Home - List All Discussions

Planned Death's true colors...

by: JosieCashew

It seems like the Abby Johnson case has shown that rumors about Planned Death's not wanting to decrease unplanned PREGNANCIES as much as they wanted to decrease unplanned BIRTHS (and possibly lying about that) may actually be more than rumors in at least some cases. Even I don't 100% believe everything I hear on this subject without something that proves it, and this case actually making the mainstream news is definetly one important clue.
P.S. And why is "planned" always the best way to have a child anyway? Even a lot of stable married couples have unplanned pregnancies that only take a short period of time to get used to.

reply from: joueravecfous

Planned = wanted. That's why it's best.

reply from: Banned Member

Planned Parenthood... a place where people go when they have "planned" to kill their own unborn children so they don't have to be parents.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
...And you remain a 40-year-old virgin so you don't have to be a parent.
I just use birth control.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
...And you remain a 40-year-old virgin so you don't have to be a parent.
I just use birth control.
Human pesticide.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Why are so many pro-lifers against birth control?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Gee, how did you avoid having those ten extra children?
How many children do you have?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Either that or their "stable" marriages come to an end.

reply from: QueenJ

What's so wrong with Planned Parenthood again? Is it just because they provide abortions?

reply from: Hosea

This is what is wrong with Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger.

(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)


How Planned Parenthood Duped America
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
See the rest of the article: http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

reply from: Hosea

You are so wrong. Many of us are parents of baby's who were unplanned and they are wonderful blessings and they are WANTED. You could not be more wrong. There are so many people wanting to adopt. Baby's are wanted so badly by those wanting to adopt.

reply from: franny

Not all of us are against birth control.
I am staunchy pro-life, but also politically liberal in many other ways. I think the pro-life movement has to stop telling women what they SHOULDN'T do, and start giving them real options. We can't tell women they shouldn't have abortions---and then insist they never have sex and should live the way they tell them to.
The pro-choice movement is guilty of this too. They are far more concerned with keeping abortion available than trying to find ways to make it unnecessary. Planned Parenthood does some good, yes, but mostly it corrupts. It claims to be some mouthpiece for all women and women's needs, and yet the organization does not tell women the truth about abortion. Planned Parenthood is shrouded in lies and misinformation, and repeatedly humiliates those women who have been severely hurt by abortions. If Planned Parenthood--all the entire pro-choice community for that matter--really cared about women, they'd listen to what ALL women have to say, instead of telling us what we SHOULD want. Why not listen to pro-life women, why not read medical books, why not concede there is something gruesome and horrible about dismembering human babies and throwing them away? What are they so afraid of?
There is no excuse for abortion. It is abhorrent and barbaric, whether or not it's "legal." But there are ways to prevent unplanned pregnancies. First: Education. Second: Birth control. Abstinence is treated as the most moral of all forms of birth control, but my problem with that is that it perpetuates the myth that everyone holds Christian values. Abstinence is, in fact, a great idea, especially where teenagers are concerned, but it's pitched as a "wait until marriage" idea, instead of just plain old common sense. Planned Parenthood basically tells teens it's okay to have sex as long as you use birth control.....but teens are notoriously bad at remembering to use birth control, and sometimes they're just plain unwilling, or just misinformed completely. We should be telling our kids: "Sex makes things complicated, and you do not need more complications in life. Hey, you have the SATs, final exams, the literary magazine, track & field, etc. You'll have plenty of time to have a lot of sex after you get these crucial things done in order to succeed in life."
We teach our kids all kinds of things. We teach them to use the potty. We teach them to eat three meals a day. We teach them to do their chores (hopefully). We can teach them to prioritize, we can teach them that sex isn't just some fun activity you should explore with some condoms. It's not EVIL, it's just a big deal.
I know women who'd rather kill themselves than eat carbs, and yet they think abortion is a "right." Something is skewed in our messages.
Meanwhile, unplanned pregnancies don't necessarily mean unwanted children. My child was unplanned, but my gosh, my life without her would be joyless.

reply from: JosieCashew

Part of me wonders what the appeal of a Cape Cod vacation really is- I guess I just don't care for sand and water all that much, but there is now something which tourists- or anyone else- CANNOT do here anymore- and that's have their child killed! (the abortion mill that was here is now closed)

reply from: Shenanigans

So then, shouldn't it be "Unplanned Parenthood"?

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, I'm against birth control because I"m Catholic and all the teachings that it entails yadda yadda yadda.
However, with that said, I am personally anti-birth control.
I'm all for the inbred idiots out there using it. I"m all for forced sterilisation of paedophiles and child abusers and killers.
As it stands, I am also for a more comprehensive education system where children and young people are taught that spreading your legs is not a way to find self worth.
We as a society have allowed the message that "you're only cool if you have sex, you're only worth something if you have sex" et al. Just need to spend a few minutes watching MTV to see that.
With that said, I am against the emergency contraceptive as it can prevent the newly concieved zygote from implanting (thus killing it, and killing is bad).
I also don't like the pill as its really not too safe and it can also kill the newly concieved.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE

reply from: joueravecfous

Learn to read. The question was:
The answer is because planned = wanted. People who plan their children want them - a concept so simple and obvious that even people here could understand it. The rest of your post was unrelated emotional blather.

reply from: sk1bianca

so what if before birth some kids are "planned" and "wanted"? they might become "unwanted" after they are born. then what?
and what if some "unwanted" kid becomes loved and wanted after he's born? it happens really often. why shouldn't he be given a chance?
this whole "wanted-unwanted" thing sound a lot like discrimination and treating a certain category of humans as if they were objects we can dispose of.

reply from: Hosea

FACT: Abortion has done nothing to reduce child abuse. Actually child abuse increased over 1000% from 1973, the year abortion was legalized throughout the United States, to 1986.
reference: http://www.tnrtl.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_lies_and_myths.htm

Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.
These figures clearly contradict the pro-abortionists' claim that abortion of "unwanted children" prevents child abuse. Ignoring the obvious illogic of this argument--which suggests that killing children is better than beating them--there is not a single scientific study that supports this theory. Instead, there is a clear statistical association between increased rates of abortion and increased rates of child abuse. Indeed, statistical and clinical research support not only an association, but a causal connection between abortion and subsequent child abuse.
reference http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

reply from: lukesmom

Not necessarily the case. Most of us have not "planned" every child and our "unplanned" child/ren are also very much wanted. I have also read abortion boards where the child was "planned" but the mom later changed her mind and killed the child only then to get pregnant again due to "replacement syndrome" and some again change their minds to abort their again planned and wanted child.
Interestingly enough, many parents facing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, if allowing themselves time to adjust, find they change their minds and as the pregnancy progresses find themselves actually wanting and loving their child.

reply from: Shenanigans

I've seen a study similar to this, it talks about how parents who plan and want their children often have all sorts of ideals and expectations for their child, and when that child doesn't live up to that expectation or doesn't want to live up to it, they can fall victim to abuse of some form.
For example, a sporty parent may want their child to be into sports and whatnot, but the child may be gay or may want to do drama or art and so could fall victim to abuse such as physical, emotional, verbal.

reply from: Shenanigans

Not necessarily the case. Most of us have not "planned" every child and our "unplanned" child/ren are also very much wanted. I have also read abortion boards where the child was "planned" but the mom later changed her mind and killed the child only then to get pregnant again due to "replacement syndrome" and some again change their minds to abort their again planned and wanted child.
Interestingly enough, many parents facing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, if allowing themselves time to adjust, find they change their minds and as the pregnancy progresses find themselves actually wanting and loving their child.
Yeah, how many times have we heard that a mother wanted her very much planned and wanted foetus only to discover it had a cleft palate or downs syndrome?
Or what about those cases where a planned and wanted child was born with some kind of defect and the parents go after the doctors involved in pregnany care, claiming that if said defect had been picked up they would have aborted?
To base someone's worth on their wantedness is just more moral repugnance from the pro-abortion mindset.

reply from: lukesmom

LOL! If only the "planned" pregnancies where allowed to continue, the world would be a pretty lonely place for humans as there would be so few of us.

reply from: JosieCashew

Some people "plan" and "want" children for reasons that turn out not to be good and/or realistic ones. For instance, what WAS the Octo-mom thinking? She already had 5 children on what I think was a small income- and since the octuplets were concieved in-vitro, they were definetly a planned pregnancy.

reply from: JosieCashew

Can't a cleft palate be corrected with surgery?

reply from: SpitMcGee

No, it's definitely not a way to find self-worth. But it's a part of being human, and it shouldn't be treated as something wrong that entails punishment.
Demonizing casual sex isn't the answer. Abstinence-only education tries to teach teens that sex is something sacred, and therefore to be suppressed for years until it can be done with a partner they are legally bound to. The failure of abstinence-only programs has demonstrated how unrealistic this is.
If more people knew how to use condoms and birth control and thus have sex responsibly, there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies and hence, fewer abortions.
Call me cold-hearted, but I really don't see what's morally wrong with killing a zygote.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, go figure why someone would rather kill their child than let them be born and have surgery. Never could figure that one out.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Because it is a ball of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, and the notion that killing it would be the same as killing a person is rather ridiculous.
(Responding to post above the last one)

reply from: lukesmom

We are all "balls of cells" of varying sizes. So you are saying the bigger you are the more you are intitled to continue the life you have been given? The only difference between what you refer to as a "ball of cells" and what you call a "person" is time.

reply from: Sigma

That's very Zen of you. The only difference between a grain of sand and a mountain are the number of atoms involved, but we treat them as very different things.
Therefore it is justifiable to say that we treat the conceptus and a born child as two different things.

reply from: SpitMcGee

There is more to being a person than having human DNA. The fertilized egg, like the egg and sperm, represents the potential to become a person. That is all.

reply from: Banned Member

Er...no.
There are a great many difference between a grain of sand and a mountain; namely the chemical composition. Should a mountain be made largely of silicates like a grain of sand, it wouldn't remain a mountain very long, since it would be more prone to erosion.
So it's not just the number of atoms involved, but the type of atoms involved.
Using your logic, the only difference between a newborn human being and and apple is the number of atoms involved - therefore it is acceptable to eat the baby.
Fail.

reply from: lukesmom

That's very Zen of you. The only difference between a grain of sand and a mountain are the number of atoms involved, but we treat them as very different things.
Therefore it is justifiable to say that we treat the conceptus and a born child as two different things.
We also treat a born child and an adult differently but it is not legal to kill either as they are both humans. The unborn child is the same just hasn't had the same amt of time as a born child or an adult. Nothing "Zen" about it, just common sense.

reply from: Sigma

The arrangement of the atoms (read: chemical composition) makes zero difference in the context of what I said. You are correct that the atomic number of the atoms in question would indeed make a difference. I should have chosen my words with more care
Agreed, which is why I disagree with that type of logic. I was pointing out the same flaw you were, namely the simplistic nature of that type of comparison.

reply from: lukesmom

and a child has the potential to become an adult, doesn't mean we kill them because they aren't an adult yet.

reply from: Sigma

Children and adults have different legal standings. The conceptus and a child have different legal standings.
They are not treated the same. Saying that the "only difference" is size ignores that size (read: age) confers different legal status.

reply from: Banned Member

Is it legal to kill a chimera pig?

reply from: lukesmom

Children and adults have different legal standings. The conceptus and a child have different legal standings.
They are not treated the same. Saying that the "only difference" is size ignores that size (read: age) confers different legal status.
All born humans have the same legal right to life. The only difference between the born and unborn is the stage of developement which, in essence, time will take care of so the unborn should share in the same right to life as the born as there is no difference between them except developement stage. Would it be acceptable to you to kill born humans, say, up to one year if they are not wanted or deemed defective if the law said they had no right to life?

reply from: Sigma

It is a right that born children are thought to have, yes. The operative word in this sentence denotes the difference between the two groups. I don't see your connection between "time will take care of" and "they should have the same rights". Children and adults have different rights, despite the fact it is only a difference in time.
Likely I would not consider it morally acceptable. However, it would be legally acceptable.

reply from: lukesmom

The unborn only need the time needed to develope to the same stage of a newborn. Are you saying the act of being born gives humans the right to remain alive? So, an unborn human at 30 weeks gestation, if born, has the right to continue it's life but the unborn human at 30 weeks gestation who is still in it's mother's womb can be killed by the whim of it's mother. Same developement, same potential, different location.

reply from: Sigma

Linguistic ambiguity. Legally you are correct, being born confers the supposed "right to life".

reply from: lukesmom

Linguistic ambiguity. Legally you are correct, being born confers the supposed "right to life".
They why is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, thus killing the fetus, is there sometimes 2 murder charges? This is not logical but has happened leading me to the conclusion that the only time the unborn has no right to life is when the mother deems it unwanted and makes the decision to kill it.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, it does appear that the law is not logical on that point. It is not required to be logical, though it really should be.
Those laws are an outgrowth of a desire to punish someone who hurt the woman who wanted to continue her pregnancy. A justifiable desire, but laws based on such desires are bad ideas, imo. The purpose of law is to deter, not necessarily punish.

reply from: JackAss

It is a right that born children are thought to have, yes. The operative word in this sentence denotes the difference between the two groups. I don't see your connection between "time will take care of" and "they should have the same rights". Children and adults have different rights, despite the fact it is only a difference in time.
Likely I would not consider it morally acceptable. However, it would be legally acceptable.
Didn't you just tell me you couldn't make a moral determination regarding whether it was moral to abort kittens? But you can make such a determination regarding killing a newborn baby? You're the one who has displayed "inconsistency."
I would say your responses are inconsistent and "do not make good sense."

reply from: lukesmom

So, the law DOES give the unborn rights but only when the mother wants her unborn child to have rights. In other words; a mother can kill her unborn child but no one else can, excepting, of course, the hired abortionist.
Of course, if abortion were illegal, the purpose of that law would also be to deter.

reply from: Sigma

You're looking for an ethical framework, Jackass. I can't give you mine, nor can I put myself in your place with the limited information you gave me. That was the spirit in which I answered your post.
The posts here are not looking to use my morals to justify their decisions. That is why I can answer them.

reply from: Sigma

No, as I said they are an outgrowth of a desire to punish the person who hurt the woman. It does not give the fetus a "right to life".
It is pretty well established that all it would accomplish is make abortions more dangerous. The number abortions did not increase between the time abortion was legal and illegal (as evidenced by the birth rates around the time of Roe v Wade), indicating that the number of abortions was unaffected by the legal status of abortion.
In short: It likely would not deter it much, if at all.

reply from: lukesmom

No, as I said they are an outgrowth of a desire to punish the person who hurt the woman. It does not give the fetus a "right to life".
It is pretty well established that all it would accomplish is make abortions more dangerous. The number abortions did not increase between the time abortion was legal and illegal (as evidenced by the birth rates around the time of Roe v Wade), indicating that the number of abortions was unaffected by the legal status of abortion.
In short: It likely would not deter it much, if at all.
Actually, I have read the opposite. Please provide your sources.

reply from: Sigma

I originally saw it in a book on abortion statistics. I don't have the book anymore
If legalizing abortion suddenly increased the number of abortions the birth rate should have shown a balancing drop as pregnancies were now being terminated instead of being carried to term. But the records show it stayed the same.
Year Births Birthrate
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8
1977 3,326,632 15.4
1978 3,333,279 15.3
1979 3,494,398 15.9
1980 3,612,258 15.9
Ectopic pregnancies didn't spike after 1973, as they would have if hundreds of thousands more women were having pregnancies they would otherwise have prevented if abortion had stayed a crime in most states, and births/birth rates didn't drop precipitously either, as they would have if women were aborting hundreds of thousands of pregnancies they would otherwise have carried to term. So the only conclusion left is that legal abortions were replacing illegal ones

reply from: lukesmom

I don't consider looking at birth rates as an accurate way to measure abortions. There are too many variables. According to the Guttmacher Inst. recorded legal abortions did increase between the years of 1973 to 1981. No one knows how many illegal abortions were performed before 1973 as there are no reliable records. Stands to reason that the birth rate may have risen post rvw if abortion would not have been legalized. It makes sense that birth rates stayed even and didn't raise BECAUSE of legalized abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

reply from: Shenanigans

Yip.
But hasn't stopped some people aborting for that reason.
There was a bit stink up a few months back when it came out that in the UK some doctors were classing cleft's as an abortible reason.

reply from: Shenanigans

You used to be a ball of cells. Just like me. Just like every one else alive today.
Everyone has been an embryo, foetus, et cetera.
Its just a different stage of development.
If you weren't a zygote you would not be here.

reply from: Shenanigans

Bullocks.
The sperm and the ovum are just half the puzzle.
The moment they've combined hey presto, new human being.

reply from: Shenanigans

Linguistic ambiguity. Legally you are correct, being born confers the supposed "right to life".
The term "right to life" is rather incorrect, in that how do you have the right to something you already possess? Its like saying you have the right to bones.
The real term should be the "right to NOT BE killed".
And legalistically speaking, the difference between adult rights and child rights are not based so much on their physical development, rather their mental and cognitive funcitoning. A 14 year old can, under some circumstances, in some places be tried as an adult if they murder, whereas, another 14 year old may have to be charged as a child due to their mental age or defect.
Its the same sort of thing here.
But the constant, is that the adult and child have a right to NOT BE killed, all I ask, what I think most Lifers ask, is that same right to NOT BE killed extend to the human in the pre-natal period of development.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, there are no records. That's why you must infer using other data.
There should have been a drop in birth rate if women went out and started having abortions they otherwise would not have had. Since there was no drop, it stands to reason that the number of abortions remained about the same between the time it was illegal and the time it was legal.

reply from: Sigma

The phrase is entirely incorrect, given that there is no "right to life" explicitly in the Constitution. However, since one is interpreted to exist I don't see how the phrasing matters.
Not entirely correct. The 'age of majority' is an artificial construct. What you are implying is that each and every person is judged on a case by case basis to decide whether they are emotionally and mentally mature. Obviously this is not the case. Age is the determining factor, not maturity.
The situation you describe is far from the norm, and has no bearing on this discussion since the point being made is meant to be generalized.
Then the two arguments are ships passing in the night. The point is this: there is a difference between conceptus and child, and between child and adult. This justifies a legal difference. The specifics of that legal difference are irrelevent to the point.
You want to change what laws apply to the conceptus. That's fine. But it is justifiable for there to be a difference in legal standing.

reply from: Sigma

No. It is a cell that contains human DNA, just as your leg contains human DNA. Whatever it may potentially be in the future, that is all it is right now.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, there are no records. That's why you must infer using other data.
There should have been a drop in birth rate if women went out and started having abortions they otherwise would not have had. Since there was no drop, it stands to reason that the number of abortions remained about the same between the time it was illegal and the time it was legal.
Doesn't make sense because the abortion rate actually INCREASED steadily for years after roe until it peaked in 1981. If what you are trying to say is true why wasn't there a sharp increase in abortion once legalized? Are you saying that women still had back street abortions in the first years after legalization which would be the only reason why we didn't see an immed increase in '73. Could it be there wasn't a drop in birth rates because there was an increase in pregnancy rates?
Using just the birth rates is inaccurate as, again, there are too many variables.

reply from: lukesmom

No. It is a cell that contains human DNA, just as your leg contains human DNA. Whatever it may potentially be in the future, that is all it is right now.
Exactly what are you made of? Could it be cells? Are you not a human being in a further stage of developement? Hate to break it to you but you are just a clump of cells that contain human DNA just like a zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, and teen only you are larger with more cells.
A leg is just a part of a whole and cannot be compared.

reply from: lukesmom

The phrase is entirely incorrect, given that there is no "right to life" explicitly in the Constitution. However, since one is interpreted to exist I don't see how the phrasing matters.
Not entirely correct. The 'age of majority' is an artificial construct. What you are implying is that each and every person is judged on a case by case basis to decide whether they are emotionally and mentally mature. Obviously this is not the case. Age is the determining factor, not maturity.
The situation you describe is far from the norm, and has no bearing on this discussion since the point being made is meant to be generalized.
Then the two arguments are ships passing in the night. The point is this: there is a difference between conceptus and child, and between child and adult. This justifies a legal difference. The specifics of that legal difference are irrelevent to the point.
You want to change what laws apply to the conceptus. That's fine. But it is justifiable for there to be a difference in legal standing.
The only difference is stage of development. As far as the right not to be killed, all born humans share that right dispite other legal differences. It is a right that should be legally enjoyed by ALL humans regardless of stage of development.

reply from: lukesmom

I have to ask and may regret it but what is this "conceptus" term you love? We were all concieved so technically the term refers to all living humans, born and unborn. To me it sounds kinda silly. Sorry, don't mean to offend but really!

reply from: Sigma

When they were illegal, abortions were performed by doctors when they could be afforded and they were also performed by other women, anecdotely. Given that clinics wouldn't spring up all that quickly, the most likely scenario is that women were still using methods they were accustomed to while legal routes gradually replaced self-induced abortions.
Unlikely, unless you hold to the frankly pretty nifty coincidence that abortion rates so perfectly matched the increase in pregnancy rates that the birthrate stayed virtually even.

reply from: Sigma

I am human by virtue of the DNA in my cells. I am a human being by virtue of the fact that I have a self.
If your criteria is DNA it can.

reply from: Sigma

Yes. Because they're born.

reply from: QueenJ

So, Margaret Sanger is still alive and running Planned Parenthood?

reply from: Sigma

The term doesn't apply past birth.

reply from: Shenanigans

The zygote isn't a cell with human DNA, it is a human being. And that human being just happens to be one cell.
You are a human being. With a multitude of cellular difference, all of those cells holding human DNA. Your cellular level of development is exactly right and correct for you stage of development.
Such as the zygote. It is what it is meant to be at that stage, it does not make it any less human.
It simply is human.
A human being who just happens to be one cell big.
Twist your little warped biology and semantics till you're blue in the face.
The zygote is human. Of course it will have human DNA, that's what makes it human. It is one cell big. As we all once were. It is the first stage of our development as a new human being. And that stage just happens to be one cell large.
I mean, really, the way pro-aborts talk, its like we're not human until we're dancing around outside capitol hill screaming about the right to kill another human being.

reply from: Shenanigans

The term doesn't apply past birth.
Why?
If conceptus is used to describe the human in utero because it is the results of conception, then since we are all results of conception the term can be used post uterine development.

reply from: Shenanigans

Oh god, really? Now that banshee is befouling the zombie race?

reply from: sk1bianca

i don't know wether to laugh of feel sorry for you people...
let's take it s.l.o.w.l.y....
a cell in your body that has human DNA is a human cell.
a bunch of cells in your body with a designed function and human DNA is a human organ (liver, kidney, muscle, brain, etc.)
YOU (your "self") are a human organism. the fetus/embryo/zygote is also a human organism.
or-gan-ism
- noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
o put it simply, organisms are beings. some of them have only one cell (the paramecium or the amoeba, for example), some have more cells, some are microscopical (zooplankton), some are really big (blue whales and elephants).
at the beginning of life, the human organism has only one cell. the zygote is NOT a human cell, it is a SINGLE-CELL HUMAN ORGANISM. as it grows and develops, the cells multiply.
now... how hard was that?

reply from: Banned Member

So a HeLa culture is a human being then?

reply from: Sigma

Being connotes consciousness. An organism that is intelligent but nonsentient would not really rate the term. The conceptus is neither.

reply from: Sigma

Because that is how the term is used By definition, it does not apply post-birth. The same reason "Fetus" does not apply past-birth, or that "zygote" does not apply post-birth.

reply from: Sigma

My "self" is not referring to my DNA. My "self" is my mind, contained within my brain. The conceptus has no "self" during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions occur.

reply from: JosieCashew

And isn't there an organization devoted to correcting cleft palates of needy kids? (Operation Smile)

reply from: sk1bianca

being connotes existence. "to be" means "to exist".
human being = an existing human organism.
the rest is non-biological fantasy.

reply from: Sigma

Connotes existence of consciousness, of self. Don't oversimplify. A rock exists, but it is not a being. Inattention connotes indifference. Or disrespect.

reply from: Banned Member

You don't know what a HeLa culture is?

reply from: ProInformed

I just read something in an e-mail from NRLC that relates to this thread:
"I was a married sophomore in college 32 years ago. My doctor was in my home town across the state. My husband was doing his student teaching in my home town, so I was alone. I suspected I was pregnant but wanted to surprise my husband.
I went to the local Planned Parenthood office because I was told they could run a pregnancy test for me (this was in the days long before home pregnancy tests were available). They were kind, efficient and ran the test.
When I went back in two days for the results, I was ushered into a "counseling" room where a person I did not know started to talk to me about my "options." She came equipped with a list of abortion providers, but no list of OB/GYN doctors. I was 20 years old, a little scared and a little excited, so I probably didn't make myself clear at the outset.
After it dawned on me that they assumed I wanted to kill my baby, I made it very clear that I had every intention of keeping my baby and that I, in fact, considered it a blessing from God that I had been given the gift. I was immediately ushered out of the "counseling" room and basically told to have a nice day. They couldn't get me out of the clinic fast enough.
I was still alone, scared and very excited. But now I was also very angry...the advertising and promotion of Planned Parenthood was false, even back then. They have no intention of helping you "plan your parenthood." That was the help I needed. Instead they offered ways to kill my baby. Shame on those women and shame on our government for continuing to take tax dollars to fund such an organization.
This comes to mind today, Dave, because that "baby" turned out to be twin girls who are 32 years old today. They have blessed me many times over in those 32 years, including blessing me with five grandchildren. I can't imagine my life without them.
Thank you for fighting the good fight and God bless you and yours this Thanksgiving."

reply from: ProInformed

Yes there is - but choicist cultists prefer to ignore such truths and keep right on committing human sacrifice of innocent babes in worship to their idol - 'free' sex.
barbarian sickos

reply from: Banned Member

Says the person who believes in a Magical Sky Fairy invented by bronze age desert-dwellers who thought women were property and that homosexuals and disobedient children should be killed.
Who's the barbarian?

reply from: ProInformed

And let's not forget most of those cases where a pregnant woman and her baby are killed the supposedly 'pro-choice' male biological parent of the baby is the murderer, when HE chooses 'abortion on demand' - HIS demand that is but the baby's mother refuses to 'choose' abortion.

reply from: Sigma

You're referring to the fact that violence against women sharply increases when she becomes pregnant?
I'm not sure if I understand your point here. How is that either pro-choice or pro-life?

reply from: Banned Member

Says the person who believes in a Magical Sky Fairy invented by bronze age desert-dwellers who thought women were property and that homosexuals and disobedient children should be killed.
Who's the barbarian?

reply from: SpitMcGee

Bullocks.
The sperm and the ovum are just half the puzzle.
The moment they've combined hey presto, new human being.
No, new potential human being.
Your argument is concise, but it has a major flaw: the placenta.
After fertilization, the zygote divides over a period of several days until it forms a ball of cells or blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo; the outer layer of cells will become the membranes that nourish the embryo, or the placenta. The placenta is formed from embryonic tissue. At this stage, the cells that will become the human being and the cells that will become the placenta are indistinguishable.
It is incorrect, therefore, to assert that a human being is created at the moment of conception, because the fertilized egg will actually become two things: a human being and a placenta. If a single-celled, fertilized egg is a "human being" at the moment of conception, then it would make equal sense to call the fertilized egg a "placenta" at the moment of conception.
My view is that the fertilized egg is neither a human being nor a placenta, but a single cell with the potential to become both.

reply from: Banned Member

It also has an 80% chance of miscarrying all by itself. Most blastocysts don't even make it implantation.

reply from: Sigma

There is also the problem of splitting into twins and the absorption into chimera. The potential, or Aristotles entelechy, is still being determined.

reply from: joueravecfous

You all better stop all this smart talk or the moron brigade will start accusing you of being too intelligent and not worth debating. If you actually deal with facts and specific reality, it makes their heads hurt!

reply from: Banned Member

God doesn't need books an' learnin' so neither does I!

reply from: esmit113

""People that support abortion are narrow minded, morally frail, passively cruel, constitutionally weak, emotionally impaired and are in every way, humanly disadvantaged.""" Well said!! i like you already :-)

reply from: Shenanigans

Lets see the new human life survive without a placenta. Its a requirement built into the zygote's programming. It does not void the concept that the zygote is a new human life. It just comes complete with its own built in suitcase.
Your view is based on the concept that it is okay to kill the human uterine entity.
My view is it is NOT okay to kill the human uterine entity.
The human uterine entity begins its journey at conception. Just because there's a placenta involved does not make it okay or justified to kill said zygote.
Frankly, you're grasping at straws.

reply from: esmit113

i'm pro life and not against birth control. as long as the birth control isnt abortive. "the pill" stops the sperm before it reaches the egg..thus it is not a human life. but once the egg is fertilised by a sperm, a human life is created.

reply from: Shenanigans

We each have about a 30% chance of dying of cancer. A 30% chance of heart disease.
We have a something like 0.1% chance of being murdered. And varying percentages of being killed by an external or internal force.
Just because the zygote has a high rate of failure of implantation or miscarriage, does not give us justification to interfer with its process and kill it ourselves.

reply from: Shenanigans

OH for goodness sake, you guys are just building straw men with the usual "twinning" and placentas and what not. Hell, I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown out the hydatiform mole crappolla.
Here's how it works:
At conception a zygote is crafted. It is a new human being. Built into that new human being is the ability to craft a placenta.
Its really no different than how in all of us is a whole lot of fat cells that are empty. It is our diet that fills said fat cells making them fat. The placenta is simply a temporary external source of methophorical fat cells, the fat cells providing energy and nutrition, the placenta providing energy and nutrition.
Killing the zygote/embryo/foetus is morally bankrupt behaviour, with no justification. The pro-aborts having their whinge fest about twins and placentas et cetera does not void the concept that killing the zygote is wrong.
Leaving the zygote alone will either result in it twinning or developing into multiples, implantation, miscarriage, failure to implant, natural death, the normal development of a child, and yes, even a hydatiform mole creation.
The zygote is human. Millions of years of evolution have programmed into it the necessary traits required for its development and growth. To claim the placenta somehow makes the zygote less human and justifies its destruction is truly, the most intellectually defective argument I have come across.

reply from: Banned Member

We already interfere with its processes due to the highly artificial nature of the modern world - from the chemicals we inhale as we walk down the street, the chemicals and toxins we absorb from what we eat and drink, the various other chemicals we come into contact with (cleaning products, etc) to the radiowaves and microwaves passing through our bodies as we speak. Even in a clean office environment, the toner particles in the air that you inhale daily are the equivalent of 2 cigarettes a day.
If we don't have justification to interfere, then we should also not do prenatal surgeries - the baby was meant die 'naturally'.

reply from: Banned Member

A chimera pig has human DNA.
Is it ethical to kill it?

reply from: Shenanigans

It boils down to intention.
Do you eat McD's with the sole intent and purpose of disrupting the process the zygote undertakes?
Do you smoke with the sole intent and purpose of disrupting the process the zygote undertakes?
There is a difference between unintentionally/ignorantly eating/smoking something that is damaging to the zygote and an act under taken with the sole intent, purpose and knowledge of killing said zygote/embryo/foetus.
The difference here is the purpose of intention, it is not natural or built in for human to cull their own offspring. Millions of years of evolution have built into us the desire to protect and assist our offspring. If science gives us the means to repair the foetus in uterou then why not?
Its about what is life affirming. Taking the life of the zygote/embyro/foetus is contrary to what evolution has programmed into us. It is thus counter natural and ethically bankrupt.

reply from: Shenanigans

Is it ethical to create one?
But I'd need more information, I'd wanna know how much human DNA is programmed into it, how old it is, and if it were allowed to develop what sort of cogntive status and awareness would it have?
I find such science to be morally debase and scientifically questionable. What purpose is there for such a creature to be crafted? How does it help us?

reply from: Banned Member

Oh right; ignorance makes things okay.
If you eat a bag of oranges without knowing the effect of Vit. C and you miscarry, that's okay.
Just like if you beat a homosexual to death without knowing it is wrong to do so, that's okay.
Human beings have a long and illustrious history of killing their own kind, so your point is invalid.
Bonobos, however (once of our closest relatives), don't murder their own kind.
Actually, it isn't. A zef who's parents have planned and prepared for it and who want it will have a better chance of being a productive member of society and passing on its productive genes, benefitting the entire human race.
How does abortion actually harm society?
Tell us.

reply from: Banned Member

Why would that matter?

reply from: Banned Member

So if a woman aborts with any intent other than killing, that killing is acceptable? As long as killing was not her "sole intent purpose and knowledge?" (sole knowledge? )

reply from: sk1bianca

I know a HeLa culture is not an organism. do you know what an organism is?
why doesn't anyone answer this question? i didn't say "human being" or "person" or any other terms like these, which seem to be waaaayyy to difficult for you pro-choicers. i said ORGANISM. it is a biological term. it's realllyyy easy...
artificially introducing human DNA into an animal will not make it change species.
"human" means "belonging to the species homo sapiens". "being" means "to exist".
human being = an existing organism belonging to the species homo sapiens.
you have to be cosmically stupid to have an abortion without knowing it would kill your unborn child...

reply from: Sigma

Nobody is disputing the definition of "organism". It is simply not part of the issue of abortion.
"Being" connotes existence of consciousness, of self. A rock exists, but it is not a being. Human DNA can make it human, but it would not be a human being.

reply from: SpitMcGee

Or...at conception a placenta is created, with the ability to craft a human being.
We "contain" fat cells. The fetus does not "contain" the placenta; they are seperate entities which arise from the same embryonic tissue formed by the zygote.
I never said it wasn't human. "Human" is an adjective. I said it wasn't a "human being". There's a big difference.
Can a human being become two different things? That's what the zygote does.

reply from: sk1bianca

"to be" = a verb, "being" = a noun, something that IS
i am, you are, he/she is
we are, you are, they are
you ARE, you mother IS, a rock IS, a piece of cheese in the fridge IS. existence has nothing to do with consciousness.
organisms have nothing to do with consciousness. is a paramecium conscious? does it have a "self"?
the fetus/embryo/zygote is an HUMAN ORGANISM!!! go check a freakin' dictionary or a biology book if your pea size brains can't understand what that means!!!

reply from: Banned Member

You're also killing an unborn grandparent, an unborn rapist, an unborn accountant, and unborn drug-dealer, etc, etc.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Yup, it's human and we're killing it.
Is it okay to kill non-humans? Is that what you're trying to say? It's okay to butcher Wiggle the pig, but not Zeffy the embryo?

reply from: Sigma

So, then, you are arguing that you and a rock are both "beings"? That is a bold departure from the mainstream. Most people, I daresay, would say that there is a bigger difference between themselves and a rock than the DNA from which they are made.
Human beings, though, have much to do with consciousness. We're discussing human beings, not generic organisms. An 'organism' has nothing to do with abortion.

reply from: Sigma

What other intent could there be with an abortion? Even the principle of double effect could not separate them, imo.

reply from: spinvortex

What other intent could there be with an abortion? Even the principle of double effect could not separate them, imo.
I think the point may have been that the death of the unborn is not necessarily the motivating factor, in which case it might be argued to be morally justifiable according to the argument presented in defense of actions/choices that might inadvertently harm the unborn. If a pregnancy continued normally, with all the same risks, etc. even if the unborn were killed, and it was not possible to remove "the conceptus" after killing it, would women still kill it?
If their sole intent was to kill it, I don't see why not. Of course, if the killing were an incidental result of acting on an entirely different intent (like ending the pregnancy, for whatever reason, and thus avoiding the effects of the pregnancy), then there would be no real point in such a case, agreed?
I do not think most women who choose abortion (if any) are actually motivated by a desire to kill their offspring, therefore I must conclude that few women can be said to abort with the sole intention of killing. The killing is most likely, in my opinion, a necessary means of fulfilling more compelling intentions. While the killing is certainly intentional, it is not necessarily the "sole intent," and would be justifiable according to the argument presented if this is the case.

reply from: Shenanigans

Certain levels of ignorance, yes. Its ignorance if a child doesn't know there are 360 degrees in a circle, is it bad ignorance? Well, if they want to do something with geometry then maybe. But it can be addressed.
What sort of idiot eats a whole bag of oranges? Really? Maybe if the person was starving, okay, then you might have something to go on. But too much vit. C in a normal person will just make you pee your pants a little faster.
As for the destruction of human uterine life as a result of said citrus gluttony, you really have to determine whether or not the person doing the gluttony was aware of their pregnancy, and you'd think that if they truly wanted said human uterine life they would educate themselves as to how they are going to better assist the child's development.
If they didn't know they were pregnant, that's just sad, and while its a tragedy that the child has died, there is no fault on the part of the mother.
Don't dramatise.
Everyone and their dog SHOULD know that killing someone is wrong. Whether or not said victim of bludgeoning is homosexual is moot, as they are still human and its still wrong to kill humans.
So honestly, don't be daft.
No, my point is NOT invalid.
Just because some idiot at some stage in history decided to kill a bunch of other people, does not void the point. All it proves is that people are sheep and that there are defective genes within the pool that lead to homicidal behaviour.
And generally, we are designed to NOT kill our own children, while we can dehumanize the enemy or our foe it is not so easy to do the same to our children. Yes, people can override that, as in Roman times with child exposure, Aztec culture sacrificing children (which was considered a honour for the child, BTW) and today's abortion.
Since Bonobos are not persons, of course they cannot murder.
That could stand true if the ZEF was in some way defective. But what is your excuse for the parent that kills their healthy ZEF?
There is evidence of cave men assisting their injured and defective kin, instead of leaving them to die or killing them, which in that day and age woudl be of benefit.
If you can't figure out how killing tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of human beings is harmful to society then you really need to educate yourself on the nature of economics and supply and demand and population requirements.
Look at NZL for example, and most western countries, we are not breeding at replacement levels, eventually there will be more old people then young people. THose old people will need some form of govt benefit to care for them post retirment, but there will be fewer workers to assist via tax. Just wait, chances are when you (depending on your age) or myself reach retirement age, we might not be getting squat from the govt because there won't be enough money to go round based on 300,000 (in NZL currently) missing from the future work force.
Then of course there's the stagnation of womens' rights that abortion has caused. Instead of addressing why a woman "needs" an abortion, lack of finances, lack of job opportunities for the pregnant and child raising woman, lack of educational opportunities and assistance. Instead of addressing these needs, modern feminism has simply said "You can get an abortion, yay, deal with it".
Those are a couple, I could go on and on and ON about this.

reply from: Shenanigans

Why would that matter?
Because if its more pig than man and there's no chance of human type intellect or personality then killing it is no worse then killing a pig.
HOwever, if its more human than pig and its intellect and personality will be just as any other human being's then killing it would be morally questionable.

reply from: Shenanigans

You have crafted your question in that it is loaded, you are aiming for one particular answer. If the woman is having the abortion because she can't afford car repayments then you could say her intention is not to kill but rather to ensure car payments continue.
At its core she is killing because of car payments, her intention is to continue her car payments BY killing.

reply from: Shenanigans

The purpose of the placenta is not to craft a human being, it purpose is to nourish the human being that is already pre-programmed into the zygote.
Without the placenta there will be no human. Its kinda needed. That's why it is there. That's why it will develop. Stop trying to build these foolish strawmen. Development of the placenta does not void the humanity of the zygote.
Guess you missed the part where I said "external source of methophroical fat cells.
Ah yes, I know all about your inability to determine human DNA/part from human being.
The zygote is a human being. It is "being human". It is a human being at the stage of development of zygote.
Lets see a human being sprout from something other than a zygote.
Where are you having trouble with these concepts?
The zygote is a human being.
It will cleave into cells that develop into the placenta and cells that develop into the embyro et cetera. This event is completely required for further growth and development.
The zygote is a human being at this stage of development. The placenta may become redundant post birth and in of its self is not a "human being". However, just because the zygote will split into a placenta and individual does not provide a moment where killing it is justified because a placenta is "not a human being".

reply from: Sigma

It would not be morally justifiable. The argument presented here, as I suggested, follows the principle of double effect. You are suggesting that the performance of a particular action will produce both good and bad effects. On the basis of the good effect, it seems it is our duty to perform the action; but on the basis of the bad effect, it seems our duty not to perform it.
The principle of double effect is meant to resolve this sort of conflict. The principle holds that such an action should be performed only if the intention is to bring about the good effect and the bad effect will be an unintended or indirect consequence. However, in order to be moral four conditions must be met:
1: The action itself must be morally indifferent or morally good.
2: The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3: The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only.
4: The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.
While the particulars do vary based upon individual values, the good effect (helping the woman) we would be achieving would be by the means of the bad effect (killing the conceptus), violating the principle. It would not be considered moral in that case.
If the case were different and a cancerous uterus were removed, which killed the fetus but saved the woman all conditions would be met since killing the fetus is not the means of saving the woman. Removing the uterus was. It's a glorified way of saying the ends do not justify the means.

reply from: Banned Member

Why would that matter?
Because if its more pig than man and there's no chance of human type intellect or personality then killing it is no worse then killing a pig.
That's sick.
By that logic, it's okay to kill severely intellectually disabled people - since there's no chance of human type intellect or personality, it is no worse than killing a pig.
So if another species can be demonstrated to show human-like intellect and personality, then we shouldn't kill them, as it would be morally questionable?

reply from: Banned Member

Someone who likes oranges? Why do you have to be an idiot to eat a lot of oranges? Non sequitur.
But ignorance is an excuse. You said it yourself.
Isn't it still manslaughter?
Why not?
Why isn't it wrong to kill animals then?
When you start, I'll follow suit.
No, my point is NOT invalid.
Just because some idiot at some stage in history decided to kill a bunch of other people, does not void the point. All it proves is that people are sheep and that there are defective genes within the pool that lead to homicidal behaviour.
No, humans are inherently violent and killing out own species is part of our historical and genetic makeup. Pretending otherwise is like pretending that eating grapes will make a big scary monster eat you and your loved ones.
It takes a lot of imagination (the same kind of imagination it takes to believe in Sky Fairies perhaps?) to consider an unwanted pregnancy to be a wanted, loved child. Oddly, you characterise out ability to overcome our biological programming as a GOOD thing in a previous post, now you try to claim that it is a BAD thing.
Make up your mind, Hypocrities.
I consider most Bonobos to be more noble hominids that Humans.
We could learn a lot about being persons from them - like not killing each other or other animals, for starters.
Yes?
If the ZEF is going to have a very poor quality of life and/or will impact adversely on the quality of life of the parents, then society suffers.
What good is a biologically healthy human being that grows up to be a drug-addicted rapist?
Cave men? What are you, 5?
That's not an answer. That's evasion.
The same thing will happen if we abstain from sex.
What's the problem here?
This is why I have planned for my retirement already and am not relying on the Government to provide for me. I'm a Realist as well as an Atheist.
Give both a try.
Still, there is no evidence that abortion has or will cause this.
So your speculation is just that: speculation without basis in fact.
You clearly don't know anything about modern feminism (as I've explained to you before).
Don't let me stop you.

reply from: Sigma

Been reading a bit too much of Hobbes, methinks.
On top of all the miseries inflicted by predators and parasites, members of their own kind is less of a barrier for most species than you might think. Infanticide, siblicide, and rape can be observed in many kinds of animals, infidelity is common even in so-called pair-bonded species; cannibalism can be expected in all species that are not strict vegetarians; death from fighting is more common in most animal species than it is in most violent American cities. As Katharine Hepburn says to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen, "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above".
Secondly, Shenanigans is correct to say that preference for close kin has been selected for over evolutionary time.
Thirdly, violence is merely one part of human nature. Other parts include empathy, foresight, self-respect and information processing. Morality is an evolved sense that, while ultimately pragmatic, allows us to interact with other rational actors.

reply from: Banned Member

WashMDM actually.
However, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, humans perpetrate the most interesting an heinous of crimes against the planet: nuclear contamination, air pollution, dumping toxic effluent in the lakes, rivers and oceans, mass deforestation, strip mining, mass extinction, etc, etc, etc.

reply from: Sigma

WashMDM? I'm not familiar with the term. In any case, the notion that humans are inherently violent is a very Hobbsian view.
Our technology allows this, but the drives are all to familiar. Our psychology was not exempt from the evolutionary process. Humans can be violent, yes, but humans can also be altruistic and cooperative. We desire comfort, love, family, esteem, autonomy, aesthetics and self-expression. To reduce all of human nature to "violence" does the species injustice.
It would also undermine the notion that there can be social progress

reply from: Banned Member

Certainly; this does not preclude violence from being one of our most dominant traits.
I'm not certain there can be social progress - especially while beliefs in Sky Fairies still exist.

reply from: Sigma

It does not imply it either
There can be many barriers to social progress. Locke's philosophy that underlay the Progressive movement of the early 1900s is itself a barrier since its logical conclusion is the control over the experience in order to eradicate the negative aspects of human nature. Feminist theoreticians who have embraced the same notion would give the government sweeping powers to implement their vision of gender-free minds.
And as I said your notion that humans have (only or even dominately) violent urges is a hurtle. Selfish thoughts translate into selfish behavior, aggressive urges beget natural-born killers, a taste for multiple sex partners means that men just can't help fooling around. In the interview with primatologist Michael Ghiglieri, he was asked "You explain rape and murder and war and all the bad things that men do as something--if I would just boil it down--something they can't help because of its--it's locked up in their evolutionary gemes there?"
These concerns are not just acedemic. Cognitive neuroscientists are approached by criminal defense lawyers hoping that a wayward pixel on a brain scan might exonerate their client. When Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer argued that rape is a consequence of male reproductive strategies, another lawyer contemplated using their theory to defend rape suspects. A belief that people are "just violent" would seem to admit more and more people into the ranks of the blameless.

reply from: Banned Member

There's no need to imply it, it is already implicit in our dominance over all over species. We didn't get to the top of the food chain by hugging our food.
Do you mean hurdle?
Again, we didn't become the dominant species because of our peaceful ways. Also, the basis of virtually all our technology is weaponry - and most of our greatest medical and technological advances have been made due to War.
While it might be anathema to you to accept the brutal stupidity of humans (especially those who behave like bronze-age desert dwelling nomads), that's collectively what we are - brutal and stupid.

reply from: Sigma

And moral progress is explicitely shown in the progress that has taken place over millennia. Customs that were common throughout history and prehistory --slavery, punishment by mutilation, execution by torture, genocide for convenience, endless blood feuds, the summary killing of strangers, rape as the spoils of war, infanticide as a form of birth control, and the legal ownership of women -- have vanished from large parts of the world.
I apologize, I did not explain my position well enough. It is not that it is anathema to me, it is that it is incompatible with evolutionary psychology, which is the foundation of modern psychology.
The mind is a system with many parts, and violence is merely one component among others. Some faculties do endow us with greed or lust or malice, but others endow us with sympathy, foresight, self-respect, a desire for respect for others, and many more. These are physical circuits residing in the prefrontal cortex and other parts of the brain and they have a genetic basis and an evolutionary history no less than primal, violent urges.
Furthermore, game theory abundantly shows how altruism and cooperation evolves from a complex system. Our emotional repertoire -- sympathy, trust, guilt, anger, self-esteem -- impels us to seek new cooperators, maintain relationships with them, and safeguard the relationships against possible exploitation. Non-zero-sum games arise not just from people's ability to help one another but from their ability to refrain from hurting one another. Conflict resolution such as mediation, face-saving measures, measured restitution and retribution, legal codes... these are ubiquitous across cultures, as universal as the conflicts of interest they are designed to defuse.

reply from: Banned Member

But also still exist in large parts of the world.
Psychology.
A science in its infancy (if it can be called a 'science' at all).

reply from: Sigma

If it's possible at all it means there is much more to human nature than violence
Game theory and evolution support the notions of evolutionary psychology. Both applied mathematics and evolution are well supported.

reply from: Banned Member

If it's possible at all it means there is much more to human nature than violence
Except that violence is still perpetrated on a large scale, even in the 'good' counties.
There is more to being human than violence, but it's a powerful and important part of the human condition. As I said, we didn't get to the top by hugging our food.
Doesn't change the fact that psychology is an infantile science.

reply from: Sigma

Hunting is separate from violence among individuals or groups. Our position on the food chain is irrelevant in that context. We also could not have gotten where we are today without cooperation and altruistic impulses. Xenophopia has a rational basis, and cooperation has a rational basis. Emotions that beget violence exist because of our interest in cooperation.
Anti-social and war-like behavior may seem more prominent, but the existence of civilization depends on our cooperative impulses. I don't think it can be supported that violence is our dominant trait.
The underpinnings are sound, and the conclusions I drew were rational and conform to observed and predicted results.

reply from: Banned Member

Sorry, but even the most diplomatic gestures have an underpinning of violence - i.e behind the handshake of one president to another president is the threat of an ass-kicking of the military kind.
You don't become the Alpha by giving people flowers.
Violence is the ultimate authority from which all other authority stems. The threat of physical punishment is the cornerstone of our society.

reply from: Sigma

Not violence, per se, but deterence. As I said, there is a rational basis for this type of behavior that enhances civilized (and peaceful) society. It stems from a paradox inherent to the logic of deterence: though the threat of punishment can deter behavior, if the behavior does take place the punishment serves no apparent purpose other than pure sadism. However, this paradox also underlies part of the logic of responsibility.
Modern societies do not just pick whatever policy is the most violent or the one that is most effective at reducing crime. If that was our value, as you seem to believe, we could always make the punishments especially cruel. Instead, as the political writer Harold Laski said, "Civilization means, above all, an unwillingness to inflict unnecessary pain."
You also cannot have a stable society and have the "not everyone, just me" philosophy of hostility and violence. Your amoral egoist is in an untenable position. He is better off if he never gets shoved into the mud, but he can hardly demand that others refrain from shoving him if he himself is not willing to forgo shoving others. And since one is better off not shoving and not getting shoved than shoving and getting shoved, it pays to insist on a moral code, even if the price is adhering to it oneself. Evolution backs cooperation, not violence.

reply from: Banned Member

Bollocks. It's a threat of violence - 'deterence' is simply another word for it.
As I said, violence underpins even the most diplomatic actions.
Violence is the ultimate form of authority from which all other authorities stem.
You completely misunderstand what an Alpha is.

reply from: Sigma

Only if you disregard cooperation as a motivation and the evolution of emotions in the entirety.
I was talking about your belief that every action has violent underpinnings. If this is so, then we are all amoral egoists with little to no cooperative tendencies. You disregard that a moral sense can evolve, and that civilization is itself an indication that your belief is false on the face of it.

reply from: Banned Member

Co-operation provides superior force.
I don't hold that belief.
Fail.

reply from: Sigma

Cooperation provides many benefits that violence does not, including mutually beneficial cooperation. Your rationale here is grasping at straws, though at least you do admit that cooperation exists. A step in the right direction
We may have exhausted the possiblities of this discussion, but perhaps another tack. I was speaking of a hypothetical rational person, an everyman. You seemed to be talking about a specific role, the leader or alpha. Intercontinental relations rather than interpersonal. Let's reconcile.
What you are essentially saying is "when in conflict, violence is valued over cooperation". The use of violence and the use of diplomacy are directed at a goal. When diplomacy is used instead of violence, it shows that the value of cooperation has precedence over violence. Even a "threat of violence" has the goal of preserving cooperation since deterence is a repudiation of violence rather than a desire for violence.
It seemed so with your contention that violence is the cornerstone of our society. This Hobbesian view cannot account for the realities I've cited or the arguments I've used, while evolutionary psychology can account for the phenomenom of violence as well as cooperation.
Evolution would select for a value placed on cooperation over violence since the benefits of cooperation outweigh the benefits of violence. The existence of emotions do not support the contention that violence is placed at a higher value than cooperation.

reply from: BossMomma

unplanned does not always = unwanted, none of my children were planned but, they were and are very much wanted.

reply from: joueravecfous

I know. Which is why that's not what I said.

reply from: Sigma

A pat response. You assert that violence is valued over cooperation, then concede that cooperation provides benefits but still cling to the assertion that it is for the purpose of violence, then do not respond when I point out that cooperation has many other benefits.
How is it a troll?

reply from: SpitMcGee

So, it's like a light switch then? First there is 0% human, then conception, and bam--100% human in every morally relevant sense of the word?
You're referring to a cellular mass of genetic material, some of which may or may not have the potential to become a human being. You want to equate this with a person. That's ridiculous. A three-year-old could look at a picture of a zygote and tell you it's not a person.
The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). A zygote does not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. It is a potential abode/manifestation of a human being. I hate cliches, but...a seed is not a tree. An egg is not a chicken. And a zygote is not a person.

reply from: spinvortex

At risk of belaboring what, to me, should be obvious, I feel compelled to point out a flaw in this particular "cliche."
A seed is obviously not a tree, since the words describe (in this context) two distinct stages in the development of a single organism. A seedling is also not a "tree," technically, nor is a sapling, but they might all be oaks, maples, or dogwoods. Oak, maple and dogwood describe every member of the species regardless of stage of development. "Seed," sprout, seedling, sapling, and tree describe only stages in development.
An egg is not a chicken, but might very well contain one. Of course, it might not be fertilized either, in which case it would not. We can assume from context that you intended the chicken and egg to compare to the seed and tree in that the egg and chicken are the same entity at different stages of development. A chick is a chicken, both before and after hatching, since "chicken" describes all members of the species. An egg is not a chicken, but if it's a fertilized chicken egg, it contains a chicken at some stage of development.
Finally, you said "a zygote is not a person" as if this were a logical conclusion to draw from your other observations, but it is actually like saying a (oak) sapling is not an oak, or an unhatched chicken is not a chicken, both of which should readily be recognized as false. To say "a seed is not a tree" would compare to "a zygote is not an adult," which would obviously be true, since no entity can at once experience two distinct stages of development, and that is what these terms describe, stages of development. "Person," on the other hand, describes a member of our species, a human being, and it applies to every stage of development.
The philosophical argument over "personhood" is more accurately framed in the context of what makes a human being significant, and to reduce it to a matter of pure semantics as many seem to be doing is intellectually dishonest in my view.
The word "person" itself is actually not even a significant factor in the philosophical "theories" regarding sentience and "self," etc. It seems to have been thrust into the spotlight solely due to the wording of Article 14 of the U.S. Constitution and it's presumed significance in the abortion debate. Long standing precedent assures us that "person" has always been synonymous with "human being" or "human individual," and applied to every member of our species. It is only in the context of the abortion debate that many have attempted to alter the long accepted meaning, probably due to failure to understand the basis of the decision in Roe v. Wade. Many apparently believe the court ruled that unborn human beings are not "persons."

reply from: Sigma

I agree that semantics aren't important in a philosophical debate, but I must disagree that the word "person" is not an issue in the abrtion debate.
The State in Roe argued that the fetus was a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth in order to establish that they had a "compelling State interest" to infringe upon Roe's right to privacy. The Court, in response, decided:
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, [...] and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in ยงยง 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics