Meg 1

Your latest bit of venom "Scout – are you suggesting shades of Hitler again, experimentation with human life now.

RE: Trays of frozen embryos…and stem cell research."

My question Meg1, was not 'do you approve of stem cell research?'

As if I couldn't guess your answer to that.

No, my dear woman, it is this:

Given that there are unneeded embryos left over after in vitro fertilisation, what do you suggest be done with all these little frozen foeti?

See, Meg1, when I said that I was in favour of stem cell research that was simply my OPINION. You may well disagree with my OPINION - that's fine. But cut the vitriol and behave like an adult for a change.

I will repeat the question just to be sure you understand.

What do you believe is the best solution for unneeded embryos?

No one from the anti-abortion lobby has answered this question yet and I really would like to know.

Meg, I fully aware that a tremester = 3 months. My argument has stayed the same all along. The problem is your inability to comprend it. Let me repeat it for you. A fetus is not a baby ie. person, until it has, what can be called a human brain. The scientific evidence shows that that is finally in place at about week 25-26,
ie the end of the second tremester. Abortion as a woman's right,
is accepted in many countries up to 12 weeks, in other words with a huge error factor built in. In my personal opinion, there is no problem with abortion until a fetus does have a human brain, ie. 25-26 weeks. But I am happy to support the 12 weeks "standard", as I feel that right has more chance of being
given finally to women worldwide, then any other suggestion. Its
time that the UN puts the Catholic Church in its place!

I have not advocated killing babies, but the difference between a fetus and a baby is clearly beyond your intellectual abilities.

Chimps and bonobos are simply good indicator species, directly affected by Catholic dogma in Africa. The real issue is one of global sustainability, regarding what we humans are doing to the planet. Without biodiversity, there won't be humanity either,
but as that is far above your head to understand, I'm trying to explain it in language that even maternally engulfed and intellectually challenged housewives should be able to understand.

Meg, it is not Government's role to feed people. In Africa most people simply grow the food that they and their families need, given available land. When that land becomes scarce, because women, against their will, are being forced to have 6-7 kids, largely because of Catholic interference in the African political system,
then clearly the Catholic Church can be blamed for the problem.
They should be responsible for their actions. African women should be given a choice as to how many children they have, just as Western women have that choice. Only then will Africa start to make progress.

Meg1,
indeed, I started with the comparisons between non-human mammals and humans, though you used that context to frame a question about which I would prefer to eat.

I asked about your motives, feeling sure you posed your dilemma merely to say something like "[my] admission...is illegal and repugnant"; an unfair and intellectually dubious tactic (setting someone up to respond with rhetoric over argument). I backed my convictions and answered the question with my “technical” answer though I’m as unlikely as you to ever eat a human.

The point of the dilemma was to ask which you would choose, if you had to, between the life of a foetus and a baby. Can I assume, if you had to choose between any two human lives, your decision would be random? Otherwise, what factors would you consider make one life more important than another?

That you go between the horns of the similarly phrased dilemma I returned to you shouldn’t surprise me. You seem to be trying any tactic to avoid actually answering a question, and exposing your position. Even with more detractors than supporters in this forum, a disproportionate bulk of your posts consists of countering arguments with questions, and although it is a generalization, the questions seem formed from narrow interpretations of opponent's arguments.

Two examples-
1)At my dilemma, ‘Is abortion ok if childbirth kills the mother?' , you interpret the word childbirth in an unusual manner that includes abortion.

You then say I show astounding ignorance for not knowing this definition, despite the fact I have not defined childbirth in that question, and no part of my phrasing of the question excludes your unusual interpretation of childbirth (otherwise you would be unable to make that unusual definition from that question).

Additionally, your answer does not address the question, with or without your unusual definition of childbirth.

However, to make the question clearer, if the development of the foetus to a certain point would kill the mother, unless the foetus is aborted before that point, would you support that abortion? Why/why not?

(continued)

(from previous post)
2)I ask “What if childbirth kills others?”, and you again go through the horns of the dilemma by saying my “question and its subsequent answer are not even plausible theories”.

Rather than attacking my work habits, your response would have had more impact if you’d attempted an explanation of why my question is not plausible. My understanding is that something can be plausible either if it is possible, or only if it is likely, depending on one’s interpretation. Given the difference between us on a definition of “childbirth”, I’m not sure what plausibility means to you.

However, if the dilemma only needs to be possible (however unlikely) to be plausible to you, then do you concede that some remote possibility exists whereby the birth of a child (not including abortion in that definition) may result in the death of another human (other than the mother)? If so, are you able to now answer the question, and give reasons?

If not, or if the dilemma needs to be likely, to be plausible to you, can you explain how the implausibility of the dilemma affects your answer, as you seem to have an absolute deontological morality that does not normally rely on contingent factors of circumstance for differentiating good from evil?

You say I am "not one to be trusted with small children", my "ignorance is astounding", and ask me are "things a bit slow at work and [you're] trying to look busy?"

Are you attempting humour, or trying to flame me?

In the spirit of fair debate, I will assume the former, but as your counterarguments seem mostly based on willful misinterpretation of my points, and you seem reluctant to directly answer my questions or to promote your own philosophies, it is difficult for any fair debate to occur.

As we only have limited posts in any given period, if you can not or will not use yours for developing some sort of argument in defense of your anti-abortion views, I can not waste any more of my posts assuming that you have a reasonable argument to make.

‘in an organisation of liars and perverts…’ another of your ‘vilest slanders’, Col and more generalized slandering of ALL Catholics…despite your denials.

Applying your generalizations regarding paedophile priests and all Catholics…the same absurd ‘logic’ condemns you as a paedophile-abuser-murderer-rapist…because some in the human race are…and you are a human in contact with other humans, aren’t you?

Manipulated absurdities aren’t logic, Col…the cap can easily fit you too.

You’ve continuously vented your spleen regardless of the truth, I wonder what regret and bitterness led you to such irrational hatred of so many…you’re to be pitied, rather than despised or taken seriously, if your posts are any indication.

I don’t waste time, as you do, on hatred or any of its other forms Col, so stamp and bully - it neither frightens nor impresses me.

‘You have no reputation to protect nor position of credibility to hold on to…levels of your own corruption…’

What a gargantuan ego! You have no idea what reputation or anything else I have or haven’t…nor I you.

You argue individuals hold prime importance – yet deny respect to other fellow humans…your contradictions and hypocrisy are as transparent as your huffing-puffing about your own importance.

You’ve much talk-no action when it comes to supporting ‘individual’ rights for anyone who doesn’t succumb to your bullying and bluster, Col.

RE: ‘corruption’…slander away, you’ve a serious credibility problem Col, I’d guess your circle of friends is much smaller than your ego if you judge without even knowing the person…don’t judge others by your own behaviour, some aren’t prepared to stoop to your level.

RE: Free will…rules apply even to local footie clubs…haven’t we been here before?

If you’re Catholic and break the rules, consequences apply as they do for the rest of the world.

If you don’t play by NRL rules, you’ll be penalized accordingly…wake up Col, not all of us are baffled by your absurd, erratic attempt at logic.

tbc...

(cont...)

Scout, re-read c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y I’ve no need to freeze embryos, nor will I have a say on their fate…those who are accustomed to killing foetus’ will likely remain as foxes commanding the henhouse.

If you employed factual research, you’d know embryos remain parent’s ‘property’ with legal rights…interestingly?

Statistically, the most dangerous location in Australia is mother’s womb…

Yabby, your posts indicate you supported abortion to the end of the FIRST TRIMESTER, not second…but these are ONLY babies in your jaundiced view aren’t they, not your kindred chimps?

‘in language that even maternally engulfed and intellectually challenged housewives should be able to understand.’

Your own words condemn you as a hypocrite and ego-driven but not very bright fellow, who has to put others down in order to assert your own pereceived superiority…re-read of your last post, and then read my comments to Col, above…the comments apply to you in kind.

Check my comments on corruption in African governments. Are you unaware of it, or do you approve of it? That’s one reason for lack of productivity, add drought, civil unrest…then despite your ignorance, face reality on the situation in Africa.

What hypocrisy wibble, it’s you who assert that one life is more important than the other…not I.

I have been in the position where another life was threatened and chose to offer my own life, twice – I am alive, so the situation was obviously resolved.

Contrary to your dribble, wibble…my pro-life position is abundantly clear.

When is a baby responsible for another’s, unrelated death? You are really fantasizing now.

Anti-lifers aren’t the only posters permitted to question. You assume your narrow view to be superior to any contrary view and demand control over others accordingly.

If you can’t tolerate the opinions of another, don’t accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself…I couldn’t care less if you post or not.

In debate, try offering something other than science fiction, fabrication or hyperbole and your credibility may improve.

RE: Good and evil…are you asking the world to follow rules you expect exemption from if you find them inconvenient or difficult?