when you don’t admit (to yourself or others) that your stance on abortion has alot to do with your Christian faith.
Nope. It never had anything to do with my Christian faith. And when I became a Christian, my stance on pro-life issues were merely reinforced.
(well, actually it could start before than with an egg or sperm, couldn’t it?)
And you call yourself a scientist?
Such a tragedy for all men then, that there are so few “real woman” anymore. )
I agree.
(well, actually it could start before than with an egg or sperm, couldn’t it?)
Another biology lesson for you, Asitis.
Ovum
ovum
1. The female reproductive cell which, after fertilization, develops into a new member of the same species (von baer, 1827), an egg.
*****************
An ovum is a potential for new human life, but is not (and cannot ever be) human life unless fertilized by the sperm.
*****************
Sperm
Definition
noun, plural: sperms
The male gamete or reproductive cell involved in sexual reproduction. It is produced by a male organism that unites with the egg of a female organism forming a zygote.
*************
A sperm has the potential to become human life, but will not, and cannot ever be human life without the ovum.
*************
Neither the sperm or the ovum can individually develop into a baby, and to even suggest that human life begins with one or the other is completely ignorant.
Bethany, go gather all the quotes you want about what I have said to you on this topic. I have been careful NOT to enter into this debate with you because, while I am a newbie in dealing with pro-lifers (especially uber pro-lifers!) I recognized your tactic early one.
We’re not going to get anywhere on this. You and I are an example.
And BTW, when I say human development could be said to start with a sperm or egg, that’s not necessarily wrong. Each hold the promise of life. Without either, human life cannot be created.
(well, actually it could start before than with an egg or sperm, couldn’t it?)
And you call yourself a scientist?
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 7:33 AMDon’t question
And stop this nonsense about my status as a scientist. You might call yourself a scientist based on the advanced knowledge of embryology that you consider yourself to have from years of self study. Let’s say you are. Heck, let’s say you even got multiple degrees in it from Harvard and then worked in research facility! If you don’t have advanced knowledge of say, petrology, I’m not going to accuse you of not being a scientist. That’s just ridiculous. Stop being ridiculous.
Bethany, go gather all the quotes you want about what I have said to you on this topic. I have been careful NOT to enter into this debate with you because, while I am a newbie in dealing with pro-lifers (especially uber pro-lifers!) I recognized your tactic early one.
No, you ASSumed my tactic.
And stop this nonsense about my status as a scientist. You might call yourself a scientist based on the advanced knowledge of embryology that you consider yourself to have from years of self study. Let’s say you are. Heck, let’s say you even got multiple degrees in it from Harvard and then worked in research facility! If you don’t have advanced knowledge of say, petrology, I’m not going to accuse you of not being a scientist. That’s just ridiculous. Stop being ridiculous.
You SHOULD know basic biology, Asitis. I cannot have any respect for a person who calls herself a scientist and then claims that there is no consensus on when new biological human life begins.
You’re either not knowledgeable as you claim to be, or you are lying about what you actually do know.
“As has been pointed out before, there is no consensus among scientists as to when human life begins.”
(this is one example of you referring to personhood, and calling it “human life”)
“Ahhhh…. but it’s not a universal belief nor a scientific fact that embryos and fetuses are human beings as are born people, so protecting them does NOT fall in the same category. Otherwise, there would be no debate.”
“Sigh. No eileen it is not safe to assume that. As has been pointed out before, there is no consensus among scientists as to when human life begins. ”
“WTF eileen?? Okay, so change my “when human life begins” to ” when the thing is a human being”. Same diff”
“Bri, textbooks ” merely refrain” from saying when life begins because there IS no consensus. Thank you. I also like the way you state human life began millenia ago…. You wouldn’t by any chance mean a mere few millenia ago would you? Hahahahaha”
“how bout not YET a human being truthseeker. I think that is what scientists don’t agree on. ”
“Thank you Bobby. This is what I have been trying to say all along – that science has not and probably never will provide us with the definitive answer as to when human life begins because it is not just a scientific debate. It is philsophical and religious as well. ”
“Sure Rae. I was referring to a human person. When truth seeker asked me “is a living human embryo a human life?” It’s safe to assume that by “human life” he specifically meant a separate human being/person.”
(the above comment explains your mistake. That you believe that the human being argument and the personhood argument are one and the same. They’re not.)
“Had he said or meant “is a living human embryo some form of human life” I would have said yes. But to ask if it is a human being or a human person is like asking if an acorn is an oak. And science does not provide us with a definite answer for that, nor will it likely ever.
Yes, I assumed your tactic. Quite correctly assumed it!
No, not lying at all Bethany. And I am indeed a scientist and more recognized as one than you are given my advanced degrees, publications, and career experiences. If I gave you my name (which I won’t because some people here scare me) you would quickly see this.
I bet you don’t even know what petrology is, do you? (Or didn’t before you just now looked it up!).
Okay, I don’t think there’s much else to say and I’m off to pilates. Ta!
Yes, I assumed your tactic. Quite correctly assumed it!
No, sweetie, you didn’t.
I bet you don’t even know what petrology is, do you? (Or didn’t before you just now looked it up!).
Another pretentious ASSumption. Try again.
Okay, I don’t think there’s much else to say and I’m off to pilates. Ta!
Ta Ta!
Bethany, all those quotes do is confirm that I have been saying all along that it is not a FACT that a human person is created at conception and that some people here use human life when what they really getting at is human person.
Thank you.
Still waiting for you to admit that human life begins at fertilization.
No, Asitis, you never said “PERSON”. you said HUMAN BEING.
And HUMAN LIFE.
You are lying, quite blatantly I might add.
and that some people here use human life when what they really getting at is human person.
Not this person, and you have yet to answer the question when I even specified that was not the case.
Dang! Now I’m too late……
Still waiting for you to admit that human life begins at fertilization.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:14 AM
Okay, okay. Yes! I’ll admit that at fertilization human life BEGINS. Some form of human life exists then. Okay…. so what next?
I bet you don’t even know what petrology is, do you? (Or didn’t before you just now looked it up!).
Another pretentious ASSumption. Try again.
Pretensious yes, but you must admit I’m pretty good at assumptions!
Pretensious yes, but you must admit I’m pretty good at assumptions!
No, you’re terrible at them. I actually did know what that meant. lol
Okay, okay. Yes! I’ll admit that at fertilization human life BEGINS. Some form of human life exists then. Okay…. so what next?
GOOD! Thank you.
That’s all for today, Asitis.
By the way, even my 8 year old son knows what petrology is. Roflmbo What, did you think it was some obscure word that no one has ever heard of?
By the way, even my 8 year old son knows what petrology is. Roflmbo What, did you think it was some obscure word that no one has ever heard of?
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:30 AM
Does he REALLY? Well, very basically, it means the study of rocks. But does your son know how petrology is different from petrography or mineralogy?
Why would it matter, Asitis? He’s 8.
By the way, you’re starting to sound just a tad superficial.
How are those pilates coming?
Why would it matter, Asitis? He’s 8.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:44 AM
Well….. you said he knows what petrology is. I suspect by that, you mean that if you asked him, he’d probably say “The study of rocks, momma!” Which is probably the same answer he’d give for petrography or possibly mineralogy.
How’s pilates? I already told you, I was too late to make my class thanks to this distraction (my own fault) :(.
Does pilates make me “superficial”? Hmmmmmm
Does pilates make me “superficial”? Hmmmmmm
No, implying that there was something to be concerned with if my son didn’t know the difference between petrography and mineralogy at age 8 is. lmbo
The comment about the pilates was because I was amused by the fact that you frequently say you’re leaving but usually don’t.
Well….. you said he knows what petrology is. I suspect by that, you mean that if you asked him, he’d probably say “The study of rocks, momma!” Which is probably the same answer he’d give for petrography or possibly mineralogy.
And your point is…?
My point is…. you say that even your 8 year old son knows what petrology. But he doesn’t really, does he? Do you even know?
Petrology is not, as you suggested, an obscure word. I think most people would say “oh, yeh I think that’s the study of rocks”. But they don’t really know what it is.
No, implying that there was something to be concerned with if my son didn’t know the difference between petrography and mineralogy at age 8 is. lmbo
No, I never implied there was something to be concerned about. Instead I was suggesting that you were overstating your son’s understanding of what petrology is.
The comment about the pilates was because I was amused by the fact that you frequently say you’re leaving but usually don’t.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:57 AM
“usually don’t”? Maybe my iPhone is confusing you!
My point is…. you say that even your 8 year old son knows what petrology. But he doesn’t really, does he? Do you even know?
Petrology is not, as you suggested, an obscure word. I think most people would say “oh, yeh I think that’s the study of rocks”. But they don’t really know what it is.
I didn’t tell you what it was, Asitis. So you do not know my definition of it. (I see no reason my knowledge of it is relevant to this discussion anyway, but I digress). There’s no point in explaining it to you when you have already assumed I’ll be getting my information from the internet. Fortunately, I know better and that is all that matters to me. Your little ol opinion about me doesn’t matter.
“usually don’t”? Maybe my iPhone is confusing you!
Nope, I think most likely it’s the fact that you’re still here long after you said you were leaving the discussion. ;-)
No, I never implied there was something to be concerned about. Instead I was suggesting that you were overstating your son’s understanding of what petrology is.
He knows what it is. That’s all there is to it, Asitis.
I didn’t tell you what it was, Asitis. So you do not know my definition of it. (I see no reason my knowledge of it is relevant to this discussion anyway, but I digress). There’s no point in explaining it to you when you have already assumed I’ll be getting my information from the internet. Fortunately, I know better and that is all that matters to me. Your little ol opinion about me doesn’t matter.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 9:12 AM
Bethany, you don’t need to tell me how much you know about petrology. I have a good idea what that is anyway seeing as you thin your 8 year old son knows what petrology is (The study of rocks momma!).
Why is it relevant? Remember how it came up:
And stop this nonsense about my status as a scientist. You might call yourself a scientist based on the advanced knowledge of embryology
that you consider yourself to have from years of self study. Let’s say you are. Heck, let’s say you even got multiple degrees in it from Harvard and then worked in research facility! If you don’t have advanced knowledge of say, petrology, I’m not going to accuse you of not being a scientist. That’s just ridiculous. Stop being ridiculous.
Like I said………..
Posted by: asitis at January 5, 2009 8:00 AM
Asitis, being a scientist means that you would need to know how human life begins- it’s basic- whether you are in Earth science or whatever science you happen to be into.
What I have learned does not require me to be an expert in petrology.
By the way, even my 8 year old son knows what petrology is. Roflmbo
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:30
I bet you feel foolish now, hmmm? Oh well, at least no one saw you rolling on the floor except maybe your son!
And I DON’T call myself a scientist, except above when I said it out of sarcasm of your loose definition of it. I am not a scientist.
I bet you feel foolish now, hmmm?
Why would I?
Asitis, being a scientist means that you would need to know how human life begins- it’s basic- whether you are in Earth science or whatever science you happen to be into.
What I have learned does not require me to be an expert in petrology.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 9:28 AM
Bethany, I never had an interest in studying biology. I took high school biology as required and then had to take one first year university course in general biology. After that I took some specialized biology course, none in human biology though. It was never specifically taught, that I can recall, that human life begins at a certain point although certainly human development was covered. Being a scientist means you have to know when human life begins? I can see how that’s a pretty basic thing. But realy, it’s a rule?
Hmmm, I could say, well in order to walk upon this earth you need to know how that bedrock under your feet was formed. It’s pretty basic no matter what science you happen to be into!
I bet you feel foolish now, hmmm?
Why would I?
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 9:34 AM
Beacuse you thought it was so funny that even your 8 year old knows what petrolgy is… when in fact he doesn’t and neither do(did)you!:
Does he REALLY? Well, very basically, it means the study of rocks. But does your son know how petrology is different from petrography or mineralogy?
Posted by: asitis at January 5, 2009 8:39 AM
Why would it matter, Asitis?
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:44 AM
Bethany, I never had an interest in studying biology.
Okay, that makes your position make more sense now. So you don’t understand biology and human development and didn’t really have an interest in the subject- no biggie. Just try not to pretend like you have Scientific authority on the subject.
Beacuse you thought it was so funny that even your 8 year old knows what petrolgy is… when in fact he doesn’t and neither do(did)you!:
It was (and still is) funny. You automatically assumed out of pretentiousness that I didn’t know what it was. However, unfortunately for you, I did, and my son did too. I never said he was an expert on the subject (and he doesn’t have to be, in order to have a basic understanding of what it is)- I said he knows what it is, and that is still true.
Betany, if you and your son don’t know that petrology is different from petrography then you don’t even have a BASIC understanding of what petrology is. Period. You cooked your goose on that one!
the branch of geology that studies rocks: their origin and formation and mineral composition and classification
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
That’s all he needs to know. Although I never said that’s all he does know.
Oh wait though…maybe the person who wrote that dictionary didn’t have a true basic understanding of petrology, because if you’ll notice, it mentions nothing about petrography!
Interesting…
Bethany, I never had an interest in studying biology.
Okay, that makes your position make more sense now. So you don’t understand biology and human development and didn’t really have an interest in the subject- no biggie. Just try not to pretend like you have Scientific authority on the subject.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 9:48 AM
I have NOT tried to pretend I am the scientific authority on embryology or any kind of biology for than matter Bethany (I have always been more interested in the physical sciences)! I have never claimed to have anything but a basic knowledge of human biology.
I have NOT tried to pretend I am the scientific authority on embryology or any kind of biology for than matter Bethany (I have always been more interested in the physical sciences)! I have never claimed to have anything but a basic knowledge of human biology.
You have tried when you denied it was a biological fact that a human being is created at the moment of fertilization, and used your label as Scientist to give yourself more credibility.
You tried when you denied that there is a consensus as to when new human life begins in the womb, and again, used your label as Scientist to give yourself more credibility.
As fun as this has been, now, I really have to go. I’ll talk to you more later- Have a good day!
Bethany my argument has always been (though perhaps my terminology has been ambiguous given my newbieness) that there is no consensus, no scientific fact, that the life form present at fertlization or anytime before birth is a human being with the same value and right as a born human being. That is, it is not a person. Furthermore, there will never be scientific proof of such, because it is not simply a matter of science.
Oh wait though…maybe the person who wrote that dictionary didn’t have a true basic understanding of petrology, because if you’ll notice, it mentions nothing about petrography!
Interesting…
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 10:02 AM
Huh?????
I’m outta here too. Really.
It’s been a slice Bethany.
Not one church teaching goes against scientific fact. Not one” Hmmm… didn’t the church used to teach that the earth couldn’t possible revolove around the sun? No, the universe HAD to be geocentric because we are God’s creation and he would put us at the centre of the universe? So what happened when it was proven otherwise? OMG! The Church must have changed it’s teaching.
Posted by: asitis at January 5, 2009 6:41 AM
I was speaking on the matter of bioethics. However, concerning your discussion about Galileo, the FACTS are that the church did not dispute Galileo’s findings – in fact Church scientists had speculated that the Earth orbited the Sun earlier. However, because he was not able to PROVE his theory (in the same way that we cannot PROVE evolution), Galileo was ordered not to teach his theory as FACT. This was due to the fact that the Church was concerned about the loss of faith. He respected the Inquisition tribunal’s request and never did. Later he was proven correct.
I bet you don’t even know what petrology is, do you?
Becareful asitis because some of us have way more knowledge than we are willing to admit on these BB’s! Don’t throw things like this in people’s faces asitis. Why do you feel the need to intellectually bully people one here? What’s up with that – you have low scientific self-esteem or what?
————————————————-
No, Asitis, you never said “PERSON”. you said HUMAN BEING.
And HUMAN LIFE.
You are lying, quite blatantly I might add.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:16 AM
Bethany, I can completely vouch for you on this one. This is exactly WHAT asitis wrote and discussed. She stated that human life does not beginat conception. In fact, that was what was so unbelievable about the entire conversation – the fact that an earth scientist (who should have studied a wide range of sciences in university) would be unable to reason or deduce that human life exists at conception (I mean what other kind of life do human reproduce?)
I was speaking on the matter of bioethics.
Just to clarify: I should also mention that the Church works with the science available at the time and always errs on the side of life. Always.
Does he REALLY? Well, very basically, it means the study of rocks. But does your son know how petrology is different from petrography or mineralogy?
Posted by: asitis at January 5, 2009 8:39 AM
really who cares a flying fig? Does your 8 year old know about Fibonacci sequences and bernoulli coeffecients? Does he know about foraminifera, bryozoa, or kyanite? What about diabase, event horizons and separation axioms?
What is the point?
I think Bethany’s point was that having a basic understanding of biology and reproduction are probably more relevant to the average person’s life than them having a basic understanding of petrology or stratigraphy.
Yllas, I agree with your sentiment.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 6:51 AM
I have posted to you many times to challenge your faith and facts on religion, but never on abortion.
Congratulations on taking my guff Bethany!!!
In the final analysis of abortion, it’s a act that will always return to itself in some distant memory till one dies. It’s a failure of confidence in the future, and ends in the foolishness of denying their cowardness and doubt within thmeselves. Such as Asitis, and others who must not look upon their children and wonder what the one she murdered might have been as a “person” and not a “thing”.
I wrote that this site will cease to exist a few months back. And it might just end up that way.
So, good work Bethany, and in the end, Jill wrote good articles and tryed to reason with her “personal commentators” that are impossible to rational discourse from loving their culture of death.
That Jill asked Asitis to be like that Swifter commercial is interesting, and either thought that Asitis was rational and open minded, or totally misread Asitis as being more then that propagandistic mind puppet for abortion.
“When we step into the family, by the act of being born, we do step into a world which is incalculable, into a world which has its own strange laws, into a world which could do without us, into a world we have not made. In other words, when we step into the family we step into a fairy-tale.” – GK Chesterton-Heretics, CW, I, p.143
Remember Bethany, God is with us all this day.
what’s the point tstl? The point is Bethany was rotfl because EVEN her 8 year old son knows what petrology is….. When he really doesn’t and neither does Bethany. And for the record, I wasn’t bullying. Instead I was telling Bethany it is unreasonable to question a person’s status as a scientist based on their knowledge of a much different scientific discipline. Nice try again
oh you were talking about bioethics tstl??? Oh I was pretty sure you asked for how the church’s teachings disagreed with scientific facts. Wasn’t that what you asked? Gosh, too bad the age of the earth isn’t a bioethics issue because I probably would have gone there next! ;)
no one knows for sure the age of the earth asitis. so give it up please.
all humans can do is give our opinion based on the best science of the day. But that science is fraught with assumptions.
please do you ever take your head out of your navel? really!
The Catholic Church is NOT a church of science although it does have scholars who are bothscientists and priests. It’s primary directive here on earth is to help people get to heaven. Therefore it is concerned primarily with theology and philosophy. But it is concerned with the nature of man and his spiritual welfare and all that encompasses this realm including science, social sciences etc. as they impact man. What a sin that you feel so compelled to attack the Catholic faith.
That Jill asked Asitis to be like that Swifter commercial is interesting, and either thought that Asitis was rational and open minded, or totally misread Asitis as being more then that propagandistic mind puppet for abortion.
What the heck are you talking about yllas?
When he really doesn’t and neither does Bethany.
I love how she “knows” what I know. Add “mind reader” to her list of accomplishments. lol
Yllas wrote: Such as Asitis, and others who must not look upon their children and wonder what the one she murdered might have been as a “person” and not a “thing”.
Asitis, did you have an abortion? I must have missed it if you wrote about it at one point, but I must admit it would help me understand why you fight the idea of humanity in the womb so much.
@Bethany:well the fact that she picked some obscure science such as petrology or petrography to try to trip you up? I wonder how many petrologists there are in the world today? And how relevant is it to everyday living – not much except maybe to materials science.
The fact is, asitis, is an exscientist. She no longer practices as a scientist. She has expert knowledge in some area of geology (there are many areas, you know) but we don’t know exactly which area. So it’s hard to know just how expert she is and how much science knowledge she actually has. By her own admission, she has little experience or life sciences knowledge (a little unusual for geologists, but maybe the programs have changed). If you are going to portray yourself as an expert, then you ought to put forward your credentials. Just my opinion, that’s all.
Asitis, did you have an abortion? I must have missed it if you wrote about it at one point, but I must admit it would help me understand why you fight the idea of humanity in the womb so much.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 5:49 PM
I saw this and wondered myself.
Okay, first off: No, I have never had an abortion. I have been pregnant twice in my life, both planned, and have two wonderful sons as a result.
And now, tstl stop the nonsense about exscientist. As I explained before I am still and a scientist though, by choice, I don’t work as one right now. But if I wanted to, I could work in my field tomorrow. Still qualified! (In fact was involved in some scientific research this past year. I was flown to a rather beautiful and exotic location because of my scientific expoertise (yes, luycky girl!) as a matter of fact). And tstl, I don’t know where you get your information, but it’s not normal for most geology progams to include alot of biology courses.
I wonder how many petrologists there are in the world today? And how relevant is it to everyday living – not much except maybe to materials science.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 6:05 PM
Materials science tstl? What kind work in material science?
It’s not my specialization, but I think outside of academia and scientific research, petrologists must work mainly in the mining and petroleum industries. Hmmm…. d’ya think those are relevant to everyday living????
I have posted to you many times to challenge your faith and facts on religion, but never on abortion.
Congratulations on taking my guff Bethany!!!
Yes, you have and I admit many times I got huffy with you over it but I did research everything you said and I actually learned a lot about some protestant denominations that I didn’t know- and a little of the history of many different historical protestants that I also did not know.
I can actually see how you see it now, but if I had continued to be angry with you, I may not have actually taken a deeper look at what you were trying to say. I have learned much from your posts, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with something you say – we always agree on abortion.
I find your style of debate really strange but fascinating …and while it might seem antagonistic, there is actually a lot of substance in it, if one wants to really look.
never knew any petrologist’s who worked in petroleum.
I’ve heard of geochemists, geologists, geophysicists, paleontologists,
geologists were expected to be able to determine the types of rocks in cuttings and so forth…
Still qualified! (In fact was involved in some scientific research this past year. I was flown to a rather beautiful and exotic location because of my scientific expoertise (yes, luycky girl!) as a matter of fact).
we of course, have to take your word for this, but I remain skeptical based on the quality of your posts here. I’d really like to think the best, really I would…
@Bethany:well the fact that she picked some obscure science such as petrology or petrography to try to trip you up? I wonder how many petrologists there are in the world today? And how relevant is it to everyday living – not much except maybe to materials science.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 6:05 PM
Hey tstl, I found something for you. It describes this obscure and worthless science to you in pretty basic terms. And I was pretty much on when I suggested that most jobs are in the mining and petroleum industries. Hmmmm….. go figure. I guess I do know a thing or two. Clairvoyant and smart! ;)
oops, maybe not so smart afterall (or at least not when making dinner)…. here’s the link:
http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/careerprofiles_details.cfm?carid=402
What are you making for dinner, Asitis? :-)
“never knew any petrologist’s who worked in petroleum”.
Uh oh tstl! Really??????????????
“we of course, have to take your word for this, but I remain skeptical based on the quality of your posts here”
right…. because you know sooooo much about science and scientists in general! Oh you should just stop tstl! Really!
Pasta. Always quick after hockey games!
You, Bethany?
Well I was planning to go to my mom’s and make General Tso’s, but plans changed and I won’t do that till tomorrow. Today, I ended up getting Burger King whopper jr’s. lol
I love pasta! :)
I never claimed they weren’t in those industries asitis: reread my post honey.
after all it is a “hard-rock” discipline within geology which would explain why I’ve not seen it in soft-rock oil exploration.
stop your navel gazing asitis. Are you a petrologist?
We had chicken tortilla’s. Very good.
We had chicken tortilla’s. Very good.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 7:16 PM
You sure it was chicken tstl? Not crow??????
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahaha! OMG you make this too easy!
how’s the reading going on that article I gave you asitis?
goodbye asitis.
you are not worth the effort.
after all it is a “hard-rock” discipline within geology which would explain why I’ve not seen it in soft-rock oil exploration.
stop your navel gazing asitis. Are you a petrologist?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 7:15 PM
Oh really?????? You better explain that to all those sedimentary petrologists then!
Caw, caw, caw! Quick, shoot it tstl. More dinner for you!!!!!
And no, I already told you petrology is not my specialization.
you know asitis, really, you have no idea, you have NO idea! You think you are the only one on this board who knows anything.
First you were the science expert, then the when human life begins expert, and now the expert on petrology.
You are so full of yourself and you’re so self-centered, I really have to laugh. OMG, if you read the posts. I mean, really read the posts. :0) it’s too funny!
Um no…. I NEVER said I was an expert on petrololy. In fact, more than once I specifically have said it is not my area of specialization. BUT I do know a thing or two about it, having taken Do yourself a favor and stop.
Really.
Chicken tortillas…yum. I just love food, and I’m getting hungry again now. :D
Hmmmmm….. some of my words got lost. That should have read:
Um no…. I NEVER said I was an expert on petrology. In fact, more than once I specifically have said it is not my area of specialization. BUT I do know a thing or two about it, having taken some courses and I do understand what it’s all about. You on the other hand do not, and the more you try to convince us otherwise, the more your ignore shows. Do yourself a favor and stop.
Really.
Um no…. I NEVER said I was an expert on petrololy. In fact, more than once I specifically have said it is not my area of specialization. BUT I do know a thing or two about it, having taken Do yourself a favor and stop.
say what? are you drinking????
really read this post too!
Just remember, you are THE scientist who told us that a human woman is not pregnant with a human life. ok?
Asitis, I think people are attracted to you when you act with humility, but sometimes it is very hard to see past that pride that you often display to be able to see the you that you want us to see.
Do you know what I mean? There have been moments that I really like you- I think i like you the most when you don’t act like you’re better than everyone else, but just a regular old person like me and others here. Being a scientist doesn’t make you any smarter than anyone else.
You have a side of you that is nice, friendly, and likeable…but you have a hard time getting that niceness across when you debate.
And I admit, sometimes I have the same problem, but I try my best to at the very least admit when I’m wrong.
maybe you should just stick to rocks and other nonliving entities….
Being a scientist doesn’t make you any smarter than anyone else.
Bethany, in all honesty, I think alot of scientists today suffer from a lack of humility. It’s this lack of humility which has destroyed the science ethic and changed it from a discipline that serves man to one that is gradually being used to enslave him.
Bethany, in all honesty, I think alot of scientists today suffer from a lack of humility. It’s this lack of humility which has destroyed the science ethic and changed it from a discipline that serves man to one that is gradually being used to enslave him.
Well said.
Oh, I totally hear you Bethany. And I’m not really full of myself. Though I do so love being a brat sometimes, don’t you?
C’mon…. tstl has tried to cast doubt on the validity of my scientific background and status as a scientist repeatedly. Fair enough… no, more than fair enough… for me to call her out when she is absolutely wrong and the just digs herself in deeper. I have never suffered fools lightly.
say what? are you drinking????
really read this post too!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 7:49 PMHmmmmm….. some of my words got lost.
No, not drinking tstl. Somehow some of my words got lost in cyberspace. Here is the full post again, in case you missed it:
That should have read:
Um no…. I NEVER said I was an expert on petrology. In fact, more than once I specifically have said it is not my area of specialization. BUT I do know a thing or two about it, having taken some courses and I do understand what it’s all about. You on the other hand do not, and the more you try to convince us otherwise, the more your ignore shows. Do yourself a favor and stop.
Really.
Posted by: asitis at January 5, 2009 7:47 PM
There I hope that’s the end of that. I don’t mean to give the impression that I know it all, but when you continue to challenge me on something that I do know about and you are wrong, I will call you on it, honey. So stop the nonsense on whether I am a scientist or not. And I’ll stop having to show how wrong you are.
Oh, I totally hear you Bethany. And I’m not really full of myself. Though I do so love being a brat sometimes, don’t you?
Sometimes. If I feel pushed hard enough I do get pretty sarcastic (and irritable too, I know). I’d rather be real with people though, know what I mean?
C’mon…. tstl has tried to cast doubt on the validity of my scientific background and status as a scientist repeatedly. Fair enough… no, more than fair enough… for me to call her out when she is absolutely wrong and the just digs herself in deeper. I have never suffered fools lightly.
Posted by: asitis at January 5, 2009 7:57 PM
when a scientist such as your claim to be, comes on a blog and makes the outrageous statement about human life that you have made, you lose all credibility.
Once again, you deflected this by attacking me personally.
you are so interested in promoting yourself as this incredibly intelligent, knowledgeable scientist who is in such demand, that it is almost impossible to take you seriously.
What is funny to me and my family is that you don’t even get half of the comments I’ve made, and because of this I can’t help but doubt you.
all I can say is it takes a fool to know one.
whether you realize it or not, you are reminiscent to SoMG who use to post on here.
He claimed he was a medical doctor (which he may very well have been) but no matter what source was cited to him, even researchers with excellent credentials, he was always more knowledgeable, more authoritative than they.
Please don’t set yourself up to be like this. It just doesn’t look good and if you are as you state, a geologist, you give geologists a bad name. You represent a profession, and the internet is a VERY small place.
Hmmmmm, funny tstl. So, all those wrong statements you made in the past couple hours were actually correct?
“Incredibly intelligent”? You overestimate me, but thanks. No, I would just say smart. Oh, actually, I did say smart, didn’t I (clairvoyant and smart to be exact!). And in “such demand”? Well, let’s just say rather than being no longer employable as you keep suggesting, I am infact employable and that little all-expense paid jaunt to do some scientific work in paradise last year really did happen. And yes, I was being a brat mentioning it.
What is your background by the way tstl? I’m curious.
Sometimes. If I feel pushed hard enough I do get pretty sarcastic (and irritable too, I know). I’d rather be real with people though, know what I mean?
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:15 PM
absolutely! YOu did an awesome job yesterday Bethany.
“Incredibly intelligent”? You overestimate me, but thanks. No, I would just say smart. Oh, actually, I did say smart, didn’t I (clairvoyant and smart to be exact!). And in “such demand”?
this is exactly what I mean. The lack of humility is quite astonishing, really.
It’s amazing what the Internet makes a person do and what pathologies it brings to the surface.
absolutely! YOu did an awesome job yesterday Bethany.
Why thank you, TSTL! I thought you did well too. :)
And for the record….. I have not intended to make any claims to having scientific expertise about human life and human development. In fact, I have tried to stay out of those dicussions. My point has always been, that abortion rights comes down to the issue of personhood. And that’s about so much more than science. And will likely never be resolved.
“Incredibly intelligent”? You overestimate me, but thanks. No, I would just say smart. Oh, actually, I did say smart, didn’t I (clairvoyant and smart to be exact!). And in “such demand”?
this is exactly what I mean. The lack of humility is quite astonishing, really.
It’s amazing what the Internet makes a person do and what pathologies it brings to the surface.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 8:38 PM
OH MY GOD tstl? Have you no sense of humor!
People who see themselves as “smart” really have not gained much wisdom. People who are truly wise realize that they have much to learn, no matter how knowledgeable they really are. I’d rather be wise than ‘smart’ any day (and hopefully I will gain that as I get older!)
I’d rather be wise than ‘smart’ any day (and hopefully I will gain that as I get older!)
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:45 PM
ditto. There’s much more to life than just book learning. (I can’t believe I just wrote that , oh dear!!) :0D
I can tell you’re actually in kind of a silly mood tonight, Asitis. I’m much more relaxed this evening than I was this afternoon. Don’t know why. I guess it’s just so peaceful and all the kids are asleep.
Oops, you know what? I thought what TSTL wrote was Asitis…that’s why I was confused. lol
Sorry toostunned! I must be tired.
And for the record….. I have not intended to make any claims to having scientific expertise about human life and human development. In fact, I have tried to stay out of those dicussions. My point has always been, that abortion rights comes down to the issue of personhood. And that’s about so much more than science. And will likely never be resolved.
Okay. Since we know that it is now about personhood for you, Asitis…what would it take to convince you that a human fetus is a person? I’m not talking about universally accepted- I’m talking about your personal opinion. What would it take?
And maybe you could humor us and explain what personhood really means?
Unfortunately ,now that I have just asked the questions, I need to get offline. I’ll be back tomorrow hopefully to see if you’ve responded though! :) Have a good night, TSTL and Asitis.
By the way, I have to say before I go- I just LOVED this little smiley (8:47). He made me smile.
:0D
Bethany I do want to leave you with this. There are moments when I really like you as well. But I also find that you are far more charitable toward ardent pro-life commentaters. tstl has been outright rude, repeatedly to me, and I have responded to that. And yet, you say nothing to her about playing nice. Could you imagine if say Hal, Doug, Josephine, Bystander or I ranted and raved and hurled insults and accusations as some of the your comrades do? I’m relatively new here, but I’ve noticed this before and a bit right now.
thanks, I’m off too. Got a sick child to tend to. :-P
asitis:you can be a brat, I can call you in on it!
Have a sweet evening with your boys and hubby.
:0}
I can tell you’re actually in kind of a silly mood tonight, Asitis. I’m much more relaxed this evening than I was this afternoon.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 8:49 PM
Yes, silly and feisty tonight. A good combination. You must admit the crow jokes were fun!
Have a good night Bethany. Sweet dreams. :)
asitis:you can be a brat, I can call you in on it!Have a sweet evening with your boys and hubby.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 5, 2009 9:05 PM
Yes a brat and many things!I’m not really your stereotypical scientist, at all,tstl.
Alas, husband away on business, just me and the boys! Sweet dreams to you too. Maybe we can like each other afterall?
I find your style of debate really strange but fascinating …and while it might seem antagonistic, there is actually a lot of substance in it, if one wants to really look.
Posted by: Bethany at January 5, 2009 6:52 PM
A long time ago I suggested a site about the history of Western Art(painting), as pertaining to religion and it’s effect on today and the past.
Since I know that you paint, and I’ll reveal that I have painted for years also, did you visit the website by the artist Hamilton Armstrong?
And for that pedant ASitis, woodcarving is another art which I have “practiced at” for years. Which is where I have befriended many neuro-surgeons with the common interest of woodcarving to keep their mind’s sharp and their
hands busy.
Hopefully Bethany, you have visited his site as a artist interested in the history of Christianity’s great influence on “painting”.
Maybe it will inspire you in your work, as Hamilton reveals the beauty of art seen through a Christian’s pov.
You’ll learn much which is never discussed by the secular education system at most university art departments.
His article on “Art Beauty and Imagination; A Catholic Perspective” shouldn’t be taken as a swipe at your form of worship, but enlarge your knowledge and appetite for “painting”.
A small sample Bethany.
When we use the word “art,” thoughts of pictures and statues in museums or cathedrals generally come to mind. When we refer to “the arts,” music, poetry, dance, theater, etc. are added to the list. The words themselves, however, remain somewhat ambiguous as to their meaning. Mortimer Adler, in his lucid critique Art, the Arts and the Great Ideas, is helpful in clarifying the matter. Art, he reminds us, comes from the Latin ars, akin to the Greek techne, which, for the ancients, referred to certain skills. Thus we speak of the art of writing, the art of medicine, the art of building, or the art of painting, and so on.
Mr. Adler also points out that until the end of Medieval times the arts were divided into the liberal and servile arts, the first being skills of the intellectuals such as the grammarian, the rhetorician, the logician, the poet, the musician (composer) who work with ideas and symbols, while the second involve physical activity or the transformation of matter, such as performed by the painter, sculptor, and the musician (player of instruments). This division led to the foundation of liberal art universities dedicated to the trivium — grammar, rhetoric, and logic — and the quadrivium — artithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy — leaving the realm of painting, sculpture and building to guilds and apprenticeships. (Oxford University retained this division up to the mid-nineteenth century when John Ruskin first introduced classes in drawing and painting to the curriculum.)
The elevation of “art” and “the arts” to a position of status was a Renaissance concept based on Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophies which emphasized the ascent of the soul to the divine realm through the contemplation of natural and artificial beauty. Thus today we speak of the “fine arts” arts that point to beauty as an “end, finis” or in other languages, the beautiful arts, specifically beaux arts, bellas artes, shöne kunst – when we speak of the painting and sculpture that we admire in museums.
http://www.agdei.com.
I hope his article on the “history of human symbolism part 1 and 2,” will allow you to understand and appreciate how Western art, always influenced by Christ, came about, and the influence of that art upon all Western Civilization, from pagan symbols(mandala,ying/yang etc,), Jewish old Testamant, Byzantine, Catholic, Protestant Reformation, and more.
And remember Bethany, God is with us all this day.
I’m gonna check out that reference yllas. Sounds interesting.
asitis:we have alot more in common than you know but our choices in life have been vastly different.
Yllas, yes I actually did visit that website- many times! :) Very interesting stuff you wrote about too. Thank you.
I would REALLY like to see some of your artwork if you’d ever be willing to share.
Bethany I do want to leave you with this. There are moments when I really like you as well. But I also find that you are far more charitable toward ardent pro-life commentaters. tstl has been outright rude, repeatedly to me, and I have responded to that. And yet, you say nothing to her about playing nice. Could you imagine if say Hal, Doug, Josephine, Bystander or I ranted and raved and hurled insults and accusations as some of the your comrades do? I’m relatively new here, but I’ve noticed this before and a bit right now.
Asitis, from my standpoint, you were both being bratty to each other. I didn’t tell you to play nice either, so I am not sure how I was unfair to you?
However, I will say that I take back my earlier statement that I do not believe you are a scientist…I don’t think you are very objective as a scientist, but I do believe that you are a scientist now.
Maybe the discussion about your credentials should just be dropped so we can continue on without any more hurt feelings on your part.
My goodness, who ARE you yllas? You never cease to amaze me… very cool…
Asitis, 9:02p: From my standpoint you were being bratty to each other. I didn’t tell you to play nice either, so I’m not sure how I was unfair.
However, I will say back my earlier statement that I do not believe you are a scientist… I don’t believe you are very objective as a scientist, but I do believe you are a scientist now.
Maybe the discussion about your crendentials should just be dropped so we can continue on without any more hurt feelings on your part.
However, I will say that I take back my earlier statement that I do not believe you are a scientist…I don’t think you are very objective as a scientist, but I do believe that you are a scientist now.
Maybe the discussion about your credentials should just be dropped so we can continue on without any more hurt feelings on your part.
Posted by: Bethany at January 6, 2009 8:29 AM
I would agree with this Bethany. Your comment about objectivity is part of what I mean by science being hijacked by ideology.
The birth control pill and abortion are but two examples of this, another being embryonic stem cell research. I can’t think of another drug that has been so politicized as the pill has. And there have been numerous studies done on abortion, by abortion providers, who find evidence of the negative effects of abortion on patients, and yet set out conclusions which directly contradict their medical research findings. It simply boggles the mind.
Apparently there has been an excellent document published in the Vatican newspaper in German detailing exactly the negative effects of the birth control pill. My understanding is that everything is well referenced with authoritative sources. I’m willing to bet that no North American news outlet picks it up or if it does, the findings of the article will be distorted and vehemently attacked. It is causing quite a controversy in Europe.
It is very sad that feminist movement has seen fit to sacrifice women’s health in the name of women’s rights.
The interesting thing about objectivity too, is that while liberals are allowed to bring their beliefs into the research lab, the courtroom, the legislature and the hospital, Christians are told if they do so they are being intolerant and biased.
However, I will say that I take back my earlier statement that I do not believe you are a scientist…I don’t think you are very objective as a scientist, but I do believe that you are a scientist now.
Maybe the discussion about your credentials should just be dropped so we can continue on without any more hurt feelings on your part.
Posted by: Bethany at January 6, 2009 8:29 AM
Thanks Bethany. The discussion about my scientific credentials should also just be dropped because it ends up making you guys look bad, and that not exactly what Jill wants me here for, is it?
Now that I got that out of my system……
I appreciate that your issue isn’t really with me being a scientist nor my objectivity. So I will stop taking it personally. Your issue is really with what you see as outside influences affecting the objectivity of scientific research.
I appreciate that your issue isn’t really with me being a scientist nor my objectivity. So I will stop taking it personally. Your issue is really with what you see as outside influences affecting the objectivity of scientific research.
Posted by: asitis at January 6, 2009 12:00 PM
asitis, did you read the above post by Bethany?
just wondering that’s all
It would be very interesting to hear your definition of what constitutes personhood and when a human being might be considered a person in your eyes.
you know, (I hated to start with that on this thread) but I just watched the video clip of Caroline Kennedy after I wrote a blog post about her and I’m rather speechless.
It’s just not the you know phrases, it’s that she looks soooo, so,… “bad”. She doesn’t draw me in, she has absolutely no presence in front of the camera – her image is just so drab. Caroline has non of the charisma of her father or her mother. Does this matter? Is it important? I’m not sure.
asitis: do you have a kindle? (just curious to know if you like it?)
It would be very interesting to hear your definition of what constitutes personhood and when a human being might be considered a person in your eyes.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 6, 2009 1:16 PM
tstl, I know you guys would LOVE to get into that with me, but I’m still say no. As I’ve said numerous times, it’s a futile debate and I’m not interested in having it. Badger me all you want, insult me all you want, cajole me all you want, but that is also futile.
Do I have a kindle? No. I love the feel of a book in my hands so I don’t think I’ll ever give that up. Same as a newspaper. I don’t think I could ever give up that for online news. Just doesn’t replace sharing the paper, especially the weekend edition, over coffee. Though I do appreciate the portability the kindle offers when travelling. And all those resources saved………….
Do you have a kindle tstl? Do you like it?
And I agree with you tstl. Her brother got all the charisma. She makes me feel kind of sad – She’s had a life of great priledge for sure but such tragedies. I can’t imagine.
Is charisma important? Well it certainly helps. And if you don’t have a lot of experience nor come across as being very knowledgeable and bright, I think a lack of charisma really matters. But since we are talking about an appointment rather than an election, maybe it doesn’t matter!
no i don’t but I was just wondering.
Doing some research on it.
Believe me, I’m a bibliophile too.
Research to buy? NO!!!!!!!!Don’t go to the dark side!
Oh, but I should add…. Even though I don’t want a kindle, I totally think others should be free to choose one! ;)
Research to buy? NO!!!!!!!!Don’t go to the dark side!
Posted by: asitis at January 6, 2009 1:59 PM
no
what and be with you! ;0D NEVER!
I’m not on THAT dark side tstl. I love books!
Have you asked the younger generation? I wonder if ebooks will ever become the norm.
It is very sad that feminist movement has seen fit to sacrifice women’s health in the name of women’s rights.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 6, 2009 9:58 AM
TSTL I couldn’t find the original document (doesn’t matter though, since I can’t read German). But I did find the Catholic news reports of the document. Rather than new research, it is an analysis of data from other scientific studies. The only risk to women’s health that they mention in the Catholic news summary is the findings of a UN agency’s 2005 study reporting the slightly increased risk of some cancers while on the pill. At the same time, the pill reduces the risk of other cancers. The findings did not change the agency’s cancer risk assessment of the pill (see below).
Sorry, but I don’t think this warrants saying the feminist movement is sacrificing women’s health.
“The researchers write that combined estrogen-progestin birth control pills may “slightly” raise breast cancer risk in women currently or recently taking those pills. But the risk seems to drop back to normal 10 years after stopping the pill, write the researchers.
The researchers note higher risks of cervical and liver cancers with combined birth control pills.
However, uterine and ovarian cancer risk is lower in women using birth control pills, they write.
Despite the slightly higher risk of some cancers, the overall risk of cancer from the pill is still low.
The IARC’s assessment of cancer risk from birth control pills hasn’t changed but now includes more types of cancer, write the researchers.”
I have to see the original report before I make any statements.
Interestingly, I belong to a group of approx. 15 catholic women ages 28 to 60 (most in the 40 to 60 age bracket). None of us has ever used any artificial birth control. We’ve all had more than the average number of babies (avg # between us is about 6 with every woman having had at least 4 children). No one has had breast, ovarian, uterine or cervical cancer. But we all know lots of people who do – all bc pill users, mind you. Just makes us all wonder.
We are not a statistically significant group but I don’t think we are an anomaly either. Most of us have spent at least 10 to 12 years non-menstruating and have been lactating for most of that period of time. None of us are related and we comprise various ethnic groups.
I find it quite funny, ironic actually, that in this “green age” when people are so concerned about eating organic and buying local, yet women routinely trick their bodies into believing they are pregnant. Ah well, often we learn by experience….
But I did find the Catholic news reports of the document. Rather than new research, it is an analysis of data from other scientific studies. The only risk to women’s health that they mention in the Catholic news summary is the findings of a UN agency’s 2005 study reporting the slightly increased risk of some cancers while on the pill. At the same time, the pill reduces the risk of other cancers. The findings did not change the agency’s cancer risk assessment of the pill (see below).
yes I knew it was basically a lit review of existing studies, but that’s the interesting thing about it – what kind of research has been done and are women getting accurate information from organizations that have the best interests of women in mind – that is are they looking out for the health of women and ensuring that these drugs are not a significant risk to women?
I do not think the Internation Agency for Research of Cancer, a WHO org which is decidely proabort will accurately assess the risk of any reproductive procedure for women.
“International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared the little publicized classification of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (OCs) as carcinogenic. The IARC placed the contraceptives into their Group 1 classification, the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only “when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” (emphasis theirs)
“Previously, combined oral contraceptives had been determined to be carcinogenic to humans, but only primary liver cancer was specifically implicated. The Working Group concluded that combined oral contraceptives alter the risk of several common cancers in women. They increase a woman’s risk of cervical cancer, breast cancer, and liver cancer.”
“A European study, which looked at 103,000 women aged between 30 and 49 in Norway and Sweden found the risk of developing breast cancer rose by 26% for women who had taken the pill over those who had never used it. Moreover, women who had used the pill for long periods of time increased their risk of breast cancer by 58%. The study also found that women over 45 still using the pill had an increased risk of 144%.”
just a thought to consider on this January eve.
Yllas, do you also enjoy sculpting, as well as painting? I have attempted it before a few times, and I really enjoy it. I noticed that there is a lot of sculpture on the site, which is why i ask. :)
By the way, this was my first big sculpture, I tried to sculpt my husband…
http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/2007/09/06/sculpturepossibly-finished.aspx
the armature James made for me unfortunately was made with the wrong kind of metal so I was not able to have it put in a kiln- it would have melted at that temperature. We didn’t think about it beforehand, unfortunately! I ultimately had wanted to bronze it, but have no idea how to get started in that- although I have been researching it. Here’s what ended up happening with the sculpture, because it fell over while it was drying. (Now he looks a little bit like the sphinx. :D lol)
http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/2007/12/13/the-sculpture-broke.aspx
Ah well, often we learn by experience….
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 6, 2009 5:38 PM
Well, my experience is quite different. None of my female friends have ever had cancer and they are all on birth control (well, except for the one that is a lesbian). That’s a sampling of about 100 women, ages 30 thru 55, all unrelated. Of them, I can say for certain at least 20 use the pill. Add myself and my 4 sisters (though we are related), and that’s 25 at least pill users who are cancer-free. Not to mention the additional ones out of the remaining 80 that I can’t say for certain what form of artificial birth control they use.
TSTL, a few things about your 5:50pm comment:
“Previously, combined oral contraceptives had been determined to be carcinogenic to humans, but only primary liver cancer was specifically implicated. The Working Group concluded that combined oral contraceptives alter the risk of several common cancers in women. They increase a woman’s risk of cervical cancer, breast cancer, and liver cancer.”
True, but oral contraceptives increase the risk SLIGHTLY. And they actually decrease the risk of some other cancers, including ovarian cancer.
“The IARC placed the contraceptives into their Group 1 classification, the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only “when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.(emphasis theirs)”
This is a bit misleading. Degree of risk is not part of the IARC’s classification system. Class 1 would be very broad. The next group down, Class 2 is “probably or possibly carcinogenic”.
“A European study, which looked at 103,000 women aged between 30 and 49 in Norway and Sweden found the risk of developing breast cancer rose by 26% for women who had taken the pill over those who had never used it. Moreover, women who had used the pill for long periods of time increased their risk of breast cancer by 58%. The study also found that women over 45 still using the pill had an increased risk of 144%.”
Where is this from TSTL?
Hey, someone just sent me this video. There’s a message at the end … maybe there’s hope for all of us afterall!
Get through the brief ad at the start then enjoy, especially if you like animals!
Have a good evening!
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4696315n
ok, you have 100 female friends! get out of town. I’m sorry but I don’t accept that one!
acquaintances maybe, but true blue friends that you share your life with on a weekly basis? hmmmmm,asitis, you are doin it again….
do you know anyone with breast cancer. I know of at least 25 women who have had breast cancer ranging in age from about 38 to into her 60’s
in fact I’m shocked at the number of women who have breast cancer.
Each one of those women took the pill for years.
You cannot tell me that a young woman who goes on the pill at 15 and takes it for 20 years will experience absolutely no side-effects. It’s just not possible.
In fact, my personal experience tells me otherwise.
When I was working at a university over a period of three years, each and every woman I knew in my department, bitched and complained about numerous side-effects from their bc pills. One day someone noted that I never complained – when they found out I was using the sympto-thermal method, they hit the roof. Hah! Funny thing, my body felt just fine to me!
**According to the Physician’s Desk Reference, women who took the pill as teenagers are at higher risk of developing breast cancer when in their 30s than women in the population as a whole.” [Family Resources Center News, Jan/Feb 02]
**New studies show a significant relationship between Pill use, HPV (Human Papilloma Virus which results in genital/oral warts), and cervical cancer. HPV is present in 99% of all cervical cancer cases worldwide. Use of The Pill appears to dramatically increase the risk of cervical cancer in the presence of HPV, according to recent studies.
Those who are on the pill for longer than five years are nearly three times as likely to develop the disease.
Those who take it for more than 10 years quadruple their risk. Moreover, the increased danger persisted for more than 15 years, even if a woman stopped taking the pill.
**Cardiovascular and Hematologic Effects: “The preponderance of data from both prospective and retrospective studies reveals that the relative risk of developing idiopathic thromboembolic phenomena (including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) is approximately 4 to 11 times greater, and the relative risk of superficial thrombosis is two to three times greater among women who use OCs. It appears that OC use causes about 80 new cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism per 100,000 previously healthy current OC users per year…The risk of post-operative venous thrombosis is doubled in OC users.
**Hepatic Effects: “The incidence of gallbladder disease and gallstones is increased when OCs are used; this is probably related to increased cholesterol concentrations in bile. Women who developed jaundice during pregnancy or nulliparous women with a genetic predisposition are at risk of developing cholestatic jaundice during [OC] therapy…Biopsies reveal cholestasis and, sometimes, minimal hepatocellular degeneration and necrosis. Upon cessation of OC use, jaundice and pruritus disappear and liver function tests return to normal without residual effects… Benign hepatic adenomas and focal nodular hyperplasia develop rarely during OC use…The relative risk of developing these tumors increases greatly after three years of OC use (Rooks et al, 1979). The tumors are potentially serious because of the danger of rupture…Palpation of the liver should be performed during every periodic examination of patients taking OCs…Cessation of OC use is mandatory and spontaneous regression usually occurs. Budd-Chiari syndrome also has been associated with oral contraceptive use.
gotta go now.
“ok, you have 100 female friends! get out of town. I’m sorry but I don’t accept that one!
acquaintances maybe, but true blue friends that you share your life with on a weekly basis? hmmmmm,asitis, you are doin it again….”
Weren’t you the one that claimed that you had like, twenty friends that had families of 7+? Then, later, didn’t you claim you had like, twenty doctor friends?
TSTL, neither of my grandmothers were ever on any form of birth control. Both of them had breast cancer. Some people are more susceptible to cancer than others. My grandpa tanned until he was like, eighty years old and never had any skin problems. There are 17 year old girls with melanoma!
“ok, you have 100 female friends! get out of town. I’m sorry but I don’t accept that one!
acquaintances maybe, but true blue friends that you share your life with on a weekly basis? hmmmmm,asitis, you are doin it again….”
I know it sounds like alot, but honestly, I do. As I was driving home earlier this evening I was trying to come up with a good estimate and that is it. I moved to a new country a few years ago remember, and prior to that I lived in the same small city most of my life and most of that time with all of my family far away. People there used to joke that I knew everyone it seemed. Given the varied nature of my life and being on extrovert, I have had the opportunity to make many friends. And they are very important to me. Some of them I share my life with on a DAILY basis and have for years. Some on a weekly basis and some I may not be in touch with, at times, for months. But they are all good friends…and good enough that I know what birth control they use.
**According to the Physician’s Desk Reference, women who took the pill as teenagers are at higher risk of developing breast cancer when in their 30s than women in the population as a whole.” [Family Resources Center News, Jan/Feb 02]
How much higher a risk? Is it significant?
**New studies show a significant relationship between Pill use, HPV (Human Papilloma Virus which results in genital/oral warts), and cervical cancer. HPV is present in 99% of all cervical cancer cases worldwide. Use of The Pill appears to dramatically increase the risk of cervical cancer in the presence of HPV, according to recent studies.
Those who are on the pill for longer than five years are nearly three times as likely to develop the disease.
Those who take it for more than 10 years quadruple their risk. Moreover, the increased danger persisted for more than 15 years, even if a woman stopped taking the pill.
Does the pill itself actually increase the risk of cervical cancer? Or is it just that women on the pill are likely to have more sexual partners and therefore increased risk of exposure to HPV and developing cervical cancer? If it’s the latter than the pill itself is not the issue.
With regards to the cardiovascular and hematological and hepatis effects, I know that certain health conditions are contraindications or cautions against going on the pill.
Sorry, instead of writing “But they are all good friends…and good enough that I know what birth control they use” I meant “But they are all good friends… and good enough that I know they use birth control”.
It’s only the 20 I mentioned that I can say for certain they use the pill.
Clearly I’m tired. Time for bed….
”
I should have written
”
“do you know anyone with breast cancer. I know of at least 25 women who have had breast cancer ranging in age from about 38 to into her 60’s”
Do I KNOW anyone with breast cancer? No, I don’t think I do tstl. Given its tragic incidence, that’s surprising (and very fortunate),I know. None of my friends and associates. But I do have friends who themselves have other friends or family members that have or had breast cancer. And I do know people who have had scares, which fortunately turned out to just be bad mammograms or benign lumps.
Josephine: “Yeah, okay.. I’m a junior pre-med major…”
Is your minor in willful blindness?
You cannot tell me that a young woman who goes on the pill at 15 and takes it for 20 years will experience absolutely no side-effects. It’s just not possible.
In fact, my personal experience tells me otherwise.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 6, 2009 9:21 PM
Okay, well again, my personal experience tells ME otherwise! I have been on the pill for 24 years and have experienced absolutely no side-effects. I am being totally honest about that tstl. So actually… it is possible.
Okay, now I’m off to bed!
Josephine: “Saying ‘a human is formed’ in NO WAY states that a human LIFE is formed.”
Saying “a human is formed” is even more explicit than saying “a human life is formed.” “A human life” is a squishy phrase. I prefer to say (for it is more accurate and direct) that a human embryo is a human being.
“No. It means that it’s a bad textbook. It’s a textbook from 1988.”
A-maz-ing.
The sleepy Anonymous at 10:44pm was me.
And I’ll add that it thrills me to see those who claim that a human embryo or fetus isn’t a human being freely admit that science is not on their side. For years, anyone who supported protecting human embryos from being destroyed has been dismissed as a religious nut forcing his/her views down everyone’s throat. When you actually demonstrate (as people have painstakingly done here) that biology textbooks plainly explain the personhood/human being status of human embryos, they then backtrack and say, “Well, science doesn’t matter.”
Yup. Yup.
Oh for pete’s sake. Why can’t I go to bed?
“…biology textbooks plainly explain the personhood status of human embryos..”
Posted by: bri at January 6, 2009 10:51 PM
Bri, can you please show us an example of a biology textbook that says PERSONHOOD is assigned to an embryo.
Bri, I happen to believe that a fetus is a human person, but I think science is against me in that. Like asitis said, I’ve never seen a textbook that assigned personhood to an embryo. If you read the debate like, 150 comments up, you’ll see that textbooks also avoid calling a fetus a life. There is a great significance in the fact that a textbook won’t say “human life is formed at conception.”
Oh, and about my comment about the textbook being from 1988– guess what. I have to buy a new science textbook every semester because things get outdated. You don’t think in 20+ years people learn more and change their opinion on scientific matters? I think that is “a-maz-ing” as you would say.
Oh, and my minor is bio-chemistry.
Yllas, do you also enjoy sculpting, as well as painting? I have attempted it before a few times, and I really enjoy it. I noticed that there is a lot of sculpture on the site, which is why i ask. :)
Posted by: Bethany at January 6, 2009 6:53 PM
Sorry for the time delay Bethany.
I haven’t tryed sculpting Bethany, but I do admire how Hamilton makes the beauty of metal come alife in his works.
The closest I come to working metal is “tumbling brass” for reloads with a young friend named Travis, who shoots with the USPSC(United States Practical Shooter Club). I never knew how much goes into just making a round of ammunition, and how you can screw up something which seems so simple. Of course it’s fun, since the youngster knows more then I do, which turns me into being the butt of many jokes.
Which leads into the fact that I have not painted in a couple of years, since my painting experience became “less personal”, then attending to a young man who inherited a old 1911 45ACP. The pistol was handbuilt by his grandfather who was a machinist by trade. Seems I can’t really multi-task at some thing’s in life!
He is enrolled in college taking courses in criminal justice, as he wants, and will be, a “forensic firearm examiner”. The best part of this story is that he was one of those children who was passed off as having ADHTD in school, and left to be pawned off on this world with a wounded soul and heart. Sort of pre-destined to fail in life from nothingmore then money driving a disease, by the circle of teachers, feeding the insurance companies, which owned the so called hospitals.
One of the jokes between us, is when I am powdering up a cartridge and he ask if I weighted the charge on the electronic scale at 5.7 grains, I respond with “What scale, since when did we use a scale to measure the powder?”
You must have attention deficit disease, Yllas.
What disease?
Never mind, I’ll do it myself.
Do what yourself?
Then the little 12 year old girl, Sabrina, pokes her nose in the door and ask what we’re doing.
To which I say, Travis(the young man) never remembers what I’m doing, and it’s his job to remember what I forget, Sabrina.
They look at each other, and smile at each other knowing who really has ADHTD!!
She wanted to do something to help, and so she was educated in de-priming fired brass. I bet she is the only girl who knows how to deprime a 45ACP at her school. Plus she knows how to use a digital caliper and applied it to “seeing fractions” measured and converted to metric and decimal system.
The beauty of it all is not seeing and thinking a pistol is for murdering people primarily, but as a work of art first, and secondly as a object which demands time,precision, and a understanding of the many actions occuring in rapid order.
The young girl, Sabrina, was molested and her step father was charged with the crime. He killed himself before sentencing, and know’s he used a firearm to end his life. Sometimes in life, one must get back on that horse and leave your fears and hurt behind you, or you end up on anti-sorrow drugs forever.
So, painting and woodcarving are put up for now, although her interest in painting comes up sometimes, and she might just want to take it up from my crazy style of making art education alife and real to her. Much less making her measure to ten thousandths of a inch that finished cartridge, and what happens if you don’t measure correctly and accuratly.
Hmm, now how do you paint the laugh and smile of a young girl and young man “clinging to their brass cartridges in a tumbler” with a slobbering black Lab thinking that the tumbled brass is something to eat?
God is with us all this day Bethany, and as those icon writers have written, all is golden.
Or as Johnny said to Ponyboy in The Outsiders, “stay golden Ponyboy”.
And as with many actors, they really don’t get it in real life do they? C. Thomas Howell,Rob Lowe,Emilio Estevez,Matt Dillion, Ralph Macchio, Tom Cruise, and soon to be golden, Patrick Swayze.
Seems someone was using iconography by osmosis, or using things they didn’t know were “written” more then a few centuries before.
P.S. I have one painting in acrylic(32×48) that I’m working on part time, which depicts a scene of a rock bottom creek(Golden gel medium) with “running clear water” through it. Building up the rocks
with gel medium allows you to get the “creek rocks” to peak through the “wet water”.
Old oak tree’s(extra heavy gel) in the foreground, whose limbs reach across the entire upper foreground, and “set back” the sunset sky and fields .
On both sides of the clear creek(approx. foreground corners) are two dogs standing?sitting? on large rocks, looking into the water.
Of course those question mark’s are from me not deciding exactly what to so with the two dogs position in the painting.
Interesting enough, I had/have two dogs, one being as white as snow, and named Snowball by the kids in the neighborhood(she died), and the other being that mentioned Black Lab.
So they sit? stand?, watching life go by them at that creek in which “all is gray” between them from the color of the rocks.
If time is represented from left to right, then Snowball should be on the left while the the black Lab ends up on right representing “The black robes of monks, who have left the path of worldly life, are a symbol of their eschewing the pleasures and habits they formerly kept, and dying a death toward this way of life.”
I am so sorry to hear that about Sabrina… I am glad to know you and others are helping her overcome her fears, one step at a time. I am sure she appreciates you very much. I think you should indeed give her painting lessons, if you can ever find the time. :-)
Thank you for describing your most recent painting. It really does sound beautiful. ..Interesting concept as well.
What kind of things have you carved in wood?
I am butting in I’m afraid, but I enjoyed the “art” exchange between yllas and Bethany, and just wanted to say so…I am going to try to remind myself that ideed “God is with us all this day.”
Also, Bethany, I went to your art site — you have so much talent…I had to peer closely at the mule drawing as it looks like a photograph to me.
Thank you so much, Eileen! I really appreciate that. :)
Hmm, now how do you paint the laugh and smile of a young girl and young man “clinging to their brass cartridges in a tumbler” with a slobbering black Lab thinking that the tumbled brass is something to eat?
Posted by: yllas at January 7, 2009 3:08 AM
Hmmmmm It sounds like a Norman Rockwell painting alright, but there’s a disconnect between the artist here and the online yllas. Maybe the internet is just an outlet for his rage and the real-life yllas is a gentle, compassionate man. You are unusual yllas, I’ll give you that.
asitis: “Bri, can you please show us an example of a biology textbook that says PERSONHOOD is assigned to an embryo.”
Well, bein’s that “human being” and “person” are synonyms — except, of course, in the minds of squishy dualists who try to work backwards in order to disprove scientific fact — I’d say that’s already been taken care of here.
Josephine: “Oh, and about my comment about the textbook being from 1988– guess what. I have to buy a new science textbook every semester because things get outdated. You don’t think in 20+ years people learn more and change their opinion on scientific matters?”
On minutia, they absolutely do. But the square root of 49 is still 7, Kate Chopin still wrote THE AWAKENING, and a human being still begins his or her life at the moment of fertilization. Some things simply haven’t changed.
Go Bri!
Okay, well again, my personal experience tells ME otherwise! I have been on the pill for 24 years and have experienced absolutely no side-effects. I am being totally honest about that tstl. So actually… it is possible.
Okay, now I’m off to bed!
Posted by: Anonymous at January 6, 2009 10:44 PM
only time will tell, but you’ve been very lucky
in one way.
of course, you haven’t mentioned the spiritual side-effects
“On minutia, they absolutely do. But the square root of 49 is still 7, Kate Chopin still wrote THE AWAKENING, and a human being still begins his or her life at the moment of fertilization. Some things simply haven’t changed.”
They use to think an atom was as small as it got. Now we know that isn’t true.
What’s your point? Math and history are things that are based in fact. For science, you must go outside of fact. You obviously never studied higher level science, or that’s a phrase you’d have heard many, many times.
of course, you haven’t mentioned the spiritual side-effects
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 7, 2009 3:19 PM
The beauty of it is that there are no “spiritual side efects” if you are free of religion and don’t believe in God TSTL!
Well, bein’s that “human being” and “person” are synonyms — except, of course, in the minds of squishy dualists who try to work backwards in order to disprove scientific fact — I’d say that’s already been taken care of here.
Posted by: Bri at January 7, 2009 2:33 PM
I’m afraid I have to tell you you’re wrong there,Bri. Human being and human person are not the same thing, except to pro-lifers.I found this at http://www.religioustolerance.org that explains this well:
Various groups define pregnancy and abortion-related terms differently. This can make dialogue and even elementary communication very difficult. Most pro-life and conservative Christian groups follow one set of meanings. Physicians, medical researchers, and most pro-choice groups and mainline or liberal religious groups often define words differently. In this series of essays, we will generally use the medical definitions, because they are in widest use.
Three key terms used throughout this section are:
Human life: This is “any living cell or collection of living cells that contains DNA from the species homo sapiens.” 1 This includes an ovum, a spermatozoon, zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn. It also includes an infant, child, adult, elder. It also includes a breast cancer cell, a living hair follicle, and a recent skin scraping. Some forms of human life, like an individual ovum or spermatozoon, are rarely considered to be of value, except by couples having difficulty conceiving. Other forms of human life, like a newborn or infant, are priceless; medical professionals go to great lengths to preserve their life.
Human person: A human life that is granted civil rights, including the right to live. People have different opinions about the point at which human life becomes a human person. There is a societal consensus that a newborn is a human person. However, people disagree about whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is also a human person. This is the main point of disagreement that causes conflicts over abortion access.
Here’s something else from http://www.religioustolerance.org on the subject of personhood. Specifically, will consensus EVER be reached, on when a human life acquires full value and rights? :
Opinion within the group providing this web site:
We are a multi-faith group. As of 2008-FEB, we are one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.
A visitor to this website sent us an Email that quoted part of our statement of beliefs:
We do believe:
In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human. Unfortunately, we have not reached a consensus on when human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person. On this matter, our lack of agreement mirrors that of society at large.
Referring to the pre-embryo, embryo and fetus, the visitor asked whether we agree on when in gestation “a person becomes a human with inherent worth.”
We responded:
All five of us agree that a major transition happens somewhere between the spermatozoon/ovum stage and the newborn stage. I think that all five agree that it is not between a person and a human with inherent worth.
Spermatozoa is alive and contains human DNA. Thus it is a form of human life.
A newborn generally accepted as being a human person. A newborn is a form of human life that is also a human person.
Thus, we feel that the critical transition is between a form of human life and a human person.
Like the rest of society, our group disagrees on when that transition happens. The two extreme beliefs in our group are:
Personhood occurs at conception. This belief is often based on the observation that this is when a unique DNA is formed (or is created by God). A logical result of this belief is that all pregnant women should be required to continue pregnancy and give birth, except for very unusual situations.
Personhood occurs circa 26 weeks gestation when the higher brain functions first become activated. The supporting argument here is that the end of personhood, i.e. death, is defined as occurring when higher brain functions cease. Thus it seems appropriate to define the start of personhood as happening when the higher functions first start up. A logical result of this belief is that informed pregnant women should have free access to abortion during the first and second trimesters. What she chooses to abort is a potential human person, not an actual human person.
The visitor asked whether inherent worth, occurs simply because the pre-embryo, embryo or fetus is a person, or whether it is a value granted by society.
We responded that it is both:
Inherent worth is definitely granted by societies, governments, religious organizations, individuals, or groups of individuals.
It is also inherent. Most people believe that when human life becomes a human person, the latter automatically has great value and their life should be preserved. I qualify the previous statement as applying to “most people,” not all people. Sadly, in various areas of the world, persons who are female, members of racial minorities, members of various religious groups, etc. are held in low esteem and often given a sub-human status. There is little doubt but that if a genetic test could pre-determine which fetuses would become homosexuals in adulthood, then those fetuses would be considered as sub-human by some people.
Finally, the visitor asked whether we have to accept that all beliefs by people within our group and outside our group are equally valid?
Each person or group justifies their beliefs on some basis that appears logical to them. Each regards their own belief as valid. Each regards any contrasting beliefs as invalid. No consensus is currently possible. None may ever be possible. We agree that no absolute truth now exists concerning the morality of abortion.
The beauty of it is that there are no “spiritual side efects” if you are free of religion and don’t believe in God TSTL!
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 3:33 PM
oh not so fast, honey. It just doesn’t work that way.
If there is no God, then really neither of us lose, because we have each lived according to our beliefs which have no consequences.
However, if there IS a God, then all other things being equal, the practice of birth control is an act of rebellion against God and his desire to bring the blessing of children into your life – it is NO to God’s will. The outcome will be much different, I assure you.
oh not so fast, honey. It just doesn’t work that way.
If there is no God….if there IS a God
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 7, 2009 4:09 PM
Exactly. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there isn’t.To each there own beliefs. So it actually does work that way…. honey!
Oh wait a minute tstl. Maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe there are spiritual side effects to me using the pill, but you and others who believe as you do feel these effects even though I myself do not. In that case…. err, sorry? I can appreciate they cause you some concern. But I’m not going to give up my use of the pill based on your religion. I hope you can live with that.
But I’m not going to give up my use of the pill based on your religion. I hope you can live with that.
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 4:18 PM
Since the vast majority of Catholics won’t give up their use of the pill for their religion, I don’ know why you think I would. That woudl be a bit much to ask, don’t you think?
Asitis, you sorely misunderstand what a human life is, time and time again. Try reading a biology or embryology book, and not the religious tolerance site.
A human life is not the same as a skin scraping, or a strand of hair. A strand of hair is not a complete human organism which will develop and grow as an already individual human life, and neither were those other examples. However, a zygote is. So is an embryo, and a fetus. Those are all simply names for the stage of development of a human being, just as the words “toddler”, infant”, “adolescent”, and “adult” are.
It saddens me that you have such a poor understanding of what human life means, from a scientific viewpoint.
By the way, I find it intensely frustrating that you continue to say “I’m not going to enter into this debate”, and yet you do it, by copying and pasting an obviously biased site. When you read my reply here, it is very likely you’re going to say, “I’m not going there”, although you already did.
Bethany, all I did… as I have done time and again…. is reiterate that there is no consensus, no absolute truth, as to when personhood begins. It is not simply a matter of science.
I’m sorry that saddens you.
No, you keep changing it. You say human life one minute, and personhood the next.
Why paste from that website if you aren’t interested in discussing it, by the way.
And where did I say the word “personhood” anywhere in my post at 4:32? I was responding to this point, which you pasted:
“Human life: This is “any living cell or collection of living cells that contains DNA from the species homo sapiens.” 1 This includes an ovum, a spermatozoon, zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn. It also includes an infant, child, adult, elder. It also includes a breast cancer cell, a living hair follicle, and a recent skin scraping. Some forms of human life, like an individual ovum or spermatozoon, are rarely considered to be of value, except by couples having difficulty conceiving. Other forms of human life, like a newborn or infant, are priceless; medical professionals go to great lengths to preserve their life. ”
No, you keep changing it. You say human life one minute, and personhood the next.
Posted by: Bethany at January 7, 2009 4:42 PM
Um, noooooo. I was very clearly saying personhood both times Bethany:
I’m afraid I have to tell you you’re wrong there,Bri. Human being and human person are not the same thing, except to pro-lifers.I found this at http://www.religioustolerance.org that explains this well:
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 3:52 PM
Bethany, all I did… as I have done time and again…. is reiterate that there is no consensus, no absolute truth, as to when personhood begins. It is not simply a matter of science.
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 4:37 PM
Bethany.
As many things in life, my carving began as a act of serendipity. I began with “soap carving” and got the hang of it from there. Since a chatty squirrel would wake me up, he became my first carving. Soap first then wood. I took a 6″x10″ piece of oak, knocked out the background, carved a squirrel sitting on a branch, right perimeter side as the trunk. From there came Japanese cranes in pairs, since those crane’s mate for life. Small deer, free form wood items where you just follow the curves the wood gives you, herons, and of course “decoy ducks” of all types. Latter came rustic furniture for the outdoors, which was made from a old chinaberry tree, which has a beautiful pink heartwood. I carved the typical leaves, wheat, and bluebonnets into the back. If you want to ruff carve a object real quick, get a chain saw blade made for a 4 1/2″ angle grinder. Considering the rpm is approx 11,000 rpm, you can take off wood mighty fast. Accuracy is a good, until you hit a knot!! The meanest little tool known, with no protection around that spinning chain saw blade.
Eventually the carving ended up with me turning wood on a Jet midi lathe, which leads to where I’m at now. It gets interesting making a “tulip shape” in segmented style.
I usually don’t discuss myself often Bethany, as you know. But, sometimes I will reveal something which has a connection to the subject of this board, which is concerned with birth, life and death. All great art finds itself faced with those themes.
God is with us all this day, Bethany.
Bethany, you did not specifically say personhood, but you were referring to the debate I continually refuse to enter. That debate is about personhood.
Why are you even talking about it at all, Asitis? You kept saying you will not discuss it, then you jumped into the dscussion with Bri about the same issue?
If it’s good enough for you to express someone else’s opinion on it, why not good enough for you to express yours on it?
Bethany, you did not specifically say personhood, but you were referring to the debate I continually refuse to enter. That debate is about personhood.
You did enter that debate, Asitis, at 3:52.
The whole point Bethany is that there are different OPINIONS on the matter of personhood and the morality of abortion. There is no consensus. That’s my whole friggin’ point! And the reason I copied the exerpt from the Religious Tolerance site was to illustrate this FACT. You act like there is consenus and absolute truth as to when a human life is granted full value and rights. But there isn’t.
Bethany, you did not specifically say personhood, but you were referring to the debate I continually refuse to enter. That debate is about personhood.
You did enter that debate, Asitis, at 3:52.
Posted by: Bethany at January 7, 2009 4:53 PM
no…. The debate is when does personhood begin?
Try as you have, I have not entered that debate. I have simply said it is a debate. A futile one at that.
Oh wait a minute tstl. Maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe there are spiritual side effects to me using the pill, but you and others who believe as you do feel these effects even though I myself do not. In that case…. err, sorry? I can appreciate they cause you some concern. But I’m not going to give up my use of the pill based on your religion. I hope you can live with that.
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 4:18 PM
loved how you spliced my comment so it made no sense! lol
I think you missed the point of my argument but no matter.
You are trying to say that if there is a God or if there isn’t a God, there will be no consequences to your using the pill.
However, I don’t believe this.
I do feel the effects spiritually of you and your husband contracepting because you were part of the mystical body of Christ – and your separation brings more pain and suffering into the world. It may very well have impacted me directly already or maybe just indirectly. We won’t know the full extent until we are judged and we see the effect our actions have on others.
Even if only 4% of Catholics obey the church teachings on BC, the fruits of their love for God will eventually widen. Those 4% are the families that will have the children. Those children will likely grow up knowing the freedom that living according to God provides and they will likely practice the values they were raised with.
I”m sorry for you asitis, that you’ve lost your faith and that you are a slave to OC’s. I pray you will someday see the truth in all this.
I do feel the effects spiritually of you and your husband contracepting because you were part of the mystical body of Christ
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 7, 2009 4:57 PM
Well, like I said…. I’m sorry for your pain tstl, but those are your religious beliefs not mine.
Wow, yllas, you have been carving for a long time. I would love to see some of your work but I understand your need to remain anonymous. :)
I have seen some really beautiful pieces done locally with a chain saw. I would try it but I might be too nervous to use one. :D The mini lathe would be much better….I can only imagine all of the beautiful creations that could result from using one of those.
No, asitis, you made this statement:
“I’m afraid I have to tell you you’re wrong there,Bri. Human being and human person are not the same thing, except to pro-lifers.I found this at http://www.religioustolerance.org that explains this well:”
And what I found really odd about that statement is that you have actually repeatedly interchanged the terms “human being” and “person”, so I really don’t know why you were making that claim that in the first place. Do you see a difference, and if so, where? Please explain.
The whole point Bethany is that there are different OPINIONS on the matter of personhood and the morality of abortion. There is no consensus. That’s my whole friggin’ point! And the reason I copied the exerpt from the Religious Tolerance site was to illustrate this FACT. You act like there is consenus and absolute truth as to when a human life is granted full value and rights. But there isn’t.
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 4:55 PM
there are OPINIONS and then there is the TRUTH asitis.
Everyone has an opinion but what is the truth? We need to ask ourselves this question honestly.
Since there is no definite line in human development at this time, that a “scientist”, a theologian or a bioethicist can point too, reason tells us that we need to do one of two things:
1. we either consider all human beings from the moment of conception as persons since we cannot locate a definitive point of personhood or
2. we make a requirement for personhood based on some kind of criteria. This leads us to a pandora’s box scenario. Who chooses the criteria? Which criteria are evidence of personhood? Will they be mental criteria, physical criteria, a combination of criteria? How will the criteria be applied? What happens to people who ignore the criteria and try to help those deemed nonpersons? What happens to nonpersons? Will they have any rights?
Don’t you think reason would make a person more likely to choose the first scenario in #1? Wouldn’t that be the reasonable thing to do?
Unless of course you have a personal reason (like the 96% of Catholics similar to yourself) for not seeing a human being at conception as a human person, perhaps, say the use of OC, which may cause micro-abortions.
there are OPINIONS and then there is the TRUTH asitis.
Thank you, TSTL.
2. we make a requirement for personhood based on some kind of criteria. This leads us to a pandora’s box scenario. Who chooses the criteria? Which criteria are evidence of personhood? Will they be mental criteria, physical criteria, a combination of criteria? How will the criteria be applied? What happens to people who ignore the criteria and try to help those deemed nonpersons? What happens to nonpersons? Will they have any rights?
I think this is why Asitis is so terrified to get into this debate. She knows that these questions will come and they are difficult questions for her to deal with.
Bethany: I think that in all honesty, for asitis, the humanness of a creature does not equate with being a human being or a person.
Just because a man and a woman create a human creature that is in the womb, it is not a human person nor a human being. That’s her scientific rational and one she absolutely must hold given her practice of contracepting.
IT is in some ways a very irrational view but it is also logical because it stems from the contraceptive mentality.
I am willing to bet you if you asked any woman you know on OC, if she believes that she carries in her, a human person at the moment of conception she would likely end up saying no. She has to. She has no other choice but to have this viewpoint. Because every time she swallows a birth control pill, she not only is not open to new life, but any life that does begin dies in her inhospitable womb. Who can take responsibility for this kind of killing?
This is why the two issues of BC and abortion are so linked.
Every woman who has gotten pregnant, from time immemorial, KNOWS she carries a baby (which has always equalled a human being in need of protection). This has always been a given. Some of us have been blessed to KNOW we are pregnant extremely early on, BEFORE missing a period. It is not some flaky clairovoyant interaction – becuase the baby is communicating with our bodies hormonally and who know how else. I personally believe it is built into a woman to instinctively protect this unborn human – that its innocence and its vulnerablility alone make it valuable and worthy of protection.
Contraception destroys this ability in a woman both physically and likely emotionally as well. Psychologists are now studying the possibility that women who are on the bc pill for most of their lives, exhibit not only a fear of pregnancy but feelings which border on disgust and loathing. An interesting notion.
tstl, 5:29 That was beautiful!
I find it so difficult to articulate my thoughts on the birth control pill, but your post explains what is in my heart quite effectively.
@Bethany: why thanks.
I was thinking back to what it was like to be pregnant! I don’t think any woman ever forgets the wonder of it.
One thing though- I don’t think that all women are aware of what the birth control pill can do- not that that changes anything about their contraceptive mentality, but I just wanted to say that because I have always believed that life begins at conception, but I did take the pill years ago for a little while. If you ask your doctor if they can cause an abortion, they will tell you no. I was so naive at the time, I didn’t even THINK to ask that question when I was trying to take them, because the way they explained it to me was that it was tricking my body into thinking it was pregnant, so there was no possible way for me to conceive, and if I did ,the baby would be perfectly fine.
So I was happy with the idea that if it happened by accident, the baby would be okay…but it was a lie they told me…not a complete lie, of course because some babies do make it through birth control pills, but they quite purposely omitted the fact that one of the functions of the pills is to prevent implantation of an already conceived child. If I had any inkling of this when I took them, I wouldn’t have put them in my mouth. I feel that I was wronged, because I was not let in on this very important piece of information beforehand!
I took them for 6 months, but ended up stopping because of the physical side effects they were causing me. It was years later before I realized the errors in a contraceptive mentality, or before I realized that the birth control pill had the ability to be an abortificant.
I was thinking back to what it was like to be pregnant! I don’t think any woman ever forgets the wonder of it.
I think about it all the time. It’s been 2 years since my first miscarriage and still I am not pregnant. I miss it! My sister is actually pregnant right now, and will be having her first baby in May. I was thinking it would have been really neat if we could have become pregnant at the same time, but it didn’t work out that way. There is nothing quite like pregnancy and babies. Of course, there are things I could do without, like the morning sickness, but it is so worth it when you feel that first kick, hiccup, or you see that baby’s face for the first time when he/she is born.
One thing though- I don’t think that all women are aware of what the birth control pill can do- not that that changes anything about their contraceptive mentality, but I just wanted to say that because I have always believed that life begins at conception, but I did take the pill years ago for a little while. If you ask your doctor if they can cause an abortion, they will tell you no. I was so naive at the time, I didn’t even THINK to ask that question when I was trying to take them, because the way they explained it to me was that it was tricking my body into thinking it was pregnant, so there was no possible way for me to conceive, and if I did ,the baby would be perfectly fine.
yes, Bethany, you are quite right. Most doctors dont’ know their “a$$ from their elbow”. There was a great discussion on MK’s blog about breastfeeding and SoMG got enlightened in a BIG way yesterday about the immune properties of breastmilk – and he has an advanced medical education.
So be at peace with yourself and God! I am sure many, many women have had similar experiences. After all people trust their doctors to tell them what’s best.
No, asitis, you made this statement:
“I’m afraid I have to tell you you’re wrong there,Bri. Human being and human person are not the same thing, except to pro-lifers.I found this at http://www.religioustolerance.org that explains this well:”
And what I found really odd about that statement is that you have actually repeatedly interchanged the terms “human being” and “person”, so I really don’t know why you were making that claim that in the first place. Do you see a difference, and if so, where? Please explain.
Posted by: Bethany at January 7, 2009 5:03 PM
Bethany I have already spoken to this previously: that I may have misused being or life when I should have used person. I am new to this and while I know what I meant, I may have picked the wrong terminology. I have since stopped.
Now Bri, and many (most?) others here are of the belief that human life/being/person are all one and the same. That they all begin at conception. So when he says human being and person are the same thing he really means that. He’s not miscommunicating. That’s the difference
we make a requirement for personhood based on some kind of criteria. This leads us to a pandora’s box scenario. Who chooses the criteria? Which criteria are evidence of personhood? Will they be mental criteria, physical criteria, a combination of criteria? How will the criteria be applied? What happens to people who ignore the criteria and try to help those deemed nonpersons? What happens to nonpersons? Will they have any rights?
I think this is why Asitis is so terrified to get into this debate. She knows that these questions will come and they are difficult questions for her to deal with.
Posted by: Bethany at January 7, 2009 5:13 PM
I don’t believe there will be a pandora’s box at all Bethany. Because there is conensus that all born humans are persons of equal value and rights.
No, the reason i don’t want to enter the debate is that you and your posse firmly believe that your opinion the personhood begins at conception is the absolute truth. So debate is…. what for it!…. futile.
there are OPINIONS and then there is the TRUTH asitis.
Thank you, TSTL.
Posted by: Bethany at January 7, 2009 5:08 PM
An eminent doctor writing for the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano has stated that hormones from the contraceptive pill are causing a significant rise in male infertility in western nations.
Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, President of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), writes that “we have sufficient data to affirm that one of the reasons for the not insignificant rise in male infertility in the west (due to increasingly fewer sperm in men), is the environmental contamination caused by ‘the pill’.”
“We are confronted with a clear anti-ecological effect that demands further explanation from the manufacturers,” continued Castellvi, who also noted that the abortifacient and carcinogenic effects of the contraceptive pill are also well known
Castellvi’s statements echo similar utterances made by numerous other medical and scientific experts since 2004. Female hormones from birth control pills, which enter the water supply through urination, are being blamed for declining sperm counts in human and animal populations, the growth of female sex organs in male fish, breast growth in young men, and early onset of puberty in young girls.
In September of last year, a scientist at the University of Montreal’s Department of Chemistry announced the discovery that Montreal’s water treatment plant was dumping estrogen products into rivers at a level 90 times the critical amount, a level far beyond the minimum for disrupting the fertility of fish.
Last week, Mexico’s Secretariat of Health issued a warning that use of the contraceptive pill during pregnancy could raise the risk of “genital ambiguity,” also known as hermaphrodism, in newborns.
“The sad thing about this is that, if we are talking about the regulation of fertility, these products are not necessary,” writes Castellvi, noting that Natural Family Planning methods, which involve abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile period of a woman’s monthly cycle, “are just as effective and furthermore they respect the nature of the person.”
pretty darn interesting about the effects of the pill!
Could it be that there are yet many other effects we don’t know about?
How would you feel asitis, if neither of your boys could father children and if it could be proven that it was due to BC estrogens subsequently absorbed from the environment?
There is nothing quite like pregnancy and babies
Posted by: Bethany at January 7, 2009 5:52 PM
Agreed! Mine were both born in late spring and sometimes just the smell of spring and morning sunshine coming through the window takes me back to the sweetness!
How would you feel asitis, if neither of your boys could father children and if it could be proven that it was due to BC estrogens subsequently absorbed from the environment?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 7, 2009 6:12 PM
I would hate to see that of any boys! But is there any real concern, outside that cited by the Catholic Church, of this being the case?
I have two May babies! Within a day of each other but 5 years apart!
In fact one was born at home and I can remember looking out the window at 1am about two hours after her birth and seeing the full moon. Something I will never forget!
perhaps the only reason the Catholics are screaming about this asitis, is because they don’t have trillions of dollars in profits at stake.
Ever thought about that? Or maybe you have worries of world domination?
perhaps the only reason the Catholics are screaming about this asitis, is because they don’t have trillions of dollars in profits at stake.Ever thought about that? Or maybe you have worries of world domination?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 7, 2009 6:35 PM
No. I know the Catholic church ….not to be confused with catholics ;)…. is against contraception so that’s what it has “at stake”, if not money.
It does seem a stretch that hormones in waste water would find their way back into drinking water or through the food chain to humans in appreciable amounts to present a health risk. I’d have to see some research data to support that claim.
Mine are June babies tstl!
Hmmmmm It sounds like a Norman Rockwell painting alright, but there’s a disconnect between the artist here and the online yllas. Maybe the internet is just an outlet for his rage and the real-life yllas is a gentle, compassionate man. You are unusual yllas, I’ll give you that.
Posted by: asitis at January 7, 2009 12:48 PM
Rage huh?
I test your cultural knowledge on matters of France and those which are educated into a small world of agitational propaganda. That medicine has become politicized, and now has been diminished as a science not actually allowing the chips to fall where they may. That is what makes me find you as nothingmore then a parrot repeating the orthodoxy of abortion,and euthanasia.
In the end, there are only two ways one reacts towards matters of death . And it is death which this blog is about Asitis. One can be in the belly of the beast, or a mind that preaches for acts of death, such as you Asitis. You may become immune to death if your business/profession is finalized by death.
Since you think I have no friends Asitis. I’ll tell you the story of Norman, the retired EMS.
Now Norman lived in the beast every working day of his life. Which led to his wearing a shirt which had printed on it, Bah Humbug, with a picture of Rudy the Nose on it. Quite understandable considering he worked on those days which others get off.
Once, while discussing the world as old retired far– do, he told me a story in controling those young bucks who had been shot, and still were rambunctious in life. Seems a member of La Eme was not allowing him to stop that bleeding from his opposition that failed to pay the tax.
Hey man, get your hands off me pendejo.
Why you looking at your watch assh—?
Just figuring how long it will be to you pass out from lack of blood, hermano. Then I can get down to biz.
He drinks excessively, gambles, rides a “firefighter hog”, and is one of my buddies which can be counted on to help. Such as remodeling a bedroom into a kitchen for my mother-in -law. Which of course brought his fellow retired firefighters into action from their loyality to him.
There are plenty of more stories, but the point is made if one knows a little about where and what philosophy unites us.
Tell me Asitis, ever read T.R. Fehrenbach’s history book, Lone Star A History of Texas and Texans.?
Harold, Ted, and Jimmy, his Irish friend, all who served in the Forgotten War. Seems that enlisting in the service buy’s one citizenship into this nation. Jimmy detested socialism Asitis, since it took away his freedom to be who he wanted to be.
Now Jimmy, your most suited to doing manual labor since our testing shows that is where your talents are best applied.
So he joined the Army in Ireland.
Best story while sitting around drinking beer while my dog Limpy who begged Harold for that half pot pie he never finished from drinking more then he ate, was about “kimshe” and the art of smelling your enemy before you saw them.
Old Harold, quite a story he was. Born in Detroit and a member of the Purple gang as a young man. Tryed to get his life together and married a rich women related to the Ford family that was doomed from the beginning. His looks got him into that mess.
He drank so bad that we once tryed to get him to get his driver’s license so he wouldn’t be gettin anymore ticket’s for no license. So, we go get him at 8 in the morning and off we go to the DPS.
I knew something was up since he was swigging a bottle of mouthwash that came out his pocket. I said to Harold, your the first guy I know who shows up to take a driving test, drunk! It surely shocked those teenagers when the DPS officer asked him if he had been drinking. To which he admitted to “having a couple” before he came down for his test.
We finally got him to be legal and years latter Harold told me he was nervous since he thought he was still wanted for a crime of his youth.
Soo what’s the point you say ASitis?
Behind it all is taking life, and failing to save life, and how you react to the most important thing you will do in life.
And what have you seen ASitis? What have you done that ends in death?
P.S. Did you know that Mongolians are quite large people who are trained from birth to take pain? Suffering is honor, and your ideas about euthansia are based in cowardice towards pain and suffering?
Old Harold never forgot emptying that clip of that M1, which held eight rounds, and the Mongolian that kept a comin’. Latter his buddies looked at the Mongolian and found five through the heart. He had run a hundred yards.
So when I see you writing such tripe and intellectual trash Asitis, as you do here, you bring out that philosophy which unites my chosen friends in life.
Reserved to strangers.
Kind to children.
Respecful to women, and brutal to enemies.
How about the French Asitis? What code do they have left?
“tripe and intellectual trash”? Delusions of grandeur, that’s what you have yllas.
Well, at least it’s good to know you are kind to children. But you become just the opposite when they develop beliefs and values that are not the same as yours. That is the root of a lot of evil in this world yllas, past and present.
That is the root of a lot of evil in this world yllas, past and present.
Is that an absolute truth, Asitis?
But you become just the opposite when they develop beliefs and values that are not the same as yours.
Would you be kind to a person who bombed an abortion clinic?
Or to a person who did not do it, but fully supported the person who bombed the abortion clinic?
An absolute truth Bethany? In this case, you would have to mean is it a proven fact? I doubt it.
I just saw your two new questions. I have to go right now. Back on that later…..
I just wondered, because it would be difficult to make such a statement (that yllas methods stem from a root of evil), in a world of moral relativity. You have made the claim that there are no rights and wrongs, and here you are talking about “evil”. I found that really odd. What is “evil”, asitis? What is “good”?
How can anything truly be “evil” in a world of moral relativity?
How can yllas be wrong for his method of debating with you, and how can you be right? Neither opinion is more valid than the other because both are opinions. They are equally valid, from your moral standpoint. (Or they should be, if you are consistent).
I’ll give you time to answer as I know you have something you need to do. I have many things to do today as well. :)
I just wondered, because it would be difficult to make such a statement (that yllas methods stem from a root of evil), in a world of moral relativity. .You have made the claim that there are no rights and wrongs, and here you are talking about “evil”. I found that really odd.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 7:55 AM
I don’t know why it is that you sometimes get what I am saying backwards Bethany. I wasn’t saying that yllas’ why of dealing with those that oppose his beliefs and values stems from a root of evil. I was saying that being unkind to those that oppose your beliefs and values is the root of a lot of evil in the world. An obvious example of an evil I am taking about is war.
Would I be kind to a person who bombed an abortion clinic? Knowing full well that they could kill people, or worse yet, intending to?
To be honest I’d have to say likely not. I could see myself possibly hurling insults at them.
What about a person who did not do it, but fully supported the person who bombed the abortion clinic? I would disagree with em and argue with them, but I wouldn’t be unkind.
Would I be kind to a person who bombed an abortion clinic? Knowing full well that they could kill people, or worse yet, intending to?
To be honest I’d have to say likely not. I could see myself possibly hurling insults at them.
so what would you do to the person who deliberately aborted their unborn child at 6 months? Or is a six month unborn baby not yet a person?
also Bethany was saying that how can you consider anything wrong if there is no absolute, provable truth and everything is relative?
Maybe the truth to the bomber is that abortion is evil and clinics are death camps for unborn babies and women.
Either you believe that there is a knowable truth or there are no knowable truths in the world.
Which is it?
I have to go now too.
“tripe and intellectual trash”? Delusions of grandeur, that’s what you have yllas.
Well, at least it’s good to know you are kind to children. But you become just the opposite when they develop beliefs and values that are not the same as yours. That is the root of a lot of evil in this world yllas, past and present.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 6:07 AM
I simply give you a code to live by and you assume it ends in some evil act by me. It is your values which appeal to giving up on life and a doubt of human worth, via abortion and euthanasia.
Tell me is abortion beauty or ugliness to you?
Is the compassion of euthanasia another beauty or a ugliness at its source philosophy?
Of course you will side step those two choices given you, which makes you unable to be human, since only humans can have the idea of beauty and ugliness.
You see, I can understand the honor of sepeku and the actual overcoming of pain and fear, where as you preach, but don’t act on, that cowardice which is common amongst the French today.
Do you understand, ASitis?
Soo, tell me ASitis, if the root of evil is opposition to you, by me, are you that good, that beauty of freedom offered by you to the world that fights my evil?
Now, who is that delusion of grandeur again Assitis?
BTW ASitis,
You are what you are from someone in your family living by the code of the Celts, which I quoted as my code of conduct, or your a code of the coward who runs and uses people to die for your right to be a coward in their tribe, nation, culture.
Tell us Asitis, what is it that you would die for, or is living on your knee’s the only Catholic act you practice still?
Would I be kind to a person who bombed an abortion clinic? Knowing full well that they could kill people, or worse yet, intending to?
actually this statement is kinda laughable! What on earth do you THINK goes on in an abortion clinic every day? Good grief!
An obvious example of an evil I am taking about is war.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 9:54 AM
Now we have a reason why the French surrendered so quickly to the German political party known as the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party.
They think and believe as Asitis does.
Ciizens, the Germans are socialist, as we are.
They come as workers, as we are.
They are nationalist, as we are.
And finally, they are people, just as we are.
Would I be kind to a person who bombed an abortion clinic? Knowing full well that they could kill people, or worse yet, intending to?
actually this statement is kinda laughable! What on earth do you THINK goes on in an abortion clinic every day? Good grief!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 8, 2009 11:59 AM
Oh I could have predicted that one tstl! To you, yes, abortion and contraception kill people. To others, they don’t. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Either you believe that there is a knowable truth or there are no knowable truths in the world.
Which is it?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 8, 2009 11:40 AM
Forgive me, but I don’t really know what you mean exactly by a “knowable truth” and I am not a philosopher. But I do believe that there are some things that are absolutley true and things that are universally accepted to be true. And then there are other things that some societies or people believe to be true, but this belief is not universally held outside that society.
Tell us Asitis, what is it that you would die for, or is living on your knee’s the only Catholic act you practice still?
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 11:54 AM
See that’s what I mean yllas. Why do you have to be so outright insulting all the time, just because I have different beliefs then you? (And I might add watch your apostrophes but I am constantly hitting wrong keys and not proofing before hitting send)
What would I die for? I would lay my life on the line for my children. I can say that without hesitation.
Soo, tell me ASitis, if the root of evil is opposition to you, by me, are you that good, that beauty of freedom offered by you to the world that fights my evil?
Now, who is that delusion of grandeur again Assitis?
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 11:45 AM
Nonsense yllas! I did not say YOUR opposition to ME is the root of evil. Nor that I am GOOD and you are EVIL. I said that unkindness shown toward others because of their opposing beliefs can lead to evils.
Fun time.
ASitis relatives(Alsace Lorraine/german ethnic) lived in France with those peace loving German’s during the era of mutual co operation of abortion/euthansia ethics, circa 1939 to 1945.
Since the world was still suffering from the golbal depression, jobs were few, but Asitis relative’s were educated in the art of medicine.
One French hospital was fighting/resisting for the silly idea of seperation of France from the German socialist who were devoted to euthansia and abortion.
Another French hospital was in full co- operation with the philosophy of euthansia and abortion and their allies in abortion/euthanasia, the Germans.
Of course those that cooperated for universal abortion/euthansia, were payed much more then those hospital’s which opposed abortion and euthanasia.
So tell us Asitis, which hospital did your relatives work for? Or just plain you ASitis?
Oh I could have predicted that one tstl! To you, yes, abortion and contraception kill people. To others, they don’t. But you knew that, didn’t you?
To you and me, abortionists are people, and people who bomb abortion clinics, are killing people. Therefore, someone doing those things would be wrong to US,….but to those people, it isn’t wrong, is it? To others, abortionists may seem like soulless monsters and not people, so maybe to them, killing them wouldn’t actually be wrong. At least, according to your standards of right and wrong. You knew that, didn’t you? Be consistent now.
To you, black people are people. But to others, they aren’t (yes, even today), therefore killing a black human being to some would be not killing a person. So does that make it morally okay if a person decides to kill a black person? I didn’t ask about legality.
Nonsense yllas! I did not say YOUR opposition to ME is the root of evil. Nor that I am GOOD and you are EVIL. I said that unkindness shown toward others because of their opposing beliefs can lead to evils.
What is evil to you isnt necessarily evil to others. Therefore, the evil only exists in your mind, Asitis.
(Don’t you love reflective listening?)
Thanks for the history lesson, but did I say my relatives (no apostrophe… grammar lesson :))lived in Alsace-Lorraine? Oh, I get it… this is hypothetical! Okay, well it’s clear…. Because of my strong opposition to Hitler’s genocide of Jews I would work for the resisting hospital, regardless of the lower pay and that I would be working a hospital that denied a right to abortion or euthanasia. Like my father in real life, I believe I would even be willing to lay my life to oppose the German’s genocide of Jews.
Because of my strong opposition to Hitler’s genocide of Jews
Why do you oppose it? They were non-persons at the time, Asitis. They were doing nothing absolutely wrong. In their eyes, it was a moral good.
Grammar check: The first “they” referred to Jews, the second “they” referred to Hitler and the nazi’s.
What is evil to you isnt necessarily evil to others. Therefore, the evil only exists in your mind, Asitis.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:02 PM
That’s exactly true for some evils! There are some things we would all agree are evil. And other things I might think are evil and you don’t. Or vice versa. That should be pretty clear by now :)
That’s exactly true for some evils! There are some things we would all agree are evil. And other things I might think are evil and you don’t. Or vice versa. That should be pretty clear by now :)
lol no, it’s not clear at all, Asitis. Who gets to determine which evils are “absolutely” evil, and which are not?
And do the ones that are absolutely wrong become right if they change from being non-universally accepted to being universally accepted? And if so, are they truly wrong at all?
Why is murder wrong, Asitis. Why is it wrong to take the life of another person?
Just because more people say so?
‘To others, abortionists may seem like soulless monsters and not people, so maybe to them, killing them wouldn’t actually be wrong. At least, according to your standards of right and wrong. You knew that, didn’t you? Be consistent now.”
Yes, I can appreciate that TO THEM murdering an abortionist would not be wrong, assuming they believe abortion is murder and in “an eye for an eye”.
“To you, black people are people. But to others, they aren’t (yes, even today), therefore killing a black human being to some would be not killing a person. So does that make it morally okay if a person decides to kill a black person? I didn’t ask about legality”.
It makes it morally okay to them, but not to me and not to society in general.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 12:59 PM
That’s exactly true for some evils! There are some things we would all agree are evil. And other things I might think are evil and you don’t. Or vice versa. That should be pretty clear by now :)
lol no, it’s not clear at all, Asitis. Who gets to determine which evils are “absolutely” evil, and which are not?
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:10 PM
I MEANT it should be clear that you and I have some differing opinions on what some evils are and aren’t
Excellent points, Bethany! I guess morals are decided by what is current popular opinion.
I said that unkindness shown toward others because of their opposing beliefs can lead to evils.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 12:40 PM
Am I unkind, whatever that is defined as, to you ASitis?
Are you appealing to that silly French concept of being obligated to be a “kind noble” Asitis, and that being unkind to your opposition “can lead to evils”?
Being that noble kindness ended at the National Razor, Asitis. It is, asitis, and your conclusions of my being unkind to you is all in your head.
I have no obligation to you, ASitis.
You are obligated to allow me to educate you that hypocrisy and fakery are not a noble life.
Otherwise, you might be evil forever, and not know that your evil acts are not virtuous from not knowing the full good that ought to be there.
Or as a act of kindness towards you ASitis.
Turning away from God would not be a defect except in a nature meant to be with God. Even an evil will then is proof of the goodness of nature. Just as God is the supremely good creator of good natures, so he is the most just ruler of evil wills, so that even though evil wills make an evil use of good natures, God makes a good use of evil wills.
– St. Augustine, The City of God, XI, 17
Which is the justification/reason of loving the sinner and not the sin Asitis.
Why do you oppose it? They were non-persons at the time, Asitis. They were doing nothing absolutely wrong. In their eyes, it was a moral good.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:07 PM
They were non-persons to the Nazis.The rest of the world considered it murder.
They were non-persons to the Nazis.The rest of the world considered it murder.
So? The Nazi’s were right, to themselves. Therefore, nothing they did was absolutely wrong.
Also, what they did was legal. Can something be legal and wrong at the same time? Imagine that…
Why is murder wrong, Asitis. Why is it wrong to take the life of another person?
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:13 PM
Just because more people say so?
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:14 PM
“More people”? How about, just about everyone believes it. This universal belief that murder is wrong is probably based on our ability to feel for others and our sense of self-preservation. It’s in our best interest. Same would go for stealing is wrong……
You don’t need a God to tell you it’s wrong to murder your neighbor. Or steal his car.
You are obligated to allow me to educate you that hypocrisy and fakery are not a noble life.
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 1:18 PM
Oh, really?
Thanks for the laugh yllas!
“More people”? How about, just about everyone believes it.
So? Like I said, if more people believe it, that’s how you decide somethings wrong. That’s really silly.
This universal belief that murder is wrong is probably based on our ability to feel for others and our sense of self-preservation. It’s in our best interest.
What if killing another person is in my best self interest? Is it okay then? Why not? What if killing another person is good for someone else’s best self interest. Is it okay then? Why not?
Same would go for stealing is wrong……
If I steal food because I’m hungry, then is it really wrong, because I’m just acting in my own self interests. Why does it matter if another person is affected by it. Survival of the fittest, baby!
They were non-persons to the Nazis.The rest of the world considered it murder.
So? The Nazi’s were right, to themselves. Therefore, nothing they did was absolutely wrong.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:24 PM
No…. You could say that nothing they did was wrong to the Nazi themselves. But it was wrong to the rest of the world. So wrong that they went to war over it.
You don’t need a God to tell you it’s wrong to murder your neighbor. Or steal his car.
Why do we need a law, Asitis?
No…. You could say that nothing they did was wrong to the Nazi themselves. But it was wrong to the rest of the world. So wrong that they went to war over it.
Ah, so because they won a war, that makes them right?
What if Hitler had won? Would it be right?
What if killing another person is in my best self interest? Is it okay then? Why not? What if killing another person is good for someone else’s best self interest. Is it okay then? Why not?
No, it’s not okay Bethany. Murder is wrong. Humans agree on that. Now, maybe you kill someone in self defense (which is definitely in your best interest!). That will be taken into account by the law and your own conscience. Same for the scenario with the baby food. Everything is not so black and white in this world of ours.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:33 PM
You don’t need a God to tell you it’s wrong to murder your neighbor. Or steal his car.
Why do we need a law, Asitis?
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Because some people do not believe these things are wrong. Or their desire to kill someone or steal something may be too strong.
Thanks for the history lesson, but did I say my relatives (no apostrophe… grammar lesson :))lived in Alsace-Lorraine? Oh, I get it… this is hypothetical! Okay, well it’s clear…. Because of my strong opposition to Hitler’s genocide of Jews I would work for the resisting hospital, regardless of the lower pay and that I would be working a hospital that denied a right to abortion or euthanasia. Like my father in real life, I believe I would even be willing to lay my life to oppose the German’s genocide of Jews.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 1:04 PM
What a fake and another act of hypocrisy you have just written, as you are a fellow traveler of socialism and its approval of euthansia and abortion.
Your opposed to killing Jews is all. Soo, it’s a religious thing with ya Asitis? You’ll die for religious persecution?
In fact, if you were ethnic German, in the region of Alsace Lorraine, you would be a “double traitor” to Germany and France, for no other reason then being a appeal to religion, if one is to belief your fake answer you just gave Asitis.
You would have been right there killing the useless eater,French or German, and the fact of your appeal to religious opposition to euthanasia, is more hypocrisy since you already denied/became free, of those Catholics, who oppose to this day, what Hitler allowed and you preach for today. Abortion and euthanasia.
asitis,
WWII started because of Germany’s unprovoked attack on Poland. The Nazis thought the Jews were subhuman. All things are relative, aren’t they? Now, there are those who think that unborn babies are subhuman/non-persons.
Because some people do not believe these things are wrong. Or their desire to kill someone or steal something may be too strong.
Yes, and why is that, Asitis? Why would someone believe that something that is wrong is not wrong? People don’t need a God to tell them that something is wrong, you say, so why don’t they automatically know?
So it is actually possible for something to be wrong, even though a person doesn’t believe it is wrong?
It is actually possible for something to be wrong, but a person could do this wrong thing and never feel any guilt over it?
Your opposed to killing Jews is all. Soo, it’s a religious thing with ya Asitis? You’ll die for religious persecution?
Awesome point.
WWII started because of Germany’s unprovoked attack on Poland. The Nazis thought the Jews were subhuman. All things are relative, aren’t they? Now, there are those who think that unborn babies are subhuman/non-persons.
Exactly, Eileen!
Killing is allowed when you “believe” that it is not a person. It is human life but not a person. It just boggles the mind that some rationalize this way! But when you refuse to see; God grants your wish — spiritual blindness.
What the hell yllas?
“Your opposed to killing Jews is all. Soo, it’s a religious thing with ya Asitis? You’ll die for religious persecution?”
This was not just “religious persecution yllas” this was mass murder.
“The fact of your appeal to religious opposition to euthanasia, is more hypocrisy since you already denied/became free, of those Catholics”
What? read what I wrote again. I said I would work in the hospital despite the fact that it didn’t allow these things. If I HAD to choose between supporting euthanasis and abortion rights OR opposing Hitler, I would choose the latter .
This was not just “religious persecution yllas” this was mass murder
No, it was legal, and they were non-persons at the time. What they did was not murder. It was just the same as abortion- it was CHOICE. See how great that sounds! :)
Asitis, the Jews were a form of human beings, but they were not human PERSONS. Remember, there is a difference.
Oops, I made a mistake,. That should have read, they were a form of human LIFE, but not a form of human beings, because being/person are synonyms, at least, depending on the discussion….
Awesome point.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 1:55 PM
Thank you, thank you, I tip my evil, tinfoil hat to ya Bethany!
hee,hee, I’m right down there with you!
What would I die for? I would lay my life on the line for my children. I can say that without hesitation.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 12:31 PM
BUT, would you do it for your unborn child, asitis?
What? read what I wrote again. I said I would work in the hospital despite the fact that it didn’t allow these things. If I HAD to choose between supporting euthanasis and abortion rights OR opposing Hitler, I would choose the latter .
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 2:05 PM
But that isn’t what you wrote Asitis.
Because of my strong opposition to Hitler’s genocide of Jews I would work for the resisting hospital, regardless of the lower pay and that I would be working a hospital that denied a right to abortion or euthanasia. Like my father in real life, I believe I would even be willing to lay my life to oppose the German’s genocide of Jews.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 1:04 PM
It’s a religious matter that you based your opposition to being employed at a hospital that opposed euthansia and abortion .
Would you work at a hospital that followed socialism’s agreed philosophy of abortion and euthansia of Catholics?
Of course you would, because your a faker and a hypocrite trying to deny what is acceptable to ya Asitis. Abortion and Euthanasia. And it is from religious reason’s that you objected to Germany’s philosophic medical care of that religious group.
The French agreed with Germany’s socialism/philosophy that approved of ending the life of their fellow French citizens via abortion and euthanasia. Religion didn’t matter to those French citizens, and that was the answer your father would have given in reality. Or you Asiitis.
He would have worked at a hospital that euthanized French,German and any nationality that was in need of his compassionate services from being devoted to the philosophy of A/E. You too Asitis.
Your a big fat liar,Asitis, to quote Al Franken.
BTW Asitis, you use the word genocide, please give me a definition of that word. You might agree with Hitler more then you know Asitis.
More fun.
It’s another day in the world of the culture of death and Asitis is preaching for what she does not.
The hospital that opposed euthanasia/abortion has for economic reason’s changed their policy of opposing A/E. They now allow A/E
It is still during the great union of France and Germany(1940/45), a progenerator of the present day EU, united in socialism, and it’s ideas that reach across artificial borders.
Do you still work at that hospital, which pays less, or go and work at the hospital that always did allow your philosophy of A/E, and offers 4x’s the pay, Asitis?
yllas you are flat out lying. You know i didnt say that. I wrote that I would opposed working at that hospital which allowed euthanasis and abortion because that hospital was the one that supported hitler. It was not because of it’s opposition to euthanasia and abortion. And furthermore, my opposition to hilter is not a religious one- it is because he was murdering people.
I MEANT it should be clear that you and I have some differing opinions on what some evils are and aren’t
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 1:17 PM
for you truth is relative and so is evil.
yllas you are flat out lying. You know i didnt say that. I wrote that I would opposed working at that hospital which allowed euthanasis and abortion because that hospital was the one that supported hitler. It was not because of it’s opposition to euthanasia and abortion. And furthermore, my opposition to hilter is not a religious one- it is because he was murdering people.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 3:00 PM
what the hell is the difference here?
you don’t want to work in a hospital becuase it supports Hitler because Hitler is murdering people, but
you will work in a hospital doing abortions and practicing euthanasia?
Have I got this correct?
And furthermore, my opposition to hilter is not a religious one- it is because he was murdering people.
Asitis, you sound so confused. Don’t you remember that they were non-persons and that it was legal to kill them? What is the legal definition of murder?
What would I die for? I would lay my life on the line for my children. I can say that without hesitation.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 12:31 PM
BUT, would you do it for your unborn child, asitis?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 8, 2009 2:33 PM
I would LOVE an answer to this question. Please?
Uh Huh, ASitis.
I use your words and you then go off and abandon them to the world of Humpty Dumpty.
Others are noticing your confusion which seems to stem from not even knowing what you wrote yourself Asitis.
But, we forgive you Asitis.
It’s would be tuff,suffering, and lamentations, being devoted to E/A and ending up working for a place that despises your faith in A/E.
But, can you answer my post at January 8, 2009 2:56 PM?
You see, being a authority of making all your decisions bullet proof in your morality built upon A/E, a intellectually honest person would answer those questions posed at 2;56pm.
May I make some suggestions?
Take another job, non medical of course, which allows you too avoid being questioned by authorities as nothingmore then a collaborator of those French socialist that agreed with Germany’s program of A/E.
That’s what a faker would answer.
yllas you are flat out lying. You know i didnt say that. I wrote that I would opposed working at that hospital which allowed euthanasis and abortion because that hospital was the one that supported hitler. It was not because of it’s opposition to euthanasia and abortion. And furthermore, my opposition to hilter is not a religious one- it is because he was murdering people.
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Grammar lesson; “I would opposED working—”
Tsk Tsk, leaving grammar lessons for other’s, while doing the same, is another form of pedantry mixed with hypocrisy.
Now, if your going to be a grammar cop here Asitis, one might not make mistakes of grammar yourself, which leads to another do as I say, but not as I do.
Or are you sayed my grammar is worth being a unrepentant hypocrite in matters of grammar toooo, Asitis?
tstl@ 3:03
People don’t agree onALL truths and evil.
Tstl @3:05
Like many, I don’t believe abortion or contraception are murder. And I don’t believe euthanasia is murder because the person has asked the doctor to help them end their life. I know you believe differently.
Bethany @3:06
I am not confused at all. It was the Nazis that considered Jews to be non-persons. Everyone else disagreed and saw it as murder.
Tstl@4:23
No, I would not lay down my life for a zygote or embryo or early fetus in my womb. I value my own life and my children having me alive as their mother and my husband having me as his wife far more.
Bethany @3:06
I am not confused at all. It was the Nazis that considered Jews to be non-persons.
Exactly my point, Asitis. Moral relativism means that nothing is truly evil, there is only that which is seen as evil by other minds. Your idea that the holocaust was evil is purely a work of your mind, and not an absolute truth. If we are to be consistent, that is.
Everyone else disagreed and saw it as murder.
What does that have to do with anything? Please explain. BTW, you have not addressed my questions at 1:36 PM, 1:37 PM, 1:38 PM, or 1:53 PM.
Tstl@4:23
No, I would not lay down my life for a zygote or embryo or early fetus in my womb. I value my own life and my children having me alive as their mother and my husband having me as his wife far more.
When your unborn child started kicking, did you mention to your husband, “the human fetus is kicking”? What about when it hiccuped, or rolled over in your womb?
Did you ever look at the ultrasound screen and correct your doctor when he said, “This is the baby’s foot, and there’s his hand, and his head”, and say, “No, doctor, that is a fetus. Please use the correct terminology when you’re around me”?
No, I would not lay down my life for a zygote or embryo or early fetus in my womb
What about a late fetus, Asitis?
I am not confused at all. It was the Nazis that considered Jews to be non-persons. Everyone else disagreed and saw it as murder.
No you are quite wrong. NOT everyone else disagreed. There were many Germans, Polish, Dutch and even Americans who agreed with the Nazi’s on their policies of euthanasia and on the Jewish question. The Nazi’s did not just suddenly start killing Jews. They began with the mentally ill, the disabled, those with Down syndrome (I believe Pope Benedict XVI lost a cousin this way to the Nazi’s). Then they began to systematically remove Jews from the social fabric.
This situation is directly analogous to what is happening today. If an unborn baby at 3 weeks is not a person, why is it a person at 22 weeks? Why is it a person at 4 weeks after birth. Physiologically there are no differences except for maturity. If you can kill your baby up to 30 weeks, why can’t you kill it after birth? Peter Singer simply carries this rationale to its logical conclusion. Unborn babies do not meet our criteria for personhood – women get to say whether they live or die. Why not apply this to babies born after birth – people should have to measure up.
Because you have no moral code to follow asitis – you have no specific idea what makes something right or wrong.
And I don’t believe euthanasia is murder because the person has asked the doctor to help them end their life.
This is a VERY simplistic view of euthanasia and shows you have little understanding of the complexities of the issue. Why is euthanasia right? How do you know that the person has actually requested to be killed? And if he has why should I be made to participate in it?
Take another job, non medical of course, which allows you too avoid being questioned by authorities as nothingmore then a collaborator of those French socialist that agreed with Germany’s program of A/E.
you don’t have to worry yllas. She deals with dead things like rocks! No worries there. Except maybe any unborn babies asitis might have…
Peter Singer simply carries this rationale to its logical conclusion.
If there’s one thing we can say about Peter Singer, at least he’s consistent.
When your unborn child started kicking, did you mention to your husband, “the human fetus is kicking”? What about when it hiccuped, or rolled over in your womb?
Did you ever look at the ultrasound screen and correct your doctor when he said, “This is the baby’s foot, and there’s his hand, and his head”, and say, “No, doctor, that is a fetus. Please use the correct terminology when you’re around me”?
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 5:09 PM
haha good one Madame Bethany!!
Because you have no moral code to follow asitis – you have no specific idea what makes something right or wrong.
Bingo.
actually she does have a code to follow – it’s called moral relativism and secular humanism.
gotta go for now…
yllas I don’t understand why you would ask me that question? I work at the resistance hospital even though it pays less and does not offer a/e even though I believe a/e. I work here because I oppose the Nazis which the other hospital supports. Now you say my hospital is offering a/e and everything else inthe scenario remains unchanged. Why would I even consider moving? The other hospital still supports the Nazis. The change in scenario at my hospital is a +ve for me.
WTF?
Because you have no moral code to follow asitis – you have no specific idea what makes something right or wrong.
Bingo.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 5:14 PM
I do, it’s just different from yours and your little group’s. And that’s what you can’t accept.
But I’m done. This is going nowhere and I’ve wasted too much time giving you honest answers to only have you ignore or twist or mock them.
Bon nuit.
TSTL,
Did I read this correctly? You wouldn’t work at a hospital that offered abortions/euthanasia?
Asitis, I’m not making fun. I’m trying to get you to see it from our perspective. I want you to see how illogical your position is. I think Patricia’s statement was correct, thus the “bingo”. It was not intended to mock.
Did I read this correctly? You wouldn’t work at a hospital that offered abortions/euthanasia?
I sure as heck wouldn’t.
So, would you work at a hospital that didn’t offer those things?
It really depends… Why?
It just seems bazaar. The way I see it, you could help more working at a hospital that did abortions/euthanasia. It seems like the best possible choice would be to try to work in those places and help, instead of letting people who don’t care work at those hospitals.
How would one help? You wouldn’t get too far once the hospital found out that you were trying to “help”. Didn’t Jill get fired for her efforts to help, so to speak?
Well, Josephine, you could be right in that aspect. It worked for Jill after her experience… she is probably stronger than I am. I would want to throw up if I ever had to look one of those nurses and doctors in the eye after knowing what they were doing. She stayed within the hospital after experiencing that little one’s death by live birth abortion…God gave her the grace to handle it. I don’t know that I would be that strong. She worked within the hospital for 2 years after that, until they fired her. God knows how many lives were touched as a result of her efforts within that hospital, and I think she will be rewarded for that.
How would one help? You wouldn’t get too far once the hospital found out that you were trying to “help”. Didn’t Jill get fired for her efforts to help, so to speak?
That’s true, you’re not really allowed to discuss religion or politics as a doctor.
I’m sorry, that above sentence should have read:
“God knows how many lives were touched as a result of her efforts *while she was in* that hospital, and I think she will be rewarded for that.”
I don’t know whether she was capable of working within the hospital in that way.
Doctors certainly can counsel. They’re supposed to… they have moral obligations. If a doctor thinks you’re not making a healthy choice, they can try to stop you. There isn’t anything religious about that. Didn’t Jill try to fight the hospital? I’m definitely not talking about that; I’m talking about the patients themselves.
It just seems bazaar. The way I see it, you could help more working at a hospital that did abortions/euthanasia. It seems like the best possible choice would be to try to work in those places and help, instead of letting people who don’t care work at those hospitals.
Posted by: Josephine at January 8, 2009 7:51 PM
you are right Josephine, I would go in and work at such a hospital and destroy all the suction machines and toss out all the depo provera, the bc pills, the IUDs the RU-486 pills, the emergency contraception, you know that sort of thing – get rid of all the killing chemicals and instruments.
TSTL,
Yeah. You’d really be helping a lot of people. You’d make all pro-lifers look like idiots, you’d actually be making the abortion industry money because the hospital would buy more of all the stuff you destroyed, and you’d get fired without helping anyone. So, that’s awesome..
TSTL,
Yeah. You’d really be helping a lot of people. You’d make all pro-lifers look like idiots, you’d actually be making the abortion industry money because the hospital would buy more of all the stuff you destroyed, and you’d get fired without helping anyone. So, that’s awesome..
Posted by: Josephine at January 8, 2009 10:09 PM
sorry, but you asked a stupid question and you got a stupid answer.
wish I had one of Bethany’s emoticons!
How is that a stupid question? You’re saying it’s better to work at a hospital that doesn’t do those things so you don’t have to “deal with it”. That’s the most ri-freaking-diculous thing I’ve heard coming from people who want to save lives! Bethany and Eileen both gave real answers, and I completely respect that. I don’t see one way in which my question was stupid. Is it not about saving lives?
A great intellect, and loving man has died.
Father Richard John Neuhaus, who brought Evangelist and Catholic’s together in common cause against abortion.
Author of The Naked Public Square; Religion and Democracy In America. Publisher of FIRST THINGS.
And for Father Neuhaus, he know’s someone will be there to help him, and that God was with him all his days, and forever into eternity.
(By the way, Bethany, thanks for giving me a real answer. I appreciate it! :)
A great intellect, and loving man has died.
Father Richard John Neuhaus, who brought Evangelist and Catholic’s together in common cause against abortion.
Author of The Naked Public Square; Religion and Democracy In America. Publisher of FIRST THINGS.
And for Father Neuhaus, he know’s someone will be there to help him, and that God was with him all his days, and forever into eternity.
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 11:09 PM
I was in shock tonight about this. I am so sad he has gone. I thorougly enjoyed his writings on the First Things blog! He will be greatly missed.
yllas I don’t understand why you would ask me that question? I work at the resistance hospital even though it pays less and does not offer a/e even though I believe a/e. I work here because I oppose the Nazis which the other hospital supports. Now you say my hospital is offering a/e and everything else inthe scenario remains unchanged. Why would I even consider moving? The other hospital still supports the Nazis. The change in scenario at my hospital is a +ve for me.
WTF?
Posted by: asitis at January 8, 2009 5:27 PM
Dudette,
Now that you are working at a hospital that offers your delight in life, which is A/E, how do you know your NOT Aborting and Euthanizing Jews?
The best part is your working for less pay, and enjoying the aborting and euthanizing of French citizens, German citizens and any religion/nationality that walk’s in the door of your hospital, which now accepts universal A/E.
Afterall, it is ok for you to A/E Catholics and Protestants Asitis?
But just not the Jews?
My question to you is, since your hospital now performs A/E on any person, how do you know your not A/Euthanizing a Jewish person?
Toostunned.
At First Things they have a article Father John wrote(Feb.2000) about his hospital stay for his “missed tumor” in his intestines.
If not for George Weigel, he would have died during that episode of medical incompetence.
In that article he trys to explain a “near life” experience he had one night in ICU.
“What I was staring at was a color like blue and purple, and vaguely in the form of hanging drapery. By the drapery were two “presences.” I saw them and yet did not see them, and I cannot explain that. But they were there, and I knew that I was not tied to the bed. I was able and prepared to get up and go somewhere. And then the presences—one or both of them, I do not know—spoke. This I heard clearly. Not in an ordinary way, for I cannot remember anything about the voice. But the message was beyond mistaking: “Everything is ready now.”
In iconography the color purple is written as the “Celestal Queen, or Mother of God.
Dark-blue and blue indicate the infiniteness of the sky and is the symbol of another everlasting world. Dark blue was considered the color of the Mother of God who combines in her self both the terrestrial and celestial. The backgrounds of mural paintings in many Byzantine churches dedicated to the Mother of God are filled with a celestial dark blue.
yllas, very interesting post.
I saw the article but haven’t had the chance to read it yet.
Do you paint icons? A priest friend of mine from the Ukrainian Eastern-rite Catholic Church once explained icons to my friends and I (we are Latin-Rite). I have a beautiful icon of St. Michael above my computer desk at home.
Eternal rest grant unto him. O Lord! I loved Fr. Neuhaus — a holy priest and a great intellect. When he spoke, it was like poetry!
Josephine, you’re welcome…I felt that you were being sincere and I wanted to be sincere in return. I’m sorry for having called you an idiot the other day. Even though I was finding your answers frustrating at the time, I shouldn’t have let my emotions get the better of me there and resort to name calling.
Afterall, it is ok for you to A/E Catholics and Protestants Asitis?
But just not the Jews?
My question to you is, since your hospital now performs A/E on any person, how do you know your not A/Euthanizing a Jewish person?
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 11:36 PM
Yes, of course it’s okay for me to perform abortions and euthanasia on Catholics and Protestants yllas. They are asking me to. I am their doctor. Why would I tell them I can’t because their religion tells them they shouldn’t? I am not against it. It is legal. Are you suggesting that our religious affiliation be embossed on our health insurance card and if we are catholic, and catholics are to be refused abortions and contraceptives? Yeh, good luck with that. I can hear the cry “Foul” already, and it’s loudest from the catholics!
As for your other question, how d I know I am not performing euthanasia nor abortion for a Jewish person? It doesn’t matter. Just like the Catholics and Protestants I discussed above, Jews could also come to me for these and I would perform tham for them as per their request, my profession and the law.
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 11:36 PM
Sorry… drop the “and catholics” from that sentence. It should read:
“Are you suggesting that our religious affiliation be embossed on our health insurance card and if we are catholic, are to be refused abortions and contraceptives?”
Asitis, I’m not making fun. I’m trying to get you to see it from our perspective. I want you to see how illogical your position is.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 7:25 PM
Bethany, here’s the bottom line on this for me( and I’d say all pro-choice): We can see it from your perspective. We get it. And we also get that you think any other perspective is wrong or illogical based on your beliefs. But you are not going to convince us that your perspective is the absolute right one and that any other one makes no sense. Just as we are not going to do convince you otherwise.
Oh, and thanks for confirming my suspicion that TSTL is Patricia. I wondered where she had disappeared to after the whole Bible Belt Ontario embarrassment and suspected it was underground as tstl!
“Asitis you are most definitely not a scientist previously from Ontario with 100 friends”. Next thing you know she will be informing me I am not a strawberry blond! Because she knows.
Welcome back Patricia!
OMG I should have known it was Patricia for sure with that whole pedologist exchange!
asitis,
Our beliefs are based on the truth. And you are right that “we” aren’t going to convince you of the truth. Only the Holy Spirit can do that — remove the blinders from your eyes. All we can do is witness to the truth.
Bethany, here’s the bottom line on this for me( and I’d say all pro-choice): We can see it from your perspective. We get it.
No, Asitis, I really don’t think you do.
You have showed a gross misunderstanding of the things we have said to you, and you have unwittingly misinterpreted almost everything I have written to you. I have had to clarify time and time again exactly what I am trying to say, and you still did not understand. You have made assumptions about what I believe or know, even though you don’t know me or my background to understand what I do believe or know, and I simply do not believe that you have an understanding of our perspective at all, based on all of that.
I know you think you do understand, based on your experiences with a religious family (you generalize about us as if we were your family too), but from what you have expressed here, I do not think you understand one iota of what I have tried to explain to you, sadly.
Plus, you ignore the questions that I ask, which you find difficult, instead of facing them head on and answering them honestly. If you were truly understanding of even your own philosophy of life, you should have been able to answer all of those questions with confidence. Know what I’m saying? :)
Plus, some have been convinced by the reality of the human life in the womb and have changed their stance from pro-abortion to pro-life, many in the last few years that I have known of. I used to think debate with pro-abortionists was futile too, but after seeing that, it gave me hope that no, it’s not. People can and will change their minds if given enough reason to do so.
I keep hoping that one day, you will be one of those people, Asitis. I know you are thinking that will not happen, but I know that it could, so I cannot stop trying. Besides, that’s the entire reason I post on this blog; To convince, to educate, to change minds and hearts, and to save lives.
Like I have told you before, I do think you have a big heart. I have seen the way you talk about your family and I know you do care. I think if you could get over your resentment for the pro-life people (based on your past experiences in your family, etc), you might find that you actually agree with us more than you know.
. Only the Holy Spirit can do that — remove the blinders from your eyes. All we can do is witness to the truth.
Amen, Eileen. We plant the seed. God does the watering and bringing life to that seed.
I think if you could get over your resentment for the pro-life people (based on your past experiences in your family, etc), you might find that you actually agree with us more than you know.
I don’t have any “resentment” over pro-life nor my family nor Catholicism Bethany. I simply do not believe in God. I never really have since I was a very young girl, long before I stopped going to Mass and Catholic school. Some people have it. Some people don’t. Doesn’t make one better or smarter than the other.
You like to say I misinterpret your questions and answers and that you have to clarify to me time and again what it is you mean. I can say likewise. But often times in your case it’s because you don’t like my answer. You think it’s wrong or I’m lying or I’m hiding from something I can’t face or that I beleive what I do so that I don’t have to feel bad about what I do. That’s not it at all.
Please don’t try to save me. I don’t need it. I’m happy just the way I am. I know what I believe in. And I’m okay with the fact that you believe in something different.And you know what Bethany? There are even more beliefs different from yours and mine. You do not own The Truth.
I should share with you an experience from when I was young. We had recently moved I and was in public school for the first time, though we still attended Catholic. When I met the parents of a friend of mine and heard they were aethiests I was shocked. Why? Because this couple had struck me as two of the most decent, caring, loving, generous people I had ever met.
There’s something wrong with that picture.
Sorry… left some words out:
“I should share with you an experience from when I was young. We had recently moved and I was in public school for the first time, though we still attended Catholic Church.”
Please don’t try to save me. I don’t need it. I’m happy just the way I am. I know what I believe in. And I’m okay with the fact that you believe in something different.And you know what Bethany? There are even more beliefs different from yours and mine. You do not own The Truth.
Of course I don’t own the truth. But I can witness it, just as I can witness that 2 objects plus 2 objects equals 4 objects, or that the sky is blue. I’m not trying to save your soul, Asitis. Only God can do that. What I am trying to do is show you the facts which are that human life begins at conception, and that there is no difference between the human zygote and a newborn baby except the same difference that is between a newborn baby an an adolescent (stage of development).
Even you cannot tell me what the difference is between a just conceived zygote and a newborn baby, Asitis, except size and age.
If you are happy with your beliefs and do not want to discuss it, what are you doing here at a blog intended to debate, share opinions, and discuss matters?
I should share with you an experience from when I was young. We had recently moved I and was in public school for the first time, though we still attended Catholic. When I met the parents of a friend of mine and heard they were aethiests I was shocked. Why? Because this couple had struck me as two of the most decent, caring, loving, generous people I had ever met.
There’s something wrong with that picture.
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 12:10 PM
Yes, something is definitely wrong with that picture. Your parents thought that Christians were better people than Atheists. nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing that separates Christians from Atheists is that they have been forgiven.
If you are happy with your beliefs and do not want to discuss it, what are you doing here at a blog intended to debate, share opinions, and discuss matters?
Posted by: Bethany at January 9, 2009 12:
Okay, you asked me that question here like a week ago Bethany. Let me post my answer for you again….
why do I come here? Well beyond entertainment ( you are currently getting me through a long trip home) I do learn some things here about issues and people. And you guys need to hear from the outside world every once in awhile!
Posted by: asitis at January 1, 2009 5:12 PM
So you do come to teach us, then, Asitis? What exactly makes that any different than my purpose in debating on this blog, which you say is pointless?
By the way, could you please explain what exactly you mean by “the outside world”?
Bethany, when I said you think you “own The Truth”, I meant that you think what your belief in God is the absolute truth. Everyone else is just doesn’t see it. But it is the the one and only truth.
Here, Eileen shows us a fine example. With thanks to Eileen,
asitis,
Our beliefs are based on the truth. And you are right that “we” aren’t going to convince you of the truth. Only the Holy Spirit can do that — remove the blinders from your eyes. All we can do is witness to the truth.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 9, 2009 11:09 AM
I have NO idea what you are talking about asitis? Who is Patricia?
why do I come here? Well beyond entertainment ( you are currently getting me through a long trip home) I do learn some things here about issues and people. And you guys need to hear from the outside world every once in awhile!
Posted by: asitis at January 1, 2009 5:12 PM
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 12:30 PM
your implication is that prolifers are sequestered idiots who are out of touch with reality.
once again you show your humble side asitis…
Asitis, Eileen was talking about a spiritual matter, and when I’m talking to you about human life, I am talking about a physical matter.
However, it could be that your spiritual resentments are blinding your eyes from the physical reality.
Bethany: there are many differences between Christians and atheists.
It doesn’t mean that one will NECESSARILY be a better person that the other, but chances are, a person with a proper Christian world view WILL likely behave better and be a more morally correct person. The christian knows there is another life after this one. The atheist acts as though everything depends upon himself and this life.
So you do come to teach us, then, Asitis? What exactly makes that any different than my purpose in debating on this blog, which you say is pointless?
By the way, could you please explain what exactly you mean by “the outside world”?
Posted by: Bethany at January 9, 2009 12:32 PM
Big difference Bethany. I didn’t say I was here to teach you. I said I was here to give some input. A different perspective. The only think I would hope to “teach” you is that there are lots of other good, smart, caring people out there who beleieve differently than you. I think I have accomplished that to a degree from the sounds of it!
“Like I have told you before, I do think you have a big heart. I have seen the way you talk about your family and I know you do care”
What do i mean by outside world? I mean the world outside the conservative pro-life movement. That’s all.
That’s a better explanation, TSTL. I wasn’t very thorough with mine.
What do i mean by outside world? I mean the world outside the conservative pro-life movement. That’s all.
LOL you think we don’t hear from them all the time? That’s arrogant.
The only think I would hope to “teach” you is that there are lots of other good, smart, caring people out there who beleieve differently than you. I think I have accomplished that to a degree from the sounds of it!
Just pure arrogance, Asitis. How can you not see that, I wonder.
Big difference Bethany. I didn’t say I was here to teach you. I said I was here to give some input. A different perspective. The only think I would hope to “teach” you is that there are lots of other good, smart, caring people out there who beleieve differently than you. I think I have accomplished that to a degree from the sounds of it!
But Bethany don’t you think that the persons holding very liberal humanist views ARE generally arrogant. They are at the very least very intolerant of other ideas, so asitis’ notion is quite silly.
AFter all the conservatives are not the ones forcing their views on people with legislation, ignoring referendums and so forth.
We simply want to live our lives according to our beliefs, but apparently, according to the likes of asitis, we cannot, indeed must not!
your implication is that prolifers are sequestered idiots who are out of touch with reality.
That’s what she truly believes, TSTL, and this is why I know that she still has such a resentment for her family and the pro-life movement. Pride, resentment, and false assumptions can certainly blind and deafen a person to what another is saying.
Please don’t try to save me. I don’t need it. I’m happy just the way I am. I know what I believe in. And I’m okay with the fact that you believe in something different.And you know what Bethany? There are even more beliefs different from yours and mine. You do not own The Truth.
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 12:01 PM
we won’t. You have to want to be saved.
And Christians do own the truth because that truth is found in God, who is pure knowledge, truth and goodness.
Good point, TSTL. She’s not very tolerant of our beliefs if she feels she must “enlighten” us…apparently it’s not okay for us to be conservative Christians, at least not while she’s around.
Asitis feels it is her duty to educate us to what the “outside world” believes, because, uh, like, you know, we obviously have no idea…duhhrrhhhrr!
I have NO idea what you are talking about asitis? Who is Patricia?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 12:35 PM
Oh really? How about this?:
Last night Bethany wrote this comment:
I think Patricia’s statement was correct, thus the “bingo”. It was not intended to mock.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 7:25 PM
She was referring to her Bingo in this earlier comment:
Because you have no moral code to follow asitis -you have no specific idea what makes something right or wrong.
Bingo.
Posted by: Bethany at January 8, 2009 5:14 PM
The first part of Bethany’s quote from 5:14 “Because you have no moral code….” was something toostunnedtolaugh posted at 5:10.
Bethany gave your identity away at 7:25 pm last night (refer back to the first quote above).
Now, what is it? Are you lying to us or does Bethany have it wrong? Hmmmmm?
I didn’t even know I wrote that. TSTL reminds me of Patricia, maybe that is why I said it?
Bethany knows no more who I am than you do asitis.
And as a moderator, she is not allowed to reveal identities on the site of people who use monikers.
You can believe I am this “Patricia” if you like. That is up to you, just as you can choose not to believe in God!
I’m afraid you are making yourself look rather silly.
We simply want to live our lives according to our beliefs, but apparently, according to the likes of asitis, we cannot, indeed must not!
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 12:48 PM
Sure you can! No one says you have to get an abortion. Or can’t beleif in God. Or go to your church. Or use contraceptives.
Sure you can! No one says you have to get an abortion. Or can’t beleif in God. Or go to your church. Or use contraceptives.
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 1:02 PM
maybe YOU need to be informed.
Can a pharmacist practice his/her profession according to Christian principles? Absolutely not.
Can a Catholic doctor? Perhaps if they are very very discreet about the patients that take.
I didn’t even know I wrote that. TSTL reminds me of Patricia, maybe that is why I said it?
Posted by: Bethany at January 9, 2009 12:59 PM
REALLY Bethany. After so many days (weeks?) you suddenly call tstl Patricia?
You wouldn’t be lying to cover-up an error now would you?
Bethany knows no more who I am than you do asitis.And as a moderator, she is not allowed to reveal identities on the site of people who use monikers.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:02 PM
The moderators know where the comments are coming from. I know she’s not allowed to reveal your identity, but that doesn’t mean she can’t slip up. To err is human.
Question is….. is Bethany being truthful about simply calling you Patricia because you remind her of Patricia? Or does she know you are Patricia and that now makes two lies. One from you. One from her.
maybe YOU need to be informed.
Can a pharmacist practice his/her profession according to Christian principles? Absolutely not.
Can a Catholic doctor? Perhaps if they are very very discreet about the patients that take.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:04 PM
I realize this Patricia. And I am not sure of all the laws on this. Nor how I feel about this one. Part of me says they can’t deny care. Another part says well, it’s wrong to force them to do some something their religion does not allow.
Are you a pharmacist or doctor?
why did your parents leave the catholic church asitis?
I didn’t even know I wrote that. TSTL reminds me of Patricia, maybe that is why I said it?
Posted by: Bethany at January 9, 2009 12:59 PM
Oh now what a minute….. This may not actually be a lie from Bethany, even if she knows tstl is Patricia. All she is really saying is the tstl reminds her of Patricia (which would be trus even if tstl is Patricia)and then she puts a question mark after the maybe that’s why i said it. Clever girl, that Bethany. Ever think of going into politics?
why did your parents leave the catholic church asitis?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:15 PM
Did I say they did?
asitis, I am going to ask you politely to respect the moniker i use here
If you want to believe that I am Patricia in your own mind that is fine with me. Whatever rings your bell, honey.
If you can’t I will ask the moderators to remove your comments.
maybe YOU need to be informed.
Can a pharmacist practice his/her profession according to Christian principles? Absolutely not.
Can a Catholic doctor? Perhaps if they are very very discreet about the patients that take.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:04 PM
please try again.
So, here’s where we are at folks….
We are waiting for tstl to fess up that she is Patricia.
Or for Bethany to give another ambiguous response to hide her slip up.
Or for Bethany to say outright that tstl is NOT Patricia and not breaking any Moderators Code in the process because saying who someone is not, is not revealing their identity. If she does this I will lay the issue to rest because I do not believe Bethany would tell an outright lie.
why did your parents leave the catholic church asitis?
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:15 PM
Did I say they did?
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 1:21 PM
this seems to be implied by your statements.
asitis, I am going to ask you politely to respect the moniker i use here
If you want to believe that I am Patricia in your own mind that is fine with me. Whatever rings your bell, honey.
If you can’t I will ask the moderators to remove your comments.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:24 PM
If you are Patricia that is an identity you have used here so there’s nothing wrong with “revealing” that is there actually? And on what grounds would they be removing my comments? Haven’t they asked recently that people refrain from mulitple monikers here? Hmmmm?
Bethany…. so quiet…
this seems to be implied by your statements.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:28 PM
How so?
Sure you can! No one says you have to get an abortion. Or can’t beleif in God. Or go to your church. Or use contraceptives.
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 1:02 PM
maybe YOU need to be informed.
Can a pharmacist practice his/her profession according to Christian principles? Absolutely not.
Can a Catholic doctor? Perhaps if they are very very discreet about the patients that take.
the other profession in the targetlines now are lawyers – who will possibly be required to defend same-sex couples in the area of family law in direct contradiction of their consciences
the other profession in the targetlines now are lawyers – who will possibly be required to defend same-sex couples in the area of family law in direct contradiction of their consciences
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:39 PM
Zut alors!
that may not bother you asitis, but what about a man who is asked to sue for custody on behalf of a lesbian couple when he knows that child would be better off with the single parent (either mom or dad).
of course there are always ways around this sort of thing.
So, here’s where we are STILL at folks….
We are waiting for tstl to fess up that she is Patricia.
Or for Bethany to give another ambiguous response to hide her slip up.
Or for Bethany to say outright that tstl is NOT Patricia and not breaking any Moderators Code in the process because saying who someone is not, is not revealing their identity. If she does this I will lay the issue to rest because I do not believe Bethany would tell an outright lie.
Or for Bethany to say that tstl and Patricia are one and the same, and at the same time remind her that moderators would prefer that we stick to one moniker
that may not bother you asitis, but what about a man who is asked to sue for custody on behalf of a lesbian couple when he knows that child would be better off with the single parent (either mom or dad).of course there are always ways around this sort of thing.
Posted by: toostunnedtolaugh at January 9, 2009 1:44 PM
Oh yeh, you’re right…. wouldn’t want a child to be raised by a lesbian couple. I see your point.
Ah, Bethany. What to do. What to do…..
Does it bother you that your friend has put you in this position?
Yes, of course it’s okay for me to perform abortions and euthanasia on Catholics and Protestants yllas. They are asking me to. I am their doctor. Why would I tell them I can’t because their religion tells them they shouldn’t? I am not against it. It is legal. Are you suggesting that our religious affiliation be embossed on our health insurance card and if we are catholic, and catholics are to be refused abortions and contraceptives? Yeh, good luck with that. I can hear the cry “Foul” already, and it’s loudest from the catholics!
As for your other question, how d I know I am not performing euthanasia nor abortion for a Jewish person? It doesn’t matter. Just like the Catholics and Protestants I discussed above, Jews could also come to me for these and I would perform tham for them as per their request, my profession and the law.
Posted by: yllas at January 8, 2009 11:36 PM
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 8:45 AM
Your mind is drifting again Asitis.
It is during the time period(1940-45) where Jews were being euthanized at hospitals in France and Germany.
They aren’t asking you to be A/Eing them, it is a medical policy of socialism to A/E citizens deemed to be defective/mentally unfit,etc.
Remember, you said you wouldn’t work for a Hitler policy run hospital, but you are, since the hospital that was opposed to those medical ethics now perform’s and operate’s under socialist ethics, that judges by a medical panel, who is to be A/E. It includes Jews of course.
So, now your A/Eing Jews, and still getting payed less. You’ve hit the bottom, and have become a hypocrite to your statement that you were opposed to the medical ethics of Hitler and his fellow socialist in France.
Jew killing hypocrite!
Oh, well, had you made it clear that I was to be performing abortions and “euthanasia” on Jews against their will, I would have said that I would have quit my job. If that had put my life at risk, so be it.
“Jew killing hypocrite”… that’s crazy talk yllas.
Hey, pssst, tstl! Wanna hear what I think you’re having for dinner again tonight?
it is a medical policy of socialism to A/E citizens deemed to be defective/mentally unfit,etc.
Posted by: yllas at January 9, 2009 2:23 PM
And by the way, yllas, don’t you mean Hilter’s brand of Chrsitian socialism here, not socialism in general? I don’t think forced abortion/ euthanasia are components of socialism itself. Correct me if I’m wrong please
Oh, well, had you made it clear that I was to be performing abortions and “euthanasia” on Jews against their will, I would have said that I would have quit my job. If that had put my life at risk, so be it.
“Jew killing hypocrite”… that’s crazy talk yllas.
Posted by: asitis at January 9, 2009 2:29 PM
You really are one dumb dudette.
The hospital that was opposed to A/E, and didn’t practice socialist A/E, was against A/E for religious reasons. There were no arguments against A/E by secular/socialist/communist.
Actually, many person’s deemed to be unfit,useless eaters/criminals, signed a paper that allowed them to be Euthanized. Or a legal custodian/family member also could sign off on the person be euthanized.
So, when you were working at that hospital, euthanizing Jews, and from being handed a piece of paper which stated the person you euthanized, was “voluntarily” being killed by you,Asitis. You killed legally and without a objection to your self formed conscience, that agrees with A/E. Jews included.
You don’t really think that medical personel would kill people against their will, do you Asitis?
You really are one dumb dudette.
The hospital that was opposed to A/E, and didn’t practice socialist A/E, was against A/E for religious reasons. There were no arguments against A/E by secular/socialist/communist.
Oh, really? one dumb dudette? That’s nice…. and incorrect. You see yllas, you never specified that the hospital opposed A/E for religious reasons. (I t