Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
No link because it's still breaking news.

Do you think Bush is going to try and get bipartisan approval for a nominee or will he got for another far right pick?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Do you think Bush is going to try and get bipartisan approval for a nominee or will he got for another far right pick?[/QUOTE]
:rofl:
 
I'm naive enough to think that any extremist would only serve to make more salient the public's recognitiion that the days of "small government," "state's rights," and "individual rights" Republicans are dead, dead, and dead.

You overturn Roe v. Wade? You kill your party by alienating all but the admittedly large number of religious zealots who think that their religion should be enacted into law.

Let them do it, I say.

myke.
 
She was my favorite too. :(

So goodbye to abortions and hello to god being everywhere.

No Bush gets to fuck up the country for 50 years instead of 8. Why does she have to go? She couldn't wait another 4 years?!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You overturn Roe v. Wade? You kill your party by alienating all but the admittedly large number of religious zealots who think that their religion should be enacted into law.[/QUOTE]

You think? I would have thought that Schaivo or the censor-friendly FCC would have sounded the alarm, however the GOP keeps steamrollin' on.
 
I think the people should have some say in whether a justice on the court is doing a good job or not, therefore being able to fire them much like we do politicans, rather than leaving it up to politicians to put a judge in for life.

Personally, though under our current system I hope Bush puts in a conservative that leans more towards the moderate side, as the court is skewed towards the liberal end ATM.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Damn straight.

No more baby murders and no more religious supression. The way it should be.[/QUOTE]


I'm sure Washington is turning over in his grave.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I think the people should have some say in whether a justice on the court is doing a good job or not, therefore being able to fire them much like we do politicans, rather than leaving it up to politicians to put a judge in for life.[/QUOTE]


Ya, I mean who cares what the laws and consitution says, the judges should rule by public opinion! :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Damn straight.

No more baby murders and no more religious supression. The way it should be.[/QUOTE]

We already have that.

We're concerned about the new Supreme Court taking away a woman's right to an abortion and making decisions based on the christian bible, not the constitution.
 
I want to know why liberals can distinguish between a product that may cause a miscarriage and deliberate abortion. I'd also like to know why the pro-death crowd seems so intent on not increasing legal penalties for murders of pregnant women.

You don't mean that if we give some legal standing to an unborn child killed unintentionally might hold to an unborn child being killed intentionally do you???
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I want to know why liberals can distinguish between a product that may cause a miscarriage and deliberate abortion. I'd also like to know why the pro-death crowd seems so intent on not increasing legal penalties for murders of pregnant women.

You don't mean that if we give some legal standing to an unborn child killed unintentionally might hold to an unborn child being killed intentionally do you???[/QUOTE]

Do you wear leather and eat meat?

Weren't you in the Army? (not to mention that time you were sickeningly bragging about how many Arabs you have killed)

Guess what, you're in the pro-death crowd too, now we're just deciding sub-groups.

If we're talking about the legal side of things, it's all a game based on precendents. If you setup the precedent that killing Lacey Peterson was two deaths, and not one, then you are on the Fundie/Catholic/ slip-and-slide to making abortion rights illegal.
 
There's a world of difference between serving in the armed forces and murdering the unborn. The military is not pro-death, we buy weapons, train hard and care for equipment in the hopes that is enough of a deterrent to never have to fight.

Sickeningly bragging? Reciting your unit's combat record is not sickening. Nor is it bragging, facts are not bragging.

Eating meat is not being pro-death it's called survival. Biologically we're omnivores so now you're saying that to be moral we need to ignore what nature made us. Sorry, won't fly. If we were meant to be vegetarians our dental structure would not have given us incisors and canines, we would also have much thicker enamel on our teeth than we already do. Wearing leather is maximizing the use of the animal you ate for meat. I do draw the line at wearing fur, personally, considering many man made or natural fibers are warmer than fur it's a luxury not a necessity.

Maybe to a panty waste like you that lines his underwear with Kotex maxi-pads these things are all pro death. I'd hate to think what truly leaks out of you after you've been grabbing your ankles for an half hour so keep those pads on! Last thing we need to see are wet stains on your backside.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There's a world of difference between serving in the armed forces and murdering the unborn. The military is not pro-death, we buy weapons, train hard and care for equipment in the hopes that is enough of a deterrent to never have to fight.

Sickeningly bragging? Reciting your unit's combat record is not sickening. Nor is it bragging, facts are not bragging.

Eating meat is not being pro-death it's called survival. Biologically we're omnivores so now you're saying that to be moral we need to ignore what nature made us. Sorry, won't fly. If we were meant to be vegetarians our dental structure would not have given us incisors and canines, we would also have much thicker enamel on our teeth than we already do. Wearing leather is maximizing the use of the animal you ate for meat. I do draw the line at wearing fur, personally, considering many man made or natural fibers are warmer than fur it's a luxury not a necessity.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say any of my examples were intrinsically amoral (beyond you bragging about enjoying the smell of burning flesh and destruction after you had killed several Arab people)

You're the acting moral police on this one, PAD. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of anti-abortion rights crusaders calling someone pro-death.
 
I particularly like the "eating meat is part of survival" argument. As if there was absolutely *no way* to get by living healthy in our technologically advanced society without consuming flesh. My ass.

In this day and age, eating meat is a *choice*. Will you live if you don't? Damn skippy you will.

As far as facts not being bragging, that's pure horseshit and you know it. When you talk about delivering "500 islamofascists to Allah," you're using metaphor and eggageration (unless, of course, you *believe* in Allah ;)). That is a good percentage fact and a good percentage bragging. Don't deny it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I particularly like the "eating meat is part of survival" argument. As if there was absolutely *no way* to get by living healthy in our technologically advanced society without consuming flesh. My ass.

In this day and age, eating meat is a *choice*. Will you live if you don't? Damn skippy you will.

[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to justify the eating of meat to abortion analogy?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

As far as facts not being bragging, that's pure horseshit and you know it. When you talk about delivering "500 islamofascists to Allah," you're using metaphor and eggageration (unless, of course, you *believe* in Allah ;)). That is a good percentage fact and a good percentage bragging. Don't deny it.[/QUOTE]

That's right, there's a way to brag and a way to tell your story as a point of fact, you were bragging PAD. And a particular point of your bragging was killing muslims, not defeating the enemy, not helping your unit win, but killing muslims. And, currently, 97% of iraqis are muslim (the rest mostly christian), I believe (but am not certain) there were more non christians during the gulf war than now. Either way, I'm sure there were at least a few who were clearly not so called "islamofascists" as, statistically, it should be assumed not all killed were muslim.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There's a world of difference between serving in the armed forces and murdering the unborn. The military is not pro-death, we buy weapons, train hard and care for equipment in the hopes that is enough of a deterrent to never have to fight.

Sickeningly bragging? Reciting your unit's combat record is not sickening. Nor is it bragging, facts are not bragging.

Eating meat is not being pro-death it's called survival. Biologically we're omnivores so now you're saying that to be moral we need to ignore what nature made us. Sorry, won't fly. If we were meant to be vegetarians our dental structure would not have given us incisors and canines, we would also have much thicker enamel on our teeth than we already do. Wearing leather is maximizing the use of the animal you ate for meat. I do draw the line at wearing fur, personally, considering many man made or natural fibers are warmer than fur it's a luxury not a necessity.

Maybe to a panty waste like you that lines his underwear with Kotex maxi-pads these things are all pro death. I'd hate to think what truly leaks out of you after you've been grabbing your ankles for an half hour so keep those pads on! Last thing we need to see are wet stains on your backside.[/QUOTE]

I've about had it up to HERE with Conservatives like you. You call Liberals pantywaists but I'm sure you were all sympathetic towards Rush when he admitted he had a drug problem but didn't admit that he was wrong in what he said about drug users.
Now if you're going to use this meat analogy how about you butcher one like the Indians did the Bison and use every part of it. Seriously you're technically right about the Omnivores thing but I don't think we NEED to be Omnivores. The resoures exist now where you can be a Vegetarian and be perfectly healthy plus I think the lifestyle is most likely easier on your stomach and perhaps your whole body.
Now as to my stance on abortion this is to scrub. Scrub how about you grow breasts and a Vagina, then GET pregnant after having protected sex with a condom? It's happened and I see no problem with abortion here. Or how about there being a chance you could die giving birth, then the child is truly lacking their natural parent to be mom. Seriously man take off the blinders. Most of the people, IMO, who seem to have a problem with abortion are men. If you're a woman then I might have a bit more respect for your decision but a man no since it's not your body it's not your call.
But here's one case in point of the problem being men. "Doctors Without Borders" went to Ireland and brought Irish women out to sea to perform abortions since it's not legal there. It seemed MEN were the one's primarily against it.
I weep for O'Connor leaving. Honestly and DON'T laugh, I'm tempted to bake her a cake and write a heartfelt letter to her saying thank you.
 
No cake to o'conner for me, sure she supported abortion, which wasn't expected, but she left well before she had to knowing that an pro life judge will likely take her place.
 
If she's not interested in the position anymore than I'm glad she retired. There is nothing worse than a person with enormous power who hates their job but feels compelled to stay.

I really hope that one of these days we start electing judges, perhaps for 1 time 10 year positions.
 
Well, her husband's not been doing very well at all, which is compelling her to step down. That's been the hearsay, and although it doesn't change the situation, it's not necessarily related to a love my job/hate my job circumstance.

I didn't want to bring up the issue of abortion, but why is it that anti-abortion activists (since someone who was thrilled to kill so many middle easterns and hates to provide federal help to the ailing can certainly NOT be called pro-life) don't haul people into jail for existing, or showering? Why do they make the argument that ALL life is precious, and that life begins at the moment of conception, yet they willingly commit atrocities everytime they step in the bathtub? They murder millions upon billions of cells everytime they put Pantene with Pro-V in their hair, as their scalp sheds millions of cells. These are cells that have your DNA, cells that have your chromosomes, cells that were living...living, that is, until you decided to take a murdering shower.

So, since at the moment of conception, the existing organism is roughly the same thing (a cell), how are the anti-abortionists able to differentiate between cells that "can" be killed (when you take your deadly vacuum around the house to dust your bookshelf teeming with cells that you murdered as they shed your skin) and those that "can't" be?

I look forward to your response immediately. While you can't stop shedding skin cells, Mr and Mrs. Murder, I fully expect a complete prohibition on bathing and showering. Such activity promotes killing living cells. We want to be consistent and value all life, don't we?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']If she's not interested in the position anymore than I'm glad she retired. There is nothing worse than a person with enormous power who hates their job but feels compelled to stay.

I really hope that one of these days we start electing judges, perhaps for 1 time 10 year positions.[/QUOTE]
I don't think she hates her job. I heard she wanted to spend more time with her ailing husband which you have to respect. The woman has served almost a quarter of a century on the nation's highest court - she's put in her time.

I think electing justices is a bad idea. The rationale behind appointments is that they won't be beholden to anyone - special interests, lobbyists, voters, swaying public opinion. Justices should only be concerned about the Constitution. That's why appointments are so important. I hope Bush is smart enough to pick a moderate.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Now as to my stance on abortion this is to scrub. Scrub how about you grow breasts and a Vagina, then GET pregnant after having protected sex with a condom? It's happened and I see no problem with abortion here. Or how about there being a chance you could die giving birth, then the child is truly lacking their natural parent to be mom. Seriously man take off the blinders. Most of the people, IMO, who seem to have a problem with abortion are men. If you're a woman then I might have a bit more respect for your decision but a man no since it's not your body it's not your call.
But here's one case in point of the problem being men. "Doctors Without Borders" went to Ireland and brought Irish women out to sea to perform abortions since it's not legal there. It seemed MEN were the one's primarily against it.[/QUOTE]

As usual, your opinion doesn't jive with the facts.

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html

Women are more pro-life than men -- a trend over the past decade. Sixty-one percent of women hold a pro-life position compared to 53 percent of men. Women under age 34 and over 55 are more pro-life than middle-aged women.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, her husband's not been doing very well at all, which is compelling her to step down. That's been the hearsay, and although it doesn't change the situation, it's not necessarily related to a love my job/hate my job circumstance.

I didn't want to bring up the issue of abortion, but why is it that anti-abortion activists (since someone who was thrilled to kill so many middle easterns and hates to provide federal help to the ailing can certainly NOT be called pro-life) don't haul people into jail for existing, or showering? Why do they make the argument that ALL life is precious, and that life begins at the moment of conception, yet they willingly commit atrocities everytime they step in the bathtub? They murder millions upon billions of cells everytime they put Pantene with Pro-V in their hair, as their scalp sheds millions of cells. These are cells that have your DNA, cells that have your chromosomes, cells that were living...living, that is, until you decided to take a murdering shower.

So, since at the moment of conception, the existing organism is roughly the same thing (a cell), how are the anti-abortionists able to differentiate between cells that "can" be killed (when you take your deadly vacuum around the house to dust your bookshelf teeming with cells that you murdered as they shed your skin) and those that "can't" be?

I look forward to your response immediately. While you can't stop shedding skin cells, Mr and Mrs. Murder, I fully expect a complete prohibition on bathing and showering. Such activity promotes killing living cells. We want to be consistent and value all life, don't we?[/QUOTE]

Don't be dense. Skin cells are not a human being.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Don't be dense. Skin cells are not a human being.[/QUOTE]

Neither is a sperm, egg, or sperm-egg combo under a few months old.
 
[quote name='camoor']Neither is a sperm, egg, or sperm-egg combo under a few months old.[/QUOTE]

40 days, actually.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, her husband's not been doing very well at all, which is compelling her to step down. That's been the hearsay, and although it doesn't change the situation, it's not necessarily related to a love my job/hate my job circumstance.

I didn't want to bring up the issue of abortion, but why is it that anti-abortion activists (since someone who was thrilled to kill so many middle easterns and hates to provide federal help to the ailing can certainly NOT be called pro-life) don't haul people into jail for existing, or showering? Why do they make the argument that ALL life is precious, and that life begins at the moment of conception, yet they willingly commit atrocities everytime they step in the bathtub? They murder millions upon billions of cells everytime they put Pantene with Pro-V in their hair, as their scalp sheds millions of cells. These are cells that have your DNA, cells that have your chromosomes, cells that were living...living, that is, until you decided to take a murdering shower.

So, since at the moment of conception, the existing organism is roughly the same thing (a cell), how are the anti-abortionists able to differentiate between cells that "can" be killed (when you take your deadly vacuum around the house to dust your bookshelf teeming with cells that you murdered as they shed your skin) and those that "can't" be?

I look forward to your response immediately. While you can't stop shedding skin cells, Mr and Mrs. Murder, I fully expect a complete prohibition on bathing and showering. Such activity promotes killing living cells. We want to be consistent and value all life, don't we?[/QUOTE]


That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. How you could write something that stupid is really beyond me. Congratulations for making a fool out of yourself... wow... what an idiot.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. How you could write something that stupid is really beyond me. Congratulations for making a fool out of yourself... wow... what an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Not really, if you understand the science of biology.

Oooooh, that's right, you're a fanatical christian. Back to Noah's Ark with thee!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']As usual, your opinion doesn't jive with the facts.

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html[/QUOTE]

Because a site called euthanasia.net, which got its sources from Pro-Life Infonet, is obviously a non-partisan and reliable place for infromation. Irregardless of any polls or surveys, making abortion illegal would never curb abortion. It would only make women take higher risks to get one if they felt they needed one. Coat hangers, back alley "doctors," these are the things that will become common if abortion is made illegal. Abortions will still happen. In other words, the argument between pro-life and pro-choice factions is redundant and moot.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I don't think she hates her job. I heard she wanted to spend more time with her ailing husband which you have to respect. The woman has served almost a quarter of a century on the nation's highest court - she's put in her time.

I think electing justices is a bad idea. The rationale behind appointments is that they won't be beholden to anyone - special interests, lobbyists, voters, swaying public opinion. Justices should only be concerned about the Constitution. That's why appointments are so important. I hope Bush is smart enough to pick a moderate.[/QUOTE]

She probably doesn't hate her job, but her husband's death could have a huge impact on her performance.

Justices will always be concerned with the constiitution and they will always have differing views on it, regardless of who appoints them. Let the people do it but for extended terms of 10 years, you'd be surpised how well that will keep swaying public opinion out of the picture. It will certainly be far less biased than having highly political figures appoint them.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']She probably doesn't hate her job, but her husband's death could have a huge impact on her performance.

Justices will always be concerned with the constiitution and they will always have differing views on it, regardless of who appoints them. Let the people do it but for extended terms of 10 years, you'd be surpised how well that will keep swaying public opinion out of the picture. It will certainly be far less biased than having highly political figures appoint them.[/QUOTE]

But, if they are elected by the people, they will essentially become just as much of a politician as those who appoint them. Their ruling would more likely be based on public opinion, and it would probably be just a lesser form of what happens when the presidency is up for grabs.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. How you could write something that stupid is really beyond me. Congratulations for making a fool out of yourself... wow... what an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for responding to a purely biological argument (a very simplified argument, to be sure) with little more than an ad hominem. Your contribution to the discourse is as existent as your refutation of my argument. That is, to say, your contribution is nonexistent.

Would you like an appropriate response to an ad hominem? Alright, you're a cunt.

myke.
...my argument is this: what is the biological difference between any of the cells that humans naturally or forcibly shed on a daily basis, and a zygote? As both are living organisms, you can't go that logical route. This renders the "life begins at conception" argument moot, since we don't treat hygenic individuals as murderers. At what point *after* conception, then, can you make the *biological* argument that the organism that resulted from two people fucking is more valuable and legally viable than your fucking dandruff? I look forward to your complete and utter nonresponse in the form of a personal insult forthwith.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...my argument is this: what is the biological difference between any of the cells that humans naturally or forcibly shed on a daily basis, and a zygote? As both are living organisms, you can't go that logical route. This renders the "life begins at conception" argument moot, since we don't treat hygenic individuals as murderers. At what point *after* conception, then, can you make the *biological* argument that the organism that resulted from two people fucking is more valuable and legally viable than your fucking dandruff? I look forward to your complete and utter nonresponse in the form of a personal insult forthwith.[/QUOTE]

This is a REALLY BAD argument for abortion here. Dandruff, shed skin cells and other biolgical debris has a 0% chance of ever becoming a human being. The instant an egg becomes impregnated, there exists a chance that it COULD become a human being. That makes a zygote infinitely more viable than dandruff.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Because a site called euthanasia.net, which got its sources from Pro-Life Infonet, is obviously a non-partisan and reliable place for infromation.[/quote]

Please don't talk about something you don't know anything about. It makes you look like a fool. That was just the first site I saw. Here's one referencing a Quinnipac Poll.

http://www.brendoman.com/hippydave/2005/05/31/men_women_and_abortion

While American voters have mixed opinions about abortion, they support the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision 63 - 33 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Men support it 68 - 28 percent, while women support it 58 - 37 percent.
Click to expand...

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Irregardless of any polls or surveys, making abortion illegal would never curb abortion. It would only make women take higher risks to get one if they felt they needed one. Coat hangers, back alley "doctors," these are the things that will become common if abortion is made illegal. Abortions will still happen. In other words, the argument between pro-life and pro-choice factions is redundant and moot.[/QUOTE]

You think abortions would be just as common if they were illegal? That's a dumb opinion. Obviously some people would break the law to do it, but it's a lot less inviting to kill your baby when it's done in a back alley by someone with no qualifications in unsanitary conditions compared to the way it's done today.

And to say the argument is moot is ridiculous. There are millions of lives at stake in this issue, hardly a non-issue.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The the extremist pro life groups do tend to be dominated by men, at least they're the ones who seem to do all the protesting.[/QUOTE]

I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.
 
[quote name='Drocket']This is a REALLY BAD argument for abortion here. Dandruff, shed skin cells and other biolgical debris has a 0% chance of ever becoming a human being. The instant an egg becomes impregnated, there exists a chance that it COULD become a human being. That makes a zygote infinitely more viable than dandruff.[/QUOTE]

What you're pointing out is not the counter argument any anti-abortion person would ever use, since you're differentiating for potential for life and "human being." Since they cannot recognize that a fertilized egg is, biologically, a single-cell organism, they would not discuss it in terms of "potential." For them, it *is* or it *isn't* a living organism; that's the only thing I'm trying to debunk as pure horseshit.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's the case at all, since religion has a great deal to do with influencing views on abortion. Also, since women tend to self-identify as being more religious (praying more often, attending services more frequently, etc.) than men, they would logically be more likely to be anti-abortion than men. Of course, there is the far more intimate aspect of femininity to consider, but I don't know much 'bout that.

Perhaps what alonzo is saying is that men are the more visible spokespersons for anti-abortion groups. There may be more women than men in anti-abortion groups, but the men who are part of the organization tend to be placed in positions higher in the organizational structure. If that's the case, it shouldn't be news to anyone. That's good ol' patriarchy, and you'd be a goddamned fool to think that even anti-abortion groups don't have that.

myke.
...besides, when did organizations founded on christian beliefs ever let women take charge (with the exception of perhaps PTAs)?

I can't
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.[/QUOTE]

I remember hearing about how the south claimed that many slaves didn't want freedom, and were happy in servitude (the "Uncle Tom" phenomenon). I'm sure they even convinced some slaves to feel this way too. Doesn't make slavery right, and likewise taking away a woman's rights, with or without her consent, is also wrong.

BTW I don't know anyone who is pro-baby killing. If you do, I would suggest you steer them towards the nearest psychiatrist/police station.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What you're pointing out is not the counter argument any anti-abortion person would ever use, since you're differentiating for potential for life and "human being." Since they cannot recognize that a fertilized egg is, biologically, a single-cell organism, they would not discuss it in terms of "potential." For them, it *is* or it *isn't* a living organism; that's the only thing I'm trying to debunk as pure horseshit.[/QUOTE]

The vast majority of pro-life people aren't arguing that its a living organism - to argue that its a living organism and therefore should be protected inherently implies that all living organisms should be protected, which directly leads to vegetarianism, which most religious organizations aren't.

The potential to become a human being _is_ what the discussion is about: Human beings are considered to be better than other life forms, and for religious-types, what makes human beings better is that we have a soul (or whatever term you prefer.) Since a embryo may eventually become a human being, it must at some point gain a soul. Exactly when that point is is impossible to determine. Some people believe that the soul begins as soon as the egg is fertalized, while others don't know but think we should play it safe. Either way, dandruff is clearly never going to develop into a human being, and therefore clearly doesn't have a soul. That, ultimately, is what the real debate about abortions is about, and its directly connected to viability, even if its not phrased that way.
 
[quote name='Drocket']The vast majority of pro-life people aren't arguing that its a living organism - to argue that its a living organism and therefore should be protected inherently implies that all living organisms should be protected, which directly leads to vegetarianism, which most religious organizations aren't.

The potential to become a human being _is_ what the discussion is about: Human beings are considered to be better than other life forms, and for religious-types, what makes human beings better is that we have a soul (or whatever term you prefer.) Since a embryo may eventually become a human being, it must at some point gain a soul. Exactly when that point is is impossible to determine. Some people believe that the soul begins as soon as the egg is fertalized, while others don't know but think we should play it safe. Either way, dandruff is clearly never going to develop into a human being, and therefore clearly doesn't have a soul. That, ultimately, is what the real debate about abortions is about, and its directly connected to viability, even if its not phrased that way.[/QUOTE]

If that is truly the case, then, I should hope to never expect to see anything resembling a rational scientific (biological) argument from anti-abortionists (if what "it" boils down to is the existence of a "soul"). Of course, that is not the case (since they use arguments that explain what a fetus has developed by a certain period of growth).

I'll keep this in mind in the future, since such metaphysical (and completely unprovable) implications just seem to make the biological arguments absolutely pointless (for anti-abortionists and pro-choice alike).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If that is truly the case, then, I should hope to never expect to see anything resembling a rational scientific (biological) argument from anti-abortionists (if what "it" boils down to is the existence of a "soul"). Of course, that is not the case (since they use arguments that explain what a fetus has developed by a certain period of growth).

I'll keep this in mind in the future, since such metaphysical (and completely unprovable) implications just seem to make the biological arguments absolutely pointless (for anti-abortionists and pro-choice alike).[/QUOTE]

As you might imagine, pro-lifers aren't a monolith, as pro-abortionists aren't either. There is a lot of variety in reasoning on both sides and quite a few different positions, from those who feel abortion is never acceptable to those who make exceptions in certain cases to those who would allow it in most cases. Some will argue religious viewpoints about souls and the like, no doubt about it. Others will make scientific/biological arguments. The same goes for pro-abortionists. Basically what I'm saying is what Drocket has pointed out is definitely the case for some pro-lifers, but definitely not all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If that is truly the case, then, I should hope to never expect to see anything resembling a rational scientific (biological) argument from anti-abortionists (if what "it" boils down to is the existence of a "soul").[/quote]
You're never going to hear a rational scientific argument from either side because abortion isn't something that is about anything rational. Its about beliefs and feelings, which will never be proven or disproven by either side.

Of course, that is not the case (since they use arguments that explain what a fetus has developed by a certain period of growth).
Click to expand...
Of course. That bolsters their claim of 'look, its a human being!'

Lets put it this way: even if we accept that a fetus is a human being, why is killing human beings wrong anyway? If one rejects the existance of a soul (or whatever it is that makes human beings better than, say, a cow. Um, unless you're Hindu, in which case feel free to pick an appropriate animal...), then what scientific reason can you give for why its wrong to kill people? Ok, maybe killing certain people would be disruptive to society, which would be bad overall, so how about bums? Is it wrong to kill bums, who add nothing to society and who's death won't particularly be missed (or even noticed?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top