The Republic of Texas XXIV: Will be posted on February 1, 2009

[maggie08]

ARRRGH DANGIT!!!!
i swear, i take one night off and go out with some friends, and y'all have one of the most interesting conversations in the entire thread while i'm gone.... as a woman, a former fetus, a member of humanity, a wannabe maternal-fetal medicine physician, and a student of science and philosophy i'm really bummed i missed it !!!

have y'all seriously nothing better to do on a friday night?

and now, much after the fact, not a frickin single person who posted on page 6 is online!!!!!!

if everyone wants the discussion to be over, ignore my post (the last few commenters have seemed to want such), however i do have a couple of recap questions:

1. over the pas few years (including the last few months on this forum), I've heard many gripe about the war/executing sadaam/etc., with the reasoning that we have no business in the respective territory. Additionally, our government is broke and the economy needs our money to stay within borders. How then do obama supporters rationalize giving away money in times of financial crisis for something like foreign abortions? forget, for a moment, the fact that abortion is clouded in controversy--how is it not a foolish move on the mere basis that we have a lot greater priorities here at home? how is this not interfering in places that we have no business? how do you rationalize this conflict?

2. sno, you seem to believe life is dependent on nervous system development. Is this correct? (just want to make sure i haven't mis-understood you.) if so, i'm assuming you're not ok with abortions throughout the entire duration of the pregnancy? additionally, do you, and if so, how do you rationalize, supporting obama's promise to overturn the partial-birth abortion ban that was instated by bush?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[belladonna87]

Completely agree with the comprehensive sex ed. I was a sex educator. Its scary what even college students don't know. (Q: How many sperm does it take to fertilize an egg? A: 5 million. I wish I were kidding.)

If you want a fleshed out perspective as life as an abortion doctor, I recommend reading Dr. Susan Wicklund's This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor. She has some powerful, powerful stories.

 

[Jolie South]

I'm going to delurk a few minutes to add my 2 cents.

I'm very pro-choice (I was involved with Planned Parenthood Vox). At the same time, I have no desire to change people's mind on the issue. I think everyone has come to their own conclusion of why they believe what they believe. Who am I to invalidate those beliefs?

Anyway, I think the Global Gag Rule is especially detrimental because girls under 15 in developing countries (where child brides are common), are five times more likely to die in childbirth. In thousands of cases, abortion is a life saving procedure. Also, the GGR funding slashes funding to organizations which would also use that money for pregnancy prevention (i.e. sex ed, contraceptives) as well.

This is the main issue for me. I don't care about the funding going directly for elective abortions, but I do care about us coming down from our moral high horse to say that we can't help out an organization because they adopt a comprehensive strategy and will perform the procedure.

While I was in the Peace Corps in West Africa, I also heard horror stories about women trying to self abort at home. I think we can all imagine that it does not end well and usually leaves the woman on the edge of death due to infections.

 

[bobsagat]

It's not actually close though. An embryo or fetus doesn't desire or think about anything. The most one can say is that an embryo/fetus will one day grow into a being capable of desiring life. I don't want this to come off as nit picky because it really is an important difference from what you said.

By your reasoning, you can say that we should also allow people to commit suicide, despite that fact that in most cases it would be better for them to go on living, and that eventually they'll be glad they did (I do acknowledge your earlier post that suicide may actually be good for some people, i.e. those elderly persons who've lost a spouse and don't have any family and are in incredible physical pain, but we're talking about the majority of suicidal patients).

In fact, by this logic, preventing suicide is morally reprehensible. A fetus doesn't desire anything, so it's okay to do with it whatever we damn well please. But a suicidal person actually desires to die, and we prevent him or her from dying.

We do this because the person will soon realize the foolishness of their desires, that time heals all, etc, and that eventually they will desire continued life (i.e. they will eventually become a person capable of desiring life). It is the same for a fetus.

I think we'll also all agree that a fetus can feel pain. But it doesn't have any desires or conscious thoughts (which I'm still not even sure I'm ready to admit) so is it then okay for me to torture a fetus?

 

[stereo]

Also, in regards to the comment about a fetus not having a desire to live...I would very much like to see your evidence on that. Oh, and not having a developed nervous system does not count, unless you can find evidence in the nervous system to explain consciousness, reason, etc.

Of course there is plenty of evidence for this. Taking psychoactive drugs alters consciousness. Traumatic brain injury can dramatically change one's personality, rationality, emotional reactivity, etc.

We may not know exactly how consciousness emerges from brain activity, but in light of everything we know about the brain, it would be very difficult to argue that consciousness exists outside of our physical body.

Where do you think it comes from if not from the nervous system?

 

[guestdoc]

-----INSERT MASSIVE CHANGE OF SUBJECT OFF ABORTIONS-----

Anybody have exciting Superbowl Plans?

Anybody in the Rice Village last Wednesday night and see some dude (me) get thrown out of a bar by four bouncers and get kicked in the face?

Anybody see any exciting movies?

------Someone, please pick something else to talk about ------

Biting!!

1) nope, nothing exciting for the Superbowl. Watch it a bit, maybe eat some food. I don't really care about either team... Probably rooting for the Cardinals just to shake things up.

2) Yeah I was one of the bouncers. Nah, sorry dude that sounds like it sucked. What did you do? Props on it taking 4 bouncers though.

3) Just watched Eagle Eye the other day; lots of stuff blew up and there was a lot of action. That was about it, though. Kind of interesting idea, but not the greatest movie.

Anyone else??

 

[bobsagat]

1. My mid-20's-30's church group is throwing a Super Bowl party. I'll probably go, I just hope there's going to be some sweet beer. I mean church get-togethers are generally dry, but come on. It's the Super Bowl.
2. Nope. Sounds like a nice story, though.
3. I saw Valkyrie and thought it was great. Made me interested in the actual event, maybe I'll check out a book on it or something. Certain things in the movie didn't make much sense, like after Cruise's character goes through with the attempt, he starts ordering people in the resistance around, generals and stuff, like he freaking owns the place even though he's just a colonel. Very Hollywood. But still a good movie.

 

[jonhasaheart]

I mean church get-togethers are generally dry, but come on. It's the Super Bowl.

Haha, this warms my heart, Bob. Really it does. Every time there's some sort of non-Mass related gathering at the Church, there's sure to be at least some sort of alcohol present.

Our priest always jokes at the end of Mass, telling us he's going to bring his famed "Aggie 7-course meal", which of course is a can of ranch-style beans and a 6-pack of Lonestar, haha (he got his BS in biology from A&M, so this is undoubtedly where the name comes from).

 

[aggie08]

No super bowl plans, but I have seen some good movies.

- Slumdog Millionaire, probably one of the most interesting, unique and creative movies I've seen in a while. Loved it!!

- Seven Pounds was decent. I wish I would have known it dealt with organ transplants, though - it hit a little close to home for me.

- Yes Man was pretty funny. I like Jim Carrey a lot, though.

- Changeling, great performance by Angelina Jolie.

- Benjamin Button, definitely a little weird. I liked it a lot and thought the Art Directing and make-up was pretty great.

 

[DrSno]

2. sno, you seem to believe life is dependent on nervous system development. Is this correct? (just want to make sure i haven't mis-understood you.) if so, i'm assuming you're not ok with abortions throughout the entire duration of the pregnancy? additionally, do you, and if so, how do you rationalize, supporting obama's promise to overturn the partial-birth abortion ban that was instated by bush?

No, as I said a few pages back embryos/fetuses are quite obviously alive. I was saying that until the person reaches a conscious and thinking stage, they don't have all the moral importance that adults and children do.
I am not against partial birth abortions, and I hope that Obama does overturn the ban. I hasten to add that partial birth abortions are generally the more emotionally taxing abortions and I would hope their numbers would be low.

 

[aggie08]

No, as I said a few pages back embryos/fetuses are quite obviously alive. I was saying that until the person reaches a conscious and thinking stage, they don't have all the moral importance that adults and children do.
I am not against partial birth abortions, and I hope that Obama does overturn the ban. I hasten to add that partial birth abortions are generally the more emotionally taxing abortions and I would hope their numbers would be low.

It would greatly surprise me if he tried to do that and surprise me even more if it passed through Congress.

Why should it take 9 months to decide you don't want your baby? Like I said before, I don't think that abortions should be illegal by any means, but late term and partial birth abortions are really kind of pointless. You've had several months to make that decision and by that time you should be looking at other alternatives.

 

[AggieSean]

.

 

[aggie08]

I do want to say real quick, though, that I have really enjoyed this conversation. Mostly because I really admire people who can stick to their guns (Sno) despite opposition from many angles - I like getting insight into other people's opinions. Thanks to all who have contributed to this interesting topic without making it over-political or annoyingly juvenile.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I do want to say real quick, though, that I have really enjoyed this conversation. Mostly because I really admire people who can stick to their guns (Sno) despite opposition from many angles - I like getting insight into other people's opinions. Thanks to all who have contributed to this interesting topic without making it over-political or annoyingly juvenile.

Concur. Thanks Sno.

Also, I'm glad other peoples' churches all enjoy the booze outside of church/mass too

 

[maggie08]

No, as I said a few pages back embryos/fetuses are quite obviously alive. I was saying that until the person reaches a conscious and thinking stage, they don't have all the moral importance that adults and children do.
I am not against partial birth abortions, and I hope that Obama does overturn the ban. I hasten to add that partial birth abortions are generally the more emotionally taxing abortions and I would hope their numbers would be low.

oh, ok, touche, so your post is distinguishing between biologically alive and personhood? (that's actually what i meant by 'life'. i should have been more careful with my wording... I also distinguish between the two with the first occuring at conception and the latter at impantation. i assumed we had already jumped past the 'biological life' and were dicussing personhood.)

so to rephrase my question, if 'life' (personhood/humanity) begins at consciousness, i'm assuming then that you're not ok with late term abortions, as it would seem to me that consciousness starts before that?


additionally, with this reasoning i'm having trouble understanding your logic in ok-ing partial birth abortions?

or perhaps that really is the crux of your and my discussion: when do you think consciousness begins?

 

[maggie08]

- Slumdog Millionaire, probably one of the most interesting, unique and creative movies I've seen in a while. Loved it!!

- Changeling, great performance by Angelina Jolie.

i have to give props to these too.

just saw slumdog millionaire last night ($10 theater, after a 2 hour drive.... worth every single penny/mile)

 

[DrSno]

additionally, with this reasoning i'm having trouble understanding your logic in ok-ing partial birth abortions?

or perhaps that really is the crux of your and my discussion: when do you think consciousness begins?

I don't just mean very simple consciousness. I'm talking about self-awareness and ability to have emotional responses to stimuli and ability to think about it at a level higher than other animals (basically what separates humans from other animals). Ability to form memories is also an important part of that definition. Anyway, I think, and many scientists think, that age is between 1 1/2 and 3 years.

 

[justdoit31]

As of now no super bowl plans- that could change though...

I have seen a few movies over the break

The Reader- best movie I have seen in a LONG time... I loved the book and the movie was very good as well- Kate Winslet was fabulous and very much deserved the Golden Globe she won for it and I has a great shot at the Oscar

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas- horrible ... it was drawn out and had the worst ending I have ever seen

Bride Wars- hysterical made a somewhat down day really good!

Valkyrie- I didn't see it but my brother loved it and said it was great

 

[savant]

Valkyrie - B+
Gran Torino - B+
Curious Case of Benjamin Button - A- (grade for interestingness, but rather boring)
Yes Man - B+

 

[bobsagat]

I don't just mean very simple consciousness. I'm talking about self-awareness and ability to have emotional responses to stimuli and ability to think about it at a level higher than other animals (basically what separates humans from other animals). Ability to form memories is also an important part of that definition. Anyway, I think, and many scientists think, that age is between 1 1/2 and 3 years.

Let's say my theoretical wife and I have had a girl. She's about to have her 1st birthday, but after almost two years we've finally decided that, meh, we'd rather have a boy, and two kids would just put too much strain on our family.

You're saying I can kill this child so we can have a different baby, and no one should care, since it's our right to do so?

 

[DrSno]

Let's say my theoretical wife and I have had a girl. She's about to have her 1st birthday, but after almost two years we've finally decided that, meh, we'd rather have a boy, and two kids would just put too much strain on our family.

You're saying I can kill this child so we can have a different baby, and no one should care, since it's our right to do so?

Bob, that's a fairly egregious characterization of what I said. Of course you wouldn't be able to do that. The law obviously considers that murder and you would be in jail. No one in the US has the right to kill their born child.

 

[savant]

So out of boredom I decided to look at UTSW's app status page today. Before application status used to be "In review". Now it says "Application Received"..

 

[jonhasaheart]

Bob, that's a fairly egregious characterization of what I said. Of course you wouldn't be able to do that. The law obviously considers that murder and you would be in jail. No one in the US has the right to kill their born child.

If "self-awareness" is the defining criterion for the beginning of personhood, I don't see how any other conclusion than the one Bob has drawn is possible, Sno.

Once upon a time, I was of the same opinion as yours, as well. Every ounce of reason in me had to drop it as soon as I came to that stumbling block. When one realizes that if self-awareness is the defining criterion, all those with no self-awareness should not be considered persons. This includes some of the mentally handicapped.

As a person, I don't know if any of us are prepared to discount their humanity. If we're not, then we can't hold the view that being conscious of being conscious, as it were, is the main factor for personhood.

 

[jonhasaheart]

Also, I'm glad other peoples' churches all enjoy the booze outside of church/mass too

Haha, I'm a long time believer that despite cultural differences, the one uniting factor between us all is booze. In some ways, celebrations don't make sense without it.

 

[maggie08]

Bob, that's a fairly egregious characterization of what I said. Of course you wouldn't be able to do that. The law obviously considers that murder and you would be in jail. No one in the US has the right to kill their born child.

i would have drawn the same conclusion as bob. Explain where we misunderstood you.

you seem to be saying;

A humans have consciousness/self awareness/personhood/cognition/etc (cspc)
B. fetuses (its actually NOT fetii) do not have cspc
C. its not ok to kill something that has cspc

therefore:
1. because of A and C, killing people is not ok
2. becuase of B and C, killing fetuses is ok

you then said that the cspc does not develop until 1-3 years
so now we add:
D. infants do not have cspc

therefore
3. because of D and C, killing infants is ok.


Where have we misunderstood you?

(Edit: haha, jon beat me to it!)

 

[DrSno]

therefore
3. because of D and C, killing infants is ok.


Where have we misunderstood you?

Philosophically this is an area I do not want to get into here in the Texas thread. It can get very nuanced and uncomfortable for people who do not have the exposure to philosophy, or who cannot let go of their emotional feelings in pursuit of intellectual truths. If you want to discuss this particular area further, PM is fine.

 

[jonhasaheart]

Philosophically this is an area I do not want to get into here in the Texas thread. It can get very nuanced and uncomfortable for people who do not have the exposure to philosophy, or who cannot let go of their emotional feelings in pursuit of intellectual truths. If you want to discuss this particular area further, PM is fine.

There's no reason to leave the discussion now ! I really enjoy these kind of think-sessions, haha.

But I have to say this, Sno: to me, this is better read as, "abandon your humanity in order to discuss the nature of humanity further".

We are emotional and reasonable creatures. We cannot discount one aspect in pursuit of the other, lest we lose sight of the very thing we are trying to understand.

 

[bobsagat]

Bob, that's a fairly egregious characterization of what I said. Of course you wouldn't be able to do that. The law obviously considers that murder and you would be in jail. No one in the US has the right to kill their born child.

The current US law has no bearing on the discussion. We're discussing what we think the law ought to be, not what the law says we ought to do. As Maggie08 and Jonhasaheart put it, I think we've taken your logical argument to its illogical conclusion, which is the way ethics usually works.

 

[DrSno]

This is from the Wikipedia entry about philosopher Peter Singer:

"Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].
Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.
Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The collapse of our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions."



I am not stating a personal opinion about this. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with Singer.

 

[maggie08]

There's no reason to leave the discussion now ! I really enjoy these kind of think-sessions, haha.

But I have to say this, Sno: to me, this is better read as, "abandon your humanity in order to discuss the nature of humanity further".

We are emotional and reasonable creatures. We cannot discount one aspect in pursuit of the other, lest we lose sight of the very thing we are trying to understand.

agreed. entirely.

not to mention sno, i've never known you to be worried about making others uncomfortable.

it is an insult to philosophy, herself, to want to move this to a private conversation. although the study of philosophy has sort of become an elite and uncommon passtime in recent years, it is in the great tradition of philosophy for people with experience in difficult matters to draw out those who haven't, even if it makes for 'nuanced' and 'uncomfortable' conversations.

we see this in socrates, plato, hylius and philoneous, descartes, aristotle, etc., etc., etc.

most great philosophy books are written in the very form of: a person of clear intellectual thought, a person of irrational and emotional thought, and an ensuing combatitve dialog, in which they BOTH gain from the conversation some wisdom about their own worldviews.

i don't mind mind if there are a few emotionally charged posters within our discussion, and I would think that you wouldn't mind either, as much of the time such comments hurt the prolife side rather than the prochoice side.

EVERYONE's view have harsh implications if pushed to the extreem (be they 13 year old rape victims; 80 year old widowed, pain-wrought cancer patients with no family; or infants who may not have their ticket into humanity).
Don't shy away from expressing your own.

Hash out what you believe, be open to change your mind if rational thought proves an ideology differently, be willing to discuss and embrace the nuances that make-up the seemwork of humanity.

EDIT: then again, if you're chicken, that's cool too..

 

[aggie08]

Valkyrie - B+
Gran Torino - B+
Curious Case of Benjamin Button - A- (grade for interestingness, but rather boring)
Yes Man - B+

O man, I LOVED Gran Torino.

I think I'm easy to please, though - I liked all of those. =P

Burn After Reading....rented that one a week or so ago....Brad Pitt's character is hilarious, but the movie is sort of strange.

 

[maggie08]

-----INSERT MASSIVE CHANGE OF SUBJECT OFF ABORTIONS-----

Anybody have exciting Superbowl Plans?

Anybody in the Rice Village last Wednesday night and see some dude (me) get thrown out of a bar by four bouncers and get kicked in the face?

Anybody see any exciting movies?

------Someone, please pick something else to talk about ------

1. wait, are the aggies playing? (just kidding) yeah, i'm going to make some of my famous salsa (i'm not going to lie--it's sensational), and my roomies and i are having some people over.

2. actually i saw this happen to you two weeks ago while i was at the Dharma Initiative's Pearl station. I wrote this down and sent it through a pneumatic carrying tube in hopes that you would be warned, but apparently the message just ended up with a brain hemorrhage on a pile of compostion notebooks. sry. i guess my message needed a better constant

3. i have to add another plug for Defiance +5

 

[jonhasaheart]

Lol, I'm sorry, I had to post this:

 

[bobsagat]

Oh man, Dr. mcninja is great. I actually read it for awhile, but it got to where I couldn't really follow the story line. I mean a zombie benjamin franklin? Seriously? I really like the part about the bandits on velociraptors, though.

 

[jonhasaheart]

Oh man, Dr. mcninja is great. I actually read it for awhile, but it got to where I couldn't really follow the story line. I mean a zombie benjamin franklin? Seriously? I really like the part about the bandits on velociraptors, though.

Haha, I went back and read the first strip, and couldn't stop laughing.

"Oh a doctor? I hope you are a vet..."

(flexes muscles)

"Because these pythons are sick."

 

[newdoc15]

3 points, sorry for the long post:

1. Anyone seen the documentary "Lake of Fire"? Great look at both sides of the discussion. I think it's on Netflix instant watch. Be warned it's long.

2. I think that chasing an answer on abortion through philosophical arguments is a dead end. Most people agree that a zygote is alive from the moment of conception - it has everything necessary to independently form into an adult human. But most blastocysts never implant in the uterus - they are flushed with the period. An act of God, right? Not an intentional human action to destroy life? Interestingly, most people who oppose abortion are okay with the morning after pill, which very often works by preventing blastocyst implantation, so implicitly they grant that killing a blastocyst is acceptable. On the other hand, everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill an adult human. So, at some point between blastocyst and adult human it becomes wrong to destroy a life. If anybody can prove to me philosophically when this occurs, I'm game to listen. To date any argument I've heard for a specific time (e.g. the "age of viability") seems imprecise, relative, or arbitrary. So I fall back to practical issues: a) as has been noted a fetus has no consciousness, emotion, desires or established relationships, b) caring for a child is a huge burden that will dramatically and permanently alter the life of the mother, c) childbirth is a traumatic physical event that permanently changes the mother's body and carries the risk of serious complications, d) the mother does have consciousness, emotions, etc, and e) the actual live birth of a child provides a convenient (if arbitrary) point at which we can legally avoid the "slippery slope" idea (that killing born children without consciousness, etc for the mother's convenience is also acceptable under this line of thought). On the last point, I am sympathetic to those who would push back the latest date of a legal abortion (i.e. ban partial birth abortions).

3. The thing that I find most annoying in this debate is when people insert the notion that actions should have consequences. Most actions do have consequences, but I don't accept that there is some moral principle that they should. If you eat fatty foods all of your life and never exercise, will a cardiologist refuse to clean out your arteries because you should have to face the consequences of your actions? No, we try to eliminate the consequences. There is nothing morally wrong with this. I totally reject any argument against abortion that relies on the idea that sexual activity should have its consequences.

 

[SireSpanky]

See, this is the part where you're legally obligated to provide details!

2-3 pitchers of Newcastle consumed at Gingerman, followed by a Mission Burrito. Head to GM (WAAAAAY TOO DRUNK TO BE TAKING SHOTS) for a shot of Goldshlager....followed by another. Apparently I spilt part of the second shot on the bar (yes, most of the story from this point has been told to me by my more sober friends) and I was cut off. Then, for some random reason, I decided it was a good idea to take the pen I used to sign the tab and bite it in half. The bartender disagreed. She called security. 4 guys showed up, said "you can walk out or we can take you out." I said "all right, take me out!" (God bless alcohol!) They took me out of the bar, and by the time my friends caught up, I was being kicked in the face by one of the men. Being ex-military and decent sized, there's no telling if I was throwing punches or not before the kicking, but all in all, here's a giant for those really cool guys who get a god complex on beating up a blacked out drunk. Huzzah!

 

[SireSpanky]

3 points, sorry for the long post:

1. Anyone seen the documentary "Lake of Fire"? Great look at both sides of the discussion. I think it's on Netflix instant watch. Be warned it's long.

2. I think that chasing an answer on abortion through philosophical arguments is a dead end. Most people agree that a zygote is alive from the moment of conception - it has everything necessary to independently form into an adult human. But most blastocysts never implant in the uterus - they are flushed with the period. An act of God, right? Not an intentional human action to destroy life? Interestingly, most people who oppose abortion are okay with the morning after pill, which very often works by preventing blastocyst implantation, so implicitly they grant that killing a blastocyst is acceptable. On the other hand, everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill an adult human. So, at some point between blastocyst and adult human it becomes wrong to destroy a life. If anybody can prove to me philosophically when this occurs, I'm game to listen. To date any argument I've heard for a specific time (e.g. the "age of viability") seems imprecise, relative, or arbitrary. So I fall back to practical issues: a) as has been noted a fetus has no consciousness, emotion, desires or established relationships, b) caring for a child is a huge burden that will dramatically and permanently alter the life of the mother, c) childbirth is a traumatic physical event that permanently changes the mother's body and carries the risk of serious complications, d) the mother does have consciousness, emotions, etc, and e) the actual live birth of a child provides a convenient (if arbitrary) point at which we can legally avoid the "slippery slope" idea (that killing born children without consciousness, etc for the mother's convenience is also acceptable under this line of thought). On the last point, I am sympathetic to those who would push back the latest date of a legal abortion (i.e. ban partial birth abortions).

3. The thing that I find most annoying in this debate is when people insert the notion that actions should have consequences. Most actions do have consequences, but I don't accept that there is some moral principle that they should. If you eat fatty foods all of your life and never exercise, will a cardiologist refuse to clean out your arteries because you should have to face the consequences of your actions? No, we try to eliminate the consequences. There is nothing morally wrong with this. I totally reject any argument against abortion that relies on the idea that sexual activity should have its consequences.

I disagree in many cases...Guess I'm a nobody....-sigh-

 

[jonhasaheart]

3. The thing that I find most annoying in this debate is when people insert the notion that actions should have consequences. Most actions do have consequences, but I don't accept that there is some moral principle that they should. If you eat fatty foods all of your life and never exercise, will a cardiologist refuse to clean out your arteries because you should have to face the consequences of your actions? No, we try to eliminate the consequences. There is nothing morally wrong with this. I totally reject any argument against abortion that relies on the idea that sexual activity should have its consequences.

The purpose of eating is not to get clogged arteries; it is to obtain nutrients. True, it is an unintended consequence that eating can often lead to clogged arteries, but this is not the purpose of eating. By working to eliminate the consequence of eating unhealthily, we are not interfering with the purpose of eating in and of itself.

The purpose and goal of intercourse is to "make babies" (and within society, it has another purpose which I don't need to get in to here in order to keep the argument from spilling in to other areas); it is not an unintended consequence of the act. It is a biological necessity for the human species, and it is the very reason the act is performed.

By working to eliminate the consequence of sex, we are interfering with the very purpose of the act.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges, my friend.

 

[SireSpanky]

It is a biological necessity for the human species, and it is the very reason the act is performed.

How's that argument holding up in homosexual circles?

 

[DrSno]

but all in all, here's a giant for those really cool guys who get a god complex on beating up a blacked out drunk. Huzzah!

People who get that drunk in public are beyond annoying and usually since they are idiots, quite dangerous. I'll give to the guys who took you out when you showed you could no longer handle yourself and were making others uncomfortable/aggravated. I've quite often thought about becoming a bouncer at a strip club to take out some aggression. The other night they took out a drunk guy and by time I got out there the guy had his head split open and I had to step over a big puddle of blood to get to my car.

 

[DrSno]

The purpose of eating is not to get clogged arteries; it is to obtain nutrients. True, it is an unintended consequence that eating can often lead to clogged arteries, but this is not the purpose of eating. By working to eliminate the consequence of eating unhealthily, we are not interfering with the purpose of eating in and of itself.

The purpose and goal of intercourse is to "make babies" (and within society, it has another purpose which I don't need to get in to here in order to keep the argument from spilling in to other areas); it is not an unintended consequence of the act. It is a biological necessity for the human species, and it is the very reason the act is performed.

By working to eliminate the consequence of sex, we are interfering with the very purpose of the act.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges, my friend.

Jon, this line of reasoning is dubious. You're getting confused between proximate and ultimate purposes/reasons of behaviour. The ultimate evolutionary reason humans have sex is obviously to procreate and pass on our genes. The proximate reason (the one that people are usually conscious of) is for the pleasure.

By the way, the posting by TexasNonTrad that you quoted is one of the most insightful postings I have seen in these Texas threads.

 

[twoinone]

Hey everyone - Can anyone let me know if one can become a Texas resident and claim in state tuition and fees after the first year if you attend Baylor COM? Thanks!

 

[Jolie South]

Hey everyone - Can anyone let me know if one can become a Texas resident and claim in state tuition and fees after the first year if you attend Baylor COM? Thanks!

you can if you buy property, are employed for a year, or marry a Texan. Most people buy a condo.

 

[twoinone]

you can if you buy property, are employed for a year, or marry a Texan. Most people buy a condo.

ah i see. Thanks Jolie South!

 

[teacherman]

you can if you buy property, are employed for a year, or marry a Texan. Most people buy a condo.

Anyone heard of someone marrying a Texan just for the tuition reduction? That would be interesting.

 

[da8s0859q]

[YOUTUBE]Yavx9yxTrsw[/YOUTUBE]

What the ****.

 

[Vanguard23]

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
I refuse to believe someone is that annoying.

 

[da8s0859q]

Oh, and the TMDSAS changed the match date on our status pages to 01/30/2009 -- I know it was mentioned in this thread, but I didn't realize it was posted there.

 

[lemonadelucy]

Sexual relations is one of the most personal, spiritual act two people can share on this earth. Anyone who says sex is purely for the procreation of human kind has clearly missed the absolute, naked beauty of satisfying the needs, wants, and desires of being alive. I think ee cummings said it best in his work:




''i like my body when it is with your
body. It is so quite a new thing.
Muscles better and nerves more.
i like your body. i like what it does,
i like its hows. i like to feel the spine
of your body and its bones, and the trembling
-firm-smooth ness and which i will
again and again and again
kiss, i like kissing this and that of you,
i like,, slowly stroking the, shocking fuzz
of your electric fur, and what-is-it comes
over parting flesh . . . . And eyes big Love-crumbs,

and possibly i like the thrill

of under me you quite so new"




I believe that children are a celebrating result of sex, not a consequence. Any woman who has to face the decision to abort a fetus will probably suffer huge emotional trauma... no one is pro-choice at their core beliefs. Abortion is not a birth control, rather it is a last resort. Please do not humiliate yourself by thinking this is a "quick fix" for a "consequence."

If you don't enjoy sex... ignorance can allow you to have closed-minded beliefs.

I do respect the religious grounds, yet, as physicians, these are simply personal issues that do not affect patients.

I'd like to add another quote from Chuck Klosterman: "Apples and oranges aren't that different, really. I mean, they're both fruit. Their weight is extremely similar. They both contain acidic elements. They're both roughly spherical. They serve the same social purpose. With the exception of a tangerine, I can't think of anything more similar to an orange than an apple... So how is this a metaphor for difference? I could understand if you said, 'That's like comparing apples with the early work of Raymond Carver,' or 'That's like comparing apples with hermaphroditic ground sloths.' Those would all be valid examples of profound disparity. But not apples and oranges. In every meaningful way, they're virtually identical."


So go read a romantic novel and don't blush, enjoy the feeling of another human being without guilt, view "The Kiss" by Klimnt and goosebump. Just don't be narrow-minded as a physician. Be honest with yourself, relax, and help out your patients.

Also, please do not use the phrase "The reason is because..." in life. It's simply redundant and horrifying.