"Twinseparable"

Several of you sent me this one posted on November 3 by the Daily Mail.

I love abortion stories emanating from the UK. They're void of liberal abortion offense or defense. Journalists there just tell the story.

twins.jpgAt her 20-week ultrasound scan last year, Rebecca Jones was told one of her twin boys was half the size of his brother with a heart three times the normal size.

Doctors said the boy would likely have a heart attack or stroke en utero, which would threaten the life of the surviving twin. Doctors said his survival after birth was "impossible."

They said "[i]t would be kinder to let him die in the womb with his brother by his side than to die alone after being born," according to the story, a load of emotionally coercive hooey. It was the ludicrous inverse of saying, "Let his brother deal with the death, not you."

Nevertheless Jones absurdly responded, "That made my mind up for me. I wanted the best thing for him."

The world is mad....

Doctors first tried to sever little Gabriel's umbilical cord to asphyxiate him, but his cord was too strong.

They then cut the babies' shared placenta in half "so that when Gabriel died, it would not affect his twin brother." a modern-day twin version of the Bible story about King Solomon threatening to cut a baby in half.

Which reminds me, doctors are not God, no matter what they think.

But thank the one true God, there's a happy ending:

twins%202.jpg

Gabriel hung on, and his enlarged heart started to reduce in size. He also gained weight.

Mrs Jones said: "They thought it may be because the placenta had been divided. Inadvertently, it had evened out the distribution of nutrition between them, allowing Gabriel to survive."

When Mrs Jones reached 31 weeks doctors carried out a caesarian to deliver the twins. Ieuan weighed 3lb 8oz and Gabriel 1lb 15oz. Both were kept in hospital, but since going home they have thrived. At seven months, Ieuan weighs 15lb and Gabriel 12lb 6oz.

Yet the psychobabble continued, with Jones apparently taking no responsibility for the near death of her son:

Mrs Jones said: "... Gabriel is always laughing, it's like he's just so happy to be here.

"There is such a strong bond between them.

"They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him."

"Doctors tried to break their bond in the womb, but they just proved it couldn't be broken."

[HT: Laura L., Phil M., Dr. Frank, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Msusan, and moderators jasper, MK, and Valerie]


Comments:

Yanno...

The doctors really did believe that the smaller, sicker twin was going to take his brother down with him.
I don't think this story was about abortion per se, as much as it was about a joyous and fortunate medical mistake that resulted in two sound fat-legged babies instead of two dead ones.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 8:39 AM


I think it's a cute story...I don't know why they didn't just cut the placenta in half to begin with. That makes more sense to me, because if they're just trying to keep one from killing the other, then I would just take away the route by which the other could die...I wouldn't just kill one "in case" it could cause the other's death. Are you trying to say, Jill, that you didn't agree with cutting the placenta in half (your reference to the Biblical passage)?
I mean, aren't you guys about saving as much life as possible? If one was going to die, and that death would kill the other, isn't it better to save one than lose both? I didn't agree with the doctors trying to cut the umbilical cord right off the bat, because that wasn't trying any methods that would seek to try and save both. As a future medical student (hopefully), I'm pretty sure I would have just divided the placenta to take away the risk of one causing the other's death, while allowing nature to take its course on the sickly one.

And I don't agree with making Mrs. Jones out to be a bad person in this situation- she was faced with a tough decision that might have killed both, but luckily didn't. The fact that her son NEARLY died as a result of doctor's recommendations for her condition doesn't mean she was at fault- the doctors were for not trying to use the method that would have safeguarded one twin without actively killing the other. I'm sure she was told by the doctors that her option was "this" or "that" and she chose based on the fact that she could lose one or both. If you had to save one of your kids at the expense of the other, or lose both, what would you do? Mrs. Jones wasn't looking at it in the way that one of her sons was expendable, she was going on the opinion of her medical professionals that the best thing to do was to operate to take out one twin. Obviously, I disagree with their sentiment as well. I see them as the ones at fault, whereas Mrs. Jones was probably going through the most heart-wrenching decision ever.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 8:41 AM


Jill...I'd like to know what you'd have done in this situation, what with your medical background. I'm very curious. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 8:45 AM


I assume that a lot of babies are saved by this type of tough decisions by mothers and their doctors.

Posted by: Hal at November 6, 2007 8:48 AM


What a beautiful happy ending.

It shows how little the "experts" really know.

Posted by: hippie at November 6, 2007 8:51 AM


Why is it that the doctors' decision is always to kill the weak/imperfect baby/ babies?

Is there a manual somewhere that says this?

Oh right...they took that part out of their Hippocratric oath.

Posted by: RSD at November 6, 2007 8:54 AM


What the enemy meant for evil, God meant for good.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 8:58 AM


Why is it that the doctors' decision is always to kill the weak/imperfect baby/ babies?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No one wanted to kill a weak, imperfect baby.

The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy one.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 9:16 AM


Hal: I assume that a lot of babies are saved by this type of tough decisions by mothers and their doctors.

Don't you mean "fetuses", Hal?

What the enemy meant for evil, God meant for good.

Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 9:18 AM


I like the way you put it, Laura, I just disagree with the way the doctors handled it. I think the first step was to divide the placenta, NOT cut the cord. That way, if it truly was a fetal anomaly, Gabriel would have died (or lived, in this case) naturally, without affecting the health of his brother. The doctors would not have directly killed him on a suspicion that his dying could have harmed his brother.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 9:20 AM


No one wanted to kill a weak, imperfect baby.
The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy one.


A healthy what, Laura?

Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 9:20 AM


since when do the "pro-choice" monsters care about unborn babies??

Posted by: jasper at November 6, 2007 9:22 AM


The point is that the doctor was quick to jump on the "abortion" bandwagon, as so many doctors are. My sister-in-law was counseled by her doctor to abort three different times after 20 weeks. He even offered to change her due date since she was past the legal term limit. Well, she doesn't believe in abortion, and her son is a healthy 2-year-old today. I know several people that this happened to. I believe abortion in wrong in any situation, but it is particularly troubling when it is doctor-counseled based on their (apparently) faulty diagnostic techniques.

EH

Posted by: EH at November 6, 2007 9:23 AM


Those babies are just so darn cute!

Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 9:23 AM


Bethany, can you post a little cartoon of someone slipping on a banana peel?? SLIP!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 9:24 AM


Jasper: Again, you're displaying your jerk tendencies...for once, can't you just accept that sometimes, we AGREE on something? How about you read my post and rejoice in the fact that I disagree with the way the problem was handled in this case, and thought that the best way to try and safeguard both was to try and keep one from harming the other, WITHOUT directly causing his death? Please? Jasper? I mean this with utmost respect, just don't get all huffy when someone agrees with you because it breaks your ability to stereotype us.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 9:26 AM


Lyssie, I preface by saying I can only speculate based on facts presented in the story.

My goal would have been to save both babies. I would have tried to get both babies to make it at least to 23 weeks, the current line of viability.

According to the story, the healthy baby was showing no signs of stress and the sick baby was showing no signs of dying.

I would have watched both carefully for signs that either of those events were happening.

Were the sick baby to have died naturally en utero before 23 weeks, I still would have continued to watch carefully and tried to get Baby B to make it to 23 weeks and beyond if possible.

As it turned out, the babies made it to 31 weeks before being taken by c-section.

As to whether I would have cut the placenta in half in an attempt to save both babies, that is not why doctors did it. I have never heard of cutting a placenta in half for positive therapeutic reasons, meaning I'm no expert. So I don't know.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 6, 2007 9:27 AM


ROFLMAO!!!! Thank you Bethany!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 9:27 AM


No problem ;)

Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 9:29 AM


Lyssie,

I like the way you put it, Laura, I just disagree with the way the doctors handled it. I think the first step was to divide the placenta, NOT cut the cord. That way, if it truly was a fetal anomaly, Gabriel would have died (or lived, in this case) naturally, without affecting the health of his brother. The doctors would not have directly killed him on a suspicion that his dying could have harmed his brother.

Wow! You just summed up the whole Catholic churches viewpoint on "the life of the mother"...

You're sounding more and more like a prolifer everyday...lol. Not to mention a Catholic!

Posted by: mk at November 6, 2007 9:31 AM


Hal, maybe you are starting to become a bit pro life yourself...??????

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 9:35 AM


The doctors tried to get my mother to abort me because of a blood clot in her leg. She said no way, risked her life when we both could have died.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 9:35 AM


JM, you must have a wonderful, strong and beautiful mother.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 9:37 AM


Well Heather, according to jasper I should probably be angry with her for not aborting me. You know because pro-choice people want everyone to abort.

My mom is my best friend.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 9:39 AM


Heather, I'm big on life. I'm just not against abortion for those women who decide it's the right choice for them.

Posted by: Hal at November 6, 2007 9:41 AM


"decide it's the right choice for them."

Clap clap clap!! I agree

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 9:42 AM


MK:

Obviously, the whole point was to try and save both, I just didn't like the way the doctors handled it. They were actively trying to get rid of one to save the other, when a more natural way (dividing the placenta) would have been better. That way, one could live or die naturally. About the life of the mother, one could stress that because it COULD be the pregnancy (and the fetus/baby) CAUSING what could be a MAJOR health concern or death for the mother, that she should be able to remove that cause due to self-defense(ie early caesarean section or induction before or after viability, depending on how dire the woman's circumstance is). No woman should have to carry to viability, though, if her circumstances are dire, just so the baby can be saved. That's like saying we'll let someone stay in a burning building, even though we're able to save him/her, because we want to wait to save the person who started the fire on another floor. We're putting the first person on the other floor at a higher, unnecessary risk for the sake of the person that started the fire, just because we won't be able to save the fire-starter until a later time (after, say, more water is put on the burning building). That's how I look at it.

Jill:
I never thought that the dividing the placenta would have been "therapeutic", it just so happened to be in this case. I would have rather done it so that nature could take its course without hurting the other one.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 9:47 AM


I'm just not against abortion for those women who decide it's the right choice for them.

Is it the right choice for the baby?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 6, 2007 9:53 AM


Above was me.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 9:53 AM


MK: I wouldn't start calling me too "Catholic" yet...I'm still in agreement with using contraception because I'd have to say I'm not too thrilled about the prospect of being pregnant several times. Twice, or possibly three times, is enough for me.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 9:54 AM


"Is it the right choice for the baby?"

wow, I never thought about it that way.....

Posted by: Hal at November 6, 2007 9:55 AM


"Is it the right choice for the baby?"

How does anyone know what is right for the baby?

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 10:00 AM


No one wanted to kill a weak, imperfect baby.
The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy one.


A healthy what, Laura?


Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 9:20 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A healthy pregnancy.
The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy pregnancy.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 10:01 AM


Hal, maybe you should start thinking about it that way.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 10:01 AM


pregnancy

You just can't bear to say "baby" can you, Laura? What do you think those are in those pictures?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:04 AM


How does anyone know what is right for the baby?

I can confidently say that poisoning, dismemberment or lethal injection are WRONG for the baby.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:05 AM


There's always at least one baby involved, Hal. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to abort.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:06 AM


Clap clap clap!! I agree

Would you be agreeing if your mother hadn't made a selfless risk to give you at chance at life?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:07 AM


"Would you be agreeing if your mother hadn't made a selfless risk to give you at chance at life?"

Well thats pretty silly, if my mother had made the choice to abort me I wouldn't be here, therefore how can I agree or disagree? But i'll humor you, yes i'd feel the same way. Because my mother would have made the right choice for her and her family.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 10:11 AM


Yet the psychobabble continued, with Jones apparently taking no responsibility for the near death of her son:

What? If the doctors hadn't gone in and done what they'd done, both twins might be dead today. The intent of operating was to save at least one of them, but the happy result was life for both of them. It's a wonderful story. What on earth is there to "take responsibility" for?

Posted by: tp at November 6, 2007 10:11 AM


Well thats pretty silly, if my mother had made the choice to abort me I wouldn't be here, therefore how can I agree or disagree?

Don't you think you should extend to people the grace you were given?

Beyond that, do you really think so little of yourself that you'd believe your death is somehow the right choice for your family? I know your family would disagree.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:17 AM


What on earth is there to "take responsibility" for?

She went in to kill/destroy baby Gabriel. A fluke, unintentional consequence was that Gabriel was saved.

Someone that intends to kill and accidentally saves the life of his victim is still an attempted murderer. That's what she should take responsibility for.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:19 AM


I tell you what, JM. Go ask your mom. Ask her if she thinks that aborting you and living without you would have been a good choice for her and her family. Tell us what she says.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:20 AM


What i am saying is that at the time it may have been the right choice for my family. My parents had two child under the age of 5, it would be pretty sad if they had to grow up without a mother. Are they happy they decided against it. yes of course. Am i happy to be alive, yes of course.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 10:21 AM


My mother made the best choice for HER. Someone else in a similar situation may have made another choice. Thats their choice to make.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 10:23 AM


Lyssie,

I understand your desire not to be pregnant so much. But religion is a search for and conformity to truth. I didn't choose my religion based on what suited my needs or desires, otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian- I'd be my own Lord and live only for myself. But I discovered the truth about Jesus Christ and realized that the truth was more important than my wants.

But then, something awesome happened: Surrendering myself to His will for me, I found that I was so much happier and more fulfilled that I could have ever been running my own life. I obeyed and switched majors (I didn't want to), I obeyed and went to grad school (I didn't want to do that either). It wasn't until I was 75% through with my masters when I realized what I wanted to do with my life---only to look up and see that I was perfectly trained to do just that! My obeying and switching majors and going to grad school meant that I could do what I dreamt of. I wouldn't be stuck in a career I hated or had to go back to school- I was ready to stride out into the world! This is just one example of how following Christ apart from what we think we want will ultimately satisfy us. I'm glad I obeyed, since He knows my wants better than I know them myself.

I think what you'll find if you trust that God's ways are for your good, is that His plans for your life are better than your own. Maybe He plans 3 kids, maybe 5, maybe 1, maybe adoption. Either way, submission to His will (which is always good) is what will bring you the fullness of joy. I speak as someone that fought His will in other areas of my life and looked back to lament lost time- His will is what you want, even if you don't yet recognize it.


Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:31 AM


My mother made the best choice for HER. What i am saying is that at the time it may have been the right choice for my family. .

Ask her.

Abortion is never the right choice. It always wrongs someone (the baby, at the very least).

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:33 AM


JM,

I think you're being awful altruistic with your life now that you're out of harms' way. If the situation were different and your mom could choose to kill you now "because it's best for HER and her family," would you so selflessly submit to dismemberment? After all, it's her choice to make, right?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:37 AM


mk - question..

If what is inside a woman when she is pregnant not a baby, then why do any surgury at all?

I mean why care if a women has a healthy pregnancy compared to an unhealthy pregnancy. Afterall according to PCers we all know that we are talking about blobs, potential lives, invaders, parasites, clomp of cells. If we are not carring for unborn human beings then why go through all the money and trouble to save something that really doesn't deserve to be here in the first place, unless it happens to be the right time, under the right conditions, when the stars have all aligned just right.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 10:41 AM


Does anyone know someone who considered abortion, decided to parent, and figured afterward, "Well, that was the WRONG choice for me. Abortion would have been better for everyone"? I had an unplanned pregnancy--I found out on week after being placed with a newborn through adoption--so my kids are less than 9 months apart. It was far from ideal and I was panicked. But I can never look back on my son and wish he wasn't there. Abortion gives women an "out" to their panic response, but if they had the baby, would they really be wishing that they had aborted? I know plenty of people who have had unplanned and crisis pregnancies, and no one who has said, "Allowing the baby to live WRONG choice."

EH

Posted by: EH at November 6, 2007 10:42 AM


pregnancy

You just can't bear to say "baby" can you, Laura? What do you think those are in those pictures?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:04 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In those pictures?
Those are babies.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 10:47 AM


She went in to kill/destroy baby Gabriel.

No, the doctors went in to save baby Ieuan. Fortunately, their intervention wound up saving both babies.

Posted by: tp at November 6, 2007 10:47 AM


EH, how right you are, but I know plenty of post abortive women who regret their abortions. Two true stories: I know of two women, both in their 50's. One was an old neighbor, the other is a former co-worker. One woman had 2 abortions in her 20's. The other had 3 abortions. Both are childless today, and both have told me the same thing. What did they say?.."I regret my abortions." "I'm going to die a lonely person."

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 10:50 AM


"Jasper: Again, you're displaying your jerk tendencies..."

LOL! ok, I'll tone it down....

Posted by: jasper at November 6, 2007 10:52 AM


hello, jasper!!!!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 10:53 AM


Laura,

What's the difference between a baby just about to be born and one that has just been born?

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 10:56 AM


You can't kill someone just so someone else won't die.

Would a person be justified in killing someone on the organ donor list, because their child would die without the kidney? What if the organ donor to be was in a wheel chair, or lacked "quality of life"?

What makes me so sad is, this story has been in the paper and all over the internet. Someday that baby will grow up and realize that when his parents found out he wasn't perfectly healthy, they tried to kill him. That is just heartbreaking to me - when a child is sick and his parents turn on him, instead of protecting, loving, and fighting for him.

Posted by: Milehimama at November 6, 2007 10:56 AM


Hi heather,

hope you're doing well :)

Posted by: jasper at November 6, 2007 10:57 AM


Right, Milehi!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 11:00 AM


In those pictures? Those are babies.
---------------------------------

So, Laura, what's the difference between babies at 31 weeks of life(when the C-Section was done) and the babies in the picture at 7 months of life?

*reminds of a shirt I saw: "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant!"

Posted by: RSD at November 6, 2007 11:16 AM


Laura,

What's the difference between a baby just about to be born and one that has just been born?

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 10:56 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Autonomy.
At the moment of birth the fetus becomes a separate entity. An individual. A baby.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 11:25 AM


No, the doctors went in to save baby Ieuan. Fortunately, their intervention wound up saving both babies.

No. The doctors decided to kill the smaller/weaker to save the bigger/stronger, rather than attempting to save both.

The intended to kill. Bottom line.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 11:28 AM


At the moment of birth the fetus becomes a separate entity. An individual. A baby

Before the umbilical cord is cut?

What about partial-birth abortion?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 11:29 AM


Fortunately, their intervention wound up saving both babies.

That was not the intent- but God worked it together for good.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 11:30 AM


At the moment of birth the fetus becomes a separate entity. An individual. A baby
-------------------------------
Before the umbilical cord is cut?

What about partial-birth abortion?

Posted by: Jacqueline
-------------------------------
Moment of birth? Are you going by the time the entire baby is out or just winging it?

My 3 month old son got his head stuck coming out, (that's why he had a nasty bump on the head)...so, you're telling he's not a baby just yet while he was stuck for a few seconds and then VOILA! became a baby after he was unstuck???


Posted by: RSD at November 6, 2007 11:40 AM


RSD -

I think that is exactly what Laura is saying. Laura and her elk have to say that bc to acknowledge at any point in-utero that a fetus -

I have to stop here for a minute.

FETUS means unborn baby or infant depending on use.

- is a baby, forces them to state the obvious - Unborn babies are human beings. Then they would have to admit that abortion is the killing of unborn children. And they cannot go there.


Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 11:59 AM


I think that is exactly what Laura is saying. Laura and her elk have to say that bc to acknowledge at any point in-utero that a fetus -
- is a baby

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 11:59
```````````````````````````````````````````````

Elk?

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 12:26 PM


The article presupposes that both of the boys were persons before birth. If he was not a person, than how could he have a bond with his brother?
And why would the doctors feel it would be better for him to die near his brother?

Posted by: Milehimama at November 6, 2007 12:50 PM


Has anyone every heard of Post Secret? People mail this man their deepest secrets and he posts them online. I once saw the following post card:
"A few weeks ago I met the son I gave up for adoption 20 years ago... I wish I would have had an abortion instead" So yes, sadly there are people that wish they had aborted.

Oh and Jacqueline your religious arguments are invalid to me. I did this for God I did that for God. He tells me what to do. Good for you for being religious, but guess what, its not for everyone. Some religious people, not all, are some of the most judgmental individuals that i have ever met. But some are also very nice. People that don't force the religion down others throats.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2007 12:57 PM


Jacqueline:

I am actually looking into the possibility of using NFP for the sheer fact that I don't want to be on the pill the rest of my life, especially if I can find a way to treat my unnatural, unhealthy anemia-inducing cycle without hormones. I will definitely try to keep down the pregnancy-o-meter that way if I can. :D


I just really have no desire to be pregnant so often during my childbearing years, especially with the types of careers I'm interested in and would be talented at. I look at it this way: you can't be selfish to a person who doesn't exist yet, so preventing children from being conceived is better than neglecting children born. A couple of kids, spaced apart in a manner conducive to my career, would be ideal, because I would not be able to give my all to them if I had more. I also don't think it's fair to me to sacrifice everything I've worked for. I would go insane staying home to raise baby after baby, forsaking everything for which I've worked so hard.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 1:08 PM


Lyssie,

Again, that is the Catholic view. If a woman will die by continuing a pregnancy (Like an ectopic one), then you might have to remove the child to save her life. Doing so will result in the death of the child, but the intent was NOT to kill the baby. It was to save the mother. Fine line, but an important one. One is the intent to kill, and one is the consequence of trying to save a life.

You see, you think like a Catholic and don't even know it!

Posted by: mk at November 6, 2007 1:23 PM


Laura,

I looked up the word autonomy in the dictionary and it says that it means "independence" or "freedom." You used it to say that a baby is a separate entity or an individual from that of the mother...that is not what autonomy means. A baby being born does not make it anywhere near autonomous. Babies may be separate entities but they are not at all independent or free. They are in fact completely dependent on their mother/caregiver to survive..and then when they grow older are not considered completely autonomous from their parents to the age of 18. So if in fact autonomy is what you define "life" to be, then parents should also be allowed to kill/beat their children to the age of 18 because that is their "choice" and "life" doesn't begin to the age of 18.

Elizabeth

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 1:33 PM


Wow, good for you, Lyssie.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 1:35 PM


Elizabeth, what an excellent point. Thank you.

Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 1:40 PM


Lyssie,
If you are using NFP make sure you consider the Creighton Fertility model.
Also, Red Raspberry Leaf tea really does help the anemia. (NOT raspberry flavored tea, Red Raspberry LEAF tea).

Posted by: Milehimama at November 6, 2007 1:48 PM


Think about this. When I found out that I was pregnant, I made an appointment with my Obgyn. They don't mince their words. He said "This baby's due date is 4-19-2007. This man didn't know if I was pro abortion or pro life. What do you think the poor man would have thought had I expressed offense over him saying "the baby?"...Moving on: When I announced my pregnancy to friends, I received the same responses. "Oh, congratulations!" "You're gonna have a baby." It's simple.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 1:51 PM


Elizabeth, excellent!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 1:53 PM


An unborn child should always be acknowledged as a living human being. What else could it be?

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 1:56 PM


Pro choicers must drive their gynecologists nuts.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 1:58 PM



"Pro choicers must drive their gynecologists nuts."

why? our gynecologist is pro choice. I bet most are.

Posted by: Hal at November 6, 2007 2:11 PM


Oh and Jacqueline your religious arguments are invalid to me. I did this for God I did that for God. He tells me what to do.

I was speaking to Lyssie, not you.

Good for you for being religious, but guess what, its not for everyone.

Actually, salvation is for everyone!

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 2:20 PM


Oh yeah Jacque! 1 Tim 2:4

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 2:24 PM


Hal, Show me some proof that most gyn's are pro choice. When your wife went for 2 abortions, did the gyn call it a baby? What did he say? Something to appease you, perhaps? Hal, your gyn is a murderer. He's no better than an abortionist. Especially since you say that your wife's life wasnt in danger prior to the abortions. That would have made it a different story.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 2:40 PM


Hal, if most gyns are pro choice, then why do we have abortion clinics? Hal, haven't you been reading Mary's posts? She worked in a hospital where most of the doctors and nurses wanted no part abortion. Why do you think that was, Hal?

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 2:47 PM


Elizabeth -

Love your post. Autonomy takes one down a very slippery slop.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 2:50 PM


Lyssie,

I am actually looking into the possibility of using NFP for the sheer fact that I don't want to be on the pill the rest of my life, especially if I can find a way to treat my unnatural, unhealthy anemia-inducing cycle without hormones.

Let's talk. There are ways to naturally regulate hormones that don't involve unnaturally regulating them. Not to freak you out, but having a baby is one of those ways! :)

I look at it this way: you can't be selfish to a person who doesn't exist yet, so preventing children from being conceived is better than neglecting children born.

I see, but you don't have to choose between two bad things. Indeed, you can be selfish with your fertility and you can neglect your born children. But those aren't your only choices.

A couple of kids, spaced apart in a manner conducive to my career, would be ideal, because I would not be able to give my all to them if I had more.

I think it's the "cake and eat it too" issue. In both college and grad school, I taught preschool. Those moms who had their perfectly spaced 2.5 kids and a career could have just as easily had a 10 kids, because, frankly, they didn't raise them anyway. Their career demanded most of their time and all of the booboo kissing, diaper changing and proud fussing over their artwork- those came from me. Kids were dropped out at 7 am, picked up at 6 pm, drive-thru dinner, quick bath and bedtime. Parents only parented on the weekends. So if you choose to have a 9 to 5 career in the career world, someone else will likely raise your kids.

also don't think it's fair to me to sacrifice everything I've worked for. I would go insane staying home to raise baby after baby, forsaking everything for which I've worked so hard.

Only if you see raising babies as less of a task than working in the career world. I see raising babies as more of a accomplishment than my job as a director, than my degrees, than my upcoming Ph.D. and I fully intend to use all of the above if/when I have kids, (partly because the level I have allows me to name my hours as a consultant). People that try to balance career and kids and don't clearly prioritize the kids do a huge injustice to them. I don't think it's about abandoning your hardwork, but priortizing your children above everything else.

Like my mother. My mother is a badass. She kept her nursing career but named her hours around her kids. In fact, she ran the after-school program at our private school so she could work with us. We were her most important job, nursing was second, but she didn't stop nursing. My role model (St. Gianna Beretta Molla) was a mother and physician that worked with and around her kids. So it's possible to be a working mother, but one role has take precedence- and that role should be motherhood.

P.S. I've been a badass myself. It's fun at times, but I'd say it loses its novelty and becomes work. I look forward to invest my work and time into something I can enjoy for eternity- my family.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 2:52 PM


Jacqueline-

I am going to be in nursing school soon (I hope!!) and when I become a nurse, I plan on scheduling myself around my daughter..maybe more kids by then..as well. Your mother sounds amazing..kinda like my mom!!

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 3:04 PM


Remember the Ms. Magazine petition "We Had Abortions"?? I loved what actress, Patricia Heaton had to say about that. One woman quipped "I had an abortion, so I would have something meaningful to do with my time." Patricia Heaton replied, "Raising children IS giving women something meaningful to do with their time."

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:05 PM


Tara-

Thank you for your response to my comment...I was also just explaining to Laura that she clearly misused the definition of the word autonomy. I am taking a lifespan psychology class now and it talks about how, as children grow older they become MORE autonomous..meaning they are in no way so when they are first born, so she was incorrect in her usage of that word completely.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 3:10 PM


Patricia Heaton of the hit comedy, Everybody Loves Raymond, fights abortion

Emmy winning actress, Patricia Heaton, strongly opposes abortion. She speaks publicly against abortion in media interviews and on college campuses as the Honorary Chairperson of Feminists for Life.

Heaton says, "Indeed the tragedy of abortion haunts women from all walks of life. Abortion advocates are spending millions to package their tired rhetoric and half-truths in cutting-edge advertising campaigns targeted to young women. Please join me in supporting FFL's efforts to provide complete information, practical resources, and true choices through the College Outreach program."

"The early feminists were pro-life. And really, abortion is a huge disservice to women, and it hasn't been presented that way. As Feminists for Life-what we're trying to do is support women, and so what we want to do is-reach women on campus-college campuses so that, when they get pregnant, they can find housing. They can find money they need to stay in school."

(Sources: www.feministsforlife.org and an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor - Sept. 2002)

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:11 PM


Jacqueline:
That's what I mean by spacing my kids appropriately. I plan on having a child, devoting my time to said child, and then going back to work full time after they start school, working a few more years, having another kid, and starting the cycle all over again. I have always said I never wanted a nanny to raise my kids...I will do it myself, damnit. But I didn't go to college to get a degree in "Mommy"...my biggest goal has always been to get a career, not have children. Almost anyone can raise a child ( I mean, how hard is it to get pregnant?), only a few can pursue the careers I'm after (at least 8-10 years of schooling and hard freggin work...that's what I live for).

I plan to get established in my career (before or after marriage), then have kids. That's where NFP comes in. When a child does arrive, I plan to take off work for some time to make sure the kid has a good start, then go back to work full time when school rolls around (I will work, but only when hubby is around to take care of baby after he gets done with his work/shifts). I could never be a full-time mom...it would literally drive me insane. All day I dream about petri dishes, test tubes, and scientific jargon. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 3:16 PM


Good luck in nursing school, Elizabeth! Lauren (one of our moderators and my BFF) is a nursing student. She attends school around her 2 and a 1/2 year old son.

By the way, Lauren sends her love, y'all.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 3:17 PM


Elizabeth,

"I looked up the word autonomy in the dictionary and it says that it means "independence" or "freedom." You used it to say that a baby is a separate entity or an individual from that of the mother...that is not what autonomy means."

Nowhere have you addressed the issue of social dependency versus physical dependency. There is a significant difference between the two.

When one is socially dependent, anyone can care for him/her. That is why is illegal to kill your children.

A fetus is physically dependent. In a nutshell, that means that it needs to reside within a woman's womb to survive. But since the womb belongs to the mother, the fetus does not have rights to it unless she gives it those rights. That is why abortion is legal.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 3:23 PM


Lyssie,

...just a word of caution from a male point of view...

"I will work, but only when hubby is around to take care of baby after he gets done with his work/shifts"

..coming home from a full day of work and taking care of the bundle of joy is not as easy as you think...talk this plan over with your hubby first...this is where "commitment" and "responsibility" kicks in the hardest....

Posted by: RSD at November 6, 2007 3:24 PM


Elizabeth and RSD, welcome to the site! It's nice to have you both.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:27 PM


Enigma,

"A fetus is physically dependent. In a nutshell, that means that it needs to reside within a woman's womb to survive. But since the womb belongs to the mother, the fetus does not have rights to it unless she gives it those rights. That is why abortion is legal."

So since the fetus does not have the right to her womb, it is okay to directly kill the innocent fetus?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 3:27 PM


When one is socially dependent, anyone can care for him/her. That is why is illegal to kill your children.

I sincerely hope that is not the only reason it is illegal to kill our children.

Posted by: mk at November 6, 2007 3:27 PM


Lyssie,

"Anyone can be a parent"..no I think you are wrong there...almost anyone can GET PREGNANT...but not anyone can be a parent..or a good one at that. That simplifies the job of "mommy" to something rather insulting if you ask me. It is one of the hardest jobs there is out there..just because you don't have to go to school for it doesn't mean it is any less hard or less "freggin work" than being a mom. But I suspect that is what people who aren't parents say..because really, they have no clue. Have somebody crap all over you at 3 in the morning after 2 hours of sleep..and then tell me how "anybody" can do it. OR having to take your kid to the hospital at 10 o'clock at night cause they rolled off the bed and cracked their head..orrr and this is my favorite, try to teach and lead someone into being a productive, successful member of this society who is intelligent and independent. THEN tell me how "anybody" can do it.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 3:28 PM


Brooke Shields, Actress and Supermodel: "Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control. And that's very wrong. I could never, ever have an abortion." (Source: Redbook Magazine, 8/91)

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:31 PM


Kathy Ireland also spoke about abortion on the Hannity and Colmes FOX-TV show (September 2002). Ireland said:

"Is it all right for the government to allow the murder of an innocent human being? The evidence I see tells me the unborn is a human being. From the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with a complete genetic blueprint. The sex is determined. The blood type is determined? the moment that I learned that the unborn was a human being, not part of the woman's body but its own individual human being, I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us."

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:33 PM


Here are a few quotes from celebrities from Feminists for Life.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:36 PM


Enigma,

"A fetus is physically dependent. In a nutshell, that means that it needs to reside within a woman's womb to survive."

Viability is considered 20 weeks. So the fetus doesn't have to be dependent on the woman for the whole pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where 20 week old unborn babies are delivered and not only survive, but thrive. And as medicine advances it could be earlier.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 3:38 PM


I think I put it the wrong way, Elizabeth...let me clarify. I think parenthood is an extraordinarily tough job. I think I meant to say that almost anyone has the OPPORTUNITY to raise a child, whereas few people will ever have the opportunity to pursue the career that I want unless they go to school for 8-10 years. I want to pursue opportunities that AREN'T right at anyone's fingertips without years of toil (hence the "how hard is it to get pregnant?").

And RSD- I personally believe in egalitarian households. Whereas moms can be stay-at-home, so can dads. Actually, if my husband chose to be a stay at home dad, I'd be fine with being the one to go to work. I just expect, with child raising being a very difficult job (as many of you have said), that a husband might be able to come home from work and look after a child while I pursue the career I've worked hard for (after I stay with the child all day). That way, there is a parent with a child at all times. I have no intent of being a stay at home mom ALL the time. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 3:39 PM


Enigma..I was disputing Laura's context in using the word autonomy to define when a baby is considered a "life." Autonomy is independence and freedom..and babies do not have either. In fact, we as humans are not considered fully autonomous til the age of 18. So like I said, she used the complete wrong context to define a baby being a life.

On another note, abortion is legal because the mother has possession over the womb? Well I may have possession over my dog let's say, since I paid for him..but if I were to say dismember him and crush his skull, then I could not be charged with a crime? So why is it okay to do this to babies and no one is charged with a crime? OHH, I get it, it has to be a part of your body in order for you to be right in killing it. Interesting logic there. "It's mine, mine, mine, so I can kill it if I want to!" haha good stuff there.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 3:39 PM


Elizabeth,

Your welcome. It is nice that you are joining us. I just started posting here 2 months ago, and I have learned and been challenged by those who are here.

Do you life the class?

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 3:40 PM


I think you have a great attitude, Lyssie! I wish I was a stay-at-home dad. I'll get to be for the first couple of years, but then I have to get a real job. It's so nice having a sinecure right now.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 3:42 PM


Bobby, you will be a great dad!

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:43 PM


Tara-

Yes I do like that class...it's an online course so there isn't any teacher interaction but I have loads more time to spend with my daughter and I can coordinate doing my homework around my daughter's schedule so that makes it especiallly beneficial for us. I can also study at my own pace so I can actually retain what I am learning instead of studying to spit it out on a test. But Psychology is really an interesting subject to me..and I will probably take some more psych courses to fill in for when other classes I NEED to take are full or don't fit with my schedule! Thanks for asking!

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 3:47 PM


Bobby, I'm so happy for you! Honestly, I wish there wasn't such a stigma against men wanting to stay home and raise children. They're always expected to be the breadwinners, when I know for a fact that my boyfriend (if I marry him, this would apply), would be much better equipped as a stay-at-home dad. I really think he would enjoy it. He likes being around kids (he volunteers at the YMCA, and is joining Big Brother/Big Sisters). I like hands-on science and all that, and I've never been a big "kids" person. I'm just being honest...I don't think raising children full-time is my calling. Working toward helping humanity in other ways is. My children will be important to me, and I'll sacrifice a lot for them, but eventually I'll go back to what I was meant to do when they're able to survive without me for the majority of the day. Plus, they'll have dad, with any luck. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 3:50 PM


Lyssie, that's really nice that he wants to be a "Big Brother." I think that's sweet. He sounds very giving:}

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 3:53 PM


Heather:

He is a sweetheart. The same big, tough, brawny former Marine is really just a teddy bear. I lurve him a lot. I really wish I had time to devote to volunteering, but now with science courses and my work in the lab...my time is severely restricted. I don't understand how he has time to do it. He's so involved in everything. I did, however, just join the AIDS prevention group here on campus and will be getting more involved with THON (a student-run organization dedicated to raising money for pediatric cancer research). I really feel like I'm not doing enough for others, when I have such a sweetheart for a guy involved in everything. (He's really a good influence on me...lol).

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 3:58 PM


Hi Lyssie.

"I don't think raising children full-time is my calling."

And there is no reason it should be. You're absolutely right about helping humanity in other ways. If there weren't devoted scientists like you will be, so many wonderful advances wouldn't have been discovered yet. It also sounds like you're dating a great guy. I'm very happy for you too.

Hey, I've been meaning to ask you, have you ever had Phillip Jenkins for a class? Do you know who he is? I like him. God love you, Lyssie.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 3:58 PM


No, I haven't, Bobby. Should I look him up? What does he teach? :)

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 4:01 PM


He's a history professor. He has some books on religion including "Anti-Catholicism: the last Acceptable Prejudice." Actually, he may be an Emeritus now, but who knows.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 4:04 PM


*sigh*

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm purposely trying to push buttons...but I've never dreamed of being a mommy. Ever. I never liked dolls, I hated house playsets and my easy-bake oven. I loved books, lab sets, microscopes, puzzles, legos and all sorts of building sets (erector sets and all that). Motherhood was never a dream of mine. I think I've always wanted to get married, but I never really thought of kids as "in the picture"...do you know what I mean? It was more of a subconscious thing...that I never included children in my dream life, with a great career and an awesome husband.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 4:06 PM


Bobby, I'd take history if not for the fact that I have all the history credit requirements filled (I had them covered with AP credits). If I need to take an extra elective, I shall look him up. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 4:08 PM


Lyssie,

To be honest with you...whenever my mom would say to me "I want at least 20 grandchildren" (I have 3 brothers..so 4 of us altogether..that means 5 kids a piece) I would say to her "Well you better have your sons get on that cause I am not having any." I said this my sophomore year of college which would be the same year I got pregnant. When I got pregnant and told my family about it..I don't know..something clicked inside of me. I read all the pregnancy books..took classes..and I only was happy going and shopping for baby clothes and other things. Just as my daughter was growing inside of me...being a mother became a part of my life. A part of my life that up until that moment, I was 1000% sure I never wanted to have anything to do with. And now that I have a made a commitment to it completely, I couldn't imagine anything else in my life ever mattering more than she does to me.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 4:19 PM


Lyssie,

When I was in my late teens early twenties, I told my mother I didn't want to ever have kids. I had bigger plans. I wanted to travel, explore, find my real self. I wanted to get married, but the idea of being strapped down with kids wasn't appealing. The I met my husband, and he has a son from a previous marraige. When I met him my step-son was 2 1/2. When we got married he was 5 1/2. Being with him changed my mind.

I now have 3 more children 9,6,4 and I cannot imagine my life without them. I loved being pregnant (even with severe morning sickness - I had all day sickness). We sang to them, talked to them, played with them while in-utero. While in-utero when they heard my husbands voice they would get all excited. When they were born, the first thing I said was I could do this again. When I saw their faces, heard them breathe, held them my heart melted immediately. It really is an amzaing time in a girl/woman's life.

It is hard being a full time Mom. I quit my job after our son turned 7 months. I just really missed being with him. My sister took care of him, so I knew he was really being taken care of. But I just missed him. I've never gone back to work. We have made sacrifices bc I don't work, but it has been well worth it. My kids are secure, well adjusted and are doing very well in school. It has been a priviledge to be their Mom. Even my step-son calls me Mom. Not that is an honor. I view every child as a gift not a burden.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 4:26 PM


Tara, do you post in FAPP.org too? I have posted in there and seen a Tara in there as well, just wondering if that was you.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 4:29 PM


Elizabeth,

Yes, that is me.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 4:32 PM


Tara-

I also agree with your comment to Lyssie. Everytime I leave my daughter to go to class or something I have to do for school, I leave her with my mother and I KNOW she is being excellently cared for, but I just miss her. When I am out without her, I see little girls and I wish she was with me. I am a single mom so I have to leave her so I can go to school and take advantage of the opportunity to do so, so that I can make a great life for us, but it still breaks my heart.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 4:32 PM


Tara and Elizabeth, how did you 2 find Jill's site?

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 4:33 PM


Tara and Elizabeth, it's so true. That's why I feel bad for women who abort their children. They don't realize that another pregnancy can never take it's place. Each pregnancy is unique and special. Sadly, a woman I know aborted about a month and a half ago. I told her not to do it. Another woman piped in "You can always have more kids in the future." I just hate that.

Posted by: heather at November 6, 2007 4:39 PM


I found it through FAPP's links to other pro-life blogs and such. I was really impressed so I stuck around.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 4:46 PM


Heather - I hate that too bc they may not be able to have children later. This is the biggest lie.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 4:47 PM


I found this website, when Jill was out at one of the rallies in Aurora. She took some pictures of my daughter. Then I was embarrased and didn't post for a while bc I had read about her, thought she was incredibably brave for taking on Christ Hospital, but didn't connect her name with her face when I met her. I hate when I do that.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 4:57 PM


What is harder to understand for me..is the women who have already had children..who know it is a life..who know that what is growing inside of them is a baby..and they do it anyway. They must go into a complete state of denial to get through it. Convince themselves it wasn't really a baby or something. But even then, I couldn't ever picture myself buying that lie I had to tell myself to get through it.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 5:06 PM


Tara and Elizabeth:

Thank you for your input. I'm really happy for you, and respect your thoughts and feelings on this issue. I realize that your children are of utmost importance to you, and it is heartwarming. But I know that my life would be torn apart without engaging in science, so I would rather raise my child for a while, then go back full-time. I just really have no interest in child rearing. I believe my talents lie elsewhere, and rightly so. Not every woman who eventually has kids needs to feel like her calling in life is that of a mom. I know my mother didn't, and she did a wonderful job with my brother and me. She loves being a mom, but has never defined herself as a "mom". Her first calling was to her other work (she waited ten years to have us so that she could build her career, the one she worked so hard for), just so that she could raise us comfortably (of course, with the help of my father). If someone were to ask me what my mom was, I'd describe her as a successful woman running a successful business, then as a mom secondly. I respect her accomplishments outside of motherhood too much, especially since few people get the opportunity to achieve all that she has, even though she is a great mom.

Elizabeth:

Don't jinx me. :P
I'm a sophomore in college, too. I have no interest in being pregnant, being pregnant, or being pregnant (yes, you read that right). I really find pregnancy to be...well...for lack of better terms...inopportune and/or less than ideal. As a biology major, I have no interest in going through some of the side effects associated with it anymore times than I really want to. I really think I am supposed to use my talents in pursuits other than full-time motherhood.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 5:13 PM


Haha Lyssie I am not trying to jinx you..it is just my story. Do you not believe that someone can be completely fulfilled being a mom? Or do you not just think of yourself as being that person? Because I tell ya, I feel completely fulfilled. I, like you, believe in doing good for others and helping to change the world. I just think our efforts in going about so are different. I can change the world by encouraging my daughter to be strong and independent and work hard for what it is that she wants (whether that be being a mom, a lawyer, a doctor, a biologist ;) It seems to me that you think being defined as "mom" and having that completely fulfill you are not possible. I'm sure that there are days that women who are lawyers, doctors, biologists, etc. don't want to go to work..just as there are moms who wake up and say "I want to stay in bed today." That does not mean that it wouldn't to be completely fulfilled being "just a mom."

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 5:27 PM


Lyssie -

I do not define myself solely as a mother either. Since all my kids are in school Preschool-High School, I do alot of volunteer work, I am going back to school in January (getting a whole new degree), and do many other things as well. I do think if you have children that they need to come first, especially when they are young. I think women should be challenging themselves no matter how old their children are. But those first few years are very important. I realize that for single parents it is not an option to stay home.

I also don't see anything wrong with those who don't want to have children either. I know many who don't, and now that they are in there 50's and 60's they wish they had. I have friends who are in their 50's that are adopting a 2 1/2 year old girl from China. They are travelling in 2 weeks to pick up their daughter. They never thought in a million years that they would have kids. Yet a trip to China changed them. All I'm saying is don't totally close your mind off to the possiblity. That's all.

Elizabeth - you are an inspiration. I wish more girls would follow your lead. Your daughter is taking the journey with you, and you are teaching her how to be a strong person. Wow. You're awsome.

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 5:35 PM


Lyssie,

Yes, it may be better to pursue your career than becoming a Mom, I mean, just think when you get older you can look back at all the wonderful days you spent in the office or lab.

Posted by: jasper at November 6, 2007 5:36 PM


Awww Tara you're so sweet thanks! I think you're pretty awesome too...volunteer work...3 kids..and school... don't you just wish there were more hours in the day??

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 5:43 PM


Lyssie,
Did MK ever give you my email re: NFP?

Milehi recommended Creighton. I'm parital to the Sympto-Thermal Method myself.


Posted by: CARDER at November 6, 2007 5:45 PM


meant "partial"

Posted by: carder at November 6, 2007 5:46 PM


Bobby,

"So since the fetus does not have the right to her womb, it is okay to directly kill the innocent fetus?"

Yes. Innocence had nothing to do with it; imposing on another's body in that manner is simply not acceptable without that individual's consent.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 5:52 PM


Tara,

"Viability is considered 20 weeks."

I've heard that twenty-four weeks is the cutoff. Sources please.

"So the fetus doesn't have to be dependent on the woman for the whole pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where 20 week old unborn babies are delivered and not only survive, but thrive."

Which is why I advacate excersizing the fetus from a woman's body in a way that enables it to survive if the fetus in question is beyond viability. Lacking legislation that permits this, abortion is the only alternative for a woman who does not consent to sharing her body.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 5:55 PM


Jasper, I never said I WOULDN'T be a mom. I just said that I will never be a full-time mom. Your jerk is showing through again. ;P

Do you honestly think it's better for a woman to let talents that she wants to use go to waste so that she can have more kids? Do you think that's fair to women? If you're saying that all women can get is boring desk jobs and lab rat jobs...well, then, I'm sorry for you. I look forward to a dynamic career filled with scientific discovery, ALONG with raising kids. I hope you're not trying to push the idea that a "woman's place is in the home", because I would lose a lot of respect for you.

Just because I'll be the one in my married relationship with a uterus doesn't mean I have to be the one staying home. Neither does it mean that either my husband or I will be full-time parents. Both of us can take shifts to be joint child-rearers. I would be insulted if you said that I couldn't use my mind to help humanity through science because you think my place is at home, bearing and raising kids solely. Where in my posts did I ever say that I WOULDN'T have kids?

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 5:55 PM


Elizabeth,

"On another note, abortion is legal because the mother has possession over the womb?"

It isn't simple possession. The womb is part of her body. If a woman cannot control her body, she literally has nothing.

"OHH, I get it, it has to be a part of your body in order for you to be right in killing it."

No, it has to be impermissibly infringing on your bodily rights. Simply because one cannot surive without unfettered access to another's body does not mean that the individual in question has an obligation to provide such access.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 5:58 PM


Carder, yes, MK gave me your e-mail. I'm interested in learning more about it, so I'll send you a message sometime soon. What's the difference between the two methods mentioned? (I never even knew there were several methods!! :P)

*lyssie*

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 5:58 PM


Lyssie,

Why are you minimizing what full-time Moms do? infering that motherhood is "talentless" and a "waste" of time. A bit of advice, being a Mother is the most important job one can have, raising your children.

Posted by: jasper at November 6, 2007 6:05 PM


Hi Enigma. But once you say that personal autonomy/ "right to do what you wish with your body" trumps the life of an innocent person, what else will you allow to trump the right to life of an innocent person? There are all sorts of examples that one could come with where the killing of an innocent person will add to the good of another. Does my right to happiness allow me to kill someone who has the job I want so that I can have it? The example isn't nearly as complex as pregnancy, but it's the principle that there is nothing that allows the taking of an innocent human life.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 6:12 PM


Like I said, Enigma,

"It's mine, mine, mine, so it's okay if I kill it."

That's a dangerous line you're teetering on there Enigma.

The baby is NOT impermissibly infringing on your body. YOU had sex...and what CAN sex lead to? A baby, duh. Geez, Enigma, for someone who uses such large words, you seem to have forgotten some basic biology.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 6:43 PM


Lyssie,

So neither you nor your husband will be the full-time parent? That's unfortunate, cause I personally believe that is what is wrong with our society. Too many parents out there interested only being in it "part-time." I'm sure your future kids will thank you someday for only wanting to be involved in their life as long as it didn't diminish anything you ever felt like doing. You really seem to think there is something wasteful about devoting your life to another person...even though you try to get involved in many activities to help other people. Your logic really is quite interesting. Although I can't say that I can comprehend it. I'm pretty sure if you ever got married that would be a challenge for you as well. Because, Lyssie, it is called compromise. Sometimes it involves giving up what YOU want to do for the bigger picture. When you have a marriage, you give up things, when you have kids, you give up things. Just save yourself the trouble of devoting yourself to other people and stay in the lab.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 6:51 PM


Hi Elizabeth. I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself. You're new here, ehh? You have some wonderful posts! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 6:53 PM


Hi Bobby, I am new here..I have been a lurker for a month or so..and I just decided to jump in..and today has not been as busy for me so I have time to post a lot! Nice to meet you! (so to speak of course!)

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 6:56 PM


When you have a marriage, you give up things, when you have kids, you give up things. Just save yourself the trouble of devoting yourself to other people and stay in the lab.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 6:51
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, Nancy Pelosi has five children. They all grew up to be college-educated white-collar professionals.
Being a successful role model is also a good way to devote yourself to your children.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 6:57 PM


Amen, Laura!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 6:58 PM


Laura,

I never said it wasn't. So what you're saying is you NEED a career to be a good role-model to your children then? Being a full-time mom isn't sufficient enough of a role to be considered a "good" role-model?

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 7:15 PM


I never said it wasn't. So what you're saying is you NEED a career to be a good role-model to your children then? Being a full-time mom isn't sufficient enough of a role to be considered a "good" role-model?

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 7:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No. Note the use of the word "also."

"Being a successful role model is also a good way to devote yourself to your children."

You seem touchy and defensive.

Posted by: Laura at November 6, 2007 7:21 PM


Jasper:
I in NO WAY minimized what mothers do. I just said that women who have OTHER TALENTS that don't involve motherhood should not have to waste them just to solely pursue the talent of motherhood (IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO). I can do both. I said that I will devote my time AND give up many, MANY things when I have kids, but will strive to have different hours from my husband so that when he comes home from work (after I've been with the kids), I can go pursue my interests. I already said that the ideal would be to have one parent at home to take care of the children at all times, whether it be me or my husband (I don't like the idea of nannies or daycare). I just said that I couldn't handle it if I was the primary caregiver ALL THE TIME. It's a talent I don't feel I have. And if you really felt like parenthood is the most fulfilling, important job that one can do...you'd be the full-time parent, Jasper, and not hand the job to women alone. Why is there something wrong with stay-at-home dads, or allowing men to be primary caregivers once in a while?!

Jasper, for the love of all that is Holy, REREAD my posts and find where I said that being a mom is talentless. I already said somewhere up above that it is extraordinarily difficult. I find it to be important and worthy. However, I also find other pursuits to be very important, to ME, and am not closed-minded enough to believe that every woman would enjoy giving up a fulfilling career to pursue full-time motherhood. I believe I can sacrifice optimum hours to stay home with my kids during the day, while the husband works, while I can work late afternoons when he comes home. That's being a part-time parent while also ensuring that the kids are with one parent at all times (LOOK, NO DAYCARE!). Oh, and by the way, Elizabeth, that's having a parent around FULL-TIME for the kids, it just doesn't have to be the same parent, dear. Is that what's wrong for society? That only one person should sacrifice so the other can pursue a career? Why can't both of them sacrifice hours for their careers and both pitch in to raise children? Oh wait...joint sacrifice IS compromise? Great, so you and I are both on the same page. Good job, you just reiterated what I've been saying all along. Why can't you understand that, yes, I DO want to be a mom, devote myself fully to my children the times I am home, and then allow my husband to do the same thing equally when I am not around? Is devoted fatherhood something that should be taken for granted? Just ask Bobby, he would love to stay home and take care of his soon-to-be-born little girl.

I LOVE scientific discovery, because I believe it helps humanity. I would be lost without it. I believe that I am helping the human race by involving myself in it, so you can hardly say I'm "wasting" my time "devoting" myself to others. It's the whole point, Elizabeth...isn't that why you're going back to school, to help others? Because the last time I looked, nursing helps other people, and you can't always have your little girl around while you're off pursuing your career.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 7:34 PM


Oh, and my ideal form of raising children IS that they be raised equally by mother and father, with at least one of them home at all times to nurture young children. I don't believe that moms OR dads should be sole breadwinners or sole child-rearers... they should both have BOTH opportunities. I'm sorry you don't believe that one should give up one or the other, because if we adhere to the strict male-breadwinner, female-homemaker ideal, then the man misses out on raising his children while the woman misses out on being independent and pursuing other interests.

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 7:46 PM


Bobby,

"But once you say that personal autonomy/ "right to do what you wish with your body" trumps the life of an innocent person, what else will you allow to trump the right to life of an innocent person?"

Absolutely nothing. There's a big difference between arguing that no one has the right to infringe upon another's bodily sovereignty without permission and arguing that people can kill each other for trivial reasons.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 8:01 PM


Elizabeth,

"That's a dangerous line you're teetering on there Enigma."

Since that wasn't my reasoning, there is no thin line involved.

"The baby is NOT impermissibly infringing on your body."

Sex is not a consent to pregnancy.

"Geez, Enigma, for someone who uses such large words, you seem to have forgotten some basic biology."

Don't patronize me.

For someone who seems to assume that everyone who disagrees with her is intellectually lacking, you seem to be entertaining some misconceptions of the manner of consent and of sex.

Consent is decided by the one who is giving it. Engaging in an action does not mean that one has consented to all of the possible consequences. Regardless, it's not up to you to decide what another person has consented to.

Sex can lead to pregnancy. That's an undeniable fact. But most of the time sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. Women are only fertile for about three to four days during their cycle and yet they can have sex at any point during said cycle. Furthermore, a good 60% of embryos fail to implant.


Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 8:07 PM


Enigma,

But does this idea of bodily autonomy really trump the right of the fetus' life? Why should the fetus have to die so that the women can have the life she planned? It is a conflict of interests, and raising and bearing a child is highly nontrivial, but the alternative is death for the fetus. I think you would agree that death is worse than changing your entire life plans. So it seems that you would have to view the fetus as being a significantly lower class of human than the mother.

"...arguing that people can kill each other for trivial reasons"

Also, who is to say what constitutes a "trivial reason"? Perhaps one doesn't view the path that their career takes as trivial, but does view childbirth as trivial. I certainly don't, but one could argue that way. Given the exception to kill an innocent person for the sake of personal autonomy, why can't someone who holds their career in just as much esteem (or more esteem) as personal autonomy likewise kill an innocent? Judging what is and what is not trivial can become very subjective and lead to problems it seems.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 8:15 PM


Bobby,

"But does this idea of bodily autonomy really trump the right of the fetus' life?"

It doesn't have to. The fetus (well, after it has a functioning brain and thus any rights) does have a right to life, but not a right to infringe bodily upon another. No human has that right. Ever. No exceptions.

"Why should the fetus have to die so that the women can have the life she planned?"

Because the fetus has no rights to the mother's body except for the ones that she gives it.

"Given the exception to kill an innocent person for the sake of personal autonomy, why can't someone who holds their career in just as much esteem (or more esteem) as personal autonomy likewise kill an innocent?"

You're attempting to confuse the issue. A career is not the same as a person's body. It's an established principle that a person has the right to kill another who is infringing upon that person's bodily autonomy without that person's rights. It's called self defense.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 8:46 PM


Lyssie,
There are several names to various methods of NFP. The 3 basic methods are temperature-only, mucus-only, and a combination of mucus and temperatures. It's up to the couple which method they wish to utilize.

Milehi's "Creighton Model" is based on mucus only. So is the Billings Ovulation Method. The method I teach is Sympto-Thermal, the mucus-temp combo.

Seems a little confusing at first, but it does clarify itself after enough exposure to the NFP world!

Posted by: carder at November 6, 2007 8:52 PM


Lyssie, if you read what I have written about myself..you will see that I am a single mother..meaning I NEED a career to financially support me and my child. By the time I am getting a job as a nurse, my daughter will be in school all day and I will work only when she is at school. If I had the choice...I would be at home with her...I might still go to school though cause I love to learn.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 9:01 PM


Enigma,

"...but not a right to infringe bodily upon another. No human has that right. Ever. No exceptions."

Actually, what about the case of conjoined twins? If there are two twins that are conjoined and one will die (for whatever reason) if they are separated, can the one who will survive impose her will on the other and demand that they be separated? The twin who would die is dependent on the other for survival; she is using her sister's body without her sister's consent. And this could be for the rest of their lives, not just nine months. This is the closest example in real life that we have of pregnancy, and I don't know if anyone would say that the healthy sister has the right to "remove" her sister. And even in that case, it still isn't direct murder like abortion is. In the twin example, the healthy sister wills to be independent and not the death of her sister. In abortion, the women may too intend to be free from the burden of carrying a fetus, but the only way that this is accomplished is through the direct killing of that fetus. If the fetus is not dead, the job has not been done.

"A career is not the same as a person's body. It's an established principle that a person has the right to kill another who is infringing upon that person's bodily autonomy without that person's rights. It's called self defense."

But Enigma that's only when the offender is not innocent. The fetus is innocent. Growing in a women's womb is a natural part of human development. Plus I think you missed my point about allowing the killing of an innocent for the sake of "self-defense" being a slippery slope. Certainly a career is not on the same level as one's body. But I'm saying that this opens the door to killing innocents for other reasons. In fact, look at Peter Singer. He is the logical extension of this way of thinking, my slippery-slope to a t. As we saw earlier this week, he advocates the killing of a newborn child if it is in the best interests of the parents. At this point, no one is "infringing" on anyone's body. It is now that the personal lives and happiness of the parents that trumps the right to life of the baby, according to Singer. The only solution to all of this is to protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 9:10 PM


Elizabeth,

I think what you're doing is wonderful, don't get me wrong. I would never condemn you for doing your best. I realize that you have no choice in the matter. My point is that IF someone has the chance to do both, at the same time, with a willing partner to help as well, why not? My plan is basically the same, where I will raise my very young children during the day (if that's the plan between me and my hubby), and pursue a few hours of work in the late afternoon/night if feasible. Once they enter school age I will work full-time. That's what I've been saying all along. However, the child-rearing responsibilities will be split evenly between myself and my husband, so that each of us can experience both the opportunities of parenthood (very rewarding, I never said it wasn't), while also pursuing careers. That way, the children will always have at least one parent around, and neither parent will get burnt out by focusing on one aspect of their lives. I just think it's better for the kids and for the parents.

And it's wonderful that you'd still go to school because of your love of learning. You should never have to give that up completely. Curtailing your desires, ie, the compromise you speak of, is necessary with children in the picture. I just don't think your desires should be done away with altogether. That's why I'd split parenting and career, what with my love of science and my desire to give my spouse the same time with our children as I would have. Do you understand my position now?

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 9:18 PM


I was at work for 12 straight hours today. *dies*

Anyhow, as a small side note, I very much agree with Lyssie's stance- though I'll add that the very concept of childbirth tends to freak me out hugely. I know some people always go on about how miraculous and beautiful childbirth can be, but jeez. The whole idea of pushing a screaming infant through my lady parts just...eesh. *shudder*

Also, some people don't like kids. They're not just kid people. Like me. I cannot stand children. I have never been a fan of them. Ever. Sure, I'll say cute baby and all, but after a couple hours, sometimes less, I better be able to give the little bugger back to someone else. I'm just not a kid person. Some people aren't.

Posted by: Erin at November 6, 2007 9:29 PM


Bobby,

"Actually, what about the case of conjoined twins?"

I think you may have missed it, but MK offered the example of conjoined twins and I refuted it.

Basically, the two situations are not analogous because of the element of bodily autonomy. In the case of the conjoined twins, neither twin has bodily autonomy and thus neither twin can be said to be infringing upon the other because they infringe upon one another equally.

Pregnancy is quite a different matter. The woman has bodily autonomy until the fetus infringes upon it. Thus she has every right to restore her previous state and remove the intruder.

"But Enigma that's only when the offender is not innocent. The fetus is innocent."

Innocence has no bearing upon whether or not one is infringing upon another's rights and one's bodies; thus, innocence, or lack thereof, has no bearing upon the ability of one to remove that which is infringing upon her.

"Plus I think you missed my point about allowing the killing of an innocent for the sake of "self-defense" being a slippery slope. Certainly a career is not on the same level as one's body. But I'm saying that this opens the door to killing innocents for other reasons."

I disagree. How is consistently upholding the principle that one has a right to defend one's own bodily integrity a slippery slope?

"In fact, look at Peter Singer. He is the logical extension of this way of thinking, my slippery-slope to a t."

I despise that man's theories. Simply because he advocates an extreme position does not mean that it is the logical outcome of anything. You see what you wish to see.

"As we saw earlier this week, he advocates the killing of a newborn child if it is in the best interests of the parents. At this point, no one is "infringing" on anyone's body. It is now that the personal lives and happiness of the parents that trumps the right to life of the baby, according to Singer. The only solution to all of this is to protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death."

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Posted by: Enigma at November 6, 2007 10:00 PM


Erin,

Wow, you sound just like I did. I used to think the exact same thing. I was so not into kids, childbirth, etc. The truth is it is nothing like you imagine. I figured they would just be demanding little suckers, but they are not. They so totally love you like you can't imagine. When anyone told me stuff like this I just figured yeah, right, what a bunch of sappy crap. But it isn't.

All I can say is you just can't know what you don't know and I just didn't know till it happened to me. I know this is not very profound, but it is real.

Hope tomorrow you won't have to work so long. Take care.

Posted by: hippie at November 6, 2007 10:02 PM


"Also, some people don't like kids. They're not just kid people. Like me. I cannot stand children. I have never been a fan of them. Ever."

yes Erin, you proved that already...

Posted by: jasper at November 6, 2007 10:03 PM


Yes, Lyssie I do understand your opinion. Very well put I might add. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 10:11 PM


oh and Lyssie...p.s. If you ever find a man THAT great and willing to split time equally in parenting responsibilities...make sure he has a brother or cousin and swing him over my way k thanks!haha

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 10:12 PM


Enigma,

"Basically, the two situations are not analogous because of the element of bodily autonomy. In the case of the conjoined twins, neither twin has bodily autonomy and thus neither twin can be said to be infringing upon the other because they infringe upon one another equally."

I don't see any reason why the concept of bodily autonomy automatically makes the two situations nonanalogues. This may be the heart of where we disagree, Enigma. (and yes, I did miss your conversation with MK) Because I think if it can be show that the situation of conjoined twins is similar to that of a pregnant women, then there is a very strong anti-abortion case. All this talk of "rights" and "invasion of privacy" is very legalistic, and to me charity comes before rights. In fact, I don't believe that a society built solely on rights and the individual is ideal nor should it be the framework for debate.

But alas, I must get home. It's been my pleasure to discuss this with you, Enigma. You are very cordial and have your position very well thought out. You are obviously much more skilled than I. I must study a lot more if I am ever to be on the same level with you :) I'll talk to you later, friend.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 6, 2007 10:24 PM


NO problem, Elizabeth...only thing is, my boyfriend's brother is already taken...I'll try to see if he's got a cousin our age....

:D

Hmm...MK is auctioning off a son who seems to be UBER CUTE and if he's anything like MK, a pretty awesome person. I'm sure he'd be the type to want to help raise a whole slew of chitlins. :D

P.S. You might have to fight Jacqueline for him. Let the battle begin!! :P

Posted by: Lyssie at November 6, 2007 10:36 PM


Enigma 8:01pm,

I must say, your arguments are never dull! "Bodily sovereignty"?

Posted by: Gabby at November 6, 2007 11:45 PM


Enigma,

Are you a lawyer?

Posted by: Gabby at November 6, 2007 11:50 PM


Mother Teresa said, "We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love."

Posted by: Gabby at November 6, 2007 11:59 PM


Were is His Man? I miss him!

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 3:29 AM


I also wonder about Samantha T. I wonder if her "conversion" was sincere. I remain skeptical.

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 3:52 AM


To think that just a few short months ago, I couldn't give my son away (even when I offered to pay and throw in the dog)...and now two women are fighting over him.

He's matured a lot since that first conversation, and foregoing the fact that he sported a mohawk for a couple of weeks (he still loves his shock treatment, and the mohawk was tongue in cheek) he is now becoming quite a catch. He's coming back to Chicago, getting his teaching certificate, and wants to teach and/or be a fireman. Did I mention he's plays rugby? Loves animals? Has a very twisted, bizarre sense of humor?

Ooooooo, I think this could get interesting.
Jacquie, Elizabeth...start your engines...

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 6:05 AM


*giggle*

You already know my stance on your son, MK. He's quite the attractive specimen. In all honesty, I'd have to say they're all lookers... (verbal nudge in the ribs to Jacquie and Elizabeth).

By the way... a lot of women are into mohawks. I think they're hot. :D (I like putting my boyfriend's hair into a fauxhawk for gits and shiggles).


Heather: Samantha T is sincere. I don't talk to her much anymore, but she's much like Mary here in her common sense approach to pro-life issues. She's not anti-contraception or anything of the like. Just anti-abortion. Questioning people's conversions on one topic or another is a way to drive away life-long allies, however, in my opinion. Just because she approaches the issue differently than you doesn't mean she doesn't have the same convictions...you know what I mean?


Either way, I'm off, darlings...need to get ready for class. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 7, 2007 7:01 AM


Pssst, MK:

Can you post the picture of your kids here again so that Elizabeth can give her eyes a whirl? She ought to know what your son looks like...I mean, who buys anything without first checking the packaging? :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 7, 2007 7:03 AM


Haha, lyssie you crack me up..I don't know many people who don't buy anything without looking at the packaging first.;)

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 7, 2007 8:39 AM


Elizabeth,

Funny I just thought to check in to see if MK responded right before I zip off to class. :D

You're in for a treat when she DOES post those pics. It's a shame her oldest one is taken, too...he's a handsome fellow as well. I believe her third son is also spoken for...so that leaves her youngest two boys and the second one in line....the younger two being younger than I, and I'm 19. So unless MK can clone her second child, you and Jacquie might have to have a pro-life punchfest for MK's pretty progeny. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 7, 2007 8:45 AM


Bobby,

"I don't see any reason why the concept of bodily autonomy automatically makes the two situations nonanalogues."

Why not? If all of the conditions between the two situations are not the same, then how can they be analogous?

Conjoined twins are born that way. Neither of them has bodily autonomy to begin with. Neither is imposing upon the other by virtue of the fact that they impose equally upon one another. Additionally, there is no difference in development between the two and one twin cannot be said to be completely Dependant upon the other.

A pregnant woman was not born that way. She has bodily sovereignty until another takes it away. The fetus is physically dependent upon her body. It is imposing upon her. How is that similar?

You're arguing that two situations are analagous because on the surface they appear to be similar while in reality they both have distinctly unique underpinnings that are not related in any way.

"All this talk of "rights" and "invasion of privacy" is very legalistic, and to me charity comes before rights."

Charity is a very laudable concept. The problem is that charity ceases to be charity and becomes a violation of rights once it is legislated.

"In fact, I don't believe that a society built solely on rights and the individual is ideal nor should it be the framework for debate."

This would be the heart of our disagreement. I'm not quite a radical individualist, but I come close.

"It's been my pleasure to discuss this with you, Enigma. You are very cordial and have your position very well thought out."

Right back at you.

"You are obviously much more skilled than I. I must study a lot more if I am ever to be on the same level with you :)"

Thanks for the compliment. I must say, though, I think you give me too much credit. You're an excellent debater yourself.

"I'll talk to you later, friend."

Have a good night. (or is it now good day?)

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 9:04 AM


Gabby,

"I must say, your arguments are never dull! "Bodily sovereignty"?"

I'm glad that they amuse you.

"Are you a lawyer?"

Nope, sorry. Good try though.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 9:06 AM


Hey Enigma, if you don't mind me asking, about what age are you and what kind of work/school do you do? This isn't part of some agenda, I'm just curious to know a bit more about you, if you don't mind. And indeed, it is morning, neither night nor day! Hmmm, do you live outside the US? Geeze, I'm nosy...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 9:25 AM


Bobby,

I'm a twenty-one year old ungrad.

I live in the U.S. and have for my entire life.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 9:29 AM


So are we mud wrestling for Danny now???

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 7, 2007 9:30 AM


Are you on facebook? Do you want to be friends?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 9:33 AM


Er, sorry, don't mean to be pushy. If not, I totally understand and won't take offense.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 9:34 AM


Heather,

..a little late but still worth it...

Thanks for the welcome...I never bothered about blogging until PP came into the neighborhood and
found this great site thru the FAPP site.

Great job you guys and gals are doing here...informing the mis-informed.

Posted by: RSD at November 7, 2007 9:37 AM


Good morning all!

Enigma,

I'm sorry if my posts late last night seemed condescending, I didn't mean it that way. I think my choice of words wasn't the best. You're only 21? I'm suddenly feeling very OLD. Anyone know of any good AARP blogs?

Bobby,

God bless you and your family! Babies are great!

Posted by: Gabby at November 7, 2007 10:09 AM


Lyssie, Jacquie, and Elizabeth...

My son is gonna kill me...

Here he is again...

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/TandS133.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/012_9A.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/000_0977.jpg

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 10:13 AM


Hey, MK!

We have 3 bachelorettes! We could play the dating game! Based on our responses, he can pick your new daughter-in-law.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 7, 2007 10:28 AM


P.S. This is twisted. I LOVE it.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 7, 2007 10:29 AM


He's gonna kill me...

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 10:32 AM


Mu-ha.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 7, 2007 10:36 AM


And if both had died in utero as a result of trying to save both, would Jill have shared THAT story?

Posted by: TexasRed at November 7, 2007 11:14 AM


You parade this story around. Would you be so quick to post it if she had decided not to abort the second baby and it had died? And that death had caused the other baby to die? And it wasn't caught in time, causing an infection that then killed the mum? Would you be so joyful, posting an article about how she had "given her life" to give her baby a chance?

That baby could have died. The doctors may have been wrong this time, but what if they had been right? And I guarantee you that they are often right and a lot of deaths and serious injuries are avoided because women have chosen to abort in time.

Posted by: Dana at November 7, 2007 11:49 AM


MK-

Your boys are very handsome. Some girls are going to be vvvveeerrrryyyy luck!!:)

Posted by: Tara at November 7, 2007 12:14 PM


a thought occurred to me a short time ago and it has to do with a mental experiment. I'd love some feedback from anyone:

If no such things as human rights exist, would your life be much shorter. Does the fact that the law exists in practice diminish your responsibilities to others? Because PC can hide-behind the wall known as rights, can they then extinguish human life that does not have the same protection? How about we remove these rights, are you as secure as before? Imagine now, that Enigma can kill anyone for any reason ... an expansion of her choice, is it not? Does this make her more free? Has she gained more freedom? Why/why-not? Hasn't the aspect of body integrity expanded to include whoever might/possibly harm her (interact with her)?

Posted by: John McDonell at November 7, 2007 12:21 PM


Sorry, I thought the Creighton model was the sympto-thermal model! My mistake. That's what I meant - don't go just by temps, but also by what your body is telling you.

Posted by: Milehimama at November 7, 2007 12:53 PM


OH no!!! Don't count me into the dating game....I may not be married yet, but I've got me a sweet boyfriend who's easy on the eyes. I'd rather just watch the festivities....

MK...you know, to make it easier....you could age your second youngest son....you know, give him grays and such...age is just a number, right?

Posted by: Lyssie at November 7, 2007 1:12 PM


MK, your boys are such cuties!!!

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 7, 2007 2:16 PM


Eh? eh?

*nudges Elizabeth in the ribs*
*pokes Jacqueline with her giant 30-lb kitty Opie's paw (because we're both pro-kitty :P)*

Eh? Yes...cute...I'm now helping MK auction off her son. *giggle*

Posted by: Lyssie at November 7, 2007 2:27 PM


haha..well which one is being auctioned off here? HMMM..

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 7, 2007 2:37 PM


Danny is 26. He's a credit shy of graduating. He'll be taking care of that in Jan. He's the one in the tux (not the 7 year old. He's mine)

The other one that is single (not the 7 year old. He's mine) is Kev. He's 18. He'll be joining the fire dept here in Park Ridge when he graduates.

He is the best prospect as far as husband/father material...unfortunately, he's too young.

Michael (21) has been dating his girlfriend for 7 years now...don't think she's going anywhere (and I lover her)

And Tom (27)is married with two kids.

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 2:48 PM


Sounds like some pretty great men you are raising there MK..you should be proud. Jacque...I'm more than willing to give ya my brother who's a professional dancer on the joffrey ballet..he's pretty cute too (so people tell me) I've got a link to a pic if you waaaaant.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 7, 2007 3:30 PM


Elizabeth-

Does he wear tights? Tights are hoooooooooot.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 7, 2007 4:12 PM


Haha YES he surrrre does want the link so you can see him in all his ballet dancer tight-wearing glory?? hmmm hmm...i know you wanna..

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 7, 2007 4:30 PM


I used to get paid to wear tights!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 4:38 PM


Bobby,

"Are you on facebook?"

I am on facebook even though it's an evil life-sucking creation. (joking)

"Do you want to be friends? Er, sorry, don't mean to be pushy. If not, I totally understand and won't take offense."

Though I do thank you for the offer, ultimately I prefer to preserve my anonymity.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 4:53 PM


Gabby,

"I'm sorry if my posts late last night seemed condescending, I didn't mean it that way."

Don't worry, I didn't take it that way.

"You're only 21? I'm suddenly feeling very OLD."

You're telling me. I've practically got one foot in the grave.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 4:55 PM


I totally understand Enigma. Totally cool.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 4:59 PM


John,

"If no such things as human rights exist, would your life be much shorter."

Absolutely. If there was no law to restrain people, society would fall apart and the strong would lord over the weak. Daily killings and mass rapes would become normal facts of life.

"Does the fact that the law exists in practice diminish your responsibilities to others?"

It neither diminishes nor enhances them.

"Because PC can hide-behind the wall known as rights, can they then extinguish human life that does not have the same protection?"

If you want to get technical, abortion violates no human rights. A fetus, even if you want to give it all the rights that humans have, would not have the right to impose upon another's body without consent, even if that imposition is necessary for the fetus to retain its potential for life.

"How about we remove these rights, are you as secure as before?"

Absolutely not. Individual rights are essential to the protection of the individual. Remove those rights and you remove the protection.

"Imagine now, that Enigma can kill anyone for any reason ... an expansion of her choice, is it not?"

Hey, be nice now! Don't drag me into this!

No. A fetus is a special exception to the general prohibition against killing (assuming that the fetus has a functioning brain and thus has a human life to extinguish). Only the mother or her agents can remove the fetus from the woman's body. This is permissible because the woman has the right to deny access to her body even if said access is necessary for life. One's need does not entail another's obligation.

"Does this make her more free?"

Does killing other people make ome more free? No.

Does a woman who has had an abortion become more free because of her abortion? It's not so much an enhancement of her freedom as a restoration of it.

"Has she gained more freedom? Why/why-not?"

Answered above; though I can elaborate if you wish.

"Hasn't the aspect of body integrity expanded to include whoever might/possibly harm her (interact with her)?"

That depends on your definition of might/possible harm and interact with her.

If you're talking about someone who's attacking her and violating her rights, she has the right to do anything, including killing her attacker, that she needs to defend herself and get away.

If you're talking about just normal interaction with other people, then no.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 5:09 PM


Only the mother or her agents can remove the fetus from the woman's body. This is permissible because the woman has the right to deny access to her body even if said access is necessary for life. One's need does not entail another's obligation.

Reminds me of that Shakespeare thing...a pound of liver, but no blood?

If you are right, and of course I don't think you are, but for the sake of argument, then how does the "agent" get a pass. No one is infringing on his autonomy.

So unless you can figure out a way where the woman (the only one whose bodyily autonomy is being infringed on) can safely abort her own child, I don't see why the "agent" has this right...

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 5:18 PM


MK,

"If you are right, and of course I don't think you are, but for the sake of argument, then how does the "agent" get a pass. No one is infringing on his autonomy."

Quite simply, actually. The woman cannot safely act to restore her bodily autonomy; thus, she can empower an agent whom she has contacted to do it for her.

This is not a new concept. People contract with others all the time so they can uphold/preserve the individual's rights when the individual in question is helpless to act.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 6:00 PM


Enigma,

I can't think of any other time where you can hire someone to take another (innocent) persons life to insure your rights. Can you?

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 6:15 PM


MK,

"I can't think of any other time where you can hire someone to take another (innocent) persons life to insure your rights. Can you?"

Innocence has nothing to do with it. An innocent can infringe just as surely as can the condemned.

In most abortions, this issue doesn't apply because the fetus does not have human life until the development of the brain. There is thus nothing to kill.

The intent of abortion is to restore a woman's bodily autonomy, not to kill (assuming that it has attained human life) her fetus.

You have previously argued that there's no difference but, in my opinion that simply isn't true. Furthermore, you have demonstrated your understanding of the concept that an intent may usually a yield a certain outcome without having that outcome become the intent of the act in question.

Look at your reasoning for why abortion is acceptable in cases of esoteric pregnancy. The intent is to save the woman's life, not kill the fetus. How is my reasoning any different?

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 6:37 PM


@Enigma,

You talk of body autonomy as if it were something almost sacred and that somehow a developing being robs her of this. However, the womb is designed/structured specifically for this job. How can a woman express full body autonomy when it is not doing as it is structured? It seems that body autonomy is only complete by being pregnant. How is a woman closer to being a complete being by retaining a childless (empty womb) status?

A while back, a thought that rights were legal terms for value. However, the PC'er also maintained that humans had no value. I do not know if you have this same notion. If you do: how can a right like body autonomy exist or that you see yourself as precious when you (as a whole) are without value? If you do not: where does this value come from?

When you first arrived you did not like the word 'baby' and preferred 'fetus' instead. So eventually you compromised/your-suggestion with HUMAN-fetus. This whole site is dedicated to HUMAN-rights (not sentient rights nor personhood rights).

Posted by: John McDonell at November 7, 2007 8:13 PM


Enigma,

"I can't think of any other time where you can hire someone to take another (innocent) persons life to insure your rights. Can you?"
*
Innocence has nothing to do with it. An innocent can infringe just as surely as can the condemned.

It does when answering my question...I realize that another party may get involved with someone on death row (a guilty person), but I asked for an example of a time where an innocent person can be killed by a third party and used as "self" defense.

And the reason why abortion is different that saving the life of the mother is twofold. One, both LIVES are equal. And two, if it is at all possible we would save both. You have no intention of ever saving the babies life. Your goal is to kill it.

Also, there is no argument in the scientific world that there is life at conception, and that it is human life. The only thing in question, and as Doug has pointed out, it is a legal question, is personhood. So you ARE taking a human life no matter when the abortion is done. You may not believe that it is a person, but it is a life and it is human.

Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 8:52 PM


John,

"You talk of body autonomy as if it were something almost sacred and that somehow a developing being robs her of this."

If a woman doesn't want a fetus developing inside of her, it does rob her of her bodily autonomy.

"However, the womb is designed/structured specifically for this job. How can a woman express full body autonomy when it is not doing as it is structured? It seems that body autonomy is only complete by being pregnant."

Your conclusioin does not follow from your premise.

Simply because a certain organ has been designed so that it can perform a certain task does not mean that it has to perform that task. Furthermore, a failure to be used in that manner does not negate a person't bodily autonomy or mean that he/she is somehow unable to have complete bodily autonomy because said organ is not performing the task for which it was designed. Having the design of one's body dictate what one is forced to do with said body is the opposite of bodily autonomy.

"How is a woman closer to being a complete being by retaining a childless (empty womb) status?"

Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with whether or not others judge one to be a "complete" being. Furthermore, as a woman, I am frankly insulted by your insinuation that a woman is incapable of being a complete being unless she is pregnant.

"A while back, a thought that rights were legal terms for value."

I never made that assertion.

"However, the PC'er also maintained that humans had no value. I do not know if you have this same notion."

I do not.

"If you do: how can a right like body autonomy exist or that you see yourself as precious when you (as a whole) are without value? If you do not: where does this value come from?"

It comes from our highly evolved intellects and our ability to reason.

"When you first arrived you did not like the word 'baby' and preferred 'fetus' instead."

I object to the term because it is incorrect.

"So eventually you compromised/your-suggestion with HUMAN-fetus. This whole site is dedicated to HUMAN-rights (not sentient rights nor personhood rights)."

I would dispute that. This whole site is dedicated to destroying women's rights. When you argue that a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term you are arguing that the fetus matters more than she does.

Posted by: Enigma at November 7, 2007 9:01 PM


John M: How can a woman express full body autonomy when it is not doing as it is structured?

John, the deal is that she's not controlled from outside, whether she wants to have kids or not. Are we to say that men should go around and mate with as many women as possible, since they are "structured" that way?

Posted by: Doug at November 7, 2007 9:07 PM


Doug! Oh man, you missed some crazy stuff earlier. Well, I guess so did I, but yeah, the post with over 400 hits was nuts earlier! Since I wasn't involved in the conversation, I suppose I feel the need to gossip...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 9:17 PM


Hey Bobby, working long days here and just can't really get into it much.

You're a heck of a nice guy and surely your wife is great, to have a guy like you, and I know you'll be fabulous parents.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 7, 2007 9:26 PM


"working long days here and just can't really get into it much."

Ha! That never stops me. I should be working right now.

"You're a heck of a nice guy and surely your wife is great, to have a guy like you, and I know you'll be fabulous parents."

Thank you for the kind words. I hope you're right.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 7, 2007 9:36 PM


On bodily autonomy/"No trespassing as a reason for abortion"
What about conjoined twins? Should one be able to jettison the other, even if it meant their sister or brother would die, in the name of autonomy? I'm speaking of conjoined twins who have been born and survived for several years. Why should you have to have someone attached to you just because you share a spine or a liver?

Posted by: Milehimama at November 8, 2007 6:52 AM


Hi Enigma and Doug,

There is a very strong correlation here to anorexia. The human body absolutely needs nutrients to survive (that's what it was structured to do). Because of the will, a person (usually a woman) will starve themselves to sickness/death to maintain a fantasy size.

This sounds very similar to this scenario. Could it be that similar brain patterns are operant for both scenarios? Is the will always a good place to demand compliance from?

Posted by: John McDonell at November 8, 2007 7:10 AM


MK,

"It does when answering my question...I realize that another party may get involved with someone on death row (a guilty person), but I asked for an example of a time where an innocent person can be killed by a third party and used as "self" defense."

Innocence is not an excuse to impose. It is not an explanation for why another should forced acquiesce to one's needs.

"And the reason why abortion is different that saving the life of the mother is twofold. One, both LIVES are equal. And two, if it is at all possible we would save both. You have no intention of ever saving the babies life. Your goal is to kill it."

I didn't ask you why your argument was different, I asked you about your line of reasoning, or your logic, if you will. I asked because breaking down our arguments reveals that we are using parallel forms of logic.

You argued that in cases of esoteric pregnancy, even though the abortion performed kills the developing embryo, that the abortion is okay because the intent is not to kill the embryo but to save the life of the woman.

I argued that in cases of unwanted pregnancy, even though the abortion performed generally kills the developing embryo/fetus, that abortion is okay because the intent is not to kill the embryo/fetus but to restore the woman's bodily autonomy.

It's the same logic. So why does your application of that logic work while mine fails?

"Also, there is no argument in the scientific world that there is life at conception, and that it is human life."

Not true. One can be a member of the human species without having human life.

"So you ARE taking a human life no matter when the abortion is done. You may not believe that it is a person, but it is a life and it is human."

Also not true.
Posted by: mk at November 7, 2007 8:52 PM

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 7:15 AM


Milehiama,

"What about conjoined twins?"

If you read a few posts up, Bobby asked me this and I answered already. My logic has not changed.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 7:16 AM


John,

You've got to be kidding me. First you go off about how women can't really be thought of as "complete" people without being pregnant and then you go off about how anorexia proves that scenario.

Could you at least try to come up with an argument that isn't completely degrading to every woman (even the "pro-life" ones) on this site?

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 7:19 AM


And your assertion that pregnancy and anorexia are somehow similar is absolutely ludicrous.

Yes, the body always knows what it is best for it and should be allowed to lord over the mind unchecked.

Then why do we treat cancer and heart attacks? Why do we give antihistamines to people who've immune systems have run amok? After all, surely the body knows what it's doing. Who are we to interfere?

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 7:46 AM


Enigma, are conjoined twins a lower class form of human beings?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 8:16 AM


Hi Enigma,

Wish you knew some biochemistry. Cancer is not a foreign tissue but is the best/only option left to cells to maintain life. To do this 'immortality' flick they must structurally alter somewhat. This leaves immortal cells (cancer) alongside mortal cells (normal cells). Usually the proliferation rate of immortal cells outstrips normal cells, so cancer seems to grow. (These cells also do not differentiate (become other tissues).)

The anorexia-bit is not as weird as you believe. Think about a refutation, rather than a "are you absurd?" retort. The will of a person does have limitations ... in a virtual world very few, but in the actual world you are 'forced' into compliance every time you go to the toilet; sleep; et; drink; breath ..... . The womb exists for a reason. Abortion is not natural ... even miscarriage is viewed as something wrong whether or not the pregnancy was wanted.

Posted by: John McDonell at November 8, 2007 8:40 AM


Enigma,

You are missing my question...I am asking, Where in our society is the taking of a human life by a third party for the autonomy or safety of another human being, occur. I'm assuming you will respond with the death penalty, which is why I added the caveat "innocent"...I'm not arguing innocent versus guilty, just asking for an example of another situation where a third party can legally take the life of another human being for the benefit of someone other than themselves.

Not true. One can be a member of the human species without having human life.

Other than being a dead human being, give me an example.

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 8:41 AM


Bethany,

"Enigma, are conjoined twins a lower class form of human beings?"

I never made that argument and I never will.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:07 AM


Bethany,
"Enigma, are conjoined twins a lower class form of human beings?"
I never made that argument and I never will.

Enigma, what is a human being who has less rights than other human beings?

If you won't afford conjoined twins with the same rights as other human beings, then you do not believe they are fully persons.


Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:11 AM


Not true. One can be a member of the human species without having human life.

That is ludicrous. Any living member of the human species has human life.


Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:16 AM


Hi Enigma,

"Cancer is not a foreign tissue but is the best/only option left to cells to maintain life. To do this 'immortality' flick they must structurally alter somewhat. This leaves immortal cells (cancer) alongside mortal cells (normal cells). Usually the proliferation rate of immortal cells outstrips normal cells, so cancer seems to grow. (These cells also do not differentiate (become other tissues).)"

I knew this, actually.

The anorexia-bit is not as weird as you believe. "Think about a refutation, rather than a "are you absurd?" retort."

I'm sorry, you just told me that I'm not a "complete" person because I'm not pregnant. I reserve my right to be insulted.

Would you ever tell a man that he's not a "complete" human being because he's not obeying his biological imperative to impregnate as many women as possible?

Would you ever tell a teenager that she/he is not a "complete" human being because she/he is not obeying her/his biological imperative to start having sex as soon as one can biologically reproduce?

If you didn't answer in the affirmative to both of these questions, then why on earth would you tell a woman that she can't be a "complete" person without being pregnant? That is misogyny.

"The will of a person does have limitations"

Yes, but this fact is not an argument in favor of forcing one to accept those limitations when one can, in fact, act to alter them.

"The womb exists for a reason. Abortion is not natural ... even miscarriage is viewed as something wrong whether or not the pregnancy was wanted."

Miscarriage happens for a reason. Generally the fetus has abnormalities that prevent it from developing normally. It is the body's natural rejection of a fetus. There is nothing unnatural about it.

So basically you're arguing that anything that is unnatural has no place in our world....Why are you on the internet again?

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:16 AM


MK,

"You are missing my question...I am asking, Where in our society is the taking of a human life by a third party for the autonomy or safety of another human being, occur."

Well, if you want get technical, this happens with the death penalty. Sometimes our courts make mistakes and sentence people to death when they are innocent.

"I'm not arguing innocent versus guilty, just asking for an example of another situation where a third party can legally take the life of another human being for the benefit of someone other than themselves."

There isn't one because abortion and pregnancy are unique situations.

"Other than being a dead human being, give me an example."

The concept of brain death. One's body can still be alive but if one's brain is dead (or not yet developed...think fetus) one does not have human life.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:19 AM


Miscarriage happens for a reason. Generally the fetus has abnormalities that prevent it from developing normally. It is the body's natural rejection of a fetus. There is nothing unnatural about it.

Actually, many times miscarriage can happen due to a health condition of the mother. Many times the baby was perfectly healthy, but the mother's body had a problem which caused the baby's premature death. This is why they will do blood tests to see if you have a health problem which could have caused the miscarriage. Believe me, I know. I just took 8 blood tests last month to see if I had any health problems which could have caused mine.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:22 AM


The concept of brain death. One's body can still be alive but if one's brain is dead (or not yet developed...think fetus) one does not have human life.

WHat kind of life is it? Feline life?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:23 AM


Bethany,

"Enigma, what is a human being who has less rights than other human beings?"

There are so many possible answers here....let's see...one could be an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenager, a mentally disabled person (they will have a guardian appointed to care for them if they are not mentally able), someone who has seizures (not able to drive and perform certain types of work), a convict (not able to vote), or an incarcerated person. I could probably go on but I think I've made my point.

"If you won't afford conjoined twins with the same rights as other human beings, then you do not believe they are fully persons."

Not true. I simply recognize the fact that their bodily autonomy is different due to the fact that they were born literally joined to another person. Since they impose upon each other equally, neither one's rights are being violated by the other. Thus they both must be consulted about matters pertinent to both of their physical bodies.

"That is ludicrous. Any living member of the human species has human life."

Two words: organ donation.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:25 AM


There are so many possible answers here....let's see...one could be an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenager, a mentally disabled person (they will have a guardian appointed to care for them if they are not mentally able), someone who has seizures (not able to drive and perform certain types of work), a convict (not able to vote), or an incarcerated person. I could probably go on but I think I've made my point.

Touche.

Not true. I simply recognize the fact that their bodily autonomy is different due to the fact that they were born literally joined to another person. Since they impose upon each other equally, neither one's rights are being violated by the other. Thus they both must be consulted about matters pertinent to both of their physical bodies.

What if it is not equally, Enigma?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:28 AM


Two words: organ donation.

Two words: so what?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:28 AM


Bethany,

"Actually, many times miscarriage can happen due to a health condition of the mother."

It can happen either because of the mother or because of the fetus. That still doesn't make it unnatural.

"WHat kind of life is it? Feline life?"

Human life in not defined by the body but by the mind.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:30 AM


Human life in not defined by the body but by the mind.

No, that's YOUR definition.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:32 AM


Bethany,

"What if it is not equally, Enigma? "

I don't know enough about the physiology of conjoined twins to get into a highly technical debate the topic but I maintain that physical conditions that one is born with can often end up impacting one's human rights.

The mentally handicapped person will never be able to have every human right that everyone has has because he/she lacks the mental capacity to comprehend them.

Does that mean that mentally handicapped people are somehow less than actual people? Not at all. It simply means that their physical state prohibits them from being able to enjoy all of the benefits that human rights entail. Is that unfair? Yes. Is there any other practical way to deal with the situation? No.

"Two words: so what?"

It reinforces the concept of brain death and demonstrates that one's body can still be alive without the person still existing.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:35 AM


Bethany,

"No, that's YOUR definition."

Really? I was under the impression that it was the established definition of medical science.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:36 AM


It reinforces the concept of brain death and demonstrates that one's body can still be alive without the person still existing.

The fact that people harvest others organs while they are still alive doesn't "prove" that a person doesn't exist while in a coma, any more than the fact that people have abortions "proves" that unborn children aren't human beings. Or that people used to own slaves "proved" that they were not persons.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:38 AM


Bethany,

Point. I could have phrased that better.

It should read, "It reinforces the concept of brain death and demonstrates the medical community's belief that one's body can still be alive without the person still existing.

"The fact that people harvest others organs while they are still alive doesn't "prove" that a person doesn't exist while in a coma,"

The person isn't in a coma when her/his organs are harvested, the person is brain dead.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 9:43 AM


Really? I was under the impression that it was the established definition of medical science.

Medical science. You mean the same medical science that brought us Thalidomide? lol The same science that used bloodletting to treat disease? Science has never failed, in your opinion?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:43 AM


Point. I could have phrased that better.

Okay, i replied before you rephrased it. Thanks.


The person isn't in a coma when her/his organs are harvested, the person is brain dead.

they claimed Terri Schiavo was brain dead too. I don't trust them.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:44 AM


A man whose family agreed to donate his organs for transplant upon his death was wrongly declared brain-dead by two doctors at a Fresno hospital, records and interviews show.

Only after the man's 26-year-old daughter and a nurse became suspicious was a third doctor, a neurosurgeon, brought in. He determined that John Foster, 47, was not brain-dead, a condition that would have cleared the way for his organs to be removed, records of the Feb. 21 incident show.

"It kind of blew my mind," said the daughter, Melanie Sanchez, "like they were waiting like vultures, waiting for someone to die so they could scoop them up."

Foster, who had suffered a brain hemorrhage, died 11 days later at Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno. By then, Sanchez said, his organs were not viable for donation.

The apparent close call is the second in recent months to raise questions about whether, amid a national organ shortage, doctors might be compromising the care of prospective donors. Law enforcement authorities in San Luis Obispo County are investigating whether a transplant surgeon tried to hasten the death of a 26-year-old patient last year by ordering high volumes of pain medication.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transplant12apr12,0,3456303.story

Things like this, they happen so frequently.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 9:53 AM


Bethany,

"Medical science. You mean the same medical science that brought us Thalidomide? lol The same science that used bloodletting to treat disease? Science has never failed, in your opinion?"

Yes, medical science has made mistakes in the past and will probably continue to make mistakes in the future. The beauty of the system lies in the fact that medical science is continually advancing and thus contains the tools necessary to improve and correct these mistakes.

Medical science goes off of the best information available at the time. Should we really deny that the best information currently available to medical science is invalid?

"they claimed Terri Schiavo was brain dead too. I don't trust them. "

No, they did not. They argued that all of her higher brain functions had ceased. In effect, the person who was Terri Schiavo was dead and all that was left was a minimally functioning body that lacked any form of consciousness.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 10:14 AM


Yes, medical science has made mistakes in the past and will probably continue to make mistakes in the future.

That is exactly my point. How can you rely on something that is ever changing? What's right today could be wrong tomorrow.

The beauty of the system lies in the fact that medical science is continually advancing and thus contains the tools necessary to improve and correct these mistakes.

And they could be correcting those mistakes with more mistakes. Will we ever know for sure?

Medical science goes off of the best information available at the time.

Which is exactly why "brain death" as the end of "human life" may change, and why you shouldn't use it as an absolute definition for "human life" being gone.

Should we really deny that the best information currently available to medical science is invalid?

Much of it is invalid, Enigma. That's just reality.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 10:31 AM


Enigma,

Well, if you want get technical, this happens with the death penalty. Sometimes our courts make mistakes and sentence people to death when they are innocent.

But this was unintentional. I'm looking for the intentional taking of a human life by a third party to promote the interests of a second party.

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 10:38 AM


Enigma,

The concept of brain death. One's body can still be alive but if one's brain is dead (or not yet developed...think fetus) one does not have human life.

You can't really believe that. That's, that's, well that's just "wrong"...

Not opinion, but defintion. We need a doctor or scientist on this website...

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 10:39 AM


Enigma,
RE above.

Either we are arguing human life or we are arguing personhood.

As I said in the original post, I'm arguing human life. I'm asking you for an example where a human being in not a human being. Not, not a person, but no longer a living homosapien. Not brain dead...but no longer a physical living human being.

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 11:00 AM


"death (death) (deth) the cessation of life; permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. For legal and medical purposes, the following definition of death has been proposed-the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous function of the respiratory system, and (3) spontaneous function of the circulatory system...

brain d[eath]. irreversible brain damage as manifested by absolute unresponsiveness to all stimuli, absence of all spontaneous muscle activity, including respiration, shivering, etc., and an isoelectric electroencephalogram for 30 minutes, all in the absence of hypothermia or intoxication by central nervous system depressants. Called also irreversible coma and cerebral d[eath]."

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 11:05 AM


You know, I find it odd that you cannot find a definitive definition of "life" on the web. Everyone is afraid to take a stand. You get really, watered down, uncommitted defintions, but nothing solid. I bet if I looked in a dictionary pre Roe V Wade I'd have no problems...

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 11:10 AM


Bethany,

"That is exactly my point. How can you rely on something that is ever changing? What's right today could be wrong tomorrow."

If we didn't rely on medical science in that way, many of the advancements that we have today would never have been found.

It's the nature of science that it can rarely ever be truly certain of something and that it continually seeks out the truth. That is not a weakness. Rather, it is a weakness to be so stuck on one conception of the truth that one can never change or advance.

"And they could be correcting those mistakes with more mistakes. Will we ever know for sure?"

Answered above. Additionally, knowing for sure is not required to perform an action.

"Which is exactly why "brain death" as the end of "human life" may change, and why you shouldn't use it as an absolute definition for "human life" being gone."

Until medical science disproves its current theories, society should use them as the best indicator that we have.

"Much of it is invalid, Enigma. That's just reality."

Previous findings, yes. But I defy you if you intend to argue that medical science has not benefited mankind and if its systematic search for truth by invalidating past beliefs has not been a vital part of that process.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 11:19 AM


MK,

The concept of brain death. One's body can still be alive but if one's brain is dead (or not yet developed...think fetus) one does not have human life.

"You can't really believe that. That's, that's, well that's just "wrong"..."

I can indeed believe it. It is not wrong or invalid until medical science disproves it. Religion and hearsay are far from definitive proof.

"Not opinion, but defintion. We need a doctor or scientist on this website..."

That definition that I gave you comes from a doctor I know.

"As I said in the original post, I'm arguing human life. I'm asking you for an example where a human being in not a human being. Not, not a person, but no longer a living homosapien. Not brain dead...but no longer a physical living human being."

I've already answered that. Whether or not one is a human being is dictated by brain activity. There is a difference between mindless cell activity and human life.

I would additionally be interested in seeing your response to this:

I didn't ask you why your argument was different, I asked you about your line of reasoning, or your logic, if you will. I asked because breaking down our arguments reveals that we are using parallel forms of logic.

You argued that in cases of esoteric pregnancy, even though the abortion performed kills the developing embryo, that the abortion is okay because the intent is not to kill the embryo but to save the life of the woman.

I argued that in cases of unwanted pregnancy, even though the abortion performed generally kills the developing embryo/fetus, that abortion is okay because the intent is not to kill the embryo/fetus but to restore the woman's bodily autonomy.

It's the same logic. So why does your application of that logic work while mine fails?

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 11:24 AM


MK....it looks like Medical Science is to Enigma, as the Bible is to us.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 11:27 AM


Bethany,

"MK....it looks like Medical Science is to Enigma, as the Bible is to us."

You say that as though its a bad thing.

I believe in science because it is self-correcting. It does not pretend to know everything that there is to know about the world. It promotes questioning and individual discovery.

Religion does not. It presents an absolute view of the world that can never change. It imprisons humanity; science sets them free.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 11:31 AM


I believe in science because it is self-correcting. It does not pretend to know everything that there is to know about the world. It promotes questioning and individual discovery.

So? It's frequently wrong. Why trust so surely in something that constantly changes from right to wrong, to right to wrong, again and again? There is nothing wrong with believing that Science does some good. It does. But relying on it so steadily, even when you know it has made so many errors over and over. I just don't get that. That's just not for me.

I prefer to trust in something solid. That's just my preference. You are more than welcome to continue believing in arbitrary truths which change on a daily basis. I don't mind.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 11:38 AM


It imprisons humanity; science sets them free.

Of course that is your opinion, because science is now your religion.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 11:39 AM


Bethany,

"So? It's frequently wrong. Why trust so surely in something that constantly changes from right to wrong, to right to wrong, again and again?"

Because it eventually leads to truth and the way in which it finds that truth allows one to be certain of the truth's accuracy. I would far rather believe something that was wrong and be able to change my belief than believe something that was wrong and never be able to correct it.

"But relying on it so steadily, even when you know it has made so many errors over and over. I just don't get that. That's just not for me."

Read above answer.

"I prefer to trust in something solid."

And what makes it true? Being unchanging is not a strength.

"Of course that is your opinion, because science is now your religion."

Believing in something does not make it my religion. I do not worship scientists nor do I worship their works. I believe it in as the best source of truth that we have. That does not make it my religion.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 12:14 PM


@Enigma.

" Really? I was under the impression that it was the established definition of medical science."

poor medicine and poorer science. SoMG is not a science wiz ... but sounds like him!

Posted by: John McDonell at November 8, 2007 12:19 PM


"I do not worship Scientists"

Really? It seems to me that you do.

Worship:
idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess;

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 12:55 PM


John and Bethany,

So now your arguments have deteriorated to the point of needlessly attacking me. Congratulations.

Bethany,

"Worship:
idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess;"

Who ever said that I don't question? I most certainly do not love science. I appreciate it for what it is.

John,

I give up. At this point you really do seem to be pointlessly trying to antagonize me.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 1:31 PM


Who ever said that I don't question?

Well, Enigma, you implied that I don't question things, simply because I believe in God.

Why is this implication so offensive to you, when turned around on yourself?

You can dish it out but can't take it, am I correct, Enigma?

To remind you of your words: "I believe in science because it is self-correcting. It does not pretend to know everything that there is to know about the world. It promotes questioning and individual discovery.

Religion does not. It presents an absolute view of the world that can never change. It imprisons humanity; science sets them free.
"

(P.S. I'm sorry if this offends you, but the above quote really does sound like worship. "I believe in Science", sounds as though Science itself is an entity which you worship.)

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 1:43 PM


Bethany,

"Well, Enigma, you implied that I don't question things, simply because I believe in God. Why is this implication so offensive to you, when turned around on yourself?"

Incorrect. I stated my belief that religion prevents one from questioning while you made yours a personal matter. There is a difference.

Mine was an academic point to be addressed in an academic way. Yours was not.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 1:53 PM


Incorrect. I stated my belief that religion prevents one from questioning while you made yours a personal matter. There is a difference.

No there isn't. The implication was the same and it was directed towards me and my beliefs.
You were describing the difference between your beliefs and mine (as you see it).

I had stated that you believe in Science like I believe in the Bible, to which you replied that religion makes one unable to question
(Which is false, by the way).

It was a direct implication towards me and my beliefs.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 2:13 PM


Bethany,

"No there isn't. The implication was the same and it was directed towards me and my beliefs.
You were describing the difference between your beliefs and mine (as you see it)."

After you said that science was to me what religion was you to and also after you had implicitly attacked my beliefs by saying that science can only yield temporary and arbitrary truth.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 4:57 PM


After you said that science was to me what religion was you to and also after you had implicitly attacked my beliefs by saying that science can only yield temporary and arbitrary truth.

You agreed with me about all of those things!

You agreed that science is proven wrong all the time. You agreed that truths that are proven right today will be proven wrong tomorrow in medical science. How is this an insult to YOU unless science is indeed your religion? Are you a Scientist?

You agreed with me that Science is to you as the Bible is to us, by saying, "You say that like it's a bad thing." You did not disagree.

So where did I insult YOU, Enigma?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 5:13 PM


Bethany,

"You agreed with me about all of those things!"

I said temporary, not arbitrary. There's a big difference there.

"You agreed that science is proven wrong all the time. You agreed that truths that are proven right today will be proven wrong tomorrow in medical science. How is this an insult to YOU unless science is indeed your religion? Are you a Scientist?"

Answered above.

"You agreed with me that Science is to you as the Bible is to us, by saying, "You say that like it's a bad thing." You did not disagree."

Have you ever heard of being facetious?

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 5:28 PM


I said temporary, not arbitrary. There's a big difference there.

Could you please explain the difference in an arbitrary truth and a temporary one?

Have you ever heard of being facetious?

Yes, but you did not disagree, even in your facetious state. I figured this meant that you agreed with me.

Do you disagree? Is Science NOT to you as the Bible is to me?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 5:29 PM


Wow, I keep coming into the room to reply at almost exactly the right time. :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 5:31 PM


Okay, Enigma...if you mean that they are temporary truths, as in 'they are true for a while, then become false'... Are you saying that, for instance, when medical science said that Thalidomide was safe for pregnancy, that it actually was safe...until it was proven unsafe?
Or was it actually unsafe when they declared it was safe?

Or when medical science says that coffee is good for your health, it actually is good for your health, then all of a sudden, when a new study that comes out saying it's bad for your health, then POOF! the actual structure of the coffee changes at that moment and it becomes bad for you?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2007 5:34 PM


Bethany,

"Could you please explain the difference in an arbitrary truth and a temporary one?"

Temporary simply means that it is not long lasting. Arbitrary, however, carries a much more negative connotation. If something is arbitrary it is capricious and unreasonable, based more on subjective interpretation than facts, reasons, or research. Scientific findings may be temporary but they are NOT arbitrary.

"Do you disagree? Is Science NOT to you as the Bible is to me?"

My previous statement was more a reflection of the inherent truth that can be found in science than anything. Science is not my religion.

I believe that science teaches us about the world and that it allows us to discover truth.

I do not worship it or revere it. I appreciate it for what it is and I recognize its flaws. I do not, however, live my life based solely on what science tells me.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 5:38 PM


It is a constantly evolving set of guidelines that allow us to discover.

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 5:39 PM


Enigma,

You have based the right to end a human life, and you have based the definition of human life, on "science"...I'd say that life being the single most important factor to any living being, that your "life" is solely based on what science tells you.


I mean, you've used science, not your conscience to justify taking lives...that sounds pretty extreme to me.

As to the question you asked me.

I did give you my logic. You just don't seem to want to accept it.

A woman's LIFE, not autonomy, but LIFE is on the line. 2 LIVES, not one life and autonomy, but 2 LIVES. This are not "subjectively" equal things, they are "objectively" equal things.

You are equating two "subjective" things. Autonomy (which you believe is not only equal to but more important than life) and Life.

I believe that Life is the greater of the two.

If a womans life is at stake, we have two objectively equal "rights" (for lack of a better word). Whose life wins? Well, we need to look at a number of things. One, what are the odds the the child will make it to birth. Can we keep the child in the womb to up it's chances. Are we willing to do EVERYTHING possible to save the childs life?

In abortion, two subjective desires are on the line. Life and autonomy. They are not objectively equal.

You will not do EVERYTHING possible to save the babies life. You do not even recognize the babies life. You do not give it dignity. You dismiss it.

This is the difference. We recognize the child as a seperate and equal human being, and our greatest desire is to preserve the life of both "HUMAN BEINGS"...you view only one as a human being and the other as so much garbage. That's where our reasoning differs.

In the intention of getting rid of one life vs. saving both, but taking the risk that one might not make it. We WANT both to live. You don't.

Posted by: mk at November 8, 2007 6:29 PM


Bethany,

"Okay, Enigma...if you mean that they are temporary truths, as in 'they are true for a while, then become false'"

Okay, you caught me. Occasionally I use shorthand that is not technically correct...this is one of those times. The truth never changes but whether or not we recognize it as truth does. So really the correct term would be "perceived truth" or "what is believed to be true."

So the correct phrase, instead of "temporary truth" would be "something temporarily perceived to be the truth before being disproven." See why I use shorthand?

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 7:43 PM


John M: There is a very strong correlation here to anorexia. The human body absolutely needs nutrients to survive (that's what it was structured to do). Because of the will, a person (usually a woman) will starve themselves to sickness/death to maintain a fantasy size.

This sounds very similar to this scenario. Could it be that similar brain patterns are operant for both scenarios? Is the will always a good place to demand compliance from?

John, anorexia is one thing, and not wanting to have kids, at least at a given time, is another.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 8, 2007 7:46 PM


If you won't afford conjoined twins with the same rights as other human beings, then you do not believe they are fully persons.

Bethany, it's not always possible, especially if we don't rule out having them both die.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 8, 2007 7:49 PM


Enigma: It reinforces the concept of brain death and demonstrates that one's body can still be alive without the person still existing.

I agree - it is our brains, personality, etc., that really make us people.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 8, 2007 7:51 PM


Doug,

Thank you. I'm not alone in a hostile world anymore!! YAY!

Posted by: Enigma at November 8, 2007 7:53 PM


Doug, Enigma,

No one is arguing that (at least not right now).
Enigma made a statement that we are not human beings unless we are able to "think". She didn't use the term "people" or "Persons"...she said HUMAN BEING.
Enigmas post: Not true. One can be a member of the human species without having human life.
In most abortions, this issue doesn't apply because the fetus does not have human life until the development of the brain. There is thus nothing to kill.


My post: Either we are arguing human life or we are arguing personhood.

As I said in the original post, I'm arguing human life. I'm asking you for an example where a human being in not a human being. Not, not a person, but no longer a living homosapien. Not brain dead...but no longer a physical living human being.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:00 AM


And what am I, Chopped Liver?

I've got two running debates going with Enigma. One, give me an example where a third party can legally, intentionally take the life of the first party to ensure the well being of the second party.

AND:

Give me an example of a living breathing homo sapien (whether brain dead or not) that is not a human being...

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:03 AM


MK,

"As I said in the original post, I'm arguing human life. I'm asking you for an example where a human being in not a human being. Not, not a person, but no longer a living homosapien. Not brain dead...but no longer a physical living human being."

That depends on your definition of living. If one defines human life by the possession of a working brain, it is possible for one to be physically alive (cells are alive and functioning) without being a human being.

"And what am I, Chopped Liver?"

No, actually, you are a human being.

"One, give me an example where a third party can legally, intentionally take the life of the first party to ensure the well being of the second party."

And I've already told you, the only time where this is permissible is in cases of abortion.

Pregnancy is a special case. To use your wording, the first party (aka the fetus) is physically dependant upon the second (aka the woman). It needs her to survive. Since, however, the second party is a human being with thoughts, feelings, and rights, the first party cannot impose upon her without her consent.

"Give me an example of a living breathing homo sapien (whether brain dead or not) that is not a human being..."

One ceases to be a human being when one ceases to have a functioning brain.

Posted by: Engima at November 9, 2007 7:46 AM


MK,

"I mean, you've used science, not your conscience to justify taking lives...that sounds pretty extreme to me."

Since I don't consider them lives, my conscience rests at east.

"I did give you my logic. You just don't seem to want to accept it."

We're still talking across purposes here. I did not ask you about your argument but the logic that you used to construct it.

In cases of abortion for esoteric pregnancy, you argued that the outcome (ie. the death of the fetus) did not define the intent.

Yet in cases of other abortions, you argue that the outcome (ie. the death of the fetus) defines the intent. Why?

We used parallel forms of logic to explain why the outcome did not define the intent.

You argue that the intent of abortion is always to kill the fetus. But that is simply not true. Women want to prevent the fetus from residing inside of them, they do not wish to destroy its potential for life. Simply because most times abortion does result in the destruction of a fetus does not mean that that destruction was the intent.

You further argue in cases of esoteric pregnancy that the purpose of an abortion is not to kill the fetus but to save the woman's life. Yet abortions at this stage always result in the destruction of the fetus (actually, I think its an embryo at this stage). So why does this destruction not define the intent of this type of abortion when similar destruction defines the intent of other abortions?

"This is the difference. We recognize the child as a seperate and equal human being, and our greatest desire is to preserve the life of both "HUMAN BEINGS"...you view only one as a human being and the other as so much garbage. That's where our reasoning differs."

That wasn't my question. I was, and still am, asking how, according to you, the outcome defines intent in some cases and not in others.

"We WANT both to live. You don't."

Women do not want to destroy their fetus they simply want them out of their bodies. There is a difference.

"This are not "subjectively" equal things, they are "objectively" equal things."

According to you. But, last time I checked, you did not have a monopoly on defining "objective" and "subjective."

Posted by: Enigma at November 9, 2007 7:59 AM


MK,

I think we can get back to my "why isn't a child an adult question" using an analogy you came up with earlier.

According to your argument, you have made cookies as soon as you mix the ingredients because at the moment when you first mixed them everything that they needed to become cookies (save time) was present within them.

Using that logic, could I also say that the moment you have mixed the dough that you have made stale cookies since everything that they need to become stale cookies is within them as well? Why or why not?

Posted by: Enigma at November 9, 2007 8:02 AM


Since I don't consider them lives, my conscience rests at east.

I think you are missing the point, Enigma. If it were not for "science" and "it's" definition of "human life", we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, would we?

Because you, by your own admission, used to be pro-life, until something happened that you decided God should not have allowed, and then you, Enigma, turned against Him because of this, again by your own admission, and traded God for "Science". Something with which you feel more "secure".

Enigma, you are afraid to trust GOD, because you feel GOD has let you down, even though, if you'll be honest with yourself, God never promised you would not have pain in your life. He never promised that you would never experience the loss of a loved one, or that others would not experience abuse or poverty, hardships, etc. Instead of trusting that God was sovereign and knew what He was doing in your life, and the life of others around you, you gave up on him. Because you were afraid...you were afraid to trust Him. Instead, you chose to trust SCIENCE.

Enigma, your original conscience told you that killing unborn babies was wrong. You admitted this to me. (I think you still know it in your subconscious today, but your conscience is too hardened at this point to acknowledge it).

Recent "science" told you otherwise, that killing unborn babies was NOT wrong, because they are not really "human beings".

You chose to listen to "Science" instead of your original conscience, because you are angry with God.

You seared your original feelings and undersanding on the matter, all because of 1.) anger at God, 2.) SCIENCE seemed to be the solution to your problem.

Your original CONSCIENCE, by your own admission, was telling you what was right and wrong, and that abortion was wrong, before you changed your mind, admittedly, due to the definition that MEDICAL SCIENCE gave to you about "brain death".

This is why I say that Science is now your religion. You traded worship for God, for worship of Science.

You base life and death decisions on something that you know and recognize is deeply flawed, and fluctuates on a daily basis, rather than what you knew in your heart was right all along.

Your conscious has been seared, Enigma. Of course your conscious rests in ease. It's numb now. I do not say this to offend you.

This is simply what I have observed from what you yourself have told me and others on this board. Now do you understand what I mean, when I say that you worship Science?

Posted by: Bethany at November 9, 2007 1:45 PM


You argue that the intent of abortion is always to kill the fetus. But that is simply not true. Women want to prevent the fetus from residing inside of them, they do not wish to destroy its potential for life. Simply because most times abortion does result in the destruction of a fetus does not mean that that destruction was the intent.
You further argue in cases of esoteric pregnancy that the purpose of an abortion is not to kill the fetus but to save the woman's life. Yet abortions at this stage always result in the destruction of the fetus (actually, I think its an embryo at this stage). So why does this destruction not define the intent of this type of abortion when similar destruction defines the intent of other abortions?

Enigma, I think you have our position here confused. We do not think that abortion is EVER necessary. If the mother's life is in jeopardy during pregnancy, we believe that doctors should do everything they can to save BOTH lives involved. If the baby is lost during the process of trying to save both lives, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome, NOT the intended result.

Posted by: Bethany at November 9, 2007 1:57 PM


Using that logic, could I also say that the moment you have mixed the dough that you have made stale cookies since everything that they need to become stale cookies is within them as well? Why or why not?

Enigma, they would still be "cookies", regardless of what condition they were in, or what stage of development they were in. Just as a "Embryo", a "newborn", and a "toddler" (dough) are still "human being's", and a ("stale cookie") "senior citizen" is a "human being", in ******ESSENCE******,

a cookie is still a cookie from the moment the ingredients are mixed, and till they turn stale. As long as the ESSENCE is there, the COOKIE is there.

A human is still a human being from the moment of conception, from the moment of conception till the moment of death. As long as the ESSENCE is still there, the human being is there.


Posted by: Bethany at November 9, 2007 2:03 PM


Bethany,

"I think you are missing the point, Enigma. If it were not for "science" and "it's" definition of "human life", we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, would we?"

Actually, we probably would. Humans do not have the right to impose upon one another bodily even if such imposition is necessary to sustain life.

"Because you, by your own admission, used to be pro-life, until something happened that you decided God should not have allowed, and then you, Enigma, turned against Him because of this, again by your own admission, and traded God for "Science". Something with which you feel more "secure"."

You've either got me confused with someone else or misunderstood something that I said.

I used to believe in God, that is true, but I was never against abortion rights. Before you start with the impossibility of being Christian while supporting abortion rights let me assure you that at that point I was too young to have much of an opinion on the subject.

I also supported science and believed the it could allow us to discover truth before I rejected the possibility of the existence of a God.

"Enigma, you are afraid to trust GOD, because you feel GOD has let you down, even though, if you'll be honest with yourself, God never promised you would not have pain in your life."

Yeah, see, this is why I don't really tell anyone anything about me. Make any argument that you wish, but know that any attempt to either preach or condemn will only backfire terribly.

"Enigma, your original conscience told you that killing unborn babies was wrong. You admitted this to me."

Never said this. I have said that I used to believe that zygotes/embryos/fetuses had human life at every stage of development but I was never against abortion rights.

"You chose to listen to "Science" instead of your original conscience, because you are angry with God."

As I recall, when I first considered this issue, I was decidedly "pro-choice." There is nothing unconscionable after refusing to give a z/e/f rights that human beings do not possess.

"Your original CONSCIENCE, by your own admission, was telling you what was right and wrong, and that abortion was wrong, before you changed your mind, admittedly, due to the definition that MEDICAL SCIENCE gave to you about "brain death"."

Actually, my thoughts about brain death and its relation to abortion are quite recent.

"This is why I say that Science is now your religion. You traded worship for God, for worship of Science."

Actually, I didn't. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but I believed that science could reveal truth long before I rejected God.

"Your conscious has been seared, Enigma. Of course your conscious rests in ease. It's numb now. I do not say this to offend you."

It doesn't. Have any perception of me that you wish; I will, however, guarantee that nothing you think of me comes anywhere close to the mark.

"This is simply what I have observed from what you yourself have told me and others on this board. Now do you understand what I mean, when I say that you worship Science?"

Based on your misunderstandings my positions, yes, I do.

Posted by: Enigma at November 9, 2007 2:11 PM


Well, darn it.

I looked and looked, and finally found the post that made me think that was your position before. It was a misunderstanding.

This is what you had said:

"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),"

And MK responded:

"Do tell, what argument was that?"

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

I felt that what you were saying that this was the discussion that turned you from pro-life to pro-choice, but obviously, I was wrong about your past position. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Bethany at November 9, 2007 2:56 PM


I also supported science and believed the it could allow us to discover truth before I rejected the possibility of the existence of a God.

I agree with that... Science is a great tool which I believe goes right hand in hand with God.

But I believe that there are a lot of "Scientists" who distort truth, and there are a lot of people who blindly trust them before doing the research themselves. That's why you'll see me use "Science" in quotes, or Science without quotes. The one in quotes represents misuse of Science.

I think that Science, studying the world around us, understanding how things work, how our bodies work, learning about medicine, etc... is VERY good, and we should always be exploring and discovering. But when we use Science to give us excuse to harm other human beings for our own selfishness, it ceases to be objective truth, and instead becomes something entirely different.

Science should be used to HELP people, not to harm them, in my opinion.

Posted by: Bethany at November 9, 2007 3:03 PM


Enigma,

In cases of abortion for esoteric pregnancy, you argued that the outcome (ie. the death of the fetus) did not define the intent.

Yet in cases of other abortions, you argue that the outcome (ie. the death of the fetus) defines the intent. Why?

Again...because we would do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to save the baby. We do NOT WANT the baby to go away. It is an unfortunate consequence.

You WANT the baby to go away. You will do NOTHING to save the baby. The baby to you IS the problem. To us, the death of the baby is to be avoided if at all possible. The baby is NOT the problem to us. The problem is whatever is keeping the baby and mother from doing their jobs...ie ectopic, diabetes, rh factor, etc.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 5:56 PM


Enigma,

Since I don't consider them lives, my conscience rests at ease.

That's my point...you've used science to come to that conclusion. That tells me that you ARE in fact using science in the same way we use religion. You have decided that these are not human lives, based on science. We have decided that they are based on common sense and religion.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:14 PM


Enigma,

"One, give me an example where a third party can legally, intentionally take the life of the first party to ensure the well being of the second party."
*
And I've already told you, the only time where this is permissible is in cases of abortion.
*
Pregnancy is a special case.

I once argued that pregnancy was a special case too. That argument got thrown right out. There is no other situation in which one person requires the use of another person to remain alive. This is why the bond between mother and child is so incredibly special. And why it shouldn't be broken by the mother ending the life of her child. Especially since it was the mothers actions (whether her consent was involved or not, her responsibility remains the same) that brought this life into existence in the beginning. It is just common decency and common sense.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:18 PM



LIFE
is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:21 PM


According to you. But, last time I checked, you did not have a monopoly on defining "objective" and "subjective."

They are OBJECTIVELY equal, not because I say so, but because they are identical. Life and Life.

Not apples and oranges. But apples and apples.

Not Life versus Autonomy. Life vs LIFE!!
That's why they are objectively equal.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:24 PM


Enigma,

One ceases to be a human being when one ceases to have a functioning brain.

One ceases to be a human being when one is dead!

Definition of Death

Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:28 PM


Enigma,

We know that what is growing inside of a woman is human. DNA testing can prove that.

According to the definition (Which is from Wikipedia, by the way) of Life, we can see that the unborn entity is ALIVE at all stages from the moment of conception.

And from the definition of death, the accepted medical criteria for pronouncing someone legally dead, we know that this human is NOT DEAD.

Therefore it is a human life. I see no difference between a human life and a human being, and unless you want to argue personhood, I think you'd have to agree.

What we have here is a human being. A living human organism. Personhood is a legal term. Human life is, and you should love this, is a SCIENTIFIC term.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:32 PM


human being
–noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
*
human being
n. A human.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human%20being

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:37 PM


Enigma,

"We WANT both to live. You don't."
*
Women do not want to destroy their fetus they simply want them out of their bodies. There is a difference.

No Enigma, you don't just want them out of your bodies. If you did you'd wait til they were viable to "take them out"...You want them GONE...from the face of the earth.

At the very least you DON'T CARE if they are destroyed. To you, this is business as usual.

In our scenario, if the life is lost as a "consequence" to saving the mother, we mourn that loss. We mourn that LIFE. You are just thrilled that it's not your problem anymore.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:40 PM


Enigma,

That wasn't my question. I was, and still am, asking how, according to you, the outcome defines intent in some cases and not in others.

The outcome is the same to you. It is not defining the intent. The intent is there from the beginning.
You intend to remove a "problem" from your life. Again, We don't view the baby as the problem. We view whatever is causing the necessity of removing the baby as the problem.

The intent is very different.

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 6:43 PM


Enigma,

One ceases to be a human being when one ceases to have a functioning brain.

We joke alot about pregnant women having fetus showers and feeling their embryo move...and how in "normal" conversation we just say "Oh, the baby moved" or "Were you invited to Sarah's Baby shower?"

But this takes the cake. Do you go to funerals and say I'm sorry for the loss of your cadaver?

Is the body in the casket not a dead "person"? Is it not a human being that has simply ceased living? A dead human being if you will?

Honestly, this has gotten to the point of ludicrous! This semantics game that abortion has caused.

There was a time when pregnant women expected babies, dead people were just that, dead "PEOPLE" and we didn't just suddenly hop species because our brains weren't working to full capacity. In my world, when two humans successfully mate, they create new humans. These humans are born, live as humans and then die, remaining humans the whole time. I'm beginning to think that some of you come from other planets. lol. It's insane. The whole thing is just bloody nuts.

As to the whole cookie thing. A cookie is a cookie is a cookie. Now if you want me to describe, not define, but describe the cookie, I could say it was chocolate chip, or hot, or raw, or cold or old, or fresh...but these are descriptive terms. Not definiitive terms.

I've go 5 balls. They are all balls. One is red. One is small. One is hard. One is soft and one has a hole in it. They are ALL balls. Even the one with a hole in it is still a ball. A broken, useless ball, but it didn't suddenly become a bicycle or cease being a ball.

You are using the word stale to define a cookie, but it only describes a cookie.

Just like the word fetus describes but does not define a human being.

Here I have a human being.

OH, really? What kind of a human being do you have?

I have a fetus.

Oh, I don't have a fetal human being. I have an aged human being.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THEY ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

Posted by: mk at November 9, 2007 7:00 PM


Bethany,

"Enigma, I think you have our position here confused. We do not think that abortion is EVER necessary. If the mother's life is in jeopardy during pregnancy, we believe that doctors should do everything they can to save BOTH lives involved."

And what if there is not way to save the embryo? What about esoteric preganancy?

"If the baby is lost during the process of trying to save both lives, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome, NOT the intended result."

What if there is no difference and there is not other way to save the woman than to abort the fetus?

"Enigma, they would still be "cookies", regardless of what condition they were in, or what stage of development they were in. Just as a "Embryo", a "newborn", and a "toddler" (dough) are still "human being's", and a ("stale cookie") "senior citizen" is a "human being", in ******ESSENCE******,"

That argument was never designed to dispute humanness. To break it down to its simplest form, it is designed to find the cutoff point between different states.

MK has argued that from the moment of conception onward a baby is created because everything that is needed to produce the baby is there. So I asked why, using that logic and nothing else, a child was not an adult. After all, the child has everything within it that it needs to become an adult.


Posted by: Enigma at November 9, 2007 7:43 PM


Bethany,

"I looked and looked, and finally found the post that made me think that was your position before. It was a misunderstanding.I felt that what youwere saying that this was the discussion that turned you from pro-life to pro-choice, but obviously, I was wrong about your past position. Sorry about that."

Not a big deal.

"I agree with that... Science is a great tool which I believe goes right hand in hand with God."

Genuine question here...I'm not poking fun at anyone or anything...than why do science and religion seem to conflict all the time?

"Science should be used to HELP people, not to harm them, in my opinion."

Agreed...but since I do not believe that there are people to harm in abortion, it does not contradict with my beliefs in this area.

Posted by: Enigma at November 9, 2007 7:46 PM


MK,

"Again...because we would do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to save the baby. We do NOT WANT the baby to go away. It is an unfortunate consequence."

And what if the embryo/fetus "has to go away?" Isn't your intent then to remove it

"The baby is NOT the problem to us. The problem is whatever is keeping the baby and mother from doing their jobs...ie ectopic, diabetes, rh factor, etc."

If the fetus isn't the problem, then why are abortions to save the life of the mother acceptable? After all, that fetus is just as innocent as the one aborted for other reasons.

"That's my point...you've used science to come to that conclusion."

Actually, I didn't need science to tell me that. If you haven't noticed from my arguments, I'm more into philosophy than science.

To me it doesn't matter if its life or not. Fetuses should not be granted rights that are super-human.

"You have decided that these are not human lives, based on science."

And even if I thought they were it would make no difference to my position.

"I once argued that pregnancy was a special case too. That argument got thrown right out. There is no other situation in which one person requires the use of another person to remain alive."

So you're arguing that since the z/e/f needs the woman to survive, it should have a free pass? This is why the "pro-life" argument is inherently misogynistic. You're saying to that women have less rights to their body than other people (to use your terminology) do.

"This is why the bond between mother and child is so incredibly special. And why it shouldn't be broken by the mother ending the life of her child."

This is based on an archaic, misleading, false, and damaging perception of woman and motherhood. Not all women want to be mothers. Not all woman feel a special bond with their child.

"Especially since it was the mothers actions (whether her consent was involved or not, her responsibility remains the same) that brought this life into existence in the beginning."

False. Obligation is only assumed through consent. She has no obligation to the fetus unless she had sex intending to become pregnant. She should not be punished for the natural biological processes of her body, especially if she cannot control them.

"It is just common decency and common sense."

To you. But that doesn't make it universal or true.

Posted by: Enigma at November 9, 2007 7:55 PM


Enigma,

Genuine question here...I'm not poking fun at anyone or anything...than why do science and religion seem to conflict all the time?

I don't think it does happen ALL the time. And when it does it usually means that one or the other side changes. The Church doesn't claim to have the answer to scientific questions, only moral ones.

Take the example of stem cell research. The church recognizes that stem cells can produce much good in the world of medicine, but it also recognizes that using human embryos is not only unnecessary, but immoral. We are not denying the "truth" of the science, only the morality.

And Catholic's have led the way in much of the scientific world.

We have astronomers, doctors, scientists, anthropologists...many sciences would not have advanced at all, save for the contributions of the Church.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 7:33 AM


Enigma,

If the fetus isn't the problem, then why are abortions to save the life of the mother acceptable? After all, that fetus is just as innocent as the one aborted for other reasons.

We can play the semantics game too. We don't consider this an abortion. We consider this a necessary step to save the mothers life.

Science has not advanced yet to the point where that little ectopic baby could survive. Nature/God has already made that decision for us.
If it could be any other way, then that is the way we could choose. It would be impossible to save the life of the baby, therefore we are simply accepting reality. We did not cause the ectopic prenancy. We cannot fix the extopic pregnancy.

You however, will go to a place whose sole purpose is the taking of these lives. No other goal, no other intent, no other desire. Only the goal of ending the life of the baby so that the mother can, not LIVE, but have convenience.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 7:37 AM


Enigma,

So you're arguing that since the z/e/f needs the woman to survive, it should have a free pass? This is why the "pro-life" argument is inherently misogynistic. You're saying to that women have less rights to their body than other people (to use your terminology) do.


You just used the argument that it is a special case. I'm using the same argument.

Nature designed it this way. There is nothing mysoginistic about it. It just is. The woman carries the child. It's unique. Therefore it requires unique rules.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 7:39 AM


Enigma,

To me it doesn't matter if its life or not. Fetuses should not be granted rights that are super-human.

You keep saying this, but where is it written that no one can use another person to live if that's what is required? Circumstances (that you have brought about, I might mention again and again) warrant that this is how it is. Show me where it is written, that party A can kill party B because it doesn't have the right to live off of party A.

And the kidney thing doesn't work, because allowing someone to die is not the same as actively causing someone to die.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 7:42 AM


Enigma,

False. Obligation is only assumed through consent. She has no obligation to the fetus unless she had sex intending to become pregnant. She should not be punished for the natural biological processes of her body, especially if she cannot control them.

This is your perception, and as you are so good at pointing out, just because you see it that way doesn't make it so.

Where I come from, if you perform an action willingly then all consequences resulting from that action are your responsibility.

If I break into someones house, and in the process choose to shoot the owner, even if that was not my original intent, I am responsible for his death. Why? Because I made a choice that started a series of consequences. A choice that led to other choices. A choice that caused a result that would not have happened except for the choice that I made.

We call that responsibility. I call trying to weasel out of that responsibility immaturity.

responsibility
n 1: the social force that binds you to your obligations and the
courses of action demanded by that force: "we must
instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right
implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an
obligation; every possession, a duty"- John
D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty, obligation]
2: the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his
province to take care of himself" [syn: province]
3: a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to
someone for something or being responsible for one's
conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility"
[syn: responsibleness] [ant: irresponsibility, irresponsibility]

http://dict.die.net/responsibility/


re·spon·si·ble (r-spns-bl)
adj.
1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
3. Being a source or cause.
4. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
5. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
6. Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
7. Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
8. Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible


If you consent to an action, then all resulting consequences of that action are YOUR responsibility.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 7:50 AM


Enigma,

This is based on an archaic, misleading, false, and damaging perception of woman and motherhood. Not all women want to be mothers. Not all woman feel a special bond with their child.

No one is arguing that. But if you CHOOSE not to be a mother, then it would be prudent to CHOOSE not to perform the action that causes motherhood. Again, common sense.

And while you may not agree that this is common sense, by definition, common sense means what is most commonly accepted. You are the exception, not the norm.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 7:58 AM


MK,

"They are OBJECTIVELY equal, not because I say so, but because they are identical. Life and Life."

That also depends on how you define human life. I do not think that the fetus possess human life (which is different from physical life) so the fetus's potential cannot possibly by objectively equal to the woman's life.

"One ceases to be a human being when one is dead!"

There is a difference between physical life and possessing the qualities that define human life.

One is based on cell respiration and function.

The other is based solely on the brain.

Posted by: Enimga at November 10, 2007 10:45 AM


MK,

"We know that what is growing inside of a woman is human. DNA testing can prove that."

DNA does not a human being make.

"According to the definition (Which is from Wikipedia, by the way) of Life, we can see that the unborn entity is ALIVE at all stages from the moment of conception."

I cringe every time someone uses Wikipedia as a source. It's not reliable.

As stated before, there is a difference between physical life and human life.

"And from the definition of death, the accepted medical criteria for pronouncing someone legally dead, we know that this human is NOT DEAD."

And yet again you're making a point that is irrelevant to my argument. That state of the fetus should have no bearing on whether or not a woman has the right to obtain an abortion.

"Therefore it is a human life. I see no difference between a human life and a human being, and unless you want to argue personhood, I think you'd have to agree."

I'm feeling like a broken record here...but whether or not one is considered to possess human life (as opposed to physical life) is defined according to the brain.

"Human life is, and you should love this, is a SCIENTIFIC term."

My arguments are based more on my personal philosophies than science.

"No Enigma, you don't just want them out of your bodies. If you did you'd wait til they were viable to "take them out"...You want them GONE...from the face of the earth."

Not true. Why should a woman have to sacrifice nine months of her life before she can get her body back? The decision to get an abortion is not made out of malice but out of a desire to reclaim her body before the nine month mark.

"At the very least you DON'T CARE if they are destroyed."

I'd prefer if they weren't, but lacking any other alternative, I see no viable course of action in this regard.

"You are just thrilled that it's not your problem anymore."

No one is thrilled to get an abortion. Though it is not an easy decision it can be the best one.

Posted by: Enigma at November 10, 2007 10:54 AM


Enigma,

As stated before, there is a difference between physical life and human life.

You keep saying that and then I give you sources like dictionary definitions and wikipedia and you blast them. But you have never offered one iota of proof or any source that says that there is a difference between physical life and human life.

Probably, because there isn't any.

If you put the simple wore "A" in front of human life, you change the argument from life to personhood. But other than that, I'm sorry, but without proof I do not accept that a physically living human entity is not human life. And furthermore, I believe that it is A human life.

Until you can show me otherwise, I will go with the tried and true idea that scientifically, if it walks like a duck...if it is alive, and it is human by process of elimination (ie: it ain't vegetable, and it ain't a platypus) then it is a human life. Anything else sounds like insantiy to me.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:48 PM


Enigma,

I'm feeling like a broken record here...but whether or not one is considered to possess human life (as opposed to physical life) is defined according to the brain.

You feel like a broken record? How do you think I feel?

You keep saying this, but offer nothing to back it up and expect me to just accept something that makes no logical sense.

Also you argue whether it is a human life, and when I get this close to showing you that it is a human life, you cop out and say it doesn't matter whether it is or not.

Our entire argument is based on the fact that it IS a human life and therefore has the same right to life as any other human being.

Your argument seems to be that it ISN'T a human life but it wouldn't matter if it was because it still doesn't have an equal right to life as the mother.

Which argument do you wish to pursue. The human one, or the right to take a human life if it interferes with autonomy?

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:53 PM


Enigma,

No one is thrilled to get an abortion

You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say anyone was thrilled to get an abortion. I said they are thrilled that the problem is gone. The problem being the baby.

The decision to get an abortion is not made out of malice but out of a desire to reclaim her body before the nine month mark.

Nobody said a word about malice. I believe I used the word indifference. Cold, calculated, indifference. The motive is selfishness.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:56 PM


Enigma,

My arguments are based more on my personal philosophies than science.

Which is exactly why they fall apart. And why you can't show me anything to back them up.

I have science AND religion on my side. What do you have?

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:57 PM


Enigma,

One is based on cell respiration and function.
The other is based solely on the brain.

Where are you getting this stuff from? It's such bizarre thinking that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it...help me out here. Is this just something you came up with all on your own?

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 1:01 PM


You feel like a broken record? How do you think I feel?
You keep saying this, but offer nothing to back it up and expect me to just accept something that makes no logical sense.
Also you argue whether it is a human life, and when I get this close to showing you that it is a human life, you cop out and say it doesn't matter whether it is or not.
Our entire argument is based on the fact that it IS a human life and therefore has the same right to life as any other human being.
Your argument seems to be that it ISN'T a human life but it wouldn't matter if it was because it still doesn't have an equal right to life as the mother.
Which argument do you wish to pursue. The human one, or the right to take a human life if it interferes with autonomy?

Posted by: Bethany at November 10, 2007 1:15 PM


MK,

"I don't think it does happen ALL the time. And when it does it usually means that one or the other side changes."

History would speak against that. Or, if change does occur, its fought tooth and nail and lots of people die or are tortured in the process.

"We are not denying the "truth" of the science, only the morality."

And what makes your definition of morality correct?

"And Catholic's have led the way in much of the scientific world."

I do give the Catholic Church credit for not denying evolution but this is stretching it.

If that's true, why the dark ages? Why did the Church stifle Galileo?

"many sciences would not have advanced at all, save for the contributions of the Church."

Unbiased sources please.

"We don't consider this an abortion. We consider this a necessary step to save the mothers life."

So then what is it? The correct medical term for the procedure performed is "abortion."

"You however, will go to a place whose sole purpose is the taking of these lives."

Since fetuses only have potential life, I'm only advocating removing said potential in order to preserve the rights of those who have actualized their potential.

"Nature designed it this way. There is nothing mysoginistic about it. It just is. The woman carries the child. It's unique. Therefore it requires unique rules."

That's even more misogynistic. So nature designed so that women, simply because they are women, are not afforded the same rights to their bodies that men are.

"You keep saying this, but where is it written that no one can use another person to live if that's what is required? Circumstances (that you have brought about, I might mention again and again) warrant that this is how it is. Show me where it is written, that party A can kill party B because it doesn't have the right to live off of party A."

Where would it have to be written before you would accept it? The Bible? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence?

In any case, before viability there is nothing to kill.

Posted by: Enigma at November 10, 2007 2:27 PM


MK,

"You keep saying that and then I give you sources like dictionary definitions and wikipedia and you blast them."

Wikipedia doesn't work because its not a reliable source. All of the information it contains is not necessarily correct. There's a reason you can't use it as a source in an academic paper.

Dictionaries can be influenced by common usage, which is not necessarily correct.

"But you have never offered one iota of proof or any source that says that there is a difference between physical life and human life."

That's why I brought up organ donation and brain death, to demonstrate that there is a difference in how the medical community views a body that possesses physical life versus one that possesses human life.

"If you put the simple wore "A" in front of human life, you change the argument from life to personhood. But other than that, I'm sorry, but without proof I do not accept that a physically living human entity is not human life."

And that belief is unsupported by the medical community at large.

"And furthermore, I believe that it is A human life."

Believe whatever you wish. Believing, however, is not enough to make it true.

I have science and medicine on my side. What do you have?

"Until you can show me otherwise, I will go with the tried and true idea that scientifically, if it walks like a duck...if it is alive, and it is human by process of elimination (ie: it ain't vegetable, and it ain't a platypus) then it is a human life. Anything else sounds like insantiy to me."

That's not science.

Enigma,

I'm feeling like a broken record here...but whether or not one is considered to possess human life (as opposed to physical life) is defined according to the brain.

You feel like a broken record? How do you think I feel?

You keep saying this, but offer nothing to back it up and expect me to just accept something that makes no logical sense.

Also you argue whether it is a human life, and when I get this close to showing you that it is a human life, you cop out and say it doesn't matter whether it is or not.

Our entire argument is based on the fact that it IS a human life and therefore has the same right to life as any other human being.

Your argument seems to be that it ISN'T a human life but it wouldn't matter if it was because it still doesn't have an equal right to life as the mother.

Which argument do you wish to pursue. The human one, or the right to take a human life if it interferes with autonomy?
Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:53 PM

Enigma,

No one is thrilled to get an abortion

You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say anyone was thrilled to get an abortion. I said they are thrilled that the problem is gone. The problem being the baby.

The decision to get an abortion is not made out of malice but out of a desire to reclaim her body before the nine month mark.

Nobody said a word about malice. I believe I used the word indifference. Cold, calculated, indifference. The motive is selfishness.
Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:56 PM

Enigma,

My arguments are based more on my personal philosophies than science.

Which is exactly why they fall apart. And why you can't show me anything to back them up.

I have science AND religion on my side. What do you have?
Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 12:57 PM

Posted by: Enimga at November 10, 2007 2:33 PM


Oops, I forgot to respond to your last comment.

"I have science and religion on my side."

Since science sides against you, you only have religion.

Religion is not truth. Religious truth is, in any case, completely subjective. There is not a single religion that offers objective truth.

Posted by: Enigma at November 10, 2007 2:35 PM


MK,

"You keep saying this, but offer nothing to back it up and expect me to just accept something that makes no logical sense."

So medical understandings of the concept of brain death and then the fact that the medical community is so certain of this belief that it acts upon it with organ donation means nothing to you.

"Also you argue whether it is a human life, and when I get this close to showing you that it is a human life, you cop out and say it doesn't matter whether it is or not."

You haven't come anywhere near close to showing me. It has potential human life. Nothing more.

And I say it doesn't matter because if you're trying to change my mind, which I know you are, that is not the way to go about it.

Furthermore, the personhood argument is an attempt to obscure the real issue. The whole debate is based on the fact that some people can't stand that woman now have the same rights to their bodies that men always have. They want to turn back the clock and make women second-class citizens again who don't even have rights to their own bodies.

"Our entire argument is based on the fact that it IS a human life and therefore has the same right to life as any other human being."

But you're trying to give it rights that human beings do not possess. No human being has the right to use another so that he/she can retain his/her life.

"Your argument seems to be that it ISN'T a human life but it wouldn't matter if it was because it still doesn't have an equal right to life as the mother."

Partially correct but your analysis fails on a very basic level. I do not believe that a fetus (post-viability) does not possess an equal right to life as the mother. I simply believe that the right to life does not give one the right to use another even if such usage is necessary for life.

"Which argument do you wish to pursue. The human one, or the right to take a human life if it interferes with autonomy?"

Since you've misstated both of them, neither.

"Nobody said a word about malice. I believe I used the word indifference. Cold, calculated, indifference. The motive is selfishness."

There is nothing selfish about asserting one's rights.

"Which is exactly why they fall apart. And why you can't show me anything to back them up."

I have, you simply won't accept it.

My arguments have yet to fall apart and you have yet to prove a single point that you have tried to make.

"I have science AND religion on my side. What do you have?"

Discussed above. Furthermore, there is nothing about religion that makes it any better than personal philosophy.

Posted by: Enigma at November 10, 2007 2:47 PM


Enigma,

History would speak against that. Or, if change does occur, its fought tooth and nail and lots of people die or are tortured in the process.

That's a pretty huge accusation...I think you'll need to back it up.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:23 PM


Enigma,

And what makes your definition of morality correct?

Obviously, I can't prove this, and I never claimed that I could.

YOU said that the church and science are at odds. I said that the church is not in the business of science, but rather morality. I do not believe that the Church disputes scientific fact. Only the morality of how these facts are used.

Nowhere did I say that the Catholic church can be proven to have cornered the market on morality. And that was not your assertion. Your assertion was that the two were at odds. My response was that on matters of scientific fact, no they are not.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:26 PM


Enigma,

That's even more misogynistic. So nature designed so that women, simply because they are women, are not afforded the same rights to their bodies that men are.

No, nature designed it so that when you have sex, you can become pregnant. Nature also designed that women are the sex that carry their progeny.

Nature is not in the business of affording or removing rights. It just "is" what it "is"...you are the one that has created these rights. You are the one that believes bodily autonomy is a right. I don't accept the concept that bodily autonomy must be had at all costs. Sorry. I think bodily autonomy is waaaaaay down their on the list of important rights that a person has, especially when it comes to the right to life. And every right comes with an equal or greater responsibility. Otherwise it is license, not a right. I believe that your "right" as you call it to autonomy is a man made right, created to justify your desire to end the life of your child, free from guilt...your attempt to have the right without accepting the responsibility that goes with it.


It is this way in society as well as in my mind.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:33 PM


Enigma,

Where would it have to be written before you would accept it? The Bible? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence?

At this point Enigma, anything short of your milkman or kid brother would do...

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:35 PM


Enigma,

So nature designed so that women, simply because they are women, are not afforded the same rights to their bodies that men are.

If you want to play that game, okay. You have the same rights as men. Men do not have the right to remove their offspring from their bodies for the sake of convenience either.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:37 PM


E,

That's why I brought up organ donation and brain death, to demonstrate that there is a difference in how the medical community views a body that possesses physical life versus one that possesses human life.

I gave you the definition of death. Nowhere did it differentiate between physical life and human life.
You can take the organs when the person is dead. If you take them sooner, then you took them when the person was alive.

What you are really saying is that there is a difference between physical life and useless life. Or Valueless life. Which is not in anyway the same thing. It is still, scientifically, HUMAN LIFE or the lack thereof, which is called HUMAN DEATH. You don't stop being human, you just stop being alive.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:43 PM


I do give the Catholic Church credit for not denying evolution but this is stretching it.
*
If that's true, why the dark ages? Why did the Church stifle Galileo?
*
"many sciences would not have advanced at all, save for the contributions of the Church."
*
Unbiased sources please.
*

Galileo wanted to present his ideas as proof before they were proven. He refused to wait. The Catholic Church and the Protestant churches were already having problems. For Galileo to come forth with a "THEORY" that claimed exactly the opposite of what the bible claimed, (Galileo being a Catholic, and a devout one to boot) especially since the protestants (NOT THE CATHOLICS) adhered to the idea of sola scriptura would not bode well for Catholic/Protestant relations. NEVER DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH claim that Galileo theory was false. Copernicus had already put forth a similar theory. The problem was political, not scientific. And as it turns out, Galileo had some of it wrong. But even beyond that, Galileo AND Corpernicus WERE CATHOLIC. So it is because of the CATHOLIC scholars that we even understand that the earth revolves around the sun. It wasn't a Jew that came up with the idea. Or a Muslim or a Buddhist. It was Catholics.

From Thomas E. Woods, Jr., PhD
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

By far the book’s longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Church’s alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church’s role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.

It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits

had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 3:57 PM


E,

So medical understandings of the concept of brain death and then the fact that the medical community is so certain of this belief that it acts upon it with organ donation means nothing to you.

You keep sayin' this, but it ain't makin' it so...
Show me some proof that the medical community at large believes that a brain dead entity is no longer human.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 4:02 PM


Enigma,

They want to turn back the clock and make women second-class citizens again who don't even have rights to their own bodies.

I am unaware of any physical changes that have taken place in the last century or two that have removed the primary physical responsibility of carrying a child from the women to the man. It is the same now as it has been since the first man and woman walked the earth. The woman carries the child. You want to make this into some kind of statement about the equality of men and women, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Nobody can change facts. Women carry the child.

Men and women ARE equal. But they are different. You seem to have the two ideas confused. Men and women will never be the "same", not because we live in a mysoginistic society, but because we simply are, inherently, different! No valuations here. Just reality. Equal in dignity, different in being.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 4:25 PM


E,

But you're trying to give it rights that human beings do not possess. No human being has the right to use another so that he/she can retain his/her life.

I hate to burst your bubble, but they do. Not because the law says so. Not because I say so. But because Nature has deemed it so.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 4:27 PM


E,

"There is nothing selfish about asserting one's rights."

There is when asserting one's rights takes away anothers rights.

And then you weigh the rights. And the right to life ALWAYS supercedes any and all other rights. Otherwise, no other right has value.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 4:29 PM


Enigma,

I have, you simply won't accept it.

Please. You have not cited one source on this entire page. You have refuted sources that I have cited, but save for some vague connection between removing organs from "almost dead" people and claiming that this is proof that they are no longer human, you have given me nothing.

I would hate to play scrabble with you. What is the point of a dictionary if not to define words.

Wikipedia, while not a perfect source, does cite their sources.

What source will you accept. At least I have tried.

Posted by: mk at November 10, 2007 4:36 PM


Mk, excellent responses! Sometimes I think we must be twins, even though we're years apart. We think so much alike.

Posted by: Bethany at November 11, 2007 6:33 AM


MK,

"No, nature designed it so that when you have sex, you can become pregnant. Nature also designed that women are the sex that carry their progeny."

That is not in dispute.

"Nature is not in the business of affording or removing rights. It just "is" what it "is"...you are the one that has created these rights."

Nature does not create rights, you are correct. However, I have not created these rights either. There are a creation of human society.

"You are the one that believes bodily autonomy is a right."

So you think its not?

"I don't accept the concept that bodily autonomy must be had at all costs. Sorry. I think bodily autonomy is waaaaaay down their on the list of important rights that a person has, especially when it comes to the right to life."

That's because you've never lost it.

Bodily autonomy does not conflict with the right to life. By asserting her rights to her own body, a woman is not negating a fetus's right to life (assuming for the moment that it has one) but asserting that the fetus has no right to impose upon her without her consent. The two rights are only in conflict if one states that the fetus's right to life negated the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Otherwise, they are not in opposition to one another.

"And every right comes with an equal or greater responsibility."

I think you've gotten that quote confused. With great power comes great responsibility.

"And every right comes with an equal or greater responsibility. Otherwise it is license, not a right."

You've completely lost me.

"I believe that your "right" as you call it to autonomy is a man made right, created to justify your desire to end the life of your child, free from guilt."

How about this one...the right to life is therefor a humanly created right as well.

"It is this way in society as well as in my mind."

I don't think so.

"At this point Enigma, anything short of your milkman or kid brother would do..."

That was a cheap shot and you know it. It's irrelevant anyway; I don't think that you could ever accept anything that conflicts with your narrow view of the world.

"If you want to play that game, okay."

It's not a game. You simply resent any argument that you cannot legitimately refute.

It's not so much that men can remove non-existent fetuses from their body as that they don't have to allow anyone access to their body if they do not choose to.

You, on the other hand, would argue that women do not have that right because of how they were created. That is an inherently anti-women view.

"I gave you the definition of death. Nowhere did it differentiate between physical life and human life."

You never gave me medical definitions.

"You can take the organs when the person is dead. If you take them sooner, then you took them when the person was alive."

Exactly. Which is why organs are removed from people when they are brain dead. Because once they are brain dead, they are no longer the people they once were. They are simply physical bodies devoid of any of the signs of life that differentiate human from animal.

"What you are really saying is that there is a difference between physical life and useless life."

Not really.

"You don't stop being human, you just stop being alive."

True.


"You keep sayin' this, but it ain't makin' it so...Show me some proof that the medical community at large believes that a brain dead entity is no longer human."

I can't because it's not a matter of humanity but a question of whether or not a physical body still possess human life or is merely an empty shell.

"I am unaware of any physical changes that have taken place in the last century or two that have removed the primary physical responsibility of carrying a child from the women to the man."

You're deliberately missing the point. Of course there haven't been changes but there have been changes in how society views women. You ilk are attempting to turn back the clock and make women and their lives valuable only for the offspring that a woman can bring into the world.

"Men and women ARE equal."

From the arguments offered by "pro-lifers" on this board, I never would have guessed that you'd believe that.

"But they are different. You seem to have the two ideas confused. Men and women will never be the "same", not because we live in a mysoginistic society, but because we simply are, inherently, different!"

I don't ask them to be. I simply ask that society view and value both sexes according to the people that they are.

"Equal in dignity, different in being."

That sentiment doesn't jive with a single thing that you've said.

"I hate to burst your bubble, but they do. Not because the law says so. Not because I say so. But because Nature has deemed it so."

Nature doesn't dictate that. Nowhere does it say that a woman can't end her pregnancy. And nowhere does it say that women have to value the result of said pregnancies.

Anyway...so your argument is that nature rules supreme...so why don't we encourage men to go out and have sex with as many women as possible and encourage teens to have sex as soon as they hit puberty? After all, that's what nature intends.


I know I haven't gotten everything but I'll hit the rest later.

Posted by: Enigma at November 11, 2007 10:31 AM


Enigma,

That's because you've never lost it.

I found myself unmarried and pregnant at 20 years old. I know all about "losing my bodily autonomy".

Not to mention, I'm a smoker. I pay $5.00 dollars a pack in taxes in addition to the $3.00 for the pack, and I'm not allowed to smoke them in public. Even tho they are LEGAL. I'm treated like a pariah.

I also wear a seatbelt, don't snort cocaine, and had to vaccinate my children when I didn't want to.

There are many things that I do or don't do with or to my body, because the law forbids it or demands it.

It's ludicrous to say that we have the legal right to do anything that we want with our bodies.

Posted by: mk at November 11, 2007 5:59 PM


E,

"Men and women ARE equal."
*
From the arguments offered by "pro-lifers" on this board, I never would have guessed that you'd believe that.
*
"But they are different. You seem to have the two ideas confused. Men and women will never be the "same", not because we live in a mysoginistic society, but because we simply are, inherently, different!"
*
I don't ask them to be. I simply ask that society view and value both sexes according to the people that they are.
*
"Equal in dignity, different in being."
*
That sentiment doesn't jive with a single thing that you've said.

In my opinion they jive perfectly.

Men and women are equal in dignity, but different in nature. Show me how this contradicts what I've said.

And there is a difference between nature and natural law. There are all kinds of abberations in nature, abortion being one of them.

We, women, are designed to carry the offspring of our species. We are not designed to kill them. Just because you are able to do something, does not mean that you are right to do it.

Sure, I can end my pregnancy, but it is wrong to do so. I can also prevent my pregnancy, but you don't seem to get the connection. Again, you think that being equal to men, being in control of your body, means that you shouldn't have to take responsibility for your actions. That is and will always be the crux of the argument.

Posted by: mk at November 11, 2007 6:03 PM


Enigma,

Anyway...so your argument is that nature rules supreme...so why don't we encourage men to go out and have sex with as many women as possible and encourage teens to have sex as soon as they hit puberty? After all, that's what nature intends.

Again, you are either purposely putting words in my mouth or completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Nature has the final word on how we are designed and how our bodies work, yes. But it does not have the final word on how we act.

When we speak of "Natural Law" we mean how things were designed to be. How things would be if everything went according to plan.

Men and women were designed "BY NATURE" to fit together physically. The result of this fit is supposed to be a child. If it doesn't work, whether because we interfere or because nature has gone awry, it is no longer Natural Law but an abberation of nature. It is nature not working as it is meant to.

Cancer is natural in that it is caused by nature, sure. But natural law says that cells should NOT be cancerous. They are meant to be healthy. When they turn cancerous, while they are still part of nature, they are not nature working the way it was meant to.

Cooperating with nature, when it is working as it should, is moral. Working against it, or embracing perversions of it, is not moral.

By nature, we are meant to be with one partner. For most of mankind that is the way it has been. We are not meant to have multiple partners. We see the negative results of this in STD's, unwanted pregnancies and broken relationships.

In nature dogs are social animals. Isolate them and there are negative effects. Hamsters are not social animals, put them together and you have negative effects.

Simply having a penis does not mean you should use it indiscriminately. If you do, you have negative effects.

Big difference between what is in nature and what is "Natural Law".

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 6:38 AM



"At this point Enigma, anything short of your milkman or kid brother would do..."


That was a cheap shot and you know it. It's irrelevant anyway; I don't think that you could ever accept anything that conflicts with your narrow view of the world.

Enigma, please explain to me how this comment by MK was a "cheap shot"? Do you even know what the term "cheap shot" means?
Please explain to me where MK's comment was unfair or too mean for you to handle.

Cheap shot:
"an unnecessarily rough or mean action or remark against which there is no ready defense"

So by calling MK's comment a "cheap shot", you are either saying that MK's comment was unnecessarily "rough" or "mean" (which I don't see how is possible, since the strongest implication you can pull from MK's comment is that you have not provided any sources to substanciate your admitted "personal philosophies"- which is true. You haven't. ---

OR you are saying that MK's comment is unfair, because you have no ready defense. Is this true? Seems to be the case. Do you have no defense, or no way to find defense, for the accusation that you do not provide sources?

Is this why MK's comment that you have not provided sources for your claims is a "cheap shot"? Because you are not able to find sources which prove the many things you claim, such as the implication that the medical community at large believes that brain death is actual human death?

I don't see Marykay's many requests, asking for substantiation for your claims as being unfair.


"If you want to play that game, okay."
It's not a game. You simply resent any argument that you cannot legitimately refute.

Pot kettle? You say this right after calling a legitimate request for sources a "cheap shot"?

Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2007 8:05 AM


E,

The two rights are only in conflict if one states that the fetus's right to life negated the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Otherwise, they are not in opposition to one another.

That is exactly what we are saying...

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 8:12 AM


E and Bethany,

Because you are not able to find sources which prove the many things you claim, such as the implication that the medical community at large believes that brain death is actual human death?

I must clarify here. I'm sure Enigma can show me that the medical community has determined in some cases that brain death is human death.

My point is that human death does not mean ceasing to be a human. It simply means you are now a dead human. And I am asking Enigma to show me a source, any source, that at the moment of death you cease being human.

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 8:14 AM


E,

"And every right comes with an equal or greater responsibility."
*
I think you've gotten that quote confused. With great power comes great responsibility.
*
"And every right comes with an equal or greater responsibility. Otherwise it is license, not a right."
*
You've completely lost me.

That wasn't a quote, it was my own words. Tho the idea isn't mine.

That I've completely lost you doesn't surprise me, as the whole point is that one must take responsibility for ones actions, and that idea is completely lost on you.

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 8:16 AM



"And every right comes with an equal or greater responsibility. Otherwise it is license, not a right."
*
You've completely lost me.


***human rights
pl.n.

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.


***li·cense (lī′səns)

noun

1. a formal permission to do something; esp. authorization by law to do some specified thing license to marry, practice medicine, hunt, etc.
2. a document, printed tag, permit, etc. indicating that such permission has been granted
3.
1. freedom to deviate from strict conduct, rule, or practice, generally permitted by common consent poetic license
2. an instance of such deviation
4. excessive, undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty


***licentiousness

noun

Excessive freedom; lack of restraint: dissoluteness, dissolution, libertinism, license, profligacy. See restraint/unrestraint.

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 8:28 AM


Of course with your disregard for dictionary definitions, I'm not sure that will mean anything to you.

I can't just post entire tomes that have been written on this. I can offer you some books that might be helpful tho.

You can start here:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3504

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing, or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life,/B>, liberty, and security of person.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Nowhere does it mention the right to full bodily autonomy.

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 8:43 AM


I must clarify here. I'm sure Enigma can show me that the medical community has determined in some cases that brain death is human death.
My point is that human death does not mean ceasing to be a human. It simply means you are now a dead human. And I am asking Enigma to show me a source, any source, that at the moment of death you cease being human.

Thank you for clarifying, MK! That is exactly what I mean, but I didn't phrase it well, did I? :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2007 8:43 AM


E,

"You don't stop being human, you just stop being alive."
*
True."

Well then if this is TRUE, and a human is a human even when dead, then the converse must be true. A human is a human when it is alive.

A toenail, while coming FROM a human, is not alive by the definition of life. It has human DNA but it isn't living.

An unborn child, has human DNA and is ALIVE. Therefore it is human life. There simply is no argument against that. Alive or dead, it is human.

Human Life.

You claim that you aren't arguing personhood, but you are. You are saying that simply having human life, being a living human, being a human, a human being, does not make you eligible for the same rights that a viable human being has. This is personhood, and it is a legal term.

Either ALL human beings are equal or they aren't.
You want men and women to be equal. I want ALL human life to be equal. Different in expression, equal in dignity.

Old, young, male, female, mentally challenged, genius, black, white, orange...if it is a human life, it is equal in dignity to ALL human life and deserves the same rights that we ALL have. The right to life is a HUMAN RIGHT. The right to bodily autonomy is a license. Not ALL humans have ALL bodily autonomy rights. But all humans have the right to LIFE. Kids can't drive, Men can't have sex with children, I can't speed in my car, I can't shoot up heroin...these are all laws that infringe on my autonomy. The right to life is a human right, not a legal right, and it is nonnegotiable in any civilized society.


Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 8:52 AM


E,

That was a cheap shot and you know it. It's irrelevant anyway; I don't think that you could ever accept anything that conflicts with your narrow view of the world.

That wasn't meant as a dig, so much as a way of bringing home that fact that you are asking me to believe a whole lot of stuff based solely on your own personal views. I have asked several times for something to back up your "claims" and you have given me "nada"...I can't dispute a source if I don't have a source. I'm willing to start small.

I have no problem with dictionary definitions, or wikipedia. If I find something in there that I don't like, I can always go to a more "perfect" source to refute it. But we need to start somewhere...I won't accept the milkman as a source, but pretty much anything else would at least be a beginning.

Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 9:01 AM


Because you are not able to find sources which prove the many things you claim, such as the implication that the medical community at large believes that brain death is actual human death?

Just to rephrase this for myself, even though Marykay has already clarified.... what I should have said was "that the medical community at large believes that when brain death occurs in a human being, that person ceases to be a human being."

I do realize that many do believe brain death to be actual "death" OF a human being, but I don't know of any who would say that brain death makes a person cease to be a human being.

Does that clear it up a little?

Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2007 11:46 AM