Posts by Abaddon

109

Pro-life arguments

by Skimmer in

jw
friends

a thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .

through (following down the links the left side of each page) .

Thanks for a more decent reply, although you just ask questions as distinct from making any attempt to tell me why your belief should be imposed on me or others against their will it is better than the tide of c&p you doing. You could actually try responding to the points I made you know, but then I do realise my arguments are as irrelvent to you as yours are to me.

If you are so damned sure that a human fetus "with low active neurological complexity" is unworthy of life due to being a temporary inconvenience to another, then please tell me the point in time when a human fetus becomes a human person that is worthy of life.

Read my posts, the answers are there. I refer to 'early term' pregnancy and I think also 'first trimester'. I also use the phrase 'well regulated medical system' or something like that. Identification of an unwanted pregnancy in a 'well regulated medical system' normally takes place so a termination can take place within the first trimester; in the UK for example 87% of abortions were carried out before 13 weeks (when the fetus weigh under one ounce), including 55% under 10 weeks (when the fetus weight 1/6th of an ounce), with only 2% taking place over 20 weeks and 1% over 22 weeks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4720143.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4636991.stm). If we assume a higher % of brain to body mass (than at birth) of 20% then we have a brain weight of 5 grams at 13 weeks which is less than a opossum but more than a guinea pig (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html). At ten weeks the brain weight is about that of a sparrow, if not less. I personally feel that one can abort a fetus at 13 weeks without any real qualms as I feel there is no evidence such an early term fetus is in any meaningful way equivalent to an adult human or new born with a normally functioning brain. In a decent medical system abortion for social reasons after 16 weeks shouldn't be necessary. But I would choose my fiance over a 36 week fetus in the blink of an eye if I had to; I'd save her first if she were incapacitated in a house fire, why should it be different in hospital?

Now, if you want to BELIEVE that something that in total weighs less than an ounce and has considerably less brain tissue than a rabbit (13g) or a cat (30g) is the same as an adult or a new born, fine. But you still fail to PROVE to me that an early-term fetus should be treated the same as an adult or a new born. By claiming a 'person' can be crammed into such a small brain you are making what is essentially a superstitious paranormal claim. Even if it isn't religiously predicated it performs as well as most religious beliefs as far as its provability goes. It ranks up there with throwing salt over your shoulder if you spill salt, believing breaking mirrors brings seven year bad luck, or that the bread and wine turn into bits of Jesus in the Eucharist. I am still waiting for you or someone else who is claiming the Bible prohibits abortion to back-up this false claim.

109

Pro-life arguments

by Skimmer in

jw
friends

a thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .

through (following down the links the left side of each page) .

Abaddon

emy

Convicted murderers in a court of law facing a possible death penalty have MANY more rights than,unborn babies in their mothers' wombs.

Because even after you 'load the language' convicted murders are human beings with personalities, and 'unborn babies' (are eggs 'unborn chickens'?) of an age where abortion would be given for social reasons in a well-regulated healthcare system are not human beings with personalities.

If someone doesn't have a personality, then they are not someone.

Moral equivalency is neither moral or equivalent, i.e., convicted murderers being compared to unborn children.

Actually, you can't compare them, for the reasons given above. And yes I am being semantically awkward. It's a gift

And don't try to distort what I say by using 'loaded language' - I'm sure you don't do it deliberately. You feel strongly and see a fetus and think of something with a personality or a brain that could even begin to sustain one of any comparison to an adult, even if this belief means cats should have human rights.

I make it very clear I think abortion at an early stage is not a moral issue. I state why. You have no answer to the grounds I state why (you don't have to, that was my initial point, my argument is irrelevant to you so why should you bother responding to it?).

I am saying (to put it clearly) that comparing humans with low active neurological complexity (early term fetuses and before, brain dead, et. al.) - I use the phrase as I believe it is self explanatory and highlights what I think is important - to humans with high active neurological complexity (even if they are low functioning or criminal) is not right. To make a fuss about the death of something with as much brain tissue as a rabbit and apparently calmly accept that INEVITABLY the death penalty kills innocent people is to me nonsensical. The potential to kill innocent people is one of the reasons why most civilised countries have abandoned it, apart from the big killers, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and the USA - I guess 'axis of execution' is a good term for that group, although seeing two 'mad' Muslim states and the last resting place of the 'red menace' grouped like that with the USA MUST give you some pause for thought.

You bandy around 'unborn children' like it is anything more than emotive loaded language as there is no 'child' there in any meaningful sense of the word in the examples I have given, and have nothing to say about the 'innocent but executed'. See how easy and pointless it is to get away from facts? I won't if you don't.

And if your beliefs are not FACTUAL, then fine, have them, but don't pretend it would then be reasonable to force another to share them.

I know you can gave me reasons why you think abortion is wrong all day long. What I want is for you or another anti-choicer to give me reasons why I would think an early-term abortion would be wrong, or why I would think it was fair and reasonable for you to prevent another from seeking the same. You don't approve, like nor will ever have an abortion. I'm never going to force you.

What makes your opinion better than mine (or more accurately of woman seeking an early-term abortion)?

Skimmer

It would be nice if you debated more and cut and paste less. I appreciate you have strong opinions about this but would rather I heard them from your own fingers instead of having you wave your mouse around and try and 'win' (an unwinnable debate, LOL) by sheer weight of verbiage. By all means cite fact, but use largely your own words or be ignored - something which you pretty obviously don't want to be on this issue.

Your mention of how black people (and other racial groups) were considered of less worth than European or 'whites'; and what has that to do with anything? Black people had personalities then as they do now, just like the Europeans who held themslves superior, so such an attitude was unsupportable. Early term fetuses will NEVER have personalities like even a new born can be said to have a personality; even in a million years time they won't have the brains for it (although cats might evolve by then, it's quite unlikely fetus brains will be bigger or more complex than now, there's no selection pressure for this).

Why not a straight answer to a straight question? Do you feel the Bible prohibits abortion? If so, why? Chapter and verse please. That one is obviouly open to all and sundry; and if any one sees sundry, tell him he owes me a fiver

And yes everyone, maybe humour is inapproriate in an abortion rights debate, but it's sorely needed. I mean, it's not like we were talking about people*, is it?

*people; entities with active neurological complexity and personalities

Which of course goes back to my point.

Anti-choicers believe early term fetuses are 'people'. Some even believe embryos, gamates or blastocysts are 'people', some want spermatozoa to have rights too (the Roman Catholic Church, or 'Free the Sperm Society').

And not one can show (demonstrate, prove) that spermatozoa, gamates, blastocysts, embryos or fetuses are 'people'. All they can do is say that they are 'people'.

Because it is a belief, and yet they want to impose this belief on what are definately people; women.

It would be nice if an anti-choicer actually made an attempt to get at the core of the argument for this pro-choicer.

Of course, you don't have to, my argument is of no relevence to you. And yours thus far is of no relevence to me. Which in a secular stte is entirely the point.

Only you can change that!

109

Pro-life arguments

by Skimmer in

jw
friends

a thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .

through (following down the links the left side of each page) .

Abaddon

Ah, the quintessential recurring unsolvable debate; what we have here ladies and gentlemen is two paradigms. The arguments of relevance for one are irrelevant to the other and vice-verse.

But I find the following points of interest even if others don't.

Firstly, saying 'prostitution and drug use are illegal; therefore restriction of a person's freedom of action with their own body is okay' is not a good argument; it assumes that drugs and prostitution being illegal is right, when this is certainly open to much argument.

Secondly, the Bible does not outlaw abortion; not once, no where. Despite there being a separate word for it, despite abortion being a known practise in Biblical times, the word is not used and whilst boiling baby goats in their mother's milk and wearing a fringe round your garments does get into the Mosaic Law, abortion does not. Please prove me wrong. But to start, think about the word for a living soul in Hebrew and how this cannot apply to the unborn.

Thirdly, if a fetus representative of the average abortion in a well-ordered medical system is a person, then so is small rodent. Small rodents and first trimester fetuses have equivalent levels of neurological complexity. Do some research on brain weights. Of course, if you believe some divine spark enters the egg on conception then you are pushing a religious argument of no value in secular society and may as well start handing out head-scarves.

Fourthly, if 'human potential' is so important (as small rodents will always be small rodents but a percentage of fertilised human ova would one day be born if they weren't aborted), then why do anti-choicers not show the same level of concern to the children of the poor whose human potential is being cast aside? Why is it right to stop a woman getting an abortion yet okay to support political policies that condemn many children to gross disadvantage?

Fifth; between 40 and 60% of conceived eggs spontaneously abort before the mother is aware she is pregnant. Anti-choicers apparently hold the blastocyst or far greater import than 'mother nature'.

Sixth; many animals spontaneously abort if conditions are not right for giving birth. Humans certainly can't d this naturally, but then there are lots of things that humans cannot do naturally that they do everyday, so why should a human aborting if conditions are not right for giving birth be so wrong?

Seven; if killing people is wrong, why is killing unborn 'people' 2.5 cm long okay, but killing people by judicial execution okay? It's not like the death penalty has never killed innocent people.

Eight; great apes and dolphins have intellectual and emotional complexity approaching that of humans, and way way more than that of even a second term fetus. Why is it okay to kill them?

Nine; I firmly believe if human fetuses looked like lizards, no one would give a $hit. The fact they look like tiny humans is what skews the debate. Yet people see the (if we are talking about fetuses or embryos of an age where abortion would normally take place) apparently human appearance yet fail to consider the already made point about neurological complexity.

Ten; if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

32

Is Satan getting a bad rap?

by lovelylil in

jw
friends

the thread on spiritism got me thinking about all the ridiculous things the jw's in my hall blamed on satan.

like their kid getting a cold and they had to miss the meeting or getting a flat tire on saturday, thus missing field service.. i always wondered if satan is such a powerful spirit creature, why the hell would he waste his time flattening tires or causing a runny nose?

you would think he would be causing wwiii or another plague or something!.

Abaddon

Ah, poor old Satan. Always gets the bad rap, indeed. Vanilla Ice I seem to remember...

Just because he won't let god be the boss of him he's a bad guy. Seems one person's Satan is another's freedom fighter.

As for Satanism, it's mostly athesm with a sense of humour and gothic sensibilities.

And indeed it is funny how instead of all the demons in the world massing their powers against two guys in a ICBM launch bunker and starting WWIII, they concentrate on social misfits with diagnosable psychological problems.

I've tried getting baked and shouting 'Satan', does nothing for me. I tried to sell my soul to him once, bastard wasn't even interested. Why should I advertise for him?

21

Is violence ever justified or acceptable?

by ThomasCovenant in

jw
friends

sorry if this has been discussed a thousand times before.. .

my heart says no let's all get along and love each other and show respect to the individual.. my mind says yes.

unfortunately not everyone else agrees with the above.

Abaddon

Violence is only justifiable if it is to prevent harm to an innocent party. As cog dis points out, it shouldn't be a vauge feeling you might be at risk, but either a response to an actual physical assault or a proactive attack to pre-empt an attack that any reasonable person (i.e. a jury) would assume was unavoidable.

If a woman is being abused by a violent husband is she 'justified' to physically cause him violence to stop it?

Yes. Even if it is pro-active. A woman who has provably been physically abused for some time by a man and who professionals agree was in fear of her life but trapped in the abusive relationship and incapable of leaving should not go to jail for killing him in his sleep.

If a child grows up and later meets his sexual abuser is he justified in causing the abuser physical harm?

No.

I was reading at the weekend in a national newspaper about the systematic mass violent rape that is taking place in one of the central African countries. There were reported cases of husbands being forced to watch their wives and daughters being gangraped with wooden objects to the extent that the womens internal organs are now totally ruined..
If that husband managed to break free would he be justified in causing physical harm to those abusers?

I'd kill them if I got free, and think it quite reasonable to do so.

I see it this way; every one has a right to life and to not be physically attacked. Anyone attacking another voids their right to not be attacked, anyone trying to kill voids their right not to be killed, and if there is a grey area (is the guy just attacking me is he trying to kill me?) I am not going to stop defending myself until he is incapacitated or dead.

(hit send to soon)

29

Tipping your hat to a lady is demonic

by marmot in

...according to the watchtower.

i don't have access to the watchtower library right now (i've only got a mac) but i remember laughing my arse off when i read that in an old questions from readers.

apparently tipping your hat to a lady is considered demonic because it shows deference to the lesser of the sexes, a man putting himself below the woman and other rambling "reasoning" about its origins in medieval times and such garbage.

Abaddon

It all depends on why his hat is at an angle...

8-P<

39

My Opinion: The Majority of ExJWs Are Quite Reasonable!

by minimus in

jw
friends

thankfully, as a group, we're pretty normal, don'tcha think??

?

Abaddon

The Majority of ExJWs Are Quite Reasonable

I'm not.

47

Linguistic Scholar Chomsky: "Manufacturing Consent" (about news media)

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

"manufacturing consent" explores the the propaganda model of the corporate owned news media:.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=chomsky&total=2145&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8 .

Abaddon

Roller Dave

Chomsky is a marxist hack.

BTW, that's a very nice Ad Homonym you got going there

And you are a hypocrite. Attacking someone with an ad hom and then criticizing someone for an ad hom leaves no logical alternative. Or do you not understand the term?

What I object to is that this fool basks in the title 'greatest living scholar' when he is best known for his 'work' outside his field, in the realm of opinion.

Well, for a start, that's a straw man. Please prove he "basks in the title 'greatest living scholar'"; other people calling him that is not proof he 'basks' in it. It proves you have chip on your shoulder, if anything. And you know what about linguistics exactly? Please, give us some benefit from the breadth of your knowledge and tell us who IS the world's greatest linguist?

And, if you are a clever as you seem to think you are, where are the fallacies in his argument, say over 9/11?

~~~

The wiki article cited shows that in a career of several decades, Chomsky has made a few mistakes in quotation which have been admitted, and in the area of theoretical lingusitics has a few people who disagree with him, and has been subject to what was normally little more than character assassination by the attack dogs of the right.

As the most fervent critics of Chomsky support a political regime that was either totally incompetent in its assessment of the reasons for war or deceitful in its presentation of facts to garner support for a war, I really don't know what point they are trying to make - maybe that they lick the ass of their policial love whilst if defecates in their face, and then turn their besmeared face to criticize others of supposed faults?

But as they support a regime that has used repetition to convince the public of lies (who else are responsible for so many Americans still believing falsehoods over WoMD?) using the repetition of attacks (most of which are rebutted) is straight out of their political masters style book.

Political masters? Well, yes, unless you are in the top 20% of earners in the US, whether you like it or agree with it or not, you are provably supporting regimes that benefit you economically little if at all whilst the top 20% get richer. This is a fact. That certainly makes you look like servant to me.

And just as there have been forelock pulling supporters of the status quo in the past, so too are there today. It's just they have been sold a far more sophisticated set of lies than the feudal or early idustrial system relied upon.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree with me, LOL...

4

Murphys Sex

by darth frosty in

murphys sex laws.

1. the more beautiful the woman is who loves you, the easier it is to leave her with no hard feelings.

2. nothing improves with age.

Abaddon

8. No sex with anyone in the same office.

You don't spell orifice like that...

27

So here's what I'm thinking...my bleeding heart liberal rant...

by changeling in

jw
friends

i heard on the news this morning that the us has finally met it's enlistement quota.

they acheived this by offering a $20,000 bonus upon enlisting.. the us has also relaxed it's standards as to who they allow to enlist.

a criminal record and drug issues will no longer keep you out of the armed forces.. so, in many cases the country is sending uneduacted, criminally inclined young men and women to a nasty war, to witness atrocities that furthur sear their conscience.

Abaddon

I'm in the 'States on business; saw a Marines recruitment advert on TV whilst having a drink in a bar (and seeing Standford stuff USC) and nearly puked in my glass.

Yay! Let's glamourise being a trained killer fighting for access to oil.

I am not saying that there is no need for a millitary, just that making recruitment adverts like pop videos is disgusting.

As for imposing high educational standards on soldiers... well, that's one way of reducing the number of people in the armed forces.

I think having the wife or husband and children of heads of state fight to the death in place of conventional warfare is probably the quickest solution to bring about world peace.