Hey Jill, that was a great little montage, and the music was easy to listen to also. You are a good photographer and editor. I see you were up half the night doing this as well. God bless you and I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you yesterday. I hope to meet you and maybe MK as well someday. You are both great pro-lifers!

Jill,

That was Great! It really captured the day. And you must be exhausted!

Some really good discussions were taking place on the proliferations post so I moved them here...

Hello Everybody,

Thanks for the warm greetings. I feel far more welcome here than anywhere else I�ve tried to debate these topics. Thanks also for the compliments on my debating skills. I�ve been trying to hone them for the past year or so.

�I hope that we will give you some good discussions, and things to think in the future, as I am sure you will give us much to think about as well!�

This is my hope as well.
Posted by: Enigma at August 25, 2007 11:34 PM

�Couples who view anything as "SACRED" , but most especially "sex" and marriage, do usually stay together...unless you have a different definition of sacred?�

This may be true but it is not necessary for a couple to view sex as sacred in order to stay together. Depending on one�s definition of sacred, it may or may not be necessary to view marriage as sacred.

To me, sacred means something that is treasured and should be preserved at all costs. It should be inviolable and, for lack of a better word, should be considered holy.

�If babies weren't dying as a result of these "dirty homes", I would agree with you. But they are, and when that happens at the rate of 1 and a half million a year, their dirty homes become my business...�

I may disagree with this but I think at some level that I do understand it. It is unreasonable to expect those who believe that abortion is murder to sit by idly while others seek to end their pregnancies through the use of abortion.
Posted by: Enigma at August 25, 2007 11:42 PM

Some really good discussions were going on on the pro liferations post...moved them here...

John: Doug - last week I told you that there was a way out of the Cartesian-box ... so here it is:

Some points to remember - 1) this Cartesian way of observation of reality IS very powerful and many people are here. 2) it is a defensive posture - the outside world is 'outside'. There is no 'superiority' involved. A person in our modern world is very fortunate, if they have managed to avoid this completely.
3) There is absolutely no proof that the Cartesian-box exists or that this works for you. If it does work, enjoy the freedom, please! You will be one of the first ones to attempt it! 4) This method is somewhat unusual. I am a wee bit mathematically inclined: to solve a very difficult puzzle, I'd often look up the answer and often the 'answer' yielded enough of a clue as to how I should proceed to 'solve the problem'. In retrospect much of what I've done here is very similar to that.

I hear that, John, and I've done the same thing as far as learning how to solve a problem. I still don't really know what you mean by the "Cartesian Box," in plain language. You seem to think it would be a bad thing, though.

........

The motive for wanting out of my 'box' was that I knew it too well and I was dying inside ... and I did not want to die! The key then to change this outlook was to live a free life. So how does a person become free? ... with laws, and rules and a seemingly hostile environment .... How to, how to ... ???

Sounds to me like the feeling of "I need something more.." Lots of people feel that way.

........

Understand what free means ... not just the dictionary stuff about 'choosing', but how do humans experience freedom ... watching an eagle soar, a good belly-laugh; weeping intensely at perverse injustice; reading to overcome ignorance; sailing ; a quiet vacation hike; seeing majestic mountains; riding out a hurricane ... etc, etc. Then I realized the concept of 'choice' (the dictionary view) had a very little grasp of what my experience of freedom was.

At roughly the same time, I started to understand that one of the key aspects of love is one-ness. [Every expression we have re. affection involves this whether it be a kiss, a hug, a handshake, we 'touch' someone, sexual intercourse, etc, etc] Could these two fit together - freedom and love? On-the-surface there is no way, especially if one enjoys the Cartesian-box life. But these two do indeed fit, but a person must be willing to change notions of what 'freedom' means. How about 'freedom is: an extension of being'? With such an understanding even the concept of choice is freed.

I don't think that freedom is an extention of being. "Being," alone, implies no freedom, necessarily. However, that is not to say that most of us aren't actually more free than we are aware of, in our daily lives. Also, I'd say that the human mind can "travel" quite a ways, even in the mere contemplation of things - some of which you mention above - while the body is quite limited (or our physical choices are quite limited).

........

By becoming-one with/in another (love) a human truly becomes 'the other'. So such an extension to the world of things (see below), transforms our concepts of ............ there are just too many! Such an extension to another (limited) human being, a person becomes freer in marriage [the two become one] ... and children are not burdens-to-stifle-self-expression but opportunities to embrace and enter into a life that is not me. [[ FOR STILL MORE ]] there comes a time when an urge beckons a person yet deeper. Same process, but this time the target is God - by definition both unlimited and Himself free. To extend ourselves to Him is the ultimate in 'freedom'; if He extends Himself to you, this is liberation - not here myself but have only read about it! And very little (almost none of it), is in the least bit verifiable. Does such need to be? The Cartesian box is only a 'bad' memory and has little to do with shaping perspective!

For a given person to benefit philosophically from believing this type of thing, I don't think it has to be verifiable. Yet to base telling a given woman that she can't end an unwanted pregnancy per such is the same as telling a woman with an wanted pregnancy that she should end it - "because of my faith." Well, her faith may be different from the speaker's.

My wife and I don't have any kids. We got married fairly "late" - she was 38, I was 41. There are lots of nieces and nephews, though, and to an extent they can be our "kids." My wife, as a teacher, also gets 150 kids every year, and over the years I've had my share in the course of my employment - it's now 23 years that I've been doing the same thing.

........

This is a very simple exercise but for me was highly transformational :::

Lie on a carpeted floor without a pillow and no music/sound - be quiet. Lie on your back; legs together and arms tucked next to your body. Within a very short while certain areas will become very painful. Right at these points, picture your body slowly descending into the floor ... eventually, it will feel like your pain is a tether to hold you. You will release this too ... and just float ... for me at least my mind did a 'flip' and I became very much more aware of what a pure gift living is. Believe me, you will not snooze, if you have no comfort like a pillow.

I always wondered what it would be like to perform such a ritual within marriage. My brother (moved by my experience), could not even fathom what this would do inside marriage. I am not married and so have not tried this here: so caution ... it will uncover all kinds of stuff. [This is not for a dilettante.]

Cool, John. I will try it. The only thing I've ever done that seems similar is a "shamanic journey" where you imagine yourself going "down" to another realm. No "shaman" is really required for it - easy to do by oneself. It was quite moving for me. Also have stared at my own face in the mirror for long enough that things seem to "change" - there is a morphing that goes on.

I will copy your instructions and e-mail them to myself so I won't forget.

Thanks,

More from the proliferations post...

Mary,

Okay, I have a confession to make. I am not an expert on climate change. Yes, volcanoes have been spewing pollution into the air for millennia. I will not dispute that. However, this gets back to the issues of pollution that is a natural part of nature and pollution that is artificially created. Volcanoes can and do pollute, but the pollutants that they inject into the atmosphere were naturally created. They came from the earth. The earth can deal with them more easily than it can with artificially created elements. There is also the issue of the amount of pollutants in the air. Volcanoes continue to erupt and they have for centuries. But volcanoes do not do what factories and auto emissions do. They do not spew a constant level of pollution into the air. They erupt infrequently and the earth is able to absorb such insults. The carbon cycle is necessary for life. The problem is when the earth is asked to absorb a constant cycle of insult that it may not be able to sustain.

I�d never want to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The plants would have nothing left to breathe. Without plants, animals would then have nothing to breathe and we�d all die (well, except for the anaerobic organisms). The issue relates to balance. Too much carbon dioxide in the air is not good. Neither is too little. A healthy balance must be maintained.
Posted by: Enigma at August 25, 2007 11:52 PM

Bethany,

�I don't understand why any of these things [fossils and the polar ice caps melting] could possibly mean that the world is being destroyed?�

The fossil record was not meant to indicate that. I was trying (and apparently to ask) what individuals who do not believe in evolution felt that the fossil record was.

If the polar ice caps completely melt the world will be in trouble. I don�t have the exact figures on hand, but a good segment of land that we have now would end up underwater.

�But there is evidence of an intelligent designer as well. It's real, and one can either deny it or accept it, but the simple fact of the matter is that evidence exists that we were created by an intelligent designer.�

This is something that I�ve never really understood. I know that people who believe in intelligent design or creationism argue that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe either in an intelligent designer or in biblical creationism. Do you think that you might be able to explain to me how you think that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an intelligent designer/creationism? (I�m not trying to imply that those two beliefs are the same, here I have put a slash between them to indicate that I view them similarly as to me they both seem to endorse a faith and a creator. If you believe that my perception is wrong on this issue, please tell me).

�I am not talking about a religion...Intelligent design isn't even a religion. I am talking about an alternate explanation of how the world came to be.�

I have always felt that intelligent design implies religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood intelligent design to mean that evolution did take place but that a higher power either set it in motion or guided the process. Thus intelligent design teaches that there is some higher power out there which has created everything. To me, this attempts to mix the supernatural (which cannot be proven) with science. Scientific evidence and theories can be tested..

�By concrete evidence do you mean proof? And if so, can you share with me some proofs of evolution?�

Proof is kind of what I mean when I say concrete evidence. To be more precise, I guess I mean something tangible. Something real.

I would offer the fossil record as evidence for evolution. I would also offer the discoveries of humanoid skeletons. Some of these skeletons, while clearly not Homo sapiens, appear to be our predecessors. I would offer the age of the earth. I would offer how closely different animal species are genetically linked.

�My belief in God is taken on by faith alone, but I can also see evidence of His creation and design...there's no way for me not to see this.�

My beliefs about matters of faith are complex. As I said, for me, faith means that there is no evidence to support one�s belief. I suppose the best example distinguishing the two would be to say that I do not have faith in myself, I believe in myself. It isn�t faith because I base my beliefs off past experience. You do raise a valid point. To a large extent, people see what they want to see and interpret what they see in ways that support their preconceived notions and other beliefs. When you look at the world, you see evidence of His creation and design because you have faith. When I look at the world, I do not see what you see because I do not have faith.
Posted by: Enigma at August 26, 2007 12:23 AM

Bethany,

For starters, I would like to offer my deepest condolences for your loss. Miscarriage is never easy to bear and I hope that you are doing alright. Those are lovely pictures. Who wrote the poem at the bottom of that one?

�I don't see how that could possible be true since before there was such great access to contraceptives, and before there was sex ed, unwanted pregnancies were much, much rarer.�

This could be another example of the changes of the modern age. It is possible that greater access to contraceptives, sex ed., and sexual promiscuity are all products of the modern era. Correlation is not causation.

�It seems to me that sex ed is only titilating teenagers and teens being teens are taking chances, when they already know full well the consequences of those chances.�

I disagree. I have personally found that education allows for informed decisions. For me, having someone simply tell me, �no, don�t do this, it�s bad� was not an effective deterrent. I needed to know the risks and the whys of why I should not engage in a certain behavior.

It�s late. I need to go. I know that I haven�t answered everything, but I really need to go. I�ll try to get to everything later.
Posted by: Enigma at August 26, 2007 12:43 AM

Gee...

I wonder what 1000 people with too much time on their hands could have done to help the flood victims in your state?
It's not like I'm sayin' the "mind your vagina" festival was pointless... Wait - yes I am...

Laura,

I would say that most people on your side of the fence felt the same way. As only 23 of them showed up to show their support for choice. Perhaps they were all in Darfur?

Laura,

Still avoiding the videos?

Awesome and informative video...on PBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I

Posted by: mk at August 24, 2007 8:08 PM

For everyone who doesn't believe that these babies suffer during abortion...Hal, Leah, Laura, Erin, Doug...I offer this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0L3ni9Hs&NR=1

Posted by: mk at August 24, 2007 8:29 PM

wow, nice job Jill....

..the pro-life side dominated the hopeless pro-abort side. That was a nice picture of you and MK at the end.

..regarding the Chicago Trib. article...quote from Illinois NOW president Bonnie Grabenhofer:

"They [abortion protesters] know that it is futile to try to stop the clinic," she said. "They come here to harass women."

..oh yea, alot of women harassing going on there!!

Jill,
I loved the montage and background music. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Hey, you got shots of my husband, sister in-law and my nephew!!! What about me?*pouts*

Reading through some of the news coverage, the pro-abortion side made the accusation that most of the protesters were from out of state, whereas "all of us" (those supporting the PP clinic) were from the community. Now the Chicago Tribune is saying that another county's NOW chapter was present, as well as the Socialist Worker's Party (a JOKE among serious radicals, and their pro-abortion protest projects have continually been short lived) - which is from Chicago.

Jasper,

..oh yea, alot of women harassing going on there!!

Didn't we tell you that we rounded up the women and put them in stocks?!?!?!

"Didn't we tell you that we rounded up the women and put them in stocks?!?!?!"

LOL!

Hi Enigma,

I'm afraid I responded to your post on the wrong thread. Anyway,
My point is that volcanoes have been spewing tons and tons of ash, debris, and poisonous gas into the atmosphere for as long as the earth has been here and continue to do so. Volcanoes have also created temporary climate change. Our ancestors polluted for centuries with their wood,coal, and dung fires and their less than desirable sanitation. The climate and any changes taking place are so complex experts can't even agree among themselves and are making new discoveries as to how the climate is influenced. Rmember our old saying "the more we learn the less we know"? That certainly applies to the climate.
The politicians and Hollywood hobnobs who want to salve their consciences for using private jets, owning fleets of cars, and using massive amounts of energy to maintain their numerous estates, while preaching to the rest of us about our SUVs and toilet paper usage, have come up with this notion of "carbon credits". They pay some company to grow tree and absorb their extra carbon. Needless to say there's plenty of entrepeneurs who will grow rich off of these suckers and others like them. Some of these trees were being planted in some remote corner of Uganda where destitute farmers, people who would just like to eat and survive, are competing with these tree planting companies for land.

Excellent work Jill.

Vagina festival? What would a man know about that?

Man, I had so much fun harassing women yesterday! Especially when I told them that Pro-Choice or Die was my personal motto, and that abortion was healthy for you! WEE!

Sadly, as much as I would've loved to play sociopath, I didn't. I was pretty low-key, for the most part.

Jill,

This video was excellent!!

Just think Planned Parenthood is a Billion Dollar Industry and all they could get was 17 Pro-Aborts to defend killing babies (I love that sign "Keep Murder Legal" in the video. Was that Fins holding the sign?).

The Local Community/PLAL/and others in less than a week got over 1,200 Protesters againt Planned Parenthood in Aurora.

The 40 Days of Prayer has done tremendous deeds already.

The POWER OF PRAYER is AMAZING!

Please everyone KEEP PRAYING TO END ABORTION!

As you can see in Aurora, OUR PRAYERS ARE WORKING!

Mike

I'm reading the press coverage, and it is absurd.

They are acting as though 20 prochoicers are equal to over 1000 pro-lifers.

They have a quote from a woman with NOW talking about how they were proud of their turnout because it showed that "not everyone" is against the clinic.

It is so sickening how the press treats pro-lifers. The rhetoric is ridiculous. They actually call us "abortion foes" and the pro-choicers "women's right activists".

I want to scream!

Paul, Ellie, MK, Mike, jasper, Dan: Thanks! I was indeed up til 5a, when I'm usually getting up! But I loved putting that together.

Paul, sorry we missed you, too!

Danny, I think you have a problem with boundaries.

Rosie... hm... when did I snap their photo?

It was a bit absurd. However, keep in mind that there were CHILDREN there for the protest, and half of them didn't even know what was going on. I asked a young man who was holding a sign the advertised Roe VS Wade, and all he knew was that his parents told him abortion was bad! I mean, c'mon now! The other PCs that were there, that I didn't meet, maybe they acted like jerks, but at least they didn't bring little kids into it! I had one guy pointing out Ron and I to his kids and telling his children that we were Satan's Helpers for being pro-choice. Seriously.

Educate the kids, let them get into high school, then have them protest. I mean, seeing as how they don't legally have a say until they're 18, it doesn't really matter what they say. More power to them for coming out and supporting your cause, but make sure they know what they're supporting before they start picketing.

PS Also keep in mind that if you ban abortion, you're going to see a rise in those home-made abortions that normally kill women. Just a bit for thought.

I don't agree with taking children to protests. My mom did it to me and I resented it. I thIink still might have my "mother's against guns" shirt. LOL.

As for the do-it-yourselfers. We have created a society dependant on abortion. Women my age consider it their "right". I'm sure if we outlawed it tomorrow there would be a surge in self-inductions (most likely in the form of a surge of teenage girls with ulsers (RU 486))

We need to somehow counteract 34 years of brainwashing during the time abortion is banned.

Mary, I posted my reply in the wrong thread as well. So I'll just repost it here.

I don't think that it's fanatical to believe that humans could be impacting the environment and could be contributing to wide scale climate change.

You do raise good points. (I have to check the volcano thing). Climate change is extremely complex and it is clear that mass climate change had occurred before on this planet. (Well, if one believes in evolution and trusts the fossil record.) Supposedly it was a change in the climate that killed of the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to become more dominant.

Simply because we do not know everything that there is to know about a topic is not, in my opinion, a good reason to disregard research and factual data. Having said this, I recognize that there are climatologists who do not believe in global warming and have conducted research which supports their viewpoint. Since you seem to have conducted research on other topics that we've debated, I will assume that you've researched this as well and have come to an informed decision. My research that led me to a conclusion in the opposite direction. This may be another one of those "let's agree to disagree things."

Have a good day.

Oops, I meant to sign that.

Bethany

�Because it's a culture of death...don't you read the newspapers...�

That is a matter of perception. Those quotes that you offered were uttered by great men and women (well, a great man and a great women). Even though I view both of these individuals with deep respect, I do not share their views. Their beliefs do not make something a reality.

�Well there you go...the state of denial.�

How is that a state of denial? I know that you believe I am in denial because I am denying something which you hold to be true. Since I do not hold it to be true, I do not consider myself to be in denial.

�By the way, at which moment does this ficticious non person suddenly become "a full fledged human individual"...what, day 21 he's not a person...day 21 1/2 - BINGO! - Houston we have the right level of brain development?�

At the age of viability.

�Psssst...the truth doesn't require your consent. Whether or not you believe it to be true, has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You just don't have that much power...just sayin'�

I am slowly beginning to learn that truths and even facts in some cases do not stand alone. They are subject to our perceptions. Truth is not an objective concept. What is true for one may not be true for another.

John,

�maybe you can help me ... a few decades back, I thought that THE solution to abortion was information ... really good visual information.�

�In the last few years, the doctors in the UK(England) have developed the ultrasound greatly. The image is filtered through a computer and some amazing 4D-footage shows a highly active pre-born child.�

�Here is where you come-in - what do we do now? - if 'choice' means ignorance over knowledge; 'choice in-action' means going along with the stupidities of the crowd.�

The problem you raise is simply a matter of perception. To you, the truths that matter deal with the development of the fetus. You believe that if someone knows about the development of the fetus and can see that it isn�t simply a �blob of cells� that they will realize that the fetus is a human child and that abortion is murder.

These are not necessarily the truths that matter to others. To others (here I speak of the abortion rights crowd), the truths that matter deal with the woman and the effects and risks that go along with pregnancy. They do not view abortion as murder because they feel that a woman who gets an abortion is merely asserting her rights to control her own body.

What you see as stupidities others see as wisdom. What you believe to be true others may see as stupidity.

Jill,

I was being sarcastic. I didn't actually say anything like that to anyone. The most I did was quote the Bible when people yelled at me, and I did a benediction and a prayer when a lady kept yelling Hail Mary's and praying that St. Michael take me.

Or are we talking about a different boundary?

A continuation from my previous answer to John.

For me, personally, abortion should be a woman's choice. Even though I believe that abortion is a terrible thing and that no woman should ever have to make that choice, I recognize that a woman deserves the right to make the decision that she thinks is best for her body.

I do not think that the anti-abortion argument is stupid. For the most part, I believe in the sincerity of those who make it. And I do understand the difficult position that "pro-lifers" are in. An oft-cited argument is "don't like abortion, don't get one." That view trivializes the anti-abortion argument and misconstrues what this camp stands for. If one believes abortion is murder, it is akin to asking one who believes this to stand by idly while his neighbors are murdered to ask him to respect the right of women to "kill" their fetuses.

At the same time, I believe that the anti-abortion argument, while sincere, is misguided. For me the issue is not about the life/potential life of the fetus and about the right of the woman to control her body. I do not deny that potential lives are destroyed through abortion. I believe that this is a tragedy and that hopefully, the future will see a decrease in need for abortion.

The right to self-determination is one of the greatest gifts that we have. I would go so far as to argue that life is meaningless without it. Women should not be denied the right to control their bodies simply because they have become pregnant. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy. To me, telling a woman that she must carry an unintended pregnancy to term is akin to telling all women that they are somehow less important than the children that they can bring into the world. It is like telling all women that they do not have sole right to their bodies and that the government can seize possession of them for a little while in order to help another. If that occurs, I believe that it will be a far greater tragedy than abortion ever could be.

Enigma: "What is true for one may not be true for another."

what do mean by this? doesn't 2+2=4 ? do mean in your world 2+2 could equal 5 ?

wow.

Enigma,

You state that " To me, telling a woman that she must carry an unintended pregnancy to term is akin to telling all women that they are somehow less important than the children that they can bring into the world. It is like telling all women that they do not have sole right to their bodies and that the government can seize possession of them for a little while in order to help another."

Our government tells us constantly that we must forfit some of our rights in order to help another. Parents forfit their rights to privacy and self-determination in order for thier children to avoid neglect. Simply stated, the child's right to not be neglected overrides the parents' right to self-determination.

A mother can not simply tell her daughter "Lizzy, I realize that it is -49 outside, and that you are only 2 years old, but mommy really needs the house to be empty right now because I need to study for an exam".

How is abortion any different? If born children have the right to impose on their parents rights, why should unborn children not be afforded the same right?

"what do mean by this? doesn't 2+2=4 ? do mean in your world 2+2 could equal 5 ?"

Not at all. There are absolutes in this world. Moral absolutes, however, are far trickier than mathematical certainties. A person' perception of a "moral absolute" is based on how that person was raised and what that person believes. This does not mean that I do not believe that certain moral absolutes are, in fact, absolute, but that I am cautious. Belief does not equal truth.

In this comment I was also trying to indicate how, over the years, I have come to realize that certain facts that I accept as gospel truth and as completely objective have impartial undertones.

"Our government tells us constantly that we must forfeit some of our rights in order to help another. Parents forfeit their rights to privacy and self-determination in order for their children to avoid neglect. Simply stated, the child's right to not be neglected overrides the parents' right to self-determination."

Not really. A parent has already consented to having a child and to accepting all of the responsibilities that having a child entails. Parents have voluntarily given up some of their rights. A women who has not consented to being pregnant has done none of these things. She has no obligations whatsoever to the fetus.

"If born children have the right to impose on their parents rights, why should unborn children not be afforded the same right?"

For starters, "unborn child" is a fictitious term. Medically, a being in the womb is known as either an embryo or a fetus. Obligation is only assumed through consent. Thus parents who have consented to having children have obligations to those children. A woman who has not consented to being pregnant has no obligation to continue her pregnancy.

Blast, I forgot to sign that again.

"A person' perception of a "moral absolute" is based on how that person was raised and what that person believes. "

no, this is the problem with our society, taking prayer out of schools, birh control for unmarried couples, abortion, pornography.... leads to the sick culture that we live in.

"A women who has not consented to being pregnant has done none of these things. She has no obligations whatsoever to the fetus."

wrong, she volunteered when she had sex, as there is a risk of getting pregnant. This is not the unborn babys fault, thus ending his/her life is lawless and barbaric.

"For starters, "unborn child" is a fictitious term."

only in the mind of a savage.

"Medically, a being in the womb is known as either an embryo or a fetus."

really? what does a pregnany mother call her unborn baby when it kicks? the fetus or baby. Do use medical terms for everything? what do call a heart attack? this is not a medical term.

"A woman who has not consented to being pregnant has no obligation to continue her pregnancy."

she already consented by having sex, because when you have sex, you could get pregnant. once life is created at conception, one does not have the right to end that life. Murder is against the law.

Enigma, sorry. You are just resorting to what most other pro choicers do. Diversion tactics. They just don't work. Sorry.

Enigma. One attacks words when they cannot attack ideas. You're smart enough to debate without going into the "but unborn isn't a correct medical or legal term speal".

You obviously understood the coloquialism. In my
example, the differnece between the groups of children was their birth status. Because birth is the contended marker of rights, it is useful to distinguish between the two using it as a term.

Regardless, (for honestly, was this really a necessary deversion from the debate) it seems your main contention that it is consent which requires us to forfit rights for another.

This,however, is inacurate. We are required to render aid to someone hurt in an accident, even if we did not "agree" to put the person in the situation. We must surrender our rights in order to help the person who we have (accidentally) put into a situation where they are reliant on us for their survival.

Should I hit a man with my car, take him off my bumper, and drive away, I will be charged with several crimes. Indeed, even should I strike a man who is J-walking, I am still required to stop and render aid. Whether the driver caused the accident or whether it was caused by another person's negligence, the duty to stop, report, and render aid is required. If the driver willfully fails to perform these legally required duties, they are guilty of the crime of hit and run.

You no more consented to the accident than one consents to pregnancy. You simply drove knowing that with driving comes the risk of accidents. Likewise with pregnancy, you have sex, knowing that with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy.

Blast, I forgot to sign that again.

Posted by: Enigma at August 26, 2007 4:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AAAAAAAAARGH!
I've been having the same problem.
I'd like to assure the board that I'm not trying to represent myself as two pro-choicers, but that my signature doesn't always get picked up - particularly if I'm impatient.

mk loves to post some odds and ends so I thought I would post a very few 'guess-tamates' just to give a little clue (and another perspective) as to what we are talking about .......

@Doug,

sure glad you found my post ... hope you and others can benefit from this simple trick ... must keep reminding myself that the Cartesian-box is very pervasive in our modern world and is the term coined to illustrate the world-view espoused by R�n� Descartes in the 15th Century. It probably is because this view was the perspective that not only dominated the French Revolution ... but much of the 'independence' thought in the American Constitution ... and likely the backdrop for Nazism and communism - so, this is not a little thing.

Enigma has some problems with evolution vs creationism ... so, here's a little of my take on this. Maybe what we need is a little dose of humility ... everyone - we get so caught-up in ourselves .... in we measured significance by weight then ALL life would weigh about 2 ounces next to the 'things' of this world like rocks and water - weigh @1 billion TONS .... now our planet's weight (inside our solar system is) probably smaller than 2 grains vs 1 billion tons ... and the whole amount is 100% 'THINGS' (mostly rocks and gas). Within our galaxy, our solar system is very, very small [the nearest star is only 3,000 light years away .... a light year = distance traveled if one travels at the speed of light for 1 year ... at that speed we reach our sun in @8 minutes ... The Hubble telescope found a star-cloud formation that likely gives birth to stars. It is only 150 light years across.] On the grand scale our galaxy is just one of many and hardly visible in the whole physical universe.

This whole bit can be repeated for the micro universe too. All living humans are a very small fraction of all life ... probably a very small fraction of 1%. On top of that, all our physical-being is composed of molecules- which in-turn are well-spaced atoms. Now, if it were possible to remove all the space within atoms, then 13 tons of matter would be put in 1/3 teaspoon.

Our 'physicality' does not amount to very much ... mostly space ... inside a physical universe so large, that our whole species would be hard to locate. [And there's more. It seems like the author of this site http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ thinks galaxies are large-scale atoms.]

So evolution is only about biological species ... very small but unique in this massive universe according to Teilhard de Chardin in his "Divine Millieu" [he was part of the team that uncovered the Peking-Man.] It is important for biology, but says nothing at all about things (by far the largest part of the universe) ... there is so much more to uncover ... we should NOT get bogged down in trivialities (a word specifically chosen) like evolution.

Have you guys used the remember me button?

Danny,

So many things, so little time...

First:
I mean, seeing as how they don't legally have a say until they're 18, it doesn't really matter what they say.

They may not have a say, but they can have an abortion at 14!!!! If Obama wants to "educate" them on sex in kindergarten why wouldn't we want to "pre-educate" them before the likes of the secular, hyper-sexed school system gets to them...

Next:
PS Also keep in mind that if you ban abortion, you're going to see a rise in those home-made abortions that normally kill women. Just a bit for thought.

Thought in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing...
I have posted (so many times I can't count), and so recently so did (Lauren?) the accounts by Bernard Nathanson on how they MADE UP THOSE NUMBERS!

Why is it you guys don't read or watch the stuff we post? When you don't read or watch it, but then comment on it's contents with misinformation you sound really lame. Watch the video, read Bernard Nathansons account and then get back to me...

BERNARD NATHANSONS ACCOUNT:

The "pro-choice movement's" emotionally compelling slogans -- fierce rallying cries of the most successful political marketing campaign in modern history, which made abortion-on-demand legal in the U.S. -- have been powerful rhetorical weapons for fighting off efforts to reverse Roe v. Wade, coming up on its 30th anniversary next month.

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the pro-abortion movement in the late '60s and early '70s.

"We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL -- originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- as well as its medical committee, Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonishing story.

"In 1968 I met Lawrence Lader," says Nathanson. "Lader had just finished a book called Abortion, and in it had made the audacious demand that abortion should be legalized throughout the country. I had just finished a residency in obstetrics and gynecology and was impressed with the number of women who were coming into our clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal, infected, botched abortions."

"Lader and I were perfect for each other. We sat down and plotted out the organization now known as NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this organization and began working on the strategy."

"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one," recalls the movement's co-founder. "Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000."

"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

"Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization."

What was the result of NARAL's brilliantly deceitful marketing campaign, bolstered by thoroughly fraudulent research? In New York, the law outlawing abortion had been on the books for 140 years. "In two years of work, we at NARAL struck that law down," says Nathanson. "We lobbied the legislature, we captured the media, we spent money on public relations. � Our first year's budget was $7,500. Of that, $5,000 was allotted to a public relations firm to persuade the media of the correctness of our position. That was in 1969."

New York immediately became the abortion capital for the eastern half of the United States.

"We were inundated with applicants for abortion," says Nathanson. "To that end, I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (C.R.A.S.H.), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven days a week, from 8 am to midnight. We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000 abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject of abortion."

But something happened to Nathanson -- something profound. Just as it happened to countless other abortion practitioners, abortion facility owners and staffers. Just as it happened to Norma McCorvey -- the real name for "Jane Roe," the plaintiff in the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

These pioneers of the pro-abortion movement have all arrived at the same conclusion -- that abortion is the unjust killing of a human baby -- and have come over to the other side of the raging abortion debate.

Awesome and informative video...on PBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I
Posted by: mk at August 24, 2007 8:08 PM

For everyone who doesn't believe that these babies suffer during abortion...Hal, Leah, Laura, Erin, Doug...I offer this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0L3ni9Hs&NR=1

OH sorry, Enigma, I thought I posted it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462

The actual article is much longer than what I posted.

Nathanson has also written several books.

Here's a brief wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

Nathanson found himself in a deep dark place. He wanted to kill himself before he converted.

John,
My John took the car to work, but there was stuff in it I wanted to post for you...I was just reading about all the stuff you wrote about in my Angels and Demons book...(I've been reading it during my hour in the adoration chapel, as well as discussing all of you guys with The Man)...

But one of the things that it said, and this pertains to the person vs human being thing, is:

We have it backwards. Just like dog is a subclass of animals, human being is a subclass of 'persons'

In other words, all human beings are persons but not all persons are human beings. That would be like saying that all animals are dogs, instead of all dogs are animals. If we accept that angels exist (and I'm willing to bet that more people here that don't believe in God, do believe in Angels), then it stands to reason that these angels are persons, albeit not human beings. If you believe in extra terrestrials, (and I'm willing to be that more people here believe in extraterrestrials than God or angels) then it stands to reason that they would be persons, albeit not human beings.

Hence, all human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings. Persons is a larger category.

The unborn, are human beings and persons.

Which brings us to the second misrepresentation.
Most people believe that the body encompasses the soul. But this is backwards also.

The soul encompasses the body. The soul is pure spirit, and it "surrounds" the body. Not the other way around.

Just as a School Building contains the classroom, but the classroom does not contain the school building.

Hence, the "person" or soul exists outside of the body. Not in it. This is why the unborn is a person as well as a human being, even if it hasn't taken a breath yet. Limiting people to the physical world and it's parameters, is to not understand the nature of persons, human beings or life. I believe in all that is seen and unseen...

By the way, have you started your novena? I emailed you again, but never heard back...did you not get it, not read it or just not respond to it?

Laura and Enigma,

AAAAAAAAARGH!
I've been having the same problem.
I'd like to assure the board that I'm not trying to represent myself as two pro-choicers, but that my signature doesn't always get picked up - particularly if I'm impatient.

I know what you mean...sometimes I have 3 or 4 windows open at a time, all with Jill's site on them, so I can continue reading while waiting for something to post. Cursed computers! I second the AAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH!

Hmm... Nathanson seems pretty messed up. He sounds like the old leader of a Neo Nazi gang who used to make up numbers for how many immigrants were "taking the white man's jobs." Seriously. Sounds exactly like him.

Ah well... To each their own, I guess. I still stand by my beliefs, and I support what I support.

Danny,

But tell the truth and shame the devil...doesn't it make you feel a little tiny bit duped to realize that you've been played?

Played by Nathanson? It slightly annoys me, like having an itch on my butt that I can't scratch, or having a burn on my finger.

MK, I've been getting played by women all my life, and that's major playing. You know where the last play was made, too. However, for someone to lie to the media and cause me to be a bit misinformed only irritates me. Nathanson switched sides, jumped ship, etc. Good for him. However, if he doesn't have the willpower and guts to stand by his beliefs, what makes you so sure he's going to hang around the pro-life side? Can you trust him to support you fully? No, because he's already shown that he'll abandon his beliefs for something else.

I'm not putting down pro-lifers. If anything, I give you guys credit for pulling out the stops. However, I'm starting to think that I'm gonna be Swiss and stay neutral in this argument, because there are no winners. It's a constant battle, and I personally have better things to devote my time to, like the wars in the streets, racism, unity, bigotry, etc.

sorry mk,

forgot to answer you re. the novena - have indeed started - superb prayers!

and about the 'person' insights .... never thought of it this way, but is making much more sense now ... I get tied to the physicality of thing-ness and seem-to-be-mesmerized and fixated by it! "How we do hate to venture out of our truths, eh?"

thanks

Danny,

Showing up yesterday and standing on the pro choice side hardly qualifies as neutral.

Mr. Nathanson is now 80 years old and has been actively pro-life for the last thirty. He is the guy responsible for "The Silent Scream" movie, and has done ENORMOUS work for our side. He changed his mind, because he had a change of heart. Ultrasound and science finally won out. He had actually aborted two of his own children. No, I don't think he'll be flippin' sides anytime soon.

And don't you think it is nobler to admit when you have been wrong than to stubbornly "stick to your guns" just because you don't want to be known as a "flipflopper"? Look at Saint Paul! Heck, look at me!

Just wanted you to be aware that much of what you believe you have been fed through the media and it is based on tricks.

Jill,
"Rosie... hm... when did I snap their photo?"

guy with glasses holding a sign and the woman in a pink shirt.

John,

I've come to LOVE Margaret...she is awesome.

I have more about atoms and space and such, but like I said, it is in the missing car...but I'll get it to you.

Oh wait i'm behind him on the left!! you can see my eyes:) (picket line)

Behind who on the left Rosie????

Oh, Oh, Oh...I see you...awesome!

MK, I understand where you're coming from, and yes, I do understand what you're saying on the media.

Also, I didn't try to stand on any side, yesterday. You guys took over the entire place, so Ron, Amanda and I were the floating trio, and after seeing how some PC and PL people were acting yesterday, I am considering becoming a neutral. Like I said, this is a losing battle that no one is going to win. As long as there's Pl, there'll be a PC. As long as there's good, there'll be evil. That's just the way it balances out.

Nathanson can be pro-life. Good for him. He did, however, betray his ideals. He lied to get what he wanted, then undermined all his work by jumping ship. It's counterproductive, and dishonorable. If we had someone who was a SHARP that went Neo, they'd probably get beaten like a red-headed stepchild, and that's being nice about it.

Danny,

That's because going NEO would be a step down, not up or sideways.

You keep telling me that you are working on being a better person, controlling the anger...

Aren't these changes for the positive. Could'nt I say that you are jumping ship...becoming peaceful, when before you were all about violence? Think about that.

And yes, of course, there will always be evil and good. But what defines a man, is which side he is willing to fight for. Not whether the man will "perfectly" represent his side (ie pro-lifers that act badly) but which side he stands for.

And if his heart is not pure, then his actions will out him.

"And gentlemen now aged in England who were not there, will think themselves accursed, and hold their manhood cheap, when any speaks who fought with us upon St. Crispin's day."

And how about this? I hated skinheads. Why? Because I was misinformed, just like you and just like Mr. Nathanson. But when I came to learn the truth, I changed my views. Should I cling to my previous views because to now appreciate the skinhead movement is counterproductive and dishonorable.

No Danny, honor is found in the man willing to admit he had it wrong. True honor, anyway.

Unfortunately MK, that's where you're wrong. I've never advocated violence. I fought because it was necessary, and I fought because it's what I had to do. I've never liked fighting, but its something I'm good at, and something that I did to protect people. That's it.

You want to know the truth? I'd rather just say I'm both. I don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, but I realize there is a necessity for it at times. I'd love to do what I do best for both sides, but sadly, I'd rather not.

My sister is on the phone from Australia so I'll have to say good bye for now...more tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to it, MK. Have fun talking to your sis, Momma!

This was a bulletin insert this week for all Parishes in the Diocese of Joliet

------------

FROM MOST REVEREND J. PETER SARTAIN (BISHOP OF JOLIET, IL

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

You may be aware that Planned Parenthood will soon open a clinic that will provide abortions within the boundaries of the Diocese of Joliet. Located on the border of Naperville and Aurora, this will be the second abortion clinic to open in DuPage County in the past five years. I am deeply saddened that DuPage County will soon hold the distinction of hosting five abortion clinics within its borders.

The proposed opening of the new clinic is a troubling development. For everyone concerned, abortion is a source of great suffering and sorrow. As Catholics, we hope in the Lord of Life. Made in his image and likeness, we know that human life is sacred. At times like this, it is important to remember that our lives are not our own. Each of us belongs to Christ, and he asks us to serve him in one another and to show particular concern for the most vulnerable among us.

As Catholics, we will stand proudly and consistently �For Life� in our diocese. Rather than collapsing in negativity, we call on all people of good will to respond with positive action. Every step we take must be peaceful.

Prayer is our most powerful weapon. Pray that the Gospel of Life will take root and flourish in the seven counties that make up our diocese. Pray for all pregnant women in need, particularly those who find themselves in seemingly desperate situations. Pray for a conversion of heart in those who support and work at abortion facilities. Pray for healing of those who suffer the impact of abortion.

Work through your parish and area Pro-Life organizations to make known your Pro-Life convictions. Do what you can to offer support to pregnant women in need. Write letters to the editor of the local newspapers and to elected officials expressing opposition and concern, and always do so in a peace-filled, respectful manner. Our peaceful demeanor is one way we will consistently demonstrate our love and respect for all life.

PLEASE JOIN ME ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7 IN A DAY OF PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE PROMOTION OF A CULTURE OF LIFE AND AN END TO ABORTION. Pray in the manner of your choosing � perhaps attend Mass that day, pray the rosary or other favorite prayers, for the intention of an increased respect for the sacredness of life. Choose a simple penance in keeping with your health and daily duties � abstain from meat or sweets that day, or refrain from television or other entertainment. Such simple efforts on our part can be a powerful witness to our neighbors and a sign to our Heavenly Father that we love the life � the lives � he has given us.

May we never tire of proclaiming the dignity and worth of every human life. May we never tire of serving the vulnerable and their caregivers with generous hearts. And may we never cease to pray for the day when all people, and all societies, will defend the life of every human from conception to natural death.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend J. Peter Sartain
Bishop of Joliet

http://www.catholicexplorer.com/explore4325/atd/life-crusaders-bombard-new-clinic-with-prayers.shtml#letter

Danny - I was talking about posting boundaries. I'm not quite sure what to do about you.

You've promised to vacate the site out of respect for Erin at least 3 times now. I understood you coming back to post on the photo I posted of you and us, and gave the green light for that. You expressed understanding.

Now here you are. When you're not spouting skinhead violence talk, you're fine, great, but if we have to make a "choice," Erin was here first and considers this a safe place to talk to people who care about her and know her history.

Sigh. What to do, what to do.

Mike wrote: "Just think Planned Parenthood is a Billion Dollar Industry and all they could get was 17 Pro-Aborts to defend killing babies "

Maybe they just don't care very much about these demonstrations. Why would they?

MK, it's worth remembering that Bernard Nathanson made quite a lot of money from book sales and speaking fees after he became a right-to-lifer. He was a very busy speaker in the 1980s and his book was a must-read/must-have-on-your-bookshelf among republicans during the Reagan years.

It's a joke among abortion docs--They say, any of them could "convert" to right-to-lifism and go on the lecture circuit as a former abortionist convert like Nathanson. You can make a comfortable living off right-wing granting agencies funded by guys like Richard Mellon Scaife--as David Reardon for instance does today. You can collect fat consulting fees from speaking to right-wing think tanks.

SOMG, please give me an idea of your connection to the abortion industry. You obviously are on the inside.

"It's a joke among abortion docs--They say, any of them could "convert" to right-to-lifism and go on the lecture circuit as a former abortionist convert like Nathanson."

He was sincere about it though SoMG. Maybe one day you will do the same. I Hope.

Jill,

If we put Erin and Danny in separate corners can we keep them both?

Also, I think the low number of pro choicers at the protest might have had something to do with the fact that there really wasn't anything for a pro choicer to protest against. There seem to always be less counter protesters than protesters at every protest you see. (And now I've exhausted the word "protest") You all were angry about the new Planned Parenthood, thats why so many of you were there, it was something urgent that you all believe you need to change, so naturally you all were more passionate about your protesting (see, thats that word again!).

That's the best you can do, MK? I'm not impressed.

You mean like these bastions of brilliance?

but here, for the feeble minded (like Heather),

Google his name, you illiterate dummy.

I know I've pointed this out to you before. Do you have trouble with your memory? I'm starting to suspect you may be stupid.

Although to be fair, Heather was pushing your buttons, and for the most part, you show remarkable restraint when I'm "stickin'" you.

But I still say you lack creativity...

Why don't you open up to us a little? You've been posting here forever, and you hide yourself away like a hermit. I know you and I aren't ever going to get engaged, but what do you say we make an effort to "get along"...(although I would miss all the jabbing...which I hope you know is "mostly" in fun and rarely is it truly mean spirited.) Tell me something about yourself. You've already heard my life story numerous times and know more intimate details about me than you probably wanted to...so c'mon, get on the disclosure wagon...
Posted by: mk at August 26, 2007 12:42 PM

SoMG,

I love computer games and one of my favorites was "Monkey Island"...

In these games instead of killing each other with swords, when the pirates would fight, they would trade insults. You had to match the correct snappy comeback with a given insult, and if you matched them all correctly, you won the "sword" fight.

I want you to know, that all the times I "insult" you, that game is always what I'm thinking of...

I really, really, really hope that I have never actually hurt your feelings and that you have been taking these in the vein they have been meant...
Posted by: mk at August 26, 2007 12:46 PM

Maybe they just don't care very much about these demonstrations. Why would they?

Well if they don't care about Planned Parenthood and Pro-Lifers don't care about Planned Parenthood, then let's all put a stop to sending our tax dollars to PP!

Mike

Jasper,

�no, this is the problem with our society, taking prayer out of schools, birth control for unmarried couples, abortion, pornography.... leads to the sick culture that we live in.�

The problem with this is that people have different definitions of morality and different ideas about what a moral absolute is. What makes yours right as opposed to someone else�s?

�wrong, she volunteered when she had sex, as there is a risk of getting pregnant. This is not the unborn babys fault, thus ending his/her life is lawless and barbaric.�

There is a difference between volunteering for something and engaging in an activity that may result in the realization of a specific risk. Do people who drive cars �volunteer� to get into accidents? Do swimmers �volunteer� to drown? Did Christopher Reeve �volunteer� to break his spine?

�only in the mind of a savage.�

The only reason to resort to insults in an argument is because one has run out of intelligent, logical arguments.

�Do use medical terms for everything?�

Of course not. An expectant mother who is happy to be pregnant calls her fetus a �baby.� She is not using academically accurate terminology. She is not required to because she is not engaging in an academic debate. When one is engaging in an academic debate, one should adhere to academic standards. These standards do not include the term �unborn baby.�

�she already consented by having sex, because when you have sex, you could get pregnant.�

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Just because sex carries a risk of pregnancy does not mean that one who engages in sex has consented to becoming pregnant. Let�s use an example. Suppose I and a friend are driving somewhere on Saint Patrick�s Day. Now, since it is SPD, we know that there will probably be drunks on the road and that there is a risk we will be in an accident caused by a drunk driver. Now let�s suppose that my friend and I are in a head-on collision and are both killed. Did we consent to die? Of course not. It�s the same for a woman and pregnancy.

Heather, I could say the same to you. You aren�t addressing the real issues, which is a woman�s right to control her body.

JK, re: Danny and Erin, I don't think that will work. As you likely know, they're a post-abortive couple who split up. For a reason I don't understand but appreciate, Erin finds this a safe place, and I want to keep this place safe for her. And Danny has promised her and us at least three times to honor Erin's request to vacate these premises, and he has not. That says something about Danny's character. We shouldn't be having this discussion. We shouldn't have this quandary.

I don't know if it was noted yet, but what Danny (and I) think of when we hear "skinhead" is different than the common definition. Skinheads aren't necessarily Nazi-esque thugs.....Danny can probably offer a better history of the issue, but from my own understanding, hate-mongers in England saw the skinhead movement as a place to find fresh converts, and adopted many things normative to the movement.

Now, when you hear "skinhead," you most likely will think Nazi.

�Enigma. One attacks words when they cannot attack ideas. You're smart enough to debate without going into the "but unborn isn't a correct medical or legal term speal".�

And sometimes the words represent the idea that one is attacking. A colloquialism has no place in a debate. In a debate, one should strive to avoid colloquialism and layman�s terms. One should be as factual and accurate as possible.

�your main contention that it is consent which requires us to forfeit rights for another.�

Yes and no. There is a difference between forfeiting the rights that one has to one�s body and forfeiting less central rights. If one has no right to one�s own body, one literally has nothing.

�We must surrender our rights in order to help the person who we have (accidentally) put into a situation where they are reliant on us for their survival.�

Actually, we�ve already consented to this, even before the accident. It�s called tacit consent and the rules of the system. The system which we all live and function within requires its members to act in the manner in which you have described in order to maintain and preserve the system. We have obligations to the system and to these laws but we have already consented through participation. We have consented by paying taxes and by voluntarily residing within the system, thus receiving all of the benefits that the system can offer.

�You no more consented to the accident than one consents to pregnancy. You simply drove knowing that with driving comes the risk of accidents. Likewise with pregnancy, you have sex, knowing that with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy.�

Incorrect. There are no �laws� that govern sexual contact. One has agreed to nothing. Knowing that an action carries a particular risk does not mean that one has consented to the risk if such a risk is realized.

JK, 9:11p, said: "Also, I think the low number of pro choicers at the protest might have had something to do with the fact that there really wasn't anything for a pro choicer to protest against."

Yes, I'm sure the only reason they pulled something together was to have a media presence to counter what we said to the press.

Still, you never ever see a pro-abortion rally. They can only manage to scrape one (pun intended) together every 10-20 years or so in DC by combining forces with the gay and socialist lobbies, shipping in their paid workers, and paying bus/travel expenses for volunteers. (Yes, every time I do see one of their pathetic little counter-protests, there is at least one socialist party sign.)

I told one of their 70-year-old protesters what a waste of a Saturday I thought it was to spend defending a woman's "right" to kill her baby. Pathetic. There's not much energy for that.

MK,

Thanks for posting the link.

And I do agree with you. True honor is found when one can admit one's mistakes. (I just wish politicians agreed).

By his own account, he was deceitful and manipulative in pushing the "pro-choice" agenda. How can we be sure that he isn't being deceitful and manipulative now?

"The problem with this is that people have different definitions of morality and different ideas about what a moral absolute is. What makes yours right as opposed to someone else�s?"

From all of the facts I gave you describing the decay of society, which you could not refute.

"Do people who drive cars �volunteer� to get into accidents? Do swimmers �volunteer� to drown? Did Christopher Reeve �volunteer� to break his spine?"

No, they did not volunteer. But they also did not create another human life, thats why when one has sex, it must be taken very seriously.

"The only reason to resort to insults in an argument is because one has run out of intelligent, logical arguments."

sorry, i didn't mean to refer to you as a "savage", I don't think you are one. It's just frustruting when one cannot see the how awful abortion is.

"When one is engaging in an academic debate, one should adhere to academic standards."

This is not a pre-med classroom discussion, it's a discussion about life and death. Should we now refer to heart attacks as "myocardial infarctions" on this blog?

"Now let�s suppose that my friend and I are in a head-on collision and are both killed. Did we consent to die? Of course not. It�s the same for a woman and pregnancy."

No, it's not. The difference is that with pregnancy, another life is created and that created life did not consent to death.

Mike, I didn't say they don't care about Planned Parenthood. I said they probably don't care about the right-to-life demonstrations AT Planned Parenthood.

"Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy."

Enigma, are you sure you're not Diana coming back for more? She endlessly posted that mantra as well as others you have stated.

Just finished reading "The Hand of God" by none other than our celebrated Bernie Nathanson himself, and I must say, it was incredibly revealing. Regardless of your position, it is a must read for anyone involved in the abortion spectrum. Heads up: have a dictionary handy. He's got some serious vocabulary!

"It's worth remembering that Bernard Nathanson made quite a lot of money from book sales and speaking fees after he became a right-to-lifer"

It's also worth noting, SoMG, that he made a killing (pardon the pun) as the director of the world's largest abortion facility at that time. Prior to him taking over "business was booming". When he became the head honcho, he did some staff 'housecleaning' and hired "clean, competent, industrious medical staff." He goes on to say...

"The physicians, who performed ten or fifteen abortions daily, were paid at the rate of $70 to $90 per hour. One obstetrician-gynecologist would practice his specialty in Lexington Kentucky, from Monday to Friday, then fly up to New York City, work five shifts of eight hours each at the clinic over the weekend, and then fly back to resume his practice on Monday mornng. He earned $185,000 in the one year he worked at the clinic."

That was just the regular vacuum docs. Bernie made $30,000 annually as director, not bad for New York in 1971. He could have made a HECK of alot more if he just took up the curette and flicked the switch.

"By his own account, he was deceitful and manipulative in pushing the "pro-choice" agenda. How can we be sure that he isn't being deceitful and manipulative now? "

I'll withold comment until you answer this question: Have you read his writings? Watched his documentaries?

Jill,

Abortion is legal. That's why there are few big pro choice protests. We have nothing yet to protest. If abortion were illegal you all wouldn't protest outside abortion mills because there would be no abortion mills (visible public ones, anyway) to protest. People who are not getting what they want tend to be more motivated to change that situation than people who are getting what they want.

Jasper,

�From all of the facts I gave you describing the decay of society, which you could not refute.�

I did not refute the �facts� you gave me describing the decay of society because I do not believe that the list you gave me (prayer removed from school, contraception to unmarried couples, abortion) is indicative of decay in society.

In any case, a list of ways in which you have perceived the change in society does not mean that your standards of morality are (or should be) universal.

�No, they did not volunteer. But they also did not create another human life, thats why when one has sex, it must be taken very seriously.�

Change the life to potential life and I would agree with you. Human life, even only potential life, should be taken seriously.

�sorry, i didn't mean to refer to you as a "savage", I don't think you are one. It's just frustruting when one cannot see the how awful abortion is.�

And it�s frustrating for me when people do not perceive of how misogynistic it is to say that a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Nevertheless, I accept your apology.

�This is not a pre-med classroom discussion, it's a discussion about life and death. Should we now refer to heart attacks as "myocardial infarctions" on this blog?�

One should still strive for accuracy. The problem with the �unborn child/baby� label is that it changes the tone of the debate. One has shifted the language of the conversation towards emotionally charged language instead of what is factual. Playing on emotions does not lead to high-quality debate.

�No, it's not. The difference is that with pregnancy, another life is created and that created life did not consent to death.�

Okay, I�m not going to argue the merits of potential life versus life. It�s superfluous here. The life/potential life did not consent to death, that is true. But neither did the woman consent to creating life. Since she never consented to creating life, she has no obligations to sustain that life. The simple fact that the fetus needs to have access to the woman�s body in order to survive does not mean that the woman is required to provide the fetus with access to her body. Need does not necessarily entail obligation.

Blast, I did it again. I really did mean to sign that.

"Enigma, are you sure you're not Diana coming back for more? She endlessly posted that mantra as well as others you have stated."

Yep, I'm sure.

I'll withhold comment until you answer this question: Have you read his writings? Watched his documentaries?"

I have read nothing but the article posted. I am naturally suspicious of people who claim to undergo a life-altering conversion, especially when the individual blithely discusses how easily they lied and manipulated people beforehand. A leopard never changes its spots.

That was supposed to be addressed to Carter, not by Carter. When I am going to get this "you type the name in the name box" thing?

Enigma, please stop!.......enough!!!

Enigma,
Fair enough. I invite you, then, to read some of his works and view his documentaries and then judge for yourself how much of a leopard he is.

It's interesting to note how the trend seems to be pro-choicers jumping ship and coming over to pro-life; rarely does one see it the other way around. NOrma McCorvey, Nathanson, the docs in the "Meet the Abortion Providers" conference. these guys are big fish. And if I may push the envelope further, some have not only ditched pro-choice, but then head straight to the Roman Catholic church, THEE enemy of choice according to ya'll. Randall Terry, while always prolife, has recently come home to Rome.

I'm sure there has been some side-switching from life to death, I mean, choice, but it's not an overriding trend. Can someone correct me on this?

::Slaps forehead:: D'oh!

Sorry Jill, I got carried away. You're right though, I do need to honor my word. Please don't question my character, though. That's not too nice. I know you can come back with something dealing with my not leaving, but I'm asking respectfully for you not to question it. Were my character bad, I would've been a jerk to you on Saturday instead of polite.

But, you're right. I'll stay on the one thread until it becomes a thing of the past, and then bye bye for my posting. I'll still check back every now and then. Ron swears upon his life that he will own this website within a day ;-)

Have a good one, Jill! Phil, feel free to email me at D-Postlewaite@cornellcollege.edu. You obviously have a good knowledge of skinheads and the whole punk scene, and it would be nice to talk to someone from the site with a knowledge of that side of life.

Oh, and you're semi-right. Pakistani-hating skins who thought themselves to be nationalists were pretty much the start of the Nazi skin movement. Have you ever watched This Is England?

"The simple fact that the fetus needs to have access to the woman�s body in order to survive does not mean that the woman is required to provide the fetus with access to her body."

Yes, she is. Anthing less results in the death of human being. If you can prove to me that abortion is not killing human life then I'll switch to pro-choice. All evidence weighs in our favor. Just because an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb does mean it has any less of a right to life...and certainly it's right to life is a greater right than a right for one not to be inconvienced for 9 months especially when said one created that new life.

Enigma, I guess our beliefs, morals, views on human dignity, etc, are much too different for us to come to any agreement.

Jasper, you wrote: "Just because an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb does mean it has any less of a right to life"

Yes, it does. Because the womb in question belongs to the mother. It's part of the mother's body. You can't occupy another person's body without her continuing consent. And you can't force her to undergo serious preventable medical/surgical trauma (childbirth) on your behalf. For the same reason that you cannot force your mother to donate a kidney to you even if you'll die without it--it's HER kidney. Even if you're a human baby. Even if you're life is at stake.(And BTW donating one kidney is less dangerous than childbirth.)

Note that this argument does not require the premise of fetal inferiority. The fetus is human, and entitled to all the rights that born children enjoy, but not to SPECIAL rights. It has no right to occupy a womb where it is not welcome.

Carder, you wrote: "Randall Terry, while always prolife, has recently come home to Rome [converted to Catholicism]. "

Randall Terry was kicked out of his church for a pattern of repeat adultries with multiple partners. Do you really WANT him in your church?

What if he gets someone's daughter pregnant?

If a fetus is a person, then abortion by the woman's choice is justifiable homicide.

The pregnant woman owns her life support functions. Not "own" as we own property but "own" as we own our arms and legs.

She's entitled to switch them on or off if and when she chooses, for any reason or for no reason.

Because they're HER life support functions. Not the fetus's and not Jill Stanek's and not George Bush's and not yours.

And not your God's, unless she shares your belief in him.

And not the father's.

Right-to-lifers often argue that by consenting to sex and therefore the risk that life will form she incurs an obligation to grow her fetus and that this obligation should be legally enforced.

This raises the question of whether it's better to be a fetus that enjoys a short intrauterine life, and is then aborted, or never to be conceived at all because the woman decides to be celibate.

If it were me, I'd go for the short intrauterine life over never being conceived.

Enigma,

If one has no right to one�s own body, one literally has nothing.

If one has no right to life, one won't be around to have a right to one's own body. Besides, don't the unborn have a right to their own body...literally?

SoMG,

If it were me, I'd go for the short intrauterine life over never being conceived.

That's a very interesting statement. Please expound.

If a fetus/baby isn't sentient (as Doug and so many others use as an argument) then why would you want to be one for such a short period of time? And if it is sentient, then why would you want to be ripped apart limb by limb in the womb?

By the way SoMG,

You've become positively verbose! And I am trying very hard not to engage in verbal "fencing"...and you don't believe in miracles! HAH!

Enigma,

When Diana was on here (and I miss her) she gave many, many, many of the same arguments that you do...

The one that drives me most nuts, is the "I didn't give consent" argument.

Here's a rebuttal I gave her once.

If you eat 6 chocolate cakes a day, and begin to gain tremendous amounts of weight, you could say that you consented to eating the cake but not to gaining the weight. (Having your cake and eating it too?) But you'd have to be mentally deficient not to understand the connection.

Everytime you take "your clothes off" you run the risk of pregnancy and STD's. While you may not have "given" permission per se, you have definitely agreed to the terms of the agreement.

Standing outside in a thunderstorm is not giving lightening permission to strike you, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to act surprised when it did. Especially if you are holding Danny's proverbial nine iron!

The point is, that when you engage in risky behavior, you are consenting to the understanding of said risks. Parachuters sign waivers. Kids on field trips need parents permission in the form of consent with the knowledge that "things happen".

Entering into a sexual relationship is a consensual contract. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for the result of your actions, then you need to refrain from that activity.

Your car analogy would work better if you and your friend were the ones driving drunk on SPD.

Yes, in essence, every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you are agreeing that there are risks involved and you are willing to take them.

Perhaps you haven't consented to a car accident, but you HAVE consented to the risk of one.

Pregnancy is unique in that the "risk" involved concerns the creation of a new life. And it's subsequent death. Your right to autonomy should be forfieted if it was your behavior, choice and free will that caused that life to exist. You agreed to the risk. Now live up to the responsibility.

Enigma,

You and Doug and others often say that the "humanity/personhood" of the baby isn't at issue.

I'm sorry, but from where I stand, that is the ONLY issue.

You accuse us of attributing emotion to our arguments by calling the "fetus" a baby. Well, you are reducing the child to a thing when you call it a fetus. It is a diversionary tactic that strips the baby of it's rightful title. It makes it easy to discuss it as if it were an inanimate object. Calling it a baby simply gives it back it's humanness. Something that you wish to avoid, but that we see as the entire argument in a nutshell.

If it was true that these children were as alive as rocks, we'd all be pro-choice. It is the very fact that they ARE alive that presents the problem, and to claim otherwise is to engage in a dishonest debate.

Enigma, I'm sorry I wasn't here over the weekend. I wanted to reply to your posts but have been busy.

I have one question for you though. I asked this to Diana before she left, but she never would give me a reply.

Suppose there are two siamese twins. One of these is the stronger twin, the other is weaker. They both know that if they were separated, the stronger one would live, and the weaker one would die.
Suppose the stronger siamese twin had had enough of having to be stuck to her sister all the time, and she wanted to have full bodily autonomy, free of her sister.
Suppose she said that she wanted to have the operation done so that her sister would die and she could live, free of her sister.

Would you agree she has the right to do so? With or without her sister's consent? Because, does it even matter if the other sister desires to live, since she is invading the other sister's bodily autonomy? Or perhaps the weaker twin is bothered by having to share HER body with her other twin. What do you suggest should be done here? Do you think that ensuring full bodily autonomy is always possible or the correct solution to a problem?

Bethany,

I missed you! Great post! (Which is exactly why I missed you...

The fossil record was not meant to indicate that. I was trying (and apparently to ask) what individuals who do not believe in evolution felt that the fossil record was.

Evidence of God's creation. That's how I view fossils...I haven't ever seen any that disproved God, only confirmation of God's intelligent design.

This is something that I�ve never really understood. I know that people who believe in intelligent design or creationism argue that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe either in an intelligent designer or in biblical creationism. Do you think that you might be able to explain to me how you think that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an intelligent designer/creationism?

Actually, a little farther down, you actually answered this question for me. Here is what you wrote:
"When you look at the world, you see evidence of His creation and design because you have faith. When I look at the world, I do not see what you see because I do not have faith."

Absolutely correct. However, you do have faith. It just happens to lie in another view of how the world came to be. And because of your faith, you see the evidence you want to see, according to the faith that you have. When you look at the world, you choose not to see evidence of a creator, and instead choose to see evidence of evolution. I do not see what you see because I do not have faith in that. And also, because there is no proof of evolution. There may be things that you consider evidence, but they are not concrete. They are ever changing. The one thing about my faith that differs from yours is that it never changes...it's the same thousands of years ago as it is today.

I have always felt that intelligent design implies religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood intelligent design to mean that evolution did take place but that a higher power either set it in motion or guided the process. Thus intelligent design teaches that there is some higher power out there which has created everything. To me, this attempts to mix the supernatural (which cannot be proven) with science. Scientific evidence and theories can be tested..

For something to be a religion there must be something that you worship. One can believe that a God exists without worshiping Him.

Proof is kind of what I mean when I say concrete evidence. To be more precise, I guess I mean something tangible. Something real.

How do you explain that the Golden ratio exists throughout nature? How do you explain the absolutes of mathematics? How did these come to be without an intelligent designer? How do you explain to yourself the fact that order exists?
How can these things randomly occur out of nothing, with no intelligent designer? It makes absolutely no sense. Have you ever really studied the complexities of nature? Have you ever noticed how wonderfully your body is designed? Organs that scientists deemed "vestigial" in earlier years have had to admit later on ashamedly that these organs actually do serve some purpose. Everything in our bodies serves some purpose. How could this happen randomly? I don't see any reason to believe that anything happened randomly, because I see nothing truly random in nature. While many things appear random on the surface, they seem to always have some kind of highly developed mathematical precision behind them in reality. To not see God's hand in the beauty of this world is to not even take a really close look at the world.

I would offer the fossil record as evidence for evolution. I would also offer the discoveries of humanoid skeletons. Some of these skeletons, while clearly not Homo sapiens, appear to be our predecessors. I would offer the age of the earth. I would offer how closely different animal species are genetically linked.

Many, if not all, of these skeletons have been proved to be fabricated...so I am not sure which ones you are referring to. Maybe you could point me in that direction by a link?

My beliefs about matters of faith are complex. As I said, for me, faith means that there is no evidence to support one�s belief.

No, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Simply that one believes without needing the evidence. It doesn't mean that the evidence is there, simply that you believe regardless of whether you see it or not. The Bible says that "The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork." If we weren't supposed to recognize God's hand in the world, then verses like this wouldn't exist.

For starters, I would like to offer my deepest condolences for your loss. Miscarriage is never easy to bear and I hope that you are doing alright. Those are lovely pictures. Who wrote the poem at the bottom of that one?

Thank you so much for the kind condolences. The poem on the bottom is actually a verse in Psalms.

"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I Praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be." Psalm 139:13-16

This could be another example of the changes of the modern age. It is possible that greater access to contraceptives, sex ed., and sexual promiscuity are all products of the modern era.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I disagree. I have personally found that education allows for informed decisions. For me, having someone simply tell me, �no, don�t do this, it�s bad� was not an effective deterrent. I needed to know the risks and the whys of why I should not engage in a certain behavior.

I have no problems whatsoever with educating children about what sex is, and how to prevent STD's. This is a good thing. What I do have a problem with is telling them, "Oh if you mess up and get pregnant, you can erase the consequences by aborting it.", or lying to them and making them feel as though STD's can completely be prevented by Condom usage, which is false.
And telling them the "how tos" of sex, and homosexual sex, such as teaching them "fisting", how to use grape jelly as a lubricant, different ways to masturbate, etc etc. I do NOT think that my children should ever be taught stuff like that, and especially not at such a young age. Teenwire.com, planned parenthood's website for teens disgusts me, and I would never, ever let my child go there.

Awww thank you, MK! I missed you too! (((hugs)))

Enigma, also, have you ever tried to explain to yourself the eye? How can something so perfectly designed have happened without a creator?
Here is Charles Darwin's opinion about the eye:

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. "

...another thing that puzzles me about the whole evolution theory. Why don't we see any half humans/half apes today? Or any half species of any kind? Wouldn't it make sense that there would be some still evolving today, who had not yet completed their transition?

Another question... these keep coming to mind...
Why have there been findings of red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus Rex, in your opinion? Aren't they supposed to be over 65 million years old? How could this be possible?

welcome back Bethany, great post about the twins....I'll be listening for the bodily autonomy people to respond.

Thank you, Jasper! I swear, I am so addicted to this site, it was almost unbearable being away for a whole weekend. LOL Someone needs to take me to JillStanek Addicts Anonymous.

Bethany, LOL! Me too!

Good morning everyone,
I need to write this post super quick. Sorry it will be rushed.

The pro-choice side is constantly changing their stories for reasons to keep aborton legal.

First it was because so many women were dying from illegal abortions or self induced coat hanger abortions, which we come to find out they did not.

Then...
They needed clean safe access to abortion which they are not getting. Any studies that tell you abortion is safe compared to other sugical procdures are way flawed due to the fact that the reasons for death of a woman due to an abortion are probably listed for "other" medical reasons. A former abortionist admitted she wouldn't even be able to estimate how many women they services that probably wound up infertile or died later after being released without proper follow-up.

Then we heard.....
It' just a blob of tissue. Which tehnology has disproven.

Then we head....
the whole ridiculous argument of body autonomy. If they want body autonomy, then keep the penis out. Keep the sperm out.

Then we heard that consensual sex does not equate to a consensual pregnancy. I will say it again. No form of birth control is 100% effective. It says it on the pack, the box, the container.

Now they are comparing a child created by consensual sex to a kidney.

What next???????????

Sandy, you're right about that. Their arguments many times seem to change over and over, to suit their needs at the time. I'm sure there will be even more crazy arguments as time goes on.

"SOMG, please give me an idea of your connection to the abortion industry. You obviously are on the inside."

Jill, SoMG is an abortionist as he has admitted to us, he (or she?)has been open about talking about it.

SoMG, can you give a little more info on how many abortions you've done? I know you've only witnessed one 2nd trimester abortion.

jasper, creepy isn't it? He's a total quack!

SOMG, you ought to change your screen name to SOTB............Spirit of Ted Bundy.

Jasper,

Actually I think SoMG said he was a nurse practioner
who aspires to being an abortionist. Hasn't quite made it. He said he had assisted at the 2nd trimester abortion, and basically only watched.

Jasper,

�Just because an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb does mean it has any less of a right to life...�

Actually yes it does. As a general rule, people are able to deny other people access to their bodies even if such access is necessary to sustain life. If I need a liver transplant immediately or I am going to die (let�s say that I�m in a hospital with a failing liver) and there�s only one other person who�s capable of giving my a new liver (because they match me genetically and have already had the tests one would need to be an organ donor due to whatever medical procedure they were in the hospital for.) I can�t forcibly take this person�s liver because that would violate that individual�s right to bodily autonomy. That person has no obligations to me, despite being the only person who could save my life. I just don�t understand why the fetus should be granted rights that other humans do not have.

�Enigma, I guess our beliefs, morals, views on human dignity, etc, are much too different for us to come to any agreement.

Probably.

MK,

�If one has no right to life, one won't be around to have a right to one's own body.�

A good point. It�s a question of whether that one condition alone is sufficient to produce the conditions necessary for one to have a meaningful life. The answer is no. The right to life is necessary in order for the rights to self-determination and liberty to exist but the right to life does not supersede them. Since the former right (the right to life) is meaningless without the latter rights (liberty and self-determination) the latter rights are more important than the former.

�Besides, don't the unborn have a right to their own body...literally?�

Fetuses are entitled to their own bodies, that is true. What they are not entitled to is being able to use the woman�s.

MK

�I'm sorry, but from where I stand, that is the ONLY issue (humanity/personhood of the fetus).�
I�m sorry but from where I stand the only issue is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. Even if one is going to argue that the fetus is a person and has a human life (as I used to before encountering one argument that made me think), I see no reason why the fetus should be granted rights that are denied to other individuals.

�You accuse us of attributing emotion to our arguments by calling the "fetus" a baby. Well, you are reducing the child to a thing when you call it a fetus. It is a diversionary tactic that strips the baby of it's rightful title. It makes it easy to discuss it as if it were an inanimate object. Calling it a baby simply gives it back it's humanness. Something that you wish to avoid, but that we see as the entire argument in a nutshell.�

A thing? I�m sorry, but saying that calling a �child� a fetus (which is the medically correct) reduces the child to the status of a semi-inanimate object begs the question of whether of not you have read the definition of a fetus. A fetus is �the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind.� How does that reduce anything to being inanimate or a thing? It is the correct terminology for the state of development at which the human �child� is in.

�If it was true that these children were as alive as rocks, we'd all be pro-choice. It is the very fact that they ARE alive that presents the problem, and to claim otherwise is to engage in a dishonest debate.�

By your standards. I have never argued that the cells which make up a fetus are alive, I have simply argued that the fetus itself only possess potential human life until the point of viability.

I know I haven't gotten to everything, but I really do need to get started on the stuff I have to get done today.

I'll try to get back on later and finish responding to these.

Actually yes it does. As a general rule, people are able to deny other people access to their bodies even if such access is necessary to sustain life. If I need a liver transplant immediately or I am going to die (let�s say that I�m in a hospital with a failing liver) and there�s only one other person who�s capable of giving my a new liver (because they match me genetically and have already had the tests one would need to be an organ donor due to whatever medical procedure they were in the hospital for.) I can�t forcibly take this person�s liver because that would violate that individual�s right to bodily autonomy. That person has no obligations to me, despite being the only person who could save my life. I just don�t understand why the fetus should be granted rights that other humans do not have.

In this hypothetical you give, it wasn't the person who has the liver you need who brought you into a situation where you needed their liver in order to survive.
That is where pregnancy and liver donation differ greatly. If you have sex, you know that there is always a chance that it could result in a pregnancy. If you conceive, the very reason that the baby cannot live without your support, is because you brought him or her into a situation where he or she needed your support in order to stay alive. How is it fair to bring someone to existence, into a situation where they need you, then kill them?

Enigma,

The right to life is necessary in order for the rights to self-determination and liberty to exist but the right to life does not supersede them. Since the former right (the right to life) is meaningless without the latter rights (liberty and self-determination) the latter rights are more important than the former.

I think people in communist countries would disagree with you.

I see no reason why the fetus should be granted rights that are denied to other individuals.

But the right to life was granted to the other individuals...if it wasn't, they would be alive to complain that their right to autonomy is being messed with.

Enigma, The why would a woman allow a penis to penetrate her vagina? That's how the fetus got there.

A thing? I�m sorry, but saying that calling a �child� a fetus (which is the medically correct) reduces the child to the status of a semi-inanimate object begs the question of whether of not you have read the definition of a fetus. A fetus is �the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind.� How does that reduce anything to being inanimate or a thing? It is the correct terminology for the state of development at which the human �child� is in.

By your standards. I have never argued that the cells which make up a fetus are alive, I have simply argued that the fetus itself only possess potential human life until the point of viability

Do you not see that you just contradicted yourself?
It's a potential human being but it also "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind.�

It can't be both.

It has it's own DNA, own blood type, own sex...it's not a potential anything. It's a human being. In a particular stage of growth! Your words, not mine.

"By your standards. I have never argued that the cells which make up a fetus are alive, I have simply argued that the fetus itself only possess potential human life until the point of viability.

That is absolutely scientifically incorrect, Enigma.
That is like saying a toddler only possesses potential human life until it is able to walk, or talk, etc. Or that a child possesses only potential human life until he/she reaches adolescence or adulthood.

A child in the womb, before viability, from the moment of conception is a complete human organism, needing nothing but nutrition and oxygen to survive. They are not potential life, they are actual life. A sperm is potential life. An ovary is potential life. They must have something added in order to become an actual life. The embryo/fetus needs NOTHING that we do not need, in order to survive and grow and develop as a human being.

Sperm and egg are not biologically alive. Here are the characteristics of living things (human beings, from the moment of conception, have all of these):

* Living things are made of cells.
* Living things obtain and use energy.
* Living things grow and develop.
* Living things reproduce.
* Living things respond to their environment.
* Living things adapt to their environment.

Other human cells in the body are not human organisms.

Enigma,

Even if one is going to argue that the fetus is a person and has a human life (as I used to before encountering one argument that made me think),

Do tell, what argument was that?

MK,

�When Diana was on here (and I miss her) she gave many, many, many of the same arguments that you do...�

That doesn�t surprise me. With a little variation, abortion rights arguments generally stem from the same roots. For that matter, I have found that anti-abortion arguments do this as well.

�The one that drives me most nuts, is the "I didn't give consent" argument.�

And the one that drives me the most nuts is that women somehow negate their rights to self-determination by agreeing to have sex.

�If you eat 6 chocolate cakes a day, and begin to gain tremendous amounts of weight, you could say that you consented to eating the cake but not to gaining the weight. (Having your cake and eating it too?) But you'd have to be mentally deficient not to understand the connection.�

Just because there is a connection does not mean that one has consented to the risks that go along with an action. In this case, I�d say the connection is a lot more straightforward because one always gains weight (well, unless one has an unusually fast metabolism and has trouble maintaining a healthy weight�I do know people like this) when one consumes vast amounts of unhealthy, fattening foods life this. There is no way (save for liposuction and dieting aids which never seem to get to the root of the problem) to prevent this weight gain. That cannot be said for sex and pregnancy. Most sex encounters do not lead to pregnancies. Fully 50-60% of even fertilized eggs are simply flushed out of a woman�s body before implantation takes place. The link here is much less consistent. This lack of consistency means that one can engage in act without consenting to the consequences.

�Everytime you take "your clothes off" you run the risk of pregnancy and STD's. While you may not have "given" permission per se, you have definitely agreed to the terms of the agreement.�

Every time anyone has sex, the individuals involved always do run the risk of STDS and pregnancy. The individuals involved do know the risks (or at least I really hope that they do) and they have chosen to engage in the action believing that these risks are unlikely to be realized. Recognizing the risks is very different from consenting to the risks.

Even if one chooses to engage in an activity, one cannot be said to have waived the appropriate treatment in case that the risks become reality. Rock climbers do not waive their right to medical treatment if they fall. People who drive drunk do not waive their rights to medical treatment. Neither does a woman waive her right to bodily autonomy when she inadvertently becomes pregnant.

So based, on this argument about consent, do you believe that a woman who has been raped should be able to get an abortion?

�The point is, that when you engage in risky behavior, you are consenting to the understanding of said risks. Parachuters sign waivers. Kids on field trips need parents permission in the form of consent with the knowledge that "things happen".�

This argument would carry more weight if those waivers weren�t for legal purposes.

�Entering into a sexual relationship is a consensual contract. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for the result of your actions, then you need to refrain from that activity.�

Sex does not come with a contract. And even if it did, a woman would never be unilaterally required to surrender her body without her consent. That is misogyny at it�s finest.

�Yes, in essence, every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you are agreeing that there are risks involved and you are willing to take them.�
Recognizing the risks involved does not mean that one has consented to them.

�Perhaps you haven't consented to a car accident, but you HAVE consented to the risk of one.�

False. There is no consent involved. All that is required is the recognition of risk. Recognition does not equal consent.

�Your right to autonomy should be forfieted if it was your behavior, choice and free will that caused that life to exist. You agreed to the risk. Now live up to the responsibility.�

One�s right to autonomy should never be forfeit. Read the constitution if you disagree with me. One�s rights cannot be forfeit without the person having committed a crime and having gone through due processes of the law. A woman who has sex has committed no crime.

And having an abortion is taking responsibility.

(Okay, for starters, I am going to address all the older posts before moving on to new ones. Secondly, I am not trying to avoid various posts and points, I just haven't gotten around to answering all of them yet.)

Enigma, no worries. :) I understand how busy life can get...but when you get a chance, I am very interested in your answer to my question at 8:04 AM.

�However, you do have faith. It just happens to lie in another view of how the world came to be.�

This I would dispute. I argue that for faith to exist, one can have nothing but belief. Science offers me something real. But I think we should just probably drop this, because we�re never going to agree on this point.

�The one thing about my faith that differs from yours is that it never changes...it's the same thousands of years ago as it is today.�

I�m not trying to attack you here, but I hardly see this as evidence of strength. I believe that the ability to change based on new evidence is a strength as opposed to simply clinging to the same belief and denying the truth of anything that does not fit with your belief.

�For something to be a religion there must be something that you worship. One can believe that a God exists without worshiping Him.�

Point. However, God has no place in public schools.

�How do you explain that the Golden ratio exists throughout nature? How do you explain the absolutes of mathematics? How did these come to be without an intelligent designer?�

Why does everything in life need a designer? Simply because everything that humans create must have a designer does not mean that the world itself needed a designer. Nature creates miracles every day.

�To not see God's hand in the beauty of this world is to not even take a really close look at the world.�

This is your perception of the world, not mine. When I look around, I see a beautiful, complex place that arose due to chance and circumstance. I see the laws of nature and how they govern the world and marvel at how everything fits. I am still in awe at the absolute wonder of the world and am deeply humbled to think that I can take part in something this incredible. However, I see no great giant plan and I see no mythical creator. I just see the world and all that it has made possible.

I will, don't worry. I just have a lot to respond to and a lot to do today.

Hey Enigma,

I'm sure MK and Bethany can keep you well occupied, but there are some unusual points not approached in other arguments. Most of the body-autonomy argument centers on the notion of independence. This concept is an allusion and is derogatory to us all (but especially to disabled folk) by casting a person as an isolate when he/she is obviously within a community of other folks. ["Don't assist it might hurt-their-pride!"] The cogent term for all human activity is 'interdependent'. Before getting yourself into a boil, look at your shoelaces. Did you dye them? make them; tip them in plastic? How about the weave design or the fabric chosen? This example is even more true of an automobile. Because we own-it does not usually mean that we have made it. Everything we use everyday has usually been made by someone else ... from the food we eat, the car we drive; the roads and sidewalks are made by somebody else. The sewers; electric power; the computer I type at/printer/scanner/mouse/keyboard, the paper ... on and on ... all point out that modern humans are 'interdependent' creatures NOT 'independent'. This is an illusion and places this whole body-autonomy kick right at the very bottom of rights (where it properly resides). Not only have we not only fabricated the money we all use, but one of the only independent things we do with shoelaces is tie them ourselves [exactly the same way Daddy taught us].

?You no more consented to the accident than one consents to pregnancy. You simply drove knowing that with driving comes the risk of accidents. Likewise with pregnancy, you have sex, knowing that with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy.?

Enigma: Incorrect. There are no ?laws? that govern sexual contact. One has agreed to nothing. Knowing that an action carries a particular risk does not mean that one has consented to the risk if such a risk is realized.

Right - of course there may be some risk of pregnancy for a given person, but having sex in no way is any necessary agreement to remain pregnant.

Doug

Bethany, Heather, I never thought I'd promote addictions, but I'm glad you're addicted to this site... :)

Jasper, MK: Re: SOMG, I'm pretty sure he's a he, despite that statement he made a week or two ago.

And I think he's always been vague as to his connection to abortion, unless I missed a post or two, which is quite possible.

But every now and then he says something that makes me think he's real close to it. His knowledge of procedures is more than casual, for one thing.

Then his statement the other day about abortionists laughing about converting and making $ off the pro-life movement... that sounded authentic, too. I could hear them saying that. And he was with them at the time.

I�m not trying to attack you here, but I hardly see this as evidence of strength. I believe that the ability to change based on new evidence is a strength as opposed to simply clinging to the same belief and denying the truth of anything that does not fit with your belief.

So ....You're willing to be possibly wrong now (believing something which may be proven wrong later on by changing evidence), but then realize out you were wrong later (when new evidence surfaces) and then believe something later that, again, could potentially be wrong?

See, the way I look at it is that I would like to base my beliefs on something that is solid as a rock, and doesn't change, not because it is stubborn, but because it is absolutely true. I base my life on truth.

"Science" is ever changing, and things that "seemed" to disprove the Bible, today have changed to show that the Bible actually was true after all. I see nothing wrong with observation and looking at reality ....I actually LOVE science- observation and experimentation on nature and God's creation, because when one does observe the world and tests and experiments on it, one will find that the evidence they find does not conflict with the Bible at all.

The Bible has many Scientific claims that many seemed to disagree with until they were shown that it was true after all.

For instance, the Bible mentions a few times "the circle of the earth", and "He hangs the earth on nothing."
People used to believe the earth was flat, until scientific evidence proved otherwise. Those who believed in the Bible already knew this Scientific fact, before "Science" even did. We also know that the earth is literally hanging on "nothing" in space.

The Bible describes the circulation in the atmosphere. Ecclesiastes 1:6 says that "The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit."

The significance of blood is described in the Bible... Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood"

A quote from clarifyingChristianity.com explains a little better than I can the significance of this passage from a scientific stance:
"The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body�s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body�s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life�confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]

There are many other scientific observations mentioned in the Bible, from the humanity of the unborn in the womb, to dinosaurs, to astronomy, to anthropology, etc.

This is just the tip of the iceburg, but just to give you an example of how scientific proofs actually confirm God and His word, rather than disprove His existance.

This I would dispute. I argue that for faith to exist, one can have nothing but belief. Science offers me something real. But I think we should just probably drop this, because we�re never going to agree on this point.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

I think that the faith you are thinking of is different than the faith I am thinking of.

Replace the word "faith" with "confidence" and you'll be a little closer to understanding what I mean by it.

Bethany: Their arguments many times seem to change over and over, to suit their needs at the time. I'm sure there will be even more crazy arguments as time goes on.

Pro-Choice doesn't really need those type of "arguments." Not all pregnancies are wanted and some women choose to end them. We know that. The burden of "proof" is on Pro-Lifers as they're the ones who want their desires enforced over those of the pregnant women.

Doug

MK, to Enigmas: You and Doug and others often say that the "humanity/personhood" of the baby isn't at issue. I'm sorry, but from where I stand, that is the ONLY issue.

Human DNA is there, no doubt about it. "Humanity" can mean things beyond what is present in the unborn, though. "Human" applies, for sure. I think that personhood is definitely at issue - some Pro-Lifers want personhood attributed to the unborn.

........

You accuse us of attributing emotion to our arguments by calling the "fetus" a baby. Well, you are reducing the child to a thing when you call it a fetus. It is a diversionary tactic that strips the baby of it's rightful title. It makes it easy to discuss it as if it were an inanimate object. Calling it a baby simply gives it back it's humanness. Something that you wish to avoid, but that we see as the entire argument in a nutshell.

MK, there is no "rightful" title like that - "baby" or not and "child" or not are subjective in their application, i.e. it's in the eye of the beholder and different people see it different ways. I do not think that saying "it's not a baby" is any meaningful argument here, and neither is "it's a baby." Heck, call it what you want. It's human, and it's alive - those aren't being argued.

........

If it was true that these children were as alive as rocks, we'd all be pro-choice. It is the very fact that they ARE alive that presents the problem, and to claim otherwise is to engage in a dishonest debate.

They're definitely alive, but a given life won't always be wanted, necessarily.

Doug

"They're definitely alive, but a given life won't always be wanted, necessarily."

So what? That is a stupid argument.

Doug,
Okay, then, from now let's call it a baby...since it makes no difference to you.

It makes a huge difference to me. You say that whether or not it is human is not the point. But then you argue that personhood might be a point.

I keep telling you...we believe it is a baby. We believe there is no difference between a baby and fetus. They are the same thing. If a mouse is pregnant, then they are baby mice. If an ant is pregnant, then they are baby ants. If a human is pregnant then it is a baby human.

We believe they have personhood. Personhood encompasses more than humans. Do you believe in the possibility of aliens? Won't these aliens be persons?

You can't argue "sentience" and then say that baby or human? It makes no difference. It makes a difference to you too, whether you admit it or not.

You are presenting a circular argument...

It's a fetus not a baby.
It doesn't make a difference if it's a baby, because the woman's rights are what matter.
It's not a baby because it isn't sentient.
It's a fetus. A fetus is not a baby.
It doesn't make any difference if it's a baby because the woman's rights are what matter.
It's not a baby because it isn't sentient...

You can't have it both ways...

Either it's a person and we argue that killing a person is all right in these circumstances,

OR

It's not a person, therefore killing it is right in all circumstances.

I don't care which one you want to argue, but pick one and stick to it! You're making me crazy! I'm starting to think of you as Doug the guy that goes round and round and round...

Thank you, Rosie!

Yes MK, it makes me dizzy!

Rosie,

You said that so much better than me...

Doug,

Right - of course there may be some risk of pregnancy for a given person, but having sex in no way is any necessary agreement to remain pregnant.

Here we go again...

some risk of pregnancy...okay, so are you admitting that consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy?

Because if not, say so now, and save me another trip on the merry go round!

Typical pro abort male. Doug, men like you benefit from abortion! No wedding vows, no child support, no commitment. No responsibility at all.

John: Maybe what we need is a little dose of humility ... everyone - we get so caught-up in ourselves .... in we measured significance by weight then ALL life would weigh about 2 ounces next to the 'things' of this world like rocks and water - weigh @1 billion TONS .... now our planet's weight (inside our solar system is) probably smaller than 2 grains vs 1 billion tons ... and the whole amount is 100% 'THINGS' (mostly rocks and gas). Within our galaxy, our solar system is very, very small [the nearest star is only 3,000 light years away .... a light year = distance traveled if one travels at the speed of light for 1 year ... at that speed we reach our sun in @8 minutes ... The Hubble telescope found a star-cloud formation that likely gives birth to stars. It is only 150 light years across.] On the grand scale our galaxy is just one of many and hardly visible in the whole physical universe.

This whole bit can be repeated for the micro universe too. All living humans are a very small fraction of all life ... probably a very small fraction of 1%. On top of that, all our physical-being is composed of molecules- which in-turn are well-spaced atoms. Now, if it were possible to remove all the space within atoms, then 13 tons of matter would be put in 1/3 teaspoon.

John, you're an interesting guy. Okay, so let's say we get more humble. Then what? Do you see problems now present that would lessen?

Agreed about our relative insignificance. I see us as just another species on this planet - a singular one, to be sure, due to our brains - but just one of many, and surely there is some humility in that.

Doug

Heather: Typical pro abort male. Doug, men like you benefit from abortion! No wedding vows, no child support, no commitment. No responsibility at all.

Silly.

MK: some risk of pregnancy...okay, so are you admitting that consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy? Because if not, say so now, and save me another trip on the merry go round!

Yes, MK - if it's possible for the two people to produce conception, then I think it'd be silly to say otherwise. So, often it's just a fact that pregnancy could occur. But having sex is no necessary agreement to stay pregnant if pregnancy happens.

Doug

Okay Doug,

That's something anyway. So, if going into a sexual relationship, you know that pregnancy is a possibility, then how in the world can you not expect to take responsibility for your actions?

I mean it would be great if you could murder someone and say that you consented to sticking the knife in their heart, but not to killing them, and now that they are dead you shouldn't be punished because you didn't consent to murder.

Or you raped someone and could say that you only meant to have sex and never consented to her not consenting, so you shouldn't be punished because you only consented to sex not rape...

It's nuts. You made a choice. You were aware of the possible consequences. What kind of a world would it be if people didn't accept responsibility for their actions...for their "choices"? You make the "choice" when you choose to have sex. If you become pregnant that is a direct result of your CHOICE...You can't just erase consequences...especially when "erase" means end a life...that's infantile!

@Doug,

posed this before you came along & never did get an answer:

when a young-un, I used to see police posters that said 'Wanted DEAD or ALIVE (but it sure left the impression that they preferred DEAD). Is this the wanted you wish for? The child is not 'wanted' except to be a target of the parental whims ?????????? ... including abuse!

MK: Okay, then, from now let's call it a baby...since it makes no difference to you.

That's fine with me - IMO "unborn baby" is well understood and I have no problem with it. The problem, there, as I see it is that some people say, in essence, "It's a baby...... so abortion is wrong." That's not a meaningful argument.

........

It makes a huge difference to me. You say that whether or not it is human is not the point. But then you argue that personhood might be a point. I keep telling you...we believe it is a baby. We believe there is no difference between a baby and fetus. They are the same thing. If a mouse is pregnant, then they are baby mice. If an ant is pregnant, then they are baby ants. If a human is pregnant then it is a baby human. We believe they have personhood. Personhood encompasses more than humans. Do you believe in the possibility of aliens? Won't these aliens be persons?

Personhood is definitely a point. Yet it is that society does not attribute personhood to the unborn that has you dissatisfied with this deal in the first place. I see that you're thinking of "personhood" in a broad sense in your application of it to aliens. I do think there are probably other sentient races in the universe, but I don't know about what types of personality they might have. Might be more like a "hive mind" like bees, for example, and that would be quite a difference. Personhood is a societal construct, and it'd be interesting to see what types of self-consciousness they have and if they have similar concepts. So, I don't know if I'd say that aliens would be "persons" or not.

........

You can't argue "sentience" and then say that baby or human? It makes no difference. It makes a difference to you too, whether you admit it or not.

It's two different things. If a being is sentient or not, it does make a big difference to me, and to many people. And within gestation there are times sentience isn't present, and times when it is. But "human" always is the case - it's not at issue. "Baby" or not is subjective, and it really doesn't matter. If you are saying, in effect, "living, developing, human organism" then I don't have an argument with "baby" - the physical reality of the unborn isn't (must) in dispute, overall, here.

Doug

Bethany,

Thank you. I have been waiting for this opportunity ever since I took Bio.

�Enigma, also, have you ever tried to explain to yourself the eye? How can something so perfectly designed have happened without a creator?�

Simply put, our eyes are not perfect. If you understand the design, they are actually quite cumbersome. Darwin got it wrong because the technology did not exist at his time to show him how ill-designed our eyes really were. Squid and octopus eyes actually have a design far superior to that of our eyes.

To summarize, in human eyes the receptors for light (the rods and cones) are located at the back of the eye and the nerves (which combine to form the optic nerve and send visually gathered information to the brain) jut out of the front of the receptors instead of the back. This design does not make sense. It means that the nerves, instead of coming neatly out of the back where they would not obscure our vision, snake across the receptor cells until they finally come together at a point and form the optic nerve. This leads to a whole in our vision. Hardly something that a supreme being would want to leave in his �greatest� creation.

Squid and octopus eyes, on the other hand, are designed so that the nerves coming from the receptor cells do not obscure vision.

�...another thing that puzzles me about the whole evolution theory. Why don't we see any half humans/half apes today? Or any half species of any kind? Wouldn't it make sense that there would be some still evolving today, who had not yet completed their transition?�

Not necessarily. For starters, how do know that there aren�t animals out there who are still evolving today? Evolution is not a process that simply stops. It keeps going in subtle steps and increments. These subtle steps and increments which I have mentioned deal only with evolution as it occurs within a single species.

The theory of the punctuated equilibrium can deal with a majority of your questions. According to this theory, large-scale evolutionary change does not occur through the vehicle of natural selection. The idea behind this theory (which is supported by fossil evidence) is that life continued in a fairly stable equilibrium until something suddenly punctures it and new life forms emerge. This likely happened because there were sudden changes in the environment that previous life forms could not survive. That could explain the lack of intermediary forms to which you refer.

�Why have there been findings of red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus Rex, in your opinion? Aren't they supposed to be over 65 million years old? How could this be possible?�

Because it is completely a matter of how the cells in question are preserved. This holds true for an object. If something is preserved in the appropriate conditions, it will maintain its integrity. How else do you explain the ancient bible that was pulled out of a bog somewhere in the UK? That thing was in pretty shape because it was well-preserved.

Bethany,

�Their arguments many times seem to change over and over, to suit their needs at the time.�

I would argue that this is a strength, not a weakness. One should be able to modify and change one�s argument as conditions change or as new information is learned. To cling to an inefficient and medically untrue argument in the face of new evidence is pure folly.

I mean it would be great if you could murder someone and say that you consented to sticking the knife in their heart, but not to killing them, and now that they are dead you shouldn't be punished because you didn't consent to murder.

MK: You are presenting a circular argument...

:-/

It's a fetus not a baby.

You are being untruthful here, MK. That is not my argument. "Baby" or not doesn't really matter in the argument. Call it anything, but valuation is what the debate is about.

........

It doesn't make a difference if it's a baby, because the woman's rights are what matter.

No - "baby" doesn't make a difference in the first place. Yes, the woman's rights matter.

........

It's not a baby because it isn't sentient.

I have not said "it's not a baby." Yes, it's a fetus - that is true for all of us, it's by medical definition, it's not a matter of opinion. But "baby" or not is indeed a matter of opinion. Sentience makes a difference to me, but that a given personn favors the use of "baby" or not doesn't. Again, call it whatever you like.

........

It's a fetus. A fetus is not a baby. It doesn't make any difference if it's a baby because the woman's rights are what matter.
It's not a baby because it isn't sentient... You can't have it both ways...

Most of the "ways" there are things you made up. They're not what I have said. Straw Man City. It's easy to put words in other people's mouths.

........

Either it's a person and we argue that killing a person is all right in these circumstances,

It's not a person. Personhood is attributed by society at birth. Doesn't "have" to be that way, but it is that way. That's when rights are granted, that's when many things are imputed, and many types of legal status come into effect. If legal personhood/right-to-life WAS granted to the unborn, the argument would be much different and you would be much more satisfied with the status quo.

........

OR

It's not a person, therefore killing it is right in all circumstances.

I don't care which one you want to argue, but pick one and stick to it! You're making me crazy! I'm starting to think of you as Doug the guy that goes round and round and round...

I don't think you're crazy, but you don't need to make stuff up, IMO, and wish you would respond to what I actually say, rather than to misrepresentations of it. The restrictions on abortion late in gestation could be seen as a limited form of personhood, again in my opinion. I don't say that "killing it is right in all circumstances." The primary thing is if it's wanted or not. If wanted, then I'm not saying it should be killed.

Doug

�Suppose there are two siamese twins. One of these is the stronger twin, the other is weaker. They both know that if they were separated, the stronger one would live, and the weaker one would die. Suppose the stronger siamese twin had had enough of having to be stuck to her sister all the time, and she wanted to have full bodily autonomy, free of her sister. Suppose she said that she wanted to have the operation done so that her sister would die and she could live, free of her sister.�

For starters, I have to congratulate you on the ingenuity which you have demonstrated here. This is probably the hardest argument that I have ever been asked to refute. At first, I did not think that I could do so. Then I started thinking on what I know of Siamese twins and the nature of autonomy and it hit me.

Siamese twins cannot be said to have the same type of bodily autonomy which you and I enjoy. They have always been joined. They were together in the womb, together during birth, and have never existed apart. They cannot be said to have bodily autonomy, especially if the only way for them to live is to continue to share their bodies. In essence, they are a unit. What goes into one goes into the other. Their bodies do not belong only to them and never have.

This is where the analogy with abortion falls apart. A woman has complete bodily autonomy. Her body does belong to her and only to her. Since she has this type of autonomy, she has the right to sever another dependant individual from that body. Siamese twins, who cannot be said to have complete bodily autonomy, do not necessarily have the right to unilaterally separate. (The exception, of course, being if both twins will die if they remain together and if only one will die if they are separated.)

John: when a young-un, I used to see police posters that said 'Wanted DEAD or ALIVE (but it sure left the impression that they preferred DEAD). Is this the wanted you wish for? The child is not 'wanted' except to be a target of the parental whims ?????????? ... including abuse!

John, I'm for less suffering. I wish for all kids to be wanted. Much different from society wanting people brought within the control of the law, whether living or not.

Doug

"They're definitely alive, but a given life won't always be wanted, necessarily."

Rosie: So what? That is a stupid argument.

No, that's what is operative here. When a pregnancy is unwanted, on balance, it will be ended.

Doug

�Simply that one believes without needing the evidence.�

That�s why I have no faith. I need evidence.

�If we weren't supposed to recognize God's hand in the world, then verses like this wouldn't exist.�

I have a different interpretation, but I really don�t want to pursue this. My views on religion are somewhat less than complimentary.

�I don't understand what you mean by that.� (This could be another example of the changes of the modern age. It is possible that greater access to contraceptives, sex ed., and sexual promiscuity are all products of the modern era.)

You countered my �education is good� argument by saying that sex ed had led to all these problems in the world (at least I think that�s what you said, I didn�t actually check). This comment of mine is supposed to indicate that while these problems and sex ed may have arise at the same time that that does not mean that they are related. They could all simply have been born of the modern era.

�I have no problems whatsoever with educating children about what sex is, and how to prevent STD's. This is a good thing. What I do have a problem with is telling them, "Oh if you mess up and get pregnant, you can erase the consequences by aborting it.", or lying to them and making them feel as though STD's can completely be prevented by Condom usage, which is false.�
Abortion was never mentioned when I had sex ed. Never. And the inability of condoms to prevent everything was mentioned.

�And telling them the "how tos" of sex, and homosexual sex, such as teaching them "fisting", how to use grape jelly as a lubricant, different ways to masturbate, etc etc. I do NOT think that my children should ever be taught stuff like that, and especially not at such a young age. Teenwire.com, planned parenthood's website for teens disgusts me, and I would never, ever let my child go there.�

Since I have never been there, I won�t argue it with you. I think I�m inclined to agree that children do not need to learn these things.

MK: That's something anyway.

:: shouting "YeeHaw" and firing guns into the air ::

.......

So, if going into a sexual relationship, you know that pregnancy is a possibility, then how in the world can you not expect to take responsibility for your actions?

You are confusing "responsibility" with your desire in the matter. The woman herself is the one who is responsible, first and foremost, and she's not responsible to what you want.

........

I mean it would be great if you could murder someone and say that you consented to sticking the knife in their heart, but not to killing them, and now that they are dead you shouldn't be punished because you didn't consent to murder.

Why do you think that would be great? It's not an analogous situation anyway. There are risks with vast numbers of actions that some, most, or all people do. There will be unwanted situations that arise, and people will seek remedies for them.

........

Or you raped someone and could say that you only meant to have sex and never consented to her not consenting, so you shouldn't be punished because you only consented to sex not rape...

Fairly wild line of reasoning there, MK. If ya drive to the store, you might have a flat tire. You're probably gonna have it fixed.

........

It's nuts. You made a choice. You were aware of the possible consequences. What kind of a world would it be if people didn't accept responsibility for their actions...for their "choices"? You make the "choice" when you choose to have sex. If you become pregnant that is a direct result of your CHOICE...You can't just erase consequences...especially when "erase" means end a life...that's infantile!

The consequences of sex may be a pregnancy and then deciding to continue the pregnancy or to end it. You may want women to continue pregnancies but they are not responsible to what you want, here. The woman does have responsibility for her choices, and it's up to her.

Doug

�Many, if not all, of these skeletons have been proved to be fabricated...so I am not sure which ones you are referring to. Maybe you could point me in that direction by a link?�

I�d be happy to.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Sandy,

�the whole ridiculous argument of body autonomy. If they want body autonomy, then keep the penis out. Keep the sperm out.�

Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. You may not believe that one should have sex if one wishes to avoid getting pregnant, but not everyone shares that belief.

�Then we heard that consensual sex does not equate to a consensual pregnancy. I will say it again. No form of birth control is 100% effective. It says it on the pack, the box, the container.�

It doesn�t matter that no form of birth control is 100% effective. It only matters whether or not a woman consented to pregnancy. If she used birth control and it failed, her decision to have sex in no way obligates her to continue the pregnancy.

I know there's more, but I need to go. I'll try to be back later.

Doug,

valuation is what the debate is about.

This is a perfect example of what we are trying to say...you just assume your reality is the one everyone lives in...

Valuation might be what your argument is about, but it's not what mine is about. I couldn't care less about "valuation"...this could explain why we aren't getting anywhere.

I believe that an unborn child/fetus/human being/embryo/baby/person are all the same thing.
And to kill one or all is murder. Period. Talk valuation all you want, you'll still have to show me why you think it is okay to kill a person because you are being inconvenienced. That's it. No philosophical debate. No esoteric claptrap. Just tell me why it is okay to kill another human being/person/baby/fetus/embryo/unborn child that you created by your own choice, simply because your life will be a little messed up for a few months.

Tell me any other situation where this would be okay...ANY other one! And don't give me the "bodily autonomy crap" because that ain't a reason to kill someone. If it is to you, then you're worse off than I thought.

Doug,

If wanted, then I'm not saying it should be killed.

It's ALWAYS wanted by someone...heck I want it...!

Enigma,

What if there was anoperation that could separate them, but it wouldn't be allowed until 2009. All they had to do was wait a couple of years, and then they could be separated.

But one twin didn't want to wait. The one twin (as Doug has just pointed out) is unwanted by the other twin...

Now what? Does she have a right to kill her sister because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced?

Doug,

The woman herself is the one who is responsible, first and foremost, and she's not responsible to what you want.

No, but SHE does have a responsibility to accept the consequences of her OWN actions...Don't we all?

For starters, I have to congratulate you on the ingenuity which you have demonstrated here. This is probably the hardest argument that I have ever been asked to refute. At first, I did not think that I could do so. Then I started thinking on what I know of Siamese twins and the nature of autonomy and it hit me.
Siamese twins cannot be said to have the same type of bodily autonomy which you and I enjoy. They have always been joined. They were together in the womb, together during birth, and have never existed apart. They cannot be said to have bodily autonomy, especially if the only way for them to live is to continue to share their bodies. In essence, they are a unit. What goes into one goes into the other. Their bodies do not belong only to them and never have.
This is where the analogy with abortion falls apart. A woman has complete bodily autonomy. Her body does belong to her and only to her. Since she has this type of autonomy, she has the right to sever another dependent individual from that body. Siamese twins, who cannot be said to have complete bodily autonomy, do not necessarily have the right to unilaterally separate. (The exception, of course, being if both twins will die if they remain together and if only one will die if they are separated.)

Enigma, are you trying to tell me that bodily autonomy is conditional? Can you list the different conditions which make it limited? And why is there not a condition for the pregnant woman, since she is obviously an exceptional case also?
And are you telling me that a woman who is a Siamese twin isn't really a woman?

No, Siamese twins are not a unit. Yes, many times they share their organs with each other, and yes, they many times reside in the same body... however, they are individuals, not a unit. There are two thinking brains, there are two individual personalities, etc. They just happen to be fused together, not by their own "choice". This is not something they can control.

But suppose one wanted to be free, Enigma? You can't get out of it this easily. I mean, really.
Why does a woman deserve bodily autonomy more just because she hasn't been fused to someone all her life? How is this fair for the woman who is a siamese twin, yet has always wanted to be her own person, when she knows that other women are allowed to control what goes on in their bodies all the time through abortion.
The only thing holding her back is her sister. She just wants to have her freedom, to be independant, and there is a way to do that- have surgery to remove her sister. Her sister's death would be an "unfortunate consequence" of being removed. I'm sure she'd love to do it some other way, but looks like this is her only option. Why should she be denied this opportunity? Are not her needs and desires just as valid as any other woman's needs and desires? Please explain to me why a thinking, living , breathing human with self awareness and dreams and goals should be denied those opportunities that you afford pregnant women.

�Many, if not all, of these skeletons have been proved to be fabricated...so I am not sure which ones you are referring to. Maybe you could point me in that direction by a link?�
I�d be happy to.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Okay...I looked at both of the links. I appreciate your willingness to share them with me.

But I have to be honest with you, Enigma. I saw nothing convincing...I genuinely thought you were going to give me something much harder to ignore.

I saw a human skeleton in the first link, and someone's interpretation in a drawing that imagined the human skeleton was some kind of ape like creature. That skeleton could be 10 years old as far as I can tell...even a couple of years old. Do little people not exist? Will this little man's skeleton be used as proof for evolution when he dies?

I am confused as to how I was supposed to see an ape like creature there. I have seen people today, in this day and age, who had deformed skulls...will their skeletons be used as proof for evolution one day? What about Elephant Man's skeleton?

As for Lucy's skeleton...it's not even pieced together...none of the bones are even touching each other. How can you even tell that their interpretation of where the bones are placed is accurate?

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/milliyet_060923.php

Evolutionists must see that clinging to Australopithecus afarensis will avail them nothing

No matter how much the claims made concerning Selam appear to involve a new supposed ape-man, the fact is that they consist of the repetition of various old evolutionist errors. We refer to this as an �old� error because Australopithecus afarensis, in which Selam was included, is a species that has been known for more than 30 years. It is an extinct species of ape whose general anatomy closely resembles that of the chimpanzee. It has been estimated to have lived in South and East Africa between 4 and 1 million years ago. What placed this species, known from the famous fossil �Lucy,� at the center of evolutionist claims is the claim that its pelvis and knee joints resemble those of human beings, and therefore, that it was bipedal, walking on two legs like human beings. Lucy, 40% of whose skeleton has been preserved, has been estimated to be 3.2 million years old. Lucy was elevated to the status of an ancestor of man and was the subject of widespread evolutionist propaganda for decades.

However, the claim that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) walked on two legs and was the ancestor of man has been refuted by various studies conducted by evolutionist experts themselves. The literature contains studies that definitively reject the idea that Lucy walked upright like human beings. To summarize in brief:

1. Despite being a proponent of the theory of evolution, the renowned anatomist Lord Solly Zuckerman concluded that Australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape and were very definitely not bipedal.i
2. Charles E. Oxnard, another evolutionist anatomist known for his research in this field, concluded that the skeletal structure of Australopithecines resembled that of modern-day orangutans.ii
3. In 1994, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining balance. There were some concrete differences between the canals of humans, who walked upright, and apes, that walked bent over. The inner ear canals of all the australopithecines, and, what is more, all the Homo habilis specimens, examined by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld were identical to those of apes of our day. However, all the Homo erectus inner ear canals were identical to those of human beings alive today.iii This finding yielded two important results:

a. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e. humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e. apes.
b. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped forward--that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever to man.

4. In 2000, Australopithecines� forearm bones were examined by B. G. Richmond and D. S. Strait, and the report was published in Nature magazine. Comparative anatomy research showed that this species had the same forearm anatomy as apes living and walking on four legs today.iv

The evolutionist claim that Lucy is the ancestor of human beings was definitively rejected by scientific developments. The above inconclusive anatomical comparisons, as well as new fossil discoveries, made it impossible for Lucy to be placed in the imaginary human family tree, and Lucy fell from grace. The claims to the effect that Lucy was the ancestor of man were literally invalidated.

In its May 1999 edition the French scientific journal Science et Vie wrote, under the headline �Adieu Lucy,� that apes of the species Australopithecus did not represent the origin of man and that they should be removed from the relevant family tree.v

The retreat of evolutionist claims about Lucy was expressed in this way by the science writer Tim Friend in an article published in USA Today:

�Lucy's scientific name is Australopithecus afarensis. She looked very similar to a modern bonobo chimpanzee, with a small brain, a protruding face and large molar teeth. But Lucy has been losing favor over the past 10 years as the direct ancestor of the genus homo� most say they now believe that the idea of tracing humans in a straight line back to an ancestor such as Lucy is too simplistic.vi

i. Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94
ii. Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, Vol. 258, p. 389
iii. Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, Vol. 369, June 23, 1994, pp. 645-648
iv. Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000.
v. Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, Vol. 980, pp. 52-62
vi. Tim Friend, "Discovery rocks human-origin theories," USA Today, 21 March 2003: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2001-03-21-skull.htm

The report in daily Milliyet mentioned not one of the above facts about Australopithecus afarensis. Instead, it referred to Lucy as “the famous hominid” and to Selam as “the first hominid.”

First and foremost, the description of Lucy as a “hominid” is disputed even among evolutionists. Therefore, Milliyet’s description of the fossils in question as “hominid” is based merely upon pro-evolution preconception and has no scientific objectivity. Moreover, since Selam is also an Australopithecus afarensis baby it is also tied in to the results of the scientific studies described in the preceding section. Since Selam is of the same species as Lucy, and in the light of the above studies, it is a creature that was unable to walk upright like human beings do, and cannot be their ancestor. In short, Selam constitutes no support for the evolutionist claims concerning Lucy.

On the contrary, it provides evidence that works against the tale of Lucy being part of an ape-like line that descended from the trees and adapted to bipedalism. This is revealed even by the concerned report itself. Looking at the Milliyet report, Selam’s anatomical characteristics are summed up under five headings and are reported as follows:

1. The shoulder blades resemble those of the gorilla far more than those of a human being.
2. Its neck is short and thick, like those of the great apes. The human neck, on the other hand, is more flexible for a more comfortable posture when running.
3. The balance organ in the inner ear is close to that of apes.
4. The fingers are very curved. This points to a climbing ability.
5. The tongue bone resembles that of chimpanzees. It is estimated that it produced sounds like chimpanzees.

Now read over items 1 to 5 again. It is obvious that all the features listed are ape-like characteristics ideally suited to life in the trees. It thus becomes apparent how meaningless it is to use such a headline as “A giant discovery in evolution” to describe this fossil. At best, this discovery can only be described as one to do with Australopithecines.

Conclusion:

Selam makes the ape-like characteristics of Australopithecus afarensis even clearer than ever. This finding may be regarded solely as a valuable source of information about A. afarensis’ lifestyle and way of moving, not about the evolutionary links claimed. The report in Milliyet, however, was written from a perspective of blind devotion to the theory of evolution, determined to ignore the findings that work against it, no matter how powerful they may be. The disregarding in this report of scientific studies showing that Lucy cannot be the ancestor of man and could not walk on two legs as human beings do, shows that Milliyet is acting out of bias and has adopted the human evolution scenario as a dogma.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1642474.htm

"Flores hobbit was sick human: scientists

By Anna Salleh for Science Online

Scientists who argue the "hobbit" is really just a modern human with a small brain have published evidence for the first time in a major scientific journal.

Today's issue of the journal Science carries a paper led by primate evolution expert, Dr Bob Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago.

It says Homo floresiensis is likely to have been a modern human, who suffered from microcephaly - a condition that causes a small brain.

This reignites the debate about whether the remains of the small hominid from the Indonesian island of Flores is really H. sapiens or a dwarf version of H. erectus that evolved after becoming isolated on the island, as was originally suggested.

Dr Martin's team says that based on standard models of dwarfing, the hobbit's brain size is too small to be that of a dwarf.

It also argues the tools found alongside the hobbit are far too advanced to have been made by anyone but H. sapiens.

"If you look at the history of stone tools around the world Homo erectus never made tools like that," Dr Martin said.

"I've been in this business for 30 years and I really smell a rat in this.

"I don't think the standard story can be right and people are eventually going to see this."

His team also rejects findings of a study published last year that found the brain of H. floresiensis was unlike that of a microcephalic human.

Dr Martin says the study, led by brain evolution expert Professor Dean Falk of Florida State University, compared the hobbit with only one microcephalic, which he now says is a child.

He says the researchers should have been comparing it with a microcephalic adult.

Dr Martin's team describes the brains of two adult microcephalic specimens, a male from India and a female from Lesotho, it says are similar to the hobbit's."

Go Bethany!

More Picures of the Aurora Abortuary Protest (See Post# 23)...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2645856

Mike

Doug,

valuation is what the debate is about.

This is a perfect example of what we are trying to say...you just assume your reality is the one everyone lives in...

Valuation might be what your argument is about, but it's not what mine is about. I couldn't care less about "valuation"...this could explain why we aren't getting anywhere.

I believe that an unborn child/fetus/human being/embryo/baby/person are all the same thing.
And to kill one or all is murder. Period. Talk valuation all you want, you'll still have to show me why you think it is okay to kill a person because you are being inconvenienced. That's it. No philosophical debate. No esoteric claptrap. Just tell me why it is okay to kill another human being/person/baby/fetus/embryo/unborn child that you created by your own choice, simply because your life will be a little messed up for a few months.

Tell me any other situation where this would be okay...ANY other one! And don't give me the "bodily autonomy crap" because that ain't a reason to kill someone. If it is to you, then you're worse off than I thought.

Posted by: mk at August 28, 2007 6:25 AM

MK. I do not believe that an unborn child/fetus/human being/embryo/baby/person are all the same thing. I believe to think so really devalues the process of gestation and the woman's very life involvement in that process.
I also find calling the woman's experience of gestation being 'a little messed up' to be dismissive to the reality of gestation and child rearing.
You seem to have a lack of understanding over other's valuation because you believe that your valuation is somehow imperical. Am I wrong?

Sally,

I missed you...I posted to you and kept moving it but you didn't come back and now the post has been dropped. Bummer!

Okay, I just posted the definition of baby and it includes fetus. They are synonyms. So if we have to agree on an objective source, doesn't the dictionary count?

The term fetus came into vogue because it dehumanizes the life that is growing inside the mother.

Our lives are filled with stages, each one being labeled according to age. Conception, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, neonate, infant, toddler, preschooler, school age, pre-teen, teen, adult, middle age, old age, death.

Every one of these terms describes a human being in a different stage of development. They do not describe different entities...ie a toddler is not less of a person because it is not yet a pre teen...

I'm afraid that science and language are on our side. A fetus is a baby. A baby can be a fetus.
That's not subjective...that's straight out of the dictionary.

The "valuation" comes in when you try to say that one persons right to bodily autonomy is greater than another persons right to life.

Sentience has nothing to do with it. Every nite you are not sentient when you are in the sleep state. When you are under anesthesia, or in a coma, or faint, or are unconscious...all of these are times when you are non-sentient and yet we do not (or at least I hope you do not) believe that at these times you magically become "non-persons"...it is your logic that is faulty, not your valuations.

To prove this, look at Bethany's example of Siamese twins...read that and then answer me...Does one person have the right to kill another person, simply because that person is using their body? Which twin would win?

For some time now I have been looking for a list of synonyms for the term fetus. We are of the belief that there is no difference between the medical term fetus and the vernacular, baby.

I discovered something odd. There are no synonyms for fetus. Hmmmm...Do you suppose that even the dictionary wants to remain politically correct?

What to do...

I finally realized that I was coming at this backwards...so I looked up synonyms for baby...

guess what I found...

ba�by (bb)
n. pl. ba�bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby

ba�by (bā'bē) pronunciation
n., pl. -bies.

1.
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.
3. The youngest member of a family or group.
4. A very young animal.

http://www.answers.com/topic/manchester-mark-i?cat=health

Noun

* S: (n) baby, babe, infant (a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk) "the baby began to cry again"; "she held the baby in her arms"; "it sounds simple, but when you have your own baby it is all so different"
* S: (n) baby (the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young)) "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court"
* S: (n) child, baby (an immature childish person) "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!"
* S: (n) baby (an unborn child; a human fetus) "I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"
* S: (n) baby, babe, sister ((slang) sometimes used as a term of address for attractive young women)
* S: (n) baby (a very young mammal) "baby rabbits"
* S: (n) baby (a project of personal concern to someone) "this project is his baby"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=baby

I have one question for you though. I asked this to Diana before she left, but she never would give me a reply.

Suppose there are two siamese twins. One of these is the stronger twin, the other is weaker. They both know that if they were separated, the stronger one would live, and the weaker one would die.
Suppose the stronger siamese twin had had enough of having to be stuck to her sister all the time, and she wanted to have full bodily autonomy, free of her sister.
Suppose she said that she wanted to have the operation done so that her sister would die and she could live, free of her sister.

Would you agree she has the right to do so? With or without her sister's consent? Because, does it even matter if the other sister desires to live, since she is invading the other sister's bodily autonomy? Or perhaps the weaker twin is bothered by having to share HER body with her other twin. What do you suggest should be done here? Do you think that ensuring full bodily autonomy is always possible or the correct solution to a problem?
Posted by: Bethany at August 27, 2007 8:04 AM

Sally,

I missed you...I posted to you and kept moving it but you didn't come back and now the post has been dropped. Bummer!

Okay, I just posted the definition of baby and it includes fetus. They are synonyms. So if we have to agree on an objective source, doesn't the dictionary count?

The term fetus came into vogue because it dehumanizes the life that is growing inside the mother.

Our lives are filled with stages, each one being labeled according to age. Conception, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, neonate, infant, toddler, preschooler, school age, pre-teen, teen, adult, middle age, old age, death.

Every one of these terms describes a human being in a different stage of development. They do not describe different entities...ie a toddler is not less of a person because it is not yet a pre teen...

I'm afraid that science and language are on our side. A fetus is a baby. A baby can be a fetus.
That's not subjective...that's straight out of the dictionary.

The "valuation" comes in when you try to say that one persons right to bodily autonomy is greater than another persons right to life.

Sentience has nothing to do with it. Every nite you are not sentient when you are in the sleep state. When you are under anesthesia, or in a coma, or faint, or are unconscious...all of these are times when you are non-sentient and yet we do not (or at least I hope you do not) believe that at these times you magically become "non-persons"...it is your logic that is faulty, not your valuations.

To prove this, look at Bethany's example of Siamese twins...read that and then answer me...Does one person have the right to kill another person, simply because that person is using their body? Which twin would win?

Posted by: mk at August 28, 2007 6:24 PM

Hey you! I took a long weekend and the posts I wished to reply to dissapeared.

Being an old chick with a much older chick of a mother, I must say that a dictionary does not define pregnancy or gestation.
Being a young chick, you wouldn't really understand how being talked down to by doctors can be so demeaning.
My last pregnancy occured when I was nearing 45. My doctor never dumbed anything down for me. I miscarried a fetus. Call it a baby if it trips your lights. I know what a baby is, so does my doctor
What has come into 'vogue' is some religous avoidance of what gestation acually involves. Particularliy in the newly religous.

Bethany,

�Besides, don't the unborn have a right to their own body...literally?�

Fetuses do have rights to their own bodies, but those rights do not include intruding on another�s.

Bethany,
�If you have sex, you know that there is always a chance that it could result in a pregnancy. If you conceive, the very reason that the baby cannot live without your support, is because you brought him or her into a situation where he or she needed your support in order to stay alive. How is it fair to bring someone to existence, into a situation where they need you, then kill them?�

How is it fair for an unwanted fetus (which one never consented to creating in the first place) to intrude upon a woman�s body?

MK,

�I think people in communist countries would disagree with you.�

Perhaps. In this matter, I�m with Patrick Henry. Give me liberty or give me death.

�There are many circumstances where people have no rights whatsoever...except for the right to life.�

That is exactly my point. The right to life isn�t worth much if all that one has is life. There are things worse than death.

�Even in our own country, slaves were stripped of all of their rights. But I'm sure they would tell you it was great to be alive.�

And I�m sure that there are countless numbers of others who committed suicide or prayed for death daily.

�How about women? They didn't have the right to vote. Should we then say their lives were expendable because without the right to vote, their right to life lost it's meaning?�

I never argued that one�s life was expendable if all they had was the right to life. I only argued that, in my estimation, the right to life in and of itself is not worth much.

�The only right we can and MUST be assured of is the right to life. Everything else is just gravy.�

This is your opinion and I would argue that the views of society actually coincide with my view far more than yours. People are not forced to become organ donors. People are not forced to donate blood. Doctors are not forced to treat patients without medical insurance. Heck, we deny several thousand people medical insurance so that we don�t hamper the free market and individual choice. Society consistently values the right of an individual to choose and individual liberty over saving the lives of others who would have to infringe upon those rights to survive.

MK,

�But the right to life was granted to the other individuals...if it wasn't, they would be alive to complain that their right to autonomy is being messed with.�

The right to life is not the same as the right to impose on another�s body and to use this body without the consent of the individual to which it belongs.

�This is not a special right...this is the fundamental right, without which, all other rights are erroneous!�

Well, actually, it is. Unless you intend to change the definition of right to life?

Heather,

You seem to be implying that by agreeing to have sex, a woman waives her right to control her body. That is not the case.

If one has sex, there is a risk of pregnancy. But by agreeing to sex in spite of the risk women do not obligate themselves to become incubators.

MK,

�Do you not see that you just contradicted yourself?�

Actually, no I haven�t. Cells can be alive in the body without there being human life. Why do you think organ donation is legal? It�s legal because the individuals who are harvested are dead even though their bodies are very much alive.

�It's a potential human being but it also "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind.��

I see no discrepancy between saying that a fetus is a potential human being and recognizing that it is genetically human. In essence, it�s like saying that a child is a potential adult.

�It has it's own DNA, own blood type, own sex...it's not a potential anything. It's a human being. In a particular stage of growth! Your words, not mine.�

To have human life, one must have a functioning brain. If you doubt me, read up on organ donation. People are legally dead only when they are brain dead. If a fetus does not have a brain, I do not see how one can argue that it has human life.

I really would like to see someone respond to my points about the eye.

Enigma, I do not agree with you. Once you consent to pleasuring your body, pregnancy is a possible consequence to that action. That is when you NEED to BECOME responsible for that baby that you made! I don't like diversion tactics, so please spare me.

Bethany

�So ....You're willing to be possibly wrong now (believing something which may be proven wrong later on by changing evidence), but then realize out you were wrong later (when new evidence surfaces) and then believe something later that, again, could potentially be wrong?�

I would prefer to be able to change my views based on new evidence. Clinging to one view in spite of all the evidence against it is foolish. One must be able to adapt and change. Stasis is death.

�See, the way I look at it is that I would like to base my beliefs on something that is solid as a rock, and doesn't change, not because it is stubborn, but because it is absolutely true. I base my life on truth.�

But you only say that it is �absolutely true� because you have faith in it. Arguing that you believe something because you have faith is not a good defense.

�I see nothing wrong with observation and looking at reality ....I actually LOVE science- observation and experimentation on nature and God's creation, because when one does observe the world and tests and experiments on it, one will find that the evidence they find does not conflict with the Bible at all.�

Are you sure about that? How can one even believe in science if one denies evolution, which is the fundamental basis which much we know about the world?

�The Bible has many Scientific claims that many seemed to disagree with until they were shown that it was true after all.�

Here, I am reminded of the supposed prophecies that Jesus made at various points in the bible. These prophecies were so vague and open to interpretation that people read them and believe they refer to one specific event when, in actuality, one�s own expectations could be forcing the event to fit within the supposed �prophecy�.

You believe that these claims show scientific fact because you know the fact and see vague indicators in the claim that seem to support the fact. Knowing something and then finding evidence for it is not a good indication that the evidence was there.

�This is just the tip of the iceburg, but just to give you an example of how scientific proofs actually confirm God and His word, rather than disprove His existance.�

The earth being created in seven days. A man being swallowed by a whale. A man who walks on water. A man who can rise from the dead. A man who can magically multiply the amount of food contained in seven loaves of bread. Laying your hands on someone and curing that person of ailment. Scientific facts? I think not.

Evolution. An earth that revolves around the sun. Both key elements (or proofs) of science that the Church tried to suppress. I�m sure I could find more if I looked.

�Replace the word "faith" with "confidence" and you'll be a little closer to understanding what I mean by it.�

Perhaps. But the truth of the matter is that I have no interest in faith. When I needed it, it wasn�t there. The only thing that was left was me. (This is back when I used to believe.)

MK,

"I mean it would be great if you could murder someone and say that you consented to sticking the knife in their heart, but not to killing them, and now that they are dead you shouldn't be punished because you didn't consent to murder."

"Or you raped someone and could say that you only meant to have sex and never consented to her not consenting, so you shouldn't be punished because you only consented to sex not rape..."

These are both cheap shots and I think you know it.

MK

�No, but SHE does have a responsibility to accept the consequences of her OWN actions...Don't we all?�

She does accept the consequences of her actions by having an abortion, even if her way of accepting them is different from what you think it should be. Should a person who has driven drunk and been in a one-car crash be denied medical care because he �needs to take responsibility for his actions?�

Bethany,

"By your standards. I have never argued that the cells which make up a fetus are alive, I have simply argued that the fetus itself only possess potential human life until the point of viability.

�That is absolutely scientifically incorrect, Enigma.�

Human life is determined by the brain. If a human does not have a functioning brain, even if that individual is technically alive (think hooked up on life-support machines), the person is considered to be dead. If a fetus does not have a functioning brain, I do not see how it can be considered to have human life.

�A child in the womb, before viability, from the moment of conception is a complete human organism, needing nothing but nutrition and oxygen to survive. They are not potential life, they are actual life.�

That is not the definition of human life.

MK,
�Do tell, what argument was that?�

The argument that whether or not a human being is alive is determined by the brain and nothing else.

John,

�Most of the body-autonomy argument centers on the notion of independence.�

Somewhat true though you have badly misconstrued the argument. The argument has nothing to do with having complete independence from society and everything to do with being able to have some level of control over what happens to one�s body. The simple fact that people are social animals who live in a social environment does not mean that these people should not have rights over their own bodies.

�all point out that modern humans are 'interdependent' creatures NOT 'independent'. This is an illusion and places this whole body-autonomy kick right at the very bottom of rights (where it properly resides).�

There is no discrepancy between being an interdependent being who coexists with other interdependent beings and being an individual who is capable of deciding what one does with one�s body.

You are attempting to combine two completely unrelated issues to disprove one argument. Since the issues really aren�t related, using one does not disprove the other.

Well, that's all for now. I'll try to be back later.

Enigma,

Evolution. An earth that revolves around the sun. Both key elements (or proofs) of science that the Church tried to suppress. I�m sure I could find more if I looked.

Which church was that?

Okay,

This post is about to be dropped and coincidentally, except I don't believe in cooincidences, I just bought the book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization"...Ohhh, I'm gonna have fun with that.

Bottom line is, we are responsible for most of the science in western civ. But that will have to wait for another post...For now I'll move this to the "Did PP commit Fraud" post...see you there!

Okay,

This post is about to be dropped and coincidentally, except I don't believe in cooincidences, I just bought the book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization"...Ohhh, I'm gonna have fun with that.

Bottom line is, we are responsible for most of the science in western civ. But that will have to wait for another post...For now I'll move this to the "Did PP commit Fraud" post...see you there!

Posted by: mk at August 28, 2007 9:27 PM

Really? I remember when the RCC declared the world round back in the 80's.

"valuation is what the debate is about."

MK: This is a perfect example of what we are trying to say...you just assume your reality is the one everyone lives in...

No, that really is what is operative here. Even if you ascribe it to your faith, it is your valuation that the unborn "should live," etc.

........

Valuation might be what your argument is about, but it's not what mine is about. I couldn't care less about "valuation"...this could explain why we aren't getting anywhere.

Nope - you have your valuations and your desires - as in your case for abortion to be further restricted or banned.

........

I believe that an unborn child/fetus/human being/embryo/baby/person are all the same thing.

Then you are neglecting the societal construct of personhood and the attribution of rights, and what you want in this argument is for right-to-life to be attributed to the unborn.

........

And to kill one or all is murder. Period.

No it's not. I know you don't like the idea of abortion, but murder is a legal term. It's not dependent on your likes and dislikes.

........

Talk valuation all you want, you'll still have to show me why you think it is okay to kill a person because you are being inconvenienced. That's it. No philosophical debate. No esoteric claptrap. Just tell me why it is okay to kill another human being/person/baby/fetus/embryo/unborn child that you created by your own choice, simply because your life will be a little messed up for a few months.

It's not a "person." And it's the decision of the woman who is pregnant. I don't see you demonstrating any real need on your part for the woman to be "inconvenienced."

........

Tell me any other situation where this would be okay...ANY other one! And don't give me the "bodily autonomy crap" because that ain't a reason to kill someone. If it is to you, then you're worse off than I thought.

If you're pretending that the fact of the unborn being inside the body of a person makes no difference, here, then you are simply incorrect. Many lives are unwanted - in the case of self-defense killings, wartime, legal abortion, execution through due process, etc.

Doug

"If wanted, then I'm not saying it should be killed."

MK: It's ALWAYS wanted by someone...heck I want it...!

I realize that, MK, but your valuation isn't the operative one. It's the valuation of the woman who is pregnant that is primary.

I know you disagree (most times, anyway) with women who want to end pregnancies) but with almost all abortions it's not like you could just step in and take over.

In the relatively rare case where the fetus or unborn baby (there you go) is viable, then delivery can be induced and indeed, another person could care for the baby. That's not saying the pregnant woman would be amenable to it, but it could be the case late enough in gestation. Prior to that, it ain't happenin'.

Doug

"The woman herself is the one who is responsible, first and foremost, and she's not responsible to what you want."

MK: No, but SHE does have a responsibility to accept the consequences of her OWN actions...Don't we all?

That's just it - the consequences of having sex might be a pregnancy and thus the decision to continue it or end it. There's no necessary "consequence" of continuing the pregnancy against the wishes of the woman.

Doug

"Many lives are unwanted - in the case of self-defense killings, wartime, legal abortion, execution through due process, etc."

No Doug, self-defense killings, execution through due process... are not killed because becuase they are unwanted, they are killed because of the need to defend the common good of society or becuase of self-defense.

Please stop using the Nazi argument, Nazis were not nice people.

Suppose there are two siamese twins. One of these is the stronger twin, the other is weaker. They both know that if they were separated, the stronger one would live, and the weaker one would die. Suppose the stronger siamese twin had had enough of having to be stuck to her sister all the time, and she wanted to have full bodily autonomy, free of her sister. Suppose she said that she wanted to have the operation done so that her sister would die and she could live, free of her sister.

Would you agree she has the right to do so? With or without her sister's consent? Because, does it even matter if the other sister desires to live, since she is invading the other sister's bodily autonomy? Or perhaps the weaker twin is bothered by having to share HER body with her other twin. What do you suggest should be done here? Do you think that ensuring full bodily autonomy is always possible or the correct solution to a problem?

Bethany, great question, and Enigma has done a good job with it already.

But it's not "her" body for either twin. It's their body, and I don't think the desire of the "stronger" twin will be seen as necessarily trumping the desire of the other one. She might wish for full autonomy, but by definition she doesn't have that (any more than the other one does), so this example does not apply to pregnant women, etc. In your example, both twins are thinking, feeling people, and that makes a huge difference to many others.

Doug

Enigma: Fetuses do have rights to their own bodies, but those rights do not include intruding on another?s.

Why do you say that, Enigma? Other than late in gestation, per the restrictions on abortion under the Roe decision, I don't see it - fetuses "having rights to their own bodies".

After viability, the "state" can (if it wants to) find it in its interest to protect the life, and I think a decent argument can be made for a limited form of personhood and rights there. And really - I think it could be said that the woman's rights are "intruded upon" to some extent, that late in gestation, should the state want to do that. After birth, the state (society) most certainly does attribute rights and deem personhood to be present.

Very good discussions of late.

Doug

Enigma: To have human life, one must have a functioning brain. If you doubt me, read up on organ donation. People are legally dead only when they are brain dead. If a fetus does not have a brain, I do not see how one can argue that it has human life.

Not a big deal in the abortion argument, in my opinion, but though "brain death" is certainly a legal status, a fetus in this argument is certainly human and alive, no?

I guess I would ask if the fetus is "alive," for it is surely human.

Doug

Enigma: I really would like to see someone respond to my points about the eye.

I think you done a fine job, Enigma! (so to speak). I agree that there is a "wonder" factor about life, physical development, etc., but inserting a sentient creator in the "gaps" of knowledge is putting the cart before the horse.

Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Early humans saw lightning, heard thunder, and didn't understand it - thought it magic or "god-made."

Were we to ride in on helicopters, shooting off fireworks, etc., we too could appear that way to some of the primitive tribes on earth, at least as of a few decades ago.

Doug

and what you want in this argument is for right-to-life to be attributed to the unborn.

Well, duh.

If you're pretending that the fact of the unborn being inside the body of a person makes no difference, here, then you are simply incorrect.

Um, excuse me Doug, correct me if I'm wrong (we both know you will) but isn't the above statement just an example of your valuation...and yet you say that I am incorrect..

Now how is that possible...How can I be incorrect? Oh you must mean because my valuation is different than yours and yours is right....got it.

"Many lives are unwanted - in the case of self-defense killings, wartime, legal abortion, execution through due process, etc."

Jasper: No Doug, self-defense killings, execution through due process... are not killed because becuase they are unwanted, they are killed because of the need to defend the common good of society or becuase of self-defense.

Please stop using the Nazi argument, Nazis were not nice people.

Jasper, nobody told you the Nazis were nice people, that I saw. Yes, the killings I mentioned are done because the lives are unwanted. While in general we say that right to life is there at birth, when it's an enemy combatant, you and your side in the war may well want him dead versus alive, i.e. his life is unwanted, on balance. A good bit of war is trying to kill the enemy.

Legal execution is society saying that the actions of somebody means that right to life no longer applies there - that the greater good of society calls for the ending of that life, i.e. on balance that life is unwanted. If society does want the life, on balance, then execution isn't going to be chosen - and of course this is sometimes the case no matter what the offense.

Is it better to let an attacker kill you, or is it better to kill them first? Some people say it's better to not kill, period, and in extreme non-violence they're not going to try to kill (or even harm) the attacker. But for most people it's not that way - if Bubba is just walking down the street, almost everybody says he has right to life, etc., but if he's the attacker it's a different story.

Doug

I just put my last comment on the "Did Planned Parenthood..." post. If you want to continue, you'll have to continue it there...

"and what you want in this argument is for right-to-life to be attributed to the unborn."

MK: Well, duh.

Okay, desire and valutation, just as has been said.

"If you're pretending that the fact of the unborn being inside the body of a person makes no difference, here, then you are simply incorrect."

MK: Um, excuse me Doug, correct me if I'm wrong (we both know you will) but isn't the above statement just an example of your valuation...and yet you say that I am incorrect..

Now how is that possible...How can I be incorrect? Oh you must mean because my valuation is different than yours and yours is right....got it.

Nope. You don't. Here is what was said:

MK: Tell me any other situation where this would be okay...ANY other one! And don't give me the "bodily autonomy crap" because that ain't a reason to kill someone. If it is to you, then you're worse off than I thought.

"If you're pretending that the fact of the unborn being inside the body of a person makes no difference, here, then you are simply incorrect. Many lives are unwanted - in the case of self-defense killings, wartime, legal abortion, execution through due process, etc."

--> In no way is this just "my valuation." Society is saying it's okay because the unborn are inside the body of a person. Of course some people, you included, disagree with this, but what I said is true - it makes a huge difference that the unborn are inside the body of a person, as opposed to not being there, i.e. born. With birth comes attribution of right to life, etc.

I make no claims for any "external" worth, here, either way. I'm just looking at what is operative, what happens in the real world.

Doug

MK,

�We believe there is no difference between a baby and fetus. They are the same thing.�

Medically untrue. The two terms denote different developmental stages.

�I believe that an unborn child/fetus/human being/embryo/baby/person are all the same thing.�

That is your opinion. Until you can conclusively prove that it is true, I reserve the right to hold my opinion.

�And to kill one or all is murder. Period. Talk valuation all you want, you'll still have to show me why you think it is okay to kill a person because you are being inconvenienced.�

And you�ll have to show me why you think its okay for one individual (to use your terminology) to impose on another against that other individual�s wishes.

�Just tell me why it is okay to kill another human being/person/baby/fetus/embryo/unborn child that you created by your own choice, simply because your life will be a little messed up for a few months.�

On that same vein, just tell me why the fetus�s right to life gives its rights that other human beings (again, going with your terminology) do not have.

MK,

�What if there was anoperation that could separate them, but it wouldn't be allowed until 2009. All they had to do was wait a couple of years, and then they could be separated. But one twin didn't want to wait. The one twin (as Doug has just pointed out) is unwanted by the other twin...�

As I tried to point out earlier, neither twin has the right to complete bodily autonomy because of how they were born.

�Now what? Does she have a right to kill her sister because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced?�

Neither twin would have the right to unilaterally kill the other. Neither could be said to be imposing upon the other�s body either.

Bethany,

�Enigma, are you trying to tell me that bodily autonomy is conditional?�

No, I am not. I simply stated that, in your example, neither twin can be considered to have complete bodily autonomy because of how the twins were born. They were born linked. One egg split incompletely in the womb and as a result two bodies are fused. Before these two individuals are separated (if, indeed, they can be), neither can be said to own a completely independent body. Rather than stating that bodily autonomy is conditional, I am recognizing reality.

�And are you telling me that a woman who is a Siamese twin isn't really a woman?�

Not at all. I am simply recognizing conditions as they exist. Neither twin can be said to be imposing on the other. So why should one be granted the right to kill the other?

�however, they are individuals, not a unit. There are two thinking brains, there are two individual personalities, etc.�

I never meant to imply that they were not individuals. They most certainly are. However, the reality is that they share a body. (Okay, not the best way to word it, since technically, its two bodies who are fused together, but I think you get my meaning).

�But suppose one wanted to be free, Enigma?�

Neither would have that right because neither can be said to be imposing on the other.

�Why does a woman deserve bodily autonomy more just because she hasn't been fused to someone all her life? How is this fair for the woman who is a siamese twin, yet has always wanted to be her own person, when she knows that other women are allowed to control what goes on in their bodies all the time through abortion.�

For starters, life isn�t fair. And this isn't unfair to Siamese twins anyway because your analogy is not entirely feasible. Since the twins were born in that state, neither is imposing on the other. (Sorry, I seem to be repeating that a lot). Neither twin has ever had complete bodily autonomy and never will unless through surgery. There is nothing to restore. In abortion, the woman has previously had bodily autonomy. The fetus can legitimately be said to be imposing upon her. She has every right to request a procedure that will restore her bodily autonomy whereas the Siamese twin would not have this right because there is nothing to restore.

Doug--Thanks for the support. I appreciate it.

�Okay...I looked at both of the links. I appreciate your willingness to share them with me. But I have to be honest with you, Enigma. I saw nothing convincing...I genuinely thought you were going to give me something much harder to ignore.�

Sigh. This is what happens when I don�t have cites on hand and have to go searching hurriedly. I have some more.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afar.html

�That skeleton could be 10 years old as far as I can tell...even a couple of years old. Do little people not exist? Will this little man's skeleton be used as proof for evolution when he dies?�
It isn�t simply because it�s a little skeleton. Scientists have techniques that allow them to date fossils and (I believe) to attempt to estimate the age at which the specimen in question died. It�s also a matter of finding the same type of evidence over and over again.

�As for Lucy's skeleton...it's not even pieced together...none of the bones are even touching each other. How can you even tell that their interpretation of where the bones are placed is accurate?�

Of course the bones wouldn�t be touching. Without cartilage, there�s nothing to hold them together. Scientists make judgements about where the bones should be placed based on a.) the skeletal structure of other lifeforms (for the most past, they�re astonishingly similar) b.) any telltall signs in the bones themselves (such as bite marks or rub marks that correspond) and c.) what makes sense. Are they 100% accurate 100% of the time? Probably not. But that does not mean that anything they discover and do research on is false.

�The evolutionist claim that Lucy is the ancestor of human beings was definitively rejected by scientific developments. The above inconclusive anatomical comparisons, as well as new fossil discoveries, made it impossible for Lucy to be placed in the imaginary human family tree, and Lucy fell from grace. The claims to the effect that Lucy was the ancestor of man were literally invalidated.�

Did you read the article about how Lucy�s skeleton is going on tour? No where in that article did it even mention that she might not be a human ancestor. Despite the researchers that you cite, it�s pretty well accepted in the scientific community that she is what I believe her to be. You seem to believe that any dissent in the scientific community means that the conclusion is question is wrong. This is incorrect. Debate within the scientific community is commonplace. It doesn't mean that nothing in science is true. (I read it in the newspaper so I don�t have a link.)

You seem to believe that any dissent in the scientific community means that the conclusion is question is wrong. This is incorrect. Debate within the scientific community is commonplace. It doesn't mean that nothing in science is true.

Okay, Enigma, now we're getting somewhere.
How do you choose which Science is true, and which is not, without presuppositions? And how do you know that your randomly evolved brain is capable of knowing the truth? How do you know that the questions you ask are even right? How do you know that you perceive things through truth?
What is truth, Enigma? Where do you find it?

Bethany,
�Enigma, are you trying to tell me that bodily autonomy is conditional?�
No, I am not. I simply stated that, in your example, neither twin can be considered to have complete bodily autonomy because of how the twins were born. They were born linked. One egg split incompletely in the womb and as a result two bodies are fused. Before these two individuals are separated (if, indeed, they can be), neither can be said to own a completely independent body. Rather than stating that bodily autonomy is conditional, I am recognizing reality.

Is that an absolute truth then, Enigma? Is it an absolute truth that a woman cannot deserve bodily autonomy if someone else is using her bodily functions to survive, as long as the woman has ALWAYS been denied her bodily autonomy?
Does this mean that a woman living in a country where they do not respect women's rights, and haven't since she was born, shouldn't be given her rights if they become a free country in her adulthood? Because she never had those rights from birth on?

�And are you telling me that a woman who is a Siamese twin isn't really a woman?�
Not at all. I am simply recognizing conditions as they exist. Neither twin can be said to be imposing on the other. So why should one be granted the right to kill the other?

BINGO. Now you're getting it.

�however, they are individuals, not a unit. There are two thinking brains, there are two individual personalities, etc.�
I never meant to imply that they were not individuals. They most certainly are. However, the reality is that they share a body. (Okay, not the best way to word it, since technically, its two bodies who are fused together, but I think you get my meaning).

And is that not the case in a pregnancy? Mother and child simply share a body, temporarily, however, they are both individuals.

Neither would have that right because neither can be said to be imposing on the other.

According to whom? You? Do you really think that a siamese twin never is imposed on by her sister or brother?

For starters, life isn�t fair.

Why don't you hold to this truth when we speak of pregnancy? Life isn't always fair, is it? Sometimes people get pregnant when they didn't expect to...that's life. Right?

And this isn't unfair to Siamese twins anyway because your analogy is not entirely feasible. Since the twins were born in that state, neither is imposing on the other.

Explain to me how in one situation, one person using another persons body functions is not imposing. And how in another situation it is. And then tell me WHY that is, according to you.

Neither twin has ever had complete bodily autonomy and never will unless through surgery. There is nothing to restore.

Oh this is about restoring? Well, say the girl is tired of living as a siamese twin and would like others to recognize her individuality, but the only way for her to do this is to remove her sister. Would you deny a woman who had carried a fetus in her body from the womb the right to remove it?

In abortion, the woman has previously had bodily autonomy.

Why does that matter? Why does a thinking feeling woman not deserve to do what she wants with what is her body? Because life isn't always fair? Then that should also hold true in pregnancies.

The fetus can legitimately be said to be imposing upon her. She has every right to request a procedure that will restore her bodily autonomy whereas the Siamese twin would not have this right because there is nothing to restore.

Why does restoration matter? Suppose I had a disfigurement from the womb, and I wanted to have it removed. A huge tumor, or something like that.
Should I not be able to remove it, because I have always had this tumor, even from birth? Because I am not "restoring" anything?

�I believe that an unborn child/fetus/human being/embryo/baby/person are all the same thing.�
That is your opinion. Until you can conclusively prove that it is true, I reserve the right to hold my opinion.

We have already given you all of the scientific proof you need.

The unborn child is a biologically living thing
The unborn child is a complete human being
The unborn child is a complete organism, needing nothing but oxygen and nutrition to survive
The unborn child is
The unborn child, from the moment of conception is complete, having it's own DNA separate from the mother, unique characteristics already there, you can even tell the sex from the earliest moments in the womb with our technology.

These are all scientific facts. It is now your turn to find scientific facts which refute any of these. You won't find any. There isn't any dispute over this in the scientific community.

The only thing you can come up with is this whole idea of the brain and self awareness having anything to do with humanity.
A person in a coma doesn't automatically change into a non-human being, and neither does a fetus change from non-human to human before and after "viability".
Prove to me that a sentient mind changes the biological properties of a human being. Prove to me that it makes them incomplete. Prove to me that it makes them less human.

You brought up a brain dead person, and how they are considered dead when they are brain dead.

Well, what if a person who was brain dead (or in a coma) was known to be only temporarily brain dead...and he could come out of this state within 3 months? Would he then be a human or a non human being?

Oh, and would you have any problem with forcing brain dead patients to be surrogate mothers for other women who want to have babies? Since they are non-persons, does it matter if it intrudes on their body?

Bethany,

For starters, I really would be interested to see your take on my argument concerning the eye. Since you insisted so forcefully on the Siamese twin question, I feel that I have a right to insist upon this.

"Oh, and would you have any problem with forcing brain dead patients to be surrogate mothers for other women who want to have babies? Since they are non-persons, does it matter if it intrudes on their body?"

This is medically impossible. The brain is necessary for the development of the fetus. No working brain equals no incubator.

"Well, what if a person who was brain dead (or in a coma) was known to be only temporarily brain dead...and he could come out of this state within 3 months? Would he then be a human or a non human being?"

Being in a coma and being brain dead are different things. It is impossible for an individual who is truly brain dead to come back. Once the brain is truly dead, it stays dead.

"Okay, Enigma, now we're getting somewhere.
How do you choose which Science is true, and which is not, without presuppositions?"

I tend to trust scientists and researchers. I can hardly claim to have personal knowledge of even a fraction of what they do. I tend to accept those facts and results that have a.) been shown to reoccur time and time again b.) been tested by many different researchers and have accepted by a majority of them and c.) (in cases like evolution) how long a majority of scientists have subscribed to the belief. Evolution has been a hotly contested theory for so long that don't you think the entire scientific community would know by now if they had been wrong?

"And how do you know that your randomly evolved brain is capable of knowing the truth?"

You imply that there is an objective truth for humanity to discover. What makes you so sure that there is one?

"How do you know that the questions you ask are even right?"

By learning as much as I possibly can and opening myself to possibility.

"What is truth, Enigma? Where do you find it?"

Okay, now you're getting philosophical. Since I argue that most truth is self-created (there are some exceptions to this), each individual will find what that individual believes to be true.

Bethany,

"We have already given you all of the scientific proof you need."

No, you have not. (And I still dispute the "unborn child" label. It is a fictitious term and has no place here."

"The unborn child is a biologically living thing"

This is I have never disputed. What I have disputed is that it is a biologically living human before the point of viability. There is a difference.

"The unborn child is a complete human being"

It needs a brain before it can be complete. Simply containing a complete genetic code does not mean that one is a complete being.

"The unborn child is a complete organism, needing nothing but oxygen and nutrition to survive.

See above. And if that were so true, then why are we even having this debate? Why don't we just remove unwanted fetuses from their uterine homes and implant them somewhere else? They don't need only oxygen and nutrition. They need unfettered access to another individual's body. That's a whole different ballgame.

"The unborn child, from the moment of conception is complete, having it's own DNA separate from the mother, unique characteristics already there, you can even tell the sex from the earliest moments in the womb with our technology."

Having a complete genetic code does not mean that one is a complete individual.

"There isn't any dispute over this in the scientific community."

I'd like to see some links please.

"The only thing you can come up with is this whole idea of the brain and self awareness having anything to do with humanity."

Hey, that isn't my idea. If you don't like go complain to the system that thinks its acceptable to mine organs from still-living bodies to save others.

"neither does a fetus change from non-human to human before and after "viability"."

I never argued that it did. I only argued that a being can have human DNA and still not be a human being.

"Prove to me that a sentient mind changes the biological properties of a human being."

It changes nothing biologically (well, except in cases of brain death, in which the lack of a funcintioning mind is problametic to the body.)

"Prove to me that it makes them incomplete. Prove to me that it makes them less human."

Organ donation.

Okay, now you're getting philosophical. Since I argue that most truth is self-created (there are some exceptions to this), each individual will find what that individual believes to be true.

So then, wouldn't that automatically mean that we both have equally valid beliefs?

Enigma, forgive me but I don't know exactly what you expect my response to be about the eye.
Your opinion that the eye is not designed perfectly leaves many questions unanswered...the most prominent (for me) being, What do you think perfect means? How can a randomly evolved brain even comprehend what is or what is not perfection?

Since I argue that most truth is self-created (there are some exceptions to this)

Can you name the exceptions?

By learning as much as I possibly can and opening myself to possibility.

Why don't you open yourself to the possibility of intelligent design?

Enigma, I honestly don't think you do truly believe everything you say, and here's why.

You yourself have admitted that you believe beliefs are subjective and that scientific evidence that you now believe could change tomorrow, and your beliefs would change accordingly. If it is your belief that a certain evolutionary theory is correct now, then later it is proved wrong by scientific evidence, your belief in this would change, along with science...and the new beliefs that replace the old belief could also be proved wrong in the future. Therefore, what you believed in either was false, or you never believed it at all.

I tend to trust scientists and researchers. I can hardly claim to have personal knowledge of even a fraction of what they do. I tend to accept those facts and results that have a.) been shown to reoccur time and time again b.) been tested by many different researchers and have accepted by a majority of them and c.) (in cases like evolution) how long a majority of scientists have subscribed to the belief. Evolution has been a hotly contested theory for so long that don't you think the entire scientific community would know by now if they had been wrong?

I think ,like you, they have presuppositions which make them inclined to look at evidence in different ways than we do. I see a skeleton of a monkey, and see a monkey's skeleton. You look at one and say it must be one of our ancestors because it has an abnormality.
I see a human skull and see a drarfed human...you look at a skull that is deformed, and believe people by faith, that it is one of our ancestors.

Everything you believe is based on your faith in researchers and theorists opinions.

What makes your beliefs any more validated than mine? Simply because people have believed them for a long time? I've got news for you... over 90 percent of the world believes that a God exists. And have since the beginning of recorded history. Don't you think that they would have known better by now, after all this time if they had been wrong (as you asked about scientists)

By the way, after this afternoon I won't be able to respond to posts till tomorrow evening or the next day because I have to take my computer to a repair shop to remove a trojan virus.
Just wanted to let you know so you don't feel like I'm leaving you hanging.

Bethany,

"Is that an absolute truth then, Enigma? Is it an absolute truth that a woman cannot deserve bodily autonomy if someone else is using her bodily functions to survive, as long as the woman has ALWAYS been denied her bodily autonomy?"

You are twisting my words around. The simple fact of the matter is that Simaese twins don't have the type of bodily autonomy that you and I enjoy. There was no one moment when the individuals in question was suddenly denied their bodily autonomy. Siamese twins, unless surgically seperated, live in two separate bodies that have been fused into one. I am simply recognizing that in such a state, neither has bodily autonomy and neither can make unilateral decisions that effect them both.

And be careful with the absolute truth thing. There are not as many absolute truths in the world as any of us would like to believe.

"Does this mean that a woman living in a country where they do not respect women's rights, and haven't since she was born, shouldn't be given her rights if they become a free country in her adulthood? Because she never had those rights from birth on?"

Rights are far different from physical realities. Don't apply an argument that pertains to one to the other for it will lead you to false conclusions.

"BINGO. Now you're getting it."

Actually, no I am not. Neither twin has imposed upon the other. They were born that way. Since neither has imposed or threatened the bodily autonomy of the other (since they never had it to begin with), neither twin can unilaterally decide to remove the other. Fetuses can indeed be said to be imposing upon an unwilling woman. A woman has bodily autonomy and has every right to remove the fetus in order to restore that right.

"And is that not the case in a pregnancy? Mother and child simply share a body, temporarily, however, they are both individuals."

Not in the same way. A woman has existed long before the fetus came into being and has rights that the fetus has no right to unilaterally revoke.

"According to whom? You? Do you really think that a siamese twin never is imposed on by her sister or brother?"

Once again, you are twisting my words around. The imposition of which I spoke was referring to a single moment in which one individual stripped away rights that had previously been held. Neither Siamese twin could be said to be imposing on the other because they impose upon one another equally. Neither has lost suddenly lost rights due to this imposition because these are rights that they never had in the first place.

The same can not be said of a woman and a fetus. The fetus is imposing on her body. It is stripping away rights that it has no right to touch.

"Why don't you hold to this truth when we speak of pregnancy? Life isn't always fair, is it? Sometimes people get pregnant when they didn't expect to...that's life. Right?"

Actually, no. I believe that a fetus should not be able to strip away the rights of a woman it inhabits simply to survive. That is the height of misogyny . It's like telling every woman everywhere that her real purpose in life is to be an incubator. It's like telling her that society cares more about the lives of those that she can unwilling create than it does about her life.

"Explain to me how in one situation, one person using another persons body functions is not imposing. And how in another situation it is. And then tell me WHY that is, according to you."

I already kind of have during this post, but I'll recap. In the case of the Siamese twins, neither twin can be said to be imposing on the other's body because, if anything, they impose equally. Neither one had bodily autonomy to begin with and thus no rights are being negated by the sudden addition of another.

That is not the case in pregnancy. The woman has bodily autonomy and the fetus (before conception) does not exist. Then once the fetus comes into existence, the fetus imposed upon the woman's body. One being is latching onto another and destroying that other's rights in the process simply because it needs to impose to survive. That is an intrusion and if the woman objects she should be able to end it.

"Oh this is about restoring? Well, say the girl is tired of living as a siamese twin and would like others to recognize her individuality, but the only way for her to do this is to remove her sister."

Once again, you are constructing an inappropriate analogy.

"Why does that matter? Why does a thinking feeling woman not deserve to do what she wants with what is her body? Because life isn't always fair? Then that should also hold true in pregnancies."

Because, in the case of Siamese twins, it has never been entirely her body. For lack of a better term, she shares her body (not exactly, but kind of what I'm getting at) with another and always has. She has never been the sole owner of her body and to suddenly imply that she is and should be able to do whatever she likes with a shared body refuses to recognize conditions as they have always been. This is not an appropriate analogy for abortion. It fails at many levels.

"Why does restoration matter? Suppose I had a disfigurement from the womb, and I wanted to have it removed. A huge tumor, or something like that.
Should I not be able to remove it, because I have always had this tumor, even from birth? Because I am not "restoring" anything?"

Another inappropriate analogy. You are trying to relate two issues that have nothing in common.

Enigma,

There are a lot of posts to you on the Did Planned Parenthood commit Fraud thread...

Okay, change of plan. I just talked to my hubby and he wants to see if he can remove it first before I take it anywhere. lol

"Well, what if a person who was brain dead (or in a coma) was known to be only temporarily brain dead...and he could come out of this state within 3 months?"

There is a big difference between hooking someone up to a bunch of machines to preserve his/her life and "hooking someone up" to another person's body to preserve life. Do you really want to imply that women should be no more than incubators?

Bethany,

If you move this over to that thread you won't lose it mid-conversation...also, Val is going to be there.

AHHHHHHHHHH!!! I'm trying to carry on two conversations at once!!

Bethany,
"We have already given you all of the scientific proof you need."
No, you have not. (And I still dispute the "unborn child" label. It is a fictitious term and has no place here."

It is not fictitious. It is absolutely correct. How can you not know this?
You don't think that before a baby comes to viability that is not the biological child(offspring) of it's mother and father? What is it then?

Define fetus, according to your definition.

Here's the medical definition for fetus:
The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Definition of offspring?
1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.

"The unborn child is a biologically living thing"
This is I have never disputed. What I have disputed is that it is a biologically living human before the point of viability. There is a difference.

There is NO difference! If it is human, biologically alive, and genetically complete, it is by definition a HUMAN BEING. This is like 2 + 2 equals 4. It can't get much simpler than this.

"The unborn child is a complete human being"
It needs a brain before it can be complete. Simply containing a complete genetic code does not mean that one is a complete being.

Says who? In your world, is this an absolute truth, or is it an arbitrary truth, depending on how one values the fetus?

See above. And if that were so true, then why are we even having this debate? Why don't we just remove unwanted fetuses from their uterine homes and implant them somewhere else? They don't need only oxygen and nutrition. They need unfettered access to another individual's body. That's a whole different ballgame.

It is obvious that the baby needs to stay inside it's mother to survive. That doesn't change the biological structure or the humanity of the baby.

"Having a complete genetic code does not mean that one is a complete individual.

How so? Where is your scientific proof of this?

I'd like to see some links please.

I already gave you dozens of references by scientists, embryologists, and biologists...you chose to ignore it.

Hey, that isn't my idea. If you don't like go complain to the system that thinks its acceptable to mine organs from still-living bodies to save others.

Are you saying you disagree? What do you mean by it isn't your idea?

I never argued that it did. I only argued that a being can have human DNA and still not be a human being.

Yes, you did, Enigma. And no, it cannot have human DNA and not be a human being.

Definition of human being:
homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The unborn child fits the definition....

They are alive, they are a member of Homo Sapiens, and they have the capacity for intelligence, speech, and walking upright.

Can you find a genuine definition of human being which it does not fit, besides your own idealogical definitions?

Why is it that you pick and choose which scientific proofs you will believe? What makes one true above the other? Just because you like one better? Really, please do explain to me what gives one priority over the other.

Organ donation.

How in the world is that supposed to be proof of anything?

And be careful with the absolute truth thing. There are not as many absolute truths in the world as any of us would like to believe.

So are you saying there are SOME? And if so, what are they?

I took MK's comment to mean we were switching over, so I have responded to all but your last comment on the "Did Planned Parenthood thread".

Rights are far different from physical realities. Don't apply an argument that pertains to one to the other for it will lead you to false conclusions.

What is a false conclusion, Enigma? If truths are self-made, as you said they are, then I am correct about everything I have said to you, and you are correct about everything you have said to me. Explain to me how anything is true or false, without absolutes?

Not in the same way. A woman has existed long before the fetus came into being and has rights that the fetus has no right to unilaterally revoke.

WHY does that matter?

Sorry,

Enigma. I'm trying. I just emailed Bethany AND reposted your stuff on the PP/Fraud post...hope this works. I know how frustrating it can be to compose a well thought out post only to have it disappear and I'm trying to keep that from happening!

MK, don't worry about it. I appreciate the efforts.