The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central JetStar = Mitt (for flip flopping, not voting for)

Once again you prove your a fucking idiot. where in my posts have I said I was against contraceptives or abortion.
Once again you try to put words in my mouth. Typical of your post.

If your personal views are not arbitrary then you have no views, you personally have to make a arbitrary decision to determine if the information you receive, no matter where it comes from, goes to your personal values and will then become your personal views.

Your ability to not allow others to have beliefs of their own in the "my way or the highway" way of arguing is the only reason I have been posting.

I love how the liberals like to spout how they are open minded they are but if you disagree with them then you are evil.

On of your problems is you think if someone belives in something that it is automaticly based in religion.
definition of belief, which yes has to do with religion but also doesn't.
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

No, it would be just a fertilized finger, you see with it being a finger, outside of uterus and not the right type of tissue, it would be impossible for it to go through a process of turning into a person.

You are making very logical conclusion here - fertilization process alone does not turn a bunch of tissue into a person.

Yet for some reason when I asked you about fertilized egg outside of human body, that has about the same chance of developing into human being as my fertilized finger, you replied that it is a person. You need to reconcile this logical inconsistency.




We also over and over and over again observed fertilized human egg not becoming a person, even with natural process is not in any way disturbed. For example implantation rate is somewhere around 50%, so almost half of all fertilized eggs _naturally_ fail to develop into a fetus.

Physiology of Implantation






This is not correct. See link above. Plus read about miscarriage , Stillbirth .




Would you also attempt to deny me control over tip of my fingers just because I demonstrated that it could produce a human being?




I can be very confident in saying that freshly fertilized egg does not have a capacity nor immediate ability to exhibit sentience. Just as we accept that gut bacteria does not posses sentience, nor would a fertilized egg. It is just a bunch of tissue that has a _potential_ and _chance_ to develop into something else that does have a capacity of sentience.




My stance on men's rights is that while women are entitled to full control over their body they should be allowed abortion all the way to viability. Men on other hand, should be entitled to absolve all financial ties (ability to declare intention to not support) up to the same point - viability. After that point it is shared custody with equal rights.

Really??? Arguing about something that can never happen?

Your finger is for her pleasure not making baby's.

A ferilized egg outside of a human body has more of a chance to make a baby then a fertilized finger because a finger can't make a baby.

Stick to real facts. Because if a finger became fertilized then it would be an act of God and we know sinij doesn't go for that shit.

Not at all. I was going to let it go until you did it twice (never mind the general difficulty one endures reading your poorly worded and structured sentences) at which point I decided that sloppy sentence formation is likely the result of sloppy thinking/logic and felt that I should point it out to you. You're welcome.

There is not logical inconsistency on my part. There is an inability to recognize and process a qualifying statement on your part though. You see, its the "if/then" relationship that makes all the difference. Perhaps you should read this again, take your time, we'll wait. As to the fertilized egg outside the womb, since it is possible to implant a fertilized egg into a surrogate womb and have it carry to term, my argument stands.


My argument is based on the idea that since it has the potential, even if its only a 50% chance, to become a human with the same rights that you and I have, then it should be awarded those rights as soon as that possibility arises. Since its not possible for an egg or a sperm, by themselves, to become a human I don't extend my conclusion further back than a fertilized egg.

Yes bad things happen in nature all by themselves, without your help. Many couples are incredibly heartbroken each year when a baby dies prematurely. That doesn't make the baby any less of a person or any less loved. I personally lost a sister to a still birth. She was just big enough to fill the palm of your hand, and she was definitely human.


Nope, you're free to do with your finger whatever you like, until it develops the potential for human life, at which point it must be afforded the same right to life that you enjoy. Just like a woman is free to do whatever she likes with her reproductive system until it develops the potential for human life, at which point that life must be afforded the same right to life that she enjoys.

Its that potential that makes all the difference.


Please define "viability." What if the man, who, by your rules, can say "I'm not paying for that child because I advocated aborting it," chooses the other route? What if he wants the child? Who gets to decide? Clearly you've already abdicated the point that it will become a human child, else why would you need the right to refuse to be financially responsible for said child? So, by your own argument you've conceded, de facto, that the "ball of tissue" you want to abort is a child. In your world, is it expulsion from a birth canal that confers "life" onto a human? Have you ever known anyone with an eidetic memory? Some of them can remember in utero events.

It isn't possible for a fertilized egg by itself to become a human being.

You still did not justify why you picked fertilization, and not any other point in the multi-step process of producing a human being as an arbitrary cutoff. You failed to demonstrate in convincing manner that anything significant changed from -1 second prior fertilization to +1 second post fertilization. Going back to Donk's cake analogy - just because you mixed ingredients, you are still nowhere near enjoying a cooked cake.

What more important is that you happen to pick a very early stage, so such views are harmful to both scientific research and women's rights. Derid on other hand picked up much later stage, while his view (or any view assigning arbitrary cutoff) is also not sufficiently justified, at least it is not harmful to society.

You also didn't justify your opinion as to why exactly you are assigning special meaning to a fertilized egg outside of a human body. I just cannot see the logic of equating a researcher that does in vitro fertilization to further scientific understanding of the process with a mass murderer.

I already covered this - no we cannot assume "that a fertilized egg will become a human". Even if you ignore in vitro, odds are still stacked against fertilized egg. More fertilized eggs _fail to become a human being_ than become a human being.




Soon it might become possible to fertilize stem cells (for example taken from my fingertip), cloning is not outside of realm of possibility today, and one day we will be able to grow human beings in vats. How would you reconcile your throwback views with all of this, or are you going to try to push bad legislation (like Ron Paul) that would hold our nation's scientific and social progress back? How are these views and legislation arising from them are that different from the burning of books and forbidding knowledge on fear of excommunication that happened in the past?




Possibility exists even before fertilization, you simply cannot reconcile your view unless you also adopt anti-contraception position.




Bad? Good? Why do we need assign moral labels to natural things? They happen. Not everything is a moral choice, even less things are _your_ moral choice.



I now know where you are coming from. I am sorry for your loss.






Viability is a point where if fetus removed from a women's body its life can be supported by state-of-the-art medical equipment. I reserve the right to adjust my opinion as science progresses.



Because I strongly believe that fetus is part of female body, and should be entirely up to female to decide what to do with it.

Whatever you think of a fetus, it is less of a human being than female. You can claim all you want that just-fertilized egg is a human being (and I still disagree with you), but if you put it in perspective of a grown female, that fertilized egg is less human, less sentient, less anything than female.

As a result I see rights of full-fledged human being more important than less-than-that being.



Incorrect.



In my world I define sentience as a transition from life to a human being. I also acknowledge futility of trying to define exact process or exact moment when it happens.

If you want to get a "number" - somewhere between late second and mid third trimester.

I didn't say all my views are necessary correct, I stated that most of them are based on something other than stories written in a very old book.



I certainly pushed your buttons, but I never assigned morality (or amorality) to your stance. Illogical != (not equal) Evil.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this because I'm not arguing that it is human, but that there's a decent chance that it will become a human. There is no chance that an egg all by itself will become a human, unless, as I mentioned before, you're an astrophysicist and want to talk about the infinitesimally small chance that "anything" can happen.


I'm really not sure where I stand on human cloning. But I have a feeling that if it works a lot of religious folks are gonna be really upset that man could do what only God is supposed to be able to do. Either that or perhaps we'll get definitive proof of the existence of a soul. Right now my stance is much the same as with anything else. Should it be done just because we can? No. Should it be done to further our understanding? Sure. Should it be done for "cosmetic" reasons? No. Who knows where this will end up though?

Obviously good and bad in this context are subjective. For the person who wanted a child a stillbirth is bad. For a person who has no connection there is no consequence. For a person who didn't want a child, then its a good stroke of luck.

Thank you. This is just an example though as I was too young to feel much attachment. My primary driving force is the woman who opted to abort my unborn child and left me with no say in the matter.


Fair enough.

This is a dangerous slope of reasoning and not a small part in the justification of slavery and the slaughter of millions of people in 1940's Germany. You have but to substitute your race of choice for "female."

Fair enough. Given this then I assume that you do not support late term and partial birth abortions?

I do not, unless there is medical necessity. I would also never act on my moral view. It is not my body, it is not my choice.