When does life begin?

[Callipygous]

Some actions are clear cut. Others are not. Your examples ignore that fact. I think that you would be a bad person if you attempted to force a person to behave in a way that is coincident with your morals and opposed to hers. Abortion is not a clear cut issue.

 

what if she stabs the baby right as it crowns? what if she feels her water break and decides to get out a coat hanger? what if she knows shes 8 months pregnant and does something to force a miscarriage then? at what point does it stop being a "private decision" and start being a murder in your mind?

 

You think that if someone does not understand your words, then it is completely that other person's fault. Yet your words tend to be sloppy sometimes. You use the pronoun "you", and you pretend that all of us known that you don't mean what you say. What you really mean is you yourself, not me or anyone else. Why not just say what you mean, instead of forcing everyone to just know what you mean.

 

because then you wouldnt be able to come up with any stupid, grammar based details to complain about when you dont have anything to say about the actual topic. i wouldnt want to put you in that difficult situation.

 

COMPLETELY INCORRECT, in my opinion.

 

once again, when does it stop being an invasion of privacy and start being the prevention of a murder?

 

I disagree. What does logic have to do with when a woman decides that the life inside of her deserves it to have its rights supercede those of her own?

 

logic is what she uses when she considers how having a child will affect her life, her health and those around her and compares it to how those things would be affected if she didnt have the child.

 

Once again you blame me for the lack of clarity of your words. Why not imporve the quality of your words, rather than placing the blame on others for your words.

 

because i believe you know exactly what i mean and you just choose to focus on stupid details to avoid having to answer the real questions.

[Cadmus]

what if she stabs the baby right as it crowns? what if she feels her water break and decides to get out a coat hanger? what if she knows shes 8 months pregnant and does something to force a miscarriage then? at what point does it stop being a "private decision" and start being a murder in your mind?

I think that these points are irrelevant. You seem to be attempting to find a single possible exception to my statement as a means to refute my entire argument. I concede that there can be rare exceptions. So what. Your examples are extreme, and could only possiblly account for the tiniest fraction of cases.

 

because then you wouldnt be able to come up with any stupid, grammar based details to complain about when you dont have anything to say about the actual topic. i wouldnt want to put you in that difficult situation.

You call my complainst stupid, but do not think to consider the sloppiness of your grammar ever at fault. Whatever.

 

once again, when does it stop being an invasion of privacy and start being the prevention of a murder?

Why are you so intent at drawing a line as a reason to deny the entire argument?

 

logic is what she uses when she considers how having a child will affect her life, her health and those around her and compares it to how those things would be affected if she didnt have the child.

Are you female? I believe that you were talking about your use of logic, not some womans. Perhaps this is another case where I am supposed to just know what you mean. Anyway, I consider decisions concerning abortion to be highly emotional, and not all about logic.

 

because i believe you know exactly what i mean and you just choose to focus on stupid details to avoid having to answer the real questions.

You cast blame on everyone else for the sloppiness of your grammar. Everyone but yourself.

[jdurg]

To bring back the situations posted by Callipygous in post #150, if you stop a rape when you see it occuring you are protecting not only that person, but yourself. If the rape happens and that person gets away, he/she could rape you and you put yourself in danger. If a mother suffocates her baby right after it's being born, there's a chance she could suffocate you if she is allowed to get away with it as well. Again, those things which you are doing are considered moral in your mind but could also be tied back loosely into a form of self protection. If a mother aborts her baby in the third week of pregnancy, you really aren't in any form of self protection by stopping that since you cannot be aborted. (Then again, you've already stated that you are pro-choice until the third trimester so I don't even know why I brought that up. I fully agree with you on that point).

 

I think earlier in the thread someone brought up the point about why animal cruelty is considered wrong and illegal. Once again, it can all be tied back to self protection. If you let someone go and torture a bunch of animals and perform cruel acts on them, there's the possibility that they could go and perform those cruel acts on you as well. So by making it illegal, you have protected yourself from being exposed to those acts. With just about all of the laws in our legal system today, there is some form of self preservation and defense in there. With things like abortion and same-sex marriages, there is absolutely nothing that ties it into self preservation. Those laws are all about protecting one's beliefs and forcing them on others. If Kelly and Sue decide to get married, how does that adversely affect me or the rest of the population? If Jim and Bill want to marry each other, how does that cause harm to you or I? If Betty goes and has an abortion, what threat does that pose to your life or wellbeing? These are the questions that I have yet to have answered in any discussion like these.

[Callipygous]

I think that these points are irrelevant. You seem to be attempting to find a single possible exception to my statement as a means to refute my entire argument. I concede that there can be rare exceptions. So what. Your examples are extreme, and could only possiblly account for the tiniest fraction of cases.

 

you seem to be of the opinion that an abortion is a womans right, no matter the circumstances, no matter how late in the pregnancy. i bring up these specific situations to try to get you to think about why it would be ok for a woman to kill a child just because it is still inside her. i bring up the suffocation after birth because if you say that is ok, then you are condoning murder. obviously your not doing that, so i bring up the crowning incedent. is it ok then? and if you say yes to that then we have to ask the question of what is different about the baby when it is still mostly inside that makes it ok to kill it. if you say no, thats not ok, then i bring up the 8 months in example. what changes in the last month that makes it ok to kill it now, but not in another month? what about one month before that?

 

you said earlier that i was giving cut and dried examples and that abortion isnt that straight forward. i think your the one that is viewing it as straight forward as you seem to think abortion is always ok, and im assuming you think murder is not. what is the difference between the two and where is the line dividing them?

 

You call my complainst stupid, but do not think to consider the sloppiness of your grammar ever at fault. Whatever.

 

any complaint, in a debate, that focuses on the way an arguement is presented instead of the point it is trying to make IS STUPID.

 

Are you female? I believe that you were talking about your use of logic, not some womans. Perhaps this is another case where I am supposed to just know what you mean. Anyway, I consider decisions concerning abortion to be highly emotional, and not all about logic.

 

im curious why my gender would have anything to do with it. there is definately an element of logic in this decision, if nothing else then the woman would consider how the event would affect her emotionally.

 

You cast blame on everyone else for the sloppiness of your grammar. Everyone but yourself.

 

you just seem to be the only one who has a problem with my grammar. if you cant figure out that when someone says something like "you can always eat cheese" the "you" doesnt mean YOU SPECIFICALLY it means anyone, then you need to open up your damn mind. communication is not set in stone. is english a second language that you have only used in reading and writing or something? have you never had a real life conversation in this language? from the way you regard the semantics im seriously wondering.

[Cadmus]

you seem to be of the opinion that an abortion is a womans right, no matter the circumstances, no matter how late in the pregnancy.

I am of the opinion that a voluntary abortion, given that the father has no argument, is never murder. Whether or not you or I approve should not be a factor in a woman's decision. After 6 months, a fetus could live outside of the mother's body. This makes the area grayer. However, I think that the government should not legislate what goes on within a woman's body.

 

you said earlier that i was giving cut and dried examples and that abortion isnt that straight forward. i think your the one that is viewing it as straight forward as you seem to think abortion is always ok, and im assuming you think murder is not. what is the difference between the two and where is the line dividing them?

The voluntary termination of a pregnancy cannot ever be determined to be murder unilaterally by the state. I never suggested that abortion is OK. I suggested that it should not be legislated by government.

 

any complaint, in a debate, that focuses on the way an arguement is presented instead of the point it is trying to make IS STUPID.

What you seem to be saying is that if you use sloppy grammar, and then is someone else misunderstands your meaning due to your sloppy grammar, then all fault lies with the listener because after all you know what you mean?

 

im curious why my gender would have anything to do with it. there is definately an element of logic in this decision, if nothing else then the woman would consider how the event would affect her emotionally.

Why does your gener have anything to do with it? You discussed how a woman would use logic. However, the context was establsihed in an earlier post, where you stated that you would use logic. I don't know if I am supposed to realize that you are a woman, or whether this is another example of your sloppy grammar and I am supposed to recognize your "real" meaning, ignoring the fact that you were talking about you and logic and as an example discussed women and logic. If I jump to conclusions, you question me. If I let your words speak for themselves, then I can be confused. Either way, you seem ready to blame everyone but yourself for miscommuncation through your words.

 

you just seem to be the only one who has a problem with my grammar. if you cant figure out that when someone says something like "you can always eat cheese" the "you" doesnt mean YOU SPECIFICALLY it means anyone, then you need to open up your damn mind. communication is not set in stone. is english a second language that you have only used in reading and writing or something? have you never had a real life conversation in this language? from the way you regard the semantics im seriously wondering.

I am sorry if you are used to communication with people where sloppy grammar is adequate. When I challenge you, you resent the fact that I cannot read your mind. If you wish to engage in superficial communication, where I just guess your meaning and you can just yell at me when I misunderstand, then what is the point of this discussion? Do you really feel no obligation to speak in a manner that clearly indicates your meaning, rather than being vague and forcing me to understand somehow magically what you really mean?

 

Do you really think that people understand your meaning to a very deep level when you speak with vagueness and your words have multiple meanings?

[Callipygous]

The voluntary termination of a pregnancy cannot ever be determined to be murder unilaterally by the state. I never suggested that abortion is OK. I suggested that it should not be legislated by government.

 

oh, so its a killing that isnt ok? isnt that called a murder? so its a legal murder?

 

What you seem to be saying is that if you use sloppy grammar, and then is someone else misunderstands your meaning due to your sloppy grammar, then all fault lies with the listener because after all you know what you mean?

 

no. im saying that when, instead of looking at the meaning of what im saying, you ignore it and focus instead on how i use the word "you" instead of "a person" you are a moron who has no point to make. you choose to bitch about how terribly confusing my grammar makes the post because i didnt specify exactly which person i was referring to in each and every sentance, instead of looking at the idea i presented and finding something to dispute about it.

 

Why does your gener have anything to do with it? You discussed how a woman would use logic. However, the context was establsihed in an earlier post, where you stated that you would use logic. I don't know if I am supposed to realize that you are a woman, or whether this is another example of your sloppy grammar and I am supposed to recognize your "real" meaning, ignoring the fact that you were talking about you and logic and as an example discussed women and logic. If I jump to conclusions, you question me. If I let your words speak for themselves, then I can be confused. Either way, you seem ready to blame everyone but yourself for miscommuncation through your words.

 

so the problem here is that you think it matters whether or not im a woman. just because its a decision only a woman ever makes doesnt mean that men are incapable of following the decision making process a person would use in that situtation.

 

I am sorry if you are used to communication with people where sloppy grammar is adequate. When I challenge you, you resent the fact that I cannot read your mind. If you wish to engage in superficial communication, where I just guess your meaning and you can just yell at me when I misunderstand, then what is the point of this discussion? Do you really feel no obligation to speak in a manner that clearly indicates your meaning, rather than being vague and forcing me to understand somehow magically what you really mean?

 

all these ideas are about people in general. you ignore that and focus instead on whether i was talking about me or you or a woman or some other specific class of person. we are discussing humans, i dont need to specify whether im talking about me deciding whether an abortion is a good idea or a woman making the same decision.

 

"forcing me to understand somehow magically what you really mean?"

or maybe expecting you to not be a nitwit focussing on details and instead discuss the ideas were talking about.

[Cadmus]

oh, so its a killing that isnt ok? isnt that called a murder? so its a legal murder?

Murder is a legal term. There is no such thing in law as a "legal murder".

 

no. im saying that when, instead of looking at the meaning of what im saying, you ignore it and focus instead on how i use the word "you" instead of "a person" you are a moron who has no point to make. you choose to bitch about how terribly confusing my grammar makes the post because i didnt specify exactly which person i was referring to in each and every sentance, instead of looking at the idea i presented and finding something to dispute about it.

Now I understand. Instead of recognizing that you have responsibility for your words, you decided to cry like a little baby, in the only way you know how so it seems. If you are a whiny little baby, go whine to your mommy. Maybe she pretends that she understands your dribble. You are with the big boys now, and we don't have to coddle whiny little babies like yourself.

 

 

so the problem here is that you think it matters whether or not im a woman. just because its a decision only a woman ever makes doesnt mean that men are incapable of following the decision making process a person would use in that situtation.

You cry that I don't understand whay you mean, yet here you are completely distorting my meaning. You claimed that you used logic. When I asked for detail, you talked about women who have an abortion using logic. I drew the natural conclusion, but knowing that my conclusion might be mistaken on the basis of your sloppy grammar I asked for clarification. Now you suggest that it doesn't matter if you are a woman. You don't seem to care if your meaning gets across. You behave like a cry baby, and now you have degenrated this discussion to your whining. Do you think that your cry baby antics will really improve the outcome and hide the fact that your English is horrendous? Go whine to your mommy and get her comfirmation that it isn't your fault. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

all these ideas are about people in general. you ignore that and focus instead on whether i was talking about me or you or a woman or some other specific class of person. we are discussing humans, i dont need to specify whether im talking about me deciding whether an abortion is a good idea or a woman making the same decision.

Are you back already? Good. Let's continue. You make a statement, and then you say that I should not draw meaning from your words, but should somehow know what you mean. I think that I do understand what you mean, and I disagree with it. Since we have only opinions to express, there should not be a problem. But, crying seems to be what you do best when someone does not recognize fanstatic objective worth in your opinion.

[Callipygous]

Murder is a legal term. There is no such thing in law as a "legal murder".

 

i was wondering if you would catch that... now if only you would apply some thought to that.

 

 

Now I understand. Instead of recognizing that you have responsibility for your words, you decided to cry like a little baby, in the only way you know how so it seems. If you are a whiny little baby, go whine to your mommy. Maybe she pretends that she understands your dribble. You are with the big boys now, and we don't have to coddle whiny little babies like yourself.

 

whos crying? im perfectly fine with the fact that your a moron who cant discuss a topic. just dont expect any respect from me.

 

 

You cry that I don't understand whay you mean, yet here you are completely distorting my meaning. You claimed that you used logic. When I asked for detail, you talked about women who have an abortion using logic. I drew the natural conclusion, but knowing that my conclusion might be mistaken on the basis of your sloppy grammar I asked for clarification. Now you suggest that it doesn't matter if you are a woman. You don't seem to care if your meaning gets across. You behave like a cry baby, and now you have degenrated this discussion to your whining. Do you think that your cry baby antics will really improve the outcome and hide the fact that your English is horrendous? Go whine to your mommy and get her comfirmation that it isn't your fault. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

IVE degenerated this discussion? your the one who cant reply to a single post without bitching about the way something is phrased.

 

 

Are you back already? Good. Let's continue. You make a statement, and then you say that I should not draw meaning from your words, but should somehow know what you mean. I think that I do understand what you mean, and I disagree with it. Since we have only opinions to express, there should not be a problem. But, crying seems to be what you do best when someone does not recognize fanstatic objective worth in your opinion.

 

if you disagree with maybe you should try saying why instead of gradually dropping all the actual ideas from your replies to make more room for complaints about grammar.

 

 

(dont think i havent noticed that with each reply you ignore one more of the quotes that actually had substance)

[Cadmus]

i was wondering if you would catch that... now if only you would apply some thought to that.

There you go again. You want anyone but yourself to have to think. How cute of you, youngster.

 

whos crying?

I''m sorry. Wasn't I clear enough?

 

im perfectly fine with the fact that your a moron who cant discuss a topic. just dont expect any respect from me.

Powerful threat there.

 

IVE degenerated this discussion?

Yes. In fact, this post of yours has degenrated to the point that you have zero to say about the topic at hand. All you are doing here is crying.

 

your the one who cant reply to a single post without bitching about the way something is phrased.

Everyone is dumb but you, is it? How childish of you. No surprise there.

 

if you disagree with maybe you should try saying why instead of gradually dropping all the actual ideas from your replies to make more room for complaints about grammar.

If you will look, I have inserted my position increasingly forcefully in recent posts to make sure that you understand it clearly. You have been doing the opposite. You are the one dropping any actual ideas.

 

(dont think i havent noticed that with each reply you ignore one more of the quotes that actually had substance)

I think that you are delusional. You seem to be looking in a mirror and attributing to me the faults that exist within you.

 

If you do not want to talk about the topic of the thread, then let us stop. For you to whine like a baby about how everything is my fault and you have no need to be responsible for your own words is worthless. Even you must realize that now, don't you?

[Callipygous]

if you look im sure even you will notice that each of my posts, up until that last one, answers your questions as best i can. usually with at least one paragraph-long response to one of your questions.

 

 

To bring back the situations posted by Callipygous in post #150, if you stop a rape when you see it occuring you are protecting not only that person, but yourself. If the rape happens and that person gets away, he/she could rape you and you put yourself in danger. If a mother suffocates her baby right after it's being born, there's a chance she could suffocate you if she is allowed to get away with it as well. Again, those things which you are doing are considered moral in your mind but could also be tied back loosely into a form of self protection. If a mother aborts her baby in the third week of pregnancy, you really aren't in any form of self protection by stopping that since you cannot be aborted. (Then again, you've already stated that you are pro-choice until the third trimester so I don't even know why I brought that up. I fully agree with you on that point).

 

i dont see that preventing a rape has anything to do with self defense. it may be that in doing so you make the world a safer place by getting the person off the streets, but the immediate purpose is to help someone in trouble. i highly doubt that anyone interrupting a crime like that did so with self preservation in mind. if anything you are endangering yourself far more by getting involved than by staying away.

 

i also dont see what that has to do with whether or not there should be legislation on the issue. laws are there to protect everyone, not just those that are old enough to write the laws.

[reverse]

yes,

 

that’s a really good acid test for behaviour.

 

would you like it if someone did it to you?

 

No ?

 

Then don’t do it to someone else.

 

Would you like it if you were prevented from being born?

 

No?

 

Then don’t do it to someone else.

[Phi for All]

Let's try to stay within the biomedical ethics of this topic. We're straying too much into legal and political areas, which are covered by topics in other forums. Or has it all been said, and this thread needs some closure?

 

Cadmus and Callipygous, divorce granted, irreconcilable differences. You're both fined $10,000 for conduct unbecoming a member. I'll PM you the PayPal info.

[Callipygous]

Let's try to stay within the biomedical ethics of this topic. We're straying too much into legal and political areas, which are covered by topics in other forums. Or has it all been said, and this thread needs some closure?

 

shouldnt the legal side of it be based on ethics?

[Phi for All]

shouldnt the legal side of it be based on ethics?

See Abortion thread in Politics. Old ground.

[reverse]

Ok then,

 

I will buy that.

 

First principals.

 

1: First do no harm.

 

I can’t see this as any form of healing.

 

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

 

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

 

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

 

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

 

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

 

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

 

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

 

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

 

 

Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein

[Callipygous]

what is it and why is it relevant?

 

seeing as how it swears by the gods im guessing its not actually relevant.

[Phi for All]

what is it and why is it relevant?

It's the Hippocratic Oath, I believe. Relevant in that many physicians try to adhere to it's principals.

[Callipygous]

It's the Hippocratic Oath, I believe. Relevant in that many physicians try to adhere to it's principals.

 

the hippocratic oath makes references to greek gods? O.o

[Phi for All]

the hippocratic oath makes references to greek gods? O.o

You thought Hippocrates was American?

[Callipygous]

You thought Hippocrates was American?

 

i didnt know where "hippocratic" came from.

 

just googled it, very strange. some sites seem to be providing a modern version, with no mention of gods or of abortion. ill look into it further : P

 

 

heres something to look over, still searching.

http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html

[Phi for All]

just googled it, very strange. some sites seem to be providing a modern version, with no mention of gods or of abortion.

I'd be willing to bet they also don't mention sharing your money with your instructor and teaching medical secrets to his sons for free, either.

 

It's the spirit of the Oath, to do no harm, that seems applicable here. Some updating needed to be done. At the time, physicians didn't give abortive drugs, but herbalists and mid-wives did.

[Anindya]

According to biological facts, in human beings the embryo is considered a living entity into 4 months of development as it posesses a rudimentry nervous system.....i.e it can feel!!!

You would have to define life more specifically to get a specific answer. You should not forget that life encompasses a vast plethora of organisms....

It would be just philosophical to understand one!!

[Anindya]

Well the Americans think God is an American WASP

[Callipygous]

Well the Americans think God is an American WASP

 

1. what the hell is with all the america bashing i hear online?

2. WASP?

 

 

(i would also like to note that i am an american and i think god is a magical fairy in the sky that people made up to explain a bunch of crap they didnt understand, but thats for another thread : P)

[Phi for All]

1. what the hell is with all the america bashing i hear online?

2. WASP?

1. Nothing new. Everyone judges others out of context as a bundle of attributes' date=' we have the largest per capita online presence, we are very controversial.

 

2. [b']W[/b]hite Anglo-Saxon Protestant.