Post Reply
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 2:35PM #51
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Aug 14, 2009 -- 9:36AM, kat8765 wrote:


Okay, as far as I know this is not about religion, I think I might have said earlier something about being a Christian but I realize that not everyone agrees with that.  I really don't think abortion is a religious issue at all.  I believe it is a humans rights issue plain and simple.  Pro-choicers choose to give the woman the right to end the life of her unborn child, a member of the family, and pro-lifers try and protect that right to live.  I really don't see how your religion babble does anything.




I was responding to your statement, " I believe God decides when to end a life not humans,"  and to your later statement that medical care is ok, even though according to your biblbe god causes disease as well.  I just want to know where, exactly, you draw the line in usurping your god's special priviledge in deciding the human condition.   


You say that you acknowledge that others do not believe as you do, but you still seem to want to enact national abortion laws to bring medical practice into congruence with your personal faith.  How far would you take it?  Do you think that congress was right, for instance, to hold a special session to have the feeding tube restored to a brain-dead Terri Schaivo?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 2:56PM #52
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Aug 14, 2009 -- 11:45AM, Bei1052 wrote:

Purposely taking what someone typed out of context?



*snort*


Bei, I couldn't take you out of context here if I tried.  For one thing, I quoted almost the entire paragraph.  For another, everyone else here can scroll down and read the whole thread, including you entire post.  


If I treat two individuals differently on the basis of stage of development, is that equality. You'd say yes?


No, I wouldn't.  I don't hold that zefs and born humans are equal and I don't think that they should be treated equally.


But, see, notice how you totally didn't even attempt to address that part of what I wrote out. No, as per usual, you completely and totally ignored it and went off on some unrelated tangent about affirmative action or equal pay or Sonia Sotomayor.


I was thrown off by your statements about women and blacks usurping priviledge from men and whites, which is usually the way someone starts off when they want to whine about affirmative action.  Quite frankly, my interpretation of your words still makes more sense than yours, because your point seems to be so garbled.  No one here is a mind reader (especially over the computer), so you might try to formulate your meaning a little more clearly next time.


...And homeostasis is self-regulated. Just throwing that out there.


Homeostasis is the maintenance of a constant internal invironment.  An adult on a vent requires the vent for homeostasis, and a zef in a uterus requires the woman for homeostasis.  An exothermic animal regulates its internal temperature by moving between warm and cool environments; a human regulates its internal temperature by sweating or increasing its metabolism.  Both practice homeostasis.


homeostasis:


www.thefreedictionary.com/homeostasis


www.yourdictionary.com/homeostasis


dictionary.reference.com/browse/homeosta...


www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homeos...


quote:Word origin: from the Greek: homeo, meaning unchanging + stasis, meaning standing


en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homeostasis (see defn. 2)




Just out of curiosity, Bei, did you read the article that started this thread?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 2:59PM #53
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:12PM, kat8765 wrote:


Example:  I, just for arguments sake, am a deadbeat mom.  My child needs a kidney and I'm a perfect match.  I really haven't had much to do with my child for 10 years so I'd  rather someone else donate and I'd rather keep my kidney to myself.  My child dosen't get a donor and dies.  Now am I directly responsible for the death of my child?  No  Indirectly? maybe.  Did I intentionally kill him? No  Abortion is intentional.  The purpose is to end a life.



No.  The purpose is to end a pregnancy.  The purpose is to free the mother from the unwilling donation of her body functions to the zef.  Why should a zef have more rights to another person's kidneys than a 10 year old?


 


Can we bring this back to Dr. Hern, or is that futile at this point?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 3:14PM #54
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

Aug 14, 2009 -- 3:03PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:12PM, kat8765 wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 10:36AM, newsjunkie wrote:


I have never encountered any human rights statement that includes requiring that one person, against his/her will, give over or share use of his/her body functions, organs, bodily fluids and so on to another person. Do you have a basic human right to take another person's kidney, or their blood, against their will, even if you will die without it? Or does this "right" extend to fetuses only? Do you advocate that someone else's infant child, perhaps, being able to demand and obtain your blood, or your kidney, if they need it to live? Or does a child lose this "human right" you seem to think exists when it's born?


If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?





Are you saying that the right to live comes from religious beliefs?



NJ replies: No, I'm making no claim that an embryo fetus has a "right to live" that requires the woman carrying it to continue giving it use of her body against her will. You were saying your view on abortion didn't have to do with  religion, but instead was a "human rights" issue. Hence my questions about where you believe this human right comes from,if notr religious beliefs. Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?


According to your moral view,as expressed in previous posts on other threads, a non-implanted embryo doesn't have a right to live. Other people say it does. But you claim a "right to live" for an embryo at implantation, then take it away after birth, as per your example b elow. So, where does this particular view of "human rights" or yours come from? Personal opinion? Fine, but why should other people have to live according to your personal opinion? I think you need some basis other than your own personal opinions if you want to convince others to adopt your views and live by them.


  I see this arguement over and over again about forcing someone to give organs or blood even if it will save the life of someone else.  What are you talking about?  I seriously do not see how you can compare that to an abortion. 


Example:  I, just for arguments sake, am a deadbeat mom.  My child needs a kidney and I'm a perfect match.  I really haven't had much to do with my child for 10 years so I'd  rather someone else donate and I'd rather keep my kidney to myself.  My child dosen't get a donor and dies.  Now am I directly responsible for the death of my child?  No  Indirectly? maybe.  Did I intentionally kill him? No  Abortion is intentional.  The purpose is to end a life.  As far as I know we, as innocent humans, have a right not to be intentionally killed.  I'm pretty sure there are laws against that.





NJ Replies: Well, if you can't understand what I'm talking about, which was stated in plain English, I can't help you. It's quite simple, and as you said you've heard the argument over and over, and still can't understand it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain.


 US Law does not equate abortion with intentional killing of another person. It is not considered murder. So your example is moot. If you wish to judge the deadbeat mom as moral, or not morally responsible for the death of her child, and the woman who has an abortion as immoral, that's your prerogative; it doesn't have any relevance in this discussion. Neither the deadbeat mom nor the woman who had a legal abortion would be considered in violation of law.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 14, 2009 - 8:28PM #55
mountain_man
Posts: 39,756

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:12PM, kat8765 wrote:

If not from a religious belief or tradition, where did this "human right" that you say exists come from?



Since gods do not exist, it came from our fellow humans. It is better for YOUR llife, your family, your children, if you live in a society that values human life. No religion needed and in fact, religions such as the christian one has historically held a lesser value for human lives if they are not part of the christian religion.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 12:50AM #56
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:56PM, bluehorserunning wrote:

*snort*

Bei, I couldn't take you out of context here if I tried.



Apparently, you didn't have to try because you did.

For one thing, I quoted almost the entire paragraph.



That prevents you from taking something out of context? 'Cuz I don't think it does.

For another, everyone else here can scroll down and read the whole thread, including you entire post.



Really? Who woulda' thunk someone could do that? Most certainly not I!

/heavysarcasm


Ummm... Yeah. I'd kinda' hope they would do that.

No, I wouldn't.  I don't hold that zefs and born humans are equal and I don't think that they should be treated equally.



...So explain to me again what you're arguing about? Because I don't think yout even know, seeing as how you decided to hop into a conversation regarding equality which you apparently don't care about.

*points to posts #40 and #48*

I guess you only care about equality when it directly suits you, huh?

I was thrown off by your statements about women and blacks usurping priviledge from men and whites, which is usually the way someone starts off when they want to whine about affirmative action.  Quite frankly, my interpretation of your words still makes more sense than yours, because your point seems to be so garbled.  No one here is a mind reader (especially over the computer), so you might try to formulate your meaning a little more clearly next time.



It wasn't "garbled" at all. Perhaps next time you could read more than just two sentences (Like the paragraph underneath it). It'll help.

...And, just for the record, that's not how people start off when they want to "whine" about affirmative action.

Homeostasis is the maintenance of a constant internal invironment.  An adult on a vent requires the vent for homeostasis, and a zef in a uterus requires the woman for homeostasis.



Why stop there? You "require" the earth for homeostasis. But do you really want to play this game? I don't, because it's idiotic, much like your "a ZEF uses a woman's body for homeostasis" quip. On some level, everything is dependant on something else, but no one cares about that when speaking of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the ability of a cell or organism to maintain some sort of internal equilibrium. That's it. Your attempt to attach more meaning to it than that is quite humorous, to put it mildly.

An exothermic animal regulates its internal temperature by moving between warm and cool environments; a human regulates its internal temperature by sweating or increasing its metabolism.  Both practice homeostasis.



And what does this have to do with ANYTHING I've typed out?

*snip links*



...Really? I mean, really?

*shakes head in shame*

Just out of curiosity, Bei, did you read the article that started this thread?



Indeed I did.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 1:37AM #57
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

As usual, Bei, you seem to be speaking a different language than the rest of us.  'Taking someone out of context' means deliberately selecting words that are contradicted or clarified by the rest of the material and using them to imply that the author means something else.  I didn't do that, and I couldn't on this list; maybe my interpretation of your words isn't what you meant, but that's becuause your original meaning was garbled, not because I took anything out of context. 


Also, the links (and the homeothermy vs. endothermy example) were posted because you seem to have an overly-narrow view of the word 'homeostasis.'  You may not agree with me on that, but (as usual) the dictionary(s) agree with me and not you.


Now, do you have any actual comments about the OP, or are you just here to get attention?


p.s. one person nattering about equality does not a discussion make.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 4:21PM #58
kat8765
Posts: 70

Aug 14, 2009 -- 2:35PM, bluehorserunning wrote:




I was responding to your statement, " I believe God decides when to end a life not humans,"  and to your later statement that medical care is ok, even though according to your biblbe god causes disease as well.  I just want to know where, exactly, you draw the line in usurping your god's special priviledge in deciding the human condition.   


You say that you acknowledge that others do not believe as you do, but you still seem to want to enact national abortion laws to bring medical practice into congruence with your personal faith.  How far would you take it?  Do you think that congress was right, for instance, to hold a special session to have the feeding tube restored to a brain-dead Terri Schaivo?




Again, abortion is not a religious issue.  I said it was a human rights issue and instead of commenting on that and try to argue that point, you constantly go back to religion.  Why do you not believe it's about human rights?  Why do you not believe that a fetus deserves the same respect as a grown woman or any other human on Earth?  I'm really curious about your answer.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 4:37PM #59
kat8765
Posts: 70

When I was reading the article I remember reading something about Dr. Hern saying that man was a malignant eco-tumor.  I found this on "Catholic Exchange"  It says this idea is what has motivated him to continue to do what he does.  I'm sure some of you will be fine with this, but this is so sick to me.  How can he say he actually cares about the women when he sees the whole human race as a malignancy on Earth. 


 


www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/090807...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 6:31PM #60
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

Aug 15, 2009 -- 4:37PM, kat8765 wrote:


When I was reading the article I remember reading something about Dr. Hern saying that man was a malignant eco-tumor.  I found this on "Catholic Exchange"  It says this idea is what has motivated him to continue to do what he does.  I'm sure some of you will be fine with this, but this is so sick to me.  How can he say he actually cares about the women when he sees the whole human race as a malignancy on Earth. 


 


www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/090807...




I guess you and lifesitenews don't understand what simile and metaphor are. Oh well.


LifeSite must think this guy* is pretty anti-people; after all he said,


"Everyone today can see that man could destroy the foundation of his existence -- his earth...."


"Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world's mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption."




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


*Pope Benedict

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook