Skip to main content

View Diary: God is Pro Choice (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no, because a sperm can never (0+ / 0-)

    become a human being.

    I see this canard all the time, and I don't understand it. Nobody is trying to protect sperm or ovum.

    They are trying to protected a fertilized egg. Just because it doesn't always succeed in growing up is irrelevant.  

    A fertilized egg isn't a potential person.  It is a person with potential.

    •  You believe it is a person. That does not mean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle

      everyone has to accept your belief.  That is the point I'm trying to make to you.  You are presuming that everyone has the same belief system and faith in the issue that you do, and this is the United States of America where we are free to believe what we want to in these areas where there are no rational answers.

      •  and P.S. if a sperm is fertilized, it becomes (0+ / 0-)

        a human being, just as if an egg develops, it becomes a human being.  Once again, our Constitution does not cover "potential" for human life.  We are limited by our own humanity and human understanding and to presume otherwise is to say you know God's intent...which is based solely on faith.

        None of this belongs in the debates of our government, all of it is a debate individuals must have within their own beings about what they believe in.  

        •  sperm doesn't get fertilized. (0+ / 0-)

          An egg does.

          Of course when people are valued is the subject to the debate of people, and hence their governments.

          People used property rights arguments to say that the government stay out of the issue of slavery.  

          Were they right or wrong?

          •  Excuse me, should have read, "if a sperm (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pandoras Box

            fertilizes."  

            Slaves were actually humans and no one could debate their right to live free lives.  It was appropriate that our government make a rational decision to secure their human rights.  

            •  But obviously people did (0+ / 0-)

              debate whether they were human and had a right to live free lives.

              I think a fertilized egg is actually a human, and the government has a role to see that no one tries to intentionally end their life.

              Do you see the similarity?

              •  ...and the debate is unwinnable from either side (0+ / 0-)

                because it relies upon faith and belief which are irrational and cannot be definitively decided.  

                You "think" a fertilized egg is actually a human because you believe you know this.  You have no proof of this whatsoever.  We cannot interview the fertilized egg to see if it responds.  God has not as yet shown up to testify.  You are trying to mix two realms that do not belong together.

                IMO, if you believe this you are relying on the wrong forum to spread the word.  You should be in the faith-forum (ie:  churches, mosques, etc.) trying to teach your faith rather than trying to impose it upon people who obviously are of a different belief system through legislation.  

                •  the debate is winnable. (0+ / 0-)

                  By passing laws to protect unborn life.  By giving support to those who unfortunately became pregnant and didn't want to.  

                  To make this a society where all people are wanted and valued.  Not by destroying those who are unwanted.

                  By showing people good ultrasounds of their unborn children, so that they can see them move and suck their thumb, and get them to realize they are human.

                  Even if it isn't winnable, it is a worthwhile thing to tilt at windmills.  Fighting the good fight is always worthwhile.

                  •  You don't pass laws to win debates. You win (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    martydd

                    debates by presenting clear, rational evidence.

                    The bible is not rational evidence, your beliefs are not rational evidence.  There is presently no rational evidence to prove when life begins.  That is why this has no place in the realm of clear, rational debate and therefore no place in our legislation.

                    We are not a theocracy.

                    •  yet we base our laws on our values. (0+ / 0-)

                      One of our values is that we think it is wrong to kill another person.  

                      It doesn't take a theocracy to come to that conclusion.  

                      And again, there is no real debate as to when life begins.  Science tells us that.

                      The question is when do we value life.  

                      •  Science does not tell us when human life begins. (0+ / 0-)

                        We do not base our laws on our values.  In this country we base our laws on what is Constitutional and what is not.  You have no way of proving that a fetus is a human being.  Therefore, it is not covered by our Constitution.  

                        Can you please explain to me what the problem is with preaching in your own church about your own faith-based beliefs?  This would be the most logical venue for achieving your goals.  In the meantime, people who hold the same views have set themselves and their beliefs up as pawns to use for the same wedge-issue in every election.  At some point I would think people would realize that this is not going anywhere in government as I've explained over and over, because it is not a debate that can be won without making a religious/faith based determination.  

                        •  My own church already has the right (0+ / 0-)

                          idea on this.

                          This isn't a battle that can ever be conceded.  Abortion is the death of an unborn human being.  All human life must be defended and protected.

                          The idea isn't just to convince my own fellow church members.  It is to convince everyone.

                          And we intend to add it to the constitution.  

                          •  Well, I hate to disillusion you, but it ain't (0+ / 0-)

                            ever going to happen.  Have you not observed the number of times you've voted in the guy who promised to further your efforts and the number of times that it absolutely went nowhere?  Do you not realize your religious beliefs are being used to manipulate your vote at this point?

                            It will never be part of the Constitution because you have no empirical evidence.

                            You are wasting your time and in the meantime turning off many people who might listen to you if you addressed it for what it really is, a matter of the soul and of faith for consideration at that level rather than a religious view you hold that you've arrogantly decided everyone else should believe.

                            My advice to you would be to re-think your tact.  As Jesus Christ said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."  By my interpretation, he was basically advising people how the work of the soul should always be conducted outside the halls of our government.  Just my view, of course.    

                          •  yes we are aware that the Republicans are (0+ / 0-)

                            willing to use it as a wedge issue,and very few of them actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

                            What is the alternative?  Vote for the Democrats?

                            That just makes me giggle.. They are just a bunch of nitwits.  And the ones who aren't nitwits, like the Clintons, are just evil.  

                            And as to being part of the constitution, empirical evidence isn't necessary. It just has to be voted on.

                            So we try to persuade and change the hearts and minds of people, one at a time.

                          •  Ah yes, God's work is trolling on liberal blogs. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            trashablanca, martydd

                            That's winning hearts and minds, just like blowing Iraqi children apart is winning them over daily, right?  

                            I don't believe you even value your own beliefs, you would not be pursuing them so disrespectfully.

                            Goodbye Wrong as Dubya.  

                            Flush.

                          •  tell me how to do it respectfully on this site. (0+ / 0-)

                            It kicks off dissenters.  It doesn't even want to have the conversation.

                          •  A conversation with empathy-free morans (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All, martydd

                            is not worth having.  

                            "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon

                            by trashablanca on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:06:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stop trolling, go to your church (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            martydd

                            and do your work there.  You make a mockery out of people's religious beliefs coming here to present as a troll.  You also work against them completely by allowing yourself to be roped in by politicians who want war for profit because you insist on making your religious belief part of political campaigns.

                             

                          •  you have got to be kidding me (3+ / 0-)

                            when you write this kind of malarkey:

                            yes we are aware that the Republicans are (0+ / 0-)

                            willing to use it as a wedge issue,and very few of them actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

                            a very few?

                            on which planet have you been vacationing?

                            and if you knew your stuff you would know that it isn't really roe v wade that the republican party is after, it is CT vs Griswold.

                            know the facts.

                            _______________

                            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                            by dadanation on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  I do not presume that everyone has the same (0+ / 0-)

        belief system.  

        But why is that relevant?  China doesn't have the same belief system, and they subordinate the rights of individuals to that of the state.  They essentially still have slave labor in prison camps.

        Does that mean that I can't criticize them, or try to dissuade them?

        No.

        There is no lack of rational answers.  There is a lack of rational people who will treat all human life with respect.

    •  Just to be clear, you are claiming (4+ / 0-)

      that a fertilized egg is a person?

      I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or just say "WOW"

      •  FYI, some basic definitions from Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

        The term person is used in common sense to mean an individual human being. But in the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, it means the presence of certain characteristics that grant a certain legal, ethical, or moral standing.

        For example, in many jurisdictions, the law allows a group of human beings to act together as a single composite entity called a corporation, and the corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy and medicine, person may mean only humans who are capable of certain kinds of thought, and thus exclude embryos, early fetuses, or adults with certain types of brain damage

      •  yes I am claiming it is a person. (0+ / 0-)

        Any other definition suggests that some attribute or physical ability is what defines a person.

        This is of course, arbitrary, and subject to the whims of the definer.

        If I was a person at 7 years, then I was a person a day before that, and the day before that, and so on.

        I wasn't a non-person one day, and a person the next.  

        If you think I was, tell me which day the cross over occurred?

        The definition you add from wikipedia is really just a justification for the strong to be more important than the weak.  

        All people are valuable, and should be valued.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site