Quote :

"However, I think you're a full-fledged person at some point before birth. The point at which you're "person-enough" to rate protection from abortion (i.e., your death represents killing of a person) is arguable, and that's been my point all along--this debate revolves not around religion, or women's rights, or anything else but what defines a "human life" (*unless you're someone like BridgetSPK or Solinari who says that willfully killing babies is fine, since it's for the greater good)"

What makes somebody a full-fledged person, then? I want an functionalist answer. What does the baby have to be able to do in order for it to be a full-fledged person? Feel pain? Form memories? Form a personal narrative? Speak/be able to express thoughts? We can classify rocks and people, and we can also classify dead people and living people. What set of behaviors/abilities screens off sub-persons from persons?

Quote :

"If a baby isn't as much of a person as you or I are, then what about a toddler? What about a 3rd grader? What about someone in a 3rd-world country who's never really experienced anything beyond his village, his fields, and his livestock? What about some of the dumbasses on here who are half-retarded? What about someone who is no-kidding clinically retarded?"

It's hard to avoid an answer that's not culturalist. What we need to reflect on is what makes somebody a person in a culture-invariant fashion; in other words, what laundry list of biological functions do we pay attention to? We're dealing with something like a partial-order rather than a full-order here; if people are missing different capabilities, they are both less developed than a healthy, fully-formed human but perhaps in a way that's not comparable to each other.

The real question here is how to map personhood onto biology. What do we consider a person? A puddle of sludge with human DNA that's twitching and pulsing, but not thinking anything?

In other words: you shouldn't deny personhood to someone for being uneducated or foolish. Ideally, a "personhood" test is based on measurable biological (or in the case the biology isn't directly measurable, behavioral) data.

7/14/2010 3:35:41 PM

Quote :

"The real question here is how to map personhood onto biology. What do we consider a person? A puddle of sludge with human DNA that's twitching and pulsing, but not thinking anything? In other words: you shouldn't deny personhood to someone for being uneducated or foolish. Ideally, a "personhood" test is based on measurable biological (or in the case the biology isn't directly measurable, behavioral) data."

I agree with all of this.

I also don't have a really firm answer to your question at the top of the page. My personal limits for abortion are a point at which I think is conservative (in the "safe bet" sense of the word) enough for me to be comfortable that I'm still in the "ok" zone. I'm OK with the law reflecting a somewhat less conservative place of drawing the line, although I think that there's not really much reason not to err on the side of not chopping up human babies (as there's practically generally no reason to wait that long in the developmental process to perform an abortion).

I'll also digress here and say that I'm largely against legislating morality, but this falls into that category in the same sense that murder/manslaughter/etc does. Again, the question is "at what point is this a human life"? It's fundamentally different than legislating morality in matters of victimless crime.

7/14/2010 4:01:48 PM

Quote :

"that wasn't already defensive in the title"

Calling it "pro-life" is defensive in itself.

non-defensive thread title failure.

7/14/2010 4:02:29 PM

Quote :

"I agree with all of this. I also don't have a really firm answer to your question at the top of the page. My personal limits for abortion are a point at which I think is conservative (in the "safe bet" sense of the word) enough for me to be comfortable that I'm still in the "ok" zone. I'm OK with the law reflecting a somewhat less conservative place of drawing the line, although I think that there's not really much reason not to err on the side of not chopping up human babies (as there's practically generally no reason to wait that long in the developmental process to perform an abortion). I'll also digress here and say that I'm largely against legislating morality, but this falls into that category in the same sense that murder/manslaughter/etc does. Again, the question is "at what point is this a human life"? It's fundamentally different than legislating morality in matters of victimless crime."

I agree with everything here. The only interesting question left here is where you put the line, and how far back you set the "practical" line so as to err on the side of caution (I can agree with that, as our tests aren't and won't be perfect).

What makes a human?

7/14/2010 4:06:26 PM

Quote :

"These are, I think, two different statements that should not be tied together. While I'll allow for the possibility that conservative policies may have functionally the same effect, I disagree with regards to what you seem to imply is their intent. There are very few conservatives whose goal is to kill off poor or nonwhite people. There are a a good many more who feel that they should not be forced (at gunpoint, mind) to pay to keep strangers alive or above a certain standard of living."

I think this is probably true for you, and maybe even most of the people on this board that claim to be conservative, but I would say it's not true for the average person on the street who might label themselves conservative.

There's more than one joe blowe that i've talked to personally (some i might even be friends with...) who has true contempt for people who are poor. I'm sure you know these kind of people too.

I'm not arguing however that the mainstream ideology has this goal or intent, even if I think it would have this effect. Some people really believe they can socially engineer everyone to be lawyers and doctors I guess...

7/14/2010 6:17:56 PM

"the world needs ditch-diggers too" - judge smails

Quote :

"Some people really believe they can socially engineer everyone to be lawyers and doctors I guess..."

some people also believe that the government should make up the difference.

7/14/2010 6:32:47 PM

Duke and Grumpy,

If a woman who is pregnant past whatever demarcation point you choose (let's say she's at 8 months) is at fault in an automobile accident in which she loses her fetus, should she be charged with vehicular manslaughter?

If a woman who is 8 months pregnant trips over something in her yard that she placed there and loses the baby, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

If she drinks alcohol or smokes should she be charged with endangering a child, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

These are examples of my problem with treating an unborn child as a person in terms of rights. Physiologically a fully gestated fetus isn't very different than an infant, of course. But to suggest that we should consider the unborn a person it puts a limitation on the mother's rights, which I whole-heartedly disagree with. The moment that that fetus no longer has that impact on the mother, the moment that it gains autonomy, we can call it a person with all the same rights that any other individual has (as a minor of course). It no longer has the physiological ability to limit another's rights.

For the record, I'd be against my wife having a late-term abortion, excepting in the instances of severe genetic defects (and stupid fucking doctors that didn't diagnose it earlier). But I'm still against making it illegal for a woman to decide what to do with her own body.

7/16/2010 8:42:52 AM

when a mother is involved in an auto-accident today in which her 7mo baby dies, does she get charged with manslaughter? depends on the fucking situation

try thinking before posting.

7/16/2010 8:44:42 AM

So that's a yes, then? There are some cirumstances where the only loss of life in the accident was her fetus and she should be charged with a crime? That's what I want to know.

7/16/2010 8:50:48 AM

well, if their philosophy is to remain consistent, of course the answer is yes.

this isn't difficult

7/16/2010 8:59:12 AM

Quote :

" If a woman who is pregnant past whatever demarcation point you choose (let's say she's at 8 months) is at fault in an automobile accident in which she loses her fetus, should she be charged with vehicular manslaughter?"

Is there any legal reason why she shouldn't? I'm fairly certain you wouldn't have an issue with charging someone else if they were at fault, so what makes the mother different in this case? Now, there are times where out of human sympathy we don't charge for crimes (for example, I highly doubt the 7 year old that killed his mother in the boating accident will be charged), but that doesn't change the fact that they can and maybe would be charged.

Quote :

"If a woman who is 8 months pregnant trips over something in her yard that she placed there and loses the baby, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter?"

Likely not, usually the requirement for involuntary manslaughter is that one must be committing a malicious or unlawful act that resulted in the death, but that neither the intent nor obvious foreseeable consequence was death.

Quote :

"If she drinks alcohol or smokes should she be charged with endangering a child, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor?"

In some places she already is.

7/16/2010 10:27:49 AM

Quote :

"But to suggest that we should consider the unborn a person it puts a limitation on the mother's rights, which I whole-heartedly disagree with."

See, I don't buy that it's putting additional limits on the mother's rights. They already lack the right to kill people.

Look, I get that it's dreadfully unfair that women are the only ones who get pregnant, but blame God or billions of years of evolution for that. Life's a bitch, it doesn't mean you get to kill people.

Quote :

"But I'm still against making it illegal for a woman to decide what to do with her own body."

NOBODY HERE GIVES A SHIT WHAT A WOMAN DOES WITH HER BODY. All anybody is even remotely suggesting is that they care what she does with somebody else's body. Again, human reproduction is all shitty and unfair, but we can't legislate that fact out of existence.

7/16/2010 4:49:03 PM

It's a part of her body until it comes out, you can't caps lock that away

7/16/2010 7:37:46 PM

Why? Because it's inside the woman? Well, my dick's been inside a woman. Does it become part of her body?

Or is it because the fetus relies on the woman to live? This, of course, as opposed to a newborn, which is completely self-sufficient.

Siamese twins have shared body parts. Should one be allowed to kill the other without the other's consent, in order to improve his or her own life?

Once again, you're skipping the important issue -- whether or not an unborn person is a person -- and jumping straight into some women's rights bullshit that's neither here nor there.

[Edited on July 17, 2010 at 3:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2010 3:34:21 AM

Quote :

"Well, my dick's been inside a woman. Does it become part of her body?"

There are a few women who my dick has been inside who would probably like to kill me, haha.

7/17/2010 7:26:36 AM

Quote :

"some women's rights bullshit that's neither here nor there"

well of course, everyone knows that women's rights is bullshit and has no relevance to a discussion about female reproductive health

7/17/2010 9:02:52 AM

This discussion is not about female reproductive health.

7/17/2010 9:38:22 AM

sorry, I thought the title was "Pro Choice vs. Pro Life"

7/17/2010 10:10:10 AM

It is.

7/17/2010 11:34:30 AM

[Edited on July 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM. Reason : what's the worth]

7/17/2010 11:55:34 AM

o damn i should have waited 30 minutes :-(

7/17/2010 12:10:47 PM

Quote :

"Siamese twins have shared body parts. Should one be allowed to kill the other without the other's consent, in order to improve his or her own life?"

a better analogy would be when one twin develops inside the other twin, and yes its ok to remove it

Quote :

"Why? Because it's inside the woman? Well, my dick's been inside a woman. Does it become part of her body?"

if your dick developed in her body, was attached to her body, and was entirely and solely dependent on her body, then it would be a part of her body. frankly, i doubt your drilling deep enough to have to worry about that.

[Edited on July 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2010 12:14:55 PM

wait, are you being frank with us?

7/17/2010 12:22:34 PM

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 2:14 PM. Reason : kk]

7/21/2010 1:49:59 PM

I am pro-choice, but I am against abortion.

7/21/2010 2:00:17 PM

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/101325324.html

Quote :

"Judge blocks federal stem cell research funding A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked guidelines set down by the Obama administration expanding human embryonic stem cell research, throwing into doubt studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and other major universities across the nation. "It's broad and could have dramatic impact if the court upholds this for all funding of embryonic stem cell research," said Timothy Kamp, director of UW's Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine Center. Kamp said the ruling appears to go beyond the restrictions in place under former President George W. Bush by prohibiting federal funding not only for the derivation of embryonic stem cells, but for research that involves existing cells derived with private funds. "I don't know what that means," Kamp said. "Does that mean money already given out for existing NIH research, we now have to cease and desist?" He added that UW will wait for instructions from the National Institutes of Health regarding the ruling. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative public policy foundation, called the decision by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, "a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration and its attempt to circumvent sound science and federal law.""

I heard something about this on NPR within the last week or so. I think one guy was complaining they'd have to stop work they're in the middle of their research which seems like such a waste to me.

9/4/2010 1:29:47 AM

^Apparently that block has now been lifted, at least temporarily.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/10/672966/fbi-uncovers-plot-to-bomb-abortion.html

9/10/2010 7:36:22 PM

^the irony of that news story is that a guy is being investigated for criminal actions when he never successfully killed anyone, while the news defends the abortion clinic that daily kills...

Oh snap...

PS I believe both are wrong...i in no way advocate this dude...just pointing out the irony

9/10/2010 9:38:14 PM

except that this douchebag wasn't plotting to kill a clump of unwanted cells.

9/10/2010 9:56:42 PM

NOT LOOKING GOOD, MOOSE

9/11/2010 10:58:03 AM

Quote :

"^the irony of that news story is that a guy is being investigated for criminal actions when he never successfully killed anyone, while the news defends the abortion clinic that daily kills... Oh snap... PS I believe both are wrong...i in no way advocate this dude...just pointing out the irony"

9/11/2010 11:13:34 AM

Quote :

"except that this douchebag wasn't plotting to kill a clump of unwanted cells."

Since when do you get to define what is and what isn't wanted?

^and disco, same question, how do you get to define anything as an atheist? How is your opinion more valuable than his? What if it is just his instinct based on chemical reactions? He doesn't have a choice in what he is doing just like I don't have a choice in what I am typing...we are just automatons!

We are just dancing to our DNA...Time+matter+chance, IE evolution created this wacko...so don't hate on that which got us here...

9/11/2010 11:43:42 PM

^ Nobody really hates you, they just feel sorry for you

9/12/2010 10:30:36 AM

Quote :

"Since when do you get to define what is and what isn't wanted? "

If you go to an abortion clinic, you don't want whatever's inside you. That's not my definition; that's common sense.

9/12/2010 1:03:38 PM

Quote :

""

^ Nobody really hates you, they just feel sorry for you[quote]

Yo mcdanger. I was saying don't hate on natural selection and evolution which created this wacko...I was playing devils advocate...oh the irony!

But yea, I obviously don't think anyone hates me...disco just knows I'm not the brightest crayon in the box...sharp as a bowling ball if you will...we go back in forth in every thread...good times

9/12/2010 9:53:58 PM

Anti-Spawn

[Edited on September 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2010 9:56:05 PM

Quote :

"and disco, same question, how do you get to define anything as an atheist? How is your opinion more valuable than his? What if it is just his instinct based on chemical reactions? He doesn't have a choice in what he is doing just like I don't have a choice in what I am typing...we are just automatons!"

How do I get to define anything? How is my opinion more valuable than his?

I have no idea what you're getting at here. We are "automatons" only in the strictest objective sense, our programming is sufficiently complex to allow the complex interactions between humans that we observe as free will.

Definitions about human concepts are entirely human driven. We come to a consensus about definition. Reasonable people use science to prove their definitions, when possible.

My picture was a reference to your use of the word "irony."

9/13/2010 4:04:41 PM

Quote :

"Reasonable people use science to prove their definitions, when possible."

But science can't prove science. Science is a philosophy. How can science prove that?

Quote :

"I have no idea what you're getting at here. We are "automatons" only in the strictest objective sense, our programming is sufficiently complex to allow the complex interactions between humans that we observe as free will. "

Our programming may be sufficiently complex, but so is photosynthesis, but its still just a product of the system. Saying something is complex doesn't take the automaton out of the equation IMO. Its just a more complex harder to figure out automaton

9/13/2010 7:58:09 PM

Quote :

"What if it is just his instinct based on chemical reactions? He doesn't have a choice in what he is doing just like I don't have a choice in what I am typing...we are just automatons!""

So… what if? Are you frightened by that thought that you might just be a momentary state of organization for matter in the universe? Does the fear of this increase your propensity for believing humanity is an important bit of the universe?

9/13/2010 8:03:34 PM

^Actually, I was responding to those atheists that don't like what the abortion guy wanted to do. I was emphasizing that it was silly to argue that if in fact naturalism is true. Really all arguments are stupid if naturalism is true, because the argument is just a part of our automatonic state!

As for frightened...no lol...I mean seriously? To me free will is so self evident its silly to argue against it...because by arguing against it you are in effect proving your own free will or you are merely being an automaton. If you choose the latter, don't get mad at whatever people do...although i guess you wouldn't really have a choice because you are just an automaton...so do whatever I guess, because you can't really control it, you're just a product of the system.

9/13/2010 10:06:50 PM

^ not all models of naturalism (none that rely on valid premises, i'd argue) are mutually exclusive with free will. The fact that "randomness" is a mathematical, measurable, property of the universe proves this.

Natural machines can rely on random elements, thus making their future states unpredictable (aka chaotic).

9/13/2010 10:16:32 PM

I don't believe in Random...do you have any specific events in nature that have been shown to be random? I'm asking that as a question not as a sarcastic remark. That and I am merely taking some of your own Richard Dawkins thoughts on the subject of naturalism

9/14/2010 7:30:48 AM

Just like free will, randomness effectively exists from our perspective. Take genetic mutation, for instance. While it almost certainly has a cause, there are sufficient extremely difficult to detect causes that it appears to have a random rate of occurrence. Does that mean it's actually random? When in reality it was a neutrino missing every other atom and colliding with DNA at the moment of replication? Or any of an effectively infinite number of factors that could cause the DNA replication process to fail in a way that it couldn't totally correct?

So again, just like free will, in an entirely natural universe it's likely that randomness doesn't actually exist. But shit, pseudo-randomness that is impossible to tell apart from objective randomness might as well be called randomness right? It effectively exists, and it's useful to refer to it as such in our existence.

Before someone mentions quantum mechanics again, I'll agree that it introduces uncertainty to the equation rather than actual randomness. It's likely (and most at least some physicists I think would agree) that we simply don't yet understand it enough to deal with the uncertainty. We just cannot (yet?) observe the variables and in fact they may not ever be observed. I'll admit my understanding of quantum mechanics is rudimentary, so if there are any physicists that want to school me I welcome it. It's a field I have a great interest in.

Quote :

"Really all arguments are stupid if naturalism is true, because the argument is just a part of our automatonic state!"

You're missing the forest for the trees here, dude. Objectively, the Universe and each of us *could* be lines of alien code in an extremely powerful simulation. There's absolutely no way to disprove this because just like some definitions of God, the only proof would have to come from outside of our universe, which as far as we currently know is impossible to observe. Does this fact change any of our observations of the way our universe works? The way we work? I submit that it does not.

Of course, I have my suspicions that you're simply attempting to undermine naturalism to rationalize your wholly unproven world view.

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM. Reason : most?]

9/14/2010 8:54:47 AM

Quote :

" taking some of your own Richard Dawkins"

ha… what? “my” richard dawkins…?

^^ and it’s easy to prove that “radom” exists. Just flip a coin 100 times, or 1000 times, or any n times, and see what the results are. If you think about it, it’s very profound that the probability of one or the other approaches 50%. The universe definitely has “random” built in. Any field that uses ANY probability or statistics (which is heavily built into quantum mechanics) affirms the notion of “random” on a continual basis. It’s the fact that “random” exists that these principles work. If random didn’t exist, probably couldn’t exist (and it can’t be the other way around).

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2010 9:19:21 AM

But obviously in the strictest sense of the word random, the physics acting on the flipping coin itself are decidedly non-random. And much more observably non-random than quantum effects like radioactive decay.

Probably why you used quotations around "random".

9/14/2010 9:45:20 AM

Quote :

"Just flip a coin 100 times, or 1000 times, or any n times, and see what the results are."

That's only because you flip the coin slightly differently each time. If I made a coin flipping machine, it would land on the same side every time.

Quote :

"The universe definitely has “random” built in. Any field that uses ANY probability or statistics (which is heavily built into quantum mechanics) affirms the notion of “random” on a continual basis."

Anything you consider random, is simply a system that we could predict, it is just to complex to easily predict. Quantum mechanics being the only exception, somehow the prevailing theory in this field is "we don't know how it works, it must be random!", which seems like anti-science.

9/14/2010 11:11:56 AM

Quote :

"But science can't prove science. Science is a philosophy. How can science prove that?"

Science is a heuristic. It's judged by its fruits. It works wonderfully. Best not to opine about shit you know nothing about. ~DA SOAP BOX~

Quote :

"NOBODY HERE GIVES A SHIT WHAT A WOMAN DOES WITH HER BODY. All anybody is even remotely suggesting is that they care what she does with somebody else's body. Again, human reproduction is all shitty and unfair, but we can't legislate that fact out of existence."

Defining the growing child as a separate body is intellectually dishonest and clearly serves a specific (ancient) ideology.

Quote :

"They already lack the right to kill people. Look, I get that it's dreadfully unfair that women are the only ones who get pregnant, but blame God or billions of years of evolution for that. Life's a bitch, it doesn't mean you get to kill people."

Good thing nobody's discussing killing a person. What do you imagine makes a person? Do you really expect people to respect the view that a zygote is "ensouled"? Do you really think we should base public policy on this ridiculous view?

It's like you imagine the ridiculousness of a view is somehow diluted by the number of yokels that buy it.

Quote :

"Why? Because it's inside the woman? Well, my dick's been inside a woman. Does it become part of her body? Or is it because the fetus relies on the woman to live? This, of course, as opposed to a newborn, which is completely self-sufficient."

The woman is constructing the baby, essentially. Plus, the baby has no neural activity that could support a human mind until well into the process.

Quote :

"Siamese twins have shared body parts. Should one be allowed to kill the other without the other's consent, in order to improve his or her own life?"

They have fully developed brains and human minds. I hope the answer is obvious to you.

Quote :

"Once again, you're skipping the important issue -- whether or not an unborn person is a person -- and jumping straight into some women's rights bullshit that's neither here nor there."

It's obvious to everybody who understands the basics of human mental life it's not a person. Opinions are like assholes though, and for many people assholes are like opinions apparently.

Quote :

"^Actually, I was responding to those atheists that don't like what the abortion guy wanted to do. I was emphasizing that it was silly to argue that if in fact naturalism is true. Really all arguments are stupid if naturalism is true, because the argument is just a part of our automatonic state!"

Why do arguments only gain significance if free will exists? You can't imagine a scenario where two determined automata are trying to convince each other to hold certain belief-states?

Quote :

"If you choose the latter, don't get mad at whatever people do...although i guess you wouldn't really have a choice because you are just an automaton...so do whatever I guess, because you can't really control it, you're just a product of the system."

Anger is a response that motivates us to action, and is only useful in this sense. So it looks like we agree; moral anger, for the most part, is a worthless emotion that should be discarded.

Quote :

"Before someone mentions quantum mechanics again, I'll agree that it introduces uncertainty to the equation rather than actual randomness. It's likely (and most at least some physicists I think would agree) that we simply don't yet understand it enough to deal with the uncertainty. We just cannot (yet?) observe the variables and in fact they may not ever be observed. I'll admit my understanding of quantum mechanics is rudimentary, so if there are any physicists that want to school me I welcome it. It's a field I have a great interest in. "

AFAIK this depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's possible there are unobserved variables we need to make the whole system "determined" from our perspective, but it's also possible it's actually random. Big disclaimer here as I am not remarkably confident about this assertion (not up on the present state of physics and its occasional forays into metaphysics).

Quote :

"Anything you consider random, is simply a system that we could predict, it is just to complex to easily predict. Quantum mechanics being the only exception, somehow the prevailing theory in this field is "we don't know how it works, it must be random!", which seems like anti-science."

Not really, as we have plenty of scientific methods for dealing with uncertainty (be it objective or subjective). Nothing anti-scientific about it. We quantify things best as we can and deal with it.

The only anti-scientific attitude here is yours, in my opinion, as you're the one who is fixing his desired result ahead of time. The word's out on determinism, let's wait until we have enough evidence.

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2010 11:42:01 AM

Quote :

"Why do arguments only gain significance if free will exists? You can't imagine a scenario where two determined automata are trying to convince each other to hold certain belief-states?"

Arguments don't mean anything in a world of automation, because both parties can't even control what they are arguing for and against. Thats my point

Quote :

" Anything you consider random, is simply a system that we could predict, it is just to complex to easily predict. Quantum mechanics being the only exception, somehow the prevailing theory in this field is "we don't know how it works, it must be random!", which seems like anti-science."

This is kind of what I am getting at, from a naturalistic point of view.

Quote :

"Science is a heuristic. It's judged by its fruits. It works wonderfully. Best not to opine about shit you know nothing about. "

Hmm...turn your statement on itself. You don't know much anything about me or my educational background and yet you tell me not to "opine" about things. Yet you are "opining" about what I know and don't know. I say well done.

And you say science is a heuristic....ok agreed, but what then is a heuristic? And I would argue that that is simply a philosophy on how to solve problems based on experiential evidence. How can you use science to prove a heuristic? Ultimately, you can't. You are in effect trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. It's not gonna work because you wanna prove the scientific method using the scientific method.

9/14/2010 8:00:56 PM

Quote :

"Defining the growing child as a separate body is intellectually dishonest and clearly serves a specific (ancient) ideology."

Likewise, defining the growing child as part of the woman's body is equally intellectually dishonest and clearly serves a specific ideology.

Quote :

"The woman is constructing the baby, essentially."

Really? Really... Really? What part of her is guiding the process? Is it her brain? Ovaries? Stomach?

Quote :

"They have fully developed brains and human minds. I hope the answer is obvious to you."

So someone who has a developmental disability can be killed without any concern then, right?

9/14/2010 8:05:10 PM

Quote :

"Really? Really... Really? What part of her is guiding the process? Is it her brain? Ovaries? Stomach?"

Well first it's thee ovary then quite a while later, then it's the ovum, then they embyro, etc.

9/14/2010 8:19:44 PM