Fred Thompson enters the race

[Parkbandit]

Well, he finally decided to come into the race. Now, to find out what he stands for.. because the "I'm the next Reagan" schtick has been used by everyone so far.

[Ilvane]

He's talking about making abortion illegal already..whee.

I agree, I want to hear what he stands for. All I hear is he is very conservative, nothing specific.

I wouldn't vote for him anyway based on his statement on abortion, but it would be nice to think people might want to hear the truth about what someone stands for rather than just because he's a good actor on Law and Order.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

I wouldn't vote for him anyway because he's conservative.
Fixed.

[Ilvane]

Pretty much, yep.

But the abortion thing seals the deal completely.

FYI CT, I voted for McCain in the primaries here back in the last election.

Angela

[Trouble]

They had a thing about him this morning on Headline News, something about him supporting blanket amnesties on immigrants, and supporting easier visa access for skilled foreign workers. He's against abortion rights, same-sex marriage, but said civil unions should be left up to the states (although he opposes it himself). There were a couple of other things too but I wasn't paying full attention.

[Gan]

FYI CT, I voted for McCain in the primaries here back in the last election.

Angela

So up until after the last primary you were for abortion?

[Gan]

Well, he finally decided to come into the race. Now, to find out what he stands for.. because the "I'm the next Reagan" schtick has been used by everyone so far.

Official site:

http://www.fred08.com/

Waiting to see his platform in print. I heard one of the videos has him describing where he stands on the major issues.

[CrystalTears]

He sounds like another Ron Paul. So far, no thanks.

[Parkbandit]

So up until after the last primary you were for abortion?

She just wanted to 'prove' she is an open minded individual.

Too bad we have a history of her political views to show she's far from it.

Not sure why she is so worried about abortion.

[Gan]

She just wanted to 'prove' she is an open minded individual.

Too bad we have a history of her political views to show she's far from it.

Not sure why she is so worried about abortion.

/Agreed.

If Abortion is the clincher for choosing a candidate (especially a conservative) then why in the hell did she vote for McCain?

I just chalked it up to her being retarded as usual.

[Latrinsorm]

Security, unity, AND prosperity? Where do I sign up!!?

Preliminary info:

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

[Gan]

He sounds like another Ron Paul. So far, no thanks.

Thats my concern. He's got the presence to unite the die-hard GOP religious right because its looking like he's a tow the line Republican. And while I'll agree with him on economic issues, I dont think I'll see eye to eye on him with the other issues.

[Parkbandit]

Thats my concern. He's got the presence to unite the die-hard GOP religious right because its looking like he's a tow the line Republican. And while I'll agree with him on economic issues, I dont think I'll see eye to eye on him with the other issues.

Tow the line? He's for blanket amnesty! Show me where that is on any conservative wish list.

[Gan]

Tow the line? He's for blanket amnesty! Show me where that is on any conservative wish list.

Ok, then I need to do some more reading on his stances. :(

[Ilvane]

So up until after the last primary you were for abortion?

Actually, I've always been pro-choice.

Difference again with Thompson was he came straight out saying he was going to make abortion illegal and actively do so immediately. He's not talking about how he would support those children after they are born at all.

McCain wasn't nearly as fervent about it, and had more open minded views.

His ideas were more along the lines of leaving abortion up to the states, and then providing strong support for those who chose to keep a child, either by giving it up for adoption or otherwise.

That being said, I don't think most women are "Pro-abortion" as much as they don't think someone in law should be telling them what to do with their bodies.

Anyway, there's my explanation.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

<twitches> Please don't make this another abortion discussion. I don't think I'll have the stamina this time around.

[Stanley Burrell]

<twitches> Please don't make this another abortion discussion. I don't think I'll have the stamina this time around.

Methinks Ilvane was relating it to Fred Thompson (who happens to be the subject of this thread, for now)'s stance on abortion.

And I don't care how many liberal pinstripes a politician gasconades -- If they are anti-Choice they are not getting my vote.

It is also my strong opinion that abortion has been a great source of political discussion and the fact that Fred Thompson is an undisputed promulgator of it, then it would probably be on the money to discuss... So save your stamina. Or don't :shrug:

[CrystalTears]

Methinks...
Part of the problem right there. Stop it.

And yeah, I know why she brought it up. But personally I think it doesn't make sense to put all your politicals eggs in one basket called abortion. I realize it's a personal and important aspect, but it's not the only one, and I don't automatically feel that just because they want to do away with RvW means that they can and will.

[ElanthianSiren]

Part of the problem right there. Stop it.

And yeah, I know why she brought it up. But personally I think it doesn't make sense to put all your politicals eggs in one basket called abortion. I realize it's a personal and important aspect, but it's not the only one, and I don't automatically feel that just because they want to do away with RvW means that they can and will.

I don't believe Stan is doing this. Abortion issues blanket A LOT of applied science fields (you have your stem cell issues etc), so it's not just about abortion, it's about what the politicians have managed to color as abortion.

Edit: He may be doing this, (I haven't asked), just saying, there are a lot of issues that really have nothing to do with abortion being billed as abortion-related, unless your idea of life is life at conception, even in a test tube.

[Stanley Burrell]

I've commented on why the science field is castrated through tertiary means because of these close-minded fucks, CT. A lot. You think it's just abortion?

[Parkbandit]

That being said, I don't think most women are "Pro-abortion" as much as they don't think someone in law should be telling them what to do with their bodies.

Anyway, there's my explanation.

Angela

So, you are obviously in favor of suicide, doctor assisted suicide and self mutilation?

[Stanley Burrell]

So, you are obviously in favor of suicide, doctor assisted suicide and self mutilation?

Idjit.

[Parkbandit]

Idjit.


I'll explain it to you in a bit Stanley. Let the adults with no dependency problems talk right now.

Thanks.

[Celephais]

So, you are obviously in favor of suicide, doctor assisted suicide and self mutilation?
Come'on now PB, you don't need this kind of statement if you're going to crush Ilvane... People who are pro-abortion are welcome to (and likely have) different views on these other topics as they are separate, obviously there are shades.

[Sean of the Thread]

I blame it on diabetes.

[CrystalTears]

And see, I don't really have a big issue with suicide, assisted suicide or self mutiliation. It is, afterall, your own body and doesn't immediately physically affect another human being, and if you want out of this life that badly, then fine. One less emo whack job to take care of.

[Gan]

And see, I don't really have a big issue with suicide, assisted suicide or self mutiliation. It is, afterall, your own body and doesn't immediately physically affect another human being, and if you want out of this life that badly, then fine. One less emo whack job to take care of.

Exactly. Why stop at abortion, self mutilation, or suicide. Lets start regulating behaviors that can be classified as self mutilation and or suicide. Such as over eating, drinking, smoking, sex and the elderly, sex in general? (depending on how rough you like it).... the slope slips on and on with that.

[CrystalTears]

Yes but I have issues with abortion because (in my opinion) it's not just YOUR (you and your being general) body, there is another body in there that you created and has no say in its life and you are making that choice of their existance for them.

[Latrinsorm]

sex and the elderlyIs that classified as self-mutilation or suicide, out of morbid curiosity?

[chillmonster]

I haven't seen a damned thing from Fred Thompson. He seems like an empty suit to me - A much less likable GWB.

[DeV]

The only thing I know about him so far, save what I've read in this thread is that he likes Cuban cigars. Empty suit... as it stands, yes.

[Parkbandit]

Come'on now PB, you don't need this kind of statement if you're going to crush Ilvane... People who are pro-abortion are welcome to (and likely have) different views on these other topics as they are separate, obviously there are shades.


I wasn't talking about abortion per-say. She said "they don't think someone in law should be telling them what to do with their bodies" This is covered by suicide, assisted suicide and self mutilation... and not really abortion. Abortion to me isn't taking away any rights of the woman to do with her body what she wants.. it's protecting another life inside that body.

And I really don't give a flying fuck about pro-life or pro-choice. If I had to say which side I am on, it's pro-choice as long as it is terminated early.

[LazyBard]

Exactly. Why stop at abortion, self mutilation, or suicide. Lets start regulating behaviors that can be classified as self mutilation and or suicide. Such as over eating, drinking, smoking, sex and the elderly, sex in general? (depending on how rough you like it).... the slope slips on and on with that.

You havent been to Seattle I take it. Hell here its illegal to smoke in alot of parks, ball fields etc due to second hand smoke and its damaging effects to others who dont smoke and are nearby you.

[Ilvane]

See, where I have a problem (and I agree that this shouldn't become just an abortion debate) is that these guys have all kinds of plans to stop abortion, save the life of the child, etc..

But they DO NOT have a plan to take care of those children once they are born.

Based on how the programs have been cut under the Bush adminsitration for even helping to teach birth control at all, I can't understand the hypocracy.

Angela

P.S. Yes, PB there is a difference between what you listed and abortion, and I think you know better.

[Gan]

Is that classified as self-mutilation or suicide, out of morbid curiosity?

Both depending on the levels of viagra that are consumed.

:sick:

[Gan]

You havent been to Seattle I take it. Hell here its illegal to smoke in alot of parks, ball fields etc due to second hand smoke and its damaging effects to others who dont smoke and are nearby you.

I view this a little differently because of the second hand smoke infringing upon the health and rights of others without the others consent.

[Warriorbird]

If somebody wants to self multilate or commit suicide or assist someone in commiting suicide? More power to em.

[LazyBard]

I view this a little differently because of the second hand smoke infringing upon the health and rights of others without the others consent.

Not to start another smoking debate again since we all know that is a dead horse. But its outside! You inhale more fumes from the cars from seattles traffic (and yes we have some of the worst) then you do from the guy sitting 20 feet away from you in the park.



But back to the topic I personally would rather the decisions for someones own body left to them. Be it I decided I would rather die then be killed by the cancer thats slowly rotting away my body or the fact I want to soak my deep fried cheese sticks in a half pound of salt and a pinch of maple syrup. But dont complain when you fuck it up and live or you realize the syrup may have been a little too much and your 450 pounds with congestive heart failure and a bad case of hammer toe.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah the smoking thing is pretty much a joke.

[Parkbandit]

P.S. Yes, PB there is a difference between what you listed and abortion, and I think you know better.

Please elaborate. You said you don't think someone in law should be telling woman what to do with their bodies. How is this different?

I think abortion is different in it's protecting, not the woman's body.. but the young life they are carrying inside of them.

[Stanley Burrell]

My personal belief is that having two balls and a dick, even if you need a sildenafil jump-start, should exempt you from having a (serious) opinion on the matter as is.

[TheEschaton]

This will quickly devolve into the question of what is life, as per usual.

It's humorous to note that the Church itself, until the 20th century, never considered a fetus a child until it had the ability to kick in the mother's womb.

[Bartlett]

This will quickly devolve into the question of what is life, as per usual.

It's humorous to note that the Church itself, until the 20th century, never considered a fetus a child until it had the ability to kick in the mother's womb.

This is most likely because the field of biology was particularly inept, and it was generally regarded that the beginning of human development was when the fetus could move around.

"Before the scientific discovery that human development begins at fertilization, English common law allowed abortions to be performed before "quickening", the earliest perception of fetal movement by a woman during pregnancy, until both pre- and post-quickening abortions were criminalized by Lord Ellenborough's Act in 1803.[95] " from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#History_of_abortion)

This was brought back up by Ernst Haekel in his 1876 book "General Morphology of Organisms" who suggested that humans actually have gills during the early stage of life. It was later assumed that we actually traveled through our evolutionary timeline in the womb until we become recognizable as a human of today. As biology got better, this was discovered to be utter garbage. It did make a comeback around 1950 when Dr. Spock rewrote the same idea, saying humans have gills in early stages. This idea was even regurgitated in Readers Digest book of facts in 1986. Interesting that Roe v. Wade was found successful in a time when the early stage of human life was suggested to be spent as a fish.

I don't know of any current scientific studies that remotely suggest that human beings begin their development as some kind of different creature. There is no mistake that human development begins at point of conception. A human life has begun. If it is your opinion that this human life has no rights, or that those rights are overthrown by the whim of a mother who does not want to be one, you can go ahead and reconcile that to your own brain, but ending an innocent human life - regardless of their stage in development - is in my opinion, murder.

[Mistomeer]

The only thing I know about him so far, save what I've read in this thread is that he likes Cuban cigars. Empty suit... as it stands, yes.

He was a Senator so he has a voting history.

As far as abortion goes, voting or not voting for something based on the abortion stance is about the stupidest thing you can do. Abortion is an irrelevant issue.

[Gan]

I don't know of any current scientific studies that remotely suggest that human beings begin their development as some kind of different creature. There is no mistake that human development begins at point of conception. A human life has begun. If it is your opinion that this human life has no rights, or that those rights are overthrown by the whim of a mother who does not want to be one, you can go ahead and reconcile that to your own brain, but ending an innocent human life - regardless of their stage in development - is in my opinion, murder.

Insert viability argument here. Ad nauseum.

:deadhorse:

[ElanthianSiren]

Insert viability argument here. Ad nauseum.

:deadhorse:

:rofl: Start your day with deadhorse! Gauranteed to get you out of your chair and doing what you need to do! No Coffee required. Responses guaranteed fresh from the can in other threads! Full money back guarantee!

[Ilvane]

He was a Senator so he has a voting history.

As far as abortion goes, voting or not voting for something based on the abortion stance is about the stupidest thing you can do. Abortion is an irrelevant issue.

Maybe if you are a man, it's irrelevant.

As far as the issue PB keeps bringing up, suicide, self mutilation and doctor assisted suicide are all different issues.

Suicide and self mutilation are choices made by the person, and they do have the choce to do that as a human, yes. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at there. I mean--it's not the same thing.

Doctor assisted suicide is a whole other issue, because it involves someone who should be saving a life ending one. In some cases when someone has been sick for a long time, they decide they can't go on. Do I think it's better to have someone do it so it's not as painful in some very terminal painful situations, maybe. But it's not something I've experienced. My family had to choose what to do when my dad was terminally ill, in a coma and basically just living because of the machines he was on. He never would have chosen to live that way. So, my mother decided to take him off the machines.

Again, these are all completely different issues too.

Do you know of many laws barring self-mutilation? I'm sure there are some against the Dr. Assisted suicide and regular suicide, but again..what can you do to stop someone from doing that?

Angela

[CrystalTears]

As far as the issue PB keeps bringing up, suicide, self mutilation and doctor assisted suicide are all different issues.
They're all different and separate issues, but they are based on the same principle that other people shouldn't tell us what to do with our bodies, no?

Suicide and self mutilation are choices made by the person, and they do have the choce to do that as a human, yes. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at there. I mean--it's not the same thing. Abortion is a choice made by the person. It's the same thing.

Doctor assisted suicide is a whole other issue, because it involves someone who should be saving a life ending one. Sooooo.... don't doctors who perform abortions want to save lives too? I can't tell if you're okay with assisted suicide or not, but you're okay with this life-saving doctor ending an innocent life.

In some cases when someone has been sick for a long time, they decide they can't go on. Do I think it's better to have someone do it so it's not as painful in some very terminal painful situations, maybe. But it's not something I've experienced. My family had to choose what to do when my dad was terminally ill, in a coma and basically just living because of the machines he was on. He never would have chosen to live that way. So, my mother decided to take him off the machines. If someone doesn't want to be part of this world, who are we to make them stay?

Again, these are all completely different issues too. Again, no they aren't that different. Oh except that in an abortion you're also effectively destroying another life rather than just tampering your own. In that respect it's different, and for me, less tolerable.

[Apathy]

I haven't seen a damned thing from Fred Thompson. He seems like an empty suit to me - A much less likable GWB.

That makes no sense at all.

And actors have a good history in our political system, why stop it now?

[Parkbandit]

My personal belief is that having two balls and a dick, even if you need a sildenafil jump-start, should exempt you from having a (serious) opinion on the matter as is.


Well I guess that leaves you to debate for us guys then.

GO STANLEY!

[Gan]

Well I guess that leaves you to debate for us guys then.

GO STANLEY!
LOL Zing!

[Mistomeer]

Maybe if you are a man, it's irrelevant.

No, it's irrelevant for everyone. There has not been a significant change to the abortion law since Roe v. Wade. You have 12 years of pro-life presidency under Reagan/Bush, then 8 years of pro-choice under Clinton and then 8 more years of pro-life under W and there still is no significant change. So what makes it so relevant?

Personally, I lean more to the pro-life side, but I vote on the far left because I'd much rather see corporate interest reigned in or health care fixed. In a country that is at war with a recession looming and failing education and health care systems I'd rather see one of those fixed rather than vote for someone based on an issue that will not change in the slightest once the election is over.


As far as the issue PB keeps bringing up, suicide, self mutilation and doctor assisted suicide are all different issues.

Agreed. Also, I think stem cells are a different issue as well. The two are linked, but don't necessarily go hand in hand.

[Parkbandit]

Agreed. Also, I think stem cells are a different issue as well. The two are linked, but don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I never said that Abortion and suicide are the same thing. I said that Ilvane made the comment that the Law shouldn't dictate what someone does with their body and stated that she would be talking about suicide and not abortion.

FFS, I can't believe I have to explain it over and over again. I can understand Ilvane not comprehending it, but come on Mistomeer..

[Latrinsorm]

Doctor assisted suicide is a whole other issue, because it involves someone who should be saving a life ending one.Mothers shouldn't protect their children? :\
If someone doesn't want to be part of this world, who are we to make them stay?Suicide doesn't only affect the person who attempts suicide, and most everyone will agree that hurting other people is something we should keep an eye on, legislatively speaking. Put another way, humans are in general not so isolated that one can be removed without taking part of other people with them.

[CrystalTears]

Suicide doesn't only affect the person who attempts suicide, and most everyone will agree that hurting other people is something we should keep an eye on, legislatively speaking. Put another way, humans are in general not so isolated that one can be removed without taking part of other people with them.
I'm speaking right now only of immediate physical damage. My slashing my wrist does not simultaneously cause a gash on your wrist.

[Latrinsorm]

I guess it's a question of whether you think immediate physical trauma is substantially more devastating than immediate emotional trauma then.

[CrystalTears]

*sigh* Focus please. With all the emos in this world, I really don't want to debate what is considered emotionally devastating for someone. I'd like to stick with physical harm right now, since the "rules" are what we're allowed to do with our bodies, not the sensibilities of everyone else.

[Stanley Burrell]

This is most likely because the field of biology was particularly inept, and it was generally regarded that the beginning of human development was when the fetus could move around.

"Before the scientific discovery that human development begins at fertilization, English common law allowed abortions to be performed before "quickening", the earliest perception of fetal movement by a woman during pregnancy, until both pre- and post-quickening abortions were criminalized by Lord Ellenborough's Act in 1803.[95] " from wikipedia

This was brought back up by Ernst Haekel in his 1876 book "General Morphology of Organisms" who suggested that humans actually have gills during the early stage of life. It was later assumed that we actually traveled through our evolutionary timeline in the womb until we become recognizable as a human of today. As biology got better, this was discovered to be utter garbage. It did make a comeback around 1950 when Dr. Spock rewrote the same idea, saying humans have gills in early stages. This idea was even regurgitated in Readers Digest book of facts in 1986. Interesting that Roe v. Wade was found successful in a time when the early stage of human life was suggested to be spent as a fish.

I don't know of any current scientific studies that remotely suggest that human beings begin their development as some kind of different creature. There is no mistake that human development begins at point of conception. A human life has begun. If it is your opinion that this human life has no rights, or that those rights are overthrown by the whim of a mother who does not want to be one, you can go ahead and reconcile that to your own brain, but ending an innocent human life - regardless of their stage in development - is in my opinion, murder.

I don't even know where to begin on this. I guess I'll start and finish with stating simply that it is my trained and professional opinion that biology has been around roughly as long as religious worship has.

[Gan]

I guess it's a question of whether you think immediate physical trauma is substantially more devastating than immediate emotional trauma then.


*sigh* Focus please. With all the emos in this world, I really don't want to debate what is considered emotionally devastating for someone. I'd like to stick with physical harm right now, since the "rules" are what we're allowed to do with our bodies, not the sensibilities of everyone else.

LOL at emotional trauma.

suck it up and drive on soldier...

[Mistomeer]

FFS, I can't believe I have to explain it over and over again. I can understand Ilvane not comprehending it, but come on Mistomeer..

I agree with you. The whole your body your choice thing shouldn't begin and end with a fetus. However, Ilvane took your argument and paraphrased it. I don't think that generally speaking suicide and doctor assisted suicide are the same issue.

[Latrinsorm]

I'd like to stick with physical harm right now, since the "rules" are what we're allowed to do with our bodies, not the sensibilities of everyone else.
suck it up and drive on soldier...I'm sure the parents and families of suicides appreciate your sentiment.
I guess I'll start and finish with stating simply that it is my trained and professional opinion that biology has been around roughly as long as religious worship has.Ancient Greek biology is about as accurate as ancient Greek physics (picking the Greeks because that's pretty much what folks used for the next couple millenia). Humourism? Come on, man.

[CrystalTears]

Eh, you know what? Since the selfish "this is my body I do what I want" mother didn't care about the people who wanted her to have that child, I really don't care that some selfish bastard felt that his time on this earth needed to end and didn't care how that would affect his loved ones.

The bitch has spoken. Carry on.

[Gan]

I'm sure the parents and families of suicides appreciate your sentiment.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/ascii6dk.gif

[TheEschaton]

Human life doesn't start at conception. I fail how you can qualify 4 cells as a human life. Are all organs of more than 4 cells human life? They don't even begin to differentiate into specialized cells for awhile. Stop being ridiculous.

My personal belief is that if it cannot survive outside of the womb without serious medical intervention, it's not a human being. It's why I don't believe in keeping people on life support if they can't survive on their own.

"Life" is one thing. "Human life" is a far different, more qualitative thing.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Human life doesn't start at conception. I fail how you can qualify 4 cells as a human life. Are all organs of more than 4 cells human life? They don't even begin to differentiate into specialized cells for awhile. Stop being ridiculous.

My personal belief is that if it cannot survive outside of the womb without serious medical intervention, it's not a human being.

And that's why you're fucking retarded... and I'm pro choice.

[Some Rogue]

Human life doesn't start at conception.

That's your opinion.



I fail


Agreed.

:yes:

[TheEschaton]

Philosophically, metaphysically, even theologically until 50 years ago, it didn't start at conception. Biologically? It depends on how you define life - I usually define it as an autonomous organism that can survive on its own. A 4 cell blastocyte can't do that.

[Warriorbird]

'Human life starts at conception'
-paraphrase of Some Rogue

I knew it! Every sperm is sacred!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/2004family__duggar.jpg

[Some Rogue]

'Human life starts at conception'
-paraphrase of Some Rogue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8


I'm a big fucking douchebag who can't see a joke.
-WB

[Warriorbird]

Way to self identify.

:)

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm sure the parents and families of suicides appreciate your sentiment.Ancient Greek biology is about as accurate as ancient Greek physics (picking the Greeks because that's pretty much what folks used for the next couple millenia). Humourism? Come on, man.

You may want to look up the definition of biology.

[Latrinsorm]

I usually define it as an autonomous organism that can survive on its own.No human can survive on his or her own, pre or post birth. Every human requires social interaction.

[Gan]

No human can survive on his or her own, pre or post birth. Every human requires social interaction.

We've so had this viability discussion several times in the past. I'm suprised you still make these kinds of statements, especially since you know what direction he's coming from.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know where the heck he's coming from. Correcting 90 papers kind of puts a damper on the whole recall thing.

[Bartlett]

Viability of the life based on whether the child can survive outside the womb, either naturally or artificially - which I believe is the distinction of life from Roe v Wade - is a fairly arbitrary definition. TheE says that the 4 cells in the beginning are not a human life. If/when we get advanced enough to support a child full term from conception to maturity, would that not then illegalize abortion because the child would now be viable from day 1?


Human life doesn't start at conception. I fail how you can qualify 4 cells as a human life. Are all organs of more than 4 cells human life? They don't even begin to differentiate into specialized cells for awhile. Stop being ridiculous.


It is a ridiculous statement to suggest that I, or anyone else, believes that any 4 cells of human tissue qualifies as human life. However, the 4 cells that are specificially in question will always mature into a full grown human being unless they die (naturally or artificially.) Those 4 cells contain all the biological/genetic information for every system in the human body, the same cannot be said about your liver or your skin. Conception is the first phase of human life, episode 1 in the development of a human being. It is not a virus, an infection, it is not a bit of kidney that might eventually mature into a full grown human being. It is where life began for every person on earth.

[Gan]

Viability of the life based on whether the child can survive outside the womb, either naturally or artificially - which I believe is the distinction of life from Roe v Wade - is a fairly arbitrary definition. TheE says that the 4 cells in the beginning are not a human life. If/when we get advanced enough to support a child full term from conception to maturity, would that not then illegalize abortion because the child would now be viable from day 1?
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.




It is a ridiculous statement to suggest that I, or anyone else, believes that any 4 cells of human tissue qualifies as human life. However, the 4 cells that are specificially in question will always mature into a full grown human being unless they die (naturally or artificially.) Those 4 cells contain all the biological/genetic information for every system in the human body, the same cannot be said about your liver or your skin. Contraception is the first phase of human life, episode 1 in the development of a human being. It is not a virus, an infection, it is not a bit of kidney that might eventually mature into a full grown human being. It is where life began for every person on earth.
Hopefully you meant conception. And this paragraph I disagree with.

[TheEschaton]

the same cannot be said about your liver or your skin.

You obviously don't know biology (still believe in creationism, eh?)

Every single cell in your body has all your genetic material. Every single one. You know why? They came from that very first fused cell, which had all your genetic material.
Edited to add: How do cells specialize themselves? Different parts of that entire strand are expressed by different cells.

Furthermore, your definition of viability is ridiculous. Viability should (and I think the majority would think this) be based on an ability to survive without mechanical means.

And yes, I don't think people should be on life support if they can't live on their own.

And Latrin, STFU. Needing social support is different from the ability to manually ingest your own food.

-TheE-

[Bartlett]

So the definition of human life for you really boils down to our technological advances and/or the whim of the mother? I believe the law has found people guilty of crimes against a child in the womb at early (earlier than 24-28 week viability) stages, since the mother opted to raise the child, but those cells inside of her, are no different than the cells inside another woman who doesn't feel like having a kid, and in one of our previous "discussions" I mentioned that a child is viable from conception inside the mother's womb, just like a child of any age is only viable under certain circumstances. Just because a mother doesn't feel like supporting her child at a point in time when nobody else is able to support that child, should not turn that child into just a lump of cells that can be discarded.

[Latrinsorm]

And Latrin, STFU. Needing social support is different from the ability to manually ingest your own food.Of course it's different. Shelter and food are different too, that doesn't make either any less necessary. If you want to define humans based on one thing they need but not others, don't you feel like you should have some reason for picking that one and not the others?

[TheEschaton]

This is why I am slowly, slowly going insane.

[Bartlett]

Every single cell in your body has all your genetic material. Every single one. You know why? They came from that very first fused cell, which had all your genetic material.
Edited to add: How do cells specialize themselves? Different parts of that entire strand are expressed by different cells.


If that were a fact, then abortion laws would have no bearing on stem cell research and whatnot, because they could just pick off your skin and turn it into your brain.

[Warriorbird]

http://pharyngula.org/images/the_creationist_method.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Wow, your fucking retarded. Once a cell starts to specialize, it becomes ONLY that type of cell. Can you imagine what chaos there would be if your liver cells could suddenly become...oh, your adrenal gland cells?

do you even know why the research done on stem cells can ONLY be done on stem cells? Geez.

[chillmonster]

I love how threads morph into something completely different than what they were intended to be....

I wonder if people who are Pro-Choice understand that their argument is useless. The validity of that argument, in the eyes of those who believe differently, is irrelevant. It's about the ethics of taking away a life that would have been had you not acted. Another way to put it is denying a person (or a potential person) the chance to live. I don't see it as a scientific question at all. It's a question of morality, and good people who are pro choice should step back and acknowledge the moral complexity of this issue then move forward from there.

As liberal as I am on a lot of issues, I feel my positions are based on sound reasoning and honest and unbiased (as possible) examination of issues. There are A LOT of issues of which an honest and unbiased examination would compel conservatives to at least soften their stances, but there are a lot on the left also and this is one of them.

Now I would classify myself as Pro-Choice, but eliminating all parental notification or not allowing counselors to speak with teens looking to get an abortion arises from a desire to win more than it does from the desire to do what's right. This is yet another example where partisan politics has trapped politicians in one of two corners when the real, and very reasonable solution lies somewhere in the middle.

[Warriorbird]

I'm pro abstinence for married Christian couples. Each time they have sex they destroy millions of potential lives.

:)

[Bartlett]

Wow, your fucking retarded. Once a cell starts to specialize, it becomes ONLY that type of cell. Can you imagine what chaos there would be if your liver cells could suddenly become...oh, your adrenal gland cells?

So the 4 cells from which all other types of cells are not the same as a cell found in one of your organs? Interesting. I believe that was what I said. Those 4 cells will produce everything your body needs to run. This is what I was referring to when I said they contain all the "biological/genetic information for every system in the human body" Your liver will not, hence those 4 cells cannot be classified as a random bit of human tissue as you suggested. Next time you decide to attack a side issue, try not to validate the point you were intially trying to refute.

[ElanthianSiren]

Wow, your fucking retarded. Once a cell starts to specialize, it becomes ONLY that type of cell. Can you imagine what chaos there would be if your liver cells could suddenly become...oh, your adrenal gland cells?

do you even know why the research done on stem cells can ONLY be done on stem cells? Geez.

That's untrue, dear. Your adult stem cells (ASC) from the spleen can become endocrine system cells, for instance. What happens with adults is that you have to have CLOSE tissue types, but they don't have to be 100%. The close tissue type, however, can be prohibitively limiting, especially in a research setting. Furthermore, you wouldn't want to use someone's (in many cases) very limited supply (see spleen) of adult stem cells when medical cures may require them in the future. As much as some may say embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is unethical, that seems super unethical.

Where I disagree with some of this argument is, if you're talking about ESC, they're not going to survive very long in their environment anyway. For instance, if all scientists suddenly start leaving those blastocysts in the growth medium because opposition to ESC gets incredibly high, what do you think is going to happen to them? The private sector fertility clinics are already handling the demand of those that want implantation and, in fact, have a surplus of frozen, fertilized blastocysts with very few applications thereafter.

So where are we going with this argument? We should freeze blastocysts indefinitely? Is that life?

[Sean of the Thread]

Can we get back on topic about ripping a crushed and bleeding fetus from some whore's sloppy vagina?

I'm pro-choice and I think Fred Thomas buried any chance he had with this shit.

[ElanthianSiren]

Can we get back on topic about ripping a crushed and bleeding fetus from some whore's sloppy vagina?

I'm pro-choice and I think Fred Thomas buried any chance he had with this shit.

Why do you think that Sean? Plenty of candidates have made legislative promises that they had no interest/no chance in keeping to court voters. Bush promised to increase the fed pell grant in his run up. Clinton promised a middle class tax cut in 1992. Bush Sr. had a similar faux pas, and one of his most famous soundbites ever, as you'll remember, "No new taxes." In 1980, Reagan promised to balance the budget, but he also promised cutting taxes and military fortification.

Bottom line, IMO It's political tradition to lie. I will give you this, however; there are plenty of fiscally conservative, yet more socially permissive Republicans, who I can understand this having the potential of upsetting. My grandparents come to mind.

[chillmonster]

Can we get back on topic about ripping a crushed and bleeding fetus from some whore's sloppy vagina?

I'm pro-choice and I think Fred Thomas buried any chance he had with this shit.

A guy who makes a habbit of saying things like this is not electable.

On a related note I believe Fred Thompson is the only man for the Republican Nomination. http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x94/RagnarDanneskjold/jointhefredheads.png

http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2007/06/fredsite.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

This is why I am slowly, slowly going insane.Is that how Aquinas would respond? :nono: