5 of 40
5
Pro-life Atheists
Posted: 14 October 2008 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Sandy - 14 October 2008 03:00 PM

Come on guys, this fellow can’t be more than 12 years old.  I’m out of thread…..I have infants to kill and I’m behind in doing so.

I’ve got a lot of animals to torture and kill for kicks! But because they are not human that is completely moral! Cool!

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2008 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

You both are correct. “Move along folks. There is nothing to see here.”

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 October 2008 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Your the one preaching, not me. Rights, the initiation of force etc. these are the practical things I address in my view, not self righteous fulfillment.

I thought you were the kind of reasonable people who would avoid ad hominems, etc.

Live and let live.

[ Edited: 15 October 2008 01:24 PM by Nulono]
 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: 19 October 2008 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

What you are describing dear nulono is not libertarianism, but some mutated form of it; a hybrid brand of puritanism gone south. Pardon the pun, but you might want to consider aborting it.

Libertarianism, by definition (despite your web-site cohorts attempts to re-define it), describes a political ideology that advocates minimal governmental intrusion on “the people’s” lives. Taking away a woman’s right to her own body, not to mention her privacy, is the epitomy of insidious, government intrusion.
You seem to be concerned with human rights and the non-initiation of force, and yet you advocate forcing individual women to bring every pregnancy to full fruition. It’s about competing rights and values nul: Who has rights?: unconscious, non-viable dividing cells or a conscious, fully-formed human being with a uterus to contain this union of sperm and egg?

Are you positing that every sperm is sacred and every egg a potential human being waiting to be fertilized?

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2008 02:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

No, I am not. I am merely stating that a government’s only role in the lives of the people is to protect them from the initiation of force.

What you seem to be advocating is anarchy.

Live and let live.

 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: 19 October 2008 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2006-12-13
Nulono - 19 October 2008 06:35 PM

I am merely stating that a government’s only role in the lives of the people is to protect them from the initiation of force.

I don’t know where you get your theory of government. My theory of government includes the notion that it is there to protect me from people like you, whose understanding of the “initiation of force” is so narrow that it omits a definition of fraud, perjury, and other similar crimes that (conveniently) do not fit that definition. In other words, I want government to protect me from frauds who believe they are above presenting the arguments for their position, such as yourself.

If you emphasize the individual responsibility of legal persons, I think you ought to take responsibility for explaining how an embryo without any capacity for individual responsibility is also granted the legal rights granted to anyone else in a libertarian paradise. Or did you just come here to rant at us for a few days and troll off into the sunset?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2008 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28
GAD - 10 October 2008 08:59 PM

There goes most all medical knowledge because it come from experimenting on the living. What do you do when you invent a new medicine, try it on the living. How did you develop it it the first place experiment on the living. Double bind trials let one group suffer even die to get the results. What happens when your sick and the doctors don’t know what the problem is, they try (experiment) on you. Vaccinations sicken and even kill some children, yet we give them to them…....

Although I had taken my leave on this forum, I couldn’t help but pop back in to give a helping hand to an atheist who happens to share my view.

NOT GAD, though.

I support the arguments put forward in favor of the anti-abortion stand.

But here I will merely address the point made by GAD and disappear again.

Every drug has to go through four different stages before it is released for public use. First the drug is developed, then tested on animals for safety, then the optimum dose is determined - in animals, before it is tested on human beings, first to determine the safety and optimum dose and finally to assess the efficiency and side effects of the optimum dose. The clinical trial, testing any drug on a human being is carefully designed and monitored. It has to pass through a human research ethics committee which consists of members from different fields, including religion and law. One of the ground rules for testing any drug/procedure on a human being is that the drug/procedure must offer more benefit than the drug/procedure currently available and the assumption based on animal studies that benefits outweigh the side effects. If it fails this criteria, it does not get through the ethics committee. At any stage of the trial if it ceases to fulfill the criteria, the trial has to be stopped immediately. If a tough ethics committee didn’t stand in the way, pharmaceutical companies would experiment with human beings like guinea pigs.

That is why every drug takes years to be released to the market, and no matter how long it takes to reach the public, it can be withdrawn immediately if harm outweighing its good is reported at any stage even after its release.

Medical doctors do not “experiment” on their patients; they merely offer the treatments available to them at the time. The treatment offered is always with the intention of doing the patient good.

Abortion on the other hand has only one goal, to kill the unborn child at the instruction of the mother. The right to kill is granted by law (much like the right granted to the soldier and the policeman) because it falls outside the framework of medical ethics.

Non religious sources to support the anti-abortion stand:

A standard textbook of human embryology

The Hippocratic Oath

[ Edited: 20 October 2008 02:57 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2008 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

***

[ Edited: 20 October 2008 02:57 AM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2008 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2008-02-28

From Roe vs Wade

6. The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion “with a view to its general suppression.” It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of “this general demoralization”:


“The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime—a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

“The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .

“The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas.

With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection.” Id., at 75-76.

The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting “against such unwarrantable destruction of human life,” calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies “in pressing the subject.” Id., at 28, 78.

In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, “We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less.” 22 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871).

It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it “be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child—if that be possible,” and calling “the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females—aye, and men also, on this important question.”

Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition to induced abortion, except when there is “documented medical evidence” of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that the child “may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency,” or that a pregnancy “resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the patient,” two other physicians “chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the patient and have concurred in writing, ” and the procedure “is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.” The providing of medical information by physicians to state legislatures in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic abortion was “to be considered consistent with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association.” This recommendation was adopted by the House of Delegates. Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967)...

[ Edited: 19 October 2008 10:13 PM by Veronica]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 02:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Sorry. I meant tosay the initiation of force or fraud. I typically leave out “the initiation of” and “or fraud” for brevity.

Go to l4l.org for my reasons.

 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 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

dulono: “No, I am not. I am merely stating that a government’s only role in the lives of the people is to protect them from the initiation of force.”

Reading comprehension appears to be a quality in which you are seriously lacking. Perhaps Sandy was correct, and you are but a child playing at being an adult, so I will say what I said in another way: For someone who claims to be concerned with human rights and protecting people from the initiation of force, you advocate using the force of law to force women to carry all pregnancies to full term, regardless of any unique or mitigating circumstances. What you advocate contradicts that which you claim to advocate.

I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but as the Beamer already pointed out to you earlier, your personal notion of morality does not and should not supersede individual rights. (Individual rights have traditionally been the cornerstone of the libertarian ideology; that is why I said your new-fangled definition of this party’s premises is more of hybrid of purtanism than libertarianism)

Whether you “believe” it or not, zygogenetic gametes are not viable human beings and therefore should not be accorded the same constitutional rights as the fully developed human being with the uterus containing said zygogenetic gametes. They are, by definition, dividing cells, not “life” per se, (on its face), they are reproductive cells in a stage of development that may or may not result in fully developed human life. “Tis better left to the woman, her own conscience and consciousness, to make determinations in regard to pregnancy, not the government, or FORCE of law. Again, LESS government intrusion is a core principle of classic libertarianism.

Perhaps you should invest in a course in political science before you spout off your own definitions of political parties and its platform’s original intentions.

“What you seem to be advocating is anarchy.”

I “advocated” no such thing. In fact, I didn’t advocate any political party position. YOU are the one advocating morality under the guise of a misguided definition of libertarianism.

“Sorry. I meant tosay the initiation of force or fraud. I typically leave out “the initiation of” and “or fraud” for brevity.”

Adding the word fraud does nothing to buttress your argument.

Go to l4l.org for my reasons.

See dismith’s avatar.

Dear Veronica: Are you actually arguing for the return of 19th century legislation and thinking? Perhaps you’d like to see the return of legislation that claimed black men were only two-thirds of a person; revoke the right for women to vote; go back to laws giving no property rights to single or widowed women as well. May I suggest that you critically think about the motives behind that which you copiously cut, past and put in bold. Much of it is arguments for keeping women in servitude to men, not to mention barefoot and pregnant.

[ Edited: 20 October 2008 08:41 AM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2008 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Nulono - 13 October 2008 02:23 PM

A non-consenting party is EVERYTHING to do with morality!

Well, if you want an embryo to be considered a person, I don’t consent to have that person using my body.

An embryonic cell WILL develop further without help, using any reasonable definition of “help”.

Okay; you give the help, or find someone to do so.  Pay someone to develop the potential of these cells.

Embryos are ALREADY human!

Sure, so what?  Even if they’re persons, nobody is required to donate his or her body to help anyone else.  Women aren’t some weird exception.  Just because they are suited to save the life of an embryo doesn’t require them to do so, just as you aren’t required to save the life of someone with heart failure just because you might happen to have the right tissue type to save that person.

Not even if it’s your own kid, by the way.

In case you don’t believe that, ask any one of the people on the transplant list, about half of whom ARE going to die because no one is willing to DONATE an organ to help THEM survive.

If everyone were required to donate bodily resources to help other people, it would be a different world.

 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 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Veronica - 20 October 2008 12:43 AM

Although I had taken my leave on this forum, I couldn’t help but pop back in to give a helping hand to an atheist who happens to share my view.

If you’d taken your leave on this forum you wouldn’t know what was going on.

I support the arguments put forward in favor of the anti-abortion stand.

Quelle surprise!

But here I will merely address the point made by GAD and disappear again.

Or not…

Abortion on the other hand has only one goal, to kill the unborn child at the instruction of the mother.

Nope, it’s to prevent a child from coming into being.  Of course, if you want to think of an embryo as a person and give it the same rights as a person, you must be sure not to give it MORE rights than other persons.

People don’t have a right to access someone else’s body without consent, by force.  Not even to save their lives.  The initiator of force is the embryo, if you consider it a person.  A woman has every right to remove herself from attack.  If lethal force is the only means of defense available to her, she can use it.

Just like anyone else!  Amazing, huh?  Young and fertile and sexually active women have the same rights as old dried-up powerful men and women.

I know, it’s horrendous to contemplate.  If we can’t violate young sexy women’s bodies, and talk endlessly about it, who can we exploit?  Those skanks.  Shame.

Non religious sources to support the anti-abortion stand:

A standard textbook of human embryology

Here’s what Williams Obstetrics has to say on the subject:

“In the past, the fetus was envisioned as a passive passenger of the pregnancy unit, but nothing could be further from the truth… it is the dynamic force in the orchestration of its own destiny. 

The chemical IMPETUS FOR IMPLANTATION is provided by[embryonic tissues]...

INVASION of the maternal endometrium and blood vessels is under the direction of [embryonic tissues]...

There are neoplastic and inflammatory processes involved in blastocyst implantation…

[The blastocyst produces] metalloproteinases that effect degradation of the endometrial [tissues] in a manner similar to that of metastasizing neoplastic [cancer] cells…

[Fetal tissues] are remarkably effective at EXTRACTING and SEQUESTERING essential nutrients from maternal circulation… the demands of the embryo are met at whatever cost to the maternal organism.  The fetus is a demanding and efficient parasite!” 

(And so on.) 

According to Williams Obstetrics, the embryo is the thing responsible for initiating and maintaining pregnancy, at the expense of the woman.  Now, Williams Obstetrics doesn’t consider an embryo a person—it’s a constituent of the “pregnancy unit”; part of the “maternal organism”; a section of the woman’s body.

But if you do think of an embryo as a person, it’s something like a rapist (if an unconscious, unknowing one) and has no more right to a woman’s body than a rapist does.

From my perspective, of course, since an embryo is not a person, it’s people who try to make abortion a crime who are more like rapists, or proponents of slavery.  They are advocating stripping women of rights and turning their bodies over to someone else’s use, in violation of consent.

The Hippocratic Oath

Do some reading about the Hippocratic Oath.  For one thing, it wasn’t written by Hippocrates (who performed abortions) but by Pythagoreans, who also condemned surgery or any letting of blood.  For another, it’s irrelevant today.

[ Edited: 20 October 2008 02:09 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: 20 October 2008 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23

[quote author=“Veronica”

Also read some history of medicine in the USA.  In the mid-19th century, the AMA was busy trying to establish itself as a respectable profession, “the regulars”, attempting to create a monopoly on medical treatment and squeeze out midwives and “irregular” practitioners who hadn’t been trained at certain approved medical schools.

The joke is that these physicians were all equally ignorant stumblebums compared to the medical profession today.  Midwives actually had a better record of safety in caring for pregnant women than physicians did, if only because the midwives were clean.

Male physicians wore frock coats to do surgery and didn’t change or even wash their hands before attending childbirth.  They would insert their blood-encrusted, filthy fingers into women’s bodies and, no surprise, puerperal fever and other septic illness followed with lethal result.

Meanwhile, midwives attended one woman at a time and stayed through the birth.  They wouldn’t go to another birth immediately and would clean up between times.  They knew as much through simple apprenticeship and observation as the physicians did, and they were gentle and clean.  They were powerful competition to the medical boobs—and they were rooted out. 

It took generations for midwifery to make a comeback in the US; it never fell out of favor in Britain and Europe and as a result medical history is quite different—there, it was mainly wealthy women who died of childbirth fever, because they could afford physicians.  They died like flies.  Poorer women, who could only afford the services of a midwife, were much likelier to survive childbirth, and their babies too.

The importance of cleanliness in childbirth was discovered in Vienna by a physician named Semmelweiss, who wondered why it was the richer, physician-attended wards of women who were dying in childbirth in greater numbers than the poor wards of women attended by midwives.  He was laughed at when he urged doctors to wash their hands, and women went on dying.

It is a story of grotesquerie, and would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

The AMA is a pandering joke.  It’s no wonder that only about half of US physicians belong to this group of fools.

 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 02:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html

Libertarianism is a type of morality. The law is a codification of morality. Laws against murder are also pushing morality.

“Leving the forum” could just mean not posting.

[ Edited: 20 October 2008 02:46 PM by Nulono]
 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
 
 
   
5 of 40
5
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed