Gunman shooting at abortion clinic in the US - multiple victims

[SoulMonster]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

See this is the thing, i don't...pretend to know what a woman goes through when they have an abortion

I don't either. But you said you couldn'æt live with yourself if you were to sacrifice a fetus to keep living. That is implictly a pretty strong criticism of women who make that descision even when their own life isn't at stake- regardless of whether you meant it like that. Just consider women who might read this thread now, about how you couldnæ't live with yourself if you were in that decision, and would rather sacrifice your own life than a fetus. Don't you think that is a pretty hard thing to read for women who ever end up in that sorry situation?

[Len Cnut]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

See this is the thing, i don't...pretend to know what a woman goes through when they have an abortion

I don't either. But you said you couldn'æt live with yourself if you were to sacrifice a fetus to keep living. That is implictly a pretty strong criticism of women who make that descision even when their own life isn't at stake- regardless of whether you meant it like that. Just consider women who might read this thread now, about how you couldnæ't live with yourself if you were in that decision, and would rather sacrifice your own life than a fetus. Don't you think that is a pretty hard thing to read for women who ever end up in that sorry situation?

Right but it's different because, as i said, it's a male thing, a masculinity thing, a mentality thats probably quite outdated and perhaps even slightly juvenile...now i think about it it's quite self involved too and almost a 'me, me, me' thing in a certain way. It's about not having done my duty as a man, not done the right thing as a man, thats a different proposition than what a woman faces. It's a pussy move...like walking down the street and seeing your boy get jumped by 20 guys but ducking down an alley cuz you're worried you're gonna get a kicking with your mate instead of doing the morally right thing of standing by your boy and throwing hands regardless.

[SoulMonster]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

Soulie, if you were presented with a proposition that you could either save your own life or the life of a child in a womb that was, say, 20 weeks gone, which option would you take?

Probably I would fall down on the conclusion that the lesser evil would be to terminate the pregnancy, and not terminate myself.

now there's a shock

Well, would you choose differentely?

He's a fuckin' soldier, i know the answer already for him.

It depends on how accurate his own sense of self-worth is, I suppose. Oops.

Men that are willing to give their lives for a country do it for every man, woman, boy, girl, feotus in that country and their future, i don't think they even think about it, i think it's what they do.

I don't think there is usually much thinking involved. But that's a digression.

[SoulMonster]

Sorry, it was a bastard of a question to ask, wasn't it? It's REALLY easy to sit here on an internet forum gobbing off about what you would or wouldn't do in such situations and it probably makes me sound like a self righteous bastard but I'd probably sign myself off, for the simple reason that i couldn't live with a fuckin' child on my conscience. Like live with myself. Some old Persian poet wrote something once about looking in the mirror as a man, taking off his shirt, seeing no scars on his torso and rueing his ignoble life. I'm not sure how I'd look myself in the mirror every morning afterwards, I'm not sure how my life could ever feel anything but ignoble after such a thing.

Sorry, that was a dirty question, wasn't it?

No worries. You know, that is pretty much the answer I would have given if it was me or a baby, and not a fetus: I couldn't live with myself with either decision. What is interesting is the implication that you find it hard to fathom women who decides to have an abortion can live with themselves afterwards. That is a pretty harsh criticism of a lot of women, don't you think?

See this is the thing, i don't...pretend to know what a woman goes through when they have an abortion

I don't either. But you said you couldn'æt live with yourself if you were to sacrifice a fetus to keep living. That is implictly a pretty strong criticism of women who make that descision even when their own life isn't at stake- regardless of whether you meant it like that. Just consider women who might read this thread now, about how you couldnæ't live with yourself if you were in that decision, and would rather sacrifice your own life than a fetus. Don't you think that is a pretty hard thing to read for women who ever end up in that sorry situation?

Right but it's different because, as i said, it's a male thing, a masculinity thing,

So you are saying that women won't find you saying that you 'couldn't live with yourself if you sacrificed a fetus to save your own life' an implicit criticism of their decision to go through with an abortion, because it came from a man? Is that it?

We have been discussion the arguments against abortion on a principle level. When it comes down to every specific case only the women can make that decision, because only she can know what the two effects on her life - from either proceeding with the preganancy or ending it - will be. Only she can weigh the various factors, only she will have to live with the decision. My motivation in this thread was to shine a light on some flawed anti-abortion arguments that are being used way too frequently, without reducing the question or situation to a clear "yes" or "no". Because I don't think that even if these arguments are gone there won't still be good arguments against abortion left. What is best really depends, and I will never criticise any women for the decision she makes. Personally, I just think they should have the option and then the support from the rest of us for having to go through it and arring at a decision. I know how hard it can be.

Edited November 30, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Powerage5]

Do you honestly think that by referring to fetuses as humans you convincingly argue that they must have the same levels of consiousness as what you and I have?

Your argument is nothing better than claiming a cake isn't a cake while it is in the oven and that somehow it will never be a cake because it isn't a cake at that time.

It must hurt to be so clueless, I mean really hurt.

And Downzy will run in and delete this post like he does all my other posts, so his children can have a one sided argument, so enjoy the moron class.

Try again (Though I did edit the insult out of your post).

[Len Cnut]

So you are saying that women won't find you saying that you 'couldn't live with yourself if you sacrificed a fetus to save your own life' an implicit criticism of their decision to go through with an abortion, because it came from a man? Is that it?

I can't say what they will or won't find, all i can do is explain myself and what my motivations and intentions are, I'm not judging anybody else, everybody else can do what they like, what applies for me personally in a given situation is not applicable across the board to any and everybody.

We have been discussion the arguments against abortion on a principle level. When it comes down to every specific case only the women can make that decision, because only she can know what the two effects on her life - from either proceeding with the preganancy or ending it - will be. Only she can weigh the various factors, only she will have to live with the decision. My motivation in this thread was to shine a light on some flawed arguments being used way too frequently, without reducing the question or situation to a clear "yes" or "no". Because I don't think that even if these arguments are gone there won't still be good arguments against abortion left. What is best really depends, and I will never criticise any women for the decision she makes. Personally, I just think they should have the option and then the support from the rest of us for having to go through it and arring at a decision. I know how hard it can be.

Agreed.

[SoulMonster]

So you are saying that women won't find you saying that you 'couldn't live with yourself if you sacrificed a fetus to save your own life' an implicit criticism of their decision to go through with an abortion, because it came from a man? Is that it?

I can't say what they will or won't find

True. You can't say that, but chances are they might take it as in implicit criticism.

Oh well, except for a rather small issue on how valuable a fetus' potential for life is, I think we see eye to eye on most things, and I appreciate the discussion. Now I have to lay down a bit, my stomach enjoys India much less than my eyes.

[downzy]

Final warning in regards to personal insults. Feel free to disagree, but comments that calling others part of the moron class because they disagree will be removed. Make your point, move on.

[SoulMonster]

Let's kick up the dust again. For anyone who is interested in the molecular similarities between tumours and embryos, because they share almost frighteningly more than their non-humanness and being bundles of cells, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/a-tumor-the-embryos-evil-twin.html

[Len Cnut]

There's a lot of similarities between human beings and apes too but i imagine most of us would object to being stuffed in a cage in London Zoo...except Snakes, who'd probably shag em

[bran]

meth is a hell of a drug

[SoulMonster]

Robert Lewis Dear, the suspect in Friday's shootings at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, mentioned "baby parts" to investigators and in later interviews expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told CNN.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/

[SoulMonster]

Thanks to Lenny for reminding me of another weak argument commonly used against abortion:

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

"But what we mean is that a new life begins at conception": That is just a variation of the "a fetus is a human" argument and discussed before.

Personally I think it is humbling to consider the link that connects us all. How we are, in many ways, just twigs on a larger tree called life. We are part of the same megaspecies, with an ability to multiple and evolve. This unbroken chain helps to define our role, not only as a species but also as individuals. It helps to answer some questions we have always asked us, where do we come from, what are we doing here? To me, to marvel at life and this unbroken and always changing chain of lifeforms, is as spiritual as it gets. It makes me more appreciative of life, it connects me with everything else that exists, and it is the foundation for my environmental concern. Life to me is sacred. Not in the sense that every instance of it is sacred, like every organism, but in the sense that wanton destruction is sacrilege and that life itself is much larger than any single individual or specie.

And this is a spirituality borne out of something real. Not myths and fairy tales from the bronze age. And it is loving and compassionate in nature, not hostile and protectionistic.

[DieselDaisy]

Thanks to Lenny for reminding me of another weak argument commonly used against abortion:

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

"But what we mean is that a new life begins at conception": That is just a variation of the "a fetus is a human" argument and discussed before.

Personally I think it is humbling to consider the link that connects us all. How we are, in many ways, just twigs on a larger tree called life. We are part of the same megaspecies, with an ability to multiple and evolve. This unbroken chain helps to define our role, not only as a species but also as individuals. It helps to answer some questions we have always asked us, where do we come from, what are we doing here? To me, to marvel at life and this unbroken and always changing chain of lifeforms, is as spiritual as it gets. It makes me more appreciative of life, it connects me with everything else that exists, and it is the foundation for my environmental concern. Life to me is sacred. Not in the sense that every instance of it is sacred, like every organism, but in the sense that wanton destruction is sacrilege and that life itself is much larger than any single individual or specie.

And this is a spirituality borne out of something real. Not myths and fairy tales from the bronze age. And it is loving and compassionate in nature, not hostile and protectionistic.

What a bunch of fuckin bollocks.

[SoulMonster]

Thanks to Lenny for reminding me of another weak argument commonly used against abortion:

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

"But what we mean is that a new life begins at conception": That is just a variation of the "a fetus is a human" argument and discussed before.

Personally I think it is humbling to consider the link that connects us all. How we are, in many ways, just twigs on a larger tree called life. We are part of the same megaspecies, with an ability to multiple and evolve. This unbroken chain helps to define our role, not only as a species but also as individuals. It helps to answer some questions we have always asked us, where do we come from, what are we doing here? To me, to marvel at life and this unbroken and always changing chain of lifeforms, is as spiritual as it gets. It makes me more appreciative of life, it connects me with everything else that exists, and it is the foundation for my environmental concern. Life to me is sacred. Not in the sense that every instance of it is sacred, like every organism, but in the sense that wanton destruction is sacrilege and that life itself is much larger than any single individual or specie.

And this is a spirituality borne out of something real. Not myths and fairy tales from the bronze age. And it is loving and compassionate in nature, not hostile and protectionistic.

What a bunch of fuckin bollocks.

That's fair enough. Everyone to its own. You don't have to synpathise with my spirituality, I certainly don't with yours. But you'd be hard pressed to point to any factual errors in what I write, I can't escape doing that over and over again with what you write.

[Len Cnut]

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

Did you think that they were meaning that every time a man and a woman shag and she gets fertilised thats the beginning of all life?

Personally I think it is humbling to consider the link that connects us all. How we are, in many ways, just twigs on a larger tree called life. We are part of the same megaspecies, with an ability to multiple and evolve. This unbroken chain helps to define our role, not only as a species but also as individuals. It helps to answer some questions we have always asked us, where do we come from, what are we doing here? To me, to marvel at life and this unbroken and always changing chain of lifeforms, is as spiritual as it gets. It makes me more appreciative of life, it connects me with everything else that exists, and it is the foundation for my environmental concern. Life to me is sacred. Not in the sense that every instance of it is sacred, like every organism, but in the sense that wanton destruction is sacrilege and that life itself is much larger than any single individual or specie.

Whats this got to do with the argument at hand though?

[Dazey]

meth is a hell of a drug

Nick Nolte's really let himself go.

[classicrawker]

meth is a hell of a drug

Nick Nolte's really let himself go.

Sadly that guy looks better than Nick these days IMHO....

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nick+Nolte&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzxJjssbvJAhWKKB4KHYLhDZUQiR4IiAE&biw=1536&bih=793&dpr=1.25#tbm=isch&q=nick+nolte+2015

Edited December 1, 2015 by classicrawker

[dalsh327]

If Planned Parenthood went away, all the free clinics and local community clinics would have a nightmare on their hands.

[SoulMonster]

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

Did you think that they were meaning that every time a man and a woman shag and she gets fertilised thats the beginning of all life?

Personally I think it is humbling to consider the link that connects us all. How we are, in many ways, just twigs on a larger tree called life. We are part of the same megaspecies, with an ability to multiple and evolve. This unbroken chain helps to define our role, not only as a species but also as individuals. It helps to answer some questions we have always asked us, where do we come from, what are we doing here? To me, to marvel at life and this unbroken and always changing chain of lifeforms, is as spiritual as it gets. It makes me more appreciative of life, it connects me with everything else that exists, and it is the foundation for my environmental concern. Life to me is sacred. Not in the sense that every instance of it is sacred, like every organism, but in the sense that wanton destruction is sacrilege and that life itself is much larger than any single individual or specie.

Whats this got to do with the argument at hand though?

Yes in the sense that what came before (egg and sperm wasn't "life"), and nothing, it was a digression. I do that occasionally.

[Len Cnut]

Yes in the sense that what came before (egg and sperm wasn't "life"), and nothing, it was a digression. I do that occasionally.

I see. Even so, i think there's some quite frightening moral implications to your ideas. For instance:

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

So life just began the once and since it's been an unbroken chain of life? OK, so, based on that, since there is no individual coming to life and it's just one big on-going chain then, really and truly speaking, human life is absolutely without value? We're never really born and we never really die, life began the once and it's all just one great big inter-connected on-going life. So if i kill you...or 5 or 10 or 50 random people it should be of no consequence right because where's the crime? In fact what value is the human race altogether, life exists regardless, you could just take us off of the top of the food chain altogether no? I mean there's literally no death, whats the crime in shooting some random fucker in the face, it's just life morphing right?

The whole idea sounds like a sociopaths rationalisation of his own insanity

Edited December 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

"Life begins at conception": No, it doesn't. As far as we kow, life has only begun once in the history of Earth. What happens at conception is that two living cells, sperm and egg, coalesce to become a new living cell, the zygote, which then divides and grows into, eventually, a human being. Life doesn't start, it continues. It morphs. There is an unbroken chain of life from each of us backwards and forwards, connecting all living organisms that exist today and have ever existed.

So life just began the once and since it's been an unbroken chain of life? OK, so, based on that, since there is no individual coming to life and it's just one big on-going chain then, really and truly speaking, human life is absolutely without value?

That argument would only work if the value of a human life was based on it having started afresh. And if so, if the value of a human being lies in the fact that it is a new life that stated with that being, why would humans be valued higher than animals, who also starts their lives the same way through fusion of sperm and egg cells?

No, we humans are valuable because of what we can do, not because we aren't part of this remarkable unbroken chain of life that dates back to abiogenesis, or because we are different in this regards to every other life form on Earth. We are special because of what we can do, or rather think.

[but really, the reason we give ourselves special rights and protection is of course good ol' speciecentricity].

Edited December 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[wasted]

You've never really lived until you get shot out of vagina. Just one of biggest highlights of life really.

[SoulMonster]

We're never really born and we never really die, life began the once and it's all just one great big inter-connected on-going life.

Of course we are born. That's when a human life starts. But this is not NEW life in the sense that there wasn't life before, it is just one life morphing into different form. A living sperm cell and a living egg cell becomes a living zygote, a living zygote develops into a living embryo, a living embryo develops into a living fetus, this fetus develops into a baby [when it comes out of the womb, a process called 'birth').

Of course we die. You will die. I will die. The human species will die out. But life itself has so far not died out.

So if i kill you...or 5 or 10 or 50 random people it should be of no consequence right because where's the crime?

I really don't understand how you have come to the conclusion that I don't think human lives have value, in the very thred where my main argument has been that we have special value above all life forms due to our ability for compassion, empathy, reasoning, consciousness, etc. Just because life itself never seems to have originated more than once, and that it has for billion of years just diversied and morphed into new forms and shapes, doesn't in any way take away from the value we have due to our special abilities and position.

I mean there's literally no death, whats the crime in shooting some random fucker in the face, it's just life morphing right?

Death ends a twig of life. But it doesn't end life itself. It ends an individual, it doesn't end a species or a megaspecies. But since each individual itself is valuable, murder will aways be a crime.

[Len Cnut]

That argument would only work if the value of a human life was based on it having started afresh.

Well it is, isn't it? Which is why there is value in each individual life as opposed to the focus being on the fact that we're a great big inter-connected one on-going life thingie.

And if so, if the value of a human being lies in the fact that it is a new life that stated with that being, why would humans be valued higher than animals, who also starts their lives the same way through fusion of sperm and egg cells?

Because we can dominate them.

No, we humans are valuable because of what we can do, not because we aren't part of this remarkable unbroken chain of life that dates back to abiogenesis, or because we are different in this regards to every other life form on Earth. We are special because of what we can do, or rather think.

Agreed.

Of course we are born. That's when a human life starts. But this is not NEW life in the sense that there wasn't life before, it is just one life morphing into different form.

Right but the word 'new' didn't factor into the 'life begins at conception' statement, you put the word new in there and the concept of new life, this is what those that espouse the 'life begins at conception' theory meant the entire time, the fact that we are born, a human life starts, in your attempt to ridicule that theory you took it off on a tangent but i think it's pretty clear in a discussion about abortion when someone says 'life begins at conception' they are not saying there is a sodding big bang every time a babys born (not your kind anyway )

A living sperm cell and a living egg cell becomes a living zygote, a living zygote develops into a living embryo, a living embryo develops into a living fetus, this fetus develops into a baby [when it comes out of the womb, a process called 'birth').

whereupon a new human life begins, yes.

Of course we die. You will die. I will die. The human species will die out. But life itself has so far not died out.

Right...but if it's all part of this life continum, the morphing process whereby there's basically one life-force and we are all morphing and changing within it, evolving or devolving or whatever...then essentially human life, in regards to individual life, is worthless. You could justify slaughtering millions of human beings behind that kind of thinking, because what does it matter, they're not dead, they're just morphing into a different plain of existence, murder ceases to be a crime at that point cuz hey, they ain't really dead as such, their atoms and molecules or whatever are just serving a different purpose, they are fertiliser, they'll lay there for a few hundred thousand years until someone strikes oil on that spot and then they'll be powering Fords. What you are proposing could be interpreted as the end of morality. It's just like religion really, it comes from a really good place but it also feeds into the morally redundant.