T Nation

VALS '11


#1

If you want to understand the future, look to history to find how human kind will repeat themselves again and again. Now this was my take ; ) The video was a little long but enlightening.

http://www.ccu.edu/vals/video/


#2

Cool, thx, have to watch later tho


#3

Ok so to get this straight, the tre points is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and freedom of religion.

I agree with the last one.

I cant see the similaritys with does who where opposing nazi germany btw.


#4

I think you were talking about the speaker, Dr. Timothy George. I believe you forgot a few words in there but you were asking about 'his' topics, right?

My take, Dr. George was talking about how Nazi Germany believed they were justified and doing the right things as they slaughtered innocent human lives Jews. The people lost in the Holocaust are dwarfed by the lives lost through abortion. Six million lost during the Hitler reign and the number of 52 million lost [growing daily] through a 'choice'!! The numbers of both are quite staggering and depressing. The worst part, people honestly feel justified in their minds, even then AND today! The Germans thought they were helping to better the human race. How do people justify abortion if not through the same thought process?

Then Dr. George ties in the many other topics such as gay-marriage, etc,.


#5

I'm supposing they justify it by coming to the conclusion that it isn't practical for them to have a child at that point in time. How do you suppose someone is thinking they're benefiting the human race by terminating a pregnancy?


#6

In two parts -
Why does the practical option have to be abortion? Oh, I don't know about being responsible or even gasp adoption.

I could care less how they 'justify the slaughter of a defenseless child.' Some choices are just wrong, in whatever way those choices are justified.


#7

How can you quantify it as being a "wrong" choice?

Is there no responsibility in terminating a pregnancy when lacking the finances or time necessary to support and care for the child? I'm curious as to what your means of creating a profound responsibility among people will be since there have been solutions to unwanted pregnancies dating back to the Neolithic period.

Adoption just isn't realistic since the mother will have to carry out the pregnancy.


#8

I will be more than glad to answer every single question you have if you will do me a favor and define the unborn. My stance is critical upon the science of life.


#9

Unborn? I'd have to use the literal definition and say it's a fetus not yet birthed by its mother.


#10

I am NOT in Idaho right now. I am NOT a veterinarian. I am NOT a lot of things. Yet I am NOT trying to be dick either ; )

Other than not being born, how would you define the unborn?


#11

I consider killing your child so that you can have a better life as being the wrong choice (morally speaking). It is extremely easy to quantify.

And you must know that he considers it a human child....so what is the point of your question.

And you can only really talk of this issue at the moral level. Because it might have been economically a good decision to kill the Jews...but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

And why is that unrealistic? What happens when a woman carries through a pregnancy when the man didn't want the child? He is forced to pay for the child. You think that having half of your wage garnished for 18 years to raise a child you didn't want is any easier than pregnancy?


#12

An embryo.

The genocide of a people isn't comparable to a couple making a conscious choice to terminate a pregnancy, they don't even have an obligation to carryout the pregnancy unless they want to since they're responsible for it from the time it's a newborn until it reaches adulthood. I don't exactly think the Jewish people consented to being exterminated either.

It's not "extremely easy" to quantify because this is a subjective matter. The morality of the subject depends entirely on the predisposition of the speaker.

A mother can't realistically continue to work or attend school the entirety of the pregnancy.


#13

policy makers and activist absolutely try to justify it by saying abortions are improving life in america in terms of money - these arguements were also used by the Nazi's in 1930's. Pro-right groups bring up stats on lower incarceration rates, less money spent at hospitals, and less welfare drain provided through abortions. Both of these groups (pro-right and nazi's) essentially use the same arguments as far as benefit to society with two exceptions:

1) pro-rights talk about a womens right to her body in this specific example (notice they dont extend it to other things like the right to use chemicals to enhance your body) - individual rights like this were secondary to the needs of the state in nazi germany

2) nazi's talked about the benefit to human genetics by weeding out bad genes from the pool - this arguement does not exist in pro-right groups


#14

You are refusing to answer like an adult OR you honestly do not know shrug

So a woman knowingly partakes in an activity that has outcomes fully understood and she should have a choice in the outcome afterwards?

Do you understand the science from decades past has defined the unborn -
1) separate genome from the mother [unlike any other person in the world!]
2) the embryo is where nature intended [where else should the child go?]
3) the size of the embryo is irrelevant because we all grow as we mature
4) and like a child outside of the womb they depend on nourishment from others until they mature into adults
5) the degree of dependency changes with every person as we age.

So out of the five examples I provided, can you refute even one, let alone ALL of them together?

BTW does a man gain any rights by providing half the NECESSARY COMPONENTS? How about the infant, do they gain no rights until an eight inch journey down a canal? What about babies born via caesarian? I am sorry but the child's rights supersede all others including the mother at the very moment of conception!! Look to science if you disagree. Every credible embryology textbook in the wold defines the unborn the same way, separate from the mother.

Now I will never deny a woman any right when she is a victim of a crime, especially a heinous one such as rape!! I hope she receives many opinions before she decides the fate of a child who did nothing wrong! I also ask [this has never been answered, to my satisfaction] how is a violent act made better by perpetuation of said act with even more violence?


#15

I know koffea is more than capable yet I have limited time so I will add to this post. Is genocide an applicable adjective when speaking of the unborns or the Jews, or BOTH? Your language btw.

The infant is just as alive in the world as any adult. Prove otherwise if you disagree. Tell me HOW the child is not alive.

Subjective is not even a word because this is the real world. The child is alive and simply lacks a voice you can hear outside of their environment!

Tell Shaun R. whom I attended high school with, that she couldn't attend school and graduate. Or even all the girls I know who are choosing to attend college while in varying degrees of pregnancy, previously and currently. Pregnancy did not even stop Heather from being a complete knockout while attending UI.


#16

Refusing to answer like an adult? You're asking a direct question. An unborn child can't be multiple things, it's literally an unborn human which exists in utero.

Before you can question the credibility of embryology textbooks or speak of the science behind your list you'll first have to cite sources to prove the legitimacy of your claims. As for your list: 1. Of course it'll have a separate genome, it's a separate entity. It does however reside within the uterus of them other., 2. The embryo is in a female reproductive organ but that neither guarantees or omits them from certain rights., 3. Provide evidence to establish the link behind a newborn and an embryo. While they're humans at different stages of development they're just that, at different stages of development. A zygote isn't an adult., 4. They also exist outside of the mother., 5. Only an unborn child is dependent on the mother in the sense that's in utero.

As for your remark on a perpetuation of violence: a person can't consent to rape, if they did give consent it'd be consensual sex. However seeing that the embryo enjoys no rights and can't be questioned on its intentions the parents or parent is the only one capable of making a decision as to whether or not the pregnancy will be terminated. Seeing as abortions will and have taken place regardless of public sentiment about them and methods of "getting rid" of a child be it born or unborn date back to the neolithic period there's the option of providing a safe medical service or allowing questionable and dangerous practices.


#17

Is the Jewish family consenting to the termination of the pregnancy? If not then there are no similarities other than the termination of a pregnancy.

It isn't a question of whether or not it's living, it's a question of whether or not it's entitled to any rights as an embryo or fetus.

And depending on the stage of development it could also be lacking functioning organs. Would an adult without a functioning heart be entitled to live if unable to obtain a working organ? Its only option would be to exist as long until existing is no longer feasible.

You're correct about one thing, they chose to attend school while pregnant. Just like they could have chosen to terminate the pregnancy, forgo college, carryout the pregnancy, or carryout the pregnancy while attending university. They're not obligated to do any one of them, they're obligated to make a decision as to what they'll do.


#18

People need sustenance to survive. You know who else needed sustenance? Nazis.

What's your point, that because the termination of a pregnancy can benefit a couple or single parent financially it's identical to ethnic cleansing built on the foundation of economic prosperity? Abortion isn't limited to finances, the most prominent arguments involve rights. The argument is whether or not an unborn child is entitled to rights or they belong exclusively to the parents.


#19

Just some advice goldengloves, use the search function, type in abortion and you can see every response you need to on this issue. There is no need for ANOTHER 40 fucking pages of this.

My .02


#20

I appreciate the advice but I'm usually on here as a break between studying or working so I just post for the sake of posting.