A stuggle with abortion

[antechinus]

*Originally posted by PosterChild *
1) When is it a life? Seems like a bad question. It’s always alive. The sperm and egg are alive. The fused product is alive. The blastocyst is alive, etc.

Yes, this is a bad question. Life began 3.5 billion years ago. Life does not begin. Life is a continuum. The DNA passes through organisms over time, where there is viable DNA there is life. A cheek cell has life.

**2) When is it human? When it has 46 chromosomes? Is it based on it’s potential to grow into a baby? Does that mean that embryos in cold storage are just as human?
What about when the stem cell “holy grail” is reached and we learn how to grow any tissue (or even a whole human) from adult stem cells. Are your bone marrow cells morally individual humans?
**
If it is human DNA, then it is human. Humans evolved from non-human DNA. Humans do not just appear, they evolved.

**
3) Some successful cloining techniques are basically taking a body cell and exchanging the cytoplasm with an egg cell’s cytoplasm. Is killing the cell after the cytoplasmic exchange murder, or abortion, or what?
**
Murder and abortion are ethical questions. Society decides what defines murder/abortion. Is it OK to kill a terminally ill person in great pain? Capital punishment? etc. This varies from culture to culture, in different times and regions.

**
4) What makes killing a human embryo/fetal bundle of cells in the shape of a ball, or a fish, or a pig (ontologically speaking) better than killing a bundle in the shape of a baby? Is it the complexity? The lack of resemblance to an adult? Is it the ick factor of dismembering a little body?
PC **

Again, it is an ethical decision. It is the awareness of self and depth of psycholocial pain that the life form and its kin feel through death that should determine this.
A new born baby may have a sense of awareness no greater than a kitten, but the family usually would not.

So, a human does not start at some point in time. A life does not start at some point in time. They are both part of a continuum of change, linked to a very special molecule, that formed a long time ago.

Science cannot offer an answer to the ethical question.
Self awareness gradually develops in a being. A ‘human being’ gradually develops/diminishes throughout its entire life. The cut off point for termination of the being at any point in life is a decision based purely on ethics of the society.

I think even sven and december are closest the mark.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Scott Dickerson *
**“If your daughter, or your son’s beloved wife, were to have an abortion, are you morally consistent enough to demand that charges of premeditated murder be brought against her?”

Can you see yourself testifying against her? Will you be able to tell the truth, “so help you God”? Will you weep for the jury at the loss of your innocent, 8-day-old unborn grandchild? Will you be present for her execution? Or does you pro-life position lead you to favor life in prison without possibility of parole? Will you comfort the left-alone spouse, the siblings?

**You understand, of course, that you are crafting a classic logical fallacy, right? A serial killer can offer an argument for murder being unethical. His argument is not rendered incorrect by virtue of his hypocrisy. His argument stands on its own merit. Period.

**It’s possible that you can indeed accept these things, the logical outcome of your views. But I will do you the honor of assuming otherwise. **

Oh, please. No, I don’t believe you assume otherwise of pro-life beliefs. At best, you find them sanctimonious, values of pure convenience, beliefs that would wilt if tested by the reality of “real life.” At worst, you find them pure hypocrisy. Or I’m completely misreading your melodramatic post. Feel free to believe what you want, but don’t confer on us any false “honors.”

[BURNER]

originaly posted by beagle dave.

Even other pro choice folks pointed out the foolishness of that statement, and I invited you to retract it. I’ll invite you again…will you be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong?

I will retract it as soon as you go out an start adopting children or provide something reason ,other than your own narrow and subjective morals as to why abortion should be illegal. Facts are one thing, moral opinions are another.No one has the right to push their morality onto another person.

[BURNER]

originaly posted by ben hicks

quote:

It becomes a life when the cord is cut and it is somewhat self sustaining.

---

A newborn infant, as any mother will tell you, is not in any way, shape or form self sustaining. Sure it’ll take longer to die but that doesn’t mean it is self sustaining. It cannot feed itself, therefore it is not self sustaining. Simple as that. As beagledave said, until you provide some cites clearly stating that this view is held by a plurality of the medical fraternity for sound scientific reasons (as opposed to it being merely an arbitrary cut off point), all this is just supposition on your part.

READ THE OP!! It asked for opinion not some moral gymnastics
quote:

The formation of a foetus is very similar to the existence of a parasite because it “feeds” off of all of the mothers systems from circulation to digestive system. If the mother dies then it dies, hence it is just another part of the mother, like a kidney or a finger.

---

Consider the usual means by which a parasite attaches to its host. It does so against the hosts will and without its knowledge. The host does not perform any act which would engender the likelihood of the parasite attaching to it. As such, your comparison is not analogous to abortion.

Also, if it is merely a part of the mother like a finger or a kidney then please explain why it has a different genetic code.

If it is an unwanted foetus then it is attached against the hosts will, hence according to your logic a parasite. It may have a diffrent genetic code, but much like a kidney , if you remove it from the host it will ceace to function. Therefore untill it can live on its own without mechanical aid or further direct attachment to the mother it is still just another organ at best.

quote:

It is human from the time it is still just an egg and a sperm cell. A zygote is just a type of human tissue, like hair and fingernails. The type of tissue it is doesnt matter, it is just a kind of human cell.

---

A sperm cell is human but it is not a human. See the difference?

just as a zygote is human but not A human. Thank you for seeing my point

As to the rest of your post, I look forward to seeing your rebuttal of Bob Cos’s counter arguments.

look at the post right before this one

[BURNER]

originaly posted by bob cos

quote:

Originally posted by BURNER
My own opinion on abortion is that as a man my opinon doesnt matter. I will never be in a position to get pregnant or give birth.

I will never be in a position to be subjected to child abuse. Can I be against it?

AHHH, but you were once a child and could have experienced abuse at the hands of others. I dont see how you or I will ever be a woman and experience being pregnant.

quote:

I am against makeing it illegal because no one has the right to cloud what should be an objective decision with their own morality. People should have the freedom to do as they wish with their bodies.

There is not a law on the books that does not support a particular moral stance. Are they all wrong? And people do not have the freedom to do what they wish with their bodies with or without abortion rights, nor has this right ever been inviolable

** Aside from suicide I cant think of a single thing that I could do to my bodie that the government has made illegal. I can donate organs,be creamated,get pierced and tattooed, have things implanted into it and have parts removed ,all by either doctors or people certified by the state to provide medical services.That all seems pretty inviolate to me.**

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by BURNER *
**originaly posted by beagle dave.
I will retract it as soon as you go out an start adopting children or provide something reason ,other than your own narrow and subjective morals as to why abortion should be illegal. Facts are one thing, moral opinions are another.No one has the right to push their morality onto another person. **

Please have a seat inthe Pit then.

[Sauceman]

CrazyCatLady

To do something that is immoral but not illegal is one thing but to do something that is immoral knowing that it is also is illegal is another. I completely support that anyone that breaks the law pay the consequences. Except the only consequence I do not agree with is the death penalty.

You said a man shouldn’t have a voice on this issue because we cannot face the reality of a pregnancy. However, the value we place on human life should not depend on circumstances. I am not in the position to speak about the experience of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy but we are all equally able to discuss the value of the unborn and draw conclusions that are consistent with our common values.

As far as where the lines are drawn I say that there is no line that can be conclusively drawn where on one side the unborn can be destroyed and on the other protected. On the mothers side I think no person should be required to sacrifice their life for another. If a pregnant woman is highly likely to die as a result of her pregnancy due to a medical condition and ending the pregnancy will save her life then she should have that option. However if she can and decides to spare her child and bring the child to term I think that is a very admirable and loving act.

[Ben_Hicks]

Drachillix

IIRC many common parasites are picked up by eating food containing them or their eggs. We all know that improperly cooked or refrigerated foods may be contaminated but people eat stuff all the time making the judgement call that it will be ok, sometimes it isn’t.

Whenever I do anything I run the risk of getting hurt or worse. However, these risks are, for the main, so insignificant that they can and should be discarded. For example, when I go to sleep tonight I run the risk of being murdered in my bed by the burglar who might break through the window and catch me unawares. Since the odds are overwhelmingly in my favour that such an event will not occur, I am not being foolhardy by choosing to fall asleep.

Since the chances of getting pregnant when indulging in unprotected sex are far higher than the chances that I may contract a parasite from eating what I believe to be well cooked meat (because, after all, the vast majority of people wouldn’t eat something they knew could give them a parasite - unrefrigerated meat for example) then the “Judgement calls” are completely different. In the latter, I am undertaking an acceptable risk by eating food which, to the best of my knowledge, is well cooked. In the former, I am throwing caution to the wind. As such, the status of the two organisms (the parasite that hatched in my intestine from the egg I unwittingly ingested and the embryo which was conceived via unprotected sex) shouldn’t be viewed as equal in that regard. The fetus was invited in via the act of unprotected sex. As such, the woman doesn’t have the same moral authority as I would have with my intestinal parasite to shout “Get this thing out of me. It doesn’t belong here!!”

BURNER

READ THE OP!! It asked for opinion not some moral gymnastics

Oh! I’m sorry, I didn’t realise. My bad. Okay…let’s try again shall we? My position on abortion is that it is wrong because all fetuses are imbued with the spirit of the Hindu Love Gods and as such are sacred in every respect.

What?

Whaddayamean you disagree? It’s my opinion. That was what was asked for!!

If it is an unwanted foetus then it is attached against the hosts will, hence according to your logic a parasite.

The fetus is not a parasite by any logic. See This Link for a cogent summary.

Therefore untill it can live on its own without mechanical aid or further direct attachment to the mother it is still just another organ at best.

Newborn babies can’t live on their own without mechanical aid either. Also while they aren’t physically attached to their mothers, their mothers still have to take great care of them, far greater care than they had to take before birth. If anything, the newborn is more of a drain on the mothers resources and yet you wouldn’t advocate infanticide, would you?

just as a zygote is human but not A human. Thank you for seeing my point

Care to substantiate this supposition by defining what actually does constitute a human?

[BURNER]

quote:

If it is an unwanted foetus then it is attached against the hosts will, hence according to your logic a parasite.

---

The fetus is not a parasite by any logic. See This Link for a cogent summary.
quote:

Therefore untill it can live on its own without mechanical aid or further direct attachment to the mother it is still just another organ at best.

---

Newborn babies can’t live on their own without mechanical aid either. Also while they aren’t physically attached to their mothers, their mothers still have to take great care of them, far greater care than they had to take before birth. If anything, the newborn is more of a drain on the mothers resources and yet you wouldn’t advocate infanticide, would you?
quote:

just as a zygote is human but not A human. Thank you for seeing my point

---

Care to substantiate this supposition by defining what actually does constitute a human?

First I went to the link. Right at the top was this:

1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother).

If you swap out “organism” for “fetus” and “host” for “mother” they say almost the exact same thing! We seem to agree on a lot, dont we?

Now I have to ask where you got the idea that newborns couldnt survive without mechanical help?? I dont remember seeing any incubators or infant life support machines 200 years ago. Since humanity suvived untill they were invented, that would tend to prove that infants do just fine without mechanical help. Also since there are some cases where the infant never sees its mother again after the birth, I dont see where not haveing the mother present is a detriment to its growth or development, or how a newborn would be more of a drain on its mother if they never have any contact again.

Now for the human part of my presentation:
From the new websters encyclopedic dictionary;
Human
1 of, pertaining to,charecteristic of,or haveing he nature of people:human frailty 2consisting of people:the human race 3of or pertaining to thesocial aspect of people :human affairs 4 sympathetic;humane: a warmly human understanding 5a human being
this is the definition of zygote from the same source:
Zygote: the cell produced by the union of 2 gametes,before it undergoes cleavage.

I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by BURNER *
**AHHH, but you were once a child and could have experienced abuse at the hands of others. I dont see how you or I will ever be a woman and experience being pregnant.

**Oh, that’s bullshit, and you know it. I can never be a child again. Why wouldn’t that forfeit me the right to oppose child abuse, even if I had that right as a child, according to your logic? You want another example that might be easier for you? I oppose the practice once legal in this country of slavery for blacks. OK with you if I hold that belief?

**Aside from suicide I cant think of a single thing that I could do to my bodie that the government has made illegal. I can donate organs,be creamated,get pierced and tattooed, have things implanted into it and have parts removed ,all by either doctors or people certified by the state to provide medical services.That all seems pretty inviolate to me.

**Try thinking just a little harder. Let me try for you:[ul]1. You can’t take illegal drugs.

2. You can’t sell your body for sex in most of the country.

3. You can’t drink and drive.

4. You can’t decide your body would best occupy the space in my living room in the middle of the night, assuming I don’t share that opinion.

5. You can’t drive legally without a seatbelt, at least in my state.

6. You can’t legally propel your body in a car above the speed limit.

7. You can’t expose yourself to others.

8. You can’t have sex with a prostitute in most of the country.

9. You can’t box without a license.

10. You can’t do all KINDS of things with your body without a license.[/ul]You wanna try again to support your “universal” statement? My point was and is that “it’s my body” does not, by itself, do the trick to state why abortion cannot be prohibited, not unless you believe there simply can never be justification to prohibit what people want to do with their bodies under any circumstances.

[BURNER]

You want another example that might be easier for you? I oppose the practice once legal in this country of slavery for blacks. OK with you if I hold that belief?

Fine by me. It isnt my place to tell you how to think. That has kind of been my point from the start. That unless it is you going through it, you have no right to make any decisions regarding the freedoms of others. None of us has any more right to tell anyone they cant get abortions , than they do to tell us that we have to get them. It is all up to the persons involved.
The answer to your last question is YES, there simply can never be justification to prohibit what people want to do with their bodies under any circumstances, unless it affects the righs of others.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by BURNER *
**Fine by me. It isn’t my place to tell you how to think. That has kind of been my point from the start. That unless it is you going through it, you have no right to make any decisions regarding the freedoms of others.

**Okay, let’s play your bullshit game of semantics just a little longer. Thanks for saying it’s okay for me to oppose the slavery of blacks in my beliefs. Do you also see anything wrong with my taking active steps to prevent that from happening, should that ever be required, despite the fact that I am not black and could never be a black slave?

Can I actively oppose an Aryan Nation member’s decision to lynch blacks? I am not black, and I belong to a demographic category that prevents me from ever being “pure” enough to join the A.N. So what’s it to me? None of my business, I guess. Do you agree?

**The answer to your last question is YES, there simply can never be justification to prohibit what people want to do with their bodies under any circumstances, unless it affects the righs of others. **

I agree wholeheartedly. Pro-life proponents should limit their arguments to those areas where they perceive abortion affecting the rights of someone other than the person choosing to have the abortion. Just as most of us have.:rolleyes:

[BURNER]

Can I actively oppose an Aryan Nation member’s decision to lynch blacks? I am not black, and I belong to a demographic category that prevents me from ever being “pure” enough to join the A.N. So what’s it to me? None of my business, I guess. Do you agree?

Totaly. It realy IS none of your buisness telling other people how to run their lives. You may disagree with them, you might even feel the need to save the lynching victim, but everyone has the right to live how they see fit. Big woop, the AN is a pack of racists.Dont join if it isnt your cup of tea.

I agree wholeheartedly. Pro-life proponents should limit their arguments to those areas where they perceive abortion affecting the rights of someone other than the person choosing to have the abortion. Just as most of us have

taken from here—>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor’s mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask – more at PROSOPOPOEIA
Date: 13th century
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL – sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

• per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
• in person : in one’s bodily presence

Find where it says zygote,fetus,embryo,parasite,or unborn child in the definition of person.

[Ben_Hicks]

If you swap out “organism” for “fetus” and “host” for “mother” they say almost the exact same thing! We seem to agree on a lot, dont we?

Sure we do. If you change the wording of my cite and thus change its meaning so that it doesn’t say what it’s meant to anymore (in other words, twist it beyond recognition) and then approximate its new meaning to your old one, the parallels in our positions become as clear as crystal. :rolleyes:

Now I have to ask where you got the idea that newborns couldnt survive without mechanical help?? I dont remember seeing any incubators or infant life support machines 200 years ago. Since humanity suvived untill they were invented, that would tend to prove that infants do just fine without mechanical help.

They couldn’t survive without mechanical help on their own. In other words, the newborn baby is still just as dependant on its mother as the unborn baby. This fact is immutable, non debatable and such common sense that I really can’t see why I’m deigning to address it.

Also since there are some cases where the infant never sees its mother again after the birth, I dont see where not haveing the mother present is a detriment to its growth or development, or how a newborn would be more of a drain on its mother if they never have any contact again.

That would be because she gave it up for adoption at which point others started to care for it and the newborn became dependant on those people instead. Newborns need others to survive. Unless you think you could’ve fed yourself at 1 month.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by PosterChild ***

1. When is it a life? Seems like a bad question. It’s always alive. The sperm and egg are alive. The fused product is alive. The blastocyst is alive, etc.**

Having the potential for life is not the same as being alive. Using clone technology, any cell with the proper DNA content has the potential for life, but we dont call cutting our hair, removing our apendix, shortening our colon as murder. I do not believe that sperm and egg or even the blastocyst is alive. It is alive when it is able to survive on its own for the very first time without any intervention. That would mean (to me) any fetus in the first and second trimester. If a premie is “born” but still requires artificial methods to survive then it is not alive yet. Bonding already started because it is natural to do so at birth so all emotions are at play (including grief should it not survive) but if it cannot live on its own, then its not yet alive.

*Originally posted by PosterChild ***
2) When is it human? When it has 46 chromosomes? Is it based on it’s potential to grow into a baby? Does that mean that embryos in cold storage are just as human?
What about when the stem cell “holy grail” is reached and we learn how to grow any tissue (or even a whole human) from adult stem cells. Are your bone marrow cells morally individual humans?
**

It is already human when it has the genetic markers ars human. So it can be a human blastocyst, a human fetus, a human clone, human stem cells, human marrow, human blood. Classifying it as human doesnt automatically make it alive and thus have individual rights.

Originally posted by PosterChild ***
3) Some successful cloining techniques are basically taking a body cell and exchanging the cytoplasm with an egg cell’s cytoplasm. Is killing the cell after the cytoplasmic exchange murder, or abortion, or what?*

NO, not till its alive.

*Originally posted by PosterChild ***
4) What makes killing a human embryo/fetal bundle of cells in the shape of a ball, or a fish, or a pig (ontologically speaking) better than killing a bundle in the shape of a baby? Is it the complexity? The lack of resemblance to an adult? Is it the ick factor of dismembering a little body? **

If you are talking about the emotions (ie compassion, guilt, outrage) of killing something that is shaped like a human, its the natural instinct. Humans normally protect their own especially their young. Any trait that enforces the belief that something is human activates the protection instinct. So anything shaped like a human gets more emotion than a microscopic blob of cells with human dna. Human traits are sometimes transferred to animals also which also activates the protection instinct. Traits like emotion, intelligence, big baby eyes, helplessness.
If you are talking about the moral and legal implications then it has something to do with the belief that anything human that looks like a human is already alive and is protected by law and is subject to all individual rights and privileges afforded any human.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

CORRECTION!!

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
** I do not believe that sperm and egg or even the blastocyst is alive. It is alive when it is able to survive on its own for the very first time without any intervention. That would mean (to me) any fetus in the first and second trimester. **

What I meant to type was

" That would mean (to me) any fetus in the first and second trimester is not alive. "

sorry for the confusion.

[Ben_Hicks]

Totaly. It realy IS none of your buisness telling other people how to run their lives. You may disagree with them, you might even feel the need to save the lynching victim, but everyone has the right to live how they see fit. Big woop, the AN is a pack of racists.Dont join if it isnt your cup of tea.

So you believe that the Aryan Nation can murder whomever they see fit and no-one has the right to think ill of them???

Bob, just give up. Walk away, get yourself a cup of tea and pretend that all this was a horrible, horrible dream

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by BURNER *
**Totaly. It realy IS none of your buisness telling other people how to run their lives. You may disagree with them, you might even feel the need to save the lynching victim, but everyone has the right to live how they see fit. Big woop, the AN is a pack of racists.Dont join if it isnt your cup of tea.

**Enough said, then. It’s none of my business. Gotcha.

**Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor’s mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask – more at PROSOPOPOEIA
Date: 13th century
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL – sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

• per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
• in person : in one’s bodily presence

Find where it says zygote,fetus,embryo,parasite,or unborn child in the definition of person. **

Jesus Christ, does this really pass for argument where you come from? Okay, I’m still somewhat amused, so I’ll play a little longer (Ben, I may regret this later). Here’s where it covers the unborn child:1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL. Since you asked. Oh, you say, it doesn’t mention the unborn? Neither does it mention the “born” under that particular numeral. But let’s not let that stop us.

Hey, try looking up “God.” I’ll bet we can resolve all kinds of philospohical questions with a parsing of the dictionary. Why didn’t we think of that first? Try “ethical” after that. Let’s put all this nonsense to bed once and for all. Then we can close up GD and go home.

[BURNER]

Temper temper, you will give yourself a haemorage getting all worked up over an internet message board. I thought this was about debates and not about name calling and curseing. You make it seem like such an attack, like the object of all this is to win instead of to just exchange ideas.

Here’s where it covers the unborn child:1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL.

Um, maybe I dont read too good but I dont see “unborn child” there. Are you trying to play anagrams with me?? Maybe that whole “eat for 2” sentiment realy is over rated.
for ben hicks

So you believe that the Aryan Nation can murder whomever they see fit and no-one has the right to think ill of them???

You are missing my point. No one has the right to tell them or you how or what to think. What is hate to one is heaven to another. Just because I like to drink pepsi doesnt mean that you have to. It also doesnt mean that you have the right to make me stop drinking it.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by BURNER *
**Um, maybe I dont read too good…

**Apparently not. This is from the same post, from me:

**Oh, you say, it doesn’t mention the unborn? Neither does it mention the “born” under that particular numeral. But let’s not let that stop us.

**

**for ben hicks
You are missing my point. No one has the right to tell them or you how or what to think. What is hate to one is heaven to another. Just because I like to drink pepsi doesnt mean that you have to. It also doesnt mean that you have the right to make me stop drinking it. **

Keep dancing around the point you yourself raised, pal. Are you saying it is wrong to inhibit the Aryan Nation member’s behavior in any way, say if he chooses to lynch a black man? If it’s wrong to stop him, then your point is crystal clear, and I think Ben gets it. If it’s morally OK to stop him, then explain how this is consistent with your “you can’t get pregnant, therefore, you can’t influence someone else’s decision” position.

It’s that easy. That is, if you are intellectually honest. (There should be a pit thread on this…)