Religion Discussion

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:37 pm

That's cool.

With "sides" I meant "pro-life" and "pro-choice", as the abstract sides in this debate basically; not certain individuals.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:40 pm

Oh, and I'm in opposition to hypocrisy. Oh, and ...

Veilan wrote:With "sides" I meant "pro-life" and "pro-choice", as the abstract sides in this debate basically; not certain individuals.

I'm "pro-bono"

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:50 pm

Veilan wrote:Yes, you've stated. I'm just not sufficiently convinced by it - it could be a reasonable measure, maybe, yeah - it sounds somewhat logical, when can someone feel pain, be self-aware, etc.. I'm just saying it's not convincing me, it's not a hard proof, it's taking one criterion, saying this is the measurement, and voilà, there we are.

Welcome to the abortion debate. There is no one measure that all people accept, as the measure often predetermines the outcome. Mine at least has the advantage of having a logical connection with another measure, and that can't be said of any of the others.

Veilan wrote:I think I did "remember too".

Veilan wrote:I think in this uncertainty, the first order of the day for "pro-choicers" should be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an embryo, at the stage they are suggesting abortion is still okay, is not a living being.

You've said both.

Oh, and for Val, a molar pregnancy can include an embryo:

Partial Mole occurs when the mass contains both the abnormal cells and an embryo that has severe defects. In this case the fetus will be overcome by the growing abnormal mass rather quickly.
An extremely rare version of a partial mole is when twins are conceived but one embryo begins to develop normally while the other is a mole. In these cases, the healthy embryo will very quickly be consumed by the abnormal growth.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:03 pm

And as I've said before, if people were really against abortion, those people should by trying to prevent Unintended pregnancies, the source of abortions. That means promoting birth control and real sex education. The more you encourage birth control, the fewer unintended pregnancies will occur, and therefore the fewer abortions.

In general, studies show there is no psychological harm associated with abortion over that of childbirth. Post abortion depression rates are equivalent to post partem depression rates. Teens who abort do better educationally and economically. Reading anti-abortion literature doesn’t prevent abortion, but it does increase the negative responses of having one, so its effect is only harmful (many states require this literature to be given to girls seeking abortion).

Well, I could go on, but there are very few fence sitters out there on this issue.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:20 pm

White Warlock wrote:I'm "pro-bono"

Is that pro-bono or pro Bono?

Mulu wrote:You've said both.

Confused? I guess that, what, makes me consistent now with...

Veilan wrote:Or summed up for you: I acknowledge and understand both sides, but I do not feel I can comfortably come down on either.

But hey, I could dumb it down even more for ya

.

HEEGZ · Post by **HEEGZ** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:49 pm

zicada wrote:So, do any of you christian republicans support ID (intelligent design) teaching in schools (even science class next to evolution) ?

I'm teaching science these days and next week I start my unit on evolution and Darwin. I'm a christian but not a republican necessarily. I don't really have any plans to teach on intelligent design, but if a student brings it up we will discuss it at least. I don't see any problems with discussing topics that touch on religious beliefs. Whether it's how things were created, bio-ethics, or our responsibilities to the environment, etc. they seem to crop up pretty regularly. Sorry I didn't bother to read the whole thread, just Zic's question in the first post. I thought I'd reply since I'm a (christian) state employee who will be getting paid to teach evolution for the next two weeks.

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:42 pm

HEEGZ wrote:
zicada wrote:So, do any of you christian republicans support ID (intelligent design) teaching in schools (even science class next to evolution) ?
I'm teaching science these days and next week I start my unit on evolution and Darwin. I'm a christian but not a republican necessarily. I don't really have any plans to teach on intelligent design, but if a student brings it up we will discuss it at least. I don't see any problems with discussing topics that touch on religious beliefs. Whether it's how things were created, bio-ethics, or our responsibilities to the environment, etc. they seem to crop up pretty regularly. Sorry I didn't bother to read the whole thread, just Zic's question in the first post. I thought I'd reply since I'm a (christian) state employee who will be getting paid to teach evolution for the next two weeks.

Shame. The real discussion died like a day after the OP; douchebaggery has heinously derailed the thread. I don't think Zic's reading it anymore.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:04 pm

Show me a thread with consistent reasoned discussion here, or that sticks strictly to the OP, after running more than 4 pages.

Veilan wrote:Confused? I guess that, what, makes me consistent now with...
Veilan wrote:Or summed up for you: I acknowledge and understand both sides, but I do not feel I can comfortably come down on either.

But hey, I could dumb it down even more for ya .

Nice try, but you put the burden of proof on only one side - the first order of the day for "pro-choicers" should be to prove beyond reasonable doubt - in fact it's the highest burden of proof under the law, and that's not playing neutral. Not even close.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:44 pm

No, what I stated was that for them, that should be their order of the day - and that if they managed, the discussion was over. It'd be a sufficient condition, probably not a necessary one. It may be the proof required to convince me personally to come off the fence (I haven't seen other arguments that did yet anyway), and if others are okay with having reasonable doubts about it not being the termination of a life, then, fine, that's their opinion.

Of course, I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time continuing to explain to you - if you truly think you can prove that I'm wrong about what I say I believe, and that I in fact believe something different than I say I believe, then you are about as fanatical as the self-righteous "WE KNOW FOR SURE IT'S LIFE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, AND THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE, COZ IT SAYS SO RIGHT THERE" crowd.

But hey, that's what you get for being undecided - attacks from both sides. I thought Dan was wrong about hating everyone wearing a blue shirt when he wears red, but you hate everyone not wearing a blue one when you wear blue, yes? That's just taking it a step further...

Of course, I'm kind of taking the easy way out by saying I'm undecided - I shed myself of responsibility to defend my choice and can keep a mostly intact conscience.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:37 pm

Well, since at the moment, the law is "Its OK", its up to those who want the law changed to "It's not ok" to find and present that evidence.

Personally speaking, I'd like that evidence to be scientific and measurable.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:40 pm

Mayhem wrote:Personally speaking, I'd like that evidence to be scientific and measurable.

Heh, wouldn't we all

.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:29 pm

Veilan wrote:Of course, I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time continuing to explain to you...

Because you love the meta debate?

You can't answer the "is it a person?" question in a vacuum, primarily because there probably is no absolute correct answer. At the extremes it's easy, or should be. A single cell is not a person, a newborn baby is. (The fact that the religious zealots can't admit the first part means there is no room for reasoning). Where is the line of personhood crossed? Hard to say for sure. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances, not just the biology but the sociology as well, because ultimately this is a state police power and civil rights issue. You have to take into consideration such ideas as viability, self-awareness, teen pregnancy rates and outcomes (crime rate, drug use, productivity), women's autonomy, compelling state interests in preventing or promoting abortion and pregnancy, rape, incest, paternal rights, etc. It's a complicated issue that cannot be reduced to a single binary question. Read Roe v Wade and look at all they issues they addressed, and to be quite honest they only scratched the surface. Plus there's been a lot of scientific and sociological progress since then.

SCOTUS went with viability as the pragmatic answer. Pragmatic answers have a lot of benefits, and the fact that the two sides of the issue are both dissatisfied with the outcome means they probably struck a good balance. However, dogma can never be placated with pragmatic results.

And Veilan, you're totally wrong about the outcome if "personhood" could be scientifically proved to occur at say week 26. Remember, you are talking about the same people who deny the fact of Evolution. No amount of scientific evidence is going to convince them of anything.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:38 pm

Mulu wrote:And Veilan, you're totally wrong about the outcome if "personhood" could be scientifically proved to occur at say week 26. Remember, you are talking about the same people who deny the fact of Evolution. No amount of scientific evidence is going to convince them of anything.

Meh, that's probably true, but I guess I still like to think those are not the kind of people that end up making these decisions for all of us.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:41 pm

HEEGZ · Post by **HEEGZ** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:08 pm

Zelknolf wrote:
HEEGZ wrote:
zicada wrote:So, do any of you christian republicans support ID (intelligent design) teaching in schools (even science class next to evolution) ?
I'm teaching science these days and next week I start my unit on evolution and Darwin. I'm a christian but not a republican necessarily. I don't really have any plans to teach on intelligent design, but if a student brings it up we will discuss it at least. I don't see any problems with discussing topics that touch on religious beliefs. Whether it's how things were created, bio-ethics, or our responsibilities to the environment, etc. they seem to crop up pretty regularly. Sorry I didn't bother to read the whole thread, just Zic's question in the first post. I thought I'd reply since I'm a (christian) state employee who will be getting paid to teach evolution for the next two weeks.
Shame. The real discussion died like a day after the OP; douchebaggery has heinously derailed the thread. I don't think Zic's reading it anymore.

Shame I missed it. Although I'm not sure why I bothered since I noticed it had hit 11 pages already... Ah well.