Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zai]

...Did we seriously just get a derail from a topic about religion in politics to abortion?

[LegoLord]

Interesting arguments with abortion.  For example:  It may not yet function as most humans, but it is at the most basic levels human; it has human DNA, its cells are compatible with other humans (assuming correct blood type and whatnot - I specifically refer to the use of stem cells), and while the state of being alive is seemingly debatable, it isn't dead.  And it's in a stage of human life we all go through.

But personally, I think there are situations where an abortion is acceptable and situations where it isn't.  Mostly medical reasons, or social reasons that the mother can provide evidence for (not being capable of financially supporting a happy and healthy child).  It isn't forced on the mother, either; she volunteers for it. 

As a side note, that Ken Miller video was awesome.  I'm going to have to bookmark it.

And yes, Zai, it looks like we somehow did.  Crazy world, eh?

[G-Flex]

Interesting arguments with abortion.  For example:  It may not yet function as most humans, but it is at the most basic levels human; it has human DNA, its cells are compatible with other humans (assuming correct blood type and whatnot - I specifically refer to the use of stem cells), and while the state of being alive is seemingly debatable, it isn't dead.  And it's in a stage of human life we all go through.

The thing is that absolutely none of this is terribly relevant ethically. You can say most of those things about a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.

[Itnetlolor]

Strangely enough, I was somewhat keeping in topic, because abortion is also an issue in which religious and Catholic influence exists in politics.

And in regards to situation; we, as a human race, have been raised to be strong regardless of what is in our path; go forth and conquer regardless how much you are beaten down. Rise up and defend your rights; their rights as well. Kick reason to the curb and do the impossible.

If anything, religion is more a belief of will, than a belief in one or many beings. And they, like parents that did plenty of stupid things in their past; are trying to teach these lessons to us to prevent our end. To disregard that is to give up on hope of redemption for our race as a whole. You can say religion is a Gestalt Belief. The whole of it makes up more than the sum of it's parts. This is a point that religion has been trying to make with it's influence on politics for ages.

With the directions being taken not listening to what is being told/warned; I believe the Apocalypse is inevitable, and we won't be prepared for it at all. Ironically, it looks like we'll be the cause of it, and not any occult or supernatural or natural forces. Basically, when we give up all our will, we all will have given up. Thus, the end of the world as we know it.

Now THAT is a derail, if this is further discussed.

EDIT:
Before I get my image confused with any form of zealotry, I'll just end my part of the discussion right here.

FURTHER EDIT:
To fill in any holes between my statements (considering condensed info per post). My observations in regards to my theory, linking with the abortion issue is that: Valuing life is a first lesson of being a god. Whether if you know it will be for the greater good and I mean GREATER good; thoroughly greater as in generations into the future, than an immediate personal preference (which is just plain ignorant and stupid.). You choose poorly, your reasoning and direction, it'll bite you in the ass later. That is my warning there. The difference is easily comparable to a mercy killing, or a cold-blooded murder. The line you cross with your choices is near-invisibly thin.

A second lesson is strength and belief in one's own will. If you will it to happen, it WILL happen; so to put it. Put it to proper use. There are many other lessons in such regards, but I don't know how relevant they would be; and I don't feel like elaborating it anyway. Plus, those are primary issues anyhow. The rest is a mystery to discover as you go on through life.

[LegoLord]

Interesting arguments with abortion.  For example:  It may not yet function as most humans, but it is at the most basic levels human; it has human DNA, its cells are compatible with other humans (assuming correct blood type and whatnot - I specifically refer to the use of stem cells), and while the state of being alive is seemingly debatable, it isn't dead.  And it's in a stage of human life we all go through.

The thing is that absolutely none of this is terribly relevant ethically. You can say most of those things about a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.

I don't know about you, but I've never been a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.  However, I was once a fetus.

[Neonivek]

You also must realise that they don't find out they are pregnant until WAY past the point that they are just skin on a petri dish. (3 months?)

Though I should probably come with better arguements. I shouldn't get involved in this subject since this is a pretty touchy subject for me.

[kuro_suna]

Interesting arguments with abortion.  For example:  It may not yet function as most humans, but it is at the most basic levels human; it has human DNA, its cells are compatible with other humans (assuming correct blood type and whatnot - I specifically refer to the use of stem cells), and while the state of being alive is seemingly debatable, it isn't dead.  And it's in a stage of human life we all go through.

The thing is that absolutely none of this is terribly relevant ethically. You can say most of those things about a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.

I don't know about you, but I've never been a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.  However, I was once a fetus.

If you fiddle with a few chemical switches a skin cell culture could become a fetus.

[Leafsnail]

If you fiddle with a few chemical switches a skin cell culture could become a fetus.

Uh... no.  It can't.

Anyway, I fail to see how any of this is relevant.  Yes, abortion is a moral and ethical issue.  But why are the catholic church better placed to give advice on it than anyone else?

[G-Flex]

Interesting arguments with abortion.  For example:  It may not yet function as most humans, but it is at the most basic levels human; it has human DNA, its cells are compatible with other humans (assuming correct blood type and whatnot - I specifically refer to the use of stem cells), and while the state of being alive is seemingly debatable, it isn't dead.  And it's in a stage of human life we all go through.

The thing is that absolutely none of this is terribly relevant ethically. You can say most of those things about a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.

I don't know about you, but I've never been a skin culture sitting in a petri dish.  However, I was once a fetus.

Whether or not you came from a certain thing doesn't mean that thing is more or less human; that's pretty fallacious.

I was once a couple undifferentiated cells, barely even a zygote. That doesn't mean a couple undifferentiated cells and me are the same thing in any way.

Equating the potential for something with the thing itself is ludicrous.

[ChairmanPoo]

If you fiddle with a few chemical switches a skin cell culture could become a fetus.

Uh... no.  It can't.

*shrug* It's not that unfeasible.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=meet-tiny-a-mouse-grown-from-induce-2009-07-24

Granted, in the above case iPS cells were injected in an already existing blastocyst, but it's not too crazy to imagine a scenario in which said blastocyst was also derived from iPS cells.

[kuro_suna]

If you fiddle with a few chemical switches a skin cell culture could become a fetus.

Uh... no.  It can't.

A skin cell nucleus had everything it needs to become a fetus other than the support structure and chemical signals that exist in the ovum and even this could probably be bypasses with advances that can turn various other cells into stem cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

[Blacken]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

That's not what it means, at all. When it uses the term 'respecting', it should be considered to be in the form of 'paying homage (or disrespect) to', not 'with regard to'. Someone can push for something to be outlawed on moral grounds; their morals may come from religion or not, that doesn't matter. What is unacceptable and unconstitutional is to codify law in terms of a specific religion or group of religions.

I'm honestly not even sure where you're differing from me there. Yeah, someone can push for a law that's based on his own morals, but the law itself cannot be explicitly religious. The reasoning can be implicit, sure, but if the courts find the law's reasoning to be strictly religious, it's unconstitutional.

Here's the thing: courts don't unless it explicitly refers to a religion or religious organization or the law is improperly enforced on a wide scale.

[LegoLord]

I'd like to note that those are not my arguments for banning abortion, as I don't see it as something that should be totally banned (just restricted).  Just some that I've heard.

The not having been a skin culture was mostly me trying to lower the tension.

[Jude]

Oh man, I was just having this discussion via facebook statuses related to abortion. Check it out: according to US law, it's legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy even up to when it's viable to be born and live outside her. This presumably means the fetus, even when it could live on its own, is not human and does not have human rights under the law right?

So let's think about the implications of that. It means a woman can do what she wants with the fetus; it's not human under the law so it must be her property or part of her body. This means that if someone kills a pregnant woman, even if nine months pregnant, that person cannot be be charged with double murder. Property damage at the most. Same if someone force-feeds her some chemical that causes her to miscarry.

And what about the other side? If Roe v Wade were overturned and abortion outlawed on the grounds that a fetus has human rights, that means that women would be committing child abuse against their unborn children by not eating properly, not taking maximum care of their own health, and especially by drinking and smoking while pregnant. I think there would be a decent legal case to be made for this - creating "fetus abuse" as a crime parallel to child abuse (also fetus neglect - which the dad might be guilty of if he LET his wife drink and smoke and didn't do anything to prevent the abuse). And that would mean that women would be required to regularly pregnancy test themselves just in case they were pregnant and must therefore stop all fetus-unfriendly habits.

Either way, it doesn't seem the full implications of personhood, or lack thereof, of fetuses (feti?) have been considered under the law.

[G-Flex]

Oh man, I was just having this discussion via facebook statuses related to abortion. Check it out: according to US law, it's legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy even up to when it's viable to be born and live outside her.

This is only on the federal level. State laws differ. Federally, it's only necessary that women be given the right to abortion if their own risk is at health, whereas the states can impose further restrictions (within limits).

And yeah, that does carry strange implications.

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

That's not what it means, at all. When it uses the term 'respecting', it should be considered to be in the form of 'paying homage (or disrespect) to', not 'with regard to'. Someone can push for something to be outlawed on moral grounds; their morals may come from religion or not, that doesn't matter. What is unacceptable and unconstitutional is to codify law in terms of a specific religion or group of religions.

I'm honestly not even sure where you're differing from me there. Yeah, someone can push for a law that's based on his own morals, but the law itself cannot be explicitly religious. The reasoning can be implicit, sure, but if the courts find the law's reasoning to be strictly religious, it's unconstitutional.

Here's the thing: courts don't unless it explicitly refers to a religion or religious organization or the law is improperly enforced on a wide scale.

Yes, but even if the religiosity is obfuscated, courts can still do something if they establish a link. See: "Of Pandas and People". They had to do some digging (albeit not very much at all) to establish it as religious.