There are actually some intelligent people on both sides of the gun control debate here, in contrast to the witless racists, gay-bashers and nihilists passing as liberals currently in talk.politics.guns.
I encourage people who want to continue this discussion to do so in talk.politics.guns.
If nothing else, the anti-gun (and fence sitting) people can see all of the interesting characters on the anti-gun side of the debate! : )
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Talk Politics Guns is full of violent, threatening, truely nasty people. Flames are the order of the day, every day. Very little "debating" goes on there. You are welcome to go look for yourself.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:03:30 -0700, Berzeleus Windrip wrote:
I've been "looking" for over ten years. What should I see that's different? : )
Actually the most violent and threatening people I've met there were anti-gun people. Of course copying their emails to their ISPs caused the latter to get "violent and threatening". : )
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
surely the clinic just hired another abortionist to perform the abortions? after all, the women going to get abortions aren't exactly going to go "oh, ok, fine" and walk out after being told there was nobody to perform their abortion, they'd presumably make a second appointment.
Your uncles were brave, a concept a certain someone seems to have forgotten about.
I like you, Chris. You're a keeper. I'd be more than happy to bestow upon you the honor of "honorary heartless bitch". You earned it, and for that I'm majorly proud.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 03:43:10 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:
People who shoot doctors and blow up clinics are cowards. I'll bet the first time a doctor plugged one of these clowns between the eyes, the whole thing would go away.
I've already been proclaimed "cold-hearted son of a bitch" by the publicist at a former employer! : )
I don't have a problem teaching gays how to shoot either. I hate bullies.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On 11 Aug 2000 21:55:52 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
They're not risking much. People who should know better, are telling the victims not to defend themselves because it would be "wrong". You don't risk much when you shoot fish in a barrel.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:05:03 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
And we could televise it! Call it the Running man! Then make a cheap knock-off movie with Arnold Schwartzenneger that has none of the plot fo the original...
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:14:52 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
Either that, or it'd start a true war. The thing about these anti-abortionists is that they are religeously motivated; read: absolutely certain of their rightness. Many of them do what they do because they believe it's the right thing to do. This means, if the doctors start shooting back, they're just as likely to stand their ground in the shoot-out as pee their pants and run.
Religeous fanaticism is perhaps the only form of unjustice that can stand up to a valiant resistance. And the harder you press, the harder it resists. Stop pressing, and watch it go limp. ;)
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:49:50 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
hardly. Other socially dangerous items are able to be controlled. Why should a completely archaic portion of the constitution cause thousands of deaths every year.
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:48:21 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
How many innocent people die from gunshot wounds?
No, no, probably.
Yes, they are actually. If marijuana use was legallized, it'd be far more rampant and we'd be inundated with commercials that show pretty young high school girls having fun in home movies, then show the words "Killed by a stoned driver, 1-26-97".
No. It's archaic because noone outside of law enforcement NEEDS a gun anyways.
That Fuhrman/Volpe thing is a total strawman. Focus a few isolated cases instead of the bigger picture.
"No, don't look over at that big pile of dead bodies. Look over hear at the cop who may or may not have said the N word!"
Well, the part that *doesn't* say "seperation of church and state", which is all of it. That phrase really needs to go in there somewhere and shut Pat Buchanan the hell up.
Not at all. Worshipping the Constitution as some infallible document is sheer stupidity, which i doubt you are doing. This has more to do with your personal desire to own a gun(s) than protecting the Constitution.
Yeah. They're all out to get you!
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 14 Aug 2000 13:33:11 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
You didn't answer my question. What does "socially dangerous" mean?
As for gunshot wounds, subtract suicides (who have the right to kill themselves as they see fit) and it's rather few.
Certainly far fewer than at typically killed by their own governments after they've been disarmed.
Do you promote prohibition?
No they aren't, by any standard. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can get them, and easily.
But it's ok if they're killed by a drunken driver? Or are you promoting prohibition?
Rights aren't based upon need. You're confusing rights and privileges.
No one NEEDS to pray. No one NEEDS to travel beyond the requirements of his employment. No one NEEDS to criticize the government, or choose his own profession, or....
Governments which parcel rights out by "need" tend to have certain areas where the grass is unnaturally green and lush. Must be due to an abundance of fertilizer....
I've certainly needed a gun on a number of occasions, the last being the time that someone tried to run me off the interstate in the middle of the night when no one was around. He remembered a previous engagement when he saw the automatic rifle I had pointed at him.
Oppression is always a "total strawman"... to those who promote it.
The "bigger picture" is the Ramparts Division of the LAPD, Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, MOVE, Waco, Ruby Ridge, COINTELPRO, Manzanar, Hart Mountain, Babi Yar....
Don't look at that pile of dead bodies with the cop standing on top. They're just "isolated incidents". Besides, they "had it coming"....
What you're proposing is to give PRESIDENT Buchanan an absolute monopoly on the means of armed force.
You certainly haven't proposed anything better... nor has anyone I've ever heard. What you hint at is whim and the rule of the mob. "Something must be done!"... no matter to whom and for what reason.
Without the right to own guns, I have no other rights, since they can be taken away on a whim with no fear on the part of those doing the taking.
Some of them are. And I've got the emailed death threats to prove it.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:31:44 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
Like the right to live. The unborn had it taken away from them, and pretty soon it'll be the old, then the sick, then anyone who's socially undesirable, like say Jews.
You're wrong.
Location is the difference? Inside the womb vs. out?
Don't forget I'm not arguing for the morality of this. Go back to the original thread and I'm arguing for it's *productivity*.
Sure, why not?
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On 12 Aug 2000 22:03:30 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Fetuses don't have rights. Born people do. That includes Jews, and even anti-abortionists.
No, I'm right.
Yep.
I'm noted a fact. It wasn't tied to you in any way.
Have at it. I've GOT rifles capable of hitting someone in the head at 600 yards, and sighted in to that distance NOW.
Most extreme anti-abortionists I've encountered don't seem to have the intellect required to set the clock on a VCR, much less operate a Hellfire missile and its supporting systems.
Of course that leaves aside the possibility of "stinging" people trying to buy missiles for that purpose. If they want an ad hoc war, I'm perfectly capable of conducting one.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:54:27 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
It didn't use to be that way. Fetuses had their rights taken away from them.
What's to stop other groups from having their rights taken away? It's already being seen in Europe, where euthanasia is seriously pushed my many doctors.
It's a very slippery slope, one I do not wish to tread.
No, you're wrong.
So if I somehow manage to stuff you into a giant womb, I can kill you?
I sure as heck wouldn't die without a fight.
Not if you don't know it's coming.
That's true. Sad fact of martyrs, they usually aren't very experienced in their arts.
Fair enough.
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Really ? that supprises me...I guess the theory was keep them uneducated and they won't get ideas above their place in life correct ? if this is the case thank heaven things have changed, I mean people *SHOUDNT* be discriminated agains because of accident of birth (i.e. what race they are born).
Hey I'm not american, so I can be excused for not knowing much US history. After all not being british, what little history I did learn at school before I dropped it, was pretty much eurpean centric, with a bias towards english history. I'm willing to wager that the americans on here will have learned primarly american history correct ?
But my above statement shows that I am prepared to learn a little, and also that I was also pretty disgusted with the fact that it was illeagal for black people to learn to read.
"Nature has a new plague to run in our streets, History some wrinkle, we are doomed to repeat...."
<rant> No, we were too busy learning how to avoid STDs and playing sports to learn any history. Nowadays, thanks to multiculturalism, students may learn some African, South American, or Asian history, but just a little of that.
One problem with teaching history in US government schools is that we've decided to eliminate any mention of religion (Judeo-Christian religions, anyway) from the public schools; but most of the important events in history had religious aspects, for good or bad. So we end up teaching a flat, bland version of history where people run around discovering things and attacking countries for no particular reason. That makes for incredibly boring classes.
The other problem is that our schools aren't teaching anything well, including history. Kids aren't learning to read or do math, either. 'Daria' is too kind to US schools; they're even worse than that.
Just to clarify: that wasn't a national law, but it did happen in certain states and localities. I don't think it was the law in the majority of the South, but I could be wrong about that.
It's a sad commentary on our current education establishment that slaves -- who didn't exactly have a lot of books lying around -- had to be *prevented* from teaching themselves to read; while our current system spends $6000/child/year and still can't seem to get the job done very well.
Uh...where did YOU go to school? When I was in grade school, we learned watered-down world and U.S. history, and delved quite deeply into Texas history, and then in high school we learned more world and U.S. history and government and economics. Granted, there was little in the way of African or Asian history (save for Japan) in our world history lessons, but we did get to them.
Well, I guess that explains it...you're talking about the public school systems, which are NOT run by the U.S. goverment but by local (and in larger metropolitan areas district-wide) educational bodies who decide the curriculum, funding, etc. The states oversee these school districts, but all the decision-making ends up being done by the individual school district. The U.S. government has a very minute role in public schools, mainly dealing with funding.
I've been going to Catholic school all my life. No, it isn't a sign of any wealth; if my family's wealthy, then the earth is flat and is also the center of the universe. Religious schools for the most part aren't the stereotypical "snobbish rich" type of school that one might associate with a non-public school. At my grade school, there were plenty of children of plumbers and electricians and carpenters and welders, and at my high school a good 70% of the population were lower middle class and poorer. These families made the decision to continue paying their school taxes as well as sending their children to a school where they would get a good education. Granted, we didn't have the facilities of a sleek, modern public school, nor did we at times have the same dizzying array of course selections, but we got damn good teachers, small classes, challenging assignments, disclipline, and we LEARNED.
I think once again the problem is that you're basing this on your own experiences with school. A lot of schools out there are trying their hardest, and oftentimes the ones who do best are the ones who are underfunded. A lack of money to build a state-of-the-art campus will make people resort to the tried-and-true methods of education, including making sure the teachers are teaching the students and the curriculum is set up so that one could graduate and contribute positively to the world.
I don't know. I think there might've been some communities in the South (and perhaps even in the North) where it was unspoken law and the sheriffs and deputies of those communities wouldn't have been afraid to enforce it. Sadly, the South HAS had a dark legacy of being very racist; in fact, as recently as the mid 1960s, when my parents were graduating from high school, there was segregation and hosility toward non-whites (i.e. blacks and Hispanics) in much of San Antonio, as well as Texas in general. And I've been told by Hispanic people who look whiter than me that they've gotten stared at and had been rudely treated in such places as Alabama. This was around 1993 - 1994 I was told this, by the way.
Once again, I think this is because when a school or a learning environment doesn't have a lot of money to play with, they generally tend to stick to the basics, including finding the best teachers OUTSIDE of the teachers' unions (btw -- the teachers' unions are mostly to blame for the worsening state of American education today), setting up a basic curriculum and/or requirements for graduation, and making sure as much money as possible would be allocated to non-technological methods of teaching (i.e. not relying on computers to educate students). I know that at my high school, we would've never gotten computers had it not been for corporate donations -- the school would've never had the money for the computers. But through it all, we all graduated knowing we had a great education, and many of our parents sacrificed to make that $250/month tuition.
LI (not saying my grade school and high school were perfect...they weren't...but they were close to being so IMO...)
I'm all for improving our public school systems, but I can't lie and say my public education was utter shit. I took three years of history in high school, plus a Civics class, a poly-sci course, and one on Vietnam. Not one year went by in my public education (maybe kindergarten or 1st grade, who knows?) when I wasn't taught history. Learning about STDs was reserved for Health class, which was usually once or twice a week, for half the school year. Sports was gym class, which was once or twice a week for the other half of the school year. So the vast majority of my time in school was spent in classrooms in which teachers were trying to do their jobs and teach us history, science, mathematics, literature, etc. Any deficiency in my public education I blame mostly on myself for not taking it seriously enough. Although admittedly I did have a couple teachers who I felt did not do a very good job, they seemed to be the exception rather than the rule.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:59:17 GMT, Michael Pierry wrote:
The quality of public schools in the United States depends entirely on the city in which you live.
I'm from Chicago and went to Catholic school. We had quite a few classmates whose parents couldn't initially afford to send them to Catholic school. When they transferred in from the public system, they were shockingly undereducated. I had one classmate who couldn't read "The End" at the end of a filmstrip. These weren't stupid kids either. They had just never been taught by teachers who gave a damn; and if there's anything that the Chicago public school system lacks, it's teachers who give a damn. ALL they care about is pay raises, and it's been that way at least since the '60s.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
There is a saying dunno if it's localised to the UK, or if you guys in the states would have heard it, anyway...
Those who can do, Those who cant, teach, Those who can't teach, teach games (sports).
Basically it seems to me that there are very few teachers in the school system who are there cause they want to teach, as Chris said above all they seem to care about is pay.
I hadn't heard the last bit of that before, I wonder if it's what teachers say?
I don't think the UK system is like the American one though. For one thing, teachers' unions here are generally perceived as being defenders of education rather than culprits, as they always kick up a fuss about spending cuts and being forced to spend too much time on bureaucracy instead of teaching. I think one of the main troubles in education is that what you need is people who are not only good at teaching, but at motivating people, and who can manage a group of 20-30 people. People with skills like that can probably earn about ten times the salary in the business sector, as they would be a team leader or head of department.
I think a lot of people *do* go into teaching because they want to teach, but the problem is that as in the adage, most of the people who would be good at it will have got better jobs elsewhere.
Funny that's pretty much what Chris said...well yeah I heard this from my grandfatherwho yes was a teacher :)
Thank (insert name of apropreate deity here :) )....no oppense intended to the Americans, though from what people on here have siad they would aggree that the US school system is in a pretty poor state.
True.
Though that would be eaier if class sizes where smaller, yeah I know it all boils down to ecanomics :)
Yeah and they genarally have more mature people to work with :)
I was exaggerating for effect, of course. Yes, we had various types of history classes too, but the common characteristic of all of them was that they were drab courses full of dates and names, without any of the context that could have made them interesting. The textbooks were dull as dirt, and I don't suppose most of the teachers new their history well enough to strike out on tangents without the book.
If you believe that, I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona you might be interested in. :-) Why do you suppose the teachers' unions hold the Department of Education so dear? Local school districts have a very small range within which to make decisions; mostly they just choose from a small selection of coursework, do the hiring, and rubber-stamp decisions from above. Remember when Congress decided to let the states administer the school lunch program, and they were accused of letting children starve? A system that doesn't trust parents and local schools to keep children from starving isn't going to trust them to teach the right stuff.
You're right, it's a myth that you have to be wealthy to go to private school. I recall seeing a study that showed the average family income of private school kids to be very near the poverty line. It's a question of priorities more so than wealth. Also, most Catholic schools are partially funded by the church, so tuitions aren't that high. Every time someone wants to slam private schools, they throw out numbers like $10K/year, which is just ridiculous.
I spent K-7 grades in public school, 8th in Catholic grade school, and 9-12 in Catholic seminary. Without question the Catholic schools provided a much better education, and better overall learning. I do think that some of the problems with modern education come from the age-segregated, textbook-based methods we use in almost all schools, so even the private schools suffer from those things.
I'm not questioning their effort, I'm questioning the results. I know there are lots of people out there in the schools doing their best to teach kids right. One that comes to mind is John Gatto, who was once named New York Teacher of the Year, and has since retired and written extensively on what a mess the schools are. When Bill Bennett was Education Secretary under Reagan, he did a study that found that test scores were inversely proportional to money spent; in other words, the more money a school got per student, the worse the test scores there were likely to be.
When local people are in charge, they can do a good job, even without a lot of fancy tools; but the more help (with strings attached, of course) they get from outside, the worse off they are.
No, because people have DIY or black market abortions instead, so you get 100 dead babies, and many dead women. That was essentially the reason why it was legalised in the UK: to save lives, not to take them.
herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :
Oh (insert name of repective deiety here) here we go again :)
No one said it didn't but would you rather have these women who get pregnant, then desperate :-
1) Pay through the nose for an illegal abortion.
2) Die or be seriously infected because the person doing it is either
a) Not qualified.
b) Has been struck off/oficcialy banned from practicing medicine
because of doing ileagal abortions for example.
I have heard some horror stories of what went on in the UK befor abortion was leagalised, perhaps the anti-abortionists should considder researching this before trying to outlaw it. But then again they are single minded in their thinking and don't seem to realise that making it illeagal will not stop it, though granted it will make it harder, it will also possibly have the above rather unwanted consequences.
Just to draw this into perspective, there are strict controls over abortions in the UK, they are NOT allowed to be carried out after 28 weeks, of pregnancy, and the woman is counceled before hand to make sure that she knows what the consequences will be.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:42:41 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:
I would rather a few women have that happen to them than millions of people (read: unborn babies) dead. Life's a bitch, that doesn't excuse legalizing mass-murder.
Killing human beings is an unwanted consequence. Unless you can show that more people die without abortions (which I find highly unlikely), it's an unfortunate but neccessary loss.
Why 28 weeks? Does the baby suddenly gain a soul or rights just between the 7th and 8th months?
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :
So would you rather have it outlawed and then carried out illeagaly, putting the woman in a potentially life threatening position, beacause it was carried out by some money-grabbing-exploitative butcher ? I don't *LIKE* abortion, and yes it is still killing. And as I said further up the thread, I don't think it should be used as a method of contraception, which is how some people have come to view it. Or is that also murder in your eyes (contraception that is) ? (Ok, maybe that was a little extream, I don't actually think you think that Kyle, but there are some people who do).
I sugest you go do some research on the 'back street abortions' carried out illeagaly in the UK before it was leagalised, you might find that there are some horror stories, about those that you may be closing your mind to. Face it, which is worse, carried out legally by a trained doctor in a resonably safe clean, sterile hospital environment or by some guy who doesn't really know what heshe is doing with unsafe unclean equipment etc. Also what do you do in cases of someone getting pregnant from rape ? You IIRC seemed to advocate that it was ok for the victim to exact revenge and kill the perpitrator, but it is not ok to abort the baby ? humm I sense double standards here. Especially considdering that being forced to cary that baby will *INCRESE* the emotional and psycological damage done by the rapist in the first place, it's a tough call isn't it ?
It may be 24, I may not be rembering quite correctly, but at the time that tle law was written I believe that it was set at some point below that which they then believed that a baby could survive outside of the womb, and therefore became able to survive as an individual independent of it's mother.
On 11 Aug 2000 21:52:54 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
I guess I didn't really answer your question.
If I absolutely have to, I can reluctantly accept legal abortion in the situation of truly life-threatening complications should the baby be allowed to live, as long as they are damned sure it's life-threatening. No using that loophole to get around the fact that you were stupid enough to get knocked up and don't wanna tell mommy and daddy.
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
my �0.02: if you're 13 and you get pregnant, mommy and daddy will probably go ballistic. but really... i remember being 13. i remember having friends who went around fucking whoever asked, and i remember feeling terribly inferior because i was completely inexperienced in that respect. i thought it *mattered*. frankly, i couldn't blame a 13-year-old for bowing to peer pressure and having sex, and i couldn't blame her for being so weak that she didn't make the guy use a condom. i don't think she should be punished for that one stupid mistake, for the rest of her life. i don't think the kid should have to grow up with the knowledge that she or he is only here because mommy was an idiot, either.
well, i guess the disagreement here is over the "alive-ness" of an embryo, which is a matter of opinion as there's no evidence as to whether or not an embryo can think, etc.
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 04:00:51 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Exactly. That's why all the "what if's" brought forth by anti-lifers and pro-lifers are just strawmen. The only difference is whether or not you think the fetus is alive.
Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:06:17 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
No, but if the guy is an adult, he should be punished and SEVERELY. That seems to be a pattern in the US, OLDER males inducing younger females to have sex, then leaving their children to be the PUBLIC's responsibility. Some states are both prosecuting them for statutory rape, and hitting them up for child support, which is as it should be.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
if you're going to allow abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened, why not cases where it *may* be threatened? this applies to all pregnancies, does it not?
should the woman be forced to lug it around for 9 months, though?
so if a worm was living in your stomach, you would allow it to live there and feed off you?
In article , herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) writes:
You and the rest of the anti-abortionists are making a mistake - you're confusing the *potential* with the *actual.*
A lump of copper, has under the right circumstances, the potential to become a coil of electrical wire, a sculpture, or a doorknob. That does not mean that it *is* any of these things or that it makes sense to treat it as such (try wiring your house with the lump).
The same thing applies to a zygote. It is a single cell which has the *potential* to become a human being, but the only human characteristic it *actually* has is it's DNA pattern. And if you're going to say that DNA pattern alone qualifies something as human, then you should be shedding tears over every skin cell, blood cell, etc. that's ever died in the history of our species.
The one factor that distinguishes us from all other lifeforms known (making us distinctly "human") is our capacity for abstract reasoning. Any entity which can't claim this at the very least can't qualify as human. A zygote can't think or feel until it developes into an embryo with a certain amount of brain architecture. Now, I'm not sure exactly where the cutoff point is. It may be measureable in weeks prior to the birth, or even in monthes *after* it (though I hope not, as I don't like the images that possability conjures up), but prior to that, *it* *ain't* *human,* any more than the afforementioned lump of copper is a length of wire until given certain characteristics.
Perhaps not *exactly* then, but you've got the idea.
In article , herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) writes:
This idea is impossible to practise in reality. By that same logic, it's also a sculpture in it's early stages, and a doorknob in it's early stages, and a million other things. But it's absurd and futile to try and treat it as *any* of those things *while it is a lump of copper.*
You have to go a lot *furthur* out of your way for it to develop into (or, in your terms, "stay") a human being. For the fetus to survive and develop, the mother must:
increase her nutritional consumption to feed the fetus.
2) avoid a range of physical activities which could threaten the health of the fetus, possibly to the point of becoming totally dependant on others in the late stages.
3) avoid consuming a range of substances which could damage or abort the fetus, such as alcohol and tobacco.
Not to mention the birth itself, the recovery time, and the years in which the child will be completely dependant on the parent's active caretaking. By comparison, an abortion would be far less disruptive.
And to turn your previous illogic against itself, even if a zygote could be considered a human in the early stages, the same reasoning could be used to declare it a piece of dead, aborted tissue in the early stages. In fact, since there are many more conditions in which a fetus will die than in which it will live, the latter is far more likely.
I think I'd better step back a second and point something out to you.
Everything that exists has a specific nature, a collection of characteristics. A noun (such as "human" or "zygote") is defined by a list of possessed characteristics. Anything which does not possess *all* of the defining characteristics of a noun, is not an example of that noun. For example, helium possesses the characteristic of having 2 protons per atom. If an atom of helium somehow loses a proton, the atom no longer qualifies as "helium." Specifically, it would be "hydrogen."
Now apply this to your statement above. A zygote possesses, among other things, the characteristic of being a single-celled organism. If it ceases to be single-celled, it ceases to be a zygote. To say that humans possess, among other things, the characteristic of "being a zygote" is to say that to be human, one must be a single-celled organism. Which means you *stopped* being human shortly after conception.
I take it this is not what you meant to say. Try again. What are the characteristics required to qualify an entity as "human," according to you? Remember, to be useful and valid in a rational debate, your definition must meet several criteria:
1) It must be internally consistant. The various characteristics must not conflict with each other.
2) It must be consistant with observable reality without producing absurd or impossible results, such as claiming that DNA-pattern alone qualifies an organism as human and ending up with every single cell in our bodies counting as a seperate human being.
3) The characteristics must be specific enough to be observed and debated. A vague definition is useless. For example, saying that having a "soul" is a characteristic of humans doesn't help unless you also explain exactly what constitutes a soul.
For the record, the definition I'm going by includes 2 characteristics:
1) DNA pattern (which allows for a wide range of physical variation and deformity).
2) The capacity for abstract reason (which excludes corpses, the permenantly brain-dead and fetuses/newborns who have yet to reach the appropriate stage of mental developement).
You may debate either point or add your own, but remember the criteria.
A follow-up. Killing abortion doctors is terribly wrong and a crime. Fortunately, it's a tiny minority that might be driven to such an awful deed. Most pro-lifers do NOT in any way support the murder of abortion doctors or firebombings of clinics.
Yes, and I fully support executions. But it could be argued by some that these are mentally unstable persons to begin with. However, I also support executions of the criminally insane (to me they will always be a danger to society), something NOT supported by most liberals and a lot of death penalty advocates.
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:57:20 GMT, "PeterTHX" wrote:
I don't support executing the insane. I do support killing them in the act to protect other people.
But then premeditation, especially the creation of intricate explosive devices tends, and the attempt to conceal, argue AGAINST a lack of responsibility.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
On 13 Aug 2000 01:29:59 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Productive of murdered people.
I find shooting such people in the act, supremely productive. It eliminates a threat to the community and provides an object lesson that bullies and thugs won't be tolerated.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
In this day and age of deadly STDs, getting pregnant is almost a "good" thing.
Point is, people should take responsibility. BOTH parties. If a woman wants unprotected sex, she should be on the pill or some other form of contraception. If she doesn't, the man should insist on condoms. If a man wants unprotected sex, than the woman should say "no". Men need to be held responsible too.
Abortion should be the last resort. Unfortunately, to some of the so-called "pro-choicers", it's the ONLY option. There are women who use it as their sole means of birth control. I also don't go for this & that abortion is the end all and be all of women's rights, it's a lot more complicated. Equal pay, treatment, and opportunity is often ignored as the _true_ issues for a woman's rights. Being pro-life isn't necessarily being "anti-woman". I won't force a woman to carry a baby to term, I just feel that abortion is morally (moral & legal are two different things) wrong, and the situation could have been prevented in the first place.
i think a lot of the time women need to hold *themselves* responsible. it annoys me when i hear "he wouldn't use a condom" - if he won't, don't fuck him!
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:36:36 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
That is a problem. Some women have to decide whether their independent and autonomous, OR whether they just let themselves get led around by the nose. The bottom line is that nobody is REALLY going to look out for a woman's best interest better than that woman.
--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Almost? Pregnancy is _usually_ a good thing, since the majority of all pregnancies are _wanted_. (This can easily get obscured in a discussion of abortion!)
...and so do millions upon millions of reproductive-age women. I mean, after all, this *is* the home country of insurance companies that don't have a problem with adding Viagra as a covered prescription but who won't let women have decades-old oral contraception covered under the same insurance policies because it's "not a necessity". Huh, "not a necessity"? Try "not a necessity for the old rich white men who give us tons of money so we can only concentrate on their medical needs and screw you if you're anything different".
Or as U2 once put it : "The rich stay heathy, the sick stay poor..."
Herein lies the reason that true and absolute freedom is not acievable in a place with more than one person in it, because occasionally person A's right to choose wil limit person B's.
Personally I don't like abortion, but I believe it should be available though descouraged. What I don't think it should be used as is as a method of contraception. There are 2 valid reasons that I think that abortion should be performed 1) in cases of pregnacy resulting from rape, 2) in cases where either health of the mother *OR* the baby would be jepodised by carrying full term. Having said that I also believe that it is better to have leagal abortions carried out by trained medical persons, rather than making it illeagal which won't stop it happening, but will just drive people to get illeagl abortions which possibly put the health of the mother at serios risk.
I have no problem with that, providing by feminist you believe in equality, most of the people who I have met who claim to be feminists, want superiority IMHO not equality.
Thanks for the invitation, but even thinking about politics in general makes me want to break stuff (it's a wonder I haven't gone mad yet just from the recent politcal discussions here).
Also, whenever I subscribe to new newsgroups that (are supposed to) have to do with something that interests me, I usually end up greatly dissapointed (and when you start with endless flame wars with no chance of it ever changing...).
That, and I'm falling behing in my research just from *this* newsgroup :)
This ng, btw, has been the only ng I've frequented that hasn't dissappointed me - I think it's because of all the smart people here (or at least more than your average one).
You never know, I might at least take a look though.
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:05:34 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:
That's why, despite those who decry the practice, I continue to participate in debates in this group. There simply is no other place I can actually find people who are both intelligent and educated enough to prove me wrong from time to time, and passionate enough to try. My hat goes off to Mike Quinn and others for successfully holding their ground, though I think we came to agree to keep our ideas on our respective sides of the Atlantic. Honorable mention goes to Ali, for a valiant attempt to defend her position, despite a clear disadvantage in the area of knowledge about most things that concern the issue. Many would have given up much earlier, or resorted to raw flaming.
Hmm... I just might take some fire for that last statement. Oh well. I suppose I get what I deserve...