|
|
|
Sea Sorbust
Skeptic Friend
USA
68 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2003 : 09:28:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
OK, I'm not going to argue with you all about if a baby is or is not a human life at conception.
Well, there is not much to argue about, because I really don't understan your statement. It does not compute.
Immediatly after conception, the cell cluster is called zygote, as was sugested earlier. After that, it's called a foetus. I really don't think you call them baby until they are a screeming, smelly infant. At least everyone I've talked to say so. Why else does a mother in the third trimester say "I'm going to have a baby" Emphasis made to point out future tense. As in: it will be a baby once it is born.
Zygote, shmygoat!
quote:
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
I've been away from this thread for a while but I misunderstood Creation88 and was getting ready to add the caustic question
quote:
And just what, mine dearest dingbat, do you think that 2-minutes-after-conception thing is if not a baby human? A baby Kangaroo? A baby baboon? a baby sea slug? A baby Martian? And at what point in its short prebirth lifespan does it mysteriously transform itself into a baby human? And exactly what mystical biomechanism causes the mysterious transformation from baby dingbat into a baby human? What a crock of intellectual and logical garbage!
But it turns out that I did indeed misunderstand Creation88's position:
quote:
Originally posted by Creation88
And sea sorbust, I'm sure yu can tell after reading the above. I was saying that a baby IS a human life.
Sorry about that, Creation88. You're right. After reading, things became clearer. Sorry about the name-calling; I retract it all.
Zygote, shmygoat. As if one can use a different name to wave away reality.  |
"This is the forest primeval...."  |
 |
|
|
Sea Sorbust
Skeptic Friend
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2003 : 10:11:21 [Permalink]
|
By the way, IiRC, the ancient Japanese infants were allowed to be exposed to the elements overnight up until four months after birth.
IiRC, the Shinto beliefs were that, without regard to the wishes of the household to be rid if the infant, were it to survive the ordeal of exposure, it had a permanent right to life and the parents had to care for it as if it were a holy person.
It seems that we have drawn our timeline much earlier but that we do not allow for any type of "natural selection."
None of this has anything to do with Mars or impending doom from a meteor strike though, so shall climb aboard my CyberMotorBike and zoom-zoom-zoom-zoom to a more pertinent thread.  |
"This is the forest primeval...." |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2003 : 09:43:49 [Permalink]
|
Dear Sea Sorbust:
First you quote me:
quote:
Originally posted by Sea Sorbust
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Why else does a mother in the third trimester say "I'm going to have a baby" Emphasis made to point out future tense. As in: it will be a baby once it is born.
Then you quote me(?) again?quote:
Zygote, shmygoat!
quote:
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
But I never wrote that. If you start to quote someone else than me in the same post, you should indicate so, that others might know that you are referring to other sources. People might mistakingly think that I wrote that rose-stuff since you never said you were quoting someone else, until a later quote where you indicate that you have changed person to quote. Falsely attributing a quote to someone else is rude at best..
quote:
Sea Sorbust wrote
quote:
Creation88 wrote
And sea sorbust, I'm sure yu can tell after reading the above. I was saying that a baby IS a human life.
Sorry about that, Creation88. You're right. After reading, things became clearer. Sorry about the name-calling; I retract it all.
Zygote, shmygoat. As if one can use a different name to wave away reality.
A human baby IS a human life. Noone is contesting that as far as I can tell.
What I am objecting to is C88 calling a zygote a baby.
"Baby" is member of group "human life"
"Foetus" is member of "pregnant woman" and pregnant woman is a member of human life. That also makes foetus a member of human life.
Just because both foetus and baby are members of human life does not make foetus equal baby.
It is as simple as that, and to deny it is to deny simple logic.
A zygote is a part of pregnant woman that is a member of human life. Since this relationship exists, I think it's up to pregnant woman, of which zygote is an integrated member, to decide what to do with zygote. Or foetus for that matter.
However,If you were to grow a foetus outside the womb, I would expect it to have the same rights as a "grown-up" on life-support. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2003 : 13:44:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
It's just a matter of opinion. BUT.....say theres even a one in a hundred chance that it really is a living person.
A while ago we were talking about what constitutes a baby, and the difference between a baby and a zygote, (embryo), and a foetus. Now suddenly, we're talking about it being a living person the very day after conception. In Sweden I would say "Talk about making a hen out of a feather." (please help me out with an appropriate idiom, this is a weakness in my knowledge of English)
I'm sorry, but the inconsistencies in your reasoning is mind-boggling.
quote:
Is it worth the risk?
Is it your decision to make, or the women carrying the embryos/foetuses?
quote:
If your standing in front of one person and ninty nine crash test dummies. You can't see a difference between them, and you have to choose one of them to shoot. Would you take the chance? It would make your life easier if you shoot one.
Your analogy is flawed.
To start with, the classic Christian doctrine is that from the moment of conception God has a PLAN for our lives. In fact, even before conception God has a plan for every single human life. The Bible says so, it has to be the truth.
Is this why you insist on calling zygotes, embryos, and foetuses Living Persons? Please, tell us.
If this is the case, then understand that many of us do not recognize God, or whatever Plan He might have for us. Thus, we do not recognize the validity of the analogy you are proposing.
Understand this though: I feel that every abortion is a tragedy in one sense or another. They should not have to happen in an Ideal World. But the world is far from ideal. Just because I speak up pro-abortion does not mean that I'd like to see abortions made just for fun, or to keep abortion clinics busy.
The choice should be up to the woman in question, though any and all relevant information should be presented to her. Having an abortion is no walk in the park. It wreaks havok on the hormonal balance as well as the psychological well being.
This is where YOU have a responsibility. You, who call yourself pro-life has an obligation to prevent pregnancies where the situation have a high risk of resulting in an abortion.
The classic situation is the teenage pregnancy, where the girl gets knocked up because she:
a) didn't know how to protect herself, (no education about sex or the practice of safe sex at home or in schools, because of either religious and/or naïve parents)
b) wasn't allowed to protect herself, (parents or ministry of the church deny her contraceptives because they believe it to be against God's will. Either by direct action: parents deny her a visit to the clinic, or indirect action: ministers preaching doctrine)
c) was too insecure/afraid to protect herself. (no encouragement given by parents or friends to "speak up", or again no one has stressed the importance of safe sex, and that she has a right, yes even the responsibility, to demand of her partner: safe sex).
Edited to add:
d) contraceptives fail (Murphy's law says that even if you take steps against pregnancy, eventually those steps will fail and the girl/woman will get knocked up anyway. However, this example constitutes a relatively small fraction of teenage pregnancies as far as I know.)
It all boils down to the misguided doctrines of religion causing much trouble. And people like ministers who preach abstinense. How fucking stupid is that? Teenagers in love will have sex sooner or later, it's like asking the sun not to rise in the morning.
What has to be done in a case like that is to teach them to do it in a responsible way. That's how you decrease the number of abortions among teenagers.
quote:
And before I go....all I have heard on here about Bush, is how useless going into Iraq has been. But as you all know, Sadaam Hussain was captured Sunday morning.
Since this part has been addressed sufficiently already, I don't see any point of doing it. Unless you want me to of course. Just let me know, and I'll get right back to it.
Edited to add the point Renae made further down... Thank you Renae. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/26/2003 17:46:02 |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2003 : 15:07:17 [Permalink]
|
I suppose that GOD is the SUPREME ABORTIONIST. After all, about one-third of fertilized ova end up in spontaneous abortions. So, go after GOD if you are against ABORTION. The Morning-After Pill and RU486 are the best things to come down the pike to get the abortion done EARLY. They abort the bunch of cells long before there is any sentient life or pain and suffering. However, it really is a problem for those guys, particularly the rapists, who want their sperm to win out. The morning-after pill will stop that. RU486 will finish the job if the morning-after pill fails.
The Earth is becoming overpopulated, and starvation will eventually be the result of this stupid over-population.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 03:36:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ljbrs
I suppose that GOD is the SUPREME ABORTIONIST. After all, about one-third of fertilized ova end up in spontaneous abortions. So, go after GOD if you are against ABORTION.
I'm sorry, ljbrs, but you don't get me... Those fertelized ovas wasn't in God's Plan, hence they are not qualified as human life.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 07:13:39 [Permalink]
|
Great posts here.
Dr. M, if I can add just one thought while agreeing with yours: sometimes birth control fails. Condoms break or aren't used consistently and correctly, IUDs become problematic and must be removed, etc. Even birth control pills sometimes fail: a woman forgets to take one for a day or two; another drug she's taking reduces their effectiveness; she becomes ill and vomits one pill, etc.
Some women, even teenagers, simply can't take birth control pills, because the side effects can be intolerable and even (rarely) life-threatening. This leaves only other, less-effective means of birth control.
Like you, I'd love to see no abortions ever. But sex feels good, so people will enjoy it, and unwanted pregnancies will occur. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 13:03:47 [Permalink]
|
One BIG PROBLEM with unprotected sex is that it is a great way to obtain sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). If your partner (including your spouse) has had unprotected sex with anybody else who has STDs, he/she will bring home to you these illnesses -- most of them being incurable because of the ignorant trivial misuse of antibiotics, etc., by the general public.
I simply think that it is very risky to have unprotected sex with ANYONE, since one can only be sure about himself/herself.
Penicillin no longer works in many cases and only for bacterial diseases. Some ignoramuses take penicillin for COLDS, for crying out loud. Penicillin does not work for viruses. Some doctors give penicillin for viral diseases. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
So, STDs are a problem brought about with the practice of indiscriminate sex. One never knows where one's partner has been... That includes one's mate.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 16:20:08 [Permalink]
|
ljbrs wrote:quote:
most of them [STDs] being incurable because of the ignorant trivial misuse of antibiotics, etc., by the general public.
Actually, no. The incurable STDs are viral, and misuse of antibiotics, as you know, does nothing for viral diseases. HIV, herpes, hepatitis and genital warts are all viral. Gonorrhea and syphylis, on the other hand, are bacterial and curable with courses of antibiotics. Pubic lice, of course, are neither viral nor bacterial, and are curable as well.
I'm sure I'm missing an STD or two, but someone will have to remind me.
Abuse of antibiotics is a serious issue, but not because it's made any STD incurable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 16:54:15 [Permalink]
|
Yup, Dave, that's what I've learned, too. Chlamydia is another STD that's treatable with antibiotics.
It's true that any sexual activity (aside from solo sex) carries an inherent risk, though. I've read that Human Papilloma Virus and herpes can both be transmitted even when a condom is used. Per the CDC, the risk for HPV transmission through a condom is "undetermined."
Now this has become so far off thread, it belongs on the health pages.  |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 20:32:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Great posts here.
Dr. M, if I can add just one thought while agreeing with yours: sometimes birth control fails. Condoms break or aren't used consistently and correctly, IUDs become problematic and must be removed, etc. Even birth control pills sometimes fail: a woman forgets to take one for a day or two; another drug she's taking reduces their effectiveness; she becomes ill and vomits one pill, etc.
Some women, even teenagers, simply can't take birth control pills, because the side effects can be intolerable and even (rarely) life-threatening. This leaves only other, less-effective means of birth control.
Like you, I'd love to see no abortions ever. But sex feels good, so people will enjoy it, and unwanted pregnancies will occur.
Nothing personal to Renae but I hate it when people mention so many things that are not the norm as if they happen all the time. Things are going to happen, there will be unwanted pregnancies but more often than not I think conception control does work. It's getting people to use it in the 1st place, not the incorrect use of it that fails. Geesss, if you are intelligent enough to make an effort to get 'the pill' or a condom then how stupid do you have to be to know how to use them? |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 12/26/2003 : 21:08:35 [Permalink]
|
It may not be the norm, Woody, but it does happen. My mom was on the pill when she got pregnant with both my brother and me.
It's easy to forget a pill. You're supposed to take them at the same time every day for them to be truly effective, so if you step out of your routine, it's easy to forget to take one.
Antibiotics can decrease the effectiveness of OCs.
Condoms break, leak, and spill.
The decision to have sex is about the decision to have sex and it may or may not coincide with maturity, responsibility, or readiness. That's human nature. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2003 : 01:17:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
It may not be the norm, Woody, but it does happen. My mom was on the pill when she got pregnant with both my brother and me.
It's easy to forget a pill. You're supposed to take them at the same time every day for them to be truly effective, so if you step out of your routine, it's easy to forget to take one.
Yes, yes. I took the pill for a little over a year and decided that's not what I can do for the next 20 years of my life. I know routines are not for me. We all deal with our own situations. But I also knew that when I was taking it that it had to be everyday. You don't just get ot Over The Counter, you are supposed to know what to do when taking any meds.
Ok, and there are execptions, like your mom, whom I'm sure did do the right thing. But they are execptions. It's not like it's happening all over the place. Otherwise what good would it be to have something like 'the pill'.
quote:
Antibiotics can decrease the effectiveness of OCs.
But when taking any meds one should know the risks and consequenses. If one is ill enough to have to take anti-biotics, how is it they can't be strong enough to stop having sex for a week or whatever? Holly krist!
quote:
Condoms break, leak, and spill.
And for every execption, there are the lucky ones, like me who although know it's happened (albeit, not THAT often), nothing 'happened'.
And, believe me, with all the partners I've had, I was lucky, I guess!
quote:
The decision to have sex is about the decision to have sex and it may or may not coincide with maturity, responsibility, or readiness. That's human nature.
I am, without a doubt, one of the most immature people on the planet but I can control myself....if nessessary. If I think it would be dangerous for whatever reason to have sex I don't. What is the problem? I just don't see the excuse, 'but we couldn't help it' as honest. Not in this day of so much information and openness. Maybe when I was in school, it was different when no one talked about 'it' but both my kids had sex education in school and even if they hadn't it's all over the place.
-------
Hum! What were we talking about anyway?!!!
Ok, yea. If all else fails, abortion IS the answer. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2003 : 03:02:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Woody D
What is the problem? I just don't see the excuse, 'but we couldn't help it' as honest. Not in this day of so much information and openness. Maybe when I was in school, it was different when no one talked about 'it' but both my kids had sex education in school and even if they hadn't it's all over the place.
[emphasis added by Mabuse]
Ahh... but there you have it.
Take a look at any Baptist- or Pentacostal-church in the bible-belt and ask yourself: Will they have information and openness about sex for people outside wedlock, or better yet, teenage kids? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/27/2003 03:03:28 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2003 : 07:37:38 [Permalink]
|
Woody, you can't judge the entire universe based on what YOU would do. It's not logical or fair (and it's also judgmental). You're not a 14-year-old African-American girl living in the inner city with a crackhead mom and a non-existent father. You're not a horny 16-year old whose football player boyfriend threatens to break up with her if she doesn't give it up.
In other words, everybody's life experience is different, and no one is under any obligation to make the same choices YOU personally make.
We all make good and bad choices when it comes to our health. Someone choosing to have sex is less risky to me than leading a sedentary lifestyle, or eating steak, or smoking. Sex is so politicized and moralized in our culture, though, that sex is somehow seen as a unique health-related behavior. People love to judge others for their sexual behavior: gays, bisexuals, the promiscuous, the kinky, the abstainers....all have moral judgments leveled at them--as if it's anybody else's business. NOT.
But somehow it's OK that someone smokes 2 packs a day for 20 years and has a heart attack at age 45...there's no moral judgment there, in most cases.
I've worked in health care so I separate my personal feelings from my work. I don't judge others for their choices, and I keep my own morality as just that: my own morality. That's the job of every health care professional, and the world would be a better place if everybody minded their own business in the same way.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
