Jump to content

Tea Party just racist?

Recommended Posts

"...an unwanted fertilized egg that some religions would call human. But science will not at least within the first trimester."


Moosetracker, this kind of thing is wrong on many levels no matter who it comes from (and here I want to make sure you know that although I'm writing this to you, I address my criticism and comments broadly to everyone engaged in these arguments, not just to you). I just wish people would stop invoking science to try to support their stupid political or whatever prejudices.

Science hasn't issued pronouncements about humanity beginning at the end of the first trimester. PEOPLE have used scientific observations to make their own judgments about the status of a fetus at the end of the first trimester and then applied their judgments in the form of guidelines or legislation.

A fertilized egg is neither the beginning of life nor of 'humanity', depending on what your definition of 'humanity' is. There is no evidence that our haploid gametes contain 'non-human' codes. There is ample evidence, in fact, that those codes are indeed 'human'. Those haploid cells are just as deserving of protection as the diploid one as far as I'm concerned. They are no less living. Fertilization is merely a convenient place for the prolife people to draw THEIR line in the sand. It does little or nothing to clarify the moral questions or to arrive at solutions (I sense that you may understand this already).


My criticism of this line of pro-life nonsense is that if they want to make the argument to protect fertilized eggs, then show me a clear statement of how they would do that. They haven't. They won't. They can't.


But I'm OK with allowing stupid people their place to argue over their stupid ideas. I just wish they'd stop invoking science to make those arguments.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peregrinator, although it would be tough for you to make the argument to my mother, she (and my father before her for that matter) pleaded for long months and years to give her a way to end her own life because of her suffering. She made it clear, almost constantly actually, as did my father before her, that she did not want to live under that kind of pain and suffering.

Like I said though, she's dead. So you'll have a tough time arguing with her on that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well faith is one thing, science is another.. Faith is a belief without any proof, I wouldn't call that logical.


But I what I can not accept is that life is considered SOOOOO... important when not born.. But, SOOOOOO... worthless once born..


Let's go to war, and start new wars.. Who cares about our young soldiers who dies.. Also lets remove aid for the returning vets.


Both parties have supporters of the death penalty. But where the Democates are split, Republicans are very strongly pro the dealth penalty.


Republicans wanting to go back to health care having a lifetime cap. When you blow through it whether you are 1 year old or 85 years old, then your only option is to die.


Cutting Medicad.. This is mostly our old people in nursing homes, and also the people with permanent disabilities like the mentally retarded.. They have the only option to die..


So.. Why is this unwanted fertilized egg so important, but the people who are currently living so unimportant?


Science may be mixed on when a fetus a human life, but they 100% agree that a living person is human life..


What makes that unwanted fetus so much more important then the people who are already on this plant? Why once born do you think it is right to wash your hands of your responsibility for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker, I understand what you mean regarding the contradiction. But scientific evidence is 100% in agreement that a human fetus at any stage is 'human life'. There's no way to deny that unless you employ a definition of 'life' or 'human' that just now is inconceivable to me. Even a fetus which is developing with no brain at all is still human and alive, at least until it dies.

I simply maintain that even gametes technically qualify under the very loose criteria that 'pro-life' persons seem to want to apply. I criticize them partly for their ignorance and partly for their willingness, despite that ignorance (and perhaps based on it), to limit freedoms. One of those two things is lamentable. The other is just dishonest as well as intellectually bankrupt.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more inncocent human life than Hitler and Stalin --- combined.


It's the greatest massacre of the XXth century --- a century noted for massacres ion a previously unknown scale, mostly done in the name of atheism and against religious values.


"Science" and secular values have a lot to answer for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good heavens, moosetracker, this went off in da oddest direction. But welcome back!


Yep, yeh aren't likely to see a whole lot of ethical consistency in either political party, eh? I find it sort of amusin' and quaint that yeh are trying. :)


I reckon, though, that we all have to look in da mirror a bit when we apply that standard. I couldn't really follow all that about spaying and neutering humans like dogs and warehousing unwanted children and all the rest, but I confess I found it appalling. Read AZMike's rebuttal carefully and thoughtfully. Just because yeh have an itch to scratch all the time about your husband's religion doesn't mean that they can't be right about a thing or two. We'll leave off that transubstantiation stuff, but their teachin' about natural law has been cogent and consistent, even if yeh happen to disagree with their high-handed pomp ;).


Yep, no question in my mind that a fetus is human life. I've long felt that da proper and easiest societal thing to do is to define the start of life the same way we define the end of life in da law - by heartbeat or brain activity. Once the little fellah has a heartbeat, he is protected by da law until it stops. I think that's a standard that da vast majority of the country can agree on from a legal perspective. It would end many, perhaps most, abortions; certainly all of da heinous late-term stuff.


Beyond that, for those of us who believe that life deserves a chance from even earlier, it is a matter of persuasion and conversion, eh? A good Christian cannot expect da State to do the work of changin' the heart of a sinner, that's our job. To give witness; to offer care and compassion; to connect the troubled with loving support. Let the state protect the kids with a heartbeat from those who would profit by their death, that's its role. Let the rest of us work to support da troubled in their time of stress and confusion to make good choices.




Link to post
Share on other sites

The leadership of the GOP is wrong about a lot of things and its propensity to back foreign wars of choice is probably the biggest ... that said, there is a difference soldiers and civilians being killed in the course of war and the intentional murder of those not yet born. Similarly, on the subject of health care, there is a vast difference between someone's dying or suffering from lack of healthcare and the intentional murder of those not yet born. It's the difference between omission and commission.


packsaddle, are you really saying you don't see a distinction between sperm cells and egg cells on the one hand, and an egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell on the other? In the natural course of events, does an egg cell grow into a adult? or a child?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The spay and neuter comment of dogs and cats, go hand in hand with SP comment.. The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more innocent human life than Hitler and Stalin --- combined


Yes there may have been a lot of abortions.. Add to that the Republicans who want to dismantle planned parenthood which is much more about education and contraceptions to keep people from getting pregnat in the first place.. Plus the desire to remove contraception from a womens health plan (and to be honest, the desire that no women use contraception).. The effect is the same as making it illegal to spay or neuter a cat or dog..


They far exceed the number of families wanting to adopt. Now match it to the Republican concept that society should feels no responsibility for the living. That means warehousing them until they die of neglect.


As far as I am concerned allowing a person to die from neglegt or lack of healthcare because their lifetime cap on their insurance ran out, or they could not afford healthcare to begin with, is much more of an intentional murder..


Maybe my view is because of the fact these people currently born do have loved ones who care for them. When this person dies, they will continue life, feeling guilty that they did not have the money to aid them, even if they go so far as to give up everything to the point the whole family is now living on the street.


Also as Beavah says the belief in when life begins with a fetus is based on religious belief. You cannot legislate laws forcing people to follow your religious beliefs. All you will get is rebellion, and many unwanted births that the mothers will feel no responsibility to care for their health in order to have healthy babies, nor will feel any responsibility to once born.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peregrinator, I do have quite a good understanding of the distinction. What I'm saying is that the simple-minded approach I read from politicians of all stripes, including the pro-life people, does not, at its basis, make a meaningful distinction.

Beavah's 'heartbeat' approach is one that is simple, defined in legal terms, and has an obvious legal grey area that should keep courts busy. But at least it's defined in operational terms, not some stupid arbitrary date.

The Catholic Church, IMHO, has the clearest approach in that they also forbid birth control (not many Catholics seem to abide by it though). I don't agree with them but I give them credit for at least being consistent and honest about it.


SeattlePioneer, there may be some scientists and there certainly lots of 'people' who have many things to answer for. But 'science' has nothing to answer for. I do note your anti-intellectual sympathies but I don't agree with them.


Moosetracker, the technologies are essentially ready for application - for people to be able to privately make these decisions and take action at home without involving the medical profession or anyone else. All that is needed is a market incentive and the pro-life forces, if successful, will provide all the incentive needed. Don't worry, technology will take care of things.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot legislate laws forcing people to follow your religious beliefs.


Of course yeh can. We do all the time.


Thou shalt not kill -> felony laws against murder

Thou shalt not commit adultery -> differential treatment of adulterers in divorce cases

Thou shalt not steal -> felony and misdemeanor laws against theft

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor -> laws against perjury and makin' false statements to authorities

Remember to keep holy the sabbath -> blue laws against da trade in alcohol on a Sunday

You are your brother's keeper -> mandatory reporting laws


on and on, eh?


The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.


Besides, there's a scientific answer to da question as well, eh? An unborn child is completely human and completely alive. Don't confuse arbitrary legal definitions of a person's life with actual scientific ones, or you'll be countin' black folks as 3/5ths of a person. ;)


As for da rest, I think it's preposterous to believe that because a mother is stressed at the moment that no one will ever love the child for the rest of his or her life, from birth to adulthood. That's just not rational. All it means is that perhaps, in his or her early life, the child may have challenges. How many wonderful adults do each of us know who had challenges in their early life? I know dozens. One of Mrs. Beavah's best friends; dad died of cancer, mom died in childbirth, she was the "unwanted" addition to da family of a cousin. She's a marvelous person now with a loving husband, kids, and da first grandchild on the way.


Usually, when people go on about the "unwanted", they're imaginin' in their mind poor people of a different class and race, eh? :(


Spayed and neutered are terms that should never be used with respect to humans, in my opinion. There was a time in this country when we did pass laws to sterilize Americans who we felt were unworthy to reproduce, by reason of race or intelligence. It was a sad time in our history which should not be extolled.


Yep, there is an argument to be made for charity with respect to health care, and an argument to be made for family planning. Neither argument, though, has any bearing on da separate issue of abortion. SeattlePioneer has a point, eh? If da Hutus set about executing a million "unwanted" Tutsi babies, liberals would be callin' for armed intervention and war crimes tribunals.


It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.




Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take those as laws from religion. They are laws logical for living within a community. They would be created with our without religion. Societies without religion and those with non-christian religions will come up with similar laws.


Accept maybe the blue laws, which died because you couldn't enforce them, "Bare false witness" which also isn't followed, many times by religious (remember the witch hunts..), You are your brothers keeper (which also is not followed especially by the Republicans who claim they are the more religious party.) Anyway it is not against the law to turn your back on your neighbor.


The mother may be stressed to give birth. But, her stress will have nothing to do with her right to abandon that which she never wanted in the first place. Especially in order for her to live, she must go back to work. Some may keep it.. Most will not.


Currently you have a few children who the mother decided to bare the child, yet give up, a few children who become orphan with no relatives to adopt will be nothing compared to a society that forces birth of millions to throw the child on the trash heap to die of neglect because it is too expensive to pay for their keep. It is the math of the excessive mass of the unwanted babies, that will not allow you the same outcome as what you currently have with the few babies who mothers choose to give birth, but give the child up.


Your religious bubble just can not comprehend that forcing a women to have a baby does not cause her to suddenly "get religion" and feel responsible for said life.. Some may get belated maternal instincts, but not those that resent the loss of their rights by someone who has no right to take it away from them, nor those who could never care for that child because they can not work and tend a baby, and with that mix both would be homeless.


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He has never in his life run or worked in a private business, not even a lemonade stand."


Apparently the law firm he worked for in Chicago - Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard - for four years as a junior attorney doing civil rights, voting rights, employment, real estate, incorporations and handling minor lawsuits 9as a junior level attorney would do) doesn't count as a private business.


If you can't be bothered to check one very easily debunked "fact" about Obama, then why should anyone believe anything, "fact" or opinion, that you post about the subject? An opinion based on provable lies (and the "never in his life worked in a private business is a LIE - no more pussyfooting around about labeling lies for what they are) is about as useful as half a nail clipper is in cutting down a 300 year old burr oak.


"The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more inncocent human life than Hitler and Stalin --- combined."


Having read what Packsaddle has written about haploid cells, allow me to update that little meme:


Assuming one ejaculation per day, with a median of 255 million haploid cells per ejaculation, totalling 9 Trillion, 3 Billion, 75 Million haploid cells per year then a single teenage boy kills off more innocent human life in one year than has ever lived on this planet throughout human history (estimated at 100-115 billion). Now multiply that by the number of teenage boys in the US - all that innocent life wasted.


(Who needs Godwin's Law!)




Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...