Hundreds of thousands march in Washington

[Oblivion437]

For the record, a caterpillar is something less than an insect for a while in the chrysalis (not cocoon, that's for Moths)... It's merely a pool of digested juices being reformed into the basic structure of the butterfly, the finishing touch process follows.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: For the record, a caterpillar is something less than an insect for a while in the chrysalis (not cocoon, that's for Moths)... It's merely a pool of digested juices being reformed into the basic structure of the butterfly, the finishing touch process follows.

Mmmm-mmmmm, tasty.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Choices can be made, but most likely won't be made. Most people can't just put aside differences so easily. It takes time to sort through those emotions; time a baby can't afford to wait out.

You're missing the point. I present possibility. You can't argue that certain things aren't possible by presenting definite hypotheticals like this. "Most likely" is unknown, for you're speaking about people and events you have no knowledge of.

I am presenting the reality that HUMAN CHOICE means that such outcomes are ALWAYS a possibility. No child need ever be abandoned or aborted if people make the applicable choices that are available.

What we need to do, if we are to be a human society that
a. Saves more human life from premature end
b. Saves more women from extreme mental anguish

is to create a society that cares for mothers, and edifies life, by encouraging such choices, and providing support so that those choices can be made.

On another tack, tampons and period pads for example should be distributed FREE by the government. Why should women pay for being a woman???

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Fine. What if there are twins? Triplets? Do two or three souls get crammed into the zygote? And this isn't tongue in cheek, I'm dead serious. Do they split off? What if they don't? What if there's a miscarriage or an abortion, what happens to the souls? Do they go to heaven, or are they reincarnated someplace else? I need to know what you think about these things before we can go further.

So what? What has the soul got to do with anything? We are talking about human life, not whether there is a soul or not. You cannot ascertain when a soul is developed, so it's irrelevent speculation. You can however, pinpoint the start of human life, and that is when the egg is fertilised. SO from that point on, it is a human life form in various stages of development and realised potential.

A five year old girl has unrealised potential. Is she any less human that a 55 year old if she dies young?
A foetus is a human in an early stage of development. When it develops it will not be a monkey, a fish, a zebra or anything else, just as the five year old girl will not grow into a bat or viper. [/QUOTE]Ah, ah! But the soul is central to the debate! You are not human if you have no soul. "Human life" can't start without a soul. So the point where the soul enters the body is the point where a lump of flesh becomes a human. Hell, the entire abortion DEBATE is based on speculation over when a zygote becomes a human.
And I would like to hear your answers to my other questions. What happens when a woman miscarries? What happens to the real human if a woman aborts? Do they come back or don't they? [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Ah, ah! But the soul is central to the debate! You are not human if you have no soul. "Human life" can't start without a soul. So the point where the soul enters the body is the point where a lump of flesh becomes a human. Hell, the entire abortion DEBATE is based on speculation over when a zygote becomes a human. And I would like to hear your answers to my other questions. What happens when a woman miscarries? What happens to the real human if a woman aborts? Do they come back or don't they?

Discussion over the soul pertains to religious belief, and a persons faith will dictate their views on the soul. Discussion on human life is scientific, and relates to verifiable facts, not speculations.

A human is a human, whether you believe in souls or not. I believe in the human soul. I believe I have one, but it is irrelevent to the discussion of when life starts. I believe a monkey life starts at conception, just as cat, dog, human, fish or anything else that has eggs requiring fertilisation.

The soul is irrelevent to the discussion.

How many here believe they are human, but do not believe they have a soul?

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: On another tack, tampons and period pads for example should be distributed FREE by the government. Why should women pay for being a woman???

Oh that's just ridickulus. Why not just say "Food should be distributed for free by the government. Why should living creatures have to pay for being alive?"

Governments do not have infinite cash resourses available nor do they have real revenue streams. The only source of "income" a government has is taxes and (under American system at least) that is just the money of We the People. So, by having government distribute hygene products, women ARE paying for being women .... at a much less effiency rate than if they bought the products themselves.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb] I see this as an irrelevant comparrison. I simply disagree with this. A single ovary or spermatazoid may become a human -- that does not mean it is one. For me, it is not human until some point. I place that point at the moment of brain activity. For me, it is obvious that at the blastula and gastrula stages, a fetus is still so far removed from human that it cannot be considered human. If it is not human, it is not a crime to kill it.

How are you defining "human"? By what we look like? By what we can do? Our thoughts?

Humans are bipedal. They walk on two legs. Does that mean people born without legs are less human than those with?
Humans think in certain ways. Is a brain damaged human less human than a healthy one?

The only difference between a foetus and a 55 year old is TIME. T I M E. The foetus will not be anything other than human. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Our potential is what defines our race. What we are given perfect health and time. Humans live 70 - 90 years on average. Human hearts beat around 60 bpms.

The beauty of extreme sports like mountain climbing are that they have EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF THE RACE. Humans can climb bare mountain walls with no tools. Given the right dedication, practice and time, any healthy human could do such a thing. POTENTIAL is such an exciting part of life.

I repeat, the only difference between a 5 year old and a 95 year old is time. The 5 year old could die in a year. Yet we know that should she live, she's suffer ageing like any other human.

The foetus will, given health and time be a child, and so is a human lifefore. A human being at early stages of development. A human in the larva stage. A human in the womb. It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. Open your mind a little to the concept of what human life is. Is a dead human, not called a deceased PERSON, a dead human? It is a human in an altered state of existence. No animus. TIME seperates it from any other human - going in reverse this time. Back in time it was the same as any other alive human. Alive. Breathing.

I saw you getting all upset about the bodies in fallujah desecrated. What should it matter to you. It's just dead meat right? They're no longer human. Not alive.

Or are they?

]Well, it was stated in an offensive way to invoke challenges. Nevertheless it is true. You certainly must agree that popping out a kid does not equal "parenting."

Parenting begins in the womb. Can you hear sound if you cover your ears? Babies hear everything, and absorb the mothers emotional state.

Along the same vein, why should you or I be posting at all? Regardless, I'm not saying labor is easy, I'm simply saying rearing the child is more important.

And yet without birth, there is no child to parent. Therefore, birthing is more important, for it is a PREREQUISITE to parenting.

No. But, I attribute my successes, however small they may be, in large part to good parenting -- which was my point.

All the parenting in the world would be nothing, if you were not born.

Again, irrelevant But, to rebu it, I bet I will wish I'd spent more time at work.

We'll have to wait and see.

[ 04-30-2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: On another tack, tampons and period pads for example should be distributed FREE by the government. Why should women pay for being a woman???

Oh that's just ridickulus. Why not just say "Food should be distributed for free by the government. Why should living creatures have to pay for being alive?"

Governments do not have infinite cash resourses available nor do they have real revenue streams. The only source of "income" a government has is taxes and (under American system at least) that is just the money of We the People. So, by having government distribute hygene products, women ARE paying for being women .... at a much less effiency rate than if they bought the products themselves. [/QUOTE]It's hardly "ridiculous". Ever heard of that little policy called socialism? Subsidised health care?

Why should any human go hungry?

[Oblivion437]

Then again, why should anyone be forced to give their skilled labor away for free, or the food they grew/raised and slaughtered out? If you want some, you can pay for it, or someone else can pay for you, but I better not be biting on this thing too (I'm talking about tax dollars) when you come to "Pay" for my food. If you want to take it as revolutionary* thinkers and actors did in the past, you'd damn well better be willing to get past the resistance I'm going to put up.

No one should go hungry. I don't think my position or his advocates starvation or death, but what you have to understand is food doesn't just magically appear, we aren't plants that can just photo-synthesize whatever we need.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is always paying, the ultimate failure of the Socialist system has been the failure to understand this principle, and it is why every last attempt has fallen apart over the years.

Also, in terms of physique, a fetus doesn't even resemble a baby of human form (or human physiology) until later. The difference between a fetus and a 55-year-old man are numerous. I believe you were saying I had trouble understanding differences (I was being silly in assuming humans are inherently similar on very broad strokes of principle, need and desire) between various things, but you seem to fail to understand quite a bit about the development of the Fetus, the fact that it doesn't even have a human brain until after the point most abortions are performed, yadda yadda yadda...

However, I'm almost entirely against partial birth abortions on principle, but I feel that if it were totally illegalized including extenuating circumstances, minus the serious problem of certain individuals dying because they are forced to give birth, there's the problem that women who want abortions will FIND a way to get one. I'd rather they did it in the sanitary and safe conditions of a clinic than a back-alley abortionist's 'laboratory' or somesuch seedy location. You seriously fail to grasp the concept that illegalization doesn't stop something, all it does is lay out a systematic standard for punishment if you catch someone doing it, and convict them of it. Considering that less than 1/14 of all arrests result in convictions, somebody must be getting away with something they definitely did do.

It's like drug laws, did you know a large portion of the US prison population (enough to swing us above or below most nation's per capita prison populations) is there for nonviolent drug offenses? Considering that all drug users can at most be said to harm themselves in any given situation (barring abuse of others while loaded/stoned/fried/blotto) I see no good reason to outlaw drugs. Repudiate the sentences of nonviolent offenders, legalize the drugs, and BANG a huge problem is fixed.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Fine. What if there are twins? Triplets? Do two or three souls get crammed into the zygote? And this isn't tongue in cheek, I'm dead serious. Do they split off? What if they don't? What if there's a miscarriage or an abortion, what happens to the souls? Do they go to heaven, or are they reincarnated someplace else? I need to know what you think about these things before we can go further.

So what? What has the soul got to do with anything? We are talking about human life, not whether there is a soul or not. You cannot ascertain when a soul is developed, so it's irrelevent speculation. You can however, pinpoint the start of human life, and that is when the egg is fertilised. SO from that point on, it is a human life form in various stages of development and realised potential.

A five year old girl has unrealised potential. Is she any less human that a 55 year old if she dies young?
A foetus is a human in an early stage of development. When it develops it will not be a monkey, a fish, a zebra or anything else, just as the five year old girl will not grow into a bat or viper. [/QUOTE]Ah, ah! But the soul is central to the debate! You are not human if you have no soul. "Human life" can't start without a soul. So the point where the soul enters the body is the point where a lump of flesh becomes a human. Hell, the entire abortion DEBATE is based on speculation over when a zygote becomes a human.
And I would like to hear your answers to my other questions. What happens when a woman miscarries? What happens to the real human if a woman aborts? Do they come back or don't they? [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Ah, ah! But the soul is central to the debate! You are not human if you have no soul. "Human life" can't start without a soul. So the point where the soul enters the body is the point where a lump of flesh becomes a human. Hell, the entire abortion DEBATE is based on speculation over when a zygote becomes a human. And I would like to hear your answers to my other questions. What happens when a woman miscarries? What happens to the real human if a woman aborts? Do they come back or don't they?

Discussion over the soul pertains to religious belief, and a persons faith will dictate their views on the soul. Discussion on human life is scientific, and relates to verifiable facts, not speculations.

A human is a human, whether you believe in souls or not. I believe in the human soul. I believe I have one, but it is irrelevent to the discussion of when life starts. I believe a monkey life starts at conception, just as cat, dog, human, fish or anything else that has eggs requiring fertilisation.

The soul is irrelevent to the discussion.

How many here believe they are human, but do not believe they have a soul? [/QUOTE]The question of the soul is central to where life starts. How could life start without a soul, without essence to guide the physical form?
And what happens when a woman miscarries? And what happens to the aborted fetuses? Where do they go? Do they come back? I can't hold a meaningful discussion if you drown out my questions with preaching.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: The question of the soul is central to where life starts. How could life start without a soul, without essence to guide the physical form? And what happens when a woman miscarries? And what happens to the aborted fetuses? Where do they go? Do they come back? I can't hold a meaningful discussion if you drown out my questions with preaching.

For the last time... give it a rest Illumina! It's an entirely different discussion!!

Before you answer when the souls enters a body, or is created, or grown, you have to first answer the question "DO HUMANS HAVE SOULS?" As there is a ban on religious discussion we cannot go there. However, the question of the soul has different answers depending on your faith. A Mormon might tell you, the soul existed before conception and was placed in at that moment. A pantheist may tell you all is part of the one soul, so that the "soul" was always in the child and mother at the same time. When I believe the soul enters the body is completely irrelevent.

As I have said, humanists who do not believe in souls, have ideas about when life starts. I already gave you the example of monkeys, fish or any other lifeform. I beieve humans have souls, but not other animals. However, life starts, for all mammals - whether soulless, or souled, at when the egg is fertilised. That is indisputable. After the egg is fertilised, the being begins developing. It is the initiation of human life.

Get off the soul bandwagon until you can empirically prove to me humans have souls.