Let it be known...

[Moonbeam]

It occurs to me that one answer to the problem is that all fertilized eggs be assigned to people at random. Everybody who is pro life goes into a lottery pool and winners get to raise any unwanted children. That would be fair because they choose to be pro life.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
My biggest problem with this particular issue is that once the child is born, all these so-called "pro-Lifers" could care less about the child. They should be called "pro-birth" not "pro-life."

As to the subject of embryonic stem cell research: if the embryos being used would've been thrown away and destroyed anyway, might as well use them to something worthwhile.

This keeps getting thrown out there, yet I've never actually heard anyone attempt to explain it. Care to humor me?

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Ahh, but they are not citizens, according to the Supreme Court.

And I would agree.

Based on a literal interpretation of an amendment written at a time when ALL states had laws banning abortion. This seems to indicate to me that they just MIGHT have taken the one sentence that they based their decision on completely out of context, as the amendment would have never passed had it meant what the USSC interpreted it to mean in Roe v Wade. It was actually intended to give equal rights to everyone, which is why it's often called the Civil Rights Amendment, not deny rights to anyone. The language is plain as day unless you have an agenda to the contrary.

M: This is a false representation of my case. It is the desire to have sex, the compelling need for it that is the product of evolution. People who choose to have sex are obeying their hatural healthy instincts and people who abstain do so because of unnatural sexual repression. What you call animalistic I call joy. Sex is natural beautiful and healthy and something everybody wants provided they haven't had their hands slap for touching their weenie and other such methods of torture like inculcating the notion that sex is sin.

CW: It's identically your argument. Someone is 'imprisoned' for acting in the only way they know how? Give me a break. It might be in my nature to kill someone if they rape my daughter, but I exercise personal restraint as a reasonable being. To deny that logic is designed to control our instincts is to deny that which separates us from the animal kingdom. It sounds like you seek to erase the dividing line. Feel free to move to the jungle.

M: On the contrary, you disregard your personal responsibility to enjoy your animal self and relish in the pleasures the body can bring. You bottle up your animal nature which leads you, I fear, to want to enslave women. Your personal responsibility is to enjoy your life and to have responsible sex.

CW: So, what if while I am having 'responsible sex' the woman gets an STD and/or becomes pregnant? Then your entire argument is moot. Since this is a distinct possibility, your argument is moot.

CW: I'd also like to know exactly how you would propose we determine whether an embryo or fetus is aware or conscious and, if you cannot make such a proposal, how you can assume away the mere possiblity that an embryo is a person when this is the very issue at hand. After all, I cannot assume that because someone had a heart attack that they're no longer worthy of any level of respect simply because they're momentarily not conscious.

M: Call it a hunch.

CW: Sorry, but our legal system doesn't allow rights to be restricted or rescinded on a hunch (unless you're in Gitmo, but I would argue that the same standards should be applied there - set them free).

M: It occurs to me that one answer to the problem is that all fertilized eggs be assigned to people at random. Everybody who is pro life goes into a lottery pool and winners get to raise any unwanted children. That would be fair because they choose to be pro life.

CW: Then anyone who supports welfare can pay it in its entirety. Same with SS, socialized medicine, and so on. We're a society and, as such, agree to be bound by the wishes of society. If we don't like them, we can leave or work for change. It is not within society's power to force the entire burden on one individual or a group of individuals.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It occurs to me that one answer to the problem is that all fertilized eggs be assigned to people at random. Everybody who is pro life goes into a lottery pool and winners get to raise any unwanted children. That would be fair because they choose to be pro life.

So you'd throw those genetically liberal eggs into the pit of conservative backwash and have inculcated the philosophy that they are bad and genetically deceived by being conceived... hehehehehe... no pablum for you...


"There are those who stand at the shrine and worship God, those who walk to the shrine and worship the shrine, those who begin the walk and worship the path, and those who stand still and worship their feet. In any moment, they may find what they seek" (I don't know if I made it up or remember it from somewhere so I'll quote....)

 

[Moonbeam]

LR: So you'd throw those genetically liberal eggs into the pit of conservative backwash and have inculcated the philosophy that they are bad and genetically deceived by being conceived... hehehehehe... no pablum for you...

Yup, the difference between me an Cyclo seems to be that he is terrified of himself and I know I'm great. He has no faith in man. And children always grow up to meet their expectations.

LR: "There are those who stand at the shrine and worship God, those who walk to the shrine and worship the shrine, those who begin the walk and worship the path, and those who stand still and worship their feet. In any moment, they may find what they seek" (I don't know if I made it up or remember it from somewhere so I'll quote....)

M: This is the problem of knowing the difference between the container and the content.