|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not a fan of hers either. Thousands and thousands of people sent her donations, thinking it would be used to save poverty stricken people dying in Calcutta. Much of it was sent off to Europe to build new churches and what-have-you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Yes those pictures are disturbing. But they don't make an argument.
And you still haven't given a decent alternative. What is your better idea? To have women, often single and poor, raising unwanted babies? So give the fetuses life only to make it crap? |
A picture says a thousand words. Look at how it change this thread from absolute stupidity into an actual intelligent discussion.
Anyway, on your point. There's a story of this young, naked, jewish child trying to escape from the Nazi regime. He goes from door to door asking for help and pleading for some food. Door after door is closed in his face. Finally, he knocks at one door and when it opens he says that he is Jesus. Will you please let me in?
Right now, if the church of America doesn't let these babies into their homes then they would be rejecting their own faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Yes those pictures are disturbing. But they don't make an argument.
And you still haven't given a decent alternative. What is your better idea? To have women, often single and poor, raising unwanted babies? So give the fetuses life only to make it crap? |
A picture says a thousand words. Look at how it change this thread from absolute stupidity into an actual intelligent discussion.
Anyway, on your point. There's a story of this young, naked, jewish child trying to escape from the Nazi regime. He goes from door to door asking for help and pleading for some food. Door after door is closed in his face. Finally, he knocks at one door and when it opens he says that he is Jesus. Will you please let me in?
Right now, if the church of America doesn't let these babies into their homes then they would be rejecting their own faith. |
1. alas, there is no church of america and there is no state religion in the USA. My faith is different from yours, and I am certainly not rejecting my own thank you very much.
2. Those pictures didn't change squat. It was Chris2007 who made some rational, intelligent remarks that changed the course of the debate. Might want to learn from the man  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
you have more food to eat? fewer single moms? less crime? (according to freakanomics).
Honestly, I go back and forth on the abortion issue, but subject headings such as yours revolt me and turn me towards the pro-choice movement. Good job. |
What about the war in Iraq? How many times do we hear about the death of soldiers? Mocking the war efforts and those who have died.
Which one is worse? |
What?? Talk some sense will you. Mocking the war efforts and those who have died? Who is doing that? Or are you saying what I did is the equivelent to that? You lost me there man. |
No, I am sorry. What I meant is that the press is all about how many soldiers we lost in Iraq, right? When they say something like my headline does it make you pro-war? Or do you still sympathise with the people losing their children to the war?
The same thing with abortion. 50 million children have died. How do you dumb that down? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
you have more food to eat? fewer single moms? less crime? (according to freakanomics).
Honestly, I go back and forth on the abortion issue, but subject headings such as yours revolt me and turn me towards the pro-choice movement. Good job. |
What about the war in Iraq? How many times do we hear about the death of soldiers? Mocking the war efforts and those who have died.
Which one is worse? |
What?? Talk some sense will you. Mocking the war efforts and those who have died? Who is doing that? Or are you saying what I did is the equivelent to that? You lost me there man. |
No, I am sorry. What I meant is that the press is all about how many soldiers we lost in Iraq, right? When they say something like my headline does it make you pro-war? Or do you still sympathise with the people losing their children to the war?
The same thing with abortion. 50 million children have died. How do you dumb that down? |
Well, I'm more strongly opinionated about the Iraq War than I am about abortion. That being said, Moveon.org's General Petraeus ad in the NY Times made me angry and rather disgusted at that component of the anti-war faction. I am sure I was not the only one. It just alienates people that might be sympathetic to your cause (you in the general sense).
It isn't about dumbing something down. It is about getting people to listen to your point of view instead of tuning you out and/or becoming defensive. Moveon.org's actions led to the latter, and judging by this thread, your title has done the same.
My point was this: even if I were pro-life, I wouldn't be happy to see your posting because I would think it was counter-productive; it would be doing more harm than good for the cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Tying abortion to growing violence and murder in the streets, she said, "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? . . . Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." |
If we accept that a person can cut off a troublesome mole, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?
The argument is a pure non sequitur. You may take it on faith you didn't kill anyone dealing in drugs. You make take it on faith the earth is only 6,000 years old. I, however, let science inform my moral choices. I don't really see any good science human life begins at conception.
Your god is not powerful enough to protect America if Americans put down their guns and prayed? Isn't that better than killing women and children? Shouldn't you be arguing for the former and not the latter if you were a good, moral christian. I know a war will CERTAINLY kill babies. Get your own house in order before you start preaching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is the difference between 50 million terminated pregnancies and the many more miscarried fetuses?
Perhaps the difference is the intention - it's not our right to choose to give or take away life.
BUT as "Freakonomics" points out, the statistics show that a termination doesn't mean the women has less children, she just starts having them later.
There is no net change in the number of children the woman has.
Therefore, the decision to terminate a pregnancy gives life to a future child.
A decision to continue a pregnancy, murders a future child. Gasp!
Unless you're arguing that we are all morally obliged to breed to our maximum physical capacity, abortion is a morally neutral decision!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IMF crisis
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
What is the difference between 50 million terminated pregnancies and the many more miscarried fetuses?
Perhaps the difference is the intention - it's not our right to choose to give or take away life.
BUT as "Freakonomics" points out, the statistics show that a termination doesn't mean the women has less children, she just starts having them later.
There is no net change in the number of children the woman has.
Therefore, the decision to terminate a pregnancy gives life to a future child.
A decision to continue a pregnancy, murders a future child. Gasp!
Unless you're arguing that we are all morally obliged to breed to our maximum physical capacity, abortion is a morally neutral decision!!! |
That argument fails on every level possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Yes but can you look at a newly fertilised embryo and call it human? Potentiality isn't the same as actuality. Clearly to me anyway, there just isn't a dividing line between person and non person. |
Yes, you can call it human. Its not just potential - its there living within the mother. It's literally alive, growing quickly. It has its own unique DNA seperate from the mom and long before most abortions are performed the embryo has a heartbeat (about 22 days from fertilization). It has movements seperate from the mother, as demonstrated by ultrasounds - even in the very early stages of pregnancy. The beginning development and establishment of all its organs and nervous system, etc. .....All this within the first trimester. The rapid growth of the child is amazing.
For tons of detailed information, backed up by science, about the child at all stages you can look here: http://www.sfuhl.org/
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Nature just doesn't work like that. We have many cases of one species merging into others (ring species) and cases of where the lines between life and non life are blurred (virii for example) and so on. It's impossible to say that before this time we have a bit of flesh and after we have a person. |
But when has a human fetus ever merged/grew into anything other than a newborn baby human?? Never. The only thing an unborn child needs is time and nurture to thrive, thats it. |
One could make the argument that the only thing a sperm needs is an egg. Yes I will credit that a fetus is human in the sense that it's the start of life.
But still my question remains: Is the fetus as important as a already born child? Pro lifers love to dodge this although one can see it reflected in our atitudes and daily actions. A fetus has a heartbeat. It's developing a brain. It has all the potential needed to become a fully alive human being with hopes, dreams aspirations and emotions. But it's not there yet.
Taken early enough, right after conception a fetus is nothing more than a few stem cells in a womb or petri dish. No heartbeat, no brain no nerves or anything really. Just a molecular machine with the potential to become human. And the potential to save lifes in research.
Do you value a newly fertilised embryo as much as a living person? And if so, why so? I don't to be honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It all comes down to a woman's right to choose. It's her body, not anybody else's. Anti-abortionists have too much time on their hands, and should go help children that have actually been born that no one gives a crap about!
| Quote: |
'I practically told the jury to find him guilty'
Globe writers take us back to the days when judges wanted Henry Morgentaler behind bars but jurors simply refused
ERIN ANDERSSEN AND INGRID PERITZ
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
July 4, 2008 at 10:22 PM EDT
In October, 1984, Susan Bishop sat among the jury pool in a Toronto courtroom, listening to some of the people around her openly trash the man whose fate they might soon be asked to decide.
To that point, Ms. Bishop, then 36 and an engineer with Nortel, hadn't felt strongly about being on the jury. She had a big project due at work, and generally saw the legal system as costly, inefficient and tangled up in politics.
But the stage whispers shocked her: These people were on a mission to convict Henry Morgentaler without even hearing the evidence.
Ms. Bishop didn't have strong views, either way, on the subject of abortion. To her knowledge, none of her friends had undergone one. She figured that made her the ideal juror, someone who could approach the case with an open mind.
The Canadian Press
Enlarge Image
Dr. Henry Morgentaler at his Montreal clinic in 1974.
Related Articles
Recent
* Morgentaler honour launched in church basement
* Veto of Morgentaler would have set precedent
* Controversial priest returns Order of Canada in protest
* Panel divided on crusader's nomination, vote suggests
* Cheers, jeers greet Morgentaler's honour
* Key moments in Henry Morgentaler's career
* Outrage brews as Ottawa set to honour Morgentaler
* Profile: Controversial abortion doctor faced a lifetime of persecution
* Editorial: A courageous honour for courage
* Comment:Does the Order of Canada stand for unity or recognition?
* Editorial:The order's 74 other snowflakes
* Discussion: Controversy and the Order of Canada
Photogallery
* 85 Harbord St.
The Globe and Mail
�It became clear to me that there were a lot of people who had biases and strong opinions, and listening to that made me realize I had a role.�
In the end, she was one of the 12 who chose � after less than a day of deliberation � to acquit Dr. Morgentaler and two other doctors of performing an illegal abortion. The trial gave her a new faith in the legal system: Each member of the jury, including six Roman Catholics under heavy pressure from family members who opposed abortion, ultimately came to a verdict based on the evidence, she says. For her, the case was an education. She says she realized how many women were affected by the restrictions then in place, how the system created an inequality for poor or rural women whose options were more limited.
�We felt confident we were doing the right thing.�
Their decision, following three acquittals by juries in Quebec, would ultimately send the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which struck down the country's abortion law.
But the divisive and emotional opinions that Ms. Bishop witnessed in the courtroom nearly 25 years ago were fired up again this week with the announcement that Dr. Morgentaler will receive the Order of Canada, the country's highest civilian honour. Even as many Canadians praised the decision, declaring it a fitting honour for a national hero, a Vancouver priest returned his own award in protest. The Canadian Family Action Coalition, a Christian grassroots organization, demanded that the government �terminate� the appointment.
The controversy comes as no surprise to Morris Manning, the Toronto lawyer who represented Dr. Morgentaler at his 1984 trial and then at the Supreme Court. But he is disappointed that critics persist in �vilifying� a man who survived Auschwitz, was willing to go to jail for his convictions and risked his career for what he believed was right. �He should be recognized for the courage he showed.�
The fierce blend of support and outrage on exhibit today has dogged Dr. Morgentaler since he began performing abortions in his east-end Montreal clinic in the late 1960s.
�We were surrounded by enemies, by people who didn't share our point of view,� recalls Claude-Armand Sheppard, the doctor's defence lawyer at the time.
But even in the midst of the protests, a judicial pattern emerged, beginning with the first trial in 1973: Juries listened patiently to the prosecution's case against Dr. Morgentaler. They heard the investigating officers describe how the clinic, far from being a house of horrors, had couches, flowers and music playing. And they refused to convict.
In 1975, the second jury deliberated a mere 55 minutes before the foreman, a 26-year-old meat-truck driver, announced the not-guilty verdict.
The jurors even went against their legal instructions, recalls the Quebec Superior Court judge who heard the case. �I practically told the jury to find him guilty,� says Claude Bisson, now retired. �Sometimes laws precede public opinion; sometimes they follow.�
By then, however, in a legal quirk, Dr. Morgentaler was already serving a jail sentence � his first acquittal had been overturned on appeal and replaced with a guilty verdict. In 1975, the Criminal Code was changed so that a jury verdict could not be treated this way, what is now known as the Morgentaler Amendment. After he was released, the province went back to court for a third time; the jury acquitted once again, essentially settling the matter in Quebec.
The controversy skipped west to Ontario when Dr. Morgentaler opened his Toronto clinic and brazenly invited the police chief to visit. Protests began in earnest; a volunteer who escorted women in and out of the clinic reported picking up the phone at home to hear babies crying. Mr. Manning remembers that, when Dr. Morgentaler took the stand in Toronto, �you could feel the tension rising, the hatred from some of the spectators.� When his case reached the Supreme Court, metal detectors were used for the first time.
The complexity of the issue was particularly obvious to Alan Cooper, the Crown prosecutor in the 1984 trial and now a judge with the Ontario Court. His office was bombarded with thousands of letters from anti-abortionists urging him to be vigilant in his duty. Meanwhile, his own friends � even his parents � wondered how he could prosecute a man they saw as a hero.
�They couldn't accept the fact that it wasn't your personal belief, that you could actually approach it objectively as a lawyer,� he says. �That's why abortion can't be the subject of legislation � because it's too closely entwined with human feelings.�
His argument for the Crown, he says, was made strictly on legal grounds: A law had been broken. But watching the jury, he recalls today, he knew his case �was going nowhere.�
As for the Order of Canada, he says Dr. Morgentaler �was a brave guy, considering the things that have happened in the United States and in Canada. He's pretty fearless. � I never felt he was in it for the money, and I think he took enormous personal risks to do what he did.�
So now, Mr. Bisson � three decades after trying to prompt a conviction and nine years after he himself was named to the Order of Canada � finds himself welcoming the accused as a fellow member. �You have to be philosophical in life,� he says. �I am an officer of the Order of Canada, and I respect all those who are part of that.�
And for Susan Bishop, who avidly followed the court rulings as they led to the Supreme Court, the honour is long overdue. She remembers listening as witnesses described how poor women could not afford to fly to hospitals that were willing to perform abortions, or how delays in the old system meant many women had to wait too long for the procedure.
�I don't think there are very many people who have sacrificed the way he has. There's a lot of risk he has taken on, his family has taken on.�
Mr. Sheppard, the lawyer, puts it this way: �Do you know many Canadians who succeeded in changing the law so completely? The Order of Canada isn't being awarded to abortion. It is being awarded to an exemplary man.�
Erin Anderssen is a Globe and Mail feature writer in Ottawa. Ingrid Peritz is a member of the paper's Montreal bureau
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There's a story of this young, naked, jewish child trying to escape from the Nazi regime. He goes from door to door asking for help and pleading for some food. Door after door is closed in his face. Finally, he knocks at one door and when it opens he says that he is Jesus. Will you please let me in? |
Where did you get this story?
Is it akin to the Anne Frank story which has been shown to be a fraud, but not before affecting millions with this lie of victimhood?
Pure propaganda.
_____________________________________________
| Quote: |
| It all comes down to a woman's right to choose. It's her body, not anybody else's. |
She had the right to control her body - she had the right to chose - when she let a male penetrate it. It was at that time she had her choice. After that, she has no right to abort, i.e. murder another life, i.e. an human being, just because that life, i.e. that human being is dependent upon the rest of humanity for protection and we instead, have decided to buy into your line of crap.
__________________________________
Psalms 139:
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
_____________________
that's why the fraud of evolution is being pushed: If we weren't created then we have no Creator and we are mere animals [goy] and can ignore even scoff at Psalms 139.
________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
quote:
In 1989, Dr. Jerome LeJeune--the world renown professor of genetics in Paris, France, who discovered the genetic cause of Downs Syndrome, testified at a trial in Tennessee, that no one can claim property rights on a frozen embryo because it is a human being. He said, and I quote in part:
Each of us has a unique human beginning, the moment of conception. Inside the chromosomes is written the program and all the definitions, so to speak, of the table of the law of life...when this information carried by the sperm and by the ovum has encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and human constitution is entirely spelled out...science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.
...Around twelve days after fertilization, the beginning of [the neural tube is formed]. Then, within...three weeks, the cardiac tubes will begin to beat, so that the heart is beginning to beat after three weeks. ...[At] two months of age, he is two centimeters and a half from the crown to the rump, and if I had him in my fist, you would not see that I have something, but if I opened my hand you would see the tiny man with hands, fingers, and toes. Everything is there.
At this stage, we change the name from "embryo" to "fetus" because, now, the visible evidence clearly shows that we are looking at a man and not a chimpanzee or other primate. A cytogenetics student could easily tell if the original zygote was a human being.
http://www.ppl.org/srm8.html
_______________________
Life starts at conception. End of story no matter how much you try to deceive yourself.
_____________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Yes but can you look at a newly fertilised embryo and call it human? Potentiality isn't the same as actuality. Clearly to me anyway, there just isn't a dividing line between person and non person. |
Yes, you can call it human. Its not just potential - its there living within the mother. It's literally alive, growing quickly. It has its own unique DNA seperate from the mom and long before most abortions are performed the embryo has a heartbeat (about 22 days from fertilization). It has movements seperate from the mother, as demonstrated by ultrasounds - even in the very early stages of pregnancy. The beginning development and establishment of all its organs and nervous system, etc. .....All this within the first trimester. The rapid growth of the child is amazing.
For tons of detailed information, backed up by science, about the child at all stages you can look here: http://www.sfuhl.org/
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Nature just doesn't work like that. We have many cases of one species merging into others (ring species) and cases of where the lines between life and non life are blurred (virii for example) and so on. It's impossible to say that before this time we have a bit of flesh and after we have a person. |
But when has a human fetus ever merged/grew into anything other than a newborn baby human?? Never. The only thing an unborn child needs is time and nurture to thrive, thats it. |
One could make the argument that the only thing a sperm needs is an egg. Yes I will credit that a fetus is human in the sense that it's the start of life.
But still my question remains: Is the fetus as important as a already born child? Pro lifers love to dodge this although one can see it reflected in our atitudes and daily actions. A fetus has a heartbeat. It's developing a brain. It has all the potential needed to become a fully alive human being with hopes, dreams aspirations and emotions. But it's not there yet.
Taken early enough, right after conception a fetus is nothing more than a few stem cells in a womb or petri dish. No heartbeat, no brain no nerves or anything really. Just a molecular machine with the potential to become human. And the potential to save lifes in research.
Do you value a newly fertilised embryo as much as a living person? And if so, why so? I don't to be honest. |
Yes, I do value it as much as a person who is already born, because it is a person, period. As you stated, it is the start of life. It gets everything it needs at conception, and barring intervention, will eventually become a toddler, teen, adult, etc. It seems like you're trying to argue that because its not at X stage in development that its therefore not as valuable. But what is being described then are the stages of life, not whether or not it is a life.
Besides, at what other point could it officially be the start of life? Saying the life begins at birth doesn't make sense because children have survived outside the womb long before the due date. The viability argument isn't logical either because even a newborn is also totally dependent on another for survival.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, but nearly 40% after 9 weeks from conception when there is little or no difference between the unborn child and a person who is born - - in regards to human development, like having kidneys, lungs, a heart, hands, legs, etc. (By the way, most of that development has begun or has been established long before 9 weeks.) Considering most women don't know their pregnant at least until their first missed period, nearly all aborted children are being aborted after very, very significant human development. That's very troubling considering most women don't know or are not told, in even remote terms, what the abortion entails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| She had the right to control her body - she had the right to chose - when she let a male penetrate it. It was at that time she had her choice. |
Again I ask: What about rape victims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
First off, the amount of rape victims who get pregnant is a small percentage of those who end up getting an abortion. This is a usual tactic - bring up the unlikely to justify the vast majority of abortions and one that skirts the issue, and the issue is abortion is the murder of a human being and should be discouraged - not justified.
___________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
