DescentBB

.....when asked yesterday about the new Abortion Bill going into law in Texas(lawsuits galore pending), Rep. Paul stated that
"it should have been the law all along". Now this bill require that all women seeking an abortion in Texas are REQUIRED to get an ultrasound before the procedure, in most all cases completely unnecessary. Their doctors face loss of license if they do not order the testing to be done. My question is this: If someone claims to be for much smaller, less intrusive government, how does that square with a government telling a citizen they have to have an unnecessary medical test performed, and ordering physicians to perfom unnecessary medical testing? I know, ole Ron is about small Federal government and this is a state thing, but still, intrusive is intrusive.

As a related matter, in my mind, Rick Santorum lost all credibility as a small government conservative when he pushed the bill dealing with Terry Sciavo through Congress, with much help. Government that sees Congress and the President target the end of life planning a a single family is about as intrusive as Government gets. Not to mention that 'Bill of Lading" stuff in the Constitution, a document that Conservatives supposedly cherish, but only selected portions of it, apparently.

callmeslick wrote:My question is this: If someone claims to be for much smaller, less intrusive government, how does that square with a government telling a citizen they have to have an unnecessary medical test performed, and ordering physicians to perform unnecessary medical testing?

I'd like to see a link to his quote please.

You're right though. It's certainly not in line with the idea of "individual liberty," but it is in line with his less federal government mantra. Maybe he thinks it's a step in the right direction? I'd be curious to see how he talks his way out of it for sure.

I'm a fan of Ron Paul, but I don't agree on all his policies. I like him mostly because he's honest to a fault and he doesn't want to drop bombs on people. And since we're going to have a government that's completely inept, I'd feel more comfortable with a president who doesn't flat-out lie about 5h!t, haha.

I've just never quite understood the reasoning behind doing this. These people are so concerned about a small clump of cells, but once it's born, they give a ★■◆●. Dont' like abortions? Then don't freaking have one. I don't like vodka, so I don't drink it!

The only purpose I am aware of for getting an ultra-sound is to allow the woman a chance to realize that this is a little life they're snuffing out. From what I've heard it has resulted in a lot of women changing their mind about aborting their baby. Outside of that I don't know. I'm not a doctor. I believe that it should be illegal to provide for an abortion under any circumstance.

Z it's not just a "small clump of cells", ya big clump of cells. Once conceived it is a new life, unique from the mother.

This thread is going to be awesome.

vision wrote:I'd like to see a link to his quote please.

I heard it too. This was actually what he said:

Ron Paul wrote:“.....should always have been a Texas state position.’’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she ... _blog.html


And yeah, he's a hypocrite about keeping that big, invasive government out of our lives, except for certain moral things..............

Sargeant Thorne wrote:The only purpose I am aware of for getting an ultra-sound is to allow the woman a chance to realize that this is a little life they're snuffing out. From what I've heard it has resulted in a lot of women changing their mind about aborting their baby. Outside of that I don't know. I'm not a doctor. I believe that it should be illegal to provide for an abortion under any circumstance.

Don't you think we KNOW that without a damned sonogram? And while getting this sonogram, I'll bet there is some moral persuasion being lobbed like relentless little guilt bombs too.

tunnelcat wrote:I heard it too. This was actually what he said:

Cool, thanks for finding that for me as my lackluster, half-hearted search failed to produce it. I'll use it against my friend who is on the "obsessed" side with his feelings for Ron Paul, haha. Nothing beats a Paul supporter trying to "wake up" another Paul supporter from his kool-aid addiction. I'll be looking forward to Mr. Paul clarifying his position.

tunnelcat wrote:Don't you think we KNOW that without a damned sonogram?

Language! I think you're not going to get anywhere trying to tell me it doesn't do something to a mother when she actually sees her baby for the first time. It does something for all of us when we actually see something, even if we know it exists. Part of society is actively involved in down-playing the humanity of that little person inside of her. How has it become immoral or devious that the other side of the argument desires to show the women proof to the contrary?

A lot of times it seems that people in our day and age are far too willing to lob the accusation of "hypocrite" at an opponent. I'd like a little more evidence of the accusation than just this one perceived inconsistency. From what I've seen Ron Paul is far more consistent than anyone else on the field.

Asking for that proof or being forced by the state to see that truth are 2 separate things. Ron Paul is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He's either FOR the state telling someone how to live their life, or he's AGAINST the state meddling in everyone's personal affairs. He can't cut it both ways. Meddling with what goes on in a woman's body is controlling her personal affairs, period.

tunnelcat wrote:Asking for that proof or being forced by the state to see that truth are 2 separate things.

But now you're creating arguments out of thin air. I was arguing in response to your insinuation that an ultrasound was unnecessary for a woman to fully grasp the ramifications of what she is doing--of what she is killing--when she has an abortion. We were arguing about whether it made a difference, not whether it should be mandatory. You need to recognize your own topic diversions.

tunnelcat wrote:Ron Paul is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He's either FOR the state telling someone how to live their life, or he's AGAINST the state meddling in everyone's personal affairs. He can't cut it both ways. Meddling with what goes on in a woman's body is controlling her personal affairs, period.

First of all, an inconsistency does not automatically make someone a hypocrite, so use English, stick to one argument here, and just call it "inconsistent", or we're getting off track dealing with your unwarranted slight on the man's character.

You're utilizing a deliberate mis-framing of the issue. It's not the women's body that Ron Paul and other conservatives are so concerned about, it's the child inside it. That's the truth of it. It's not the woman's body, it's an unborn child inside of her, at whatever stage of development. No, they shouldn't be required by the government to get an ultrasound, on principle. At the same time that principle doesn't mean jack ★■◆● if its used to govern the killing of an unborn child. I'm not defending the inconsistency, I'm just saying... "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happyness", remember?

It's kind of like having a law where you have to meet your victim's family before you murder him. No it's not consistent with individual liberty but... ...no, its just fucked up to murder people.

I support Ron Paul, but I don't agree with what he did here, in part for the reason you gave.

What he did is consistent with his position on government though. He thinks, like most criminal laws, abortion laws should be handled by the states, not the federal government. I disagree with how he wants his state to handle abortion laws though.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Asking for that proof or being forced by the state to see that truth are 2 separate things.

But now you're creating arguments out of thin air. I was arguing in response to your insinuation that an ultrasound was unnecessary for a woman to fully grasp the ramifications of what she is doing--of what she is killing--when she has an abortion. We were arguing about whether it made a difference, not whether it should be mandatory. You need to recognize your own topic diversions.

You're wrong. Women know full well what goes on inside their bodies. They can FEEL it. The ultrasound requirement is a backhanded ploy by the state to try for an end run around a legal medical procedure as a way to convince a woman to NOT have an abortion. If enough people think abortion is murder, then outlaw it. Plain and simple. But I can guarantee you that it will never be eliminated. It will live on in the black market for all time, illegal or not. And women will die because of it. I guess if Christians are happy with the out of sight, out of mind aspect of illegal abortion, so be it. Personally, I'd rather see it as legal, safe and RARE event.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Ron Paul is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He's either FOR the state telling someone how to live their life, or he's AGAINST the state meddling in everyone's personal affairs. He can't cut it both ways. Meddling with what goes on in a woman's body is controlling her personal affairs, period.

First of all, an inconsistency does not automatically make someone a hypocrite, so use English, stick to one argument here, and just call it "inconsistent", or we're getting off track dealing with your unwarranted slight on the man's character.

You're utilizing a deliberate mis-framing of the issue. It's not the women's body that Ron Paul and other conservatives are so concerned about, it's the child inside it. That's the truth of it. It's not the woman's body, it's an unborn child inside of her, at whatever stage of development. No, they shouldn't be required by the government to get an ultrasound, on principle. At the same time that principle doesn't mean jack **** if its used to govern the killing of an unborn child. I'm not defending the inconsistency, I'm just saying... "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happyness", remember?

It's kind of like having a law where you have to meet your victim's family before you murder him. No it's not consistent with individual liberty but... ...no, its just **** up to murder people.

I said "hypocrite" and I meant it. Paul has a stated belief that the state should stay out of personal business affairs. His whole platform is based on that. Freedom and independence from oppressive government. But he contradicts himself when it comes to abortion. He wants the state to essentially keep track of what goes on inside our wombs. My body is very personal. I certainly don't want the state telling me what I should and should not do with it when I get a medical procedure, especially if it's for religious reasons. I'm for certain Paul doesn't like Obama's health care mandate either, which is the state telling us that we have to buy health insurance.

As far as I'm concerned, anytime the state tells me they know better with what I'm doing with my body, and a pregnancy is part of my body until birth, they have become intrusive. What goes on between a single mother, or a mother and father, concerning the probable termination of a pregnancy, is between them and any belief they have in a God, not the state or a religion. I guess if we were elect Rick Santorum, we'll for sure see the fruits of religious theocracy taking root in the U.S. Contraception, illegal, abortions, illegal, all sanctioned by the state too. If the state outlaws contraception, you WILL see a rise in abortions, legal or not.

It's at best a diversion to slow his rising popularity. Abortion hasn't been a mainstream issue in years, and in the face of our current plight is very low on the list of priorities. If we are gonna allow the destruction of our offspring, the very kindest thing you can do for someone is to educate them to exactly what they are doing. No one is preventing the abortion, but it shouldn't be as easy a decision as gettting a flu shot either. I think that's all Ron Paul was saying.

flip wrote:If we are gonna allow the destruction of our offspring, the very kindest thing you can do for someone is to educate them to exactly what they are doing. No one is preventing the abortion, but it shouldn't be as easy a decision as gettting a flu shot either.

You don't give women enough credit man. Anyone who elects to get an abortion knows exactly what they are doing -- and they usually aren't happy about it. There is no need to add state mandated suffering to the their own feelings of guilt, remorse, and failure. It's a very rare person who equates abortion with a flu shot. And besides that, if you are going to have an abortion, the sooner the better for all parties involved, including the unborn. The reason should be obvious.

Take it this way, showing an ultrasound of the baby is part of a doctor telling you what he is going to do to you when he performs an operation on you. A doctor is required to give you all the relevant information, and in this case, Ron Paul is just supporting this ultrasound as an important piece of information which helps individuals make more informed decisions.

As for the importance of sight, take this example:
We live peaceably everyday knowing that there are people starving in the United States, having never really seen those people or lived with them. If you take some time to see and live with them, your whole perspective changes and you start living less peaceably. Sight is a powerful sense and it changes the way we view the world. Whether or not that new information is rational or not can be up for debate, but I doubt new information could ever be bad. It just allows for more profound answers.

And yes, I know that a mother can feel a baby in her womb, especially once that baby becomes more active. Feeling is also an important sense, but sight can give us so much more information. Every sense has a specifically tuned purpose:
Taste for food.
Smell mainly for reproduction, but also food.
Touch for danger.
Hearing for communication.
Sight for positioning/movement.

Taste, smell, and touch are tied to our instincts. Our instincts are food, sex, and sleep. Along with that, we have to keep ourselves alive.

Hearing is distinctly a rational type of sense. As Aristotle says in his Metaphysics, although it may not necessarily be true, it has some weight, "those which cannot hear sounds are prudent but cannot be taught" (980b). I say this is not necessarily true due to the invention of sign language in the human sphere (of course bees have their dances and ants have their smells, but we are talking about humans here). The primary purpose of hearing is for language which allows for higher thinking. But a woman cannot communicate with her unborn baby because it itself is not yet a rational creature.

Sight is also tied to reason, and perhaps the most basic type of reasoning as it is what most fundamentally connects us with our world. For this reason, the word for seeing is highly tied with the word to know. Someone can either say, "I see that" or "I know that" and that person will mean the same thing. This is not distinctly an English phenomenon. It is a phenomenon deeply rooted in western language. What one knows via sight is basic because it is just the presence of a thing. We need language to get more profound. In the case of the ultrasound, sight shows us in the most natural way the presence of the baby. Of course language will allow for a higher understanding of what that baby is, but leave that for those who wish to discuss philosophy. The state merely needs to provide for the mother information on presences by which the mother makes decisions based on her own higher rational functions. Hopefully this reasoning shows how sight is the best way to show these presences.

tunnelcat wrote:You're wrong. Women know full well what goes on inside their bodies. They can FEEL it. The ultrasound requirement is a backhanded ploy by the state to try for an end run around a legal medical procedure as a way to convince a woman to

Sorry, TC, that's not what's being seen in women who change their mind after they see their baby on ultrasound. Also it's a foolish argument in my mind to assert that seeing the child doesn't give a woman anything new, intellectually or emotionally.

tunnelcat wrote:If enough people think abortion is murder, then outlaw it. Plain and simple.

I absolutely agree.

tunnelcat wrote:But I can guarantee you that it will never be eliminated. It will live on in the black market for all time, illegal or not. And women will die because of it. I guess if Christians are happy with the out of sight, out of mind aspect of illegal abortion, so be it. Personally, I'd rather see it as legal, safe and RARE event.

I'm gonna bypass the guilt trip. If a woman wants to kill an inconvenient child, and that's the vast majority right there, then she can deal with the consequences in a country where it's illegal to surgically kill unborn children. Your "legal, safe, and RARE event" is ridiculous, and frankly I feel that my intelligence has been insulted. You either support abortion or you don't, maybe you need to figure out which it is. I think you support it. Either that or you've bought a bunch of propaganda and you need to rethink it. Once its "legal" it has money behind it. It doesn't truly matter how much you want it to be "RARE", it's going to happen... a lot.

tunnelcat wrote:I said "hypocrite" and I meant it. Paul has a stated belief that the state should stay out of personal business affairs. His whole platform is based on that. Freedom and independence from oppressive government. But he contradicts himself when it comes to abortion. He wants the state to essentially keep track of what goes on inside our wombs. My body is very personal. I certainly don't want the state telling me what I should and should not do with it when I get a medical procedure, especially if it's for religious reasons. I'm for certain Paul doesn't like Obama's health care mandate either, which is the state telling us that we have to buy health insurance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this scenario the state isn't keeping track of anything until you come in and tell a doctor that you want him to kill the baby in your womb. Then the proposed state law requires that your doctor give you an ultrasound scan first, presumably to face you with the full picture of what it is you're doing... and you, wanting abortions to be "RARE", have a problem with that... That strikes me as being inconsistent. You blame the proposed law on "religious reasons", and you ignore valid reasons that myself and others have given--reasons you yourself might care about if they weren't being voiced by a group you are so antagonistic toward.

Here's how I see it: it is not in the hospital's interest to dissuade the patient from going through with a procedure that for them is very lucrative--part of their livelihood, in fact. I believe this is why some people in Texas--and Senator Ron Paul--want to make it mandatory that these mothers be shown fully, up front, what it is they're going through with. ...I've heard that women who have gone through with abortions have suffered terribly with guilt after the fact.

vision wrote:You don't give women enough credit man. Anyone who elects to get an abortion knows exactly what they are doing -- and they usually aren't happy about it.

You could give people that much credit on all kinds of issues, and be just as wrong. People don't always weigh their situations correctly--in full valuation of all of the facts and ramifications of their actions. Suicide, murder, career choice...--the list is long. It's who we are, and its why we benefit from counselors, reminders, public service announcements (heh), documentaries, knocks upside the head, ...

vision wrote:There is no need to add state mandated suffering to the their own feelings of guilt, remorse, and failure.

A liberal argument devoid of any real reason. You weigh the feelings of one mother in a thousand who supposedly must go through with the procedure against the lives of a thousand unborn babies and you find the thousand lives wanting!



One last remark...

tunnelcat wrote:But I can guarantee you that it will never be eliminated. It will live on in the black market for all time, illegal or not. And women will die because of it. I guess if Christians are happy with the out of sight, out of mind aspect of illegal abortion, so be it.

Excuse me while I go cry myself to sleep at the thought of the death toll going from millions of innocent unborn babies who would have grown into men and women to mere hundreds of women dying on the black market trying to do the deed. No one dead is better, but that trade-off is a real no-brainer.

In the end I still say we haven't heard the entirety of this matter. I did a brief search the other day that turned up nothing but headlines. I'll give it another try. I haven't entirely finishes mulling over it in my mind as to whether it is constitutional or not that government preside over such a matter. Sometimes it's hard to see things from that point of view when people are talking about whether or not killing a child should be allowed. The first thing that jumps to mind is "hell no it shouldn't be allowed!". The problem is that limited government and killing babies are indeed two separate arguments. But how can a government protect the life of a young and old individual, and not that of an unborn? Because people in support of abortion like to call it merely part of a woman's body? Not good enough for me.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Because people in support of abortion like to call it merely part of a woman's body? Not good enough for me.

Too bad. If it's inside and attached to a person, guess what? It's part of that person no matter how much you want it to not be. Reality man, take a drink.

Someone spiked your reality. I said "merely". An unborn baby is a unique individual, biologically.

It breaks down into when and where we derive our rights. We could derive many of our important rights at conception or else sometime later over time. If you think we derive our rights from some supernatural possession such as a soul, then you tend to gravitate toward thinking we derive rights such as our right to life at conception. If you think we derive our rights from some natural faculties, such as our self-awareness or ability to reason, to name a few, then you tend to gravitate toward thinking we derive our rights over time as these faculties develop.

I fall into the latter camp, so I see early abortions as not being hugely immoral and Paul's position then as unnecessary government intervention. But put yourself in his shoes--if you saw all abortions as hugely immoral, then would this law he supported still be unnecessary government intervention?

Rights are guaranteed by a piece of paper and the agreement of all to adhere to them. Shifting sand to say the least. What about the right to life? I see it as immoral to snuff out someone else's future to save your own, so like Thorne, I would find other solutions than death, but that is not the world we live in. So, I see it like this. If one side won their right to abortions then to appease those that think it is immoral, a certain awareness should be given to those about to perform the act. It's not much, but at least then there is no excuse.

We have to have eye tests to get a license. We have to pay 30% or more of our income for taxes. You can't drive over the speed-limit. You cannot legally sit in you house and smoke a joint. You cannot drive and drink. There's a huge amount of restrictions already on personal freedoms and people make a big deal about someone having to look at an ultrasound before they abort their child.

flip wrote:What about the right to life? I see it as immoral to snuff out someone else's future to save your own...

So you are equally against all war and you're a vegetarian who is actively against cruelty to animals? Or is the immorality of killing another to save yourself arbitrary, based on the shifting-sands of your own moral compass?

flip wrote:There's a huge amount of restrictions already on personal freedoms and people make a big deal about someone having to look at an ultrasound before they abort their child.

Yeah, that's the whole point. We already have too many restrictions on freedom. This is one more we don't need. It's a silly, silly law that doesn't address the problem of why there are abortions in the first place. That's where the energy needs to be focused, not on "guilt-trips."

Ron Paul dropped the ball.

The founders of this country were of the persuasion that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Do you think this began at conception or at a certain stage of development? How does the inalienable right to life--to exist--beginning at a certain stage of development and not at the conception of that life?

So you are equally against all war and you're a vegetarian who is actively against cruelty to animals? Or is the immorality of killing another to save yourself arbitrary, based on the shifting-sands of your own moral compass?

I see animals as wholly different from humans. Animals, for all practical and observable purposes are food in my eyes. I like my steak medium-well please, but to answer your question, I can sum it up in this way. I am for the orphan, the weak, the helpless and the widow and the preservation of life. Abortion and War are both facts of life that have to be dealt with, but if I were to take a life myself, it would be under huge duress and to defend those that can't defend themselves.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The founders of this country were of the persuasion that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Do you think this began at conception or at a certain stage of development? How does the inalienable right to life--to exist--beginning at a certain stage of development and not at the conception of that life?

I don't believe we are endowed by a creator with rights at any time, or even if we are, then it doesn't matter. How would we even know which rights the creator has endowed to whom and when? What if a creator unendowed all of my rights yesterday without telling anyone? You could have been murdering me all day long without moral repercussion if you had only known! What if we all have been living the last ten years without any creator-endowed rights? The horror! We could have been murdering each other all this time! This seems like a very flimsy moral basis for rights to me.

Not all life has the right to life, just like not all life has the right to vote. We have no qualms recognizing the right to vote only after a certain level of development.

I hear they considered it self-evident. I guess it's a sign of the times.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Because people in support of abortion like to call it merely part of a woman's body? Not good enough for me.

Too bad. If it's inside and attached to a person, guess what? It's part of that person no matter how much you want it to not be. Reality man, take a drink.

That's my point of contention vision. ST, the fetus IS part of our bodies and dependent on it to survive. Until it's born, it's not a separate entity with it's own rights, although Christians are pushing that idea. But whether they like it or not, it's not a "person" yet. Change the definition all you want, but a fetus only has a 50/50 chance of survival by 24 weeks. That's halfway through the pregnancy! Most abortions are in the first term too. Before that point however, it's just a mass of cells with no thought processes. Sure it's programed to be a human, but it can't live on it's own. Until it leaves the body, it's totally dependent on the mother to exist. My body, my decision. Not yours. If you were a woman ST, you might have a slightly different perspective on who you think should control your body. It is very personal.

Beyond abortion, how far do we go in micromanaging reproduction? Is the state going to regulate and legislate morality on whether a woman can smoke, take drugs or drink alcohol? All of those activities can harm or kill a fetus. At what point do you regulate a woman's health for the benefit of a fetus? Is the state going to micromanage a woman's life until she's past the age of fertility? We're also forgetting a woman is still an individual with her own rights. She has the choice, not the church, not the state.

Sure, a doctor can do a sonogram to show the mother what the fetus looks like. I see no problem with that. But I don't like the idea of it being a state mandated requirement. The doctor can and should be free to suggest the procedure if he has a moral objection about it. Most doctors have a moral compass. But personally, I wouldn't have an abortion, but I stop at telling other women that they can't have one if they had to have one.

And on a similar life topic, I also don't like the idea that we as individuals can't decide, ON OUR OWN, to end our lives peacefully and painlessly when we're near the end of life and in pain from some terminal illness either. We are more humane to our pets than our elders. We've become so myopic and focused on saving life, no one is trying to improve the quality of life once we're here.

No, a developing child is NOT a part of a woman’s body, that’s like saying the seed is part of the pot of dirt. The mother only provides a vessel, and nutrition for the growing child, the proof of that is the immune system.

If human’s laid eggs…would you still have the right to abort, using the same reasoning?

And, the problem I have with Jeff’s reasoning….you can’t be a fraction of a human. Just think if we applied that reasoning to retarded people.

Adult Human…100% right to live
Young Child…80% right to live
Retarded Person…maybe 50% right to live
Dog…25% right to live
Cat…KILL IT!

And yes, all life has the same right to exist, the right to life also cannot be fractionalized. The taking of life should only be done be done out of absolute need. (survival)

I just thought of an awesome solution to the abortion problem. We should change all the laws so women can give a baby up for adoption before it's born. All the people who want to save babies can take all the fetuses and raise them until parents are found. Everyone wins! No more abortions!

Spidey, the "right to life" perhaps isn't always the right way to put it, especially when talking about non-people, but we do have differing moral responsibilities toward life depending on the life in question. You don't have to look any further than the laws that we already have on the books. If I calously murder a person, then I might get life in prison. If I calously kill a dog, then I might serve very little time. If I calously kill a cockroach, then no one bats an eye. Something is going on there.

If I can only kill life for survival, does that mean I can't kill a cockroach in my home or pull a weed from my backyard?

Most people think that after a person suffers enough brain damage, then we can pull the plug. In fact, some would say that "he" would be already dead.

Nice…avoid the only question in my post, then use silly examples to make a counter point to my opinion.

The killing of insects in your home can be considered survival…and I will make an exception for the weeds.

Your final statement is a matter of conjecture regarding just how many people would consider this person to “already be dead” and is sort of a trick statement…removing the “plug” would only return the situation to a natural state, and that person may or may not die at that point.

Well this thread certainly confirms why abortion is one of the handful of topics that you mention on the Internet at your own peril.

What makes me laugh is that the men on here seem to know everything about women. Thorne seems to "know" that seeing a sonogram will influence a woman's decision and Spidey--even though he's not a doctor--seems to know for certain that a fetus is separate from the woman, even though the fetus only grows as a result of the woman's own body. Women aren't walking incubators, it's their body and it's their choice. Perhaps we educate children better about safe sex and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies? Oh wait, let me guess, you guys are also for strict abstinence only education right?

zuruck: you've hit the nail on the head as to why debate here just sucks.

hardly anyone knows what they're talking about, yet they try to "outsmart" each other.

Spidey wrote:Nice…avoid the only question in my post

Your only sentence ending with a question mark wasn't directed at me, or at least it shouldn't have been, since I've done nothing to argue for (or against) fetus == woman's body in this thread (or, to my knowledge, ever). If you really need an answer, then you'll have to make do with "I don't know."

Spidey wrote:then use silly examples to make a counter point to my opinion.

If you think they're silly, then tell me why. The fact of the matter though is that what kind of life you kill can have a significant impact on your future legally. If you kill a person, you're in a lot of trouble. If you kill a dog, you're in a little. If you kill a cockroach, you're in none at all. If you think it's silly to distinguish between these cases, then I'm glad it's by treating cockroaches like people and not people like cockroaches!

Spidey wrote:The killing of insects in your home can be considered survival

I knew a Buddhist who did the index card under the plastic cup trick to throw cockroaches back out into the backyard. I use more of a shoe approach myself though admittedly only because of the minor increase in convenience.

Spidey wrote:Your final statement is a matter of conjecture regarding just how many people would consider this person to “already be dead”

Alright, you can ignore the last sentence if you want since it was speculatory, but not the one before it. It would certainly be legal to pull the plug, and I see no pressure from anyone to get the law changed.

Spidey wrote:and is sort of a trick statement…removing the “plug” would only return the situation to a natural state, and that person may or may not die at that point.

You can imagine a situation where we were certain that a person would die immediately after pulling the plug. I don't know how relevant the returning to a natural state bit is though--returning-to-a-natural-state an entirely different person could easily lead to a prison sentence!

---

Spidey, other than pointing out some counterexamples, I'm not so much trying to directly refute your idea that you shouldn't kill any life unless it directly threatens yours. I personally don't agree with it, but it seems harmless enough. What I'm at least trying to do is point out that the belief that we have different moral responsibilities toward different life isn't uncommon or radical--in fact, it's even prevalent in our laws.

Why do you have to be a doctor to understand anatomy? Zuruck, you seem to think it is a part of the woman’s body, what makes you so sure…are you a doctor?

Jeff:

All of what you say does nothing to make the case that a dying man is only part human, less than human, or has any less rights then he did when healthy.

You sidestepped the issue of “somewhere in between” and went right to the other extreme. (dead)

Here, this question is directed right at you….

Does a retarded person have less human rights than a normal person?

Yes, the laws differ as to killing different kinds of animals and the conditions under which you do the killing…but none of this goes to something’s inherent right to live.

And, just to be clear…I didn’t say this…” you shouldn't kill any life unless it directly threatens yours” I said “survival” which can include such things as food, health, safety…etc.

Jeff250 wrote:I knew a Buddhist who did the index card under the plastic cup trick to throw cockroaches back out into the backyard.

Add another Buddhist to the list. I lived in a lightly infested apartment with roaches ranging from small to thumb-sized. I never killed a single one. I did, however, catch a few a day with the cup/paper method and escort them outside. Eventually I won, and there were no more to be seen in my apartment ever again.

I'll kill a cockroach dead. Nasty Buggers.
I put cockroach in the vermin class. A necessary evil. They are only there to pick up after people who don't pick up after themselves. I honestly can't think of anything else I'd kill except for ants. I hate ants too.

Spidey wrote:All of what you say does nothing to make the case that a dying man is only part human, less than human, or has any less rights then he did when healthy.

I wouldn't want to make that case.

Spidey wrote:Does a retarded person have less human rights than a normal person?

Sometimes; for instance, they may have legal guardianship even into adulthood.

Spidey wrote:Yes, the laws differ as to killing different kinds of animals and the conditions under which you do the killing…but none of this goes to something’s inherent right to live.

If that's true, then it doesn't seem like I have to address the right to life, since the way you've casted it makes it seem no longer relevant to this debate. If all life has the right to life, and I can kill a bug willy nilly, then it can't be a very relevant concept that I should have to worry about. (I think it should be a relevant concept; I just don't think all life has it.)