i would guess that allowing schools to teach students about safe sex might help
but you know... thats probably craaazy

2/14/2006 1:37:32 PM

LAWD LAWD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1

2/14/2006 1:38:42 PM

i mean it took me years to realize how much they sucked and stopped using them

2/14/2006 1:42:49 PM

Quote :

"and what part of the brain function makes it human? (see how its still hard to define)"

A frontal lobe that has actively firing neurons.

We can't prove anything about the internal mental state of the unborn child (just like we can never prove anything about the internal mental state of a grown human), but here's the way I see it:

Frontal lobe -- check
Neurons firing, some sort of brain activity -- check

This is what makes a human. A brain in a jar, if alive, would be a human being. A beating heart in a jar would not.

2/14/2006 1:45:24 PM

i really wish i could see things as simply as you can

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : and ps you just called lots of animals humans]

2/14/2006 1:51:34 PM

You're the one that's seeing things too simply.

I'm not calling other species of animals humans -- I'm saying that one trait, above all others, is a way of saying "this is a live human being."

That doesn't mean that other animals which share this trait are also human beings.

But in response to your second part, and this is kind of a derail -- what makes a human more than a really complex animal anyway?

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2006 1:55:13 PM

som frontal lobe activity isn't exclusive to humans
my point is how are you going to tell at what point the activity makes someone human? you will never find a consensus on this

2/14/2006 1:57:00 PM

I'd go with frontal lobe activity (the particular activity TBD by qualified neuroscientists/neonatologists), response to pain, and self-directed movement; that's a rough estimate of what determines that it's a living human and not a pile of tissue functioning mechanically without will.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM. Reason : who cares about consensus?]

2/14/2006 1:58:01 PM

but lots of animals can do those things. you just made a point that when the heart started beating is not a good line because its not what makes someone human, how is this any better?

Quote :

"who cares about consensus?"

well if we didnt need some kind of agreement this wouldnt even be a debate right now

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2006 1:58:52 PM

First of all, we're not looking for a consensus.

Second of all, I know that frontal lobe activity isn't exclusive to humans. What I'm saying is that frontal lobe activity is a great way to determine if something is human or not.

Let me reword my argument, since you're having such a hard time properly understanding it.

If you already assume something is a candidate to be human (i.e. the growing organism has two human parents and is growing in the womb of a human mother), then frontal lobe activity is a great way to decide that the HUMAN life has begun. The youngster is now capable of developing a consciousness and human intelligence, and is a full-fledged human at this point (or so close that we can't tell, and killing it would be wrong).

I'm not arguing that frontal lobe activity separates humans from all other types of animals.

Edit:
You can't reach a scientific consensus with religious fanaticism being as widespread as it is on planet Earth. Religion hamstrings scientific development and the full potential of our race time and again. Finding a consensus among religiously-minded people and people interested in actually knowing the truth is impossible. This is why either science or religion wins, because religion is consistently represented by a small, loud, fuckheaded group of people who get tons of press.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:03 PM. Reason : more stuff]

2/14/2006 2:00:58 PM

Why does it have to be different than an animal?

2/14/2006 2:01:01 PM

Quote :

"Why does it have to be different than an animal?"

you made that point not me

^^ at some point the frontal lobe is developed enough that the fetus can start developing the higher thought that makes us humans, that is not when activity first starts in the frontal lobe

Quote :

"You can't reach a scientific consensus with religious fanaticism being as widespread as it is on planet Earth"

stop using this copout
im not using religion at all
this is not merely a religious debate
saying it is just makes you look like a fool

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2006 2:03:40 PM

Where?

2/14/2006 2:05:23 PM

Look Guth, it's not like I can pinpoint an exact second when aborting a child in the womb is suddenly wrong.

The inability to do this does not suggest that no unborn child should ever be aborted, or that aborting it before a certain point is wrong. What we CAN do is pinpoint a certain chain of events that come together to form a human intelligence -- a consciousness, a human life. Then what we can do is choose not to fuck with the process when it hits this point.

That's the most reasonable thing to do. Since we don't know where in that subset of events that the life begins, we should stop aborting before we think that subset even begins. What we DO know, is before the brain is properly formed for blossoming human thought, the unborn child is not a full-fledged human being. It's more like a lump of tissue.

Edit:

Quote :

"stop using this copout im not using religion at all this is not merely a religious debate saying it is just makes you look like a fool"

Not quite a copout, nor am I pinning religion on you. But if you think the religiously poisoned masses will swallow scientific change that flies in the face of their fragile faith, then think again.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2006 2:06:43 PM

Quote :

"Look Guth, it's not like I can pinpoint an exact second when aborting a child in the womb is suddenly wrong."

WHICH IS WHY ITS NOT JUST A RELIGIOUS DEBATE, CHRIST

Quote :

"Where?"

Quote :

"Alive, but no different than a fish, pheasant, or frog. What's so sacred about that?"

2/14/2006 2:07:43 PM

And that implies that a developing fetus has to be unlike an animal because...

2/14/2006 2:09:04 PM

i dont know, it was your reasoning for why a beating heart wasn't a good line
so you tell me

2/14/2006 2:10:57 PM

Guth, are you on steroids? Calm down, man. You're acting like I'm grabbing your girl's ass at the bar.

What we're saying here is -- there's a point in pregnancy where a human life begins. We know what the beginning of this process looks like -- so it's reasonable to stop allowing abortions at that point. Just because we can't pin the creation of the life on a fraction of a nanosecond during this delicate process doesn't mean we shouldn't identify a safe stopping point.

2/14/2006 2:10:57 PM

i agree with you on almost all of your points
what i think is rediculous and simple minded is trying to say that this is only an issue because of religion

2/14/2006 2:12:10 PM

Maybe not only because of religion, but you'd be ridiculous (sorry, pet peeve) to suggest it's not 80-90% a religious issue.

Glorification of mankind as anything more than an animal is a religious concept. This is why people are so squeamish about getting into biological hacking and "playing God".

2/14/2006 2:13:53 PM

My point was that terminating a beating heart isn't itself murder.

2/14/2006 2:14:01 PM

Quote :

"Glorification of mankind as anything more than an animal is a religious concept. This is why people are so squeamish about getting into biological hacking and "playing God"."

see thats just not true

2/14/2006 2:15:59 PM

Explain.

2/14/2006 2:19:19 PM

What part of that isn't true?

Self-glorification is a human trait, independent of religion -- but attributing to man anything "special" above animals in nature itself (i.e. FUNDEMENTALLY different, a "soul", "god's children", etc) is a religious concept, or at least sold almost entirely by religion.

2/14/2006 2:20:38 PM

the difference between human and nonhumans in western thought is more the result of ancient greek dualism, which split reality into nonthinking material substances and nonmaterial thinking substances. you can look at aristotle who argued that reason was an activity of the soul. moral value is dependant on the ability to reason, and only humans have this intrinsic moral value.
Thomas Aquinas later incorporated this view into the judeo-christian tradition (that says God created earth for the benefit of man), but the idea that humans have intrinsic moral value is not dependant on or a result of religion

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : my keyboard is sticking]

2/14/2006 2:27:35 PM

Quote :

"If we consider abortion to be murder, it's wrong under any circumstance (edit: except for the allowances we give to murder, such as self-defense). If we don't consider abortion to be murder, then why should it matter how the woman got pregnant? Forcing somebody to have a child to "teach them a lesson for having sex" doesn't make a lot of sense outside of a religious context (which pretty much can justify any stupid shit you'd like to do)."

I see rape as an abortion exception, just like self-defense sometimes being the exception for murder. It is in a way self-defense because of the extreme emotional turmoil and physical pain the woman would go through. I'm pretty sure it would be considered self-defense to kill someone who was torturing you (but didn't plan to kill you)--you're not in mortal danger, but I'm pretty sure most juries would consider it self defense.

Yes, in this case the "torturer" is also an innocent victim, but sometimes you have to make a choice. I don't know if I would be able to kill someone who was going to kill me (self-defense). Someone else might. Now, if someone else was in danger (family, friends), I would probably be a lot more willing to kill someone to protect them than to protect myself. But someone else might now even be able to kill in that case. They might see my view as horrible. Nothing is black and white.

Now if I were ever raped and became pregnant, I would 100% carry the baby to term and probably give it up for adoption. I would never consider abortion for a second. I am very against abortion and I see it as killing another human being. But just as I would understand killing in self-defense (while others would not condone killing in any circumstances whatsoever), I would understand abortion in the case of rape.

Would you risk your life for your family and friends? Probably. Would you risk your life for a complete stranger? Less likely for a lot of people. I feel that I would (I know you never know until you-re actually in that situation). But I would not hold judgment against someone who was afraid to put themselves in danger.

It's the same thing in that NOTHING is black and white. There will always be exceptions. It's sad that the focus is always on rape and incest when that is such a small, microscopic portion of the total number of abortions. A ban on abortion will never even be considered until that exception is put in there. Because we are so focused on saving every baby, we are instead saving none of them.

2/14/2006 2:30:08 PM

^^ That's a pretty good point, there's a lot of "dualism" work from non-religious thinkers that I overlooked. Not a result of science, but of religion-independent philosophy.

Intrinsic moral value of humans is pretty central to most religions though. Don't front.

2/14/2006 2:32:02 PM

That's a philosophical history lesson, not an answer to this question:

Quote :

"What part of that isn't true?"

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : or maybe i need you to use smaller words?]

2/14/2006 2:33:22 PM

Quote :

"Intrinsic moral value of humans is pretty central to most religions though. Don't front."

yes but this intrinsic moral value would exist regardless of religion
if anything i would argue that religion is a result of it, and not the other way around

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ^i answered his question]

2/14/2006 2:33:31 PM

Are you saying that the ancient Greeks who conceived of dualism weren't religious, or weren't doing so for religious purposes? I don't see how dualism isn't itself a religious, or at least spiritual concept; even if it's spouted by the most vocal agnostics. To be clear, I'm not saying that it isn't; just that I don't see how it isn't. Can you explain it to me?

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ...]

2/14/2006 2:40:55 PM

i don't think they were doing it for religious purposes, yes
and its not just the greeks, i just used them because thats the first example of dualism that came to mind.

maybe you wouldnt be confused if i had also used kant as an example and mentioned his view that humans are superior to animals because animals lacked rationality and were thus nonpersons?

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : immanuel kant]

2/14/2006 2:41:25 PM

Quote :

" Anyway, I'm on a tangent. How do you define 'motherhood'? And why do you feel that self-determination rights supercede a human life?"

Again, you're putting words in my mouth, but I'll go ahead and humor you since Im probably pro-choice if anything.

Alright, yes I am referring to bringing the baby to term. Pregnancy isnt like getting a cast or anything. Many women are never the same after their first baby; physically, mentally and financially regardless of whether or not they raise the child. Also, self-determination is every person's right. There's no law forcing you to inconvenience yourself for another person's life, let alone if there's risk involved. If I were standing on top of a cliff and someone was hanging from the cliff, clearly unable to save himself, I would be under no obligation to do anything. This may sound harsh, but its true.

And if you bring up parental neglect, Ill say I do not believe a dependant child can be forced upon someone.

2/14/2006 2:43:00 PM

Quote :

"A functional heart does not make anything human"

See..more disagreement...and you're probably not a religious fanatic either.

Quote :

"it's my understanding that the issue of privacy played an important role in the roe v wade opinion."

Ok..privacy. Both parties misconstrue this notion of privacy. Republicans tend to selectively ignore the right of privacy (sodomy, drugs etc) where democrats tend to create rights that aren't necessarily in the Constitution (the "penumbra of emanations"). Both parties pick and choose what is protected under the notion of privacy rights. Democrats would protect a woman's decision to abort her baby, but forbid two business competitiors from privately discussing their pricing strategies.

The same justice who found in 1965 a right to marital privacy, could not find a right in 1942 to grow wheat on one's own land even for one's own use. (Wickard v. Filburn)

Supreme Court justices used in deciding Roe v Wade, a 1965 ruling: Griswald v Connecticut. This ruling struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives. The justices stated that "Certainly the safeguarding of the home does not follow merely from the sanctity of property rights. The home derives its pre-eminence as the seat of family life."

This is where the court went astray in the privacy question. They unhooked privacy from its fundamental base of property rights- and let it float off into all sorts of uncharted territory.

If you look at things from a Lockean approach, things get a bit clearer. The government's role is to protect life, liberty and property. A person owns his own body, not the state. As long as you are not using force or fraud on another, you are free to be left alone. If you want to commit sodomy, it's your body.

In regards to abortion, the fetus comes into being inside a self-owning woman. Does the state have the right to force her to be an incubator against her will. If the state wants the child to be born, does it owe the mother any compensation if she does not want to take it to term? Would she be allowed, if she wished, to enter in a contract with another party to birth the baby for them to raise?

Again, the people of each state decide at what stage abortion is considered to be murder, and then further decisions would be based on property rights.

2/14/2006 2:43:52 PM

Quote :

"See..more disagreement...and you're probably not a religious fanatic either."

This has to be a joke. Are you suggesting that a beating heart makes something human to anyone?

2/14/2006 2:48:08 PM

Quote :

"A functional heart does not make anything human"

True..but I'm assuming you meant a functional heart that's inside a human fetus does not make anything human. Some would disagree with that statement.

2/14/2006 2:53:50 PM

i assumed he was saying it just made them alive
and kinda like what mcdanger said, pair that with being a human and it makes them human

i was kinda giving him the benefit of the doubt

2/14/2006 2:54:28 PM

I don't think that a functional heart inside a fetus qualifies it as possessing human life. The heart develops and starts beating before the fetus has a remotely developed brain.

Amusing sidenote: The neutrality of wikipedia's article on "human" is disputed. It's funny to me that humans can't agree on what humans are.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM. Reason : sidenote]

2/14/2006 3:24:45 PM

In response to Guth:

I think I conceded my point too soon. I wondered why the examples of Greek dualism didn't pop to my mind before, and then I thought about it some more and realized why I held my opinion and why I still think your example is flawed.

Dualism is an example of human beings trying to reason through the state of their own existence. Many of these other views you've talked about assert humankind's superiority.

That's fine.

We're obviously smarter and more ordered than other animals on Earth. That much is obvious, and it should also be obvious that a human life is worth more to us (i.e. HUMANS) than some other species.

But the attitude promoted by these ideologies isn't one of awe at some strange magical intercession that caused humankind to be. Sure, they deal with subjects that are, in the nature they define them to be, non-physical. However, that does not change the fact that these ideas were crafted in order to explain what was viewed as a perfectly NATURAL process.

Therefore, the killing of a human baby might be repugnant to a dualist because they believe the non-physical part of the baby might suffer in the death, or something similar. Or, rather, that there IS a non-physical element to the life that is mature from conception. I'm not sure how far traditional dualism gets into abortion-philosophy.

However, this feeling isn't due to the fact that humankind is in anyway SPECIAL (other than achievements of development that thrust us above other animal species). The religious train of thought is that human life is somehow SACRED (this is an important distiction over "important" or some other qualifier). This is why you had people trying to block the progress of surgery ("devil's work") and other medical advances.

The human body, considered by many to be divine in some way, or divinely-inspired, is "not to be trifled with" in certain ways under religious thought. Of course, like all concepts of "sin", these certain ways are subject to change with the political climate, only to be relabeled as God's Original Intent. While most religious folk will tell you surgery is okay, now that the religious and social climate has warmed up to it (doubtlessly because of the benefits they personally reaped), they're opposed to other things such as early-stage abortion and gene therapy.

This is why a rational person can look at an aborted baby in the early stages, and know it didn't suffer. It might be disgusting, and it might look weird because it's vaguely human, but it doesn't even begin to mirror the outrage and horror the religiously (or religiously-influenced) minded people experience. Imagery is important in religious thought -- and so something that simply APPEARS to be human, which might actually not be fully human yet, is afforded the same consideration as a fully grown being.

2/14/2006 5:11:15 PM

Quote :

"What's your justification, as a borderline atheist, that aborting an unborn child in the first week is any different than keeping the sperm and egg from uniting in the first place?"

As far as I am concerned, the event horizon, if you will, has been crossed when the sperm and egg successfully meet and form a cell with all 46 chromosomes. This is now a fully human cell and a human cell separate from the mother's own cells (i.e. DNA is different) (hence why the argument from many pro-choicers that "it's just like cutting off a finger" or “removing a tumor” is inaccurate) AND a living human cell which will, if it manages to make it, implant in the uterus and split until it becomes the whole living human body. It seems wrong to me to actively prevent the formation of that human at any point in its development, whether you are actively preventing implantation, or actively removing the cells from the uterus. It is interference with a human life (for me, defined by the presence of living human cells, which are different from the mother’s body in DNA and will split until the entire living body is formed).

The sperm and egg are discreet objects that do not have the capability to form a living human body on their own. There is no ethical issue for me regarding preventing them from meeting; but once they DO meet, it is unethical, to me, to actively prevent them from reaching their natural conclusion.

Yes, there are miscarriages and zygotes that naturally don’t implant and are therefore washed away with menstruation, just as there are fully-grown people who die every day from natural, unpreventable, or unknown causes. It is unfortunate, but miscarriage is accidental.

Quote :

"As for child birth being painless, WTF? Even if drugs do help, some people are opposed to taking drugs during childbirth. Doesn't that violate their individual freedoms?"

As far as I know, women who don't want drugs during childbirth don't want them because of the effect they could have on the child... but if the mother is having the child forced upon her by not being able to have an abortion, one would imagine that she isn’t really worried about the unproven potential risk that the painkillers will pose on the child. This isn't a full argument, I know, but it's something.

Quote :

"If a raped woman is forced to give birth to her child, what's to stop a maniac with a desire to spread his seed from raping any woman he met?"

Prison once he’s caught.

Quote :

"As far as I know, there's no way to prevent the spread of AIDS. But if it was preventable, I would think that the government would take that route (or at least allow that option)."

It is illegal to knowingly give AIDS to another person. No, that’s not prevention, but there are laws about it. I’m just saying.

Anyway, there seems to be a debate here about when human life starts; brainwaves, heartbeats, etc. As far as I’m concerned, in general, human life starts with a living human cell, discreet from the mother’s body and with it’s own human DNA, and whose eventual natural conclusion, if not interfered with, will be a human body. As long as it is splitting to create new cells and is on a course to be a living body, it’s alive and it’s human. Brainwaves have little to do with it. Heartbeats have little to do with it.

Fin.

2/14/2006 5:37:36 PM

Quote :

"However, this feeling isn't due to the fact that humankind is in anyway SPECIAL (other than achievements of development that thrust us above other animal species)."

no, dualism is saying that humans are "special." Dualism is the idea that we have a non physical thinking part, and that is what makes us special. It's not merely saying we are special because we can think, as you are implying it is. It's true there isn't any "awe" but they are explaining much more than a "NATURAL process."

Your points could be used to attack my Kant refrence, who basically says we are only better than animals because we are rational, but dualism says that we are in fact special. (for the reasons previously mentioned)

You go on to draw a distinction between sacred and important, this is a valid distinction, but then you go on to describe humans as divine or divinly inspired. The human body is sacred, but not because of any religious ideologies. The intangible thinking part of humans make us special, and this specialness demands respect; id est humans are sacrad. Sacred does not necessarily have any religious connotations. (although it is often used that way)

I'm not really sure about your digression to the surgery example, I don't really remember surgery being opposed because of any religious reasons. If it was, I don't understand how it effects this discussion. Yes, some people think the body is special because of religious reasons but that does not mean that the body is only special because of these religious reasons, to assume so would be a logical fallacy.

If religion disappeared today I assert that people would still find humans sacrad because of special, intangible things that make us intrinsically different from animals.

2/14/2006 5:53:02 PM

In some cultures, putting a child up for adoption is equivalent to abandonment.

2/14/2006 6:14:45 PM

I would think any of the nutjobs who get excited over this would know that this happened in 2004 and got vetoed by the governor.

2/14/2006 6:51:56 PM

I would think any nutjob who brings up 2004 would know WHY the ban was vetoed in 2004... but in case said nutjobs DON'T:

Quote :

"The measure is like a ban that lawmakers passed in 2004, only to have Republican Gov. Mike Rounds kill the bill with a technical veto. That shouldn't happen this year, Hunt said. "We certainly worked to resolve the governor's concerns,'' Hunt said. The goal of the bill two years ago, its sponsor said, was to force the high court to take a new look at the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade and to view that decision in the light of more than 30 years of what he says have been advances in science and understanding of human life. It failed because Rounds concluded that language in the bill would strike down any existing state limits on abortion and leave South Dakota with no restrictions while a court challenge was in progress." "

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006601240303

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 7:06 PM. Reason : emphasis mine]

2/14/2006 7:04:44 PM

if it does go through and makes it to the sc, i hope the conservatives realize even their judges aren't a sure thing
they dont have a good batting average with judges on this issue so far

2/14/2006 9:27:14 PM

it'll also spell the demise of the GOP's stranglehold on electing candidates in the South

2/14/2006 9:28:44 PM

im not disagreeing, but could you expand your thought process on that one

2/14/2006 9:43:51 PM

The issue belongs in the states.

2/14/2006 9:47:25 PM

Quote :

"She only has to eat right (if she chooses to have a healthy baby) for less than a year of her life, give birth (which is really quite painless with the drugs they can give you these days), and I guess get maternity clothes. Yeah, there is morning sickness, but from what I've heard that really isn't that bad."

heh, wow

pregnancy is so easy, ladies. all you have to do is eat right and buy baggy t-shirts!

2/15/2006 12:21:48 AM

Quote :

"im not disagreeing, but could you expand your thought process on that one"

it goes roughly like this:

1. It's a states rights issue.
2. "Activist judges" have again legislated from the bench.
3. Candidates can no longer expect "and we'll amend the Constitution to prevent abortion" to mobilize their base (and I honestly don't think gay marriage makes an adequate substitute).

It's mainly the third, though. The GOP strategists are, or should be, well aware that abortion only works for them as an issue if it's still legal.

2/15/2006 3:27:14 AM

Quote :

"(moron)I understand that you feel that a child shouldn't automatically be killed if it is the product of rape, but are you suggesting that women/couples should be forced to carry a baby to term that they may not necessarily want or be willing to raise? Would you support a gov. program to pay for all the medical bills and other expenses that would come of this situation? If you wife were raped and got pregnant, would you raise the kid as your own?"

Yes, possibly, and yes. The main point here for me is that human life is sacred. It is simply wrong to kill the baby. I make no arbitrairy demarcation of life being valued only after birth. In my view, human life should be protected from the moment of conception. After that point, if nature is left to take it's course that "fetus" will become a fully functioning human. I have this antiquated notion that we as the more powerful in soceity have a moral duty to protect the innocent and powerless.

Essentially, your complaint is that raising the child would be inconvenient. Well, as a soceity keeping violent criminals in expensive federal jails is also inconvenient. Should we start killing all the criminals to cut costs? I doubt many of you advocate this position. Then, why do you advocate killing babies which is even worse, at least the prisoners (on the average) are responsible for there position in life. The unborn are innocent without exception, wether they are the product of rape or not.

To me this is no different than the question of helping an adult human in a precarious life endangering situation. If you can save they're life without loosing yours then you have a moral obligation to help them live(even if it costs you $$ or time). The only exception would be when it is fairly certain that you will die saving them. In that case you are exempt, likewise only in the case of the mother's life being in danger do I believe that abortion can be morally justified. And that case was always legal anyway, it's really irrelevant to the debate.

Quote :

"(jbtilley)^I'm for a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to have sex she is also choosing the consequences. If she does not choose to have sex (raped) then she shouldn't have to accept the consequences."

Of course she shouldn't be raped to begin with, but that is no justification
for murder. Why should the child pay the ultimate price for a crime it did not commit? We do not have the right to kill people that are inconvenient to us at any other stage of life, why should the unborn be different?

Quote :

"(McDanger)If you already assume something is a candidate to be human (i.e. the growing organism has two human parents and is growing in the womb of a human mother), then frontal lobe activity is a great way to decide that the HUMAN life has begun. <b>The youngster is now capable of developing a consciousness and human intelligence</b>, and is a full-fledged human at this point (or so close that we can't tell, and killing it would be wrong)."

Why not just say that it is HUMAN life if it has the potential of developing into an person. Almost every fetus has this capability, it just needs to be fed an nutured as I understand it. In contrast to say a sperm or an egg, which will never develop into a human. Why split hairs about the beginning of life, sure would be sad if we figured out consciousness started earlier once we've framed our defintion like you indicate.

Quote :

"(nicolle)I see rape as an abortion exception, just like self-defense sometimes being the exception for murder. It is in a way self-defense because of the extreme emotional turmoil and physical pain the woman would go through. I'm pretty sure it would be considered self-defense to kill someone who was torturing you (but didn't plan to kill you)--you're not in mortal danger, but I'm pretty sure most juries would consider it self defense."

that's a stretch. For it to be self defense there would need to be some expectation that the torturor was going to kill you. This is not a reasonable expectation of the unborn child. It would not be a pleasant experience, but that is not a defense of murder.

Quote :

"(nicolle)Yes, in this case the "torturer" is also an innocent victim, but sometimes you have to make a choice."

You do not have to make that choice. You have to suffer with the child as is your moral obligation to the helpless being. Why would you advocate murder as a cure for the hurt of rape, surely this can only bring more devastion into one's life. Rather, carry the child to term and adopt.

Quote :

"(nicolle)Now if I were ever raped and became pregnant, I would 100% carry the baby to term and probably give it up for adoption. I would never consider abortion for a second. I am very against abortion and I see it as killing another human being. But just as I would understand killing in self-defense (while others would not condone killing in any circumstances whatsoever), I would understand abortion in the case of rape. "

I applaud your personal convictions. But, it's not self defense.

Quote :

"(nicolle)Would you risk your life for your family and friends? Probably. Would you risk your life for a complete stranger? Less likely for a lot of people. I feel that I would (I know you never know until you-re actually in that situation). But I would not hold judgment against someone who was afraid to put themselves in danger."

this is a false analogy because the mother ( except in extreme cases ) is not in danger. She is inconvenienced, and sick , and annoyed, possibly unemployed as a result of it, granted all of that and more. But, it's not in any way proportional to the value of the human life that she would destroy to avoid the troubles of pregancy.

Quote :

"(nicolle)It's the same thing in that NOTHING is black and white. There will always be exceptions. It's sad that the focus is always on rape and incest when that is such a small, microscopic portion of the total number of abortions. A ban on abortion will never even be considered until that exception is put in there. Because we are so focused on saving every baby, we are instead saving none of them."

Nothing is black and white except this statement...

Probably your right about the politics of passing abortion legislation, that's a sad commentary on the state of morality in this country. I don't think this is the roadblock though. Rather, it is the courts.

Quote :

"(Lumex)If I were standing on top of a cliff and someone was hanging from the cliff, clearly unable to save himself, I would be under no obligation to do anything. This may sound harsh, but its true."

You would be under no obligation because it puts your life in immediate danger. This is not the case with the pregant mom ( except in extreme circumstances ). If saving the man did not put your life in danger, and you were the only person who could save him I think you have the moral obligation to help him live. In the same way the mother does not have the moral right to kill her unborn child.

Quote :

"(Gamecat)It's mainly the third, though. The GOP strategists are, or should be, well aware that abortion only works for them as an issue if it's still legal."

Naw, cause there will always be the other side trying to legalize it again. People like me will continue to
vote against the pro-abortion candidates. I will not vote for anyone who is pro-abortion, it's as simple as that.
This transcends economics and most everything else in the poltical arena today.



[Edited on February 15, 2006 at 4:46 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2006 4:40:27 AM