marjon9

The thing that you and daffodil and funnyduddies don't understand is how much damage your do to the pro-life movement with your endless bitterness, disrespect, and hostility. I know you think you are doing god's work, but what you are actually doing is hurting your cause. Of course you won't be able to see that.

I'm not deluding myself or trying to fool anyone. If your theories hold up at all, they apply every bit as much to a dividing embryo with 4 cells as a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks. If you acknowledge that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is not a "human being," then your argument is not worth the electrons in cyberspace. I focus on the early stages of development because it emphasizes the point that reasonable people can disagree that a fetus is a human being. Feel free to disagree, but this accusation that I am deluding myself and trying to fool people is just worthless hostility that doesn't advance the argument or prove anything. Are you just going to keep doing that with every post for all eternity? It was fun for a while but it is really getting boring now. Gadget, the bottom line is, we understand each other's positions pretty well now. We disagree with each other. I understand and respect your position. You seem unable to do the same with respect to my point of view. I accept that. Can we leave it there? If you have something else you'd like to talk about, I'm willing. But I'm not up for the hostility and sarcasm any more. It was fun for a while, but it's gotten boring now.

I don't think that this is something that is capable of proof. I think that this is a question of conscience, not science. We all see the same facts. We all know what stages a fetus goes through, etc. When you look at these facts, you see that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a human being. You can't imagine how anyone could see it any other way. I understand your point of view and respect it. But I disagree with it. When I look at a dividing embryo with 4 cells, residing inside another person, I do not see a human being. I see something that may or may not eventually become a human being. But each person is entitled to their own opinion. I don't feel any need to change anyone's view to agree with me. But I certainly can't "prove" to you that this is or is not a human being. I don't think this is something that can possibly be proved one way or another, it is a matter or conscience, not science. And when I ask gadget to "prove" that an embryo is "life," my point is that she can't prove it. I don't expect her to actually prove it, because I don't believe that this is something that can be proved one way or another.

To me, there are differences between any person, black or otherwise, and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that resides inside another person. And those differences go beyond whether the embryo is "inside another person." The "4 cells" part, and total lack of viability, etc. also play into the picture. I understand that you cannot understand how anyone could look at those 4 cells and not see a human being. I fully understand that this is your point of view. I respect that opinion. But it's not mine. I don't see a human being. Why are you unable to respect that? Just to play your game a little bit, I would explain to the slave owner that an African American is a human being because human beings have language skills unlike any other animal, human beings have highly developed imagination that can be used to create practical things like buildings as well as art, etc. I think it would be fair to say that a dividing embryo with 4 cells that is living inside another person does not have any of those characteristics. It may some day, just like it may some day develop into a human being. But I do not believe that it is a human being now. There is no game that is going to change any of this. We still disagree in just exactly the same ways about the same things. I understand and respect your point of view. You cannot do the same. I think I'm the winner here.

Whatever a human being may be, a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is currently residing inside another person is not necessarily a human being to me. It may be, it may not be, I'm not really sure. But in my view, this is really a matter of conscience and not a matter of science. There is no definitive "proof" that could be possible on this issue one way or another. We all have the facts about what an embryo is and what a fetus is. When some people look at these facts they see a human being. Other people do not. There is no final correct answer. You seem to be looking for some sort of "gotcha" moment here, where the answer to the time machine game "proves" that you are right in some way. But I don't get it at all. I'd be interested in hearing your point if you'd like to share it. I see real differences between an living, breathing, independently viable African American person and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is residing inside the body of another person. If you don't see any differences, well, you have the right to that opinion.

What in the world are you talking about. I have no idea. If you want to put aside the sarcasm and meanness and actually present an idea or a question I'd be happy to respond. I'm really not in the mood to play time machine games but if you have an actual issue you'd like to discuss please let me know.

For myself, I like the either way

I don't understand your point here. But aside from that, I don't believe I have the responsibility to convice pro-life people that abortion is a good thing. That's not my job. And I have no inclination to do so. In fact, I am glad the pro-life movement is here because it forces us all to examine important and difficulte questions. I'm glad for that debate. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else that I am right and they are wrong. The ONLY thing I have ever asked on this issue is that pro-life individuals understand that no matter how deeply held their beliefs may be that an dividing embryo is a human life, that other people who are just as intelligent and compassionate disagree. And that the pro-life group does not get to set the rules for others to follow simply because they really, really, really, really, really believe that abortion is killing a human being. As long as pro-life individuals understand that it is the voters, the judges, the politicians, and society in general that will make the rules that control people's lives, I have no problem.

Obviously I understand that this is why you are using these arguments. I just do not believe that these two horrible examples in any way support your opinion that abortion is the next similar example. Just because there are examples in the past of how human beings were considered less than human does not mean that abortion suffers from the same misconception today. You have the right to your opinion, certainly. But the existence of Hitler and slavery does not in any way tend to "prove" that abortion is the next similar example. There is simply no connection between these examples from the past and abortion today except your own personal opinion that abortion is "just like Hitler and slavery." That argument is totally without substance and it is not even remotely convincing to me. There's no "there" there, as the saying goes.

I have not in any way "forgotten" that Hitler and the people around him had certain outrageously evil beliefs. But I don't think that helps you prove your point at all. You see, I don't agree with you that abortion is "evil." Is it possible that someday people will look back and say that abortion was evil like Hitler and slavery? Yes it's possible. But I don't think so. You have singled out Hitler and slavery as your examples of how the majority is not always right. These are the two examples of the greatest evil and the greatest mistakes in the last several hundred years of human history. I do not think that this helps you prove your point at all. Your argument is that because occassionally human beings make truly horrible mistakes, and in hindsight we see they were wrong, that that means the same thing will happen with abortion. You are welcome to your opinion. I do not agree with you. There are very few examples of mistakes in human history on the level of Hitler and slavery. Just because there are a few, does not in any way tend to prove that abortion will be the next one.

Obviously abortions are not performed when an embryo consists of 4 cells, but if you will agree that an embryo with 4 cells is not a human being, then where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide? I don't know exactly what you mean by the "everybody knows" answer. If you are talking about my statement that "everybody knows" that Jews and African Americans are human beings, then yes, that is how I answer. I am not opposed to taking wisdom and insight from centuries of human experience. I am willing to be guided by the rule of law to the greatest extent my conscience will allow. I don't really understand why you consider that to be improper. But the "everybody knows" argument does not work with abortions. That's the whole point. Everybody does not know at what point a dividing embryo becomes a human being. There are differences of opinion. And as long as you agree that society, voters, politicians, judges, etc. will be the ones to decide, and not you, then we will have no problems between us at all. And I make no claim to telling anyone else what to believe or what they must do or think. Remember, that is your game, not mine. If Nobel Prize winners and professors and other distinguished individuals want to believe whatever they want to believe, I have no problems with that at all. My problem comes in where Nobel Prize winners and others want to make laws and use the police power of the state to control my life and force me to live by their rules. I totally reject their right to do that. To be clear, I totally accept the right of voters, judges, politicians, and society in general to make laws that control my life. And I will abide by such laws except in the most rare circumstances where I am unable to do so for moral reasons. But I do not accept the right of any particular group, in this case pro lifers, to determine on their own that they have the right to make the rules. Apparently you agree with that, so really, I have no problems left on this issue. I have no need to try and change your views, or tell you that you are wrong, or do that with anyone else either. All I ask is that pro life individuals understand that they are not the one who gets to make the rules. That voters, judges, politicians, and society in general make the rules. Apparently, you do agree with that. So there really are no more problems here as far as I'm concerned.

Great news! Looking forward to hearing your progress on this new angle. And I'm sure we will also learn some things about dealing with insurance companies.

I did miss those posts from 1:00 am this morning. There were too many things to read this morning and I missed them. I think you did provide an answer, that judges, voters and politicians will decide the question. We are in complete agreement on that. As for the questions you claim I have not answered, what I see in these posts is: Why is a black person not 3/5 of a person, but rather a full person. Why are Jews considered human life? I can't agree that I have not answered those, several times. But I don't have time to research the various threads so I will do so again here. The answer is that the judges and politicians and voters have spoken on these issues for many years now. Whatever mistakes in the law and in society that existed in the past on those issues have been fixed now through the political and social processes of our society. Whatever mistakes may have existed in the past on these questions, they do not exist now. There really is no longer a rational basis for disputing that a Jew is a human being, or that an African American is a human being. The same is not true with abortion. Rational people of intelligence, compassion and good will do disagree on exactly the question of whether or not a dividing embryo is a human being. I know you believe that the book is closed on that subject, but it clearly is not and, as you acknowledged in the posts above, you are not the one who gets to decide. The only way a comparison could exist between Hitler and abortion is if you start from the premise that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being." Your comparison falls apart immediately without that presumption. But that is exactly the issue that is in dispute in society today. A person who holds the view that a dividing embryo is not a human being is absolutely not the same as a person having the view that a Jew is not a human being. That is because many - in fact a majority of Americans - do not agree that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being." So, as I have stated on numerous occassions before, this Hitler/abortion comparison misses the mark completely.

I really have no recollection of you answering that question. And I don't have time to go back and do research. Can you just put aside the hostility and be kind enought to answer again? I am really curious. You believe that abortion is killing a human being. I do not agree. Why do you get to be the one to decide? (And please, the answer cannot be "because abortion is killing a human being." That's can't be the answer since that is exactly the issue in dispute) And, if there is something I have not answered, please ask again. I'll be happy to answer you. If there is a particular question you have asked I really don't know what it is.

Hi Kirsten. I've been a little bogged down on the weight loss as well for a couple months. I went in for my first fill last week with Dr. Brinkley. I like her, she seems to understand things well. She has the lap band herself as I'm sure you know. Well, the first fill did not yield much restriction, if any. So, I'm looking forward to getting the next one soon. I feel like I'll be OK once I get the restriction I need. I'll let you know how it goes. How is your restriction these days? You mention that you've been able to eat when you go out. Is that because you don't have restriction? Or just because of the types of things you've been eating? Just curious. Talk to you later.

Regardless of what you think of TommyO you should consider his point that your abrasive style is not going to win you any converts. If your goal is to "save babies," you might want to give that some thought. The more you, and people like you, continue to speak, the fewer people will join the pro-life movement. I'm not saying you are an evil person (notwithstanding that you think I am). I'm just saying your style needs some work. You are not doing your cause any favors by lashing out viciously toward all who deviate in the slightest from your "one true way." Even pro-life people are trying to tell you that.

You don't accomplish anything when you put words in the mouth of your opponent and then argue that those words are wrong. That is meaningless exercise. I never said "if I think any action is right, do it" or "if it feels good, do it." I never said anything like that. And I am against "murder" every single bit as much as you are. I simply disagee that abortion is murder. You refuse to address that issue. You just keep repeating over and over again that "abortion is murder because .... well ... because it just IS !!!" But that's not an intelligent argument. It is also not a valid argument to say "look at gadgetlady's video and that will "prove" that abortion is killing a human being." That is not a valid argument. It "proves" nothing. All it means is that YOU see a murder when you look at that video. It does not prove that abortion is murder. I know YOU think abortion is killing a human being. I know that YOU believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is evil and shameful. But just because you think that does not make it true. Many, many people -- in fact the majority in the United States -- disagree with you. So again, my question is: since intelligent, compassionate people have thought about this issue at great length, and there is profound disagreement on the answer to the question, why do YOU get to be the one to decide the rights of all others? Why? And, to be honest, what is even more curious to me is, why no pro-life person will even answer that question. What are you afraid of? If you do answer, I fully expect that your answer will be "We get to decide because abortion is clearly, and obviously murder." But that is not a valid answer. All you are doing is assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner. That's not how a debate goes. Someday, in order to carry the day, you are going to need to say something more than "Abortion is murder because... well ... because it just IS !!!" I have no need to change your views. I respect your views. But I do not believe that you have the right to create laws and use the police power of the state to force all others to live by your moral code. And I hold that view notwithstanding the fact that you really, really, really, really really think abortion is murder.

Gosh, I sure agree with you. There is nothing I hate worse than people killing other people for their own convenience. That is just about the worst thing anyone can do. Fortunately, aborting a dividing embryo is not killing a human being. If it were, abortion would be a really bad thing.

That is just a monstrously ugly thing to say. According to your way thinking, the majority of the population of the United States is "stained." The fact is, intelligent, compassionate people have struggled over this issue for a very long time. Some agree with you, but most don't. You have every right to your point of view, but to cast all who disagree with you as "stained" is arrogant and ugly. No one is going to listen to that kind of crap for very long. If you keep it up you'll be debating no one but yourself in a very short time.

I'm sorry to astonish you, but there is a key difference between all your examples and the example of abortion. People disagree about whether a dividing embryo is human life. That's the whole issue. You cannot simply assume that abortion is taking a life. That is the very issue in dispute. You have every right to believe what you want, but it is a hollow technique of argument to simply assume that you are correct and declare yourself the winner. Many intelligent, compassionate people do not agree that an embryo consisting of 4 cells equals "human life." So that is why your comparison to slavery is completely off the mark. Slavery involves fully formed human beings who are walking the earth. Abortion involves a clump of cells that many people do not consider to be "human life." That is the problem with having these debates about abortion. The pro-life camp always wants to assume that they are correct about the exact issue in dispute. There is no way to have a debate about abortion if every argument you make carries with it an assumption that is precisely what the other side does not assume. I have absolutely no doubt that you sincerely believe that a dividing embryo with 4 cells equals a human life. I fully respect the sincerity of your belief. I know that you sincerely believe that abortion is taking a life and that it is an "evil" act. But I disagree with you. So now what do we do? Why do you get to decide? Why do you get to make laws that force me to live by your rules? That is a question I keep asking gadget and, of course, she keeps refusing to answer. And that is the only question that matters to me. I don't have any need to change your mind. I just have a need to stop you from forcing me to live by your rules. So can you please give me an answer to this question? If you believe an abortion is the killing of a human life, and if I disagree with you, why do you get to be the one to decide, and set the rules, about how I live my life? (I wonder if anyone will answer this time. Probably not).

Taking your hypothetical, let's assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. You have two women who are pregnant and one decides she is carrying a life and one decides she is not. Let's say that humanity is an issue outside personal feelings, and that the existence of life is a matter of science. Let's assume all of that is true. I'll go even further and say that one of the women is definitely wrong and one of the women is definitely right. I have a couple of simple questions for you (I wonder if you'll actually answer them): Why are you the one who gets to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to pass laws forcing your view on the woman who disagrees with you? Will you actually answer those questions? I doubt it, but we'll see. I hope you don't try to answer these questions by saying, "Oh. look at the video with the little hands, the little feet, how could it not be life." That is a totally meaningless answer that does not answer the question. Other people may look at the same video and conclude that it is not life as that term is defined for them. I'm not asking you for your own, personal, emotional response to a video, or a list of the stages a fetus goes through, and what week the blood starts pumping, etc. None of those things "prove" that the woman is carrying a life. You may consider those things to be proof, but others do not. Remember, I'm granting that you are correct about everything you set forth in your hypothetical. Two pregnant women, one thinks she is carrying a life, one does not. The answer to that question is not based on personal feelings, there is a scientific answer to the question, and one of the women is definitely wrong. So I ask you again, why do you get be the one to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to make laws that force the one who disagrees with you to live by your moral code. I rather doubt that you will give honest answers that actually address the specific questions I am asking, but I guess it's worth a shot.

This is a return to your usual method of argument that proves nothing. Essentially you are once again making the argument that "a dividing embryo is human life because a dividing embryo is human life." But this obviously proves nothing. You can't prove your argument by assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner. You ask the question, "why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment." That question obviously includes within it the assumption that a dividing embryo is human life. But that is the very issue in dispute. So, again, you are dragging out your same totally meaningless argument technique that proves nothing. You appear to have the view that a human life is formed at the moment of conception. You have every right to that opinion. But many other people disagree with you. The issue here is, when does a dividing embryo become human life. That is the question. People have different answers to that question. It is a matter of conscience. It is not your decision to make for everyone else. Now, are you going to respond again by saying, but how can we leave decisions about human life to other people's judgment. Are you really going to do that again and again? Because it is getting boring.

I've watched things like that before. That has nothing to do with the issue. In this context the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science. I have absolutely no doubt that the issue seems crystal clear to you. But that does not make it so for all others. This is not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

If someone voted that they are against abortion even if the life of the mother is at stake, I don't want them "drawing any lines" within 100 miles of my wife and daughter. You may view yourself as a libertarian, but you want to obtain the power to control other people's lives in this particular way. I know that you view it as protecting the lives of the innocent. But other people do not agree with you. This is not your decision to make. The point where a dividing embryo becomes "human life" is a question each person must answer for themselves. There is no scientific "proof" one way or another. This is not a scientific question, it is a question of conscience. You have no right to make this decision for other people. Draw your lines somewhere else. Stay away from my wife and daughter.

That is a separate issue which has been repeatedly acknowledged in this thread. The issue is not the practical reality of saving the mother through abortion. The issue is, for me, how could anyone, faced with the choice in this poll, actually vote that there should be no option for abortion even if the life of the mother was at stake. I think that the way people voted on this question is a window into the pro-life mindset that is very revealing. And I think even you will have to agree, after seeing the links sent earlier, that this is not by any means a "fringe" position that is out of the mainstream of the pro life movement. I expect that you and many others will disagree with me, and that's fine. But one thing is for sure, the reason for raising this issue is not because anyone thinks that abortions, in fact, frequently save the life of the mother.