Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on November 18, 2002, 11:31:02 AM
-
"Stem cell may repair hearts
By Richard Black
BBC science correspondent
New research announced at the world's biggest meeting of heart doctors suggests it will soon be possible to use the body's own stem cells to repair the damage caused by heart attacks.
Doctors speaking at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Chicago, US, said they had used stem cells from bone marrow in a number of patients, with encouraging results. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2487033.stm
Looks like this will be a field of science that will reap rich rewards.
:D
-
Too bad Dubya sold out to the religious right wackos on this one.
-
Send your girl on over Oed, we'll whip up some fine stems.
-
It's strange, because bio-chemists are finding ways to create stem cells out of skin cells.
-
Oh my, wait till Hortlund and Anne Graham will read MT's post:
http://www.recalcitrant.biz/frames/gmvhell.wav
-
MT,
What Bush did about stem-cell research has nothing to do with the topic of this post. The stem cell research mentioned above refers to the use of cells taken from the body's own bone-marrow, an approach that is morally preferable to the taking of stem-cells from fetal tissue.
Shuckins
-
You can get stem cells from the umbilical cord.
Stem cell research is going to go on, in time, over GW objections and those that would hold medicine hostage to "moral" issues.
Ever notice, those that oppose the research don't have a pressing medical issue that would benefit from the research....
HC
-
The lack of a moral compass is very convenient when justifying research that is largely self-serving. The existence of human suffering does not justify the use of tissue from unborn human beings for research. If stem cells can be extracted from one's own bone-marrow then fetal stem cell research is unnecessary.
My life is precious to me, but not so precious that I would seek its extension through such means.
Shuckins
-
Shuckins, if I'm not mistaken... they use already aborted fetus' for their research...
I see no moral objections to operating on a cadaver... but fetus are so much more..... yeah...
-SW
-
People donate blood and other tissues to research, what's wrong with fetus?
-
Do stem cellys go bling bling too?
-
Thrawn,
Whatever else is said in rebuttal, I think we can all agree that a fetus is not quite the same as a piece of skin tissue or bone marrow. The fetus develops into a human being, given the opportunity. The same cannot be said for the other types of tissue. If they can extract stem-cells from my own bone marrow and use it to cure a disease I have no objections. But human life is sacred, whether we believe in God or not. By the time most women know they are pregnant, the fetus has a beating heart and a brain wave. It is repugnant to me to have something like that killed and then use it's tissue for research, no matter what the reason.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Thrawn,
Whatever else is said in rebuttal, I think we can all agree that a fetus is not quite the same as a piece of skin tissue or bone marrow. The fetus develops into a human being, given the opportunity.
I think a fetus CAN develope into a human being. But then so can a sperm or an egg.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
People donate blood and other tissues to research, what's wrong with fetus?
I think some of you would be better served with mushroom stem cells ....
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
People donate blood and other tissues to research, what's wrong with fetus?
Do you think we should let people donate other peoples "blood and other tissues"?
-
Nevahmine
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Do you think we should let people donate other peoples "blood and other tissues"?
Fetus aren't people.
-
This already happens.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Do you think we should let people donate other peoples "blood and other tissues"?
-
I hope stem cell work goes ahead and the religion fanatics step aside on this issue, thry are wrong...
-
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
-
God must really wanna smite the FDBs...!
-SW
-
Stem cells my arse!
-
To be honest I've not been following stem cell research and the surrounding controversy much at all... but this jumped out at me:
"The fetus develops into a human being, given the opportunity. The same cannot be said for the other types of tissue."...."But human life is sacred, whether we believe in God or not."
It seems to me you need to take this matter up with the people and the laws that make abortion possible. It may sound ugly, but once a fetus is unable to grow, it is as dead as any other dead thing. I don't think you can mix the benefits of stem cell research with abortion.... if that's your issue. To do so seems to be applying an additional layer of morality on top of something that's already been done and is now out of the debate.
Don't like abortion? Well maybe there should be a law against it. But if it's legal... we're looking at tissue that can benefit a whole lot of people.
Of course, if the benefits of this stem cell biz increases the number of abortions somehow (ie. $$ for fetuses) then you've got a beef and you should write to your local Omnibudsman. Otherwise I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
-
Originally posted by Nash
To be honest I've not been following stem cell research and the surrounding controversy much at all... but this jumped out at me:
"The fetus develops into a human being, given the opportunity. The same cannot be said for the other types of tissue."...."But human life is sacred, whether we believe in God or not."
It seems to me you need to take this matter up with the people and the laws that make abortion possible. It may sound ugly, but once a fetus is unable to grow, it is as dead as any other dead thing. I don't think you can mix the benefits of stem cell research with abortion.... if that's your issue. To do so seems to be applying an additional layer of morality on top of something that's already been done and is now out of the debate.
Don't like abortion? Well maybe there should be a law against it. But if it's legal... we're looking at tissue that can benefit a whole lot of people.
Of course, if the benefits of this stem cell biz increases the number of abortions somehow (ie. $$ for fetuses) then you've got a beef and you should write to your local Omnibudsman. Otherwise I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
I see your point. Still, I think those that have a moral argument worry that people may chose to abort simply to harvest the stem cells.
My initial thought is to consider that to be a piss poor reason to choose to abort.
After second thought, it occurs to me that the reason to abort or not is none of my business. That decision belongs to the one that owns the womb. Her reasons are her own.
Of course... Telling a woman she can do whatever she damn well pleases with her own body is good for talk but it's hardly the reality. Prostitution being a prime example.
-
The simplest way I see it is: if we cannot create human life we ought not be killing it. If we don't know Who created it then we shouldn't make arrogant assumptions about something we can't do or Who may have done it. Be a real hero and go make your own life and stem cells to play with!
A previous poster said:
"Ever notice, those that oppose the research don't have a pressing medical issue that would benefit from the research...."
Baloney.
I am going to die sometime. I don't need to get hysterical about my particular eminent reason for death so as to jump on an unborn induced death to promote or extend my life. Are you kidding me? That is deception. It is also incoherency brought about by repeated irresponsibility. No organ replacement anywhere can fix that.
Also, it is not "the research" we are against, it is the way and upon what that research should be conducted.
Stem cells will soon be obtained from neutral host sources. Even sooner if killing babies is deemed a selfish and immoral way to get easy cells. Don't let lazy scientists trying to get gratuitous grants sell you that the unborn's cells are the only way. What media farms these cells into mature organs? I guess pigs and cows drugged up with immune suppressants. What would that clinic look like? Keep in mind we have long since banned Kobe beef.
The issue is really cloning. If God installs a spirit into a clone then you have only a twin younger than you. The secular researcher's goal to defeat this "inconvenience" would be to clone with an impaired brain gene. This would produce a permanently comatose clone showing no higher brain activity yet able to has its life sustained artificially long enough to harvest organs or scaffold cellular materials. This is no different than a killer getting off by a technicality...uh....just like OJ. There have been folks returning from this dark coma place to tell us they have heard and understood while helpless to move.
It is my view that if you are nearing death you need to get your house in order. What good is a new heart etc., if your brain is plaqued? Let's say you are 75. You are going to convince me that you need another 5 years to..do what? If you haven't been able to get what God wants you to do done in your life by then you might be a looser anyway lol. I mean what were your life long priorities anyway? Get to Vegas every year? lol
Some questions.
Transplants for premature ailments or young persons are wonderful. Who will pay for 50 million simple old age transplants in year? Or in a month.. someone has to pay for incubating a body or cellular mass for 6-10 years to harvest usable organs? Insurance rates? A clone body becomes a national right? Ok, it will be like Social Security..we all pay into it? If the top 10% (or rich) pay 75% of the taxes now who will pay for the poor's clones..the voting base of the liberals? Will the rich republicans be appreciated for once?
You take out the heart of your clone then all the other organs die..so I guess you'll need several clones? Oh, you thought you will need each organ you farmed all harvested at the same time? lol
At least at this time, each one of us would need a huge warehouse to cultivate all the potential clones incubated until we might need them. A couple for skin..you might get burned. AT least one for an extra heart. One for a pancreas. One for a liver. One for eyes. One would due for dental implants, inner ear parts, meniscus, ligaments and joints. One for lungs and kidneys. Warehouses will cost millions each properly staffed to get the job done. Could you intravenously gang two clones together to keep another one alive that had a sole vital organ removed?
Yes, I am getting old and I would like a new pancreas. As of this last summer I know that my death will be diabetic related (if I don't meet with something else sudden and catastrophic). I have an "interest" in stem cell research for sure...but not with the simply inconvenient unborn babies Rowe/Wade has proliferated and lead many to kill.
c H e F
-
How many women are going to get pregnant and have abortions for the sole and selfless act of doing their part to increase the stem cell supply?
Even suggesting that a woman who is waffling between an having an abortion or carrying the child to labour will make her final decision based on fixing the heart of some old fat guy from Iowa is a bit of a stretch.
Choice/Lifers.....
It's got nothing to do with stem cells. It has everything to do with choice/lifers. Starts there and ends there.
If you think it's broken, fix that. But to allow abortions to take place... and if the law backs that up... Then what does this have to do with stem cells?
The whole thing strikes me as either steeped in some kinda legalistic hypocracy or... something... I don't know... misplaced.
-
Can't see the forest for the trees.
Hey guy, look over there, is that a new righteous moral path to take?
Honestly, the fetus is dead. It's dead because the mom did not want the baby for whatever reason.
If it's dead, it's dead and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. But hey, maybe it can help us out...
Instead, next time a baby gets born with a bum heart, failing kidneys, or some other ailment related to an internal organ... that dead fetus' stem cells may go to giving it a new organ.
But nevermind that.... can't let reality get in the way of morality.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Nash
The whole thing strikes me as either steeped in some kinda legalistic hypocracy or... something... I don't know... misplaced.
And to think you actually used to live in the U.S.
Legalistic hypocracy is what we live for. :D
-
Heh I love how people redefine things.
'Fetus' is a medical term. I'll ask my sis for the details. For starters I'll use a dictionary.
fetus
n : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.
Later stages is referring to the fact that this stage is after the embryonic one.
Bit of a stretch, but if others are stretching the 'unborn child' aspect, then so can I stretch.
Calling a fetus a child is like calling a caterpillar a butterfly.
Besides, it's a straw man argument in the discussion about stem cells. Fetuses die for a variety fo reasons - intentional abortion is just one of them.
Stem cell research has been given the go ahead in Europe. So eat European dust yanks; get with it or we'll leave ya behind :D.
And we can't have that, can we? I mean, the US is the freest most technologically advanced country in the world; the place where all breakthroughs happen, right? :D
Couldn't resist :D
-
I wonder what the US medical lobby is gonna be whisperin' in the government's ear when people start flying to Europe for treatment.
huge money on one side <-----------> conservative morals on the other
That's a hell of a dilemma shaping up :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
I wonder what the US medical lobby is gonna be whisperin' in the government's ear when people start flying to Europe for treatment.
huge money on one side <-----------> conservative morals on the other
That's a hell of a dilemma shaping up :)
Two words... Tobacco industry. :)
Now... if our govt could just realize how lucrative it could be to tax pot.
-
I wonder what the US medical lobby is gonna be whisperin' in the government's ear when people start flying to Europe for treatment.
huge money on one side <-----------> conservative morals on the other
That's a hell of a dilemma shaping up
Because after all...the basis of "conservatism" is all about money.
Pathetic really...........
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Fetus aren't people.
...yet
-
Originally posted by weazel
I wonder what the US medical lobby is gonna be whisperin' in the government's ear when people start flying to Europe for treatment.
huge money on one side <-----------> conservative morals on the other
That's a hell of a dilemma shaping up
Because after all...the basis of "conservatism" is all about money.
Pathetic really...........
Uh..according to the "graph", Conservative morals is the absolute opposite to huge money. It would be fun to see you place Liberal morals in there somewhere though...Ooops, thats right, there is no such thing as liberal morals now is there.
-
I think all hospitals and medical services should be closed in the world...that way if God wants you to live... you will :D
Tronsky
-
Bleating about money on this board?
The so called "conservatives"....thats who.
Uh..according to the "graph", Conservative morals is the absolute opposite to huge money. It would be fun to see you place Liberal morals in there somewhere though...Ooops, thats right, there is no such thing as liberal morals now is there.
Sure there are, you only have to pull your head out of the sand to see them.
If it weren't for the so called "liberals" you despise so much you wouldn't have a pot to piss in.....or the right to complain about it.
-
I do believe killing babies is a bit much to get stem cells. The are other ways to get stem cells. Also, by the time that healthy individuals, like myself, need stem cell therapy, the fatties, druggies, and alchys will be dead.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Sure there are, you only have to pull your head out of the sand to see them.
If it weren't for the so called "liberals" you despise so much you wouldn't have a pot to piss in.....or the right to complain about it.
Exactly what are the liberal "morals"?
Except "do not bother about morals or ethics, just do whatever you want" or "have sex with whatever you want whenever you want as long as it is consentual and you are using a condom"?
Now you can explain to me how liberals gave me my toilet (or my "pot to piss in" as you so eloquently put it).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Exactly what are the liberal "morals"?
Except "do not bother about morals or ethics, just do whatever you want" or "have sex with whatever you want whenever you want as long as it is consentual and you are using a condom"?
You forgot about murdering innocent unborn children while allowing proven murderers to live.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
You forgot about murdering innocent unborn children while allowing proven murderers to live.
Yeah, or if you want to put a crucifix in a glass of piss and broadcast the image on tv it is ok because it's "art"...but if someone in a tv show should happen to call a colored person anything other than "African american" they are racist facist pigs.
-
Ooo ooo I have another one.
The "Cristian right" is responsible for all evils in the world, but it is wrong to say "moslem terrorist" because Islam is a religion of peace.
-
'Proven' is the operative word there, funked. 'Proven' under a demonstrably fallible system is not 'proven' at all. There are no absolutes in this world, other than those halucinated into existance by people who need a crutch to get through the day.
Safe consensual sex between two adults is nothing to be ashamed about, Hortlund. It happens everyday, to some of us at least. :p
The abolition of slavery was a 'liberal' policy.
The extension of voting rights to men of any class was a 'liberal' policy.
The extension of voting rights to women was a 'liberal' policy.
The abolition of racial segregation was a 'liberal' policy.
The "Cristian right" is responsible for all evils in the world, but it is wrong to say "moslem terrorist" because Islam is a religion of peace.
I disagree. As long as you realise that extremism is baggage of all the major religions and you also label abortion doctor murderers as terrorists then you will get no argument from me regarding 'moslem terrorists'. Let's also remember the Catholic Priests that actually led IRA cells which carried out atrocities in NI.
Every cult has its share of nutcases.
-
Yeah and look where it got us. :)
-
Heh. ;)
-
"Uh..according to the "graph", Conservative morals is the absolute opposite to huge money." - Hortlund
Nope. Just showing two worlds colliding. It aint no weird secret that Republicans court big business. And it also isn't a secret that Republicans court... erhm... religeous values (don't know how to put that). Now when one is at odds with the other, as in this case, there is a bit of a dillema.... which I was just trying to point out.
Is it somehow wrong of me to say that the medical establishment and the lobbying groups that go hand in hand with it don't want a say in the stem cell debate? Would it be wrong to say the the Christians/Catholics/etc. also don't also want a say? Can we safely surmise that those two groups aren't exactly going to be seeing eye to eye on it?
No, no, and yes. So take whatever argument you were trying to make elsewhere, or if you're dead set on confronting me with it at least try to fashion one that makes sense.
"It would be fun to see you place Liberal morals in there somewhere though...Ooops, thats right, there is no such thing as liberal morals now is there. " - Hortlund
Yer just trying to get a rise... well done. And whatever. No comment.
-
Will those two black eyes satisfy you or do I need to kick your teeth in as well Hortlund?
< proverbial speaking>
Or...do you have anymore trite liberal cliches you want to embarass yourself with?
-
Originally posted by weazel
Will those two black eyes satisfy you or do I need to kick your teeth in as well Hortlund?
< proverbial speaking>
Or...do you have anymore trite liberal cliches you want to embarass yourself with?
Actually you could start with the ones I wrote. Dowding didnt really say anything other than "yeah, those are the liberal "morals" and I like them". (see post to dowding to follow).
Frankly you could not (proverbially speaking) kick in the teeth of a small child with your lame attempts at rethorics.
1) Ignore the question
2) Evade the question
3) Try to change focus (or talk about something else)
You are just following the same pattern as always. I think I called you on it wayy back in some Ann Coulter thread months ago.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Safe consensual sex between two adults is nothing to be ashamed about, Hortlund. It happens everyday, to some of us at least. :p
[/b]
As I said, those are liberal morals. To me, there are higher values than personal pleasure/satisfaction. Some things are wrong no matter how good they feel Dowding. I guess we just see things differently.
[EDIT] FOR EXAMPLE. If I would have had sex with another woman while my wife was giving birth to our first son, it would be wrong no matter how much we were consenting..me and that woman.
The abolition of slavery was a 'liberal' policy.
The extension of voting rights to men of any class was a 'liberal' policy.
The extension of voting rights to women was a 'liberal' policy.
The abolition of racial segregation was a 'liberal' policy.
[/b]
See this would be a good opportunity for you to ponder the fact that there are other nations on this earth than the USA.
As an example, the abolition of slavery took place in 1326 in Sweden. On orders from a very conservative king.
The desicion to extend voting rights to all men in Sweden was taken by a conservative government. With the Acceptance of the conservative King. Same when it comes to womens right to vote.
And, oops, we never had any racial segregation laws here in Sweden. Imagine that huh?
I disagree. As long as you realise that extremism is baggage of all the major religions and you also label abortion doctor murderers as terrorists then you will get no argument from me regarding 'moslem terrorists'. Let's also remember the Catholic Priests that actually led IRA cells which carried out atrocities in NI.
[/b]
1) Name those Catholic priests who led IRA cells. Or at least give me a source to read.
2) Why would you want to lable abortion doctor murdererd as "terrorists"? I can tell you why actually, to promote your own political agenda. If you want to lable abortion doctor murderers as "terrorists" then why not cop killers? Or serial rapists? Or those morons protesting at all the international bank meetings?
-
Funked wrote:
You forgot about murdering innocent unborn children while allowing proven murderers to live.
See my post above about the difference between a child (which has personhood), an embryo (which does not) and a fetus (hasn't got either).
Like it or not, humans come to be in stages. The potential is not the actual. In other words, an egg and a sperm is not an unborn child. An embryo is not an unborn child. A fetus is not either. one can rightfully question the rather arbitrary line we've drawn regarding when a fetus becomes a child, but there are at least strong indicators for when it is NOT a child.
The rest is not directed at FunkedUp, but rather general comments-
Now, since everyone really draws up the lines and take a thing to its extremes, so will I.
Parasite is defined as:
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another
animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host [ant: host]
An unwanted pregnancy then will result in a parasite inside a womans body. Sure, it can be avoided. Just like getting infected by a host of other parasites can be avoided. Yet it happens, and individuals are entitled to get treatment to get rid of parasites.
People do not have the right to dispose of people as they see fit - but again, this is not an issue legally, since a fetus, no matter in whst stage of development, isn't a person.
Scientifically, it cannot be said to be a person, able to survive outside the womb, until at a quite late stage - and the majority of abortions happen much earlier.
Philosophically, we'd be discussing the actual vs. the potential - with all the ramifications that come with it. 'Every sperm is sacred' is oft quoted, and for good reasons.
Where we to overcome the last two arguments (and the first can simply be redefined in law), we'd still face a situation where we have a persons right of self determination. And that is a wholly other argument, one that also would have to be settled legally (i.e do you have the right to oust a person from your body, even if doing so would mean the death of said person). In this case, again, the law can be rewritten according to whatever the majority of the population wants.
It's not a simple issue. But pro-lifers do themselves a disservice when they call an embryo or fetus an unborn child. There are so many better arguments than using one that is medically and scientifically wrong in most cases.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nope. Just showing two worlds colliding. It aint no weird secret that Republicans court big business. And it also isn't a secret that Republicans court... erhm... religeous values (don't know how to put that). Now when one is at odds with the other, as in this case, there is a bit of a dillema.... which I was just trying to point out.
[/b]
So exactly what does this have to do with "conservative values"?
So a republican politician is trying to court big money and religious fundamentalists at the same time. Does that really tell you anything about conservative values?
Is it somehow wrong of me to say that the medical establishment and the lobbying groups that go hand in hand with it don't want a say in the stem cell debate? Would it be wrong to say the the Christians/Catholics/etc. also don't also want a say? Can we safely surmise that those two groups aren't exactly going to be seeing eye to eye on it?
No, no, and yes. So take whatever argument you were trying to make elsewhere, or if you're dead set on confronting me with it at least try to fashion one that makes sense.
[/b]
It seems you are talking about the realities of American politics while I was talking about conservative values. Those are not neccesarily the same thing you know...
-
conservative in Sweden mean ultra liberal in USA :D
-
Originally posted by StSanta
See my post above about the difference between a child (which has personhood), an embryo (which does not) and a fetus (hasn't got either).
[/b]
Actually you did not really explain the differences in that post. Could you please explain what the difference is between a fetus and an embryo? When does the fetus/embryo become "a baby"?
One of the reasons why I'm asking this is because it is possible today to take a baby from the womb when it is 22 weeks old and save its life.
So when its 22 weeks old it is what? A fetus? An Embryo?
...a baby?
-
As I said, those are liberal morals. To me, there are higher values than personal pleasure/satisfaction. Some things are wrong no matter how good they feel Dowding. I guess we just see things differently.
Of course. But I wouldn't obstruct anyone's right to do it.
See this would be a good opportunity for you to ponder the fact that there are other nations on this earth than the USA.
And this would be a good opportunity for you to ponder the fact that I'm actually British, living in Britain and not American at all! You're actually wrong, Hortlund - fancy that!
As an example, the abolition of slavery took place in 1326 in Sweden. On orders from a very conservative king.
The desicion to extend voting rights to all men in Sweden was taken by a conservative government. With the Acceptance of the conservative King. Same when it comes to womens right to vote.
And, oops, we never had any racial segregation laws here in Sweden. Imagine that huh?
Err... as a continuation on the theme 'Hortlund was extraordinarily off the mark about what Dowding was thinking':
a) I was talking about the abolition of Slavery instigated by Wilberforce in Britain, half a century before the US
b) Regarding voting rights - I was talking about Britain specifically and the reforms of parliament over the centuries.
c) Your rebuttal, essentially based on the premise that 'Other countries did it first' is an irrelevance beside the fact that all those developments were liberal concepts at that moment in time. What could be more liberal than emancipation of a whole race?
You say your Swedish king was a very conservative man. I say he was a conservative by today's standards, but his actions were liberal by definition. Also, which king was it - point me to some sources - I'd like to know more about how democratic 14th century Sweden was.
1) Name those Catholic priests who led IRA cells. Or at least give me a source to read.
Here you go, for starters:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/21/nuls21.xml
BTW, the Telegraph is a Conservative paper. Fiercely so.
newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2289584.stm
Shame we'll never find out for sure - the priest in question is dead.
2) Why would you want to lable abortion doctor murdererd as "terrorists"? I can tell you why actually, to promote your own political agenda. If you want to lable abortion doctor murderers as "terrorists" then why not cop killers? Or serial rapists? Or those morons protesting at all the international bank meetings?
I'll think I'll leave the dictionary to make a simple rebuttal of anything you write:
Terrorismn. 1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2) act of terrorizing
Terroristn. 1) person who employs terror or terrorist, esp. as a political weapon
I think those anti-abortionist nutjobs who gun down doctors fall into the terrorist catergory quite neatly, if you ask me. Cop killers? I wouldn't say their violence was systematic - more incidental - cop gets in way, cop gets killed. Murder, for sure.
Anti-globalisation protesters? Providing it is peaceful demonstration then they couldn't be called terrorists - same goes for anti-abortionist demonstrators. When violence comes into play, then by definition they are terrorists.
Serial rapists? Only in a very loose sense - where is the political goal?
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Your rebuttal, essentially based on the premise that 'Other countries did it first' is an irrelevance beside the fact that all those developments were liberal concepts at that moment in time. What could be more liberal than emancipation of a whole race?
You say your Swedish king was a very conservative man. I say he was a conservative by today's standards, but his actions were liberal by definition. Also, which king was it - point me to some sources - I'd like to know more about how democratic 14th century Sweden was.
Well, it becomes pointless to argue with you if you want to define liberal as "anyone who has done anything good through the history of mankind, regardless of how he lables himself or how he was labled by his peers". Or something like that. The king was conservative, Sweden was a conservative nation. Regardless of what you might want to call it today.
14th century Sweden was not democratic at all. We had a king. He was the supreme ruler and did pretty much whatever he wanted. The name of the king (If I remember correctly)was "Magnus Ladulås" Or "King Magnus Eriksson"
And I disagree that equal rights is a liberal "idea" us conservatives believe in that too. Something in the Bible about all men being equal...
Shame we'll never find out for sure - the priest in question is dead.
[/b]
Well, thats not really overwhelming evidence now is it?
I think those anti-abortionist nutjobs who gun down doctors fall into the terrorist catergory quite neatly, if you ask me. Cop killers? I wouldn't say their violence was systematic - more incidental - cop gets in way, cop gets killed. Murder, for sure.
Anti-globalisation protesters? Providing it is peaceful demonstration then they couldn't be called terrorists - same goes for anti-abortionist demonstrators. When violence comes into play, then by definition they are terrorists.
Serial rapists? Only in a very loose sense - where is the political goal?
Lets just say we disagree on the terrorism issue. If you use that definition, you get a too wide target audience. As an example, I would not call WTO protesters "Terrorists" even though they fit the profile "using violence to achieve whatever political goal". Somehow it is a completely different ballgame when compared to Palestinian suicide bombers or Al Queida lunatics driving hijacked aircraft into buildings.
As for serial rape, the Serbs used serial rape to subdue the Bosnian population in that civil war.
-
Oh...and wtf kinda lame circular definition is this??
Terrorist n.1) person who employs terror or terrorist, esp. as a political weapon
-
If it feels good .. DO it!
if something unplanned POPS up, just go kill it and have it sucked outa there ... np
that my friends IS the abortion issue .. birth control via murder
-
Well, it becomes pointless to argue with you if you want to define liberal as "anyone who has done anything good through the history of mankind, regardless of how he lables himself or how he was labled by his peers". Or something like that.
Do what you like, but I believe a liberal is someone who holds social and political views that favour progress and reform. That's near as damnit the definition of the word, so I'm afraid your 'conservative' King instituted liberal policy whichever way you care to look at it.
14th century Sweden was not democratic at all. We had a king. He was the supreme ruler and did pretty much whatever he wanted. The name of the king (If I remember correctly)was "Magnus Ladulås" Or "King Magnus Eriksson"
Not that it's even remotely relevant to subject at hand, but how does the 'democratic vote for all' situation I was describing relate to your example?
And I disagree that equal rights is a liberal "idea" us conservatives believe in that too. Something in the Bible about all men being equal...
By the sounds of it you define liberalism to be the polar opposite of conservatism, and by the definition I just mentioned above, Conservatism in your world is abjectly opposed to progress and reform. Something doesn't quite sit right with that viewpoint - do you disagree with the definition of the word 'liberal'? In which case, how many other aspects of the dictionary have you re-written?
The bible is a book of teachings, which happens to espouse equal rights - it was not followed at the time and can only truly be seen to have come to fruition in the 20th century, thousands of years after the bible was written. It is irrelevant in terms of practicality.
Well, thats not really overwhelming evidence now is it?
Did you actually read the articles? What are your opinions on the validity of the letter?
If you use that definition, you get a too wide target audience.
And you accused me of using my political agenda to define terms! It seems to me, that you are going against language definition purely to justify your own political bias.
As for serial rape, the Serbs used serial rape to subdue the Bosnian population in that civil war.
And your point is...? Those were acts of terror. They were terrorists. They may have worn a uniform but they certainly weren't soldiers.
Oh and weren't those 'soldiers' goodly Christians? And guess what faith those Bosnians followed? That evil Islam. Fancy that!
On the subject of the Balkans - check out the clerics who used radio to incite ethnic cleansing. You see, Christianity has had it's dark moments, just like any other religion, including Islam.
Oh...and wtf kinda lame circular definition is this??
I thought your great intellect might have spotted a typo of that magnitude. In case you need it pointing out to you, replace 'terrorist' with 'terrorism'. I'm sorry for my imperfection - mea culpa.
-
Aren't you guys glad that your mothers decided to allow you to "develop" to your "potential?" Aren't you glad that after the moment of passion which led to your conception that she decided that you were not going to be "inconvenient?"
Aren't you glad she accepted the consequences of her own actions and decided to allow you to be born. By doing so, she gave you the opportunity to someday sit in front of a computer screen and debate the legal and moral implications of abortion and stem-cell research.
Congratulations guys...you made it!
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Do what you like, but I believe a liberal is someone who holds social and political views that favour progress and reform. That's near as damnit the definition of the word, so I'm afraid your 'conservative' King instituted liberal policy whichever way you care to look at it.
So how does the democratic vote for all situation I was describing relate to your example?
By the sounds of it you define liberalism to be a polar opposite of conservatism, and by the definition I just mentioned above, Conservatism in your world is abjectly opposed to progress and reform. Something doesn't quite sit right with viewpoint - do you disagree with the definition of the word liberal? In which case, how many other aspects of the dictionary have you re-written?
[/b]
I disagree with the notion that conservatism is opposed to progress and reform. Au contraire. Keep what is good, change that which is bad.
Lets look at the definitions then, since they seem to interest you so much. From the Cambridge dictionary:
liberal (POLITICS)
adjective [not gradable]
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
conservative (AGAINST CHANGE)
adjective
tending not to like or trust change, esp. sudden change
It's an extremely conservative society - they're very easily shocked by anything different or daring.
I tend to be rather conservative in such matters and a bit suspicious about these supposed advances.
Compare liberal (SOCIETY).
I dont think liberal= change, nor do I think conservative=against change. My definition is more along the lines of
conservative=keep traditions, morals, values etc bla bla blah, change what is bad/must be changed, keep the rest.
The bible is a book of teachings, which happens to espouse equal rights - it was not followed at the time and can only truly be seen to have come to fruition in the 20th century, thousands of years after the bible was written. It is irrelevant in terms of practicality.
[/b]
Uh... I'm just trying to point out that some of the ideas that you might want to call "liberal" and you would like to credit to Adam Smith or whomever might actually be older than that, and you can find the core of those ideas in the Bible. The fact that man at the time did not want to live by those ideas has nothing to do with the fact that they are there.
Did you actually read the articles? What are your opinions on the validity of the letter?
[/b]
I only read the first article. In fact, I only saw one link. Am I wrong in my assumption? That there are no evidence besides that guy and what he thinks?
And your point is...? Those were acts of terror. They were terrorists. They may have worn a uniform but they certainly weren't soldiers.
[/b]
See, this is where you are getting into deep water. Apparently anyone who does something "terroristic" is a terrorist and not a soldier? Where does that leave the Nuremberg trials one might ask...were all those German soldiers "terrorists"?
On the subject of the Balkans - check out the clerics who used radio to incite ethnic cleansing. You see, Christianity has had it's dark moments, just like any other religion, including Islam.
[/b]
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.
Allow me to quote an old article I have stored on my HD for a situation like this:
Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism. The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5, adds: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."
These canonical commands cannot be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because there is no such science in Islam. Unlike Christianity, which, since the Reformation and Counter Reformation, has continually updated itself and adapted to changed conditions, and unlike Judaism, which has experienced what is called the 18th-century Jewish enlightenment, Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages.
The 7th-century Koran is still taught as the immutable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is essentially akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism. It is true it contains many sects and tendencies, quite apart from the broad division between Sunni Moslems, the majority, who are comparatively moderate and include most of the ruling families of the Gulf, and Shia Moslems, far more extreme, who dominate Iran. But virtually all these tendencies are more militant and uncompromising than the orthodox, which is moderate only by comparison, and by our own standards is extreme. It believes, for instance, in a theocratic state, ruled by religious law, inflicting (as in Saudi Arabia) grotesquely cruel punishments, which were becoming obsolete in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages.
I thought your great intellect might have spotted a typo of that magnitude. In case you need it pointing out to you, replace 'terrorist' with 'terrorism'. I'm sorry for my imperfection - mea culpa.
Yes...I spotted that right away. But still the definition is rather weird.
"A terrorist is someone who uses terror or terrorism"
"Terrorism is 1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2) act of terrorizing"
It doesnt really say much does it? Basically ANYONE could be a terrorist including the rapist (who is using violence to get what he wants [sex]) or the bank robber (who is using violence to get what he wants [money]) ...see what I mean?
Where did you get that definition anyway? Do you agree with it?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
If it feels good .. DO it!
if something unplanned POPS up, just go kill it and have it sucked outa there ... np
that my friends IS the abortion issue .. birth control via murder
And here I thought it was about a woman's right to choose what is right for her and her body as opposed to some amazinhunk(s) who don't know her or her situation dictating what she should do because they don't "think it's right". What was I thinking?!
SOB
-
as a card carrying member of the World Association of Liberal Handwringers, I can hand you a simple moral code in two sentences - no Spooky Santa Spirit or Other God necessary:
1. Do as you would be done by.
2. Always look after yourself well.
No claim to a higher authority, no dogma, no frills. It's hard to live up to but the harder I try the better my life gets.
-
Originally posted by SOB
And here I thought it was about a woman's right to choose what is right for her and her body as opposed to some amazinhunk(s) who don't know her or her situation dictating what she should do because they don't "think it's right". What was I thinking?!
SOB
Yep, its her right to terminate the child she is carrying - still doesn't change the fact she killed/murder the baby does it?
So you approve using abortion as a casual means of birth control?
-
The definitions were from Collins English Dictionary - and an expensive dictionary it is too, not some cheap pocket thing. The difference is that you are specifically referring to liberalism as a political affililiation (as stated in your definition) - I am referring to liberalism as a non-political ideology. The redistribution of wealth is a liberal policy simply because it is a progressive policy.
My definition is more along the lines of
conservative=keep traditions, morals, values etc bla bla blah, change what is bad/must be changed, keep the rest.
YOUR definition - which is exactly my point. You move onto shakier ground as soon as you move away from objective definition and take-up a subjective viewpoint. Which traditions? Which morals?
Uh... I'm just trying to point out that some of the ideas that you might want to call "liberal" and you would like to credit to Adam Smith or whomever might actually be older than that, and you can find the core of those ideas in the Bible.
This diference is you're describing a book of ideas whereas I'm talking about actual historical events, when ideas became reality. The act of reform and the instigation of progress - the cornerstones of the liberal movement.
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.
Really? And the Bible has no passages it would rather forget or declare 'not to be taken literally'?
As for the Koran - selectively quote to support your arguments, all you like. But it has some worthy content just like the bible. It has distinct rules of engagement in war, for instance. Women and children must not be harmed. Livestock and crops must be left untouched. The enemy must be armed and willing to fight for a Jihad to be just etc etc.
Apparently anyone who does something "terroristic" is a terrorist and not a soldier? Where does that leave the Nuremberg trials one might ask...were all those German soldiers "terrorists"?
Anyone who uses violence to further a cause could be described as a terrorist, yes. Within war? Depends if you define war to be legalised murder or judicious killing.
Basically ANYONE could be a terrorist...
Basically what you are arguing here is not that the definition is wrong, but that that the definition flies in the face of what we have become accustomed to visualising when we hear the word 'terrorist'? Does that make the definition incorrect though?
Also, a terrorist is especially associated with a politcal cause, as the definition states. A rapist, a bank robber are unlikely to fall into this category. Terror is not the tool, it is a by-product of their actions; the terrorists sole concern is to cause enough terror to draw attention to their cause or further it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
The definitions were from Collins English Dictionary - and an expensive dictionary it is too, not some cheap pocket thing. The difference is that you are specifically referring to liberalism as a political affililiation (as stated in your definition) - I am referring to liberalism as a non-political ideology. The redistribution of wealth is a liberal policy simply because it is a progressive policy.
[/b]
Well, that is because they did not have any other definition of conservative that made sense. "He dressed conservatively".
YOUR definition - which is exactly my point. You move onto shakier ground as soon as you move away from objective definition and take-up a subjective viewpoint. Which traditions? Which morals?
[/b]
Relax sunshine. It is not me who came up with that definition. Every heard of someone named Hobbes? If you think about it for more than one second you will realize that it is an objective definition.
Really? And the Bible has no passages it would rather forget or declare 'not to be taken literally'?
[/b]
I suppose that would depend on who you ask...The Bible just is, people might have opinions on what they feel should be added or deleted, but the Bible just is.
As for the Koran - selectively quote to support your arguments, all you like. But it has some worthy content just like the bible. It has distinct rules of engagement in war, for instance. Women and children must not be harmed. Livestock and crops must be left untouched. The enemy must be armed and willing to fight for a Jihad to be just etc etc.
[/b]
Please do go ahead and quote those passages. Or better yet, try to disprove my statement that Islam is a very agressive religion, while Christianity is not.
Anyone who uses violence to further a cause could be described as a terrorist, yes. Within war? Depends if you define war to be legalised murder or judicious killing.
[/b]
Lets make it simple and assume that I am talking about Germans in ww2 gunning down civilians. Terrorists or soldiers? My definition of war is neither legalised murder or judicious killing.
Basically what you are arguing here is not that the definition is wrong, but that that the definition flies in the face of what we have become accustomed to visualising when we hear the word 'terrorist'? Does that make the definition incorrect though?
[/b]
Uh, actually it does, yes.
Also, a terrorist is especially associated with a politcal cause, as the definition states. A rapist, a bank robber are unlikely to fall into this category. Terror is not the tool, it is a by-product of their actions; the terrorists sole concern is to cause enough terror to draw attention to their cause or further it.
If you look at the definition you presented you will see that it says "esp. politically" that must mean that it does not have to be politically motivated.
-
Come one, come all!!
Come watch the amazing Hortlundio argue without actually saying anything at all!
-
Wow! I just read this whole thread and I'm convinced.....
Stevies a liberal!
-
Ahh, come on Thrawn and Midnight...is that the best you can do?
Here we have a veritable smorgasboard (heh, never thought I would use that word in a BB conversation) of topics to debate.
Abortions, Liberalism, Conservatism, Christianity, Islam, Terrorism, ww2 massacres, The Bible, The Koran, Stem cells, US politics, Lobbying...you name it.
Heck, if only we could get some guns into this discussion this could be the only thread the O club would ever need.
And what do you guys come up with? Steve is a liberal and Steve can argue without saying anyting?
Back to the drawing board gents.
-
As I said earlier, by the time most women know that they are pregnant the fetus has already developed a heartbeat and a brainwave. It is life, in spite of what any doctor or medical expert says. The statement that the fetus is not life is strictly an opinion on their part. Most women that are having abortions are not having them because their lives are in danger but are having them for the sake of convenience. If they do not want a child they should NOT have unprotected sex.
There is a certain mindlessness to the argument that it is a woman's right to choose. I contend that if she opts to have unprotected sex with a man she has given up her right to choose whether or not she will have a child. How many women do NOT know that such an action could lead to pregnancy? A former female student of mine once made the statement "A girl can't always choose the father of her children." She didn't have the wit to realize that she was doing exactly that every time she had unprotected sex with a man.
I have no sympathy for the women who use abortion as a tool for removing an impediment to their free-wheeling lifestyle. Such actions indicate that many women no longer have a moral compass. If they don not want to have a child then use a contraceptive.
Or else they need to get up off of their backs and get their feet out of the air.
Regards, Shuckins
-
He's ugly and his feet stink.
:p
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
As I said earlier, by the time most women know that they are pregnant the fetus has already developed a heartbeat and a brainwave.
Ants also have heartbeats and brainwaves...better watch where you step.
It is life, in spite of what any doctor or medical expert says. The statement that the fetus is not life is strictly an opinion on their part.
No one is saying it's not life, we are saying that it's not a human being. I would like to point out that our friend the mosquito is life as well. Better not squish her.
Most women that are having abortions are not having them because their lives are in danger but are having them for the sake of convenience.
It's there body who care's why they are doing they have to live with consequences of TWO peoples actions. Why isn't anyone putting any blame on MEN for having unprotected sex?
If they do not want a child they should NOT have unprotected sex.
Who says they aren't? unprotected sex isn't 100% guaranteed.
There is a certain mindlessness to the argument that it is a woman's right to choose.
I don't think that's where the mindlessness lies. It's with men trying to tell women what to do with thier bodies.
I contend that if she opts to have unprotected sex with a man she has given up her right to choose whether or not she will have a child.
So in your opinion, she can chose to have an abortion if she used protection and it failed?
How many women do NOT know that such an action could lead to pregnancy? A former female student of mine once made the statement "A girl can't always choose the father of her children." She didn't have the wit to realize that she was doing exactly that every time she had unprotected sex with a man.[/B]
You kinda answered your own question there. So now you want to make this student and possibly a baby pay as some sort of punishment for her stupidity?
I have no sympathy for the women who use abortion as a tool for removing an impediment to their free-wheeling lifestyle. Such actions indicate that many women no longer have a moral compass. If they don not want to have a child then use a contraceptive.
Let me get this strait someone who uses abortion as a contraceptive tool has NO MORAL COMPASS, so you wnat them to RAISE A CHILD INSTEAD??
-
Perhaps if men didn't contribute to the pregnancy of stupid women, abortions wouldn't occur for some of the reasons they do now.
Everyone do your part =)
-
Abortion clinic doctors are murders?
I guess vetinarians are murderers too... go blow them up!
-SW
-
It is the moral majority that ties stem cell research with abortion. Stem cells exist in the umbilical cord. They would have you think that a fetus is aborted to harvest the cells. Typical misinformation from the Christian Right. Perhaps if GW allowed the exisiting stem cell lines to be used, instead of the narrow group that is not the best cell line for research. Bottom line, is that the research is going on around the world, it would just be better and faster in the US with its ability to fund research. Perhaps an education if science would help the less informed, then again, many think the world is 6k years old and creationism is science.
No one requires you to use the product of research to cure your problems. You have an issue with stem cell research, just don't avail yourself of it. Denying others because of your belief system is really quite selfish. I am quite secure in supporting lifting the ban on using existing cell lines, harvesting cells from the umbilical,using cells from aborted fetuses,miscarriages.
BTW, living in the 12th century is not confined to the muslims is it?
HC
-
One last thing, a belief system is about how you live your life. Not how you make others live theirs. Exploding bombs to advance Islam, only differs from those who deny medical advancement, by the degree and the immediacy of their involvement.
Then again, killing Doctors and bombing clinics is an accepted tactic of the far right isnt it?
Misinformation is a subtle bomb.
HC
-
btw,
the original quote from the article is talking about stem cells from
bone marrow from the patient who is being treated for the heart problem.
nothing about taking from anyone other than the patient himself and certainly nothing about fetus or umbilical cords..
stem cells do not equal fetus/umbilical
I'm sure you all realize this but I figured I'd point it out anyway.
carry on.
-
Women are second class citizens in every country. If a man got pregnant, we would not be having this discussion. Abortion is a womens defense against being tied to some "Daddy will take care of you honey" kind of guy. You would be surprised how many acts of "rape" occur thru socio-economic oppression.
Funny how men think life is precious, but women are chattel with no life other than be a brood mare.
HC
-
Umbilicals exist at every birth and are considered trash. GW and the Christian Right say those can't be used
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Umbilicals exist at every birth and are considered trash. GW and the Christian Right say those can't be used
I ain't got a problem using those - but then I ain't GW nor the Christian Right, regardless of what conclusions some have drawn here :)
-
Thrawn, Hardcase and the rest of you pro-abortionists. How "late" should abortions be allowed?
Considering the fact that the baby can survive outside the mothers body after the 22nd week.
Personally I feel there is a line there somewhere..when the baby can survive outside the mother, it becomes less of the mothers choice and more of the babys right to life...if you know what I mean.
I am pretty sure that NO ONE wants to see the Chinese variant...where abortions are allowed up until the baby draws its first breath.
So where do you draw the line?
Because that "window of opportunity" between the day the mother realizes that she is pregnant, and the day where the kid can survive alone is rapidly closing as medical science advances.
Any thoughts?
(And no, Im not a fanatic anti abortionist...I guess having a kid of your own changes your perpective a bit)
-
Arent third trimester abortions illegal except to save the mothers life? That would be up to the 24th week for those mathematically challenged.
HC
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Thrawn, Hardcase and the rest of you pro-abortionists. How "late" should abortions be allowed?
I try always to respond t the anti-choice crowd.
Five months.
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Arent third trimester abortions illegal except to save the mothers life? That would be up to the 18th week for those mathematically challenged.
HC
LOL Dude, I have two kids, and I really tried to pay attention during those two pregnancies, but I still dont have a clue what a trimester is.
I know that the word is used though...
Trimester=month?
-
Premmies have vast problems that medical science cannot fix. They can save premmies but at what cost. They are usually a burden on parents and community because of their retardation, blindness,
The premise of these agruments is that "life is precious" That axiom has not been tested. We really kill each other with abandon, thru acts of ourselves or others. Is it only precious when it is just a mass of cells that can divide and must live off another to continue to do so?
HC
-
Full term is 9 months...36 weeks..divided into 3 `12 week parts...Each pact is 1/3 of a full term.....Second semester is actually 24 weeks..but that is border line for abortions
HC
-
Trimester is about 3 months. Gestation generally lasts about 10 months, I don't know where the 9 month thing came from.
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Premmies have vast problems that medical science cannot fix. They can save premmies but at what cost. They are usually a burden on parents and community because of their retardation, blindness,
Yeah, better to kill them off the bastards.
...Hitler had a similar idea.
-
Let me get this straight..I find abortion a terrible shame. When our society can make it possible for women to avoid pregnancies,without moralist involving themselves, when this society can truly take care of infants and children having children. When this society educates everyone, when this society cures it ills,those of ignorance, violence, and governmental policy, when this society make is possible for women to feel secure enought in their lives to bring children into the world, the perhaps the need for abortions will subside. When the country fixes itself, there might not be a need for abortions. No matter the situation, I will support a women's right to choose.
-
Medical science has advanced to the point they can keep a preemie breathing, but nothing much more for all the interrupted maturing processes that go on in the womb. It is very easy to say how someone else should behave toward their tragedies. I gave up trying to be everyone's "Daddy" a long time ago. I simply support their decisions. Life is more than breathing.
HC
-
40 weeks? Arent pregnacies consider late when they pass the 36th week? I found one grade school referencee saying 40 weeks and others giving 265 days as an average. That is right at 36 weeks. I belive the courts accept 9 months as the average gestation period. Do a google on Human Gestation Period and find most consider 9 months the norm.
HC
-
Better go see the dentist stevie.....
-
In other countries this maybe so due to laws, but not in the US anymore.
But it'll still take time for women to realize that their worth to themselves isn't in their beauty no matter how much they have it drilled into them by TV, movies, magazines.
And that whole, trade off of giving over your life and dreams to some man in return for survival and protection needs to be forgotten as well.
new relationships need to be defined and new outlooks on life obtained and new value in self found.
and for the end comment.
Not all men think this way, just some, and the smart women avoid those folks.
I have to say tho, I was shocked to see a post like this with any essence of understanding from a man. It's a bit harsh and leaves no responsability with the women which I disagree with but I understand where you are coming from.
It is always interesting reading these boards, dominated by the views of men and their differing outlooks on life..always in the male perspective but it so much matches mine (in some cases) except for the scorn for women and desire for them.
Originally posted by hardcase
Women are second class citizens in every country. If a man got pregnant, we would not be having this discussion. Abortion is a womens defense against being tied to some "Daddy will take care of you honey" kind of guy. You would be surprised how many acts of "rape" occur thru socio-economic oppression.
Funny how men think life is precious, but women are chattel with no life other than be a brood mare.
HC
-
Originally posted by weazel
Better go see the dentist stevie.....
If you dont have anyting to post why dont you just shut up? I mean...apparently you cant make an argument yourself. The only thing we ever see is when you occationally post some random hate filled rambling. Then you sit on the sideline cheering for whomever you feel close to or whatever.
My teeth are fine thank you. One of the benefits of living in a socialist country with free dental care. How are your own teeth?
-
When Dowding already beat you like a drum........
Originally posted by Hortlund
If you dont have anyting to post why dont you just shut up? I mean...apparently you cant make an argument yourself. The only thing we ever see is when you occationally post some random hate filled rambling. Then you sit on the sideline cheering for whomever you feel close to or whatever.
My teeth are fine thank you. One of the benefits of living in a socialist country with free dental care. How are your own teeth?
-
In a society where physical strength is not an issue, that pay scales are not gender based, then women will need men only for a sperm supply to reproduce. They will not need to wash his socks.
Women abort..
rape
incest
health
financial insecurity(no one to support her and no abilty to support herself, monies so short that other family members will suffer,fear of being tied to an abusive male), now someone will say that her inability to obtain birth control info, her lack of education, her poor socialization because her parents were poorly socialized, undereducaed,abusive, violent are all her fault.
personal choice
Women abort because we humans are flesh and blood. Not some abstract in differing logics
Can you think of any other reasons women abort?
HC:(
-
Originally posted by weazel
When Dowding already beat you like a drum........
So why post at all?
-
st santa... Are you saying that the unborn are "human" when they are capable of surviving without the mother? or do you believe that they are human when the head pops out? Maygbe when the whole body is out? or is it when the doc smack their bellybutton and makes em cry? No? maybe when they start to walk or, even after they put together their first sentance?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
or is it when the doc smack their bellybutton and makes em cry?
That's to get them to start breathing on their own...
-SW
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Can you think of any other reasons women abort?
HC:(
weight gain & stretch marks
dare to bet on the number of those as compared to numbers of say "rape victims"?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
That's to get them to start breathing on their own...
-SW
Holy crap! Anyone smacks my kid is asking for a kick in the head. Cripes.
-
I have no doubt there are aborts of they vain kind. But think, if a women can maintain that kind of life style, she is not likely to get pregnant to begin with. Educated, finacially abled women can usually get pregnant when they want to.
HC
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Yep, its her right to terminate the child she is carrying - still doesn't change the fact she killed/murder the baby does it?
So you approve using abortion as a casual means of birth control?
As I've mentioned in threads like this before, I don't think it's right, but I also don't oppose it. Nor do I lay judgement to upon anyone who chooses to do it.
SOB
-
Whoo eee!
Sorry Steve, I've been real busy today, so I have only had the time to try to lighten the mood in my lame little way.
It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point regarding Abortion.
We have some well educated and thoughtful people posting here, and almost no one can agree on when abortion becomes murder.
All this means is that we should never let an issue like this be decided by anyone except ourselves. Do what your conscience allows and keep the government out of the decision.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/
Is a very good source of information on the development of the zygote/ embryo/ fetus
-
it should be up to the mother IMO.
not the government.
-
Sorry for the lateish answer. 16 hour day, finishing off code for the project. Exam in 10 hours :).
I'll have an aswer for ya in a day or two. Had to order a book from the library. While a bit technical, it's pretty good. Will post a response in a new thread when I get it.
Won't go half-way on this, so I'll have some litteratue to back me up. Just hold on.
:)
-
Originally posted by SOB
.... I don't think it's right, but I also don't oppose it....
SOB
ride that fence
-
He ain't fence riding Eagler. By not opposing it, he's passively supporting it :D.
-
No fence. The issue is about choice. How I feel about the procedure plays no part in my opinion about somebody else's right to choose and have their own opinion.
SOB