Abortion & atheism vs. crusade & religion

04/12/2013 03:08:28 PM · #76

Originally posted by myqyl:

While I applaud some of this, I have to tell you it tastes a bit like knocking those that do believe, which would make you guilty of the same injustice that you rightly point out in some religious.

To you my words "taste" like knocking on those who believe?
Then that's how YOU taste them.

I state my opinion which is that no religion is better or less better than the other.
No need for you to react with a direct attack on me and to put words in my mouth which I didn't express.
Whether someone believes or not, believes in God, Allah, Gaia or Diana, whatever...that's not my concern.
As said: I let them be, believe in what they want (or what they don't want)

You've heard of a small minority of priests which abused children?
Where I live we had 5 cases which were discovered over the past 7 years among which a few who managed doing this crime for over 40 years. F.y.i. :our country is about 30.528 km² "large".

04/12/2013 03:15:42 PM · #77

Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:

No need for you to react with a direct attack on me and to put words in my mouth which I didn't express.

If you perceive anything I said as an attack, direct or otherwise I apologize for the misunderstanding and will avoid treading anywhere near your toes in the future.

04/12/2013 03:24:05 PM · #78

If someone tells me I'm making myself guilty of something because that person tastes my words like a knock although I stated clearly otherwise, then yes, I perceive this as an attack.
On top of that, you're not only reading words like you want to read them, you also ridicule me.
Respect for any other human being ... ;)

04/12/2013 03:26:06 PM · #79

Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:

As I said I apologize that you misunderstood me and I will avoid any future offense

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/12/2013 03:30:40 PM · #80

"You apologize that I misunderstood you"?
I read the words which are written, as they are written. I don't interpret them, read between the lines, look for bigger explanations. That I can do in my mother tongue but not in a foreign language. I translate them at that's it.
I do the same when I write. I write what I mean, without expecting from others to interpret my words, read between the lines - and perhaps misapprehend them. My words are simple and straight.
My knowledge of English is not that evolved as you might have noticed.

Apology accepted.

Message edited by author 2013-04-12 15:48:27.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

04/12/2013 03:57:12 PM · #81

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Embryos can develop beyond the embryonic stage in the womb. And I didn't say that viability is the "ability to survive unassisted outside the womb in their current state." If you remove a fetus from the womb before viability -- which largely depends on the maturity of vital organs -- it doesn't matter how much medical intervention is applied to that fetus, it cannot survive. Does that help?

But embryos are routinely removed from wombs and, through medical intervention, preserved and eventually reinserted into another womb. Survival rate is actually quite high for this.

I hate to split hairs here, but it literally means the difference between life and death for about 1 million kids each year in the US alone. The number is staggering when the rest of the world is included (not to say i ain't staggered by the death of a million kids)... I think it's important that we define this correctly.

I have hopes that one day science will make this a moot point, allowing for "survivable abortions" where a woman can terminate her part in the pregnancy and the baby can still live. As I see the age threshold of "viable" premmie babies rapidly plummet in the last decade my hopes that this debate will end with a happily ever after for everyone involved continues to grow.

Embryos? You mean eggs. There is a significant difference.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/12/2013 04:17:05 PM · #82

Originally posted by myqyl:

But embryos are routinely removed from wombs and, through medical intervention, preserved and eventually reinserted into another womb. Survival rate is actually quite high for this.

An embryo is not routinely removed from wombs, except for abortion e.g.

Eggs are removed from the fallopian tube of a woman to be or frozen for later usage of a woman/couple or to be inseminated and implanted in the womb of another woman (which can not conceive e.g).

An inseminated egg is called a zygote in its early stage. The following stage it is called an embryo. After that stage it becomes a foetus.

Message edited by author 2013-04-12 16:18:00.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

04/12/2013 04:53:09 PM · #83

Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:

Originally posted by myqyl:

But embryos are routinely removed from wombs and, through medical intervention, preserved and eventually reinserted into another womb. Survival rate is actually quite high for this.

An embryo is not routinely removed from wombs, except for abortion e.g.

Eggs are removed from the fallopian tube of a woman to be or frozen for later usage of a woman/couple or to be inseminated and implanted in the womb of another woman (which can not conceive e.g).

An inseminated egg is called a zygote in its early stage. The following stage it is called an embryo. After that stage it becomes a foetus.

Right, embryos are not removed from the womb, although embryos can be frozen/preserved. And in that frozen/preserved state, outside a woman's body, there isn't going to be further development. But I don't think it matters to mygyl whether it's a zygote, an embryo or a fetus -- to him they're all "kids".

Message edited by author 2013-04-12 17:01:45.

04/12/2013 05:31:57 PM · #84

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Your right, I was referring to embryos resulting from IVF that were living outside the womb. I mispoke. Sorry...

You're also right that I consider zygotes, embryos, fetuses, infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers, tweens, teens, young adults, middle-aged adults and the elderly are all humans.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2013 05:41:56 PM · #85

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Right, embryos are not removed from the womb, although embryos can be frozen/preserved. And in that frozen/preserved state, outside a woman's body, there isn't going to be further development. But I don't think it matters to mygyl whether it's a zygote, an embryo or a fetus -- to him they're all "kids".

Your right, I was referring to embryos resulting from IVF that were living outside the womb. I mispoke. Sorry...

You're also right that I consider zygotes, embryos, fetuses, infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers, tweens, teens, young adults, middle-aged adults and the elderly are all humans.

I'm going to nitpick terms here (because this debate always gets lost in the terminology). NOBODY should argue that any of those aren't "human" which is a scientific definition. What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth.

Message edited by author 2013-04-12 17:42:12.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/12/2013 05:48:45 PM · #86

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Right, embryos are not removed from the womb, although embryos can be frozen/preserved. And in that frozen/preserved state, outside a woman's body, there isn't going to be further development. But I don't think it matters to mygyl whether it's a zygote, an embryo or a fetus -- to him they're all "kids".

Your right, I was referring to embryos resulting from IVF that were living outside the womb. I mispoke. Sorry...

You're also right that I consider zygotes, embryos, fetuses, infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers, tweens, teens, young adults, middle-aged adults and the elderly are all humans.

I'm going to nitpick terms here (because this debate always gets lost in the terminology). NOBODY should argue that any of those aren't "human" which is a scientific definition. What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth.

They are all "human" (an adjective) because they contain human DNA (they are human tissue) ... but that does not make all of them "a human (being)" (a noun) which is, like "person", a legal and philosphical term ...

04/12/2013 05:51:39 PM · #87

Exactly, Paul. "Human being" is different than "human" and just being the second doesn't make you the first (eg. a skin cell).

04/12/2013 06:05:40 PM · #88

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

There are so many different belief systems out there, all claiming to be the right one and everyone else being wrong. Even if tolerant of other faiths, this underlying concept of "We are right and everyone else is an evil sinner" is usually there. This makes me question a lot of things.

For me this is the answer in it's entirety. This simple observation rather neatly proves that almost every religion must be wrong. - The question that remains is "how wrong?"

Interestingly enough, what you are both saying is that Religions are all wrong and Atheists are right because religions claim to be right and say Atheists are wrong...

Anyone see a smidget of irony here?

I might had he said that... but that is not what he said. Read it again.

Ray

04/12/2013 06:08:35 PM · #89

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth.

I hate to nitpick, but in this country, the term "person" can also alluded to a legal entity such as a business. :O)

Ray

04/12/2013 06:11:47 PM · #90

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth.

I hate to nitpick, but in this country, the term "person" can also alluded to a legal entity such as a business. :O)

Ray

Well, we all know Canada is odd... ;)

04/12/2013 06:11:58 PM · #91

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Assume I won't bother to read the rest of this or any other post you write...

Cross your heart and hope to die? :)

Doesn't crossing one's heart have some sort of religious connotation? If so, I would not hold my breath Doc. :O)

Ray

04/12/2013 06:13:07 PM · #92

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Assume I won't bother to read the rest of this or any other post you write...

Cross your heart and hope to die? :)

Doesn't crossing one's heart have some sort of religious connotation? If so, I would not hold my breath Doc. :O)

Ray

Well, he could skip straight to the second half. LOL. I don't really mean that.

04/12/2013 06:14:04 PM · #93

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=DrAchoo] ... What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth.

I hate to nitpick, but in this country, the term "person" can also alluded to a legal entity such as a business. :O)

Ray

Well, we all know Canada is odd... ;)

You can can correct me though Ray, because I don't know. Would a corporation actually be a "person" or have "the same rights and responsibilities as a person" in the eyes of the law? I sense it's the second and not the first.

Message edited by author 2013-04-12 18:14:33.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2013 06:18:46 PM · #94

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth.

I hate to nitpick, but in this country, the term "person" can also alluded to a legal entity such as a business. :O)

Ray

Well, we all know Canada is odd... ;)

True enough, but did I not read a while back that in the good ole USA that corporations were "people" ? :O)

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/12/2013 06:20:56 PM · #95

Originally posted by RayEthier:

You are agreeing with him -- "person" is a legal term which (unfortunately, when taken to extremes) can be applied to entities other than individual human beings.

FWIW Aldous Huxley explored the ramifications of being able to raise embryos outside the womb in Brave New World, but somehow I don't think the results were quite what those opposed to abortion have in mind ...

04/12/2013 06:35:38 PM · #96

I dunno Paul. Huxley didn't really "explore the ramifications" of ex-utero incubation as much as the idea of genetic engineering and manipulation. I think we talked about ex-utero incubation the last time abortion was raised. It does make for a good thought experiment to expose the arbitrary nature of applying personhood at some point in the process of embryonic development.

Does anybody notice that the OP has never posted again? Do y'all think he's just laughing at having stirred the pot and we all scurry around like ants protecting our respective queens?

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/12/2013 07:21:35 PM · #97

Screw atheism and theism. They are 99% the same and both are wrong. Agnosticism, Britney!

04/12/2013 07:24:47 PM · #98

Simmer down you fence riding freak! ;)

04/12/2013 10:40:57 PM · #99

I hate to nitpick the nitpicks, but this is one of the rare cases where I actually said what I meant. They are all human. And the DNA that makes up the elderly adult is the same DNA that makes up every stage of life before it.

As to when they acquire rights, that varies wildly on the rights in question... In the US, you can't be president till middle-age, can't drink a beer till your a young adult, can't vote for the middle-aged guy till late teens, can't drive till mid teens, can't decide hardly anything without parental consent until at least tweens (in some states teen), and have no voice in deciding if you will be allowed to live until your a fetus, although in some states it varies to just before you become an infant or as early as an embryo.

I just think that when we talk about Human Rights we should include all Humans. Not just the ones with enough money to lobby Congress.