Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

July 23rd, 2017: Columbia

Recent Images

July 20th, 2017: Lotsa Bikes
July 18th, 2017: Jap Eatery (may not be safe)
July 17th, 2017: Fungus Amongus
July 16th, 2017: Pushing Buttons
July 15th, 2017: Hoy Vey
July 14th, 2017: Net Neutrality
July 13th, 2017: Ticket to Ride

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Thursday Nov 22 12:34 PM

11/22: pro-life license plate



I don't have any Thanksgiving-specific images, so I just have to pick the most provocative one I have in the pile right now, and that's this one. Yesterday a county-level judge in Florida threw out a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this license plate design. Discuss amongst yourselves.



kaleidoscopic ziggurat  Thursday Nov 22 12:51 PM

free speech right?

i still don't have a conclusive opinion on the topic... both sides have great arguments. i'd love to see some statistics on adoption waiting list times and such though! my mother is a rather strong pro-lifer based on two items: responsibility/accountability for your actions, and the high demand for kids from parents that can't have some of their own. in this day and age of high tech birth control being readily available, one has to admit that in a lot of cases an unwanted pregnancy is just irresponsible... but then again i personally feel the planet doesn't need any more human beings and in some ways keeping them off the playing field saves thousands of lives [smaller ones, perhaps... non-human, without a doubt..].. . . still - someone makes a mistake - should they not pay the consequences? 4 or 5 months of being bloated and sick is perhaps a healthy reminder that the reproductive act isn't just pure fun - there are biological strings attached if you're messing around immaturely. cause & effect.

it would be a tough sort of item to legislate though... very few things seem reasonable, although i would feel that any woman whose age falls under the voting age should have all options available. a full-term pregnancy is a heavy lesson to pay when a scare is probably enough to right improper and irresponsible behavior.

but back to the license plate - whats so bad about it? people should be able to display whatever ideology they wish to as long as it isn't bloody stupid [and that's for the courts to decide, as they say].

anyhow, just some thoughts... as i said, i really don't have a concrete stance on the topic... but i do feel that women should be accountable with such a heavy matter.



Slight  Thursday Nov 22 01:38 PM

Ok this is weird. First of all I would like to know if this is what the plate actually looks like or if it is just a mock up done by the party responsible for the Florida bill getting passed. I assume it is real. The fake license number reads like this to me: (what's the issue?) Abortion, I'm 4 it. Obviously they mean: Choose life, I am for it.

I have major issues with this plate, but I can't think of a legal problem with it. The plate and it's design should be protected by free speech. The people choose to pay extra to get this plate and have their money put to use by the state. I guess besides being an issues loaded design, I don't like the idea of the government printing other peoples speech. Seems to me like someone else should print the plates and dole out the money. It is almost state sponsered propaganda.

If it was up to me each state sould have just one design (except for vets, disabled people, trucks, trailers, gvmt vehicles, higher education vehicles, diplomats, and dealers) and you could have whatever number on your plate if you so choose at no extra cost. I would get FUCK YOU, just to be contrary and obnoxious. Here in Colorado there are like 20 designs that are standard and my friend tells me it is no better in Arizona. You want variety? Bah I say!



Whit  Friday Nov 23 01:18 AM

I think most of us agree that this falls under free speech. If you disagree then say so. For the rest of us let's just drop the obligatory "They have a right to say this" section and get to the issue we're going to argue about shall we?

I think the plate's an ad, not a real plate. Like the one's for sport's team's. Which would make it more important because it could be on alot of cars not just one.

Oops, gotta go I'll post again later.



jaguar  Friday Nov 23 02:55 AM

i don't see anything wrong with it.
Even if the idea makes me sick.



lisa  Friday Nov 23 08:03 AM

Even though I tend toward being a pro-lifer (though I can usually see both sides of the issue), I have a problem with the state promoting controversial issues on license plates.

IOW, if they have a "pro-life" licence plate, they should have to have a "pro-choice" license plate. Especially since "pro-life" is not the law.

This used to be the rule, if you recall, for the media, "equal time" for controversial issues. And, although, that has been removed, I still think that the government itself should have a similar kind of requirement.



Griff  Friday Nov 23 08:11 AM

I have a problem with licence plates.



serge  Friday Nov 23 10:42 AM

"Choose reason"

pic of xtian cross in a crossed out circle


Oh wait.. 'equal time' is only on paper...



Whit  Friday Nov 23 02:15 PM

     Ya know, this may seem a little cold but...

Quote:
responsibility/accountability for your actions, and the high demand for kids from parents (or more likely parent) that can't have some of their own. in this day and age of high tech birth control being readily available, one has to admit that in a lot of cases an unwanted pregnancy is just irresponsible...
     Have you considered in the case of people that have the 'unwanted' kid that the child is then raised by the irresponsible parents that didn't want him/her in the first place?

     Also, the last time I heard the demand for kids to be adopted was pretty much for white kids only. Not to sound racist but minority children just don't have the same demand. That's just life.

     Hey, I've got a horror story or two about adoption but I'll save that for later...


jaguar  Friday Nov 23 04:49 PM

argh i reallyreallyreally don't want to get started on this one - its one of my big hangups, mostly because of person experience..
First thing that came to mindwas thatit seems 90% of the pro-lifers are christian, male or both. Religious views of one person shouldn't effect teh lifestyles of other people nad it doesn't have nearly the same effect on guys as it does girls. MOst pro-lifers also seem to be pretty militant, many i've spoken to thought it should apply to RAPE as well - stupid, stupid people are so cuaght in the hwole poor little child thing what about the poor bloody mother, even if its jsut na unwanted pregnancy it can very easily ruin someones life, adoption isn't that easy. Particualry (on both points) if the person happens to be underage.

WOW - this was purely government funded? now that stinks of someone using public money on their own little jhad. You can get similar things in aust- but you have to pay for them, thats fine.



Griff  Friday Nov 23 06:53 PM

"WOW - this was purely government funded? now that stinks of someone using public money on their own little jhad. You can get similar things in aust- but you have to pay for them, thats fine."

Umm no. I assume like the rest of these schemes its designed to put more money in the coffers by charging extra for a special plate.

From personal observation, I'd say most militant pro-lifers are male but most prolife folks are not militant. Most, like myself, are content to live out our beliefs in our own lives and only get bent out of shape when asked to be accomplices in others' choices. Don't expect me to stand idley by while you abort, execute, or bomb on my dime.



serge  Friday Nov 23 07:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Griff
From personal observation, I'd say most militant pro-lifers are male
Indeed, women (for the most part) seem to actually understand the issue.

Quote:
Don't expect me to stand idley by while you abort, execute, or bomb on my dime.
No one is aborting YOUR fetus.. now about executing doctors and bombing clinics.. there's much to be said about that.


modernhamlet  Friday Nov 23 08:11 PM

Not to make this even more complicated...

But I just heard a news story on NPR about how a huge percentage of the nations hoax anthrax scares have been reported at reproductive health centers and pro-choice organizational offices. 500 times, the authorities have had to quarentine and test these places, just in the last month.

I would personally like to thank these horrible nutjobs for making their side look like a bunch of lunatics.

That said, it makes me really sad.

mh

your right to swing your fist around stops at my face



elSicomoro  Friday Nov 23 08:30 PM

Hmmm...are they going to offer a Pro-choice plate? I don't personally see anything wrong with it, and it seems to fall within the 1st Amendment boundaries.

Virginia apparently still has a Confederate Pride plate...I remember a debate over that when I lived in DC.



jet_silver  Friday Nov 23 08:33 PM

What bothers me about these license plates isn't even the message. It's the God-awful -designs-. I can't think of a state whose "special cause" license plates don't look as though they were designed by a committee of half-wits whose artistic sensibilities begin and end with the Howard Johnson School of Hotel Decorating. Haven't these people heard of -artists-?



Katkeeper  Saturday Nov 24 08:24 AM

This discussion needs words from a female for balance.

The whole point as for as I am concerned is that no one has the right to make such an important choice for someone else. I don't care what the beliefs are; they should not be inflicted on another person.

It is that simple.



BrianR  Saturday Nov 24 08:36 AM

to fuel the fire

The proceeds from the sales of the "Choose Life" plate go towards funding adoption clinics and foster care.

Brian



Griff  Saturday Nov 24 09:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by serge


No one is aborting YOUR fetus.. now about executing doctors and bombing clinics.. there's much to be said about that.
Which is why we'll never get anywhere on this issue. Neither sides militants are willing to compromise at all. As much as the killing of a human fetus offends my moral code, I'm willing to look the other way if you don't involve me. But thats not enough for the ideologue, he demands I help pay for 8-9 hundred thousand abdications of personal responsibility each year. We live in an society which increasing believes that we all need to be directed from government as to what is right or wrong. Everything from PETA telling us not to ship chicks by air to abortion militants (of both stripes) telling other people what is moral (yes, the left does it as well). When the State mandates right and wrong we lose diversity as a people. If we lose diversity we threaten our chances of survival as a species.


dave  Saturday Nov 24 02:14 PM

Disclaimer: If I were President, I would work to help lower the number of abortions. I would not work for legislation to prohibit it, however. So, basically, I like the pro-life ideal, but it doesn't work in the real world, so I'm willing to concede defeat and work for a better solution.

Now. Let's get some facts straight. Abortion, in late-term, is ending life. No, the baby hasn't been born yet. But where do you draw that line? Is it after the baby has passed through the vagina? After the umbilical cord is cut? Is it okay to bring the child out and crush its head while it's still connected to the umbilical cord? Is that okay? Is it okay to cut open the head of a 5-month old fetus and drain its brain from its skull? If it's okay 4 months before it's actually "born", then why isn't it okay 4 months after it's born?

That fetus would grow up to be a human being. Why is it okay to kill it right before it is born but not when it's 20 years old? What's the difference? We all cringed when Iman Hiju, the 4 month old baby, was killed by Israeli shell fire. We'd all find it undeniably tragic if a pregnant woman was run over by a bus while walking her doggie. We would mourn for the woman as well as the unborn child. But if the mother wants to kill it, it's okay?

Problem is, I actually have known girls that used abortion as a birth control method. One didn't like the inconvenience of condoms, so she just went without. She would stay pregnant until she started gaining weight (being pregnant is great birth control!), and then she'd get an abortion and start it all again. Is this okay?

Where do we draw the line? Obviously it's unacceptable for some militant to kill an abortion doctor. Just as it's unacceptable for an abortion doctor to kill a... wait, that's okay, right?

Lot of anti-death penalty people here on the Cellar. Where do you draw the line? Most anti-death penalty persons I know also are pro-choice. Does no one else see the silliness here? Most pro-death penalty people I know are pro-life. Am I the only one that doesn't miss the self-contradiction?

Was it okay for Timothy McVeigh to be put to death? Most people would agree that if anyone deserved it, he did. Well, what makes the executioner any better then? He pushed a button that killed a human being. Should he be put to death as well? Where do we draw that line? If abortion is okay, then why isn't state-sanctioned killing?

Jaguar talks about how he's pro-choice and then bitches and moans about innocents dying in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Afghanistan. He's not alone - a lot of people do this, and I'm not trying to single him out (but he's so fucking PROLIFIC, he's posted his opinion on every day thing under the sun). Well, what about the unborn babies that are killed. What did they ever do? There really are third-trimester abortions. That wasn't just made up. I have seen the pictures. Where do we draw the line? It isn't that black and white.

And after saying all that... I do strongly support after-pregnancy abortive measures in the cases of incest and rape. Maybe that's because my sister is a rape victim (when she was 7, no less). I don't know. But I can't imagine forcing a rape victim to foster a child that was the product of what is probably the worst experience in their life. Asking one to do that is inhuman. That's probably why I, a Republican, supported the Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate instead of the Republican - he was fiercely pro-life, even in cases of rape and incest. Well, you can't draw that line there. It isn't that black and white.



tw  Saturday Nov 24 03:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Disclaimer: If I were President, I would work to help lower the number of abortions. I would not work for legislation to prohibit it, however. So, basically, I like the pro-life ideal, but it doesn't work in the real world, so I'm willing to concede defeat and work for a better solution.
The problem with the pro-life ideal are its principals. RU-486 should be standard everywhere. But to pro-life, RU-486 only promotes promiscutity. RU-486 could not be obtained in America.

Don't teach about sex in schools. Kids are less promiscuous when they are ignorant. Right.

Abortion is then the inevitable alternative especially when religion (and quotes from the bible) rather than logic are more important. The pro-life movement, in particular its underlying philosphies, are a significant reason for the problems. It is a problem so often traced to religion that worship false idols - as the Greek and Roman religions did previously.


jaguar  Saturday Nov 24 05:13 PM

Quote:
Now. Let's get some facts straight. Abortion, in late-term, is ending life. No, the baby hasn't been born yet. But where do you draw that line? Is it after the baby has passed through the vagina? After the umbilical cord is cut? Is it okay to bring the child out and crush its head while it's still connected to the umbilical cord? Is that okay? Is it okay to cut open the head of a 5-month old fetus and drain its brain from its skull? If its okay 4 months before it's actually "born", then why isn't it okay 4 months after it's born?
Oh what a fucking crock of shit. Reminds me of some text I read of some nutters anti-abortion site. Ohh lets put it all in reallyreally messy words to put people off the idea because I want to enforce my moral code on other people. Fantastic.

3rd trimester abortions are very, very rare. I'd draw the line what the fetus is conscious, or develops one, estimated around the end of second term - oh look at that - the same point at which its unadvisable to have an abortion in the first place. Sure some people abuse it but it's not common. However callously you word it, it is still a traumatic experience for the girl in question.
Quote:
Lot of anti-death penalty people here on the Cellar. Where do you draw the line? Most anti-death penalty persons I know also are pro-choice. Does no one else see the silliness here? Most pro-death penalty people I know are pro-life. Am I the only one that doesn't miss the self-contradiction?
Yes I' mseeing alot of sillyness here -mostly around the idea that all abortions happen to fully conscious humans not fetuses.
Quote:
Jaguar talks about how he's pro-choice and then bitches and moans about innocents dying in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Afghanistan. He's not alone - a lot of people do this, and I'm not trying to single him out (but he's so fucking PROLIFIC, he's posted his opinion on every day thing under the sun). Well, what about the unborn babies that are killed. What did they ever do? There really are third-trimester abortions. That wasn't just made up. I have seen the pictures. Where do we draw the line? It isn't that black and white.
same deal. Ohh other people SPEAKING their mind who DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. How dare they....

Quote:
Umm no. I assume like the rest of these schemes its designed to put more money in the coffers by charging extra for a special plate.
Griff: I read on one of the posts above that it was - pardon me.

Quote:
Don't expect me to stand idley by while you abort, execute, or bomb on my dime.
Not much of a defense (for the purpose of this imagine I live in the US and pay more tax than I do atm) On the same basis Iíd say stop dropping bombs on Afghanistan, funding faith based charities etc, some of your tax money will always be used to things we don't like - get over it, its nessacery for government to function.

Quote:
Don't teach about sex in schools. Kids are less promiscuous when they are ignorant. Right.
I find both bits of this hilarious - firstly the sheer stupidity of the people that have actually used this argument and the obscenely religious basis for it. Someone please inform me WHY people shouldnít go round, having sex with people they like OHMYGOD out of wedlock for OHMYGOD fun?? Non-religious reasons only please.

Katkeeper - you go girl! =) nail on the head =)

Quote:
What bothers me about these license plates isn't even the message. It's the God-awful -designs-. I can't think of a state whose "special cause" license plates don't look as though they were designed by a committee of half-wits whose artistic sensibilities begin and end with the Howard Johnson School of Hotel Decorating. Haven't these people heard of -artists-?
Havenít you heard? Artists are heathen Satanists

Quote:
I would personally like to thank these horrible nutjobs for making their side look like a bunch of lunatics.
They've been doing a very good job already - anyone that tries to argue that rape victims don't have the right to abortion get an automatic "Iím a callous, blind, brain-dead moron with an extremely weak grip on reality" red card.

Since Iíve probably not offended someone ill go a little further a post a few quotes from people who generally draw more respect than me.

As we retreat from religion, our ancient opiate, there are bound to be withdrawal symptoms. - Salman Rushdie.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." T. Jefferson

Sit peacefully in a church and think of church history: witchburning
perhaps, or child abuse, genocide, the amassing of disgusting wealth,
the repression of women, inquisitions, castrating child choir singers,
the denial of Santa Claus and the support of fascists in power.
- Kaz Cooke, The Little Book of Stress


lisa  Saturday Nov 24 09:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Reminds me of some text I read of some nutters anti-abortion site. Ohh lets put it all in really really messy words to put people off the idea because I want to enforce my moral code on other people. Fantastic.

3rd trimester abortions are very, very rare.
But that's just the point, isn't it?

Almost noone believes that post-birth "abortions" should be allowed. It's rather accepted that that is murder.

Most people believe that third trimester is wrong either because the fetus/child has brain wave activity or whatever other reason.

Some people draw the line sooner because there is a face and a hearbeat and blah, blah, blah.

The point is that it is simply a matter of judgement -- where to draw the line. And that is why this issue is unlikely to be settled. There is no inication that we will ever have an answer to the question "At what point does the combination of sperm and egg become a human being?"

As for "enforcing my moral code" on others, to a great extent, that's what ALL laws do. Most people agree that it's wrong to steal and therefore theft is illegal. Now, an argument against that would be "well, you're protecting another human being's rights!" Well, that's what pro-lifers think they're doing.

This is why I am very ambivolent on this issue. I believe in privacy and the right to make your own choices -- especially when forcing a woman to carry a child to term seems almost like a form of slavery -- but I also do not know, no one does, when human life begins. If we could answer that, I'd know my position instantly, but we can't.

So, it's just a question of whether we risk privacy/women's rights for the sake of the risk to the rights of an "unborn child", if it is one.

Given the lack of proof either way, I slightly tend to defending the rights of those I know to be human beings. But it's a tenious position at best and I have a serious problem with the FEW who use abortion as a method of birth control.

In summary, as someone above said, this is probably an unresolvable issue. There will likely be militants on both sides of this issue long after some of the recently born infants die of old age.


jaguar  Sunday Nov 25 12:37 AM

So you narrow it down to an issue of when a child is considered...a child
Point of conciousnes, in a few years this will be defineable, problem solved. Only people i've heard saying sperm meeets egg stage are the militant nutters so voila, problem solved.

Quote:
As for "enforcing my moral code" on others, to a great extent, that's what ALL laws do. Most people agree that it's wrong to steal and therefore theft is illegal. Now, an argument against that would be "well, you're protecting another human being's rights!" Well, that's what pro-lifers think they're doing.
Not so much "rights" which are and abstract and relative thing anyway but standards. If i break into your house nad steal your tv, you lsoe something. If i have an abortion (which is unlikely for obvious reasons), you lose nothing, thats why i'd say one is about morality and one is not. Therefore they are simply trying to put their moral strictures on other people - it is in reality, not their affair. If it was for example, right to freely copy IP then it ouwld be on hte basis they no doubt hold rihgts to some IP or something with IP, such as a CD. BUt they have no claim in any way at any part of someones elses pregnancy.


lisa  Sunday Nov 25 10:23 AM

Quote:
Not so much "rights" which are and abstract and relative thing anyway but standards. If i break into your house nad steal your tv, you lsoe something. If i have an abortion (which is unlikely for obvious reasons), you lose nothing, thats why i'd say one is about morality and one is not.
Missing the point. If you break into someone else's house and steal something from them, I lose nothing. Only in the rare case where I am the victim do I lose something.

Even if I knew I would never be the victim, I still think theft should be illegal. So, it's not the fact that I feel I may be hurt that makes me put "my moral standards" on other people for theft. For me, it is a question of decent human rights.

Again, I am not stating a belief on this (since I don't have one), the people who are protecting this believe that they are protecting a human life, just the same as if someone were to kill their 5 year old child.

As for the "type of people" who say that life begins at conception, I contend that you call them crazy (or whatever it is that you called them) simply because you don't agree with them.

Unfortunately there is NO scientific evidence on this and no objective way to judge it one way or the other. It's all a matter of opinion.

And, in a question of basic rights vs. human life, both sides will tend to get heated.


Whit  Sunday Nov 25 12:19 PM

     Umm, Yeah what Lisa said... Way to go.

     A couple of things though, I'm pro-choice largely because I think my rights/morals should not extend to the body's of others. Just like I keep my mouth shut when I'm at a chinese buffet with someone on our third plate and they start bitching about needing to lose sixty pounds. (it's happened) Personaly I hate abortion, I would not associate with a woman that uses abortion as birth control. I also would not tell her she's a bad person. I think she has the right, I just find it repugnant.

     This is not just a theory to me. When my son's mother became pregnant (the method of birth control simply failed, it happens) she talked about getting an abortion. Everytime it was mentioned my entire chest locked up and I felt cold. When asked my how I felt I told her that I'd rather she not, but it was her choice to make. In the end we broke up and I got custody, by her agreement. Point is I believe it's the woman's choice, even when it is my fetus.

     As for late-term abortions, as Jag said it's rare. When it does happen it is almost never just an arbitrary decision but a medical one. Like something went wrong and the mothers health is in extreme danger. Also there are very few legitimate doctors willing to do them for any other reason.



Griff  Sunday Nov 25 08:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar


WOW - this was purely government funded? now that stinks of someone using public money on their own little jhad. You can get similar things in aust- but you have to pay for them, thats fine.
We don't need to get hung up on this but for the sake of clarity, in the States we have to pay for our plates (plus extra for the zoo the museum or whatever org you're supporting) so the car owner is paying not the taxpayer. This ignores that its coming out of a public agency which is to me a problem. As far as me funding every other evil done by the government, I always advocate voluntary solutions, when I can. When it comes right down to it the only truly moral solution is individualist anarchy, but before we go there I'd like to try to pare down the government as far as we can to minimize coercion and maybe try living under a less heavy handed regime. You do your thing I do mine and we both pay full price for our decisions.

Anyway, if I pissed anyone off too much, I'm sorry but its the nature of the conflict.


dasviper  Monday Nov 26 01:45 AM

Pro-Life, and Why

Here's a brief explanation of what and why I believe.

I believe that you cannot hope to define a point in fetal development at which a fetus is "alive", "human", "conscious", what have you. From the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being with all the rights and privileges of you or I.

Now, I recognize that not everyone shares that belief. Thatís terrific. Far be it from me to impose my beliefs on your body. THATíS NOT WHAT I WISH TO DO! Your body doesnít enter into the equation! As soon as you accept the fact that the fetus is a human, the rights of the mother to mess about with her body absolutely pale into oblivion relative to the right of the child to live! So many of the whole pro-life/pro-abortion skirmishes become moot when you realize that its not a matter of the motherís life, its a matter of the childís life.

Re: rape, incest, etc... I can understand that these assaults are horribly scarring, painful events for a woman. However, aborting the child will not make the memory of the event disappear. For nine months, the mother will have to literally carry around a reminder of a traumatic event. I do not envy this burden. Once again, this is a non question. Would you kill another individual to avoid that burden?

RU-486? Merely a more sanitized form of abortion, but no less despicable. Again,as soon as you accept the life of the fetus, so many other issues become trivial.

I am not a religious individual. I do not participate in anthrax hoaxes, nor do I bomb clinics. I am a white male student. I read, I study, I discuss, I vote. I believe that pregnancy is not just an avoidable nine-month hassle that women are unfortunately shackled with. It is part of our nature that we must realize is the beginning of a living being from the moment that being is conceived.



Whit  Monday Nov 26 02:33 AM

Quote:
Far be it from me to impose my beliefs on my body. THATíS NOT WHAT I WISH TO DO! Your body doesnít enter into the equation!
     It doesn't? Huh, I thought the child grows in, is proctected by and nourishes off the mothers body. Go figure.
Quote:
As soon as you accept the fact that the fetus is a human, the rights of the mother to mess about with her body absolutely pale into oblivion relative to the right of the child to live! So many of the whole pro-life/pro-abortion skirmishes become moot when you realize that its not a matter of the motherís life, its a matter of the childís life.
     Ah, so this is a fact now? I'm glad to know it and here every other person on the thread has thought it was an opinion. Including those that were pro-life. Care to share your sources?
Quote:
For nine months, the mother will have to literally carry around a reminder of a traumatic event. I do not envy this burden.
     Oh yeah, that's right, it only last's nine month's. Odd thing though, the two pregnancies I've caused created these things called children. They've both far outlasted the 'nine month reminder period'. (And I'm quite thankful for it.)
Quote:
Once again, this is a non question. Would you kill another individual to avoid that burden?
Sure would, I hear killing the rapist can help. I'm willing to put down ANY rapist. I also can understand a woman wanting to destroy a handful of healthy cells that are living off her body. (Notice I said woman, I'll come back to that.)
Quote:
. I believe that pregnancy is not just an avoidable nine-month hassle that women are unfortunately shackled with.
     I agree with that. It's not just an avoidable nine-month hassle. It's much more than that. But that doesn't mean that it isn't an avoidable nine month hassle.
Quote:
It is part of our nature that we must realize is the beginning of a living being from the moment that being is conceived.
     So we must realize this, eh? Darn and I thought I was free to have a differing opinion. I already asked for your source so I'll drop this here.

     Now, on to what I said I'd get back to. One thing we have in common is that we are both men. As such this is nothing but a hypothetical discussion. We cannot be pregnant. So no matter what either of us say we can never know exactly how we would feel in this situation. As such I've tried to express my opinions from that view point. However as soon as I know why I "must realize" what you say I'll be happy to tell women that they have no rights with regard to what is happening inside their own body's.

     Oh yeah, and welcome to the Celler. I'm pretty new here myself, it's a great place and the people are pretty cool. Well, as long as you don't demand they think like you do they are anyway...


jaguar  Monday Nov 26 03:28 AM

Quote:
as soon as you accept the life of the fetus, so many other issues become trivial.
Wel i'm glad you find that such an easy concept to swallow, i don't. To assume a group of to start off with, 2 cells has the same rights as a person is well.......silly? If cells have the same rights as people then surely plants should have the same rihgts as animals? After all just because one is not concious shouldn't mean it doesn't have the right to the same rights. Its still alive, right? What makes these cells human? They could be reproducted very easily in a lab, heck they could be growing in a lab. While what is human is an incredibly murky ground the key concept that has been with us for centuries is conciousness, for a long time the arguement was that we were higher than everythign else because we were concious and animals are not, while that opinion is under fire the central concept fo conciousness being quintesential to what makes us human has not gone away. Every sperm and egg has the potential to become a person, as does every little bunch of cells, keyword: potential. (i decided to put my opinion as fact as that seems to be blase around this thread and at least i have decent backing)


Quote:
I believe that you cannot hope to define a point in fetal development at which a fetus is "alive", "human", "conscious", what have you. From the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being with all the rights and privileges of you or I.
See above, when do cells become a fetus?

Quote:
Re: rape, incest, etc... I can understand that these assaults are horribly scarring, painful events for a woman. However, aborting the child will not make the memory of the event disappear. For nine months, the mother will have to literally carry around a reminder of a traumatic event. I do not envy this burden. Once again, this is a non question. Would you kill another individual to avoid that burden?
I hate to be offensive but your are STUPID AND CALOUS BEYOND THE RELMS OF HUMAN COMPREHENSION. Goddamn have fucking......words fail me. LEts get personal. A freind of mine, 17 was raped. Date raped, drugged and raped. Yes, she got pregnant. SHe had a very early abortion. Oddly enough. Now first of all you seem to dismiss jsut how traumatic this is wiht a quick wave of your hand - how the hell can you? This is something that often SCREWS PEOPLE UP FOR LIFE, its not like somehting you get over in a couple of weeks..... Not to mention the fact the kid, belonging to a guy that violated you in the most horrible way doesn't dissipear when he's born, she then has to LOOK AFTER THE CHILD DIPSHIT. As for your psuedojustification that a bunch of cells is more important than anyhing else see above. Sorry but for obvious reasons - this particular opinion kinda gets to me.

Quote:
Even if I knew I would never be the victim, I still think theft should be illegal. So, it's not the fact that I feel I may be hurt that makes me put "my moral standards" on other people for theft. For me, it is a question of decent human rights.
So we're back to rights, and what decent human rights are...good luck defining that. Of course i could say that your definition of "decent human rights" is still putting your morals on others....

Quote:
As for the "type of people" who say that life begins at conception, I contend that you call them crazy (or whatever it is that you called them) simply because you don't agree with them.
As now proven by someone how fits two of my cirteria of a pro-lifer very snugly that opinion and such extremes as no abortion in cases of rape seem to go hand in hand. I'm sure you'd think it crazy if someone raped you at knifepoint in an alley and then expected you to keep the child.


Whit  Monday Nov 26 04:04 AM

     Heh, I was wondering how long it would take you to find that guy's post Jag. Now there's two or three more people I expect his approach to have greatly offended. Ah, they'll probably have seen it by the time I check it again tomorrow afternoon.

     Don't be shy, just because Jag or I already said what you were thinking. Reiterate the point. It'll be good clean fun. You know who you are, the very people I was speaking of with the "don't demand they think like you do" remark.

     By the by, that end bit about 'Welcome to the Cellar'. It was sincere. I realize that with the precedeing post that it may have come off as sarcasm. It was not, I wouldn't post just to be hostile. I rather like dissenting opinions. After all, I need them for my point of view to grow. If I came on strong it was more due to the stating of opinions as facts and telling me what I "must realize".



jaguar  Monday Nov 26 04:59 AM

This reminds me of austrlaian and turkish troops trading food inbertween killing each other. I wouldn't have been so.....nasty? if it didn't have personal edge sighs*



lisa  Monday Nov 26 07:47 AM

Sigh...

I was hoping to stay outta this one, but I've been "dragged" back in. I know, I can ignore it, but I feel compelled to respond on the two points where I was "attacked".

However, this is my last post on this issue. I usually avoid the whole topic of abortion in RL because, as I have said, everyone has their beliefs and mine is that either side is unwinnable.

I find it funny, however, that although I said something along the lines of "I'm slightly pro-choice" (IOW, that's probably how I'd vote if it came to that), someone is trying to make me see that pro-life is just dead wrong and that these pople make no sense.... and I just can't feel that way.

If I saw proof that a 10 cell blathocyst had a "soul" if you will, or a "consciousness" or whatever you wanted to call it, I'd agree that, in most cases, abortion should be illegal.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen such proof. Nor have I seen contractiditory proof. And "common sense" is not a valid argument since both sides (equally reasonably) clain that they are sure they have that...

As an aside, I have not even seen proof that an infant has consciousness. There have been theories that consciousness is developed post-natally, but I think we'd all agree that a two-month old infant should not be killed -- that that would be murder. So, I am not even sure if that would truly settle this, apparently, eternal debate.

Anyhow, on to my last reply on this thread:

Quote:
So we're back to rights, and what decent human rights are...good luck defining that. Of course i could say that your definition of "decent human rights" is still putting your morals on others....
Yup. It is. And that was my whole point. That's what we do when we make theft and murder illegal. IOW, it is a common practice condoned by all to "force" some "morals" on others.

Quote:
As now proven by someone how fits two of my cirteria of a pro-lifer very snugly that opinion and such extremes as no abortion in cases of rape seem to go hand in hand. I'm sure you'd think it crazy if someone raped you at knifepoint in an alley and then expected you to keep the child.
And, as I have said (in almost every argument I have had) saying that I could be put in some position where I might feel differently does not make my opinion wrong -- very few people's dedication to their principles are that strong. But even though I am willing to concede that I might feel differently point, I never said that, if I were pro-life, I might not believe in exceptions. And, I maintain that I don't know what I would think. Hypotheticals are often bad ways to prove anything, becuase no one truly knows what they would do in any given situation.

At any rate, I think this would be a case where I would have a strong difference between feelings and thoughts - a situation, which many here can attest, that I have had several times before. I believe that while I would probably feel like I had every right to do what I wanted (and again, I am NOT saying that I wouldn't have that right), but at the same time, I believe I would think, as much as I might hate it, that the other person is still, based on their opinions, fighting for what they believe is right.

I have often respected/understood the opinions of others even though they interfere with my rights and choices and can annoy me to no end.

I have a friend who is VERY pro gun-control and, although we disagree on that point vehamantly, after many conversations, I now understand his position. And, if I had his beliefs, I'd agree with him. That's why he and I seldom discuss the topic any longer -- the disagreement comes down to basic beliefs. Any further conversation will be pointless and just get both of us angry. So, by mutual decision, we avoid the topic.

And it's why I will not discuss this topic any longer other than to re-state my original point: This argument cannot be won either way until we have some clear evidence at what point a "human" life begins. And, I will add, even then, we would have differing opinions as to possible exceptions and the extent of enforcement.

I have never seen this debate change even a single person's mind. So, I will no longer ever waste my time trying to stop it. Anyone who wishes to continue it, Enjoy!

See you on other threads!


Undertoad  Monday Nov 26 09:51 AM

Without divulging my own opinion, there is one element I'd like to note...

The zygote, and the fetus that develops from it, are most certainly human. In the abortion debate both sides are trying to win the argument semantically, and I wish this would stop. The cells of the zygote have the right number of chromosomes and human DNA, and that makes it human.

Of course, so are a lot of cells - including many that we remove surgically for any number of reasons.

The debate is not whether it's human, but whether it's a person. Human cells don't have rights; people have rights.

That is all, we now return to your regularly-scheduled debate.



bcbrewery  Monday Nov 26 09:57 AM

The smoking gun website has some documents of Vanity Plates that are not allowed.

Vanity Plantes

Vanity Plates 2



Undertoad  Monday Nov 26 10:09 AM

lisa wrote <i>"As an aside, I have not even seen proof that an infant has consciousness."</i>

If consciousness is the sticking point, it's neocortical brain activity that counts - something that happens around the sixth month.



warch  Monday Nov 26 11:31 AM

RU486? Damn rights I am.

Birth control methods fail. Stupidity and rape happen. Pro-choice? You bet. Whether you agree or not, there has been and will always be abortion. There will always be desperate women of all ages not able or willing to be a parent for the first time or the fifth. Keep it open and safe.



juju2112  Tuesday Nov 27 01:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Without divulging my own opinion, there is one element I'd like to note...

The zygote, and the fetus that develops from it, are most certainly human. In the abortion debate both sides are trying to win the argument semantically, and I wish this would stop. The cells of the zygote have the right number of chromosomes and human DNA, and that makes it human.

Of course, so are a lot of cells - including many that we remove surgically for any number of reasons.

The debate is not whether it's human, but whether it's a person. Human cells don't have rights; people have rights.

That is all, we now return to your regularly-scheduled debate.
A newly-formed zygote is not a person, it's a single human cell. When it starts to divide, it's still not a person. It's a collection of human cells that are all exactly alike. After a few days a placenta forms that houses a collection of cells that don't even contain any organs. The brain doesn't start to "differentiate" and form until after about 27-29 days. So, this "collection of cells" doesn't even start to "think" for a whole month. That's plenty of time to abort before it can experience pain.

Now, i'm sure there are people who would disagree with my definition of a "person". But if I went by their definition, I would not be a person at all, but merely a huge collection of billions and billions of persons. Yes, every time I masturbate I am commiting mass murder! All those wasted lives! I feel so guilty.. all that useless suffering for my decadent pleasure. Millions of potential lives withering away and thinking to themselves, "why me?".


Anyway, my point is that the classification of what a "person" is is completely arbitrary.

Also, i'm not really disagreeing with anything you said. If I understand you correctly, then I agree with most of what you said. It's just that you made your points in a way that made me think of things to say. :]


-+- Sidenote -+-

Oh, also, this thread is really long. Can those of you who quote people please name the person you're quoting? I don't even remember who said what anymore when I read people quoting things. Yes, I admit it, i'm a lazy bastard who can't be bothered to scroll up. {g}


jaguar  Tuesday Nov 27 03:39 AM

Lisa: You have a point, i'm debtating for the point of debating, not much more. I think we've got this down to a metaphysics question of waht is a person/human and from then on, argueing is pointless because there can be no evidence.



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.