It’s not your opinions that are getting on everybody’s last nerve. It’s the way you express them.
The SDMB is a Private board. There’s no censorship, but trolls & others who go out of their way to offend people are banned.
Because it isn’t true, that’s why. You have repeated that falsehood before on this board without adequate cites to back it up. Please stop making these FALSE statements about adoption.
Again, I think we’re on the same page except for how to address the problem.
The point of getting people to state where they get their axioms will help pro-choice people to figure out how to combat the views. Not for the people already entrenched (they’re hopeless, IMO). More to prevent society from its continued trend. I’m interested in the source. Again, I think it’s due to widespread religious propaganda but I’m not sure. I also suspect that the religious views come from a need to control women’s reproduction to control women’s place in society but I’m not sure about that either.
Also, I may be an intellectual asshole, but whether or not I’m an asshole has nothing to do with what I just said about people’s intelligence and ability to process facts. Some people can’t do it. I’m stating a fact, not making a judgment whether its good or bad. Therefore, presenting a chain of logic won’t work with everyone. Hell, even very intelligent suffer cognitive dissonance when they feel strongly about something (that includes scientists). Long-term memory and learning relies heavily on emotions. So, of course facts must be presented but we have to realize that facts are typically not good enough.
One more thing about facts. As you know, many highly religious people do not differentiate between facts and beliefs. I heard a pastor this Christmas make outrageous claims about Jews, then the census during Harod, and something about Roman culture (can’t remember) and called them ‘facts’. I think you’ve been agreeing with me that calling a baby and embryo is a ‘fact’.
Because presenting facts alone has limited success, I’m suggesting a widespread campaign for science and reason in general with regard to a lot of topics including the anti-choice movement. But, again, this is going to be controversial, I think we have to realize that we’ll have to make the appeals emotional. I also think that we need to appeal to the people’s religion because I still think all of this is coming from modern religious propaganda. But in order to do that, I think we need to know where they the basis of their beliefs are coming from. Religious people usually cling to tenets because they’re afraid if they lose one, the whole thing comes crumbling down. Personally, I think the best way to approach it is to say that it won’t go against their basic religion. This approach should also hold for anti-evolutionists.
I’m rambling again. Hope I made my point. :smack:
Of course. And when protesters are arrested, it’s because their conduct breaks the law. You were the one that said that the video showed illegal conduct. But it’s manifestly clear that this is not so.
No. “Verbally accost” is not against the law, much as you apparently wish it wer otherwise.
I agree. Blocking the sidewalk, keeping people in their cars, and laying hands on them are absolutely examples of criminal action, and absolutely should result in arrest.
None of those actions appear on the video taken, as the video itself claims, at the “worst location in the country” for clinic protests.
Just as clinic property would provide a barrier for clinic users.
No, I’m taking about the potential to be a human being with rights that supercede the rights of the mother to her own body. Why do you think that a fertilized egg is a human being? If you say it has unique DNA, what is it about unique DNA that makes it a human being at the point of conception? If you say that it is because it has the potential to become a human being, then we’re at square one of the question.
Beautifully said.
I also stated many times that I believe that human life begins at conception. I got bashed for it numerous times. I was told to go f myself and to f off on here. It’s funny that certain people can do that to me and it’s ok but when I do it back it’s wrong.
The pro-choicers don’t give a damn what I believe and that is fine. It is their choice to believe what they want.
What I meant about the potential to be human was in reference to the comment that a tumor is the same as a fetus. That is thed ifference. perhaps I should have said one is human and one is not.
He answered that. To him a fertilized egg is a human because there isn’t another rational line to draw. He doesn’t like an arbitrary date (I don’t particularly either), because there is obviously a very minor difference between a 90-day-old fetus and a 91-day-old one.
Personally I don’t see any problem with using “viability outside the womb” or “birth” as meaningful and rational demarcations of when a fetus becomes a fully-vested human.
And yes, classy, you did say that you thought that fully human rights vested at conception, but you didn’t say why. That’s what people wanted (and want) clarification on. The reasoning matters because while a rational argument (like Bricker’s, even though I disagree with it) can be grounds for public policy, an emotional or religious one cannot (or at least should not).
Would you agree that there is a difference in kind between “requiring someone to use their body to manipulate external objects” and “requiring someone to actively give up the substance of their body”? We occasionally require people to perform labor (community service and the like), we do not compel them to donate blood. Pregnancy’s affect on the body is the latter, not the former.
Does your balance of equities extend to non-pregnancy-related incidents regarding the invasion of bodily substance of others? If I am the only person who is a bone marrow match for a person with cancer, would a just society obligate me to give up my bodily substance (much less than nine months of inconvenience) to give that person continued life?
Did you notice that many here are bashing the hell out of you, but are conversing respectfully with Bricker? Does that provide you with evidence that it is not your views (common), but your manner of expression (rude, dismissive, undefended, explosively vulgar and prudishly sanctimonious by turns) that is the issue here?
No, no, no. He didn’t. Not a human life. A human being. A person. A person that should have rights that supercede a woman. How can a fertilized egg be a person?
Thanks. I’m flattered. I’ve never been called those things outside of this message board:D
Thankfully it doesn’t matter what strangers think about me.
So I gather from this that you don’t believe that there are ANY circumstances under which abortion should be permissible?
He explained that.
No, I don’t say it’s because it has potential; I say that it’s a full-fledged human being.
Why? Because, as I said before, any other answer leads to an absurdity. When do you contend that the fetus is a human being? At birth? At the second trimester? Whatever you answer, I’ll want to know why it’s isn’t a human one day before that point.
Well, and again I’m only channeling the argument as I’ve heard it before, because it has to happen some time. So you have to pick a “moment”, if you will, when person-hood is granted. Many pro-lifers point to conception as that moment. Many pro-choicers point to viability, some date within the gestation term, or birth.
Bricker’s argument seems to be that an arbitrary date is nonsensical because there are only negligible differences between the fetus the moment before and after you have granted “person-hood”, and such minor differences cannot bestow such rights. I can only assume he has reasons why viability and birth are not acceptable demarcations, but I don’t believe those were addressed in his post.
I don’t know about bricker but I do. It should be allowed in the case of a tubal pregnancy. the fetus has no chance of surviving and the mother will die.
Also if a Dr. determines it needs to be done to save the mother’s life then it should be allowed.
This leads us to the critical question:
Why is allowable to kill one human being to save the life of another? How do you conclude that the mother’s life is more valuable than the baby’s?
You do realize that one does, of course, have the option of not being a pharmacist?
And even if one didn’t, your analogy would still heartily suck.
To the contrary, there are plenty, but they always involve the physical health and safety of the mother, where the primary goal is preserving her life and health, and the death of the child an unintended secondary effect.