Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lord J Esq on April 06, 2006, 02:29:37 am
-
I may be three weeks late in getting the scoop, but here is some science too fascinating to pass up. The New York Times reported in the middle of last month about why pregnancy is so dangerous (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/health/14preg.html?ex=1144382400&en=e46a577854cd160c&ei=5070). This science article follows the work of Harvard evolutionary biologist Dr. David Haig, who has made some remarkable discoveries by looking at pregnancy from an evolutionary perspective. First he lays out the problem:
"Pregnancy is absolutely central to reproduction, and yet pregnancy doesn't seem to work very well," he said. "If you think about the heart or the kidney, they're wonderful bits of engineering that work day in and day out for years and years. But pregnancy is associated with all sorts of medical problems. What's the difference?"
His conclusions are provocative. Dr. Haig has found evidence to support that the dangers of pregnancy result from the fact that pregnancy pits two separate organisms—fetus and mother—against one another in a struggle for limited nutrients. The idea is that women have evolved to not be ravaged by a single pregnancy, thus allowing them to have further pregnancies—thereby passing on their genes more successfully—whereas all people (including women) have evolved to get as many goodies as possible from their mothers’ bodies during gestation. In effect, what we are talking about is pregnancy as war.
Obviously this point of view emphasizes the dangers women face while in pregnancy, which is something that many people who prefer to think of women’s rights as an oxymoron, tend to want to gloss over. (This is one of the reasons why Republicans hate science and academic institutions so much.) In that regard, Dr. Haig’s work also has important social implications alongside the more obvious benefits in women’s health that lie down the road. So far his findings have explained several puzzling phenomena, his predictions have been verified, and other scientists have reproduced his experimental results:
In a 1993 paper, Dr. Haig first predicted that many complications of pregnancy would turn out to be produced by this conflict. One of the most common complications is pre-eclampsia, in which women experience dangerously high blood pressure late in pregnancy. For decades scientists have puzzled over pre-eclampsia, which occurs in about 6 percent of pregnancies.
Dr. Haig proposed that pre-eclampsia was just an extreme form of a strategy used by all fetuses. The fetuses somehow raised the blood pressure of their mothers so as to drive more blood into the relatively low-pressure placenta. Dr. Haig suggested that pre-eclampsia would be associated with some substance that fetuses injected into their mothers' bloodstreams. Pre-eclampsia happened when fetuses injected too much of the stuff, perhaps if they were having trouble getting enough nourishment.
In the past few years, Ananth Karumanchi of Harvard Medical School and his colleagues have gathered evidence that suggests Dr. Haig was right. They have found that women with pre-eclampsia had unusually high levels of a protein called soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, or sFlt1 for short.
Other labs have replicated their results. Dr. Karumanchi's group has done additional work that indicates that this protein interferes with the mother's ability to repair minor damage to her blood vessels. As that damage builds up, so does her blood pressure. And as Dr. Haig predicted, the protein is produced by the fetus, not the mother.
It’s a three-page article, so go read the whole thing for yourself. Well worth your time, especially those of you who have an interest in better understanding the science of the world around us.
-
(This is one of the reasons why Republicans hate science and academic institutions so much.)
I hate what now?
Oh right, because I'm a Republican I must hate all forms of intelligence and replace it instead with religious propaganda. How silly of me to forget. </sarcasm>
I also notice that none of your poll options represent an opinion that would conflict with your view. Oh whoops, maybe I should've quoted the Bible right there.
-
Typical Republican bait-and-switchery. Are you going to be impressed by the article, or not?
Uh huh.
-
Typical Republican bait-and-switchery.
You made a rash and insulting generalization and you expect me to respect and listen to you?
Are you going to be impressed by the article, or not?
I found it interesting. Impressive, no. Interesting, yes.
However I noticed that you managed to evade my observation that none of the poll options represent an opinion that differs from yours.
-
(This is one of the reasons why Republicans hate science and academic institutions so much.)
I hate what now?
Oh right, because I'm a Republican I must hate all forms of intelligence and replace it instead with religious propaganda. How silly of me to forget. </sarcasm>
Josh is prone to hyperbole, and in this case he is refering to the Bush administration's antagonism towards science. Of course not all Republicans are against science; this is clear rhetoric.
I also notice that none of your poll options represent an opinion that would conflict with your view. Oh whoops, maybe I should've quoted the Bible right there.
Not sure what opinion you are refering to there? Attempted homicide would imply that the fetus is it's own life, worth protecting; clearly an anti-abortion sentiment.
-
The first two of the three options disagree with my views. That should be pretty obvious.
-
Well from reading it at first glance, it sounds like the poll options ask whether:
A. The Fetus is guilty of assault
B. The Fetus is guilty of attempted murder
C. Right Wing STFU
-
Well from reading it at first glance, it sounds like the poll options ask whether:
A. The Fetus is guilty of assault
B. The Fetus is guilty of attempted murder
C. Right Wing STFU
This is precisely my point. The unborn do not deserve equal treatment under the law. To presume otherwise leads to logically ridiculous scenarios such as the idea that fetuses are criminals for attacking their mothers, as proven by the science featured in the article.
As for you RD, it's more than just the Bush administration that stands as an enemy to science and the whole concept of the university. This is a universally accepted dogma in the Religious Right, and individuals who prefer the cold truths of science over their own heated faith are the exception rather than the rule.
-
The first two of the three options disagree with my views. That should be pretty obvious.
The problem with the poll questions isn't bias, which while present, is brazen enough that it shouldn't confuse anyone. The problem is scope. Trying to impose legallity to the instinctive (and nonconcious) actions of a fetus is absurd.
-
The first two of the three options disagree with my views. That should be pretty obvious.
The problem with the poll questions isn't bias, which while present, is brazen enough that it shouldn't confuse anyone. The problem is scope. Trying to impose legallity to the instinctive (and nonconcious) actions of a fetus is absurd.
See my last post. =)
-
Well from reading it at first glance, it sounds like the poll options ask whether:
A. The Fetus is guilty of assault
B. The Fetus is guilty of attempted murder
C. Right Wing STFU
This is precisely my point. The unborn do not deserve equal treatment under the law. To presume otherwise leads to logically ridiculous scenarios such as the idea that fetuses are criminals for attacking their mothers, as proven by the science featured in the article.
As for you RD, it's more than just the Bush administration that stands as an enemy to science and the whole concept of the university. This is a universally accepted dogma in the Religious Right, and individuals who prefer the cold truths of science over their own heated faith are the exception rather than the rule.
I see.
Yeah, you're right about the Religious Right, but your rhetoric is showing again. You are equating all Republicans to the Religious Right, whom are a (very vocal) subset of Republicans.
-
Yeah, you're right about the Religious Right, but your rhetoric is showing again. You are equating all Republicans to the Religious Right, whom are a (very vocal) subset of Republicans.
Why pretend anymore that any interest groups in the GOP other than the Religious Right retain any influence in the social side of Republican policymaking? Yes, sure, Republicans outside the Religious Right tend to be remarkably less insane--and I do mean insane, an insanity which in the case of religious fundamentalists is legitimized by their sheer numbers--but inasmuch as the Republican Party is a discrete entity, all Republicans are enablers of the prevailing Republican ideology. In a party where democracy is anathema to the conventional wisdom, a healthy exchange of ideas is something to be feared and despised. What does it matter if a "good" Republican's mind is not infested with holy zeal if he or she is voting for people whose minds are utterly consumed by the stuff?
-
Perhaps because I more strongly disagree with the ideologies of the alternative choices?
-
Then you need a pill.
-
Why? Because I disagree with many left-wing policies?
-
Then you need a pill.
Just because the Democrats are not as influenced by the religious zealots in this country doesn't mean that they have the solutions to all of America's problems.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have ideological problems. The current one party system must stop if things in this country are going to get better. And no, I am not refering to the current overrepresentation of Republicans in the federal government.
-
Then you need a pill.
Just because the Democrats are not as influenced by the religious zealots in this country doesn't mean that they have the solutions to all of America's problems.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans have ideological problems. The current one party system must stop if things in this country are going to get better. And no, I am not refering to the current overrepresentation of Republicans in the federal government.
I am familiar with your libertarian bent. This common theme you guys have of lumping together Dems with GOPs is forced and unrepresentative of the identities of either party. I will agree with you that the US needs more viable parties, but this whole "Republicrat" meme is not sincere.
-
I'm all for genuine political debate (and plenty of Republican bashing), but the hypothesis Lord is running with is absurd.
I mean, if there is a point, it should be that women in pregnancy should actually be given credit for the strain and labor involved, and that they should perhaps be entitled to certain resources to make sure both the fetus/baby and mother can properly withstand and recover from the ordeal.
It's just how I see it.
-
Either you are missing the point, or there is no point. Honestly! Satire is dead.
-
It died when you created a second thread on abortion, and when you assumed that a fetus/unborn (who never has a say into whether the pregnancy started in the first place) could possibly be held to the same standard as a woman or an older girl that typically makes the decision to either go for it or roll the dice.
It's not satire; it's propoganda.
-
It died when you created a second thread on abortion, and when you assumed that a fetus/unborn (who never had a say into whether being brought into existence) could possibly be held to the same standard as a woman or an older girl.
You are missing the point, then. It isn't my belief that the unborn ought to be treated equally with human children and adults. This is the belief of those religious nutjobs who insist that a fetus (or embryo, or blastocyst) is "a human life" deserving of the protections and entitlements typically afforded to human beings. Abortion is wrong, these people say, because it entails the murder of a human being. Well, if fetuses are people too, and deserve equal treatment under the law, then by God let's give it to them! But of course Dr. Haig's research gives us pause: Fetuses have evolved mechanisms for satisfying themselves that would ravage or kill their mothers--and often do. This is some kind of assault. Biologically speaking, it is the price of pregnancy. Easy. Case closed. But if fetuses have this equal treatment under the law, then they are bound by the law like everyone else, and so their very existence is a crime.
Is this not absurd to you, or are you an example of a liberal who is way out of his depth in explaining why he believes what he does? I do not suffer fools, which is why I hate dealing with liberals who are as shallow as anyone from the other side.
It's not satire; it's propoganda.
No. What I say is true, or at least I make every effort to see my words in that direction. What I say herein is rhetoric; it is satire; it is sincere disgust with the idiocy of the Religious Right; and genuine fascination with the scientific discoveries detailed in the news article at the top of this thread--which you either did not read or did not read critically. But propaganda it is not. Propaganda is not the way I operate. This (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/5/193015/8981) is liberal propaganda. Your clumsy use of the word has muddled its meaning; I wonder if you even could define it yourself. The only thing "absurd" going on here is that religious fundamentalists are walking this country backward in time.
And, Inspector, if you ever want to speak more knowledgeably than such generalizations as that, you will have to put your neurons to harder work.
-
Unless I misread your post, you just called everyone who exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you "shallow" and "foolish".
-
Unless I misread your post, you just called everyone who exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you "shallow" and "foolish".
And most of the ones on this side, too.
-
Lord J, do you have a girlfriend?
No, really I'm curious. I've noticed that people who obsess about things or points that they’ve stated and proven over and over again -- especially on internet forums -- rarely have girlfriends (or boyfriends, if the case may be). I'm curious to see if that pattern persists in this case.
-
Lord J, do you have a girlfriend?
No, really I'm curious. I've noticed that people who obsess about things or points that they’ve stated and proven over and over again -- especially on internet forums -- rarely have girlfriends (or boyfriends, if the case may be). I'm curious to see if that pattern persists in this case.
What a strange question. How does that have anything to do with what's up here? "Really," I am curious to see what you're trying to get at.
This board has been too quiet lately, and I wanted some activity. As it happened, I had read this interesting news article, so I posted it here. I added the poll because I like to attach polls that people can have some fun with.
Whether or not I have a wife or girlfriend or boyfriend is irrelevant, but I'd like to hear why you think it is.
-
Didn’t say it was relevant. Wasn't trying to insinuate it either. Like I said, I was only curious. I like testing my own observations of human behavior every once in a while. I find it entertaining when I'm forced to re-think my perceptions, and affirming when I'm proven right. Either way, its win-win for me.
-
The least you could do is answer his question instead of avoiding it.
And while the point is understood on my end of the spectrum, and frankly agreed with, I do agree that you're appearing very aggresive and viper-like with issues these days. More hostile than the Josh I remember.
-
Didn’t say it was relevant. Wasn't trying to insinuate it either. Like I said, I was only curious. I like testing my own observations of human behavior every once in a while. I find it entertaining when I'm forced to re-think my perceptions, and affirming when I'm proven right. Either way, its win-win for me.
Yes, I have a girlfriend. But for the majority of my history on the Compendium, I have not. And the only way my being in a relationship affects my behavior here, is that I post less often.
If your remarks are sincere, then in kindred fashion I will divulge a little more than you asked: I am a happier and less caustic person than I probably appear to be to those who only read my posts here. General Discussion is one of the places I go for mindless recreation. At the same time this evening, I have been soaking in the full music of Les Misérables (yet again), as well as doing some fiction and a little misuigded composing, reading the news and various blogs, picking over a rather ordinary dinner, and chatting with a couple of friends on AIM. The Compendium is a place for me to have some less structured diversion. What drives me is a healthy disgust for ignorance, as well as a little guilty pleasure in terms of having some sport with people who have ridiculous opinions and no intellectual gravitas to back them up. Even if the joke is lost on everybody else, I have a good time here. Not to say that I do not respect a number of the people here to one degree or another, but this very thread is an example of how much numbskullery abounds. (And notice: What do any of the posts here have to do with my original topic post?)
Now hopefully your curiosity has been satisfied. I would never disparage genuine curiosity, but, next time, take it to the PM. Asking people if they have romance in their lives is always a loaded question in contexts such as yours, whether intentional or not. It isn't fair to my friend that I should have to ever invoke her to defend or explain myself in the company of those who know little of me and nothing of her.
-
The least you could do is answer his question instead of avoiding it.
It was a dubious question asked in inappropriate circumstances.
And while the point is understood on my end of the spectrum, and frankly agreed with, I do agree that you're appearing very aggresive and viper-like with issues these days. More hostile than the Josh I remember.
I admit to being particularly disappointed by the utter lack of interesting discussion that resulted from my global warming thread. This is perhaps a personal failing of mine: When my respect for people diminishes, so too does my tolerance. That makes it easier for me to be what you call a "viper." I'd probably just drift away from this place entirely, but for the intercession of other, less obvious reasons. And, so long as I am here, I may as well contribute to the community. I may not have many admirers here, if any, but I see a lot of inactivity in this place, and I think most people would rather spar with "that idiot Josh" than not have anything to talk about at all.
-
I demand the death penalty for those murdering fetuses!
Oh, wait...
-
Now hopefully your curiosity has been satisfied. I would never disparage genuine curiosity, but, next time, take it to the PM. Asking people if they have romance in their lives is always a loaded question in contexts such as yours, whether intentional or not. It isn't fair to my friend that I should have to ever invoke her to defend or explain myself in the company of those who know little of me and nothing of her.
Fair enough. Should have taken it to PM in the first place. Please accept my apologies.
I actually got the point to your poll, kind of puts people like my that see abortions as inherently wrong and tiny corner surrounded by all sides by logic. I hate that corner. It's nice to put other people there, but its too snug a fit for my ego. I haven’t gotten around to reading the article in its entirety, as I'm currently reading up on the history of Iraq (figure as long as I’m in danger of being sent there, I might as well learn about it). Well, that and rather nice Fujin/Quistis paring fanfic. Now that's mindless entertainment for ya :P
But getting back on topic, the inherent problem with believing that a fetus (or embryo, or blastocyst), is a human life (and therefore, subject to all the rights and protections we self-breathers are entitled to) is that is impossible to prove. When does life begin? The first heartbeat? First bit of measurable brain activity? First kick? First breath? First conscious thought? A line has to be drawn somewhere, and many pick the point of conception, myself included. Once that line is drawn, everything else becomes "easy".
The only real problem with this belief, however, is when a person or a group of people try to force it every on every other woman in the entire damn country. What ever happened to "Judge not, least you be Judged"?
EDIT:
I admit to being particularly disappointed by the utter lack of interesting discussion that resulted from my global warming thread. This is perhaps a personal failing of mine: When my respect for people diminishes, so too does my tolerance. That makes it easier for me to be what you call a "viper." I'd probably just drift away from this place entirely, but for the intercession of other, less obvious reasons. And, so long as I am here, I may as well contribute to the community. I may not have many admirers here, if any, but I see a lot of inactivity in this place, and I think most people would rather spar with "that idiot Josh" than not have anything to talk about at all.
You know I was going to reply to that thread, but I didn’t really have anything to add. I’ve always though global warming was a bit of a no brainier.
-
Thanks for that post, Silvercry.
But getting back on topic, the inherent problem with believing that a fetus (or embryo, or blastocyst), is a human life (and therefore, subject to all the rights and protections we self-breathers are entitled to) is that is impossible to prove. When does life begin? The first heartbeat? First bit of measurable brain activity? First kick? First breath? First conscious thought? A line has to be drawn somewhere, and many pick the point of conception, myself included. Once that line is drawn, everything else becomes "easy".
Things likewise are similarly "easy" for me, for the same reasons, even though the line I drew in this case is on the opposite end of the spectrum. As I value a woman's life and health and rights above those of her unborn child, abortion becomes necessarily her choice--and an option the state must legally acknowledge. A well-reasoned ideological conviction makes surface ideological positions easy to decide and to justify.
The only real problem with this belief, however, is when a person or a group of people try to force it every on every other woman in the entire damn country. What ever happened to "Judge not, least you be Judged"?
The Religious Right claims a monopoly on knowing how to please the Lord. Don't listen to them. And, I say, any woman who wants to risk her life, limb, and livelihood to carry a child to term is absolutely welcome, provided it is her willing decision. But by the same token, I don't want Christian fear squads lobbying to illegalize abortion and meanwhile roving around scaring little girls to death about how they will become suicidal and get breast cancer and all of that spurious filth if they have an abortion.
-
You are missing the point, then. It isn't my belief that the unborn ought to be treated equally with human children and adults. This is the belief of those religious nutjobs who insist that a fetus (or embryo, or blastocyst) is "a human life" deserving of the protections and entitlements typically afforded to human beings.
In their defense, you're confusing two points, and perhaps I should have clarified:
1) In one sense of "standard": Is the life precious?
2) In another sense of "standard": Can that life be held accountable for its actions ... yet?
I'm not here to argue #1, because that topic is what your "satire" addresses. However, my concern revolves around the neglect of #2, because the analogy assumes that equality holds for it as well.
The point is that the fetus's actions (and very matter of existence) are involuntary (from its point of view), uneducated decisions, whereas the woman / older girl typically (although not always) had a say in the creation of the fetus. The would-be mother usually makes some kind of decision that acknowledges the potential pregnancy, whereas obviously the fetus cannot be held responsible for what it does to the would-be mother, including the very obvious burdens it imposes on its guardian.
Even many of the "religious nutjobs" would agree there is a matter of accountability that differentiates the fetus and the pregnant one. Some go on to argue that the fetus thus deserves *more* protections that the would-be mother, because of point #2 (particularly in the decision to get pregnant, which is *usually* there), and hence the parody is no longer fair.
The right wingers would add the woman (and some man) are the ones who decides to start the "war," not the fetus.
Just because they think the fetus's and woman's life are equal doesn't mean that they think the terms of engagemenent between the two are. And that's why your parody doesn't work, because it implies both "sides" had an equal say and responsibility, which is obviously false.
-
You are right, Maelstrom, that there is no defense against anti-abortionism when confronted with the one-two punch of preferred treatment under the law for the unborn, so long as the advocates of this policy are not required to support or defend their reasoning on grounds other than that of their faith in god. And I tell you again, that such an immunity is absurd. You should know this.
I roundly do not accept the argument that religious fundamentalists can do whatever they want because they say their god said so. I refuse to accept any of their premises based upon that kind of thinking. The poll reflects my disgust satirically. Obviously no religious fundamentalist, were he or she to bother to put enough thought into their own beliefs, would say that fetuses should be charged with a crime just for existing. And yet they insist on adopting the unqualified resolution that the unborn should receive equal treatment under the law. And so I exploit this lack of qualification to come up with a ridiculous scenario, at which they (or you on their behalf)--without reconsidering their underlying premise--simply resort to the illogic that the unborn deserve not equal treatment, but superior treatment. It's the same bullshit as before, Malestrom.
What if I were to propose another poll: Suppose a religious fundamentalist is in a fertility clinic that has caught on fire. In one corner is a two-year-old child. In the other corner are five frozen embryos. This person has time to save either the child, or the five unborn children, but not both. So which should he or she save, assuming the desire to be a rescuer?
Fundamentalists hate questions like that, because it forces their insane beliefs into the spotlight. Likewise they would hate my original poll question at the start of this topic, because it gives them no quarter. It forces a confrontation with their baseless claim that fetuses and such deserve equal treatment under the law. And what is your rebuttal? Screw equal treatment! Now fetuses are superior to real people under the law? Fine. That's even more absurd--for one thing it implies that no woman should ever be able to have an abortion, for any reason, and that women should be treated like trash in making sure that their unborn children get supreme treatment--but by now I think my point is lost on you.
-
As a religious person, I think that it is my duty to express my opinions about this topic. I do not state opinions that represent religious people as a whole, simply my own opinions.
This is an interesting argument, whether or not a fetus should be responsible for potentially trying to kill its mother. I am a pro-life advocate, but I still say that the fetus should not be help responsible for its actions. Let me state my argument that both appeases the law and religion.
Picture this scenario: a very young child at about the age of 2 somehow gets a hold of a very pointy object and stabs a parent in their sleep in just the right place that it kills them. If it was an adult who had done this, they would be deemed responsible and old enough to understand what they have done and will be convicted for it. But we're talking about a little child, too young to understand what they were doing and that what they were doing was wrong. Would any jury give a 2 year old the same sentence that they would give a 30 year old? I would hope that it would be no, but no such case has as of yet arisen. The child would probably be chastized and more closely watched, but almost everybody would agree that this child can't be held responsible and punished the same way an adult would be.
Now, why can't this apply to the fetus? Yes, children receive special leniancy because they are too young and inexperienced to take responsiblity for their actions, so why should a child so young that they haven't even been born yet be expected to take responsibility for doing something that they didn't know was wrong? Can you really condemn a fetus for simply surviving? Besides, even if they passed some crazy law where fetuses would be 'given the death sentence' for their 'crime', the human race wouldn't last too much longer, would it? ;)
Fetuses are not given more special treatment than any other born person. We just have to understand that they can't be held responsible and can't, therefore, be held accountable and judged for their actions. Saying that we should condemn unborn babies for inflicting pain on their mother is saying that we should condemn that little two year old to the death sentence.
-
I admit to being particularly disappointed by the utter lack of interesting discussion that resulted from my global warming thread. This is perhaps a personal failing of mine: When my respect for people diminishes, so too does my tolerance. That makes it easier for me to be what you call a "viper." I'd probably just drift away from this place entirely, but for the intercession of other, less obvious reasons. And, so long as I am here, I may as well contribute to the community. I may not have many admirers here, if any, but I see a lot of inactivity in this place, and I think most people would rather spar with "that idiot Josh" than not have anything to talk about at all.
To be honest, Josh, its threads like this that are driving me from this forum. Hell, for all I know, maybe driving me and Daniel away is your goal.
-
All right, I'll state my personal opinion here:
Politically, I think you're a jackass who I won't argue with on the grounds that any word of argument is going to be met by an undeserved and offensive generalization.
On the other hand, though I know little of you as an actual person, I can't help but feel a measure of respect towards you since you seem to like the musical Le Mis, which I'm actually involved in at my school. (I'm Montparnasse, bi-yatch. And like 6 other people too) I'm also of the firm belief that any mudslinging done in a political discussion can, in fact, be left in that same discussion, and the two of us could therefore offend and antagonize the other to an insane degree, and then get along just fine in another topic.
I try not to let politics get in the way of people.
-
Picture this scenario: a very young child at about the age of 2 somehow gets a hold of a very pointy object and stabs a parent in their sleep in just the right place that it kills them. If it was an adult who had done this, they would be deemed responsible and old enough to understand what they have done and will be convicted for it. But we're talking about a little child, too young to understand what they were doing and that what they were doing was wrong. Would any jury give a 2 year old the same sentence that they would give a 30 year old? I would hope that it would be no, but no such case has as of yet arisen. The child would probably be chastized and more closely watched, but almost everybody would agree that this child can't be held responsible and punished the same way an adult would be.
Now, why can't this apply to the fetus? Yes, children receive special leniancy because they are too young and inexperienced to take responsiblity for their actions, so why should a child so young that they haven't even been born yet be expected to take responsibility for doing something that they didn't know was wrong? Can you really condemn a fetus for simply surviving? Besides, even if they passed some crazy law where fetuses would be 'given the death sentence' for their 'crime', the human race wouldn't last too much longer, would it? ;)
My point is not that we should make criminals of fetuses. Obviously that is not my point--or maybe not so obviously, given the number of times I have had to repeat myself.
Minors are held to a lower standard of legal accountability than adults because they are deemed to be less responsible for their actions. This policy has physical evidence to support it; children's brains are less developed, and children do not have the same grasp on acting selectively that mature humans do. Likewise, it would make sense that the unborn and the very young should not be held accountable for their actions at all, because they have no concept of what their actions might ramify. I am not saying otherwise. It distresses me that so many people could misinterpret such a conspicuous piece of satire as a legitimate proposition.
My real point, as I have said already, is that from the logic of the Religious Right follows a great many stances on the issues that are patently absurd. Anyhow, I appreciate your thoughtful reply...but being thoughtful isn't enough if you don't back that up with solid critical thinking.
I admit to being particularly disappointed by the utter lack of interesting discussion that resulted from my global warming thread. This is perhaps a personal failing of mine: When my respect for people diminishes, so too does my tolerance. That makes it easier for me to be what you call a "viper." I'd probably just drift away from this place entirely, but for the intercession of other, less obvious reasons. And, so long as I am here, I may as well contribute to the community. I may not have many admirers here, if any, but I see a lot of inactivity in this place, and I think most people would rather spar with "that idiot Josh" than not have anything to talk about at all.
To be honest, Josh, its threads like this that are driving me from this forum. Hell, for all I know, maybe driving me and Daniel away is your goal.
I've made my peace with Mr. Krispin, and hopefully people of his intelligence will simply avoid my topics if they inspire such grief. I haven't spoken to him, but I would imagine that his continued presence on this board is a sign that he is willing to look the other way when I show up. You, on the other hand, I would not miss. Just because a board is too inactive doesn't mean that it is worth retaining everybody who visits it. You're welcome to leave.
-
All right, I'll state my personal opinion here:
Politically, I think you're a jackass who I won't argue with on the grounds that any word of argument is going to be met by an undeserved and offensive generalization.
On the other hand, though I know little of you as an actual person, I can't help but feel a measure of respect towards you since you seem to like the musical Le Mis, which I'm actually involved in at my school. (I'm Montparnasse, bi-yatch. And like 6 other people too) I'm also of the firm belief that any mudslinging done in a political discussion can, in fact, be left in that same discussion, and the two of us could therefore offend and antagonize the other to an insane degree, and then get along just fine in another topic.
I try not to let politics get in the way of people.
Fair enough! =)
Perhaps my next thread will be a less politically divisive exposition on the wonderful food for thought that is Les Mis.
-
I've made my peace with Mr. Krispin, and hopefully people of his intelligence will simply avoid my topics if they inspire such grief. I haven't spoken to him, but I would imagine that his continued presence on this board is a sign that he is willing to look the other way when I show up. You, on the other hand, I would not miss. Just because a board is too inactive doesn't mean that it is worth retaining everybody who visits it. You're welcome to leave.
Wow, impressive dislike for someone who has done you no harm. I merely voice that people creating topics for the sole purpose to rant about their agendas drives me from this forum, and you say "good."
-
Wow, impressive dislike for someone who has done you no harm. I merely voice that people creating topics for the sole purpose to rant about their agendas drives me from this forum, and you say "good."
Do you really expect people to put up with your whining? Would you rather we make this place into some sort of Welfare Compendium where no one has to look out for themselves in a debate or stand on their own two feet in defending a thesis? Maybe we could boot out GrayLensman and bring in some Political Correctness Police to save you from the trouble of seeing something you don't like. Yes, that's it, let's just neuter all conversation into stuff that doesn't offend you--just like the real world!
It's a peurile grab for attention, Sentenal, to continually resort to the complaint that other people are driving you away from this place, when in fact you continue to come back here day after day and, more than that, continue to post in the topics which you claim offend you. Indeed, your rabid yet ill-reasoned conservatism often helps to derail topics which are not interested in the sort of things you like to complain about. This thread is a good example; even though nobody has bothered to say anything about the news article yet, at least all of them thus far talked about the poll. But not you. You just waltzed right in and took a shot at me. Well, fine, but don't expect me to bend over for you. You're never going to silence your enemies, and if you insist on making these sorts of posts, you're never going to get any relief from them, either.
-
Let me jump in real quick and lay down the law. We have a General Discussion forum for a reason. Sure we will get into arguements here and there and everyone has their own opinion about everything and has the chance to voice it, not really, but type it. I can see how much passion you put into your posts. For the most part, I like it. Sometimes you take it a bit too far. Since I just arrived here a month ago, this is the impression I've obtained from you.
But here's the real deal. Either some people really do care about the interesting threads and posts found in these forums, and will elaborate about their points of views and their takes on something . . . or some people really don't give a damn. The objective of these forums isn't to insult or contradict anyones opinions towards something, but to simply inform them on YOUR take about a rather potential topic of interest.
-
On the other hand, though I know little of you as an actual person, I can't help but feel a measure of respect towards you since you seem to like the musical Le Mis, which I'm actually involved in at my school. (I'm Montparnasse, bi-yatch. And like 6 other people too) I'm also of the firm belief that any mudslinging done in a political discussion can, in fact, be left in that same discussion, and the two of us could therefore offend and antagonize the other to an insane degree, and then get along just fine in another topic.
What are you doing, so far out of our patch?
-
Huh? I don't believe I understand.
-
I've made my peace with Mr. Krispin, and hopefully people of his intelligence will simply avoid my topics if they inspire such grief. I haven't spoken to him, but I would imagine that his continued presence on this board is a sign that he is willing to look the other way when I show up.
Yes and no. I'd be stupid to always look the other way. As much as I might often disagree with what you say, that doesn't preclude the fact that, even in reading something contrary to my beliefs, I may come to some new understanding, or understand things in a more varied way, than before - and knowing, if not believing, many views is a good thing (heck, I sure as hell don't believe in Zeus or Athena, or anything else of the old Greek religion, but that doesn't stop me from finding aspects of truth in the ancient stories.) I'm open minded enough for that. I've just smartened up and figure that, seeing as everyone probably knows where I stand on things, it would be a) a waste of time and energy and b) self-serving to reply just to get mad every time. It's far more productive to me just to read everyone else's responses, and draw conclusions based on the varied replies.
So no, I don't look the other way, I do better: I watch but hold my silence, hoping that I can learn more by observation than actual interaction. And if you do say something that annoys me... well, then I might look the other way. But your presence alone does not do that - I would be limiting myself if it did. Similarity leads to stagnation of thought, but conflicting views train the mind.
And, after all, if what you say really causes me that much grief, it only means my faith in my own beliefs is not very strong.
-
And so I exploit this lack of qualification to come up with a ridiculous scenario, at which they (or you on their behalf)--without reconsidering their underlying premise--simply resort to the illogic that the unborn deserve not equal treatment, but superior treatment. It's the same bullshit as before, Malestrom.
It's not the "same bullshit." Your parody only refutes the idea that the fetus and the woman are complete equals, both in terms of value and actions. You are going to have to embrace a different device to actually disprove this more aggressive concept.
(It's Mael, by the way)
Now fetuses are superior to real people under the law?
In your burning building example, compared to a infant that's made no informed decision leading to its life being put in danger? Hardly. No two year-old can make a decision with legal responsibility. If you paid better attention to my clauses, you would recognize that the favorable treatment only applies when one party made a decision to put its life at risk or undergo a hardship. In fact, even adults wouldn't be given lower priority, unless they were crazy enough to run *into* a burning building in a criminal or deliberately suicidical way (in which case it's their own damn fault if they die).
As for embryos, many religious sorts consider them being stored/frozen as immoral in the first place, so it should be a moot point in their eyes.
----------------------------------------------
Now, I'll save you some trouble, because you probably want to rework your story so that these are properly developing fetuses, and you want to make an anti-abortionist choose between the life of a fetus and the life of an innocent baby. That's fine; you'll trap the die-hard purists in that camp at last. However, some others will offer this cohesive pecking order:
1) Born people that haven't chosen to put their lives at risk
2) Fetuses, which obviously have never chosen to put their lives at risk
3) Born people who decide to put their livelihood at risk
So they will "properly" save the lives of born babies and other people before the unborn sorts, as you would hope. Some of the "religious" sorts actually hesitate to admit this is really how they feel, but this tempered version, compared to the absolutes we hear from them, is actually reassuring.
In other words, there are people that will favor the lives of the born ahead of a fetus, but with not so much separation that they will sacrifice a fetus willy-nilly or for an amount of organ damage to the mother that is fairly typical and non-substantial. If there are circumstances that are terribly unforseen (rape i.e. the deprivation of choice, major risk to the mother, and optionally an unusual turn of events that leads to economic depravity), then the advantage of being born can supercede, since the scenario violates the spirit of 3) and would invoke the woman as a 1) instead.
I don't know if you intend to fight these people as well, but you can imagine that their logic is quite incompatible with your piece of satire (because of the incongruous notion of responsibility, and the reality that they don't really believe in equality between the fetus and born people in the first place). While these people aren't making the most noise, I can assure you that they are the ones with the deciding votes at the moment (they may be electing a lot of zealots who want strong anti-abortion policy, but that doesn't mean that's what the voters precisely want).
-
(It's Mael, by the way)
My mistake. I know the word well enough to be duly chagrined.
-
Well, you did get the other half of the word right.
Still, I meant it strictly as an aside. It's not the most important thing going on in my post. :P
-
Wow, I haven't been around much lately. New computer, slow internet, and only Internet Explorer to work with makes the Internet your worst enemy. But anyways...
I loved how Js options weren't so much to get an opinion from people, but just to show how stupid most of our reasonings are and what other sorts of conclusions we can come up with with our ideologies. Of course, I chose the apple pies...but they wouldn't be great at that either. Well, maybe Green Gannon would be, but thats only because he's...ok, no joke there...
do not believe an unborn child is alive until the Three-Four Month period. Therefore before that, it doesn't matter, but I still believe it to be wrong (but shouldn't be illegal) to kill it. Pretty much, it was your choice that it was born. If you feel remorseful afterwards, well, hah. Of course, like others said, the woman is a 3) Born person who decided to put her livelihood at risk. Except for rape. But I don't agree that if the womans life is seriouslt at risk that she shouldn't be allowed to abort. Thats even allowed in Nigeria for gods sake :roll: (no pun intended).
But thats not the dilema here! Of course the fetus shouldn't be charged with assault or homocide! It is NOT sentient (and I realize that the "fetus-should-be-charged" is not your ideology, J).
But then again, it is quite strange. Could a fetus and a vegetable be compared? If so, then why if America allows you to take the life support of a vegetable by someone caring (such as a newly wed husband :roll: ) then why can't the mother, who is the most closely connected to the unborn child take the proverbial life support of that child? I'm not saying I support either side, I'm just saying that it is a flaw in its ideology.
And another thing, who is this Religious Right? They can't all have the exact same ideas, can they? Please explain to a ignorant youth.
-
So no, I don't look the other way, I do better: I watch but hold my silence, hoping that I can learn more by observation than actual interaction.
Very good. Silence aloof, let us call it. I am not afraid to say this aloud, as no one save you would possibly understand, but what you have just confided is the secret to power and wisdom alike. (No doubt the latter is more appealing to you, but in the end they are the same thing.)
No, it is not lost on me that hereabouts on our Compendium I may not seem to practice my preaching. This is a worldly incarnation of what I believe Radical Dreamer failed to understand in our debate about being falsely loved versus sincerely hated. In any case, there is hope for you yet. Wayne, right? I can never tell. Nobody likes to be called by their true name around here except me.
And, after all, if what you say really causes me that much grief, it only means my faith in my own beliefs is not very strong.
We got off on the wrong foot, didn't we? All religious insanity aside, I will grant you that.
Well, you did get the other half of the word right. Still, I meant it strictly as an aside. It's not the most important thing going on in my post. :P
Maelstrom, dear me! You make some fine points, and if I seriously believed that fetuses are criminals, you might even have a case! As it is, I do not, so you do not. This is the end of the line. It cannot be ended further.
But then again, it is quite strange. Could a fetus and a vegetable be compared? If so, then why if America allows you to take the life support of a vegetable by someone caring (such as a newly wed husband :roll: ) then why can't the mother, who is the most closely connected to the unborn child take the proverbial life support of that child? I'm not saying I support either side, I'm just saying that it is a flaw in its ideology.
A fetus and a vegetable cannot be compared to any benefit. One is a sack of potential, the other is a tragedy which it is our society's policy, rightly or wrongly, to keep alive via profound intervention. Society has the onus of looking out for all its denizens, and if it were not for the rights of women I would be generally anti-abortion. However, women's rights are more important than those of the unborn.
And another thing, who is this Religious Right? They can't all have the exact same ideas, can they? Please explain to a ignorant youth.
The "Religious Right" is a term that represents an informal confederation of evangelical, fundamentalist, ultraconservative Christians and their organizations who, by unifying their efforts and their money, are able to exert considerable influence in United States politics at the national, regional, and local levels. They tirelessly pursue the restortation of the Dark Ages.
-
Um, tea anyone?
But we can kill the vegetable, so we aren't technically totally protecting it.
-
Maelstrom, dear me! You make some fine points, and if I seriously believed that fetuses are criminals, you might even have a case! As it is, I do not, so you do not. This is the end of the line. It cannot be ended further.
My (at least early) argument was never about whether fetuses were criminals, but that your "satire" was an unfair analogy in the first place. There is a responsibility/accountability of the would-be mother that makes your turning-of-the-tables unfair, because the fetus is acting strictly involuntary, whereas the would-be mother typically voluntarily "started the war."
Your burning building example, on the other hand, *is* cohesive (when adapted properly), because it removes that accountability element that complicates your initial example (seeing as these are third parties to the fetuses, and these fetuses aren't the force hurting the born people, it's the fire in the building that's the problem).
Is this making sense? If you concede this point, then we are done.
-
This is the sound of an idea: :idea:
This is the sound of an idea flying: :arrow: :arrow: :idea: :!:
Flying over your head: :shock:
Just to recap what I am not conceding before we are "done" here: Some anti-abortion religious types want the unborn to have equal treatment under the law, on grounds that it would protect their lives above the sanctity of their mothers' "choice" to carry them to term or not. The flaw in their logic is that equal treatment makes the unborn culpable for attacking their mother's bodies. My poll was situated to point out this absurdity. Thus, to correct this absurdity the anti-abortion miscreants are forced to conclude that the unborn must actually receive preferential treatment under the law--an even more absurd proposition, because it ranks the unborn above their mothers.
-
Um, but what about a 2 yr old over their mother?
:arrow: :arrow: :idea: :!:
-
Actually, Josh, if you interpret it as equal treatment to an infant or toddler, you don't need to give them preferential treatment. As has been said before, if a young child accidentally harms or kills a parent, the law wouldn't hold them legally responsible as they aren't capable of analyzing the situation. The same is true for people with certain severe mental handicaps.
No one is asking to treat a fetus the same as an adult, they're asking to treat a fetus the same as a newborn or toddler--which few would argue have a right to life.
Now, as to whether those have preferential treatment under the law, remember that in addition to lack of culpability, they also lack a lot of rights. It's different, but not necessarily preferential.
-
Leebot covered a lot of the same things (and probably better), but I figure a reply is still in order.
The flaw in their logic is that equal treatment makes the unborn culpable for attacking their mother's bodies.
See, this is where you are wrong (again). They may hold the fetus and the woman to be the same *value*, but they don't hold them to the same level of *responsibility* (because again, the woman can "decide" to kill the fetus through abortion or possibly other means, but the fetus never "decides" to harm the mother's organs; still, it doesn't rule out the possibility of aborting the fetus if the fetus is going to end up dying naturally anyway). And to boot, the woman is the one deciding to engage in this conflict for resources (by getting pregnant), whereas the fetus has no say in it. But I've said this at least twice already.
Frankly, it's not like the religious right believed there is equality between the fetus and mother (not unlike how there is not equality between a child and a parent), and it's rude to assume they do in that "satire." That point never had to be argued. To say these people generally do is an unnecessary (an incorrect/unfair) demonization of those that disagree with you (it's only funny when it's accurate, when it fits).
My poll was situated to point out this absurdity. Thus, to correct this absurdity the anti-abortion miscreants are forced to conclude that the unborn must actually receive preferential treatment under the law--an even more absurd proposition, because it ranks the unborn above their mothers.
Honestly, it's less a matter of "treatment" and more of a matter of "accountability." Granted, the mother faces a unique disadvantage here (strictly because the fetus is dependant on the pregnant mother, which affects her range of behaviors for a time), but there still remains a lot of advantages (and responsibilities) that remain with a mother regardless of whether it's compared to a fetus or a born baby. And while the pregnant mother suffers compared to other mothers, it's also worth noting that the fetus suffers compared to born babies, too (since certain anti-abortionists will allow for a mother's health exception of some kind, whereas born babies face no such danger).
And besides, some people will argue that's it's just as absurd (or moreso) to believe a fetus (which is considered a baby in some circles, whether you like it or not) should be at a disadvantage, that they should be completely at mercy to things going on around them and unable to protect themselves (whereas the woman, again, typically could control whether she gets pregnant in the first place).
If you expect anti-abortionists to believe that a born human has more value than a fetus, you must give an example that holds "responsibility" constant. Again, that's why your burning building example works. You don't need to cover any example that doesn't control for responsibility, because doing will just waste attention (before people lose their focus and devolve into a piss-fest). K.I.S.S.
And seriously, "anti-abortion miscreants?" There are plenty of zealots and genuine people (and others in between) on both sides of the argument. While it's *possible* for one side to have a significant "advantage" in the concentration of "good" people, you can't deny humanity of many (most?) people on both sides, nor can you hide the fact that many on your side are motivated by the wrong reasons (such as self-interest). Granted, the concentrations can get pretty lopsided if we were talking about nazism or racial/ethnic/religious violence, and strongly-charged rhetoric can be approprioate then, but that's not the kind of issue we are dealing with here.
-
Actually, Josh, if you interpret it as equal treatment to an infant or toddler, you don't need to give them preferential treatment. As has been said before, if a young child accidentally harms or kills a parent, the law wouldn't hold them legally responsible as they aren't capable of analyzing the situation. The same is true for people with certain severe mental handicaps.
No one is asking to treat a fetus the same as an adult, they're asking to treat a fetus the same as a newborn or toddler--which few would argue have a right to life.
Now, as to whether those have preferential treatment under the law, remember that in addition to lack of culpability, they also lack a lot of rights. It's different, but not necessarily preferential.
The law is objective, and justice is blind. Forgive me for lacking the legal jargon, but different status under the law amouts to preferentialism. Minors, as you point out, enjoy a different status, explicitly, with regards to their standing under the law. Sometimes they are preferred, such as the assignment of further rights and protections (and exemptions) than adults enjoy, whereas in other cases it is adults who are preferred, mostly in the arena of "adult" behaviors such as voting and alcohol consumption, from which minors are restricted.
Likewise--and perhaps this is a delicate point, since Maelstrom and others can't seem to wrap their heads around it--if the unborn were given no special treatment under the law, they would liable for their aggressions against their mothers. This is precisely as absurd as you say, which is what my poll exploits--surely you of all people could not have failed to see this basic and obvious satire. No one in this thread, myself least of all, is actually proposing that the unborn should be treated as adults. My argument has nothing to do with how the unborn should be treated; it has to do with the idiocy of those who claim that fetuses and such should be entitled to full legal rights, without qualification. This sort of claim opens up a big can of worms, which is what I was highlighting with my poll.
The anti-abortion Gestapo puts very little thought into the logical grounding of its arguments. In these people's minds, a fetus is a person--a human being with standing under the law, like you or I. They do not perturb their intellects with the nuances of what particular legal status an unborn human should enjoy in keeping with their moral beliefs; to them these details are not a part of their mindset until somebody like me makes a poll pointing out that giving fetuses equal standing makes them equally criminally culpable, at which point the Gestapo is of course forced to "clarify" (i.e., sidepedal) that by "equal treatment" they really mean "special treatment." Then I would make another poll pointing out that the unborn are thereby favored over their mothers in legal rights, at which their little Death Star explodes in defeat and I get a medal.
It doesn't matter how much a person is "valued"; what matters is his or her legal standing--in this case, their "responsibility" under the law, as Malestrom puts it. These religious nuts think that because they want to value a clump of cells on par with a human being, their moral evaluation should translate into the law of the land. Rubbish! They can sit in church and foam at the mouth all they like, but damned if they want to make laws inhibiting the freedoms of decent people. In the arena of logical thought, their moral valuations can be torn to shreds--as this poll accomplishes--because this morality game is extraneous and irrelevant. Biologically speaking, pregnancy is a war that must be fought, with no crimes committed. There doesn't need to be a law punishing the unborn, because from this secular perspective the process of pregnancy is simply a risk that willing women will have to take, no good or bad about it. But morally speaking, the notion that an unborn human deserves special legal standing creates all sorts of legal indigestion. Even so, it might still be possible to morally evaluate a pregnancy and the character of an unborn child in a logically consistent manner, but staking a virulent anti-abortion position precludes this possibility outright. Anti-abortionism is flagrantly sexist, and is therefore as far away from "morality" as can be, accepting the Devil's morals. (This nonsensical forced digression is, if anything, an indication of the inherent flaw of morality itself.)
There is nothing left to argue; what you are saying barely even sounds like an argument against what I have said, except you bothered to style it as such. Maelstrom's bone to pick is that:
[The Religious Right] may hold the fetus and the woman to be the same *value*, but they don't hold them to the same level of *responsibility*...
I think you can see what he is trying to say, but hopefully you can also see that it misses the point of this entire exercise. Only if my poll were seriously indicative of my feelings toward the culpability of the unborn would he have a case. If that were so, then he could rightly say "But Josh, it's ridiculous to hold the unborn to the same legal standard as we hold adults." And I would agree, and hold my head in shame for ever making such an idiotic proposal. But that isn't what this poll is about; it is only what Malestrom thinks it is about. This poll is about the lack of critical thought of the anti-abortion nutjobs, the idiocy of their moral proclamations, and the difficulties of integrating their illogical and cruel morals with any legal system that claims to uphold justice.
And seriously, "anti-abortion miscreants?" There are plenty of zealots and genuine people (and others in between) on both sides of the argument. While it's *possible* for one side to have a significant "advantage" in the concentration of "good" people, you can't deny humanity of many (most?) people on both sides, nor can you hide the fact that many on your side are motivated by the wrong reasons (such as self-interest).
My language is not rhetorical. Well, yes it is a bit, but only as a side effect of the allusions I draw. Anyone who opposes abortion also implicitly holds that pregnant women are the property of the state and deserve marginal or zero standing above an unborn clump of cells inside their belly, and therefore is close enough in ideology to the atrocities of the Gestapo that a comparison is legitimate. "Miscreants," "nutjobs," "ignorant fools"; I would stand by every one of those phrases not rhetorically but literally.
Let me explain a few things.
Racists, sexists, xenophobes...most bigots are as decent as the rest of us when you see them outside of their bigotry. How many of those Southern gentlefolk of old were as sweet as strawberry pie except for the "inconvenient" fact that they took part in the hideous practice of slavery? I do not dispute that many anti-abortionists are perfectly sweet people when they are not busy advocating that women are less than human. Your point has no merit at all; the Devil must be a very charming fellow too.
Moving on, there are plenty of people on the pro-abortion side who support abortion for the wrong reasons, such as for reasons of privacy or convenience. There are plenty more whose logic is inferior to the virtue of their stance on the issue. But none of their ineptitudes nullify that inherent virtue of bestowing upon women the same liberties enjoyed by men.
What you are trying to do is entirely outside the realm of this whole thread: By alleging that there are so many good people on the anti-abortion side, and so many "wrong" people on the pro-abortion, you are implying that, at best, the abortion debate is not important and, at worst, that anti-abortionism is the correct posture. This brings your motives into question. You came to the Compendium pretending to be a liberal. You have since revealed yourself to be one hell of a committed devil's advocate. Well, that's another phrase we can take literally here. You ought to be aware of who and what you are defending.
-
First of all, I completely understand your position, Josh, and I find myself agreeing with you on most issues. But in this, I think you may be committing the "Straw Man" fallacy: Constructing an argument for your opponent and then arguing against that argument rather than their actual stance. In this case, you're saying that these people in the religious right want the fetus to have full adult rights.
Personally, I don't believe any of them are saying this. By saying the fetus should have the rights of a human, they mean the rights a human would get at between birth and two years old. I think, depending on the way you interpret the law, if you confer "human rights" on the fetus, it automatically gets infant rights rather than adult rights.
Now, personally I don't believe the fetus does qualify for human rights at all, at least until the brain starts to develop. At that point, it becomes more and more human up until about age three, which is (I believe) where scientists say the brain fully awakens. Before that point, it's merely the potential of a human, and eliminating it is on exactly the same moral level as cautioning two teens not to have unprotected sex that would result in a pregnancy (well, okay, the latter has a few more benefits as well, but you get the point).
-
But in this, I think you may be committing the "Straw Man" fallacy: Constructing an argument for your opponent and then arguing against that argument rather than their actual stance. In this case, you're saying that these people in the religious right want the fetus to have full adult rights.
Personally, I don't believe any of them are saying this. By saying the fetus should have the rights of a human, they mean the rights a human would get at between birth and two years old. I think, depending on the way you interpret the law, if you confer "human rights" on the fetus, it automatically gets infant rights rather than adult rights.
I am not implying that the Religious Right makes the argument that the unborn should have adult legal standing. Think of what I would have to do to stake such a position: I would have to believe that these people want the unborn to be charged as criminals. This is patently contrary to the obvious reality.
My point, again, is that their lack of critical thought leads to policy positions that, with a little clever exploitation, reveal glaring absurdities. Remember the context in which I created this thread: To my chagrin, no one at all has commented on the wonderful news article I referenced in my first post. This article details pregnancy from an evolutionary perspective, characterizing it as a competition between two beings for limited resources, which in more colorful terms amouts to a war. The mother plays an entirely defensive role as her body is ravaged for nutrients by the unborn child; each side has evolved powerful tricks for keeping the balance mutually beneficial, yet the competition is still dangerous. From a biological perspective, this is the price of bearing children. From a moral perspective, the unborn creature is an aggressor. This is the inevitable, inexorable, ineluctable fusion of illogical conservative religious dogma with the contents of the news article, and this is where my poll stood in all its feathered glory. Translating these morals into the legal code, anti-abortionists must therefore conclude that the rights of the unborn are actually superior to those of the mother, in order to maintain the spirit of their position.
I am not saying that anybody consciously believes the unborn to be criminals. I was saying earlier that the logic lines of the fundamentalist calls for fetal rights unfortunately leads to a destination antithetical to these people's intent. And I am saying now that, in light of Dr. Haig's findings, anti-abortionist logic forces this conclusion unavoidably, unless preferred status is conferred upon the unborn--which would have disastrous consequences for the rights of women.
A quick analogy: Believing the Earth is flat, yet embracing evidence that (unbeknownst to you) supports that actually the Earth is round. If somebody calls you on your contrary embrace, but you want to go on believing in a flat Earth, you've got to do something about that embrace--like perhaps killing the scientists who published the evidence.
-
Maybe the woman should be allowed to call for abortion after the birth, like Ms Cartman did :D Or wanted to, before she realized that Cartman was already in his 40th Trimester...
-
Maybe the woman should be allowed to call for abortion after the birth, like Ms Cartman did :D Or wanted to, before she realized that Cartman was already in his 40th Trimester...
Personally, in that case, I would fully support aborting Cartman. It's for the good of the world.
-
Maybe the woman should be allowed to call for abortion after the birth, like Ms Cartman did :D Or wanted to, before she realized that Cartman was already in his 40th Trimester...
Personally, in that case, I would fully support aborting Cartman. It's for the good of the world.
You bastard!
-
-siiigh.-
Here's where I smack whoever started this debate, smack twice whoever continued it, and give poor Ms. Cartman a cookie, because gosh darnit, hasn't that woman suffered enough?
Here's also where I give my brief opinion on abortion and whack myself a couple times upside the head, because I just can't resist. Life should be defined as individual organisms who are able to sustain their own processes as separate beings. That, for example, is why the virus cannot be considered living, since it requires living tissue to reproduce and continue existing, yet parasites such as ticks and tapeworms can be considered living, since they are physically able to exist outside animal influence (although it won't be the greatest existence ever or anything). I'm not trying to associate fetuses with viruses or anything, but it's the only viable explanation I can give — a fetus requires its host mother to develop the tissues and absorb the nutrition necessary for its future life outside the womb. Therefore, a fetus is not an individual life form, but an actual part of its mother's body until the umbilical cord is cut.
That being said, it should therefore be entirely up to the mother whether a part of her body should be removed or not. It's not the most pleasant explanation in the world, a fetus akin to a kidney or an appendix that can be removed without noticable harm to the mother's body, but in all cases that is exactly what a fetus is for the nine months it's housed in its mother's uterus. Whether a fetus should be aborted or not, however, should depend only on the mother's view. If she can emotionally deal with the loss of an unborn child, something that is not yet its own lifeform but will nevertheless become one in the future, that should be enough to allow for her to abort the fetus. If she is not emotionally able to come to terms with the loss, or if her religious views conflict with the topic of abortion in general, that's her perogative.
But it's more a debate over whether religious views should be impressed upon those without said views in order to preserve what some would term the "sanctity of life." As long as we have religion, it's a debate that will never reach a conclusion satisfying enough to both sides of the table.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to grab a baggie of ice for the two large palmprints upside my head.
-
Cartman's mom doesn't deserve shit. She willingly was in German porn movies, eating shit and drinking piss, dropped straight into her mouth. She deserves nothing except 'smack'.
As for your opinion on the matter, I fully agree. Women should be allowed to choose, whether other people think they're committing murder or not. Frankly, I don't see the fetuses complaining one way or the other, not until they're old enough to understand what abortion is and thank their mom for not aborting them. Some people don't. Like that Sum41 song. Bahaha!
-
CRACK WHORE MAGAZINE presents
CARTMANS MUM!
Anyway, some people think viruses are alive :lee: (forever more this shall be my *hmph* emocticon)
-
Anyway, some people think viruses are alive :lee: (forever more this shall be my *hmph* emocticon)
Behold, the mimivirus (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/full/041011-14.html)!
-
Giant virus qualifies as 'living organism'
This article is available in full to Premium plus subscribers
Damn me and my infernal non Premiumness!
-
That's why Wikipedia exists.
The mimivirus is a giant double-stranded DNA virus with mature particles of 400 nm in diameter (icosahedral capsid). It has approximately 1,200,000 bases and 900 genes. It was first discovered in 1992 in an industrial cooling tower in Bradford in England and identified in 2003 by researchers at the Université de la Méditerranée in Marseille in France. The virus, discovered during research into Legionellosis (the cause of Legionnaire's Disease), was found inside the water-borne amoeba Acanthamoeba polyphaga. The virus showed up in a gram stain, and was mistakenly thought to be a gram-positive bacteria, and named "Bradfordcoccus". Human blood samples have also revealed antibodies and the virus is thought to have at one time caused a type of pneumonia. Although it was once a suspect in the pneumonia outbreak in Bradford, today scientists believe that the virus can only infect amoebas.
Later research from the same university, as published in Science, following the sequencing of the virus in 2004 give these measures: 800 nm long, 1,181,404 bp, 1262 genes. Only ten percent is junk DNA. In March 2006, New Scientist put the figure at 911 genes, and 1.2 million bases.
Jean-Michel Claverie, from the Université de la Méditerranée says about Mimi: "It makes this DNA virus look like a new kind of parasitic life-form."
Alive?
Recently scientists have declared that, as the virus particle is capable of generating its own proteins, it is in fact considered a living organism, an idea which adds to the confusion of virus classification. Mimivirus, with its 911 protein-coding genes, codes for 50 proteins never before seen in viruses, including chaperones to assist protein folding and proof reading enzymes. It represents a new family of "nucleocytoplasmic" large DNA viruses that emerged with the first life on Earth some four billion years ago. It has even been suggested that Mimivirus is a fourth domain of life, next to the eukaryotes, procaryotes and Archaea. Because its lineage is very old and could have emerged prior to cellular organisms, Mimivirus has added to the debate over the origins of life.
-
Giant virus qualifies as 'living organism'
This article is available in full to Premium plus subscribers
Damn me and my infernal non Premiumness!
The article displays fine for me, and I haven't signed up for any premium service.
Article Text:
Giant virus qualifies as 'living organism'
Mark Peplow
Huge genome allows mimivirus to make its own proteins.
The virus's genetic sequence also holds clues that may explain the evolution of the very first cells possessing a nucleus of DNA.
Since the 1960s, scientists have argued about whether viruses are living organisms or just a bundle of very large molecules. Viruses are usually much smaller and simpler than bacteria, consisting simply of genetic material surrounded by a protein coat. A virus has to hijack another organism's biological machinery to replicate, which it does by inserting its DNA into a host. Bacteria, on the other hand, carry all that they need to reproduce independently, and thus qualify as alive.
Although it shows all the trademark features of a virus, the mimivirus is much more complex, says Jean-Michel Claverie, a biologist from the Institute of Structural Biology and Microbiology in Marseilles, France, who worked on the sequencing effort. If viruses were cars, Mimi would still be a car, he says,but it would be a luxury model with more gadgets. "It makes this DNA virus look like a new kind of parasitic life-form," he says.
Mimi carries about 50 genes that do things never seen before in a virus. It can make about 150 of its own proteins, along with chemical chaperones to help the proteins to fold in the right way. It can even repair its own DNA if it gets damaged, unlike normal viruses.
And although viruses can use either DNA or RNA to carry their genetic information, Mimi has both. "We are seeing an organism here. There is DNA, RNA and plenty of proteins," says Didier Raoult, a lead member of the team from the Mediterranean University in Marseilles, France, who reports the work in this week's Science1.
Monster virus
Mimi was discovered in 1992, nestling inside an amoeba found inside a cooling tower in Bradford, UK, that was being investigated as the source of an influenza outbreak. Later research2 showed that it was a real monster, measuring about 800 nanometres across, more than four times as big as a smallpox virus. The new study shows that its genome contains 1.2 million bases, which is more than many bacteria contain and makes it several times bigger than the largest DNA viruses. The bases make up 1,260 genes, which makes it as complex as some bacteria, the scientists say.
What's more, viral DNA often contains lots of 'junk' sequences, genetic material that does not seem to serve any useful function. Mimi, on the other hand, is lean and mean: more than 90% of its DNA does something specific.
As Mimi carries some genes involved with replication, this could have helped it to spread faster than other viruses, explains Anne Bridgen, a virologist from the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. "I've never heard of viruses encoding something like this," she says.
Officially, the virus got its name because it mimics bacteria, says Raoult. "But my father, also a scientist, taught me a story about Mimi the Amoeba when I was very young, so it's also a tribute to him," he says.
Life lines
Although biologists sometimes divide life into three categories, the team says that Mimi is sufficiently different that it deserves a fourth branch of life all to itself.
Bacteria are the simplest branch, because they lack a nucleus to gather their genetic material together. Archaea are very similar, but are thought to have evolved separately because of their unusual cell membranes. Every other living thing is a eukaryote, that is, an organism that groups its genetic material into a nucleus inside its cells. But Mimi carries seven genes that are common to all cellular life, putting it on a par with the other life-forms, says Raoult.
Bridgen is less sure. "To say that this virus represents a fourth category would be overstating the evidence, but it may hint that the categorization into three domains is oversimplistic," she says.
Some scientists have speculated that eukaryotes originally evolved from collaboration between a virus and a bacterium. Bacteria could have supplied the ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell, and viruses might have injected their genetic material into a proto-nucleus. One weakness of the theory is that viruses generally lack some of the key genes seen in eukaryotes. But Mimi's complex genome includes these, lending support to the idea, says Raoult.
The team are now trying to find more giant viruses like Mimi, and are also busy working out exactly how it uses all its genes.
-
Wow, thats quite incredible!
-
For the record, someone on that computer must have a premium subscription, because I saw the screen Zeppelin saw. Thanks for posting the article, though.
-
Let me guess, you share a room with someone? Oh man, I wish I'd be like you guys. Living out your own life, no parents to nag you, good ol' home made food (albeit horribly disgusting) and best of all, bringing in your girlfriend without parents smashing your head in with a frying pan! :roll:
-
I saw the entire article, too, and I don't have a premium subscription or share a room with anyone. Maybe it's the University ISP that's doing it.
-
Yeah probably. Must be because...well...its a Uni.