Official declaration of change of policy

[JBeukema]

James T. Beukema hereby withdraws his earlier support and stated arguments in relation to the matter of 'abortion' and 'the right to life' and adopts the following position.

I, Reverend James Teunis Beukema, hereby support legally allowing (despite personal abhorrence) the legal right to 'abortion' of a developing human life up until such time as brain activity becomes evident and can be discerned, currently estimated at no later than eight weeks past conception (six weeks after implantation and pregnancy).

A brief discussion of the relevant arguments leading to this conclusion can be found here

 

[KittenKoder]

You are learning ... this is a great sign. Welcome to the club.

 

[JBeukema]

Unlike you, KK, my positions are based in logic and can be supported with facts and reason

 

[KittenKoder]

Unlike you, KK, my positions are based in logic and can be supported with facts and reason

You still have some flaws, pure logic and fact does not answer all problems or questions, but worst, logic and fact offer no questions. But you are learning, that is a start. With age comes wisdom, and wisdom is not logical.

 

[JBeukema]

Whenever we need someone stupid to act like a sage for our amusement, we can always count on you, KK

 

[KittenKoder]

Whenever we need someone stupid to act like a sage for our amusement, we can always count on you, KK

I am guessing you have never spoken to a sage in real life. But keep up the progression forward child, you will some day see the truth as long as you keep learning and learn to open your mind, as you have done on the one issue. You have actually taken the first step, whether I agree with your position (or your initial position) is of no importance, what is of importance is that you took that step, and in the process earned a touch of respect, and perhaps a hint of honor.

Though you are still immature, tossing such an attempt at an insult when you are being praised. Maybe someday you will also learn, you can't insult a true sage, for we find everything to be rather ... humorous.

 

[JBeukema]

KK, the moment you said

logic and fact offer no questions

you proved you have no idea what you're talking about

 

[KittenKoder]

KK, the moment you said

logic and fact offer no questions

you proved you have no idea what you're talking about

Surely you jest, and fair warning, you are still modifying quotes a little too much, but this time you didn't take it out of context. Which is one good example where logic fails completely. Logic has no context, logic just is, facts can have context, but not all do. Context is a completely abstract concept, something that requires an ability which only living beings have, and not all living beings have it either.

Tell me, what question, any one, was granted humans because of only logic?

 

[JBeukema]

Tell me, what question, any one, was granted humans because of only logic?

Why do the planets revolve around the sun? What force is there? How is the force brought about? Why does electricity make lights grow?

We only know of quanta because of logic
M-Theory is the result of logic
All scientific progress is the result of logic

 

[manifold]

 

[JBeukema]

Begone, manworshipper

 

[KittenKoder]

Tell me, what question, any one, was granted humans because of only logic?

Why do the planets revolve around the sun? What force is there? How is the force brought about? Why does electricity make lights grow?

We only know of quanta because of logic
M-Theory is the result of logic
All scientific progress is the result of logic

Logic did not make humans ask those questions at all. Just knowing that the planets revolve around the sun doesn't make the question of why and how. The fourth question makes little sense and requires some elaboration, however first three were asked by dreamers who first thought it was some magical thing, not scientists.

Nothing starts without first imagination, awe, and wonder, which are not scientific concepts nor are they logical. It is not logical to wonder why the sky is blue. Of course, the difference is difficult for me to explain, but I can tell you how to find the explanation. Learn how to create artificial intelligence, focus primarily on the reasons why we have not been able to get machines to learn beyond what we push them to learn.

 

[jillian]

Whenever we need someone stupid to act like a sage for our amusement, we can always count on you, KK

I... might.... have.. to ... pos... rep... you... for... that.....

OMG... the horror....






the horror...

 

[manifold]

Begone, manworshipper

How bout you suck my balls?

 

[jillian]

Unlike you, KK, my positions are based in logic and can be supported with facts and reason

well, if your position is based in logic, then I'm sure you'll understand that amniocentesis can't be given that early....

and since you're acknowleding that it is just your arbitrary line...

then I'm sure you'll understand when I say that's fine... and you certainly shouldn't have an abortion beyond 8 weeks if that is the line you draw for yourself ...

but I think we'll stick with the Roe v Wade timeline.

Thanks.

 

[DavidS]

James T. Beukema hereby withdraws his earlier support and stated arguments in relation to the matter of 'abortion' and 'the right to life' and adopts the following position.

I, Reverend James Teunis Beukema, hereby support legally allowing (despite personal abhorrence) the legal right to 'abortion' of a developing human life up until such time as brain activity becomes evident and can be discerned, currently estimated at no later than eight weeks past conception (six weeks after implantation and pregnancy).

A brief discussion of the relevant arguments leading to this conclusion can be found here

My gf had an abortion at 12 weeks. You got a problem with that? We found out and took 4 weeks to decide.

Just because you're x weeks pregnant, doesn't mean the fetus is actually x weeks old. They estimate it from the date of your last period. So if a woman gets pregnant two days before her period, she's 4 weeks pregnant.

 

[KittenKoder]

Begone, manworshipper

How bout you suck my balls?

He might go back for more, you sure you want that kind of commitment from him Cartman?

 

[manifold]

Begone, manworshipper

How bout you suck my balls?

He might go back for more, you sure you want that kind of commitment from him Cartman?

Good point. Afterall we are dealing with sterile dweeb who only knows what he's read on the internet. He probably doesn't even realize that it's just a figure of speech (and a South Park reference). I'm surprised he hasn't responded with something as witless as "why are you obsessed with gay sex acts?" (completely ignorant of the fact that hetero chicks do it too).

 

[JBeukema]

The forth question is a typo. It's supposed to read 'glow'.

well, if your position is based in logic, then I'm sure you'll understand that amniocentesis can't be given that early....

Relevance?

Once sentience arises (or appears to arise) then specific argument you appear to be addressing is no longer applicable as a defense of the ending of life. I refer you now to another discussion where your argument becomes applicable.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-regards-to-parties-incapable-of-consent.html

and since you're acknowledging that it is just your arbitrary line...

Not an arbitrary line at all. It's a question of whether it is a human life or a human consciousness that one deems worthy of protection (if either). If the former, then the only logical point is conception. If the latter, then the only logical point is that at which consciousness arises or appears to arise
from the system, with the only pseudo-arbitrary point being the question of whether to err on the side of causation (assume that it has arisen when there is doubt) or require a strong burden of proof that it has arisen (assume it has not unless it can be shown that it has). We know that our consciousness arises from the brain and the activity thereof (hence the use of brain waves as a means of detection) and I cite the Hippocratic oath and established medical ethics as an argument for erring on the side of caution. There is nothing 'arbitrary' about any of it.

then I'm sure you'll understand when I say that's fine... and you certainly shouldn't have an abortion beyond 8 weeks if that is the line you draw for yourself ...

but I think we'll stick with the Roe v Wade timeline.

Who is this 'we' and what argument, if any, do you have for the timeline you forward as a logical and reasonable point at which a system becomes a being or person warrenting ethical and legal protection?

 

[Barb]

Unlike you, KK, my positions are based in logic and can be supported with facts and reason

well, if your position is based in logic, then I'm sure you'll understand that amniocentesis can't be given that early....

and since you're acknowleding that it is just your arbitrary line...

then I'm sure you'll understand when I say that's fine... and you certainly shouldn't have an abortion beyond 8 weeks if that is the line you draw for yourself ...

but I think we'll stick with the Roe v Wade timeline.

Thanks.

Might a female add:

Got Milk?