6 of 40
6
Pro-life Atheists
Posted: 20 October 2008 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Nulono - 20 October 2008 06:44 PM

“Leving the forum” could just mean not posting.

You can’t read the forum and not post once you’re started.  For Veronica to leave the forum, she’d have to stop checking in on it in order to shut up.

However, she can’t do either.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

It is a political position based off of morality. So yes.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Not entirely. Their economic plans leave much to be desired, but, ethically, whether it works or not, the free market is best. Sales tax is really the only ethical tax.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 11:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and amended in 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005 and 2006. It is a declaration of physicians’ dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in Nazi Germany. The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath’s moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.


The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

* I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

* I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;

* I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;

* The health of my patient will be my first consideration;


* I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

* I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

* My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;

* I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

* I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;

* I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

* I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 11:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

M for Malapert:

Nulono is right. For me “leaving the forum” does not mean not reading the forum. I felt I had done enough rounds of the “God exists, no He doesn’t” stuff and had nothing to say. Other topics seemed way over my head or out of my area of interest/knowledge, so there was nothing I could contribute to a discussion.

You are right, when I said goodbye I did not mean “never to return.”

The abortion debate is a hot topic now, so adding my two cents spontaneously didn’t seem like a bad idea. I’m delighted when I can share common values with an atheist on this forum.

[ Edited: 20 October 2008 11:47 PM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 11:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

M is for Malapert:

The website Nulono posted has fantastic essays in support of the anti-abortion stand. I recommend them highly. I will leave it to Nulono to use those arguments as necessary in his responses to the pro-abortion posters here, including you.

Let me try to address the medical points you raised in defense of abortion.

1. The life of ALL human beings begins as a single celled zygote (fertilized egg). The human being is exactly where it is meant to be during the first nine months of its development, namely in its mother’s womb, and it looks and functions at every stage in the womb of its mother exactly as a human being is supposed to look and function at that stage.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 12:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

2. Reproduction is a natural physiological process. The new human being comes into existence not by its own free choice, but the free choice of its mother. The woman makes her choice before the child is conceived, namely when she decides to have sex. From the beginning of human history, sex has been the only means by which human beings have reproduced. Human physiology was not constructed with provision for artificial contraceptives to regulate number of pregnancies. So as far as nature is concerned, every intercourse has the potential to produce an offspring. Animals do not interfere with nature and abort pregnancies. It is not common practice for animals to kill their own offspring. Our supposed direct ancestors - bonobo apes, gorilla, chimpanzees et al - most certainly don’t.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 12:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

3. So if sex is considered an instinct that should not be regulated in anyway, then pregnancy which is a direct consequence of sex most definitely should not be regulated by killing the growing child.

4. Precisely because pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex and reproduction is a natural physiological phenomenon, the uterus prepares for a child every time an egg is released. The shedding of the uterine lining which was in the process of preparing itself for the child is what the monthly period of a woman is about. The child a parasite, an intruder, a stranger? NO! Half its chromosomes are from the mother, so it is a part of the mother in that sense, but the other half of the chromosomes are from the father, so it it not entirely a part of the mother. It even has a different gender, apart from all the other unique characteristics,  in about half the pregnancies.

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 12:14 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

M is for Malapert:

Could you please post the exact reference to the passage you quoted from the Obstetrics textbook (edition and page numbers)?

Obstetrics is considered applied human embryology. From the period of viability, the fetus is known as the second patient, because if the growing child becomes ill at that stage a neonatal pediatrician is able to intervene in order to offer it treatment. An obstetrician is trained to take care of the mother’s health while she is pregnant, so that she may deliver a healthy baby, not to kill the growing child in her womb.

While an obstetrician would resort to abortion as a measure to save the mother’s life in the extremely rare instances when her life is at risk due to a complicated pregnancy, he/she may or may not be willing to perform abortion-on-demand in physically healthy women carrying healthy children (which accounts for up to 98% of all abortions). Hence the special name “abortionist” and the need for a special law to protect the medical doctor who performs a procedure that is not within the limits of medical ethics. A physically healthy woman carrying a healthy child is not a patient by definition. Thus a conscience clause enables a medical doctor,  who is not willing to perform abortion-on-demand, practice their profession in accordance with their conscience. Until not long ago it was abortion that was considered a crime, not the refusal to induce/perform it.

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 12:54 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 12:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

To be continued later…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 03:57 AM

M is for Malapert:

1. The life of ALL human beings begins as a single celled zygote (fertilized egg).

Nope.  The life of all human beings begins as gametes.  There is no such thing as a “single celled zygote” (see my posts on cloning).  Some people are the product of a fertilized egg and an egg that began developing without sperm.

The human being is exactly where it is meant to be during the first nine months of its development, namely in its mother’s womb, and it looks and functions at every stage in the womb of its mother exactly as a human being is supposed to look and function at that stage.

What kind of argument is that?  Incidentally, there are human beings alive today who never saw the inside of their mothers’ wombs.  They developed elsewhere in her body.

Regardless, if I don’t want something (or someone, if you consider an embryo to be a person) in my body, however much you think it’s meant to be there, it’s coming out.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

The new human being comes into existence not by its own free choice, but the free choice of its mother. The woman makes her choice before the child is conceived, namely when she decides to have sex.

Not all intercourse is consensual.

Animals do not interfere with nature and abort pregnancies. It is not common practice for animals to kill their own offspring.

Some animals eat feces. What is your point?

Our supposed direct ancestors - bonobo apes, gorilla, chimpanzees et al - most certainly don’t.

You apparently have no understanding of evolution.

So if sex is considered an instinct that should not be regulated in anyway,…

What planet do you live on?

You simply want to control the choices of another individual. If you truly want to stop abortions, then offer to support the women and raise the children.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 04:06 AM

2. Reproduction is a natural physiological process.

So is cancer.

The new human being comes into existence not by its own free choice, but the free choice of its mother.

Nonsense.  A woman using contraception, say, may be doing so because she doesn’t want children.  Her choice to enter into a sexual relationship with a man does not mean that she also consents to enter a pregnancy relationship with an embryo, assuming you consider it to be a person.

The woman makes her choice before the child is conceived, namely when she decides to have sex.

Nope.  See above.  Pregnancy is legally considered a different thing than sex; for instance, the Supreme Court decision Michael M. v. Sonoma County held that it was constitutional for a state to penalize men, but not women, in statutory rape because unlawful sexual intercourse could result in pregnancy, which imposes harm on women that men do not face.  If you were correct and intercourse/pregnancy were the same thing, then the only harm would be the intercourse in cases of statutory rape.  The Court held otherwise. 

Similarly, in cases of forcible rape, normal pregnancy has been found to be “great bodily injury” above and beyond the rape, in other words a separate intrusion or violation.

Then there are pregnancies after sterilizations fail (“wrongful pregnancy” cases).  Not only have physicians been held liable for child support in these cases, they are also required to pay damages for the pregnancy itself, as a legal injury.  The wrongful pregnancy, although resulting from consensual intercourse, is a damage or wrong done to the woman: an intrusion quite separate from the intrusion she accepted when she had intercourse. 

So, you’re wrong.

From the beginning of human history, sex has been the only means by which human beings have reproduced.

Again, irrelevant.  However, not true.  Let me direct you to the interesting case of the African woman who was born without a vagina and could not become pregnant through sexual intercourse.  One day, as she was giving one of her lovers a blow job, another lover burst in on them.  A knife fight ensued, and the angry lover stabbed the woman.  The knife cut her stomach and semen spilled out into her abdominal cavity.  Some entered her fallopian tubes and she was surprised to find herself pregnant. 

Now, here is a woman who not only does not engage in, but cannot engage in reproductive sexual intercourse.  She is pregnant as the result of a crime committed against her (leaving out for the moment the actions of the embryo).  Giving a blow job is not a crime, and she had no reason to expect a violent felon to try to kill her.  She was merely going about her everyday activities, which could never result in pregnancy.

Yet here she is, pregnant solely as the result of a violent crime committed against her (again, ignoring the embryo for now).  She has every right to defend herself against both the knife-wielding felon and the pregnancy process which unexpectedly began within her.

However, rape victims who are pregnant are also the victims of crime.  On the other hand, consensual sexual intercourse is not a crime; however, since it’s always the embyro which causes pregnancy, all women are in the same position when it comes to pregnancy: consenting to one relationship perhaps (sexual intercourse, or nonprocreational sexual activity) but not to any other (rape, or being slashed with a knife, or being impregnated by an embryo).  They all have the same right of self-defense against any act or process which intrudes on their bodily integrity.

Human physiology was not constructed with provision for artificial contraceptives to regulate number of pregnancies.

Actually, human physiology was constructed with built-in birth control: anovulation.  Under normal, natural circumstances, active women ovulate only a handful of times per lifetime and menstruate less than that.  Normally, women would have sex hundreds or thousands of times per lifetime and become pregnant 3 or 4 of them. 

Unnatural food production and food storage, unnatural eating habits for both women and babies, and so forth, have resulted in today’s hyperfertility and massive waste of bodily resources in monthly menstruation and constant pregnancy, unless artificial measures like contraception or abstinence are taken.  (Paraphrased from Williams Obstetrics.) 

So as far as nature is concerned, every intercourse has the potential to produce an offspring.

The human race couldn’t have survived if every intercourse had the potential to produce a pregnancy.  However, women have also fallen back on infanticide and abortion when too many pregnancies occurred.  This is perfectly natural as well, and the key to human survival.

Animals do not interfere with nature and abort pregnancies.

Yes, they do.  For instance, rabbits simply absorb embryos when they are given a scare, or are hungry.

It is not common practice for animals to kill their own offspring. Our supposed direct ancestors - bonobo apes, gorilla, chimpanzees et al - most certainly don’t.

Veronica.  Honey, please do some reading.  None of these animals are our direct ancestors; they are distant relatives—gorillas far more distant than chimps (both common and bonobo). 

Chimps commit infanticide regularly; bonobos don’t.  In the case of humans, we come down on the side of the common chimps.  As late as the early 1800s, a third of all babies born in Europe died by infanticide, according to The New England Journal of Medicine.

Other animals commit infanticide as well.

Today, we are fortunate to have contraception and abortion as much preferable methods of population regulation, since it’s almost certain that women will never be able to go back to the life that permits anovulation to restrict births to such a tiny number.

[ Edited: 21 October 2008 12:16 PM by M is for Malapert]
 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 03:42 AM

M for Malapert:

Nulono is right. For me “leaving the forum” does not mean not reading the forum.

And you couldn’t resist posting, just as I said.

If you want to leave a forum, you can’t read it.  The urge to post is too hard to resist, once you’ve started.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2008 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 21 October 2008 04:32 AM

M is for Malapert:

Could you please post the exact reference to the passage you quoted from the Obstetrics textbook (edition and page numbers)?

1997 edition; there’s been one more since then.  I don’t have it in front of me and am not going to Google my past posts to find the page numbers, but you wouldn’t find it difficult to find this passage.  It’s at the front in the first chapter on the fetus.

Obstetrics is considered applied human embryology. From the period of viability, the fetus is known as the second patient, because if the growing child becomes ill at that stage a neonatal pediatrician is able to intervene in order to offer it treatment.

Not so much about “the natural” any more, eh?

(Rest of ignorant blather deleted.)

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 40
6
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed