NationStates Jolt Archive

Blogger Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com) raises an interesting question.
I've never understood the rape exception to laws forbidding abortion. Aside from it being moral gibberish, how exactly would it work in practice? Would there actually have to be a rape conviction before the exception is triggered, something virtually impossible given the rather short time horizon of pregnancy. Or would a woman simply have to claim to have been raped, and name the alleged assailant.

If it's the latter we can look forward to women making false rape accusations in order to obtain an abortion. If it's the former, it's not really much of an exception.
It's never really been an issue because in places where abortion is freely available, the rape exception doesn't matter, and in places where it's restricted, it's been restricted by making abortion clinics rare and forcing women to undergo counseling or wait 24 or 48 hours before getting one, etc.

So what would be required to actually make a rape exception work?

Good question. They would probably have to undergo a medical exam immediately following the "rape" (I guess it's called a rape kit?) and they'd examine the area for vaginal trauma. Of course, there doesn't have to be physical trauma to determine rape, and psysical trauma can easily happen if it's not rape, so I guess just ignore me.

Another reason why abortion legality should just be standardized across the board.

constant video surveillance

Well, a "morning after" emergency contraceptive pill is effective up to three days after the incident, and a coil can be used for emergency contraception up to five days therafter, so if you get your act together an abortion shouldn't be necessary anyway.

... Or is this another one of those things where the USA is different to Britain?

I don't know Compulsive Depression. Do you have fundamentalists taking jobs in pharmacies so they can withhold morning after prescriptions on crummy (not legal) grounds in Britain?

I don't know Compulsive Depression. Do you have funamentalists taking jobs in pharmacists so they can withhold morning after prescriptions on crummy (not legal) grounds in Britain?
Not often, as far as I'm aware... But you don't need a prescription for them anymore. Of course, they probably cost more without one, but time is of the essence I suppose.

the rape exception is utterly impractical as it requires taking a woman at her word in a situation where we dont trust women to make their own decisions.

so women have to rush to the hospital after every questionable sex act so they can get their foot in the door in case they end up pregnant. situations like she had too much to drink and went farther than she intended or her boyfriend was insistant and she didnt have the emotional strength to resist him, or the captain of the football team pressured her into sex. plus all of the date rape and stranger rape scenarios that you can think of.

or, if she is a liar, after the great consentual sex she had where the condom slipped a bit.

unless its violent rape, its a womans word on it being rape. surely its not just a violent rape exception!

so someone would have to decide if the woman was telling the truth or not.

thats not a doctors job, its a judges job. is it rape if your husband rubs up against you in your sleep? its it rape if you didnt scream loud enough for the people in the next room to hear over the music that was playing? is it rape if the woman doesnt cry hard enough in court while telling her story??

does every alleged rape have to be ajudicated just in case the woman ends up pregnant and wants an abortion in 6 weeks? if she idenifies the rapist, does SHE have the right to a speedy trial so that she can still have an early safe abortion? most criminal cases dont get tried in a month. they get tried a year or so later, the baby might well be in pre-school before justice is done.

will women be forced to abandon the idea of justice and claim they cant possibly identify their rapists so they can avoid the possibility of being forced to bear the product of rape? if they say who did it, its going to court and there will be no time for an abortion.

if a woman is taken at her word then there may well turn out to be somewhere around one million more rapes each year. if she is not taken at her word then every woman who conceives as a result of rape will be forced to bear her rapists child.

It wouldn't. The only standard likely to be accepted by the courts would be the testamony of the woman. A rape exception, in practice, becomes a greenlight. It is very hard to prove rape in a court and every bit as hard to disprove it. Even so, any kind of medical exam can be used to prove rape (and thus get an abortion) if you have a friendly doctor. You'd be amazed how many doctors falsify reports and records just to get a medication or procedure covered by a patient's insurance, do you really think it would be any different if a doctor disagreed with an abortion ban?

Abortion(like premarital sex, drugs, violence on television, homosexuality, and all the other things that moralizing paternalists constantly wring their hands over) is out of the box, you can't cram it back in no matter how badly you might want to. Prohibition fails for recreational drug use, does anyone really think that it will work for an issue that a third of the population believes is a constitutional right? I'm just waiting for the day when Planned Parenthood, NOW, and the SAF start having joint press releases...

Well, a "morning after" emergency contraceptive pill is effective up to three days after the incident, and a coil can be used for emergency contraception up to five days therafter, so if you get your act together an abortion shouldn't be necessary anyway.

... Or is this another one of those things where the USA is different to Britain?


If you "get your act together?" What about cases where contraceptives failed? What about women who do not have access to the morning after pill? What about victims who are too traumatized to admit that something happened, let alone think clearly enough to get to a hospital?

Abortion isn't a procedure for the lazy, in almost all cases it is a plan of last resort.

I don't know Compulsive Depression. Do you have fundamentalists taking jobs in pharmacies so they can withhold morning after prescriptions on crummy (not legal) grounds in Britain?


You know, I tend to be a bit extreme, but I'm really hoping that someone shoots a pharmacist and claims self defense. After all, witholding medication looks a hell of a lot like assault to me.

If you "get your act together?" What about cases where contraceptives failed? What about women who do not have access to the morning after pill? What about victims who are too traumatized to admit that something happened, let alone think clearly enough to get to a hospital?

Abortion isn't a procedure for the lazy, in almost all cases it is a plan of last resort.
Oh, no, I agree, and I'm fully in favour of them.

But in the case of rape (or consensual, unprotected sex), in this country at least, there are readily available measures that can be taken. Your Country May Vary, and all that, but here you just have to go to a chemist's within three days.

In fact, I'd say that emergency contraception was the lazy way out. So much easier than all that faffing with abortions, and so much less moralising...

Anyway, got to go. Hopefully I've made myself more clear now.

So, is anyone going to defend the rape exception?

I find two things interesting about the rape exception.

One, it's clear women have to be taken at their word, which amounts to a greenlight and a complete inability to determine the number of women raped each due to false claims in order to get an abortion, because if not taken at their word, we would have a clear violation of the right to privacy.

Two, why is it that we have the 'right' to regulate the woman's body because abortion is murder, but then allow this 'murder' for a crime someone else committed? It's kind of like saying if my wife is murdered, I am justified in killing my neighbor. I've always thought the rape exception is evidence that anti-choice people are simply trying to punish women for having sex.

I'd also like to add that the morning-after pill would be outlawed by many of the bills with rape exceptions because they generally define life as beginning at conception. The morning-after pill prevents implantation not conception.

If anything good has come out of the whole Sam Alito/South Dakota/partial birth abortion mess it's this--the agenda of the right-wing has been exposed. It's not about the fetus--it's all about controlling who gets to have sex and under what conditions. Since the positions have been stated openly and proudly for the first time in a long while, their inconsistencies are being exposed.

I don't think that the rape exception is particularly well thought-out.

I've always thought that rape is used as a club by pro-choice/pro-death [take your pick depending on which side you're on] activists whenever they feel they're losing an argument.

If they're losing they hurl "YES BUT WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF A WOMAN HAS BEEN RAPED??" at opponents. Wanting to sound 'fair', pro-life/anti-choice campaigners respond with "Yes, we'd make an exception in cases of rape".

The end result is that rape (a very small percentage of the total number of abortions) is used as a political football.

If you take the view that abortion should be illegal, then the vast majority of rape cases can be dealt with by making it a matter of policy that the medical officer examining the victim must offer the morning-after pill during the examination. For cases where rape is reported later, there could be an automatic right to give the baby up for adoption.

For those opposed to abortion, the rape exception is used as a quick argument-winner even though the policy is unsound. For those in favour, it's a convenient way to seek the moral high ground without having to defend abortion on demand.

It's not about the fetus--it's all about controlling who gets to have sex and under what conditions.

This post confuses me. Are you saying that in the USA, anyone who wants to ban abortion also wants to ban contraception?

Or are the 'conditions' you mention just remembering that sex naturally leads to pregnancy, so if you don't want a baby you should use contraceptives?

So, is anyone going to defend the rape exception?
It's hard to defend it when there is so much room for the exception not to be triggered. It's structured in such a way that it's just a window dressing and nothing more.

I've always thought that rape is used as a club by pro-choice/pro-death [take your pick depending on which side you're on] activists whenever they feel they're losing an argument.

Technically, Pro-Death would be compulsory abortions. Pro-Choice is more of a middle ground, you can be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

I'd also like to add that the morning-after pill would be outlawed by many of the bills with rape exceptions because they generally define life as beginning at conception. The morning-after pill prevents implantation not conception.

Surely for those opposed to abortion there must be a moral difference between a doctor's time being spent performing a surgical abortion on a developed foetus at taxpayers' expense and a woman buying a morning-after pill?

Surely there's a grey area - "X is immoral but X shouldn't be illegal"?

Many christians believe homosexual sex is wrong - but it doesn't affect them, and it's not their business to seek to ban it. Many animal rights activists disagree with halal meat because of slaughter methods - we don't hear too much clamour for criminalising it. Some christians even believe that shopping on a Sunday is wrong - but why should that affect those who aren't christians? Muslims believe that any depictions of Mohammed are wrong - should freedom be limited in the pursuit of not offending anyone?

The morning after pill could, and should, come into that category (immoral but shouldn't be criminalised) for anti-abortionists.

Technically, Pro-Death would be compulsory abortions.

Would it? Anti-abortionists argue from a preconceived view that abortion is murder. Therefore ANY abortion to them would be the moral equivalent of murder.

Would it? Anti-abortionists argue from a preconceived view that abortion is murder. Therefore ANY abortion to them would be the moral equivalent of murder.

Pro-Life - No abortions, wether or not you want one
Pro-Choice - Abortion if you want an abortion, no abortion if you don't want one (just for you)
Pro-Death - Must have an abortion, wether or not you want one

Pro-Life's opposite is Pro-Death, Pro-Choice is just that, it's the person's choice if they want an abortion or not. Pro-Life might see the ones that do as murderers, Pro-Death might see the ones who don't as....something opposite but equally criminal in their eyes. Pro-Choice doesn't care what other people do, keeps it personal. If you view it as immoral, but don't think ou have the right to tell others what to do, yuo are both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. If you veiw not having an abortion as immoral, but still don't think you have a right to tell others what to do, you're both Pro-Death and Pro-Choice.

Anti-abortionists argue from a preconceived view that abortion is murder. Therefore ANY abortion to them would be the moral equivalent of murder.

except in the cases that they don't seem to actually hold that at all. even when they don't allow rape exceptions, they seem awfully reluctant to put it in the same category as actual murder - just look at sd's new law (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/7/123718/6876).

Would it? Anti-abortionists argue from a preconceived view that abortion is murder. Therefore ANY abortion to them would be the moral equivalent of murder.

Well, let them ban it, then they'll see what murder is.

I'm sick and tired of being civil about this shit. Lets be very, very clear. Abortion opponents wish to impose their religious and moral beliefs upon an entire population at the expense of basic personal freedoms and have hijacked the government in order to do so. Even after being defeated on almost every front in state and federal courts, even though they do not have a majority even marginally on their side, they continue to attempt to prohibit the excercise of a constitutional right.

It is high time that moderates and liberals in this country grow a goddamn spine, stand up, and demand their freedom. There is not room for tollerance, peace, love, or understanding. The bd guys are coming for your rights. Stop condeming and wagging your fingers. Fight goddamn it!

This post confuses me. Are you saying that in the USA, anyone who wants to ban abortion also wants to ban contraception?

Or are the 'conditions' you mention just remembering that sex naturally leads to pregnancy, so if you don't want a baby you should use contraceptives?
of course it varies from person to person but for those who have thought the whole thing through, it often does include a ban on certain forms of contraception. the pill will prevent implantation in the event that fertilization has occurred. the IUD also prevents implantation. the morning after pill does also.

barrier methods would be fine but they have a much higher failure rate eh?

our existing laws promote early abortion. the only reason to change them is because you have decided that "life begins at fertilization".

This post confuses me. Are you saying that in the USA, anyone who wants to ban abortion also wants to ban contraception?

Or are the 'conditions' you mention just remembering that sex naturally leads to pregnancy, so if you don't want a baby you should use contraceptives?
For the most active in the anti-abortion movement, that's certainly the case. Many, perhaps even most who consider themselves anti-abortion haven't followed their arguments to their logical conclusion, which is that if life begins at conception, then certain forms of birth control--the pill most notably--are abortifacients (only under that definition). But there's definitely the danger that if there's no right to choice in abortion, then there's no guarantee to purchase contraceptives either.

except in the cases that they don't seem to actually hold that at all. even when they don't allow rape exceptions, they seem awfully reluctant to put it in the same category as actual murder - just look at sd's new law (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/7/123718/6876).
I'm glad someone else picked up on that and brought it in. The crime of murder of an embryo in South Dakota is equivalent to your 4th DUI, possession of a half pound of marijuana, or setting up a second internet gambling site. And then there's the whole "criminal penalties only for the doctor but not the woman" thing as well.

This post confuses me. Are you saying that in the USA, anyone who wants to ban abortion also wants to ban contraception?

Or are the 'conditions' you mention just remembering that sex naturally leads to pregnancy, so if you don't want a baby you should use contraceptives?

Are you aware that the majority of abortions are by women who were using contraceptives that failed? Of course you are, but unlike the rest of us you're aware of a particular brand of contraception that is 100% reliable, no?

Surely for those opposed to abortion there must be a moral difference between a doctor's time being spent performing a surgical abortion on a developed foetus at taxpayers' expense and a woman buying a morning-after pill?

Surely there's a grey area - "X is immoral but X shouldn't be illegal"?

Are you kidding? How can you claim that abortion is murder and life begins at conception, but then claim that it's really about how involved the process is. It's all hypocrisy. The anti-choice camp keeps get bound up in these hypocrisies as if we're not intelligent enough to notice them.

Many christians believe homosexual sex is wrong - but it doesn't affect them, and it's not their business to seek to ban it. Many animal rights activists disagree with halal meat because of slaughter methods - we don't hear too much clamour for criminalising it. Some christians even believe that shopping on a Sunday is wrong - but why should that affect those who aren't christians? Muslims believe that any depictions of Mohammed are wrong - should freedom be limited in the pursuit of not offending anyone?

The morning after pill could, and should, come into that category (immoral but shouldn't be criminalised) for anti-abortionists.

Why? Why criminalize abortion if it's not murder? If it is murder, how is the morning-after pill not?

Would it? Anti-abortionists argue from a preconceived view that abortion is murder. Therefore ANY abortion to them would be the moral equivalent of murder.

Yes, and if any of use were pro-abortion, you'd have a point. No one is arguing that abortions should be had, only that they should be legal to get. That is much different.

The morning after pill could, and should, come into that category (immoral but shouldn't be criminalised) for anti-abortionists.

I agree that it is immoral, but why shouldn't anti-abortionists seek its criminaliztion? If the whole argument is that abortion is murder and the morning after pill is abortion, why is it that anti-abortionists ought not to seek the criminalization of the morning after pill?

The bd guys are coming for your rights. Stop condeming and wagging your fingers. Fight goddamn it!

Or are we trying to prevent the creation of rights you don't really have?

Or are we trying to prevent the creation of rights you don't really have?

Uh-huh. I'll try to ask this with a straight face, do you hold that all people have no right to decide what medical procedures they undergo or only women?

Uh-huh. I'll try to ask this with a straight face, do you hold that all people have no right to decide what medical procedures they undergo or only women?

I don't think you like me very much, do you?

The question isn't "It's my body: don't I have the right to do what I want with it?" The question is "Is the unborn child a seperate human being or not?" If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.

Or are we trying to prevent the creation of rights you don't really have?

So, lets just be clear. You hold that Americans do not have a right to medical privacy and the government has a compelling interest to both legislate what forms of contraception individuals can use and investigate cases where it believes such laws might have been violated.

You can dislike Roe v. Wade all you want, bout you cannot disagree with the opinion unless you disagree with the precedent upon which it is based. If you are going to come out as legally opposed to abortion you must come out as opposed to both Griswold v. Connecticut (which allowed married couples access to contraceptives) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (which extended such rights to unmarried couples). If you wish to oppose abortion you need to say that the government has a compelling interest in regulating what kinds of sexual activity citizens can engage in and under what circumstances.

I don't think you like me very much, do you?

The question isn't "It's my body: don't I have the right to do what I want with it?" The question is "Is the unborn child a seperate human being or not?" If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.That's not the question at all. I can see how you might like that to be the question, since it makes things infinitely easier for you to hold a personal decision about one's medical treatment up to public judgment, but in the end, unless you're going to be consistent and say "no abortion, no birth control, no IVF, no exceptions for rape, incest, the health or life of the mother, women who have them and doctors who perform them go to jail for murder," then you're on rhetorically untenable ground.

Why? Because if you believe that the fetus is a separate human, the termination of a pregnancy is necessarily willful murder, and there's no legal justification for predetermined, delberate murder--the rape exception doesn't hold, the health and life exceptions don't hold, none of them hold. Rarely do you come across such cut and dried situations like this one, but in the end, that's the dichotomy the anti-abortion groups have set up. So which is it--all or nothing here. Make your choice.

If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.

can i have your kidney? how about only for nine months?

Oh yeah--the reason I came into the thread in the first place. South Dakota unveiled their new state logo today.

http://feministing.com/SDhanger

I don't think you like me very much, do you?

The question isn't "It's my body: don't I have the right to do what I want with it?" The question is "Is the unborn child a seperate human being or not?" If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.

If it is a person (which the cournt as repeatedly denied) then it is a tresspasser, a thief, and a potential threat to the safety of the mother. The mother has the right to evict, if the clump of cells can survive on it's own, it gets to be a person. If it can't, well, tough.

Lets not mince words here, and unwanted pregnancy is a more dangerous version of a tapeworm. It is a parasite. I don't care if it is a life or not, it's right to exist cannot infringe upon my right not to have the resources of my body stolen, my health adversely impacted, my way of life interrupted, and my wallet drained.

Oh, and remember how your mom used to make you drink lots of orange juice if you had a cold? Apparently it works for unwanted pregnancies, too: http://www.sisterzeus.com/Hsp1shlp.htm

I don't think you like me very much, do you?

The question isn't "It's my body: don't I have the right to do what I want with it?" The question is "Is the unborn child a seperate human being or not?" If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.
It's a third option. It is a human being but it it is not seperate from the mother.

TAre you saying that in the USA, anyone who wants to ban abortion also wants to ban contraception?

Or are the 'conditions' you mention just remembering that sex naturally leads to pregnancy, so if you don't want a baby you should use contraceptives?

One: by and large the anti's ALSO want to ban contraception. There may be exceptions but, what comes across a lot of the time is the " she played, therefore she must PAY." Note, I said ANTI's. This is a particular subset of pro-lifers. NOT all of them.

On the other. did you KNOW and have it informed to you if not, that antibiotics reduce the effectiveness of BC pills? Guess what, neither my doc NOR my pharmacyst bothered to tell me this little tidbit. (am infertile anyway so is a mute point, but still.... )

Should those whose prevenative measures fail be 'outta luck?

It's a third option. It is a human being but it it is not seperate from the mother.
I really have to disagree. It's potentially a human, if it makes the jump from the woman to life on the outside, but until then, it's potential, just as a rock teetering on the edge of a cliff is potential energy until it falls, when it becomes kinetic energy. Some fetii are more potential than others--the later in the term, the closer to the edge of the cliff, to keep with the metaphor--but until it's out and breathing on its own, it's still potential, because there are too many things that can and do go wrong during that last phase for it to be considered anything but potential.

When a fetus dies in the womb during delivery--which happens far more often than many people realize, that fetus is never declared alive. It is a miscarriage, even if it happens after 20 hours of labor and 40 weeks of gestation.

Now I'm not saying that it would be a good thing to have an unnecessary abortion five minutes before you give birth--I think the idea is horrific and I'd recommend that any doctor who went along with it lose his medical license--but just because I think it's distasteful doesn't change that potential in the womb into life on the outside.

It is high time that moderates and liberals in this country grow a goddamn spine, stand up, and demand their freedom. There is not room for tollerance, peace, love, or understanding. The bd guys are coming for your rights. Stop condeming and wagging your fingers. Fight goddamn it!
Hell yeah! Liberals should abandon hoplophobia and buy rifles and handguns.

I don't think you like me very much, do you?

The question isn't "It's my body: don't I have the right to do what I want with it?" The question is "Is the unborn child a seperate human being or not?" If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.

Well, while I don't hold this position (that if it's a person and alive that she should still be allowed to terminate), you have to show why, even if it is a seperate human being, a woman MUST carry it inside her for nine months. I promise you that there will never be a law requiring a driver to give his kidney to someone he hit (in order to save that person's life) even though he bears a level of responsibility for the accident. You can't actually show how this is different. You have two things to show both of which you can't. 1) that there is a seperate human being involved and 2) that the woman does not have the right to control her body.

So, lets just be clear. You hold that Americans do not have a right to medical privacy and the government has a compelling interest to both legislate what forms of contraception individuals can use and investigate cases where it believes such laws might have been violated.

You can dislike Roe v. Wade all you want, bout you cannot disagree with the opinion unless you disagree with the precedent upon which it is based. If you are going to come out as legally opposed to abortion you must come out as opposed to both Griswold v. Connecticut (which allowed married couples access to contraceptives) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (which extended such rights to unmarried couples). If you wish to oppose abortion you need to say that the government has a compelling interest in regulating what kinds of sexual activity citizens can engage in and under what circumstances.

How is abortion related to contraception?

I have nothing wrong with a couple (married or not) that uses contraception (as long as it's not hormonal - weakens the lining of the uterus causing a fertilized egg to be killed during the next period). What I oppose is the murder of an unborn child. It doesn't matter what sexual activity the mother was engaged in. There is now another human being living inside her. If you don't agree that the child is another human being from the time of conception, then I'm not surprised. That is the whole argument.

The question isn't "Can the government regulate contraception and other sexual topics?" The question is " Is abortion the killing of a human being unnecessarily?" Is so, it is murder and the government has the responsibility to outlaw it.

How is abortion related to contraception?

I have nothing wrong with a couple (married or not) that uses contraception (as long as it's not hormonal - weakens the lining of the uterus causing a fertilized egg to be killed during the next period). What I oppose is the murder of an unborn child. It doesn't matter what sexual activity the mother was engaged in. There is now another human being living inside her. If you don't agree that the child is another human being from the time of conception, then I'm not surprised. That is the whole argument.

The question isn't "Can the government regulate contraception and other sexual topics?" The question is " Is abortion the killing of a human being unnecessarily?" Is so, it is murder and the government has the responsibility to outlaw it.

Yes, but the anti-choicers are using the person at conception argument and this would outlaw many types of birth control so the issues are quite related. Also the definition they use to justify that position relies on potential and makes the line completely arbitrary thus allowing it to include birth control or only apply in the thirtieth week depend on the whims of the people, courts and legislatures.

I really have to disagree. It's potentially a human, if it makes the jump from the woman to life on the outside, but until then, it's potential, just as a rock teetering on the edge of a cliff is potential energy until it falls, when it becomes kinetic energy. Some fetii are more potential than others--the later in the term, the closer to the edge of the cliff, to keep with the metaphor--but until it's out and breathing on its own, it's still potential, because there are too many things that can and do go wrong during that last phase for it to be considered anything but potential.

When a fetus dies in the womb during delivery--which happens far more often than many people realize, that fetus is never declared alive. It is a miscarriage, even if it happens after 20 hours of labor and 40 weeks of gestation.

Now I'm not saying that it would be a good thing to have an unnecessary abortion five minutes before you give birth--I think the idea is horrific and I'd recommend that any doctor who went along with it lose his medical license--but just because I think it's distasteful doesn't change that potential in the womb into life on the outside.
I agree with you but I'd use person instead of Human Being in the way you're describing it. Just plug in person where you said Human and we completely agree. It's not so flowery to believe that what is being removed is human but that's what it is. Now, is it a person? Of course not. A person has experiences and I believe that begins with birth. It might also be argued that it begins to have experiences in the third trimester.
I just feel it's a much better argument to concede to the pro-life community that it's human... but it's not a person.

That's not the question at all. I can see how you might like that to be the question, since it makes things infinitely easier for you to hold a personal decision about one's medical treatment up to public judgment, but in the end, unless you're going to be consistent and say "no abortion, no birth control, no IVF, no exceptions for rape, incest, the health or life of the mother, women who have them and doctors who perform them go to jail for murder," then you're on rhetorically untenable ground.

Why? Because if you believe that the fetus is a separate human, the termination of a pregnancy is necessarily willful murder, and there's no legal justification for predetermined, delberate murder--the rape exception doesn't hold, the health and life exceptions don't hold, none of them hold. Rarely do you come across such cut and dried situations like this one, but in the end, that's the dichotomy the anti-abortion groups have set up. So which is it--all or nothing here. Make your choice.

I'm against them all (except nonhormonal birth control - condoms).

Nonhormonal birth control prevents the meeting of the egg and the sperm. It doesn't kill a fertilized egg: a child.

can i have your kidney? how about only for nine months?

I never said that the child wasn't parasitic. I only said it was a separate human.

And, on the side, if the blood types match, yes you may have my kidney.

I'm against them all (except nonhormonal birth control - condoms).

Nonhormonal birth control prevents the meeting of the egg and the sperm. It doesn't kill a fertilized egg: a child.

Didn't you just say a minute ago that this has nothing to do with birth control? This is the point. You chose an arbitrary line to put up your flag and you're angry that the silly women won't pledge allegiance to that flag. You're going to have to do some work here, buddy, and let me tell you given that biology and medicine do not agree with you, you've got an all uphill battle.

I never said that the child wasn't parasitic. I only said it was a separate human.

And, on the side, if the blood types match, yes you may have my kidney.

Oh, wait, you don't get a say. He shouldn't have asked you. Our state should be permitted to vote on it.

If it is a person (which the cournt as repeatedly denied) then it is a tresspasser, a thief, and a potential threat to the safety of the mother. The mother has the right to evict, if the clump of cells can survive on it's own, it gets to be a person. If it can't, well, tough.

Lets not mince words here, and unwanted pregnancy is a more dangerous version of a tapeworm. It is a parasite. I don't care if it is a life or not, it's right to exist cannot infringe upon my right not to have the resources of my body stolen, my health adversely impacted, my way of life interrupted, and my wallet drained.

Oh, and remember how your mom used to make you drink lots of orange juice if you had a cold? Apparently it works for unwanted pregnancies, too: http://www.sisterzeus.com/Hsp1shlp.htm

I'm so glad that the courts decide what's right. In that case, because of Dred Scott, the slaves should never have been freed. Why? Because according to the Supreme Court they weren't people so they don't deserve to be cared about. Thank God we repented from that!

If you really think this way about the value of human life, then I guess the topic shifts to whether we as humans are more valuable than animals. You can kill a parasitic leech beacuse it is draining from you. It has no soul. But what about a human life? Is it morally permissible to kill a human who is draining from you? If there is no foseeable danger to the mother's life, then it truly isn't self-defence is it? Humans have souls, yes? I'm assuming you're going to say no from what you wrote above. In that case, I really don't know what to say to you.

Didn't you just say a minute ago that this has nothing to do with birth control? This is the point. You chose an arbitrary line to put up your flag and you're angry that the silly women won't pledge allegiance to that flag. You're going to have to do some work here, buddy, and let me tell you given that biology and medicine do not agree with you, you've got an all uphill battle.

How am I setting an arbitrary line? I have repeatedly said that hormonal birth control is abortion and therefore murder. There is a differnce between preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy unnaturally. Nonhormonal birth control is truly trying to prevent pregnancy: no connection to abortion. Hormonal ends a pregnancy if all the other safe guards fail: abortion therefore, murder.

I was defining the differnce between the two. You said I must be against birth control and I determined which "birth control" I must be against: the one ending life, not the one preventing life.

How is abortion related to contraception?

I have nothing wrong with a couple (married or not) that uses contraception (as long as it's not hormonal - weakens the lining of the uterus causing a fertilized egg to be killed during the next period). What I oppose is the murder of an unborn child. It doesn't matter what sexual activity the mother was engaged in. There is now another human being living inside her. If you don't agree that the child is another human being from the time of conception, then I'm not surprised. That is the whole argument.

The question isn't "Can the government regulate contraception and other sexual topics?" The question is " Is abortion the killing of a human being unnecessarily?" Is so, it is murder and the government has the responsibility to outlaw it.

Stop being intentionally dense. I've explained how abortion and contraception are related legally, if you're too lazy to read cases and follow precedent then you should stop sticking your nose in other people's bodily orifices.

What I really love is how you can't even manage to maintain the pretsense that you're ok with contraception for an entire sentence. You oppose hormonal contraception because it might prevent a potentially fertilized egg from being implanted. At best, taking your statements at face value(which I don't), you believe that the government has the right to prevent women from using all of the most effective methods of birth control(hormonal birth control, and IUDs) because there is a potential that some of them might prevent a cluster of undifferentiated cells from latching onto the uterine wall and your religious beliefs consider that to be murder in spite of legal and scientific evidence to the contrary.

Roll that one over a few times, say it, think about the implications. Get comfortable with the idea of a minority being able to infringe upon the liberty of the majority because of a belief that is only supported by members of that minority. Think about the power you are handing not just to the government but to every little sexually repressed tyrant with a congregation and cause.

Everyone else think about that underlined passage, too. THAT is the face of the pro-life crowd, that is all the layers of obfuscation, bullshit, spin, and comfortable lies stripped away. Science, tradition, liberty, or law do not matter, only their religious opinion. You must bear the burden of their faith.

I'm so glad that the courts decide what's right. In that case, because of Dred Scott, the slaves should never have been freed. Why? Because according to the Supreme Court they weren't people so they don't deserve to be cared about. Thank God we repented from that!

If you really think this way about the value of human life, then I guess the topic shifts to whether we as humans are more valuable than animals. You can kill a parasitic leech beacuse it is draining from you. It has no soul. But what about a human life? Is it morally permissible to kill a human who is draining from you? If there is no foseeable danger to the mother's life, then it truly isn't self-defence is it? Humans have souls, yes? I'm assuming you're going to say no from what you wrote above. In that case, I really don't know what to say to you.
The soul is an abstract concept based on belief.

I'm against them all (except nonhormonal birth control - condoms).

Nonhormonal birth control prevents the meeting of the egg and the sperm. It doesn't kill a fertilized egg: a child.

You don't even have the sense to be ashamed of it, do you?

I never said that the child wasn't parasitic. I only said it was a separate human.

And, on the side, if the blood types match, yes you may have my kidney.

Wonderful, you made the choice. Sad thing is, our blood types don't match. Give me the kidney of your best friend. Don't bother asking them, just grab a knife, after all, if you'd give up your kidney why shouldn't they?

How is abortion related to contraception?

I have nothing wrong with a couple (married or not) that uses contraception (as long as it's not hormonal - weakens the lining of the uterus causing a fertilized egg to be killed during the next period). What I oppose is the murder of an unborn child. It doesn't matter what sexual activity the mother was engaged in. There is now another human being living inside her. If you don't agree that the child is another human being from the time of conception, then I'm not surprised. That is the whole argument.

The question isn't "Can the government regulate contraception and other sexual topics?" The question is " Is abortion the killing of a human being unnecessarily?" Is so, it is murder and the government has the responsibility to outlaw it.
abortion is related to birth control because the precedents that allowed the supreme court ruling in roe v wade were birth control cases

there was a time when the state had its nose into everyones reproductive business. IT decided if a married couple could purchase birth control and what kind. IT decided if it was legal to sell birth control to unmarried people

well before roe v wade the supreme court ruled that basic medical and reproductive decisions were none of the states business. that american citizens had the RIGHT to decide if and when they would have children and that these decisions were PRIVATE. and that everything that goes into running your reproductive life was a private matter and none of the states business.

in order to overturn roe v wade you would have to deny this idea that you have a right to privacy. you have to grant the state the right to stick its fingers into a womans vagina at any time in order to insure that she is obeying the states reproductive rules.

this same idea of a right to privacy is what allowed the supreme court to rule that the state had no business regulating your sexual practices. not just "gay" sex but certain common heterosexual sex acts used to be banned by several states. now we dont have to worry that a passing police officer might peak into our not-quite-closed bedrooms and arrest us for unapproved sex acts.

are you SURE you want to reverse roe v wade?

Stop being intentionally dense. I've explained how abortion and contraception are related legally, if you're too lazy to read cases and follow precedent then you should stop sticking your nose in other people's bodily orifices.

What I really love is how you can't even manage to maintain the pretsense that you're ok with contraception for an entire sentence. You oppose hormonal contraception because it might prevent a potentially fertilized egg from being implanted. At best, taking your statements at face value(which I don't), you believe that the government has the right to prevent women from using all of the most effective methods of birth control(hormonal birth control, and IUDs) because there is a potential that some of them might prevent a cluster of undifferentiated cells from latching onto the uterine wall and your religious beliefs consider that to be murder in spite of legal and scientific evidence to the contrary.

Roll that one over a few times, say it, think about the implications. Get comfortable with the idea of a minority being able to infringe upon the liberty of the majority because of a belief that is only supported by members of that minority. Think about the power you are handing not just to the government but to every little sexually repressed tyrant with a congregation and cause.

Everyone else think about that underlined passage, too. THAT is the face of the pro-life crowd, that is all the layers of obfuscation, bullshit, spin, and comfortable lies stripped away. Science, tradition, liberty, or law do not matter, only their religious opinion. You must bear the burden of their faith.

I am not trying to be intentionally dense. I really don't care what the courts decide. Humanity is unable to decide what is right and what is wrong.

I do not disredard science. I don't believe that we have enough scientific evidence to support abortion. As for tradition, the traditional view is anti-abortion. Tradition is determined by more than a few decades of public opinion. Liberty is only made possible by reponsibility and our civilization doesn't have much of that left. And again the laws of men are nothing.

So if I am being a pig-headed, oppressive, autocratic, minority, traditionalist, conservative Christian, so be it. AMEN.

The soul is an abstract concept based on belief.

Just as are the concepts of law, liberty, choice etc. And the belief that there is no soul.

You don't even have the sense to be ashamed of it, do you?

Ashamed of what? Standing up for what I believe even though many would like to see me dead for it?

abortion is related to birth control because the precedents that allowed the supreme court ruling in roe v wade were birth control cases

there was a time when the state had its nose into everyones reproductive business. IT decided if a married couple could purchase birth control and what kind. IT decided if it was legal to sell birth control to unmarried people

well before roe v wade the supreme court ruled that basic medical and reproductive decisions were none of the states business. that american citizens had the RIGHT to decide if and when they would have children and that these decisions were PRIVATE. and that everything that goes into running your reproductive life was a private matter and none of the states business.

in order to overturn roe v wade you would have to deny this idea that you have a right to privacy. you have to grant the state the right to stick its fingers into a womans vagina at any time in order to insure that she is obeying the states reproductive rules.

this same idea of a right to privacy is what allowed the supreme court to rule that the state had no business regulating your sexual practices. not just "gay" sex but certain common heterosexual sex acts used to be banned by several states. now we dont have to worry that a passing police officer might peak into our not-quite-closed bedrooms and arrest us for unapproved sex acts.

are you SURE you want to reverse roe v wade?

Who said anything about reversing Roe v Wade? I'm talking about a bad idea lumped in with good.

If that requires throwing out Roe v. Wade and then reprotecting the good, then so be it.

I'm so glad that the courts decide what's right. In that case, because of Dred Scott, the slaves should never have been freed. Why? Because according to the Supreme Court they weren't people so they don't deserve to be cared about. Thank God we repented from that!

Could you maybe mention the holocost and the trail of tears with that Dred Scott thing, I'd really like to see the trifecta.

Honestly, you live in constitutional republic. If you don't like the state of law, change it. Wait, didn't work? If that fails, you can propose an amendment. That didn't work? Last recouse you have is armed revolution, and we all know that killing is wrong.

Or, you know, you could take the advice of your prophet and “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” If you're so convinced that you're right, let God handle it.

If you really think this way about the value of human life, then I guess the topic shifts to whether we as humans are more valuable than animals. You can kill a parasitic leech beacuse it is draining from you. It has no soul.

Can you please tell me where the soul is enshrined in secular law?

But what about a human life? Is it morally permissible to kill a human who is draining from you?

Most jurisdictions will let you kill someone who is harming you, and I'd consider it a moral action to take the life of someone who threatens me or my family. Some jurisdiction dohn't even expect you to try to flee, someone threatens you are allowed to gun them down as your first resort. There are even quite a few jurisdiction where deadly force is permitted in order to protect property. You're living in the wrong society if you think all killing is immoral.

If there is no foseeable danger to the mother's life, then it truly isn't self-defence is it?

Every pregnancy creates small but significant risks. Women still die in childbirth in hospitals in the developed world, p[regnancy related diabeties and anemia can be deadly.

Oh, and if every human life is sacred from the time of conception, how do you justify putting the life of the mother before the life of the child? More importantly, if human life is sacred and all abortions should be illegal, how are doctors supposed to treat an ectopic pregnancy?

"Sorry Ms. Smith but God wants you to be either sterile or die from toxic shock, and he thinks you need a good dose of pain in the mean time. You know, to remind you of your place your dirty, dirty sinner. Blame Eve, she ate the apple..."

Humans have souls, yes? I'm assuming you're going to say no from what you wrote above. In that case, I really don't know what to say to you.

What you cannot respond to an argument that is not solely based upon religious faith?

Actually, I do believe humans have souls. I'm have strong religious views, they just aren't Christian. I don't believe that life begins at conception, that view certainly isn't held in any of my holy book. My faith has no priesthood because it believes you should learn on your own like a rational creature rather than being lead by the nose like livestock, so no one has told me that life begins at conception. I don't know when a human being becomes a human being, when it gets it's soul, but if I had to make a wager I'd guess that it was around the time we become self-aware, when our minds progress beyond that of the animals.

Sorry, not everyone with a religion believes the same thing as you do. Hell, not even all Christians believe the same things as you. You're pretty far out on the bellcurve.

I have never understood the rape exception, as, were abortions actually murder, why would a rape justify it?

Why kill an innocent person for the sins of the father?

(Actually I do understand it, I understand that having the rape exception pretty much means you are only interested in stopping promescuity.)

I am not trying to be intentionally dense. I really don't care what the courts decide. Humanity is unable to decide what is right and what is wrong.

*snip*

So if I am being a pig-headed, oppressive, autocratic, minority, traditionalist, conservative Christian, so be it. AMEN.

So, even though you're unable to decide what is right and wrong, even though your bible does not mention that life begins at conception, you're going to take a stand here because its what you think God wants? Even though God is big enough to fight his own battles?

You've got the pride of an angel, kid.

Who said anything about reversing Roe v Wade? I'm talking about a bad idea lumped in with good.

If that requires throwing out Roe v. Wade and then reprotecting the good, then so be it.
because its OK for the state to have its hands up a woman's vagina...after all you dont have one.. as long as they dont think that it gives them the right to squeeze your balls?

(if youre female, sorry, but do you really want the state to have the right to peek up your skirts??)

Ashamed of what? Standing up for what I believe even though many would like to see me dead for it?

No, the ignorange, arrogance, and pride.

I'm so glad that the courts decide what's right. In that case, because of Dred Scott, the slaves should never have been freed. Why? Because according to the Supreme Court they weren't people so they don't deserve to be cared about. Thank God we repented from that!

If you really think this way about the value of human life, then I guess the topic shifts to whether we as humans are more valuable than animals. You can kill a parasitic leech beacuse it is draining from you. It has no soul. But what about a human life? Is it morally permissible to kill a human who is draining from you? If there is no foseeable danger to the mother's life, then it truly isn't self-defence is it? Humans have souls, yes? I'm assuming you're going to say no from what you wrote above. In that case, I really don't know what to say to you.

Actually, the courts interpret the law and according to the intent of the law of the land, slaves were not meant to have the rights protected by the consitution. They were not a part of the contractual agreement that is the US Constitution between the country and its people. They are now and thank goodness, but at the time of the decision their interpretation was correct. However, unlike a conceptus, a black person can undoubtedly be shown to be human, a living organism, and meet the qualifications for human life (brain function). The conceptus does none of these things.

And you are wrong. There is forseeable danger to the mother in EVERY pregnancy. It is inherent in pregnancy that the mother's body is damaged in irreparable ways and that her health and life are in danger.

Now, it's amusing that you bring up souls. You do know that until recently it has always been held that quickening is the time when a soul is imbued to the body.

How am I setting an arbitrary line? I have repeatedly said that hormonal birth control is abortion and therefore murder. There is a differnce between preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy unnaturally. Nonhormonal birth control is truly trying to prevent pregnancy: no connection to abortion. Hormonal ends a pregnancy if all the other safe guards fail: abortion therefore, murder.

I was defining the differnce between the two. You said I must be against birth control and I determined which "birth control" I must be against: the one ending life, not the one preventing life.

The line is arbitrary because there is nothing objective about where you choose to define life. It is not a definition applied to any other organism or to a human at any other part of the life cycle. This makes the line arbitrary. It's simply a point when YOU decided life started and you want to make law based on that arbitrary line. What's to stop you from deciding that every sperm is sacred or that the line should be thirty weeks since your position is not based on any objective measure of the beginning of life.

Have to go. Homework and I have to get my thoughts in order. Check back Thursday for my responses.

I am not trying to be intentionally dense. I really don't care what the courts decide. Humanity is unable to decide what is right and what is wrong.

I do not disredard science. I don't believe that we have enough scientific evidence to support abortion. As for tradition, the traditional view is anti-abortion. Tradition is determined by more than a few decades of public opinion. Liberty is only made possible by reponsibility and our civilization doesn't have much of that left. And again the laws of men are nothing.

So if I am being a pig-headed, oppressive, autocratic, minority, traditionalist, conservative Christian, so be it. AMEN.

Well, to be accurate, Christ didn't like mixing the Church and the State. It was clear that he believed it to be a cause of corruption and it is this that was the primary reason for his death. Christ would take issue with someone taking his name and then trying to force their beliefs on others, methinks. But, hey, I only got there by reading his words. What did he know, right? That was 2000 years ago. You don't have to listen to him.

So, even though you're unable to decide what is right and wrong, even though your bible does not mention that life begins at conception, you're going to take a stand here because its what you think God wants? Even though God is big enough to fight his own battles?

You've got the pride of an angel, kid.

Why is that so many Christians seem to forget the lessons of the Bible when it comes to PRIDE. I would say it's hard to get through very many verses without realizing the folly of such things.

How am I setting an arbitrary line? I have repeatedly said that hormonal birth control is abortion and therefore murder. There is a differnce between preventing pregnancy and ending pregnancy unnaturally. Nonhormonal birth control is truly trying to prevent pregnancy: no connection to abortion. Hormonal ends a pregnancy if all the other safe guards fail: abortion therefore, murder.

Actually, a woman is not technically pregnant until the embryo is implanted - generally 1-2 weeks after fertilization. Thus, neither the birth control pill nor the morning after pill end a pregnancy - they prevent it.
I am not trying to be intentionally dense. I really don't care what the courts decide. Humanity is unable to decide what is right and what is wrong.

I do not disredard science. I don't believe that we have enough scientific evidence to support abortion. As for tradition, the traditional view is anti-abortion. Tradition is determined by more than a few decades of public opinion. Liberty is only made possible by reponsibility and our civilization doesn't have much of that left. And again the laws of men are nothing.

You are incredibly incorrect here. The "traditional" stance has been for abortion to be legal, at least up until the woman could feel movement (ie. the "quickening"). English common law held this, as did US law up until safe medical abortions were possible. Once abortions could be performed safely by medical professionals, it was banned. We are really only looking at a few decades in which early-term abortion was not perfectly legal. That is hardly tradition.

Now, if you mean that most people are traditionally opposed to having abortions, you are probably correct - at least until they feel they need one.

Just as are the concepts of law, liberty, choice etc. And the belief that there is no soul.
Law, liberty and choice affect the living. If I sold you my soul, I'd be in no way disadvantaged during my time here on Planet Earth. In the afterlife, who knows? Until I see some video, I'll hold to the idea that it cannot be known what happens to us.

*rips out and steps on my own soul. Whistles and goes to get a cup of coffee*

Why is that so many Christians seem to forget the lessons of the Bible when it comes to PRIDE. I would say it's hard to get through very many verses without realizing the folly of such things.

Because Christians in the west are in a transitional period. They had had 1300 years of relatively unchallenged followed by 200 years of being such an overwhelming majority that they never really had to deal with not getting their way. Now, Christians feel challenged, they face new and strange religions with radically different views, legions of atheists and agnostics, and even most of those who count themselves as among their ranks are apathetic at best. Conservative Christians simply do not know how to deal with a world in which not only are they not in absolute control but in which their opinions no longer hold a controlling weight.

Every decade the battlelines are drawn a little bit further from the world that traditionalist Christians valued.The gays are in the closet, the women are working, everyone is having sex with everyone else. Especially over the past 50 years, the world has changed and many in the Christian establishment feel like its become Babylon. Now they have decided to make a stand on the issue of abortion, believing that nearly anyone would be on their side against killing babies. The fact that they are losing is terrifying to them.

The culture wars have little to do with the bible, or with Christ. They are about traditionalist elements of society: the kinds of people who have been in control of the Christian establishment since Constantine decided that the Lamb of Christ represented less of a threat to his empire than the Lion of Mithras. Christianity is just a guise that these elements wear to lend themselves legitimacy. It is like Islamic Fundamentalism or Stalinism, the rhetoric is used but only in the most cynical of ways.

I'm against them all (except nonhormonal birth control - condoms).

Nonhormonal birth control prevents the meeting of the egg and the sperm. It doesn't kill a fertilized egg: a child.
So what about all those fertilized eggs that never implant on their own--the 60-80% of them that wash out during the woman's period? Are you going to march through the streets waving a bloody tampon demanding that they be saved as well?

So, is anyone going to defend the rape exception?
I'll defend it as a tool against anti-choicers in debates. It forces them to backpedal from their own platform to avoid saying women who get raped should just accept it (I guess like they should have just laid back and enjoyed it in the first place). We pro-choicers can use it like a crowbar to pry the rest of their equivocations apart.

Other than that, it's bullshit because the really dedicated anti-choicers have no intention of allowing a rape exception or any other exception under any circumstances. For them it really is an all or nothing proposition.

I never said that the child wasn't parasitic. I only said it was a separate human.

And, on the side, if the blood types match, yes you may have my kidney.
But if you needed a kidney, I would not necessarily give you mine because I don't know you and don't care about you. We are so separate from each other that I would probably not even be aware that your ability to keep living had become an issue. But even if I was aware of it, you could not force me to give you my kidney against my will because my body is my property. You have no right to use it -- at least not as long as I'm using it.

Likewise, let's say, for the sake of making this point, that the fetus is a separate person. Then it is not me, is it? It is not the owner of my body, is it? No, it is a stranger, an outsider. I don't know this person. I didn't invite it in. Since I'm acting as my own example, I can assure you that I in fact took definite measures to keep it out (but no system is perfect).

Now please explain to me why I should nevertheless allow this intruder to hang out inside my body for 9 months, suck up my resources, pollute my bloodstream, and physically damage my organs which are my property. So it can have a life some day? Why should it matter to me whether this other person lives or dies, any more than it matters to me whether you live or die (or any more than it matters to the world whether I live or die)?

Please explain why I should change my mind and voluntarily allow my body to be used by an univited stranger. Or else make it clear that you believe that women have no right of self-determination and that they should be used as incubators whether they like it or not -- or at the very least, that you believe that women bear some kind of obligation to society that men don't bear.

Likewise, let's say, for the sake of making this point, that the fetus is a separate person. Then it is not me, is it? It is not the owner of my body, is it? No, it is a stranger, an outsider. I don't know this person. I didn't invite it in. Since I'm acting as my own example, I can assure you that I in fact took definite measures to keep it out (but no system is perfect).

Now please explain to me why I should nevertheless allow this intruder to hang out inside my body for 9 months, suck up my resources, pollute my bloodstream, and physically damage my organs which are my property. So it can have a life some day? Why should it matter to me whether this other person lives or dies, any more than it matters to me whether you live or die (or any more than it matters to the world whether I live or die)?

Please explain why I should change my mind and voluntarily allow my body to be used by an univited stranger. Or else make it clear that you believe that women have no right of self-determination and that they should be used as incubators whether they like it or not -- or at the very least, that you believe that women bear some kind of obligation to society that men don't bear.

Duh! Everyone knows that civil rights and humanity come with the penis. No penis, no rights. Silly woman!

I think its pretty clear that the pro-life movement has some very specific ideas about the place of women in society. Women exist to make babies, nothing more. Any attempt to step outside of that role or to excercise any control over that role is seen as a direct attempt to contravene the will of God. Abortion is a particularily sore subject for the pro-life crowd becase not only is it violating the will of God by ending a pregnancy, but it is also doing what only God gets to do(ending a life), and perverting nature by making sex available for pleasure rather than procreation. All of their little paternalistic fears are invoked by this one issue.

Duh! Everyone knows that civil rights and humanity come with the penis. No penis, no rights. Silly woman!

I think its pretty clear that the pro-life movement has some very specific ideas about the place of women in society. Women exist to make babies, nothing more. Any attempt to step outside of that role or to excercise any control over that role is seen as a direct attempt to contravene the will of God. Abortion is a particularily sore subject for the pro-life crowd becase not only is it violating the will of God by ending a pregnancy, but it is also doing what only God gets to do(ending a life), and perverting nature by making sex available for pleasure rather than procreation. All of their little paternalistic fears are invoked by this one issue.
But couldn't God just make the baby pop out before it was in any danger? I mean... if He really meant business...

But couldn't God just make the baby pop out before it was in any danger? I mean... if He really meant business...

Our place is not to question the will of God. It is unfathomable and omnipotent. Everything happens for a reason, it is just that our puny minds are too weak to comprehend the true glory of God's plan. You know, unless something happens we don't think is in his plan, then its all Satan and we need to fight it.

Our place is not to question the will of God. It is unfathomable and omnipotent. Everything happens for a reason, it is just that our puny minds are too weak to comprehend the true glory of God's plan. You know, unless something happens we don't think is in his plan, then its all Satan and we need to fight it.
So why don't we just call aborted babies, Satanites?
Problem solved.

So, even though you're unable to decide what is right and wrong, even though your bible does not mention that life begins at conception, you're going to take a stand here because its what you think God wants? Even though God is big enough to fight his own battles?

You've got the pride of an angel, kid.

I would like to apologize for my little outburst at the end of the post. A lot of stuff was going on around me and I was getting very frustrated. But that's no excuse, so sorry to you and anyone else I offended.

Secondly, the Bible does point to conception as the beginning of life. Psalm 51:5 "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." That doesn't mean the mother was engaged in some sinful sex act when the baby was conceived, it means that the baby was sinful from the point of conception. He was already in sin when he was conceived. If he has a sinful nature then, doesn't that seem to indicate that he had to have some nature that was sinful? So if his life wasn't sinful, then what was?

Now, it's amusing that you bring up souls. You do know that until recently it has always been held that quickening is the time when a soul is imbued to the body.

That's never been held by the Reformed Tradition of Christianity!

That's never been held by the Reformed Tradition of Christianity!

Gee, well, that's compelling. I guess we should make US law according to a small section of the population's religious beliefs. That makes sense as long as you don't care at all about religious freedom.

Now, of course, you realize, your reply does nothing to indicate the belief is not recent.

I would like to apologize for my little outburst at the end of the post. A lot of stuff was going on around me and I was getting very frustrated. But that's no excuse, so sorry to you and anyone else I offended.

Secondly, the Bible does point to conception as the beginning of life. Psalm 51:5 "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." That doesn't mean the mother was engaged in some sinful sex act when the baby was conceived, it means that the baby was sinful from the point of conception. He was already in sin when he was conceived. If he has a sinful nature then, doesn't that seem to indicate that he had to have some nature that was sinful? So if his life wasn't sinful, then what was?

Um, no, it means the baby was concieved in sin. It's a fairly clear quote.

Now, why does the Bible make the penalty for killing a person different than for a miscarriage?

Well, while I don't hold this position (that if it's a person and alive that she should still be allowed to terminate), you have to show why, even if it is a seperate human being, a woman MUST carry it inside her for nine months. I promise you that there will never be a law requiring a driver to give his kidney to someone he hit (in order to save that person's life) even though he bears a level of responsibility for the accident. You can't actually show how this is different. You have two things to show both of which you can't. 1) that there is a seperate human being involved and 2) that the woman does not have the right to control her body.A fertilized egg is a seperate human life because of five things:

1.
a. Non-life cannot act in order to have life, so therefore if the embroyo grows, it must be alive. Clearly, the embroyo grows.
b. Life can only reproduce after its own kind, so therefore it is a human life.
c. It is genetically different from the mother (and the father);
d. It is not attached to the mother until implantation, and is therefore not part of her body. It uses her body, yes, but is not part of it (the mother's body accepts this and encourages it).
e. Unlike the mother's tissue or organs, it does not function for the mother's benefit; it functions and grows for itself, to become more fully human. It is different from tumors because the cells involved do not grow to become a seperate human, they grow only to create identical copies of themselves.

2. The woman has the right to control her body. However, she does not have the right to control any other person's body. The embroyo's state of being distinct from the mother and human is made under [1]. Few would be comfortable with suggesting that one person has a “right to choose” to terminate the life of another human being for no other reason than the fear that without such a “choice” personal autonomy is diminished.

When pregnancy does not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents. The need to live in the mother's uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure, in the way that the term is generally used. It is a basic human need -- every single person who has ever been born required it. Just as the newborn has a specific claim against his parents due to the fact that they created him in all his helplessness, so too did he have a claim against them before he was born, for the same reason.

When their pregnancy is a result of sexual assault, it's not being pregnant that's the problem. It's the rape that caused it. The baby is not in any way responsible for the actions of the rapist. We should prevent rape with every power we have, and yes, I support assisting women who need help carrying their babies to term. I do fundraisers for them myself.

*snip*

Nicely said.

/Signed



When pregnancy does not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents. The need to live in the mother's uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure, in the way that the term is generally used. ...

I fail to see how this is relevant though. I'd leave that out myself. It's irrelevant and immaterial. There is no reason to even arbitrarily assign 'blame' or fault. The embryo is what it is, that is enough. How it got there is pretty much a moot and invalid concern because for whatever reason, it’s not the embryo’s fault.

Life can only reproduce after its own kind

i'd like to introduce you to my old pal, chuck darwin

A fertilized egg is a seperate human life because of five things:

1.
a. Non-life cannot act in order to have life, so therefore if the embroyo grows, it must be alive. Clearly, the embroyo grows.
b. Life can only reproduce after its own kind, so therefore it is a human life.

This argument is flawed. Sperm is a part of the life cycle, is living, is part of reproduction, grows and comes from a human but it is not a human life. Skin is living, is reproduced, grows and comes from a human and is not a human life. An embryo is not a seperate organism.

Also, ever seen a mule?

c. It is genetically different from the mother (and the father);

Genetic uniqueness is not a qualification of life. Otherwise chimeras would be two people and twins would be one.

d. It is not attached to the mother until implantation, and is therefore not part of her body. It uses her body, yes, but is not part of it (the mother's body accepts this and encourages it).

Are you sure? Is a white blood cell a part of person's body or is it a seperate organism. It is reproduced. It can be genetically unique in a chimera. It can be unattached in the same way as embryo. It grows. It is not an organism. So far you haven't used a single actually qualification for life.

e. Unlike the mother's tissue or organs, it does not function for the mother's benefit; it functions and grows for itself, to become more fully human. It is different from tumors because the cells involved do not grow to become a seperate human, they grow only to create identical copies of themselves.

It doesn't have to be to her benefit. That proves nothing. The period is not to the mother's benefit other than it makes it possible to birth a child. The embryo is similar. In fact, there is much evidence that the pregnancy while it does much damage to the body (as does cancer, a part of the body), it offers some benefits as well.

2. The woman has the right to control her body. However, she does not have the right to control any other person's body. The embroyo's state of being distinct from the mother and human is made under [1]. Few would be comfortable with suggesting that one person has a “right to choose” to terminate the life of another human being for no other reason than the fear that without such a “choice” personal autonomy is diminished.

And no other person has a right to control her body. An abortion simply requires this "person's" body to stop controlling the body of the woman. It's self-defense. You are incorrect. I would absolute be permitted to terminate your life if you simply tryied to keep from leaving a closet. It's called kidnapping.

When pregnancy does not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents. The need to live in the mother's uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure, in the way that the term is generally used. It is a basic human need -- every single person who has ever been born required it. Just as the newborn has a specific claim against his parents due to the fact that they created him in all his helplessness, so too did he have a claim against them before he was born, for the same reason.

Meh. It doesn't if she consented to sex. I can leave my window open, even invite you in my house. However, if I tell you to leave my home. You will. Even if it costs you your life. If you are unwilling to leave at my behest the law allows me to forcibly remove you.

When their pregnancy is a result of sexual assault, it's not being pregnant that's the problem. It's the rape that caused it. The baby is not in any way responsible for the actions of the rapist. We should prevent rape with every power we have, and yes, I support assisting women who need help carrying their babies to term. I do fundraisers for them myself.
You still claim that because someone else committed a crime that the woman must give up her autonomy. You reveal yourself to view women as an incubator.

Meanwhile, even your made-up definition of life does not show the embryo to be a life. There is not a one of your requirements that cancer cannot meet either individually or in combination. Meanwhile, your 'definition' is not the definition that is used by biology to decide between a seperate organism housed within another and a part of the organism. Your 'definition' also is not the definition used in medicine that determines when a person is living or dead (and if a supposed human life has never met the qualifications for a human life, then it is not a living person according to medicine). Funny how anti-choicers have to make up brand new definition in order to make their argument, an argument that shows a pitiable lack of understanding of the embryo and of the other parts of a woman's body.

According to biological definitions, there is no seperate organism until the second trimester. According to medical and legal definitions of a living person, there is no living person until the third trimester. According the Bible, the Koran and the Torah, the soul is not imbued until the quickening late in the second trimester. Pretty much no source agrees with you except the mysoginistic movement that has recently sought to make abortion illegal. And, yes, recently.

Until abortion became a safe medical procedure there was never an attempt to outlaw it. Abortion has been practice for millenia and legal.

Now a question for you - why is the definition of life SUDDENLY different at the time of conception than at every other time in the life cycle? This question has been presented several times to DubyaGoat, but it is beyond his ability to answer. Perhaps you will rise to the occasion.

This argument is flawed. Sperm is a part of the life cycle, is living, is part of reproduction, grows and comes from a human but it is not a human life. Skin is living, is reproduced, grows and comes from a human and is not a human life. An embryo is not a seperate organism.
Also, ever seen a mule?

Skin is part of a person. It is not a unique individual of itself. Sperm is part of the life cycle but it is not an embryo. It is still a sperm and the egg is still an egg untill they fuse. Untill fused, they are nothing but sperm and egg and do not grow and develop into anything else. When fused they are no longer either or egg or sperm they are something diffrent and unquie. I've already provided the medical opinion that supports that.


Genetic uniqueness is not a qualification of life. Otherwise chimeras would be two people and twins would be one.

It is not a qualification of life but it is qualification of individuality


Are you sure? Is a white blood cell a part of person's body or is it a seperate organism. It is reproduced. It can be genetically unique in a chimera. It can be unattached in the same way as embryo. It grows. It is not an organism. So far you haven't used a single actually qualification for life.

A white blood cell is PART of someone elses body. The embryo is not. This is obvious by the fact that it is a complete human entity. This can be proven by the devolopmental path it is taking. The embryo's developmental path clearly shows it to be a whole human.


It doesn't have to be to her benefit. That proves nothing. The period is not to the mother's benefit other than it makes it possible to birth a child. .

Thus the period is to the mothers benefit. Since reproduction is a nessecity to the speiceis as a whole. Organs function for the continued suvival of the mother. Thus the embryo clearly is not an organ. The period is not an organ either. It is a function of an organ.


The embryo is similar. In fact, there is much evidence that the pregnancy while it does much damage to the body (as does cancer, a part of the body), it offers some benefits as well.

If you could show me an organ that both damages and supports a mothers health in normal functioning I will be impressed. The fact is that the embryo cannot be seen as an organ as it performs no function other than to suvive itself


And no other person has a right to control her body. An abortion simply requires this "person's" body to stop controlling the body of the woman. It's self-defense. You are incorrect. I would absolute be permitted to terminate your life if you simply tryied to keep from leaving a closet. It's called kidnapping.

But what if you had gambled fairly and knowelably and known that one of the outcomes would be to be locked in a closet. When a woman has consentual sex, she knows that one of the possible outcomes is a child. She can limit the posibility of this outcome with contreception, but at the end of the day it is a possible outcome.


Meh. It doesn't if she consented to sex. I can leave my window open, even invite you in my house. However, if I tell you to leave my home. You will. Even if it costs you your life. If you are unwilling to leave at my behest the law allows me to forcibly remove you.

What if you were responsable for creating the situation whereby that person leaving your home would cost him his life.


Now a question for you - why is the definition of life SUDDENLY different at the time of conception than at every other time in the life cycle? This question has been presented several times to DubyaGoat, but it is beyond his ability to answer. Perhaps you will rise to the occasion.

I've already provided the medical opinion that shows that conception is a unique time. Dont pretend to ignore it.

Skin is part of a person. It is not a unique individual of itself.

Here is the very basis of your flaw. The biological definition was created so that you don't have to predefine what is part of an organism and what is not, but instead shows what is seperate. No definition any you have offered works unless pick and choose what falls under your definition. This is the exact problem. You don't even understand the purpose of the definition.

I've already provided the medical opinion that shows that conception is a unique time. Dont pretend to ignore it.

I didn't ignore it. Actually I pwned it, but that's not the point. You didn't answer the question. At every other time of life, no one cares about the things you all claim. Now, of course, if at any time post-birth if I showed a level of brain activity equivalent to the conceptus I would put in the ground next to my grandfather, but checks my genetic uniqueness or talks about my potential for becoming an individual. That covers the medical definition. Now, choose any part of the biological definition and you get the same thing. If I suddenly showed signs of being incapable to behave as a system, well, bury me, because I'm dead. But for anti-choicers, we just ignore these little hurdles when try to deny women their right not to be treated as an incubator. Why is the definition of life different at conception than at every other time in the life cycle?

Why is the definition of life different at conception than at every other time in the life cycle?
I think this is the impasse of the abortion debate. For me, the difference is that one is about the promotion of life, while the other examples you give refer to the end of life. I know that you won't see the difference; I got into an argument with someone the other night about this and spent about an hour going in circles as neither of us would accept the others point. But, while you may not see the difference, it is a very important one to me.

I'm not going to get into another argument about it, so I'll step back out now. Let's face it: do these debates ever actually change anyone's mind? In the end, it all comes down to how you see the world.

I think this is the impasse of the abortion debate. For me, the difference is that one is about the promotion of life, while the other examples you give refer to the end of life. I know that you won't see the difference; I got into an argument with someone the other night about this and spent about an hour going in circles as neither of us would accept the others point. But, while you may not see the difference, it is a very important one to me.

I'm not going to get into another argument about it, so I'll step back out now. Let's face it: do these debates ever actually change anyone's mind? In the end, it all comes down to how you see the world.

You still aren't really addressing it. If brain activity is required at every other stage for us to consider something alive why is that not a part of the definition for when something becomes alive? The true answer is because it would allow abortion and some people will keep changing definitions until one suits them. It's a backward argument.

Some people decide their position and then try to substantiate their position by thrusting forth everything they think could possibly bolster their position and turning away even the most reasonable evidence they are wrong. They treat it like a war.

Other more reasonably people look at all the available evidence and then take up a position.

In all the years I've been involved in discussions of this matter I have not found a single anti-choicer that wasn't in the first group. And I say this as someone who who was very anti-choice when they first entered the argument and who encouraged his sixteen-year-old sister to carry my nephew to term.

Other more reasonably people look at all the available evidence and then take up a position.

In all the years I've been involved in discussions of this matter I have not found a single anti-choicer that wasn't in the first group. And I say this as someone who who was very anti-choice when they first entered the argument and who encouraged his sixteen-year-old sister to carry my nephew to term.
I'm sorry, but it's deeply unfair to claim that the only people who have a different viewpoint are because they are somehow idiotic.

As I said above, no one is ever going to convince the other group of anything. The reason the argument is one that rages for so long is not because one side has an overwhelming case; quite the opposite. It goes on because neither side has a conclusive case. You think your side does, well fine, but that's because you place an emphasis on things that I don't. If you ignore some things and promote others it is 'logical,' if anyone else does it they are 'avoiding the point.' Perhaps we both ignore things because they are things we consider irrelevant.

I don't call you an idiot for not agreeing with me, so I would appreciate it if you showed the same respect back.

I'm sorry, but it's deeply unfair to claim that the only people who have a different viewpoint are because they are somehow idiotic.

I didn't say they were idiotic. I said their method of drawing their conclusion is flawed and I welcome someone to prove me wrong. As of yet I've seen no evidence that an anti-choicer exists that didn't start with that conclusion and build backwards.

As I said above, no one is ever going to convince the other group of anything. The reason the argument is one that rages for so long is not because one side has an overwhelming case; quite the opposite. It goes on because neither side has a conclusive case. You think your side does, well fine, but that's because you place an emphasis on things that I don't. If you ignore some things and promote others it is 'logical,' if anyone else does it they are 'avoiding the point.' Perhaps we both ignore things because they are things we consider irrelevant.

I don't call you an idiot for not agreeing with me, so I would appreciate it if you showed the same respect back.

That's untrue. I was of the other group and I was convinced that there is no way to objectively support the position of denying women control of their bodies. Every position that people hold in order to try to outlaw abortion has a legal, medical, or biological flaw, even a biblical flaw, and I have yet to be stumped to find it. However, if you can show me a position that is not fundamentally flawed, I'd be happy to switch sides right now.

However, if you can show me a position that is not fundamentally flawed, I'd be happy to switch sides right now.
This is precisely my point - if you can show me a pro-choice position that is not fundamentally flawed, I'd be happy to switch sides right now. It's a question of what we see as 'flawed.'

I would like to point out that you've dropped a massive swathe of my post and would ask you to deal with it or admit that you cant

Here is the very basis of your flaw. The biological definition was created so that you don't have to predefine what is part of an organism and what is not, but instead shows what is seperate. No definition any you have offered works unless pick and choose what falls under your definition. This is the exact problem. You don't even understand the purpose of the definition.

The embryo is not an organ seeing as it does not perform a function to the mother. The only function it performs is its own existance. And while the appendix is in the same area, the apendix does not follow anything like the same developmental path as an embryo. I can comfortably state this seeing as if it were an organ then women who had never been pregnant in their lives would be at a serious health risk being without a nessecary organ. And they arnt.


I didn't ignore it. Actually I pwned it, but that's not the point. You didn't answer the question. At every other time of life, no one cares about the things you all claim. Now, of course, if at any time post-birth if I showed a level of brain activity equivalent to the conceptus I would put in the ground next to my grandfather, but checks my genetic uniqueness or talks about my potential for becoming an individual. That covers the medical definition. Now, choose any part of the biological definition and you get the same thing. If I suddenly showed signs of being incapable to behave as a system, well, bury me, because I'm dead. But for anti-choicers, we just ignore these little hurdles when try to deny women their right not to be treated as an incubator. Why is the definition of life different at conception than at every other time in the life cycle?

Becasue people like you bring them up so much as reasons for not considering an embryo a true human life. A person on a life support machine cannot behave fully as a system anymore, but they are medically considered alive. I've already provided the medical opinion from many sources which state that conception is a unique time and regarded as the begining of life. Therefore any other ruling on brainwaves or heartbeat or "personhood" of another kind is arbitary.

This is precisely my point - if you can show me a pro-choice position that is not fundamentally flawed, I'd be happy to switch sides right now. It's a question of what we see as 'flawed.'

Ok, start here. We currently define the life of a person both legally and medically as having brain function. That's not a conclusion, but a fact. Now there is a point in the development of the fetus when brain function begins. This is where I define the beginning of life. This is when the fetus meets the qualifications for life already so it makes it an objective and non-arbitrary line.

Would you point out the flaw for me?

Ok, start here. We currently define the life of a person both legally and medically as having brain function. That's not a conclusion, but a fact. Now there is a point in the development of the fetus when brain function begins. This is where I define the beginning of life. This is when the fetus meets the qualifications for life already so it makes it an objective and non-arbitrary line.

Would you point out the flaw for me?
I disagree with your definition of life. It's as simple as that.

I would like to point out that you've dropped a massive swathe of my post and would ask you to deal with it or admit that you cant

When you answer my question, I'll be happy to answer the same old posts AGAIN. Why should we define the qualifications for the life of a person differently at conception than at every other stage of development?

The embryo is not an organ seeing as it does not perform a function to the mother. The only function it performs is its own existance. And while the appendix is in the same area, the apendix does not follow anything like the same developmental path as an embryo. I can comfortably state this seeing as if it were an organ then women who had never been pregnant in their lives would be at a serious health risk being without a nessecary organ. And they arnt.

This not a part of the definition of an organism. However the embryo does act as a part of the systems of the mother and thus does meet the qualifications for an organ.

Your claims are so flawed it's hard not to giggle at you. My tonsils are removed, am I at risk? Also, there are studies that there are some risks a woman endures for not having been pregnant, actually. Studies go both ways, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, is cancer a part of the body? Yup. Does it have a benefit? Nope. Are we better off never having had cancer? Yep. I should just stop talking. You're making a pretty sound argument on my behalf.

Developmental path has nothing to do with when personhood begins. That's your flaw. An embryo and a sperm are a part of the developmental path. That's an argument from potential and it's inherently flawed becuase the potential begins far before conception and it ends abruptly at abortion. I can tell you beyond a doubt there is no potential for development when a woman gets an abortion.

Becasue people like you bring them up so much as reasons for not considering an embryo a true human life. A person on a life support machine cannot behave fully as a system anymore, but they are medically considered alive. I've already provided the medical opinion from many sources which state that conception is a unique time and regarded as the begining of life. Therefore any other ruling on brainwaves or heartbeat or "personhood" of another kind is arbitary.

Actually, they are not medically considered alive. The medical community considers death to occur when the brain fails. The time on the death certificate is in consideration of the family. Secondly, a brain-DEAD person has the same legal rights as a person who is not on life support. Are you actually arguing that the emotional consideration of the family should decide when life begins and ends?

And biology would definitely not consider a person on life support to be alive.

I disagree with your definition of life. It's as simple as that.

So in other words you can't point out the objective flaw. It's odd that you can't see the difference. I didn't just disagree with your definition of life. I showed the logical flaw in it.

So in other words you can't point out the objective flaw. It's odd that you can't see the difference. I didn't just disagree with your definition of life. I showed the logical flaw in it.
I could argue all night why I don't accept your logic, but I know it will just send you banging your head against the wall with frustration at how stupid I am, and I don't want to cause you harm.

I don't understand why this is always an issue that causes such friction. Well, that's not true, I can get as worked up as anyone over the hypothetical aspects of the arguments, it's just I don't understand why people can't just accept that we're never going to agree and leave it at that.

Perhaps it is simply the different nature of abortion politics in our two nations. I realise that in America it does seem to truly be a matter of all or nothing, but that simply isn't the case here. We have what I think of as a very reasonable approach, where abortion is pretty much universally accepted as legal among the general public. The last (and only) time I can ever remember abortion coming up as an issue was a couple of years ago, when the opposition leader suggested lowering the age at which an abortion could be had from 28 to 24 weeks now medical advances have seen babies surviving birth before 28 weeks. The Government replied that it would look into it, and that was it. The whole 'issue' lasted about a day at the end of the news bulletins. It is a question of how tight you want controls to be, not whether it should exist at all.

I would never support the total criminalisation of abortion, as I accept there are cases when it is essential. I am in favour of tightening controls on when it can and cannot be used, yes, but, while I hold the views I do, I am not losing any sleep about it.

This is why I'm not going to get into a long debate with you. I did that the other night with some other people and it got us no where. They thought I was a complete idiot for not accepting their logic, I thought their logic was completely and utterly flawed. So why should I get into again when the issue is a small one as far as I'm concerned?

I could argue all night why I don't accept your logic, but I know it will just send you banging your head against the wall with frustration at how stupid I am, and I don't want to cause you harm.

I don't understand why this is always an issue that causes such friction. Well, that's not true, I can get as worked up as anyone over the hypothetical aspects of the arguments, it's just I don't understand why people can't just accept that we're never going to agree and leave it at that.

Perhaps it is simply the different nature of abortion politics in our two nations. I realise that in America it does seem to truly be a matter of all or nothing, but that simply isn't the case here. We have what I think of as a very reasonable approach, where abortion is pretty much universally accepted as legal among the general public. The last (and only) time I can ever remember abortion coming up as an issue was a couple of years ago, when the opposition leader suggested lowering the age at which an abortion could be had from 28 to 24 weeks now medical advances have seen babies surviving birth before 28 weeks. The Government replied that it would look into it, and that was it. The whole 'issue' lasted about a day at the end of the news bulletins. It is a question of how tight you want controls to be, not whether it should exist at all.

I would never support the total criminalisation of abortion, as I accept there are cases when it is essential. I am in favour of tightening controls on when it can and cannot be used, yes, but, while I hold the views I do, I am not losing any sleep about it.

This is why I'm not going to get into a long debate with you. I did that the other night with some other people and it got us no where. They thought I was a complete idiot for not accepting their logic, I thought their logic was completely and utterly flawed. So why should I get into again when the issue is a small one as far as I'm concerned?

If there is an objective logical flaw, you should be able to show it. See, here's the thing. The flaws I find aren't "I think this so...". "It's science says this..." and it really doesn't. Or "the bible says this..." and it really doesn't. I show scientific and biblical reasons why their argument is flawed. Generally, the only thing people can say is wrong with my argument is that they don't agree. They are free to do so, but you have to have a lot more than simply opinion to restrict the rights of women.

Um, have you heard of South Dakota?

Um, have you heard of South Dakota?
He does actually make a point that abortion is altogether a non-issue in the UK (and, I'd assume, other countries): I'm almost historically curious as to when it assumed (or appeared to assume) such prominence in mainstream US political discussions.

Um, have you heard of South Dakota?
lol, I assume you're referring to the new law rather than where the State is, and yes, I've heard of both.

If there is an objective logical flaw, you should be able to show it. See, here's the thing. The flaws I find aren't "I think this so...". "It's science says this..." and it really doesn't. Or "the bible says this..." and it really doesn't. I show scientific and biblical reasons why their argument is flawed. Generally, the only thing people can say is wrong with my argument is that they don't agree. They are free to do so, but you have to have a lot more than simply opinion to restrict the rights of women.
My point is that I believe that I can show you logical and scientific flaws in your argument, but you would no more accept them as logical as I do yours. I believe that life begins at conception because that is when no further input is required for the child to be born, but I know you would disagree with that. So why throw facts and statistics and scientific quotes at each other forever? We place an emphasis on the importance of different things, and we're never going to convince each other that our emphasis is the right one.

I've never really understood why the US has such polarised politics; I would have thought it was too big for only two dominant views to survive.

Outlawing abortions is braindead anyway... they should always be allowed (up to 21 weeks).

lol, I assume you're referring to the new law rather than where the State is, and yes, I've heard of both.


My point is that I believe that I can show you logical and scientific flaws in your argument, but you would no more accept them as logical as I do yours. I believe that life begins at conception because that is when no further input is required for the child to be born, but I know you would disagree with that. So why throw facts and statistics and scientific quotes at each other forever? We place an emphasis on the importance of different things, and we're never going to convince each other that our emphasis is the right one.

I've never really understood why the US has such polarised politics; I would have thought it was too big for only two dominant views to survive.

Do it? I have yet to see one and I welcome them with open arms. I believe I can fly. I don't expect you to take my word for it.

I don't think you like me very much, do you?

The question isn't "It's my body: don't I have the right to do what I want with it?" The question is "Is the unborn child a seperate human being or not?" If the child is a seperate human being, as most anti-abortionists hold, then the mother doesn't have the right to do whatever she wants with it.

Wrong. I don't care if the fetus is a separate human being or not. It's still in the woman's body. The woman has complete sovereignty over what happens to, and in, her body. If she wants to 'kill somebody' inside her won body, she has the right. And it's spelt 'separate'.

Do it? I have yet to see one and I welcome them with open arms. I believe I can fly. I don't expect you to take my word for it.


My point is that I believe that I can show you logical and scientific flaws in your argument, but you would no more accept them as logical as I do yours. I believe that life begins at conception because that is when no further input is required for the child to be born, but I know you would disagree with that. So why throw facts and statistics and scientific quotes at each other forever? We place an emphasis on the importance of different things, and we're never going to convince each other that our emphasis is the right one..

.

Make the argument or admit that you can't. I'm not going to simply accept your assertion that has not born out in any discussion with you or anyone else holding your position. Forget whether I'll accept it. You said it would be easy to point out the flaws, so do so. This is a thread designed to discuss the issue. Why are you here if not to discuss it?

Make the argument or admit that you can't. I'm not going to simply accept your assertion that has not born out in any discussion with you or anyone else holding your position. Forget whether I'll accept it. You said it would be easy to point out the flaws, so do so. This is a thread designed to discuss the issue. Why are you here if not to discuss it?
:D I'm really not going to take the bait. If you want an abortion discussion, then I'm afraid you're not going to get one from me. As I've said repeatedly, what's the point? You taking your frustration out on me isn't going to make the legislators of South Dakota change their minds.

The issue the thread is actually about is the 'rape exception' anyway, not abortion in general. I don't think I've ever seen anyone in these abortion debates leave with anything other than the view they came on with, so why get so worked up about it?

:D I'm really not going to take the bait. If you want an abortion discussion, then I'm afraid you're not going to get one from me. As I've said repeatedly, what's the point? You taking your frustration out on me isn't going to make the legislators of South Dakota change their minds.

The issue the thread is actually about is the 'rape exception' anyway, not abortion in general. I don't think I've ever seen anyone in these abortion debates leave with anything other than the view they came on with, so why get so worked up about it?

You made an assertion. See this is the same lame excuse we get. Someone tries to make an argument about why life begins at conception. We show the flaw. They say they could show that our side is equally flawed. I challenge them to do so. And then they say, "I could, but I don't want to."

Seriously, it's weak. You can't. I know you can't. You know you can't. Be intellectually honest and simply admit it. This "I could but I won't" crap is just silly. You've spent a page writing about why you don't want to waste your time showing the flaw. Certainly with my 'flawed' assertion, you could have shown the flaw already. The rather spectacular effort you're making to prevent rising to the challenge suggests the challenge is beyond you.

You made an assertion. See this is the same lame excuse we get. Someone tries to make an argument about why life begins at conception. We show the flaw. They say they could show that our side is equally flawed. I challenge them to do so. And then they say, "I could, but I don't want to."

Seriously, it's weak. You can't. I know you can't. You know you can't. Be intellectually honest and simply admit it. This "I could but I won't" crap is just silly. You've spent a page writing about why you don't want to waste your time showing the flaw. Certainly with my 'flawed' assertion, you could have shown the flaw already. The rather spectacular effort you're making to prevent rising to the challenge suggests the challenge is beyond you.
Still not taking the bait, I'm afraid.

I've repeatedly told you why I don't see the point of getting into the issue. I've never seen anyone say 'I would but I'm not going to' before, so it's a bit strange to claim this is what they 'always say.'

The point is that any answer I give will simply ignite a debate I am not interested in having because it's not going to get us anywhere. So, despite your best efforts to provoke me into saying something, I'm not going to do it. You're welcome to continue thinking it's because it's beyond me, but I can live with that. :p

Still not taking the bait, I'm afraid.

I've repeatedly told you why I don't see the point of getting into the issue. I've never seen anyone say 'I would but I'm not going to' before, so it's a bit strange to claim this is what they 'always say.'

The point is that any answer I give will simply ignite a debate I am not interested in having because it's not going to get us anywhere. So, despite your best efforts to provoke me into saying something, I'm not going to do it. You're welcome to continue thinking it's because it's beyond me, but I can live with that. :p

Like I said. Your spectacular effort to avoid the discussion shows that it's not a matter of simply finding it not worth the effort. If you were the first person to take this tact, I would probably leave it alone. But it's that same old weak argument.

"Here is my argument" by your side
[long, drawn out effort to expose the literaly dozens of flaws in that argument by our side using links and widely-held scientific, legal, medical and even biblical definitions.]
"Whatever. Your side is equally flawed."
"Really. Here is my argument. Please take the effort to destroy my argument as I so handily did to yours."
"Um, that would be so easy, but I'm not going to. What's the point?"
"The point is to have a discussion and perhaps show me the weak points in my argument."
"Nah." Which translates to I really can't, but I'm going to keep claiming I can.

You won't. I'm going to assume you can't. Why? Because you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

Like I said. Your spectacular effort to avoid the discussion shows that it's not a matter of simply finding it not worth the effort. If you were the first person to take this tact, I would probably leave it alone. But it's that same old weak argument.

"Here is my argument" by your side
[long, drawn out effort to expose the literaly dozens of flaws in that argument by our side using links and widely-held scientific, legal, medical and even biblical definitions.]
"Whatever. Your side is equally flawed."
"Really. Here is my argument. Please take the effort to destroy my argument as I so handily did to yours."
"Um, that would be so easy, but I'm not going to. What's the point?"
"The point is to have a discussion and perhaps show me the weak points in my argument."
"Nah." Which translates to I really can't, but I'm going to keep claiming I can.

You won't. I'm going to assume you can't. Why? Because you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.
Well, I can't be blamed for people you've had discussions with in the past. As for 'my side,' I think you are again assigning attitudes and positions to me that I have not myself claimed. I have said repeatedly that I am in favour of legalised abortions; our disagreement has been over how widely available they should be and for what reasons. Why get into an argument with me as if I am a fundamentalist pro-lifer?

I would suggest not opening up battlefronts with people who are to all extents and purposes on the same side as you. I would personally restrict the time into pregnancy when an abortion is allowed and do not support it simply when a child is unwanted, but there's no point wasting your time arguing with me over where the line should be drawn when you have people who want it outlawed altogether.

Secondly, the Bible does point to conception as the beginning of life. Psalm 51:5 "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." That doesn't mean the mother was engaged in some sinful sex act when the baby was conceived, it means that the baby was sinful from the point of conception. He was already in sin when he was conceived. If he has a sinful nature then, doesn't that seem to indicate that he had to have some nature that was sinful? So if his life wasn't sinful, then what was?


This is the big problem with trying to write laws around religion. You are talking about an imprecise translation of a sacred poem that was penned thousands of years ago. Even if you accept that the bible is an infallible source of truth(which I do not) you still have to recognize that it is too vague and open to interpretation to have any legal validity in a secular society.

But what if you had gambled fairly and knowelably and known that one of the outcomes would be to be locked in a closet. When a woman has consentual sex, she knows that one of the possible outcomes is a child. She can limit the posibility of this outcome with contreception, but at the end of the day it is a possible outcome.


I'm just gonna go ahead and direct you to the thirteenth amendment. Consent doesn't matter, you cannot consent to be a slave(well, unless you're signing up for the military). Sure, a child is a possability, but just because that is known and even consented to does not mean that the child suddenly has a right to the resources of another's body.

Well, I can't be blamed for people you've had discussions with in the past. As for 'my side,' I think you are again assigning attitudes and positions to me that I have not myself claimed. I have said repeatedly that I am in favour of legalised abortions; our disagreement has been over how widely available they should be and for what reasons. Why get into an argument with me as if I am a fundamentalist pro-lifer?

I would suggest not opening up battlefronts with people who are to all extents and purposes on the same side as you. I would personally restrict the time into pregnancy when an abortion is allowed and do not support it simply when a child is unwanted, but there's no point wasting your time arguing with me over where the line should be drawn when you have people who want it outlawed altogether.

How widely available and for what reasons? You're going to have to explain.

And I enjoy opening up battlefronts. That is how we learn. That's why I said I would welcome it if you were correct because it would force me to reexamine my position.

*snip*

Jocabia, in case you were wondering just why Phil is so gun-shy, it started round post 142 of "Frozen Babies"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472046

Becasue people like you bring them up so much as reasons for not considering an embryo a true human life. A person on a life support machine cannot behave fully as a system anymore, but they are medically considered alive. I've already provided the medical opinion from many sources which state that conception is a unique time and regarded as the begining of life. Therefore any other ruling on brainwaves or heartbeat or "personhood" of another kind is arbitary.

Allright, lets get to the core of the matter. All of this talk about personhood is nice and all, but it isn't the real issue. Can you provide a compelling argument for why a fetus should have special rights in regards to demanding physical support that others do not have. People on transplant lists die every day because they cannot assert a right to use the body parts of another(you can live with one lung, one kidney, half a liver, etc). Even if someone is directly responsible for your state you cannot demand the use of their bodies. If you were to stab me in the kidney tomarrow for no reason, I wouldn't be able to legally demand you give me one of yours.

Even beyond the simple concerns of a body, housing is not a guaranteed right. I live in Chicago and there are more homeless people than shelter beds. Every winter a certain number of people die of exposure. I am not legally required to offer my couch to anyone at all, which would be a far less intrusive means of preserving a life than letting someone live in my abdomen and parasitically draw nourishment from my bloodstream.

Want me to move to food, or medical care? Sure, private charities and government organizations provide for some of these things, but they are not guarantees. More importantly, as a private citizen I am not required to provide any of these things. If my neighbor is dying of anthrax and I have a spare bottle of antibiotics, I cannot be compelled to hand them over. If I have a stockpile of food and water, I'm not required to share in the event of an emergency. In most places I'm allowed to shoot anyone who tries to force me to.

Granted, I'm an asshole if I refuse to share food or medicine in an emergency, but that is far from the point. What we are talking about is legal rights in the society that we currently live in under our current laws and procedures.

Can you provide me with a single reason why a fetus should be granted, at the expense of a private individual, certain rights(food, housing, shelter) that other citizens are not?

I disagree with your definition of life. It's as simple as that.

Opinions are like assholes. The only thing pertinent to the discussion is the law.

I'm just gonna go ahead and direct you to the thirteenth amendment. Consent doesn't matter, you cannot consent to be a slave(well, unless you're signing up for the military). Sure, a child is a possability, but just because that is known and even consented to does not mean that the child suddenly has a right to the resources of another's body.

If a woman dont consent to having an embryo use the resource of your body then she shouldnt have sex. The fact is she implictly accepts it as a posibility by having sex in the first place. In the same way if you role a six sided dice you implicitly accpet you will get an outcome from one to six. You can lower that posibility all you want, but you cannot eliminate it.

The common counter arguement to this is "I dont consent to a car crash by driving" to which I say "yes you do". Implictly by driving you accept that you could be involved in some kind of accident. However, the difference between the two is the solution of the issue.

In the case of a car crash, the issue of you being traped inside your car is solved by the emrgency servivces cutting you out of it. It is not required that you kill someone to solve that issue. Whereas in the issue of pregnancy, if you wish not to be pregnant the only solution is abortion and abortion does involve killing someone, for certianty.

For those who say abortion does not involve killing someone, I have already demonstrated a rather consdierable body of medical opinion that would disagree. The foetus is definitely a human life. Therefore any definition of "personhood" or something simmilar is an arbitary legal defintion that could theoretically be applied in many possible locations (first sign of heartbeat, first brainwaves, begining of formation of heart/brain, first fingerprint formation etc). The simple truth is that "personhood" is not an objective idea and thus not one that should be legislated around. However the notion of concetption being the first stage in human development is objective.

So why does the rape exclusion come in. Well my earlier point regarding the implict consent to the posibility of a child only aplies to when a woman has consentual sex. She cannot consent to the posibility of a child if she does not consent to sex in the first place. While I would not agree with abortion in the case of rape, outlawing it would go beyond the logic of my arguement.

In the case of a car crash, the issue of you being traped inside your car is solved by the emrgency servivces cutting you out of it. It is not required that you kill someone to solve that issue. Whereas in the issue of pregnancy, if you wish not to be pregnant the only solution is abortion and abortion does involve killing someone, for certianty.


not someone ... something

*snip*

You seem to have misunderstood me. Any contract that in individual enters into that would place them in a position of slavery or involuntary servitude is void under the thirteenth amendment. Consent ceases to become an issue because you cannot legally consent to involuntary servitude or slavery. Allowing a fetus to be in your body is definately servitude, and the moment you decide you do not want it there it becomes involuntary. That is the reason that slave contracts are void, the moment someone changes their mind they cease to be legally binding.

It doesn't matter if the mother said "gee I hope I get pregnant, I'd never abort this baby, I promise" on video and signed a contract. The moment she changers he mind, the whole field changes.

If a woman dont consent to having an embryo use the resource of your body then she shouldnt have sex. The fact is she implictly accepts it as a posibility by having sex in the first place. In the same way if you role a six sided dice you implicitly accpet you will get an outcome from one to six. You can lower that posibility all you want, but you cannot eliminate it.

The common counter arguement to this is "I dont consent to a car crash by driving" to which I say "yes you do". Implictly by driving you accept that you could be involved in some kind of accident. However, the difference between the two is the solution of the issue.

In the case of a car crash, the issue of you being traped inside your car is solved by the emrgency servivces cutting you out of it. It is not required that you kill someone to solve that issue. Whereas in the issue of pregnancy, if you wish not to be pregnant the only solution is abortion and abortion does involve killing someone, for certianty.

For those who say abortion does not involve killing someone, I have already demonstrated a rather consdierable body of medical opinion that would disagree. The foetus is definitely a human life. Therefore any definition of "personhood" or something simmilar is an arbitary legal defintion that could theoretically be applied in many possible locations (first sign of heartbeat, first brainwaves, begining of formation of heart/brain, first fingerprint formation etc). The simple truth is that "personhood" is not an objective idea and thus not one that should be legislated around. However the notion of concetption being the first stage in human development is objective.

So why does the rape exclusion come in. Well my earlier point regarding the implict consent to the posibility of a child only aplies to when a woman has consentual sex. She cannot consent to the posibility of a child if she does not consent to sex in the first place. While I would not agree with abortion in the case of rape, outlawing it would go beyond the logic of my arguement.

The problem is that you, one have to show that it terminates a life at all, which you cannot do despite your best efforts, and two, you have to show how consent means you cannot change your mind. I am permitted to forcibly remove someone from my home even to the point of injuring them if they are there against my will. I can do this even if I invited them in. I decide they are threatening to me and I have a right for them to be off my property. I do have an obligation to remove them with as little damage as possible, but I am permitted to immediately and permanently remove them from my property. You fail to see that the law does allow for you to injure or kill people in defense of the health and welfare of your person, provided it is them who put your health and welfare in danger. The embryo is a danger to the mother and even if you show it to be living and you show that she made the threat possible, she is still entitled to self-defense. That's the facts, Jack.

Can you provide me with a single reason why a fetus should be granted, at the expense of a private individual, certain rights(food, housing, shelter) that other citizens are not?

Simple. You entered into an element of chance where you implicity accepted that was an outcome. If a woman has consentual sex, she implictly accepts that a possible outcome is pregnacy. She can reduce the chance with contreception but she cannot eliminate it. A comparabe situation would be if there was a homeless person and you and him agreed that if you rolled a dice and the number was 1-5 he would leave, but 6 and he would stay. You didnt have to go into that agreement and you didnt have to roll the dice but you did. In the same way a woman does not have to have sex.

The problem is that you, one have to show that it terminates a life at all, which you cannot do despite your best efforts.

I've given medical opinion that it is a life. Your just ignoring the facts there


and two, you have to show how consent means you cannot change your mind.

Because you were aware of the long term consequences in the first place. Can you imagine what would happen if your logic was applied to other areas. What if a crimial said to a court "I've changed my mind. I didnt want to have broken the law, so its unfair to put me in jail". Thats tough. He made a choice and was aware of the possible consequences. In the same way in consentual sex a woman is aware of the posibility of pregnacy as an outcome.


I am permitted to forcibly remove someone from my home even to the point of injuring them if they are there against my will. I can do this even if I invited them in. I decide they are threatening to me and I have a right for them to be off my property. I do have an obligation to remove them with as little damage as possible, but I am permitted to immediately and permanently remove them from my property. You fail to see that the law does allow for you to injure or kill people in defense of the health and welfare of your person, provided it is them who put your health and welfare in danger.

You are not permited to injur someone to the point of dying if they left your house. Thats a more comparable model. Basicly you create a person within your house who did not choose to be there but cannot survive if you force him to leave. You did not have to create them, but you did. It is not their fault that they are there, not was there any forcing element for you to created that person.

The nature of a threat is not defined by your own decision. It is decided by a court. Unless the embryo is a medical risk to the mothers life, your analogy of a "threat" does not stand.


The embryo is a danger to the mother and even if you show it to be living and you show that she made the threat possible, she is still entitled to self-defense.

When it is a medical risk yes.


That's the facts, Jack.

My name is not Jack

Simple. You entered into an element of chance where you implicity accepted that was an outcome. If a woman has consentual sex, she implictly accepts that a possible outcome is pregnacy. She can reduce the chance with contreception but she cannot eliminate it. A comparabe situation would be if there was a homeless person and you and him agreed that if you rolled a dice and the number was 1-5 he would leave, but 6 and he would stay. You didnt have to go into that agreement and you didnt have to roll the dice but you did. In the same way a woman does not have to have sex.

I would argue that there are three flaws in your argument.

1) Were I to stab you in both kidneys, knowing I was a donor match, and I had made it known that my intention was to destroy your kidneys, you wouldn't be able to legally compell me to give you one of mine. That is simply not the way it works.

2) The agreement with a homeless man differs in several substantial ways from the agreement you believe to exist in sex. First, the homeless man will live in my home, not in my body. I could abandon my appartment, stop paying my rent, or simply ignore him. Further, should he ever pose any kind of threat or not live up to the basic requirements of a tennant, I could easily evict him. Second, you are suggesting that a legally binding contract exists between the mother and a non-existant third party(I doubt you can argue that a fetus exists pre-sex act, much less pre-conception) purely because of a potential consequence of a contract between the mother and the father.

3) If you were to look closely at real estate law, you would notice that the contract you suggest would be void on it's face because it lacks any form of consideration. A non-existant third party is unable to legally enter into a contract and provides neither good(good consideration is something like a mother giving a daughter a pice of land and the contract reading "in exchange for the love of my daughter") nor valuable consideration(actual money, goods, or land). Any such contract would be unenforcable in court.

I've given medical opinion that it is a life. Your just ignoring the facts there

Yes, yes, your gerontologist. The opinion of a doctor does not make it medical. He fails to explain how it meets the definition of life in both medicine and biology. You've shown flawed verbiage, but you've yet to show anyone that makes a reasoned argument for how an embryo is a life. You tried to make one of your own and your argument was anihilated by a biologist.

EDIT: I love how you keep offering up this assertion like we didn't debunk it or somehow agreed to it. We spent pages and pages showing the flaws and your argument amounted to "meh, I say he's right."

Because you were aware of the long term consequences in the first place. Can you imagine what would happen if your logic was applied to other areas. What if a crimial said to a court "I've changed my mind. I didnt want to have broken the law, so its unfair to put me in jail". Thats tough. He made a choice and was aware of the possible consequences. In the same way in consentual sex a woman is aware of the posibility of pregnacy as an outcome.

Another flawed argument. A criminal cannot do so because the crime already occured. You are held criminally liable if you commit a crime with a reasonable expectation of a criminal outcome. A woman has commited no crime so she deserves no punishment. But your analogy very much belies your attitude toward women and sex. Amusing.

You are not permited to injur someone to the point of dying if they left your house. Thats a more comparable model. Basicly you create a person within your house who did not choose to be there but cannot survive if you force him to leave. You did not have to create them, but you did. It is not their fault that they are there, not was there any forcing element for you to created that person.

You're incorrect. I absolutely can do exactly that so long as the only options are injury to them or allowing them to stay and injure you. That's the facts, Jack.

The nature of a threat is not defined by your own decision. It is decided by a court. Unless the embryo is a medical risk to the mothers life, your analogy of a "threat" does not stand.

An embryo is ALWAYS a medical risk to the mother's health which is all that is required.

When it is a medical risk yes.

There is always a medical risk.

My name is not Jack

So? I guess expecting you to recognize colloquialisms is too much, huh?

Simple. You entered into an element of chance where you implicity accepted that was an outcome. If a woman has consentual sex, she implictly accepts that a possible outcome is pregnacy. She can reduce the chance with contreception but she cannot eliminate it. A comparabe situation would be if there was a homeless person and you and him agreed that if you rolled a dice and the number was 1-5 he would leave, but 6 and he would stay. You didnt have to go into that agreement and you didnt have to roll the dice but you did. In the same way a woman does not have to have sex.

Ha. You keep using flawed analogies. She made no such agreement. The agreement she actually made was if she rolls a six the homeless man can come in and stay until she decides he is no longer welcome. This is what makes it not akin to involuntary servitude.

Now, if this agreement was if I rolled 1-5 he goes away and with a 6, he gets my kidney. While I am free to allow him to have my kidney, the agreement is not binding under law.

Yes, yes, your gerontologist. The opinion of a doctor does not make it medical. He fails to explain how it meets the definition of life in both medicine and biology. You've shown flawed verbiage, but you've yet to show anyone that makes a reasoned argument for how an embryo is a life. You tried to make one of your own and your argument was anihilated by a biologist

I am not a biologist. But I have provided opinons from several embryology textbooks and embryogistst themselves. So far you have yet do deal with that other than to ridicule them. You have not yet demonstrated what is wrong with these opinions.


Another flawed argument. A criminal cannot do so because the crime already occured. You are held criminally liable if you commit a crime with a reasonable expectation of a criminal outcome. A woman has commited no crime so she deserves no punishment. But your analogy very much belies your attitude toward women and sex. Amusing.

It is an analogy. It belies nothing. I did not say she had commited a crime. I said she must have had sex to become pregnant. Therefore she implictly agrees to the possibility of becoming pregnant and all the consequences therein. She can lower the posibility all she wants with contrecption but she cannot eliminate it. You cant accept the responsability of becoming pregnant and then ignore the other responsabilitys. People have to accept that there are long term consequences to their actions. They cannot just pick and choose the bits they like for their convience.


You're incorrect. I absolutely can do exactly that so long as the only options are injury to them or allowing them to stay and injure you. That's the facts, Jack.

My name is not Jack so please stop calling me it

No you cannot do that. If you kidnap someone and the injur them to the point of death if they leave your home and then force them to leave, who is in the wrong. That person did not choose to be there, and you are the one who caused them to be in that situation.


An embryo is ALWAYS a medical risk to the mother's health which is all that is required.

There is always a medical risk.

No it is not. If an embryo were a serious risk to the mothers health, the bodies defence mechanisms would respond to it. There certianly wouldnt be a set of organs which clearly support the existance of the embryo. Also it only becomes a medical operation when it is a risk to her life.


So? I guess expecting you to recognize colloquialisms is too much, huh?

It must be an American coloqualism. I am not American. Kindly refrain from that assumption

Ha. You keep using flawed analogies. She made no such agreement. The agreement she actually made was if she rolls a six the homeless man can come in and stay until she decides he is no longer welcome. This is what makes it not akin to involuntary servitude.

The analogy is not flawed. If the agreement in the begining is time fixed (in the case of pregnacy 9 months) then you cannot break that arrangement. If part of the agreement includes the problem of the homeless person dying if he leaves. Its not as if new clauses come up halfway through. People are aware of this from the begining.


Now, if this agreement was if I rolled 1-5 he goes away and with a 6, he gets my kidney. While I am free to allow him to have my kidney, the agreement is not binding under law.

If it is a contract is should be.

Ha. You keep using flawed analogies. She made no such agreement. The agreement she actually made was if she rolls a six the homeless man can come in and stay until she decides he is no longer welcome. This is what makes it not akin to involuntary servitude.

Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you're unsure about what pronoun to use you should always either alternate between "he" and "she", use "s/he", or(if you feel like being a cold bastard) "it." ;)


For the record, though I'm a conservative, gun-toting, libertarian, pro-choice feminist, I didn't think that that was confusing enough so I went with being male, too. :cool:

If it is a contract is should be.

Not if the contract is illegal or unenforceable. An unenforcable contract is valid, but only so long as both parties agree to complete performance. If one party decides to break the contract before completion, the other party has no legal recourse whatsoever.

Void contracts are even worse, and there are five circumstances which cause a contract to be void:
1)The purpose of the contract is illegal.
2)The contract is impossable to complete(because of an act of God, a change of law, or a new implementation of law).
3)The contract is forged.
4)The contract lacks consideration.
5)The contract is entered into with a person adjudged to lack mental capacity or to be insane.

Off the top of my head your implied contract would fufill four(1, 2, 4, 5) of those circumstances and a contract is void if it violates just one. Thats before we even consider whether or not such a contract would fufill the legal requirements for a contract, and there are some serious legality of object and reality of consent concerns with the contract your propose.

For the record, though I'm a conservative, gun-toting, libertarian, pro-choice feminist, I didn't think that that was confusing enough so I went with being male, too. :cool:
I find it completely reasonable :p (because I am all of those too)

I am not a biologist. But I have provided opinons from several embryology textbooks and embryogistst themselves. So far you have yet do deal with that other than to ridicule them. You have not yet demonstrated what is wrong with these opinions.

Yes, there are so many embryologists with that opinion that their star witness has spent his life in gerontology. Very impressive that is. And are you kidding. Read the thread. There was half a dozen of us showing how the opinion is flawed and showing particularly how the testimony in SD was flawed. Have you resorted to simply lying now? Say you don't agree, but don't lie and say we didn't nail that guy to the tree.

It is an analogy. It belies nothing. I did not say she had commited a crime. I said she must have had sex to become pregnant. Therefore she implictly agrees to the possibility of becoming pregnant and all the consequences therein. She can lower the posibility all she wants with contrecption but she cannot eliminate it. You cant accept the responsability of becoming pregnant and then ignore the other responsabilitys. People have to accept that there are long term consequences to their actions. They cannot just pick and choose the bits they like for their convience.

Yes, but the difference is that unless you commit a crime certain liberties cannot be abridged regardless of 'responsibility'.

My name is not Jack so please stop calling me it

Seriously, look up the word colloquialism. This is a colloqialism and that's a fact, Jack.

No you cannot do that. If you kidnap someone and the injur them to the point of death if they leave your home and then force them to leave, who is in the wrong. That person did not choose to be there, and you are the one who caused them to be in that situation.

No one was kidnapped here. Again, you have to call the woman a criminal in order to make your point. You could argue that she invited someone in (if we assume there is a 'someone' which you've utterly failed to prove), but she didn't kidnap them. According to law, I am permitted to change my mind and FORCE someone to leave my property. I'm fairly sure that applies even moreso to my body. You keep making these assertions about law, but they only work if you assume that the person broke the law to begin with.

No it is not. If an embryo were a serious risk to the mothers health, the bodies defence mechanisms would respond to it. There certianly wouldnt be a set of organs which clearly support the existance of the embryo. Also it only becomes a medical operation when it is a risk to her life.

False. The risk is not life-threatening and it is acceptable according to our biology as a result of the biological need for offspring, but that does not negate it. No woman has ever birthed a baby and not had to pay any health consequences. Not ever.

It must be an American coloqualism. I am not American. Kindly refrain from that assumption
I didn't assume you were American. I assumed you'd recognize that I'm not guessing at your name and notice that Jack and facts sound a little alike. I'm sorry you didn't. I suppose if I say, "Aye, there's the rub, Bub," you'll assume I think your name is Bub, too. Sad.

I can call you what I like so long as it's not an insult. I am an American. I'll use American colloquialisms as I please. Feel free to grow a thicker skin and stop making assumptions that piss you off.

I find it completely reasonable :p (because I am all of those too)

*looks around, shifty and desperate, fearing hes about to loose his "most likely to generate amusing cognitive dissonance" award* well...uhh...are you a religious minority too? huh huh? :D

Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you're unsure about what pronoun to use you should always either alternate between "he" and "she", use "s/he", or(if you feel like being a cold bastard) "it." ;)


For the record, though I'm a conservative, gun-toting, libertarian, pro-choice feminist, I didn't think that that was confusing enough so I went with being male, too. :cool:

I'm relatively certain that a pregnant woman is female. I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about the agreements a woman makes that are analogous to what were discussing. So it's a she.

The analogy is not flawed. If the agreement in the begining is time fixed (in the case of pregnacy 9 months) then you cannot break that arrangement. If part of the agreement includes the problem of the homeless person dying if he leaves. Its not as if new clauses come up halfway through. People are aware of this from the begining.

False. You keep suggesting you know these things, but it does not hold true anywhere in law.

If it is a contract is should be.
Well, it's not. That's the problem. We're not just choosing some arbitrary position like you are. Our position is consistent with the position of freedom throughout the rule of law. Our position is consistent with the position of biology. Our position is consistent with the position of medicine. Just saying, "well, it should be" does not amount to an argument for a new law.

Wrong. I don't care if the fetus is a separate human being or not. It's still in the woman's body. The woman has complete sovereignty over what happens to, and in, her body. If she wants to 'kill somebody' inside her won body, she has the right. And it's spelt 'separate'.

Thank you, I can never remember how to spell separate.

Scientists have seen that the mother's immune system attacks the unborn child. Therefore, it would seem that the child is not really part of the mother. Rather, it is a separate human being living inside the mother.

Just saying, "well, it should be" does not amount to an argument for a new law.

Not to split hairs, but I think their argument(when you cleave away the layers of self-indulgent bullshit) goes more along the lines of "well I think God wants this so fuck your laws."

Thank you, I can never remember how to spell separate.

Scientists have seen that the mother's immune system attacks the unborn child. Therefore, it would seem that the child is not really part of the mother. Rather, it is a separate human being living inside the mother.

Like, you know, a parasite?

This is the big problem with trying to write laws around religion. You are talking about an imprecise translation of a sacred poem that was penned thousands of years ago. Even if you accept that the bible is an infallible source of truth(which I do not) you still have to recognize that it is too vague and open to interpretation to have any legal validity in a secular society.

That seems to be the ultimate problem for everything doesn't it? Abortion, homosexual marriage, everything. Whose morality is correct? For those who don't want to face that question, it is answered by trying to separate morality from government. But the problem is that those persons find it moral to separate the two. I don't. Your forcing your morality on me. So we're back to the beginning.

You could say that that's what the majority of persons in this country believe is correct, or that this society is based on the separation of the two ideas: morality and government. But neither of those arguments does anything to change the fact that those who advocate separation of church and state (as it's now popularly defined) are accepting one system of morality of all the others: the morality that church (in whatever form) ought to be separate from state.

Like, you know, a parasite?

I've said that all along.

That still doesn't mean it is moral to kill the child. If the parasite child is causing immenent life-threatening (sp?) danger to the mother than I could see where it is debateable whether it is moral to abort the baby (I still don't think it's right). The whole idea of self-defense.

Just because it's a parasite doesn't mean it's bad. Though, I can't think of any other examples.

Yes, there are so many embryologists with that opinion that their star witness has spent his life in gerontology. Very impressive that is. And are you kidding. Read the thread. There was half a dozen of us showing how the opinion is flawed and showing particularly how the testimony in SD was flawed. Have you resorted to simply lying now? Say you don't agree, but don't lie and say we didn't nail that guy to the tree.

It wasnt "that guy" it was a compltely difftrent series of people. I'll just give you the quotes again

"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."


"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."

"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"

http://www.epm.org/articles/life_conception.html


Yes, but the difference is that unless you commit a crime certain liberties cannot be abridged regardless of 'responsibility'.

Except by having sex, if those liberties exist (I dont see "right to control of body" in any legal document I've ever seen) then the woman agrees to relinqush them implictly by having sex.


No one was kidnapped here. Again, you have to call the woman a criminal in order to make your point. You could argue that she invited someone in (if we assume there is a 'someone' which you've utterly failed to prove), but she didn't kidnap them. According to law, I am permitted to change my mind and FORCE someone to leave my property. I'm fairly sure that applies even moreso to my body. You keep making these assertions about law, but they only work if you assume that the person broke the law to begin with.

Kidnapping is an aproprioate metaphor since it is forcing someone into a position they did not want to be in. The embryo did not choose to be in the situation it is in now. The mother chose that situation for it.


False. The risk is not life-threatening and it is acceptable according to our biology as a result of the biological need for offspring, but that does not negate it. No woman has ever birthed a baby and not had to pay any health consequences. Not ever.

True, but most women have babies without a risk to their lives.

That seems to be the ultimate problem for everything doesn't it? Abortion, homosexual marriage, everything. Whose morality is correct? For those who don't want to face that question, it is answered by trying to separate morality from government. But the problem is that those persons find it moral to separate the two. I don't. Your forcing your morality on me. So we're back to the beginning.

You could say that that's what the majority of persons in this country believe is correct, or that this society is based on the separation of the two ideas: morality and government. But neither of those arguments does anything to change the fact that those who advocate separation of church and state (as it's now popularly defined) are accepting one system of morality of all the others: the morality that church (in whatever form) ought to be separate from state.

Well, my answer to that would be similar to my answer to a lot of things. In this country we separate church and state. If you want to pass a law, it needs to be consistant with the constitution and the established interpretations thereof. Those are the rules of this society. Our morality is outlined in the constitution. Wheter you like it or not, the core principal of that morality is the protection of individual freedoms. Neither US precident nor the common-law from which is grew has traditionally afforded a fetus the full rights of personhood. Our constitution defines a citizen as "born or naturalized." If you don't like it, you're welcome to move or start a violent revolution.

Honestly, people, your feelings don't matter.

Don't like that one man wants to have sex with another? Tough shit, theres the door.

Don't like that dildos are being sold a block from where your kid goes to school? Tough shit, theres the door.

Don't like that these uppity women are having sex for reasons other than those outlined in your holy book? Tough shit, theres the door.

Don't like that that guy on stage is singing a song you find offensive and scratching his taint with an image of your messiah? Tough shit, theres the door.

Need me to go on?

I've said that all along.

That still doesn't mean it is moral to kill the child. If the parasite child is causing immenent life-threatening (sp?) danger to the mother than I could see where it is debateable whether it is moral to abort the baby (I still don't think it's right). The whole idea of self-defense.

Just because it's a parasite doesn't mean it's bad. Though, I can't think of any other examples.

So, like, if it isn't causing immediate danger I shouldn't be able to get rid of a tapeworm? Guess what, its using my body without my permission. In this country we kill people who do that.

Don't like it? Tough shit, theres the door.

Except by having sex, if those liberties exist (I dont see "right to control of body" in any legal document I've ever seen) then the woman agrees to relinqush them implictly by having sex.

Nope, not according to contract law, the supreme court, or the thirteenth amendment.

Don't like it? Tough shit, theres the door.


Kidnapping is an aproprioate metaphor since it is forcing someone into a position they did not want to be in. The embryo did not choose to be in the situation it is in now. The mother chose that situation for it.

Ok, so does that mean that if I kidnap you I'm under an obligation to extend to you a lease? You're reaching.



True, but most women have babies without a risk to their lives.

No, all pregnancies carry a risk, but only some actually have an adverse outcome.

A measure of the probability that damage to life, health, property, and/or the environment will occur as a result of a given hazard.

Nope, not according to contract law, the supreme court, or the thirteenth amendment.

Don't like it? Tough shit, theres the door.

Firstly, kindly stop swearing. All swearing is is a demonstration of a lack of vocabulary.

Secondly, I am entilted if I "dont like it" to oppose it and support a law that changes the situation. So why should I go out of your proposed door


Ok, so does that mean that if I kidnap you I'm under an obligation to extend to you a lease? You're reaching.

You've mistakenly mixed two of my analogies. The kidnapping analogy basicly is comparable to a pregnancy because kidnapping someone means putting someone in a situation or place they do not nessecarly want to be in. If you then injur them to the point of them not being able to survive if they leave the place where you are holdign them and then you force them out, it is you who is in the wrong.


No, all pregnancies carry a risk, but only some actually have an adverse outcome.

Exactly. Very few carry a risk worhty of needing an abortion

It wasnt "that guy" it was a compltely difftrent series of people. I'll just give you the quotes again

Yes, I remember. And they are using incorrect verbiage. The one of those quotes that we did get an explanation of how he defends it as an organism was by a gerentologist who made a series of scientific errors.

Moore is not an embryologist by trade, only by training. He has spent his career as a gerentologist. That's the point. I'm sorry you didn't read your own thread, but you should be embarassed that you are defending the actions of someone that appears to have been deliberately deceptive when claiming to be an expert.

Except by having sex, if those liberties exist (I dont see "right to control of body" in any legal document I've ever seen) then the woman agrees to relinqush them implictly by having sex.

Um, you cannot agree to reliquish your liberties implicitly for nine months. It has been pointed out to you several times that the thirteenth amendment makes that clearly illegal. It is clearly involuntary servitude.

Kidnapping is an aproprioate metaphor since it is forcing someone into a position they did not want to be in. The embryo did not choose to be in the situation it is in now. The mother chose that situation for it.

No, it isn't. If the embryo with no abilty to WANT anything, doesn't want to be there, she is helping it out by helping it find the door.

True, but most women have babies without a risk to their lives.

I don't have to be in mortal danger from you to be permitted to use force, even fatal force to protect my person.

Yes, I remember. And they are using incorrect verbiage. The one of those quotes that we did get an explanation of how he defends it as an organism was by a gerentologist who made a series of scientific errors.

Moore is not an embryologist by trade, only by training. He has spent his career as a gerentologist. That's the point. I'm sorry you didn't read your own thread, but you should be embarassed that you are defending the actions of someone that appears to have been deliberately deceptive when claiming to be an expert.

Moore was not the only one there. There were six other refernces. Deal with them all rather than deal with one and claim the others are just as bad.


Um, you cannot agree to reliquish your liberties implicitly for nine months. It has been pointed out to you several times that the thirteenth amendment makes that clearly illegal. It is clearly involuntary servitude.

It is volentary if the woman had consentual sex. And it is not serviatude since there is no force behind it. The woman has the option not to have sex.


No, it isn't. If the embryo with no abilty to WANT anything, doesn't want to be there, she is helping it out by helping it find the door.

It is alive. You cannot discern that it does not want to survive. Stop ignoring the rest of the analogy. The point is it did not choose to be in the position it is in, but now it is and because of something the mother did, which is not its fault at all, it will die if it leaves the womb. Its akin to kidnapping someone, beating them to the point of not being able to survive if they leave the house and then forcing them to leave


I don't have to be in mortal danger from you to be permitted to use force, even fatal force to protect my person.

No. But medically speeking for abortion to be a medical operation it must be threatening your life

Firstly, kindly stop swearing. All swearing is is a demonstration of a lack of vocabulary.

Secondly, I am entilted if I "dont like it" to oppose it and support a law that changes the situation. So why should I go out of your proposed door

I'm confident enough in my own vocabulary that I am comfortable with occasionally making use of vulgarity in order to underline the anger inherant in my point. If you don't like it well...you know the rest by now ;)

As for your rights to propose laws, they only go so far. When you decide to propose a law that runs counter to the constitution of the country you are you have stepped out of line. Your only choices are to change the constitution, start a violent revolution, or leave. In the States pro-lifers have failed to change the constitution. That leaves them three choices: revolution, expatriation, or tollerance.



You've mistakenly mixed two of my analogies. The kidnapping analogy basicly is comparable to a pregnancy because kidnapping someone means putting someone in a situation or place they do not nessecarly want to be in. If you then injur them to the point of them not being able to survive if they leave the place where you are holdign them and then you force them out, it is you who is in the wrong.

Only according to your opinion, which is unsupported by law.



Exactly. Very few carry a risk worhty of needing an abortion

No, they all carry the risk, but few actually have the adverse outcome. More than that there are complications such as gestational diabeties, gestational anemia, and gestational hypertension(to name three common ones) that are serious threats to the mother.

No. But medically speeking for abortion to be a medical operation it must be threatening your life

Ok, so it isn't a medical procedure, it's a medically assisted inuterine defense of another.

Moore was not the only one there. There were six other refernces. Deal with them all rather than deal with one and claim the others are just as bad.

I told you only Moore explained his conclusion. Show how the others arrived at their claims and I'm happy to make them look silly as well. Meanwhile, we've shown you the biological requirements they should have used and why the embryo does no qualify.

However, we dealt with this in that thread. If you want to discuss this, go there. And while you there cover that dropped argument about why the definition is different at the embryonic stage for life than at EVERY other stage. However, stop lying and saying that we never replied to your ridiculous quotes.

It is volentary if the woman had consentual sex. And it is not serviatude since there is no force behind it. The woman has the option not to have sex.

You should look up voluntary servitude. Do you even read the posts? It becomes involuntary the moment she decides she doesn't want to do it anymore. That's why a person cannot sign a contract to become a slave. Because the moment they decide they don't want to honor the contract it becomes involuntary.

It is alive. You cannot discern that it does not want to survive. Stop ignoring the rest of the analogy. The point is it did not choose to be in the position it is in, but now it is and because of something the mother did, which is not its fault at all, it will die if it leaves the womb. Its akin to kidnapping someone, beating them to the point of not being able to survive if they leave the house and then forcing them to leave

You're right. It didn't choose. It can't. It can't WANT. It can't DESIRE. It can't WISH. It can't HOPE. It can't feel PAIN. It's incapable of anything that requires a brain which is why it's NOT ALIVE. Meanwhile, the point is that nothing you claim is the law actually is. That's why your analogy sucks.

No. But medically speeking for abortion to be a medical operation it must be threatening your life

False. An operation does not require a life-threatening condition to be a medical operation. By the way, look at some of the statistics. Prior to eight weeks, your chance are MUCh greater of surviving an abortion then surviving a pregnancy. So it is actually preventing a life-threatening condition.

Exactly. Very few carry a risk worhty of needing an abortion

I notice you have a lot of demands, friend. You don't get to set rules as to what language is acceptable here. Sorry, but that's a fact, Jack.

Secondly, who are you to decide whether the risk is worth the medical procedure?

Well, a "morning after" emergency contraceptive pill is effective up to three days after the incident, and a coil can be used for emergency contraception up to five days therafter, so if you get your act together an abortion shouldn't be necessary anyway.

... Or is this another one of those things where the USA is different to Britain?
Yeah. Some of our doctors are shitty enough to refuse to give the morning after pill. "It's a potentional child" my ass.

Jocabia, in case you were wondering just why Phil is so gun-shy, it started round post 142 of "Frozen Babies"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472046
I'm so glad you're still so insecure in your own reasoning you have to bring it up again now. :D

I'm so glad you're still so insecure in your own reasoning you have to bring it up again now. :D

What? You kept mentioning the incident, I figured I might as well point him to it and let him see for himself, it's not as though I started arguing again.

What? You kept mentioning the incident, I figured I might as well point him to it and let him see for himself, it's not as though I started arguing again.
I'm not 'gun-shy,' I'm 'gun-pointless,' to coin a bad phrase. As I pointed out more than reasonably in this thread, the conversation in the other thread was going no-where. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate again if there was any point, but seeing as we're never going to agree...

I'm not 'gun-shy,' I'm 'gun-pointless,' to coin a bad phrase. As I pointed out more than reasonably in this thread, the conversation in the other thread was going no-where. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate again if there was any point, but seeing as we're never going to agree...

Well, okay then, but where does posting the link bring up insecurity?

Well, okay then, but where does posting the link bring up insecurity?
I was simply preparing for the possibility of resumed hostilities. :p

I was simply preparing for the possibility of resumed hostilities. :p

Eh, preparing would best be thinking up things to say then ambushing the opponent, as opposed to a strike first sort of technique

Eh, preparing would best be thinking up things to say then ambushing the opponent, as opposed to a strike first sort of technique
Oh, don't mind me, I'm just in an odd mood. I couldn't work out how on earth to prove to you the other night that I did understand what you were saying, I simply disagreed with it without looking like a complete idiot. It didn't help that I really did have to go to bed as well, so I couldn't argue it anymore. So, I'm just feeling a little paranoid about the whole conversation - I hope what I said in this thread will show you where I'm coming from a little more.

I am not a biologist. But I have provided opinons from several embryology textbooks and embryogistst themselves.

No, you haven't. You have provided quotes that you like to think support you - but that only support your point if you agree with the point in the first place.

No it is not. If an embryo were a serious risk to the mothers health, the bodies defence mechanisms would respond to it. There certianly wouldnt be a set of organs which clearly support the existance of the embryo. Also it only becomes a medical operation when it is a risk to her life.

The fact that a woman's body is adapted to having a pregnancy does not mean that the pregnancy does her no harm. Women die in childbirth due to complications. Women who carry to term have a significantly increased risk of osteoporosis or diabetes later in life. Irreversible physical and hormonal changes are made to the body.

Duh! Everyone knows that civil rights and humanity come with the penis. No penis, no rights. Silly woman!

I think its pretty clear that the pro-life movement has some very specific ideas about the place of women in society. Women exist to make babies, nothing more. Any attempt to step outside of that role or to excercise any control over that role is seen as a direct attempt to contravene the will of God. Abortion is a particularily sore subject for the pro-life crowd becase not only is it violating the will of God by ending a pregnancy, but it is also doing what only God gets to do(ending a life), and perverting nature by making sex available for pleasure rather than procreation. All of their little paternalistic fears are invoked by this one issue.
Too true. If only us uppity cows would quit talking and stick to chewing our cud with our asses up in the air, like somebody's "god" designed us to. (And they wonder why we don't want to have their children...) :rolleyes:

It wasnt "that guy" it was a compltely difftrent series of people. I'll just give you the quotes again

Most of these don't even really back you up, unless one is already assuming you are correct. Those that do don't provide any kind of evidence for their assertions. It isn't enough to just say, "This is a fact," in science. There must be something more to back that up. Until then, it is nothing more than opinion - and opinions are a dime a dozen.

Originally Posted by Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18.
"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

This doesn't say that life begins at conception. It says that a zygote is the beginning of a new human being. That is sort of like me saying that the foundation was the beginning of my house. It wasn't a house yet, but the beginning was there.


Originally Posted by Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp. 1-17.
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

Once again, this refers to the beginning of development, and does not state that an embryo is a living organism.

Originally Posted by O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.
"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"

This is incredibly clear that a new human organism is not directly formed by fertilization. It is only "under normal circumstances" that such an organism is formed - after fertilization has already occurred.

Originally Posted by Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania)
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

This one is essentially heresay. He says, "I learned this," but provides no logical backing for the opinion.


Originally Posted by Dr. Jerome LeJeune (University of Descartes)
"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."

Once again, an opinion with no backing - at least not that you have quoted.

Originally Posted by Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic)
"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

This one is cute, until you realize that molecular biology alone does not define life - at least not from a biological perspective. It's like a person who makes pretzel salt saying, "By all the criteria of pretzel salt, this salt shaker is a pretzel."

Originally Posted by Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School):
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"

Once again, an opinion with no backing - at least not that you have quoted.


A physicist once told me that he could disprove God with physics. I knew this was untrue, because science simply can't be used that way. But, by your logic, I shoudl have said, "OH really? Well then I'll just stop believing in God then, since you're such an expert." It isn't enough to provide a bunch of opinions - you need the rationale for the opinions if you want them to even be useful to you. And half of them don't even back you up, as the "beginning of development" does not equate to the "beginning of life."

True, but most women have babies without a risk to their lives.

Incorrect. The risk is always there. Many women have babies without dying, but that does not mean the venture was without risk.

Too true. If only us uppity cows would quit talking and stick to chewing our cud with our asses up in the air, like somebody's "god" designed us to. (And they wonder why we don't want to have their children...) :rolleyes:

You sound like an angry, angry woman. I like that. Do you own a gun yet? You really should. You'd be amazed just how relaxing firing a few hundred rounds and imagining the opposition can be. ;)

No. But medically speeking for abortion to be a medical operation it must be threatening your life

Incorrect. THe only thing you need for abortion to be a medical operation is for it to be carried out by a medical professional.

Incorrect. THe only thing you need for abortion to be a medical operation is for it to be carried out by a medical professional.
I have to ask, just out of curiousity as we argued the other night about it, how far into a pregnancy do you think it is acceptable for an abortion to be carried out? Is it acceptable up until the point the child is born, or some point before?

Personally, I would support it for medical reasons up until the point when the child could survive were it actually born; this is currently 28 weeks in the UK, although I think it should be a bit lower now that children have survived younger than this. If it were threatening the mother, then I would support it slightly later, but much later and you have to start thinking about trying for a birth and at least giving the baby a chance.

You sound like an angry, angry woman. I like that. Do you own a gun yet? You really should. You'd be amazed just how relaxing firing a few hundred rounds and imagining the opposition can be. ;)
Ugh, nasty, noisy things. I prefer axes and poison for therapeutic fantasizing (my poor bosses never knew why I kept dreamily smiling at them all those years ;)). But best of all, I like reality -- the reality of watching my enemies fail -- and suffer, if I can manage it. Heh, heh, heh. I do enjoy myself at times.

I have to ask, just out of curiousity as we argued the other night about it, how far into a pregnancy do you think it is acceptable for an abortion to be carried out? Is it acceptable up until the point the child is born, or some point before?

Personally, I would support it for medical reasons up until the point when the child could survive were it actually born; this is currently 28 weeks in the UK, although I think it should be a bit lower now that children have survived younger than this. If it were threatening the mother, then I would support it slightly later, but much later and you have to start thinking about trying for a birth and at least giving the baby a chance.

Eh, when the brain and, yanno, neural net and such begin to function at the earliest...

Eh, when the brain and, yanno, neural net and such begin to function at the earliest...

Six weeks then. That is when the first brainwaves are detected.

Six weeks then. That is when the first brainwaves are detected.

Pardon me? You're just making stuff up. Can I see the study that detected these 'magical' brainwaves at six weeks, before the brain EXISTS?

I have to ask, just out of curiousity as we argued the other night about it, how far into a pregnancy do you think it is acceptable for an abortion to be carried out? Is it acceptable up until the point the child is born, or some point before?

If by "acceptable", you mean "morally acceptable", then the list would be very, very short.

However, if you are asking what I think should be legal, it is as follows:

- Abortion for any reason up until the fetus can be said to be an organism - when the rudimentary nervous system is functioning.
- Abortion for medical reasons (ie. not completely elective) up until the brain is functioning at a level we would recognize as alive in a human being - roughly 20-22 weeks, at which the first coherent brainwaves are detected.
- Only for a distinct danger to the mother or an incurable and horrible defect in the fetus after that.

[quote=Adriatica II] Six weeks then. That is when the first brainwaves are detected.[/quote[

Wrong. Please try again. There aren't even any synapses in the brain at 6 weeks. The first coherent brainwaves are detected at about 20-22 weeks.

Pardon me? You're just making stuff up. Can I see the study that detected these 'magical' brainwaves at six weeks, before the brain EXISTS?

Yes you can

Six weeks after conception signals from the fetal brain can be detected.


o Six week embryo
 Muscles begin to move
 Brain waves detectable
 Mouth, lips are present

Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as six weeks. This information could also cloud this debate because some believe life begins when the heart starts beating or brain waves can be detected

42 DAYS: The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present. Brain waves (the presence or absence of which are used as a legal means to declare a born person living or dead) can be detected.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage19.html

At 40 days, brain waves are recordable

Week 6 –brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming

This doesn't say that life begins at conception. It says that a zygote is the beginning of a new human being. That is sort of like me saying that the foundation was the beginning of my house. It wasn't a house yet, but the beginning was there.

What it does say is that the embryo is not just part of the body. So people can kindly end the comparison to the tonsils.


Once again, this refers to the beginning of development, and does not state that an embryo is a living organism.

Development is a key quality for it being defined as a living organism. And as you can see, since it is not part of another organism but a whole of itself, its case is stronger.


This one is essentially heresay. He says, "I learned this," but provides no logical backing for the opinion.

Once again, an opinion with no backing - at least not that you have quoted.

Once again, an opinion with no backing - at least not that you have quoted.

A medical doctor offering a medical opinion. Like a judge offering a legal opinion. It should be listend to.


This one is cute, until you realize that molecular biology alone does not define life - at least not from a biological perspective. It's like a person who makes pretzel salt saying, "By all the criteria of pretzel salt, this salt shaker is a pretzel."

Molecular biology is one of the biological sciences. It can examine the embryo the same as any other science.


A physicist once told me that he could disprove God with physics. I knew this was untrue, because science simply can't be used that way. But, by your logic, I shoudl have said, "OH really? Well then I'll just stop believing in God then, since you're such an expert." It isn't enough to provide a bunch of opinions - you need the rationale for the opinions if you want them to even be useful to you. And half of them don't even back you up, as the "beginning of development" does not equate to the "beginning of life."

Except that physics has nothing to say on the matter of God. If he however said "I can prove with physics that the Earth's orbit is circular" then you examine both his opinion and the evidence from textbooks in that field. Here we have medical doctors speeking on a subject they are all experts in. They arnt talking like your physicist friend, out of the subject that they know about. These doctors were all reporting to the US government in 1981. I think they knew what they were talking about.


Incorrect. The risk is always there. Many women have babies without dying, but that does not mean the venture was without risk.

Well doctors know when a condition is terminal or not. There is always a risk of it becoming terminal but it is not terminal yet. In the same way a pregnacy may become endangering to the womens life but it is most of the time far from certian.

Speaking as a moderately antichoice woman hating idealogue myself, the exception for rape exists because it destroys the argument that the woman has a responsibility toward the child because she consented to the possibility of having it. Therefore, at the very least you have to allow the particular types of abortion which only cut off the embtyo/fetus's supply of nurishment and/or hormones because the mother isn't simply killing the fetus, she's just refusing to provide it with what it needs to survive because she has no responsibility toward it. And plus rape can be so traumatic that forcing the woman to carry to term, the result of that rape could cause perminent and severe psycological damamage. As to how such an exception would work, it could be granted after the fact if necessary. Just like if you kill someone in self defense, you don't have to fill out a stack of paperwork beforehand.

If by "acceptable", you mean "morally acceptable", then the list would be very, very short.

However, if you are asking what I think should be legal, it is as follows:

- Abortion for any reason up until the fetus can be said to be an organism - when the rudimentary nervous system is functioning.
- Abortion for medical reasons (ie. not completely elective) up until the brain is functioning at a level we would recognize as alive in a human being - roughly 20-22 weeks, at which the first coherent brainwaves are detected.
- Only for a distinct danger to the mother or an incurable and horrible defect in the fetus after that.
I would agree with all of that, except for the first point. Because I believe it to be an 'organism' from the moment of conception, I cannot support abortion for 'any reason.' However, I realise the terrible risk mothers have gone to where/when abortion is illegal to terminate a pregnancy, and this has to be taken into consideration. As such, I would replace your 'any' reason with psychological reasons; I would not support an abortion simply because it was inconvenient, but I would if it was likely to cause serious distress to the mother.

Yes you can[]/quote]

All but one of links you provided are anti-choice sites. No shocker that they would mislead. Amusingly, you actually cited random member sites on tripod as a source. How desperate are you to mislead people?

The fourth link, the only link without an agenda, has the FIRST brain waves, at SEVEN weeks post ovulation (that's nine weeks gestation in the forty week cycle which starts at the last period, not ovulation). That's after the vast majority of abortions have occurred, first of all. Second of all, it is disputed heavily by other sources.

The study you cite is from 1964 and is fairly-well rejected by the medical community given the first synapses are only beginning to form and the fetal tube (the neural system) forms from tail to head. Even your own source disagrees with it, putting the first brain waves at 9 days later. The only people who cite that study are those trying to obfuscate the facts in terms of abortion.

http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ-body.html#fetus
Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)

Note this also says the only neural activity are spontaneous movements controlled by the spinal cord at six weeks.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
week 25 to 28 - nervous system developed enough to control some body functions

Wow, beginning of the third trimester before the brain can control any of the body functions. Interesting that is. But then, it's not an anti-choice site, is it?

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/prenataldevelopment.shtml
Seventh Month
[quote]Organism capable of independent life from this time on. Cerebral hemispheres cover almost the entire brain. Seven-month fetus can emit a variety of specialized responses. Generally is about 15 inches long and weighs about three pounds

Since we're quoting medical sources on when it becomes a seperate organism. See above.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment2.php
Week 19 -Throughout baby's body, nerves are being coated with a fatty substance called myelin, which insulates the nerves so that impulses can flow smoothly.

You know why this is important. Because prior to this point, nerve impulses are spontaneous and reflexive. They cannot be controlled without this substance that allows them to be directed.

And if you read it the above is a site that very much tries to romanticize the development and thus would be much more likely to lean your way than ours.

Baby is now called a fetus in "medical terms". You, however, may have chosen the name "peanut," "angel," "jumping bean" or simply "miracle."

This site also lists a 'fascination' by an embryo with no brain. The fact that even this site supports our arguments makes a strong point that you're just blowing smoke.

http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
That these fetal reflexes are produced by an immature and still maturing brainstem and do not reflect cognitive processing or purposeful movement activity is suggested by the fact that breathing and spontaneous movements actually decrease as the fetus nears term (Kozuma, Nemota, Okal, & Mizuno, 1991; Patrick et al., 1980; Patrick, Campbell, Carmichael, Natale, & Richardson, 1982; Trudinger, Aust, & Knight, 1985), though again the contributions of mechanisms related to labor initiation cannot be ruled out. Thus, as the medulla myelinates, stabilizes, and matures, these spontaneous reflexes are not as easily triggered, but begin to be governed by the more stable intrinsic activities generated within the brainstem. Hence, at birth the infant takes its first real breath which is then sequentially repeated without interruption. Likewise, as the brainstem continues to mature after birth, brainstem regulated functions, such as heart rate and breathing, become increasingly stabilized over the ensuing weeks and months.

CONCLUSION

It is evident that the fetus is capable of considerable behavioral complexity. These complex actions appear to be mediated and governed by the brainstem with minimal forebrain participation, for similar behaviors are demonstrated by anencephalics and following forebrain destruction. However, although forebrain influences are minimal, the late-term fetal brainstem may also be capable of experienced-induced synaptic plasticity, and can become organized to respond selectively to certain auditory stimuli presented up to 6 weeks before birth. These latter findings could be interpreted as evidence for exceedingly rudimentary, learning-related cognitive-like activity.

Nevertheless, the fetus and neonate appears incapable of thinking, reasoning, understanding, comprehending, or experiencing or generating "true" emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity. Rather, although capable of learning, the increasingly complex behaviors demonstrated by the fetus and neonate, including head turning, eye movements, startle reactions, crying, screaming, and rudimentary smiling, are probably best described as brainstem reflexes.

In other words, these are the same types of activities displayed by Terri Schiavo whose forebrain (the part of the brain responsibile for cognition) was almost entirely liquid.

What it does say is that the embryo is not just part of the body. So people can kindly end the comparison to the tonsils.

No one has said that the embryo is "just a part of the body." The comparisons to organs were not to suggest that the embryo itself is an organ, but to demonstrate that it doesn't meet the requirements of life in any way that an organ does not.

Development is a key quality for it being defined as a living organism.

It is *a* quality. But *a* quality is not enough. *All* qualities must be met in order to make that determination.

A medical doctor offering a medical opinion. Like a judge offering a legal opinion. It should be listend to.

Only if it is backed up. If the Supreme Court justices didn't actually write entire opinions with legal backing, and just said, "Yes." or "No." to every question, do you think we would trust them? Of course not. We expect - and even demand - to see where the rationale came from.

For any person, with any credentials, to state that something is "scientific fact" without actually backing that up and be accepted is silly. You are simply being lazy. I'm guessing you're more intelligent than that, so maybe you should try using your brain instead of waiting for someone to tell you everything.

Molecular biology is one of the biological sciences. It can examine the embryo the same as any other science.

It can examine the embryo, but it, in and of itself, does not define life. It may define the molecular requirements therein, but not all of the requirements therein are molecular.

Except that physics has nothing to say on the matter of God.

Nope, you can't go there. You said anything a scientist says about science or anything a medical doctor says about medicine must be accepted without question. If a physicist says that physics does have to do with God, who are you to contradict him?

Well doctors know when a condition is terminal or not.

You have a much greater faith in doctors than you should. There are misdiagnoses all the time.


I would agree with all of that, except for the first point. Because I believe it to be an 'organism' from the moment of conception,

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Of course, your personal opinion means little when we are speaking of scientific definitions.

I cannot support abortion for 'any reason.' However, I realise the terrible risk mothers have gone to where/when abortion is illegal to terminate a pregnancy, and this has to be taken into consideration. As such, I would replace your 'any' reason with psychological reasons; I would not support an abortion simply because it was inconvenient, but I would if it was likely to cause serious distress to the mother.

Any forced pregnancy, even if the underlying reason was what you would call "inconvenience" would be likely to cause serious distress to the mother.

Well doctors know when a condition is terminal or not. There is always a risk of it becoming terminal but it is not terminal yet. In the same way a pregnacy may become endangering to the womens life but it is most of the time far from certian.

Well, then given that, then we should find no deaths from pregnancy right? I mean unless the mother went against doctor's orders. The fact is that abortion is safer the earlier it is done. It is also more humane as in the later term abortions it is possible for the fetus to feel pain. The fact is that by the time a condition is known of that endangers the mother the mother is already in MUCH greater danger than had she had an abortion in early term. A woman can take on this risk, but it certainly cannot be forced on her. Particularly when there are only her rights to consider.

It can examine the embryo, but it, in and of itself, does not define life. It may define the molecular requirements therein, but not all of the requirements therein are molecular.What are the requirements if they are not physical?

I am astonished, flabbergasted even, by the turning of the tables that the issue of abortion brings out in people. Normally, the people that would be all for endorsing the popular scientific opinion of the day over any social-political or religious rationales for an issue that needs the government to enact a position on, turn it all around and argue against accepting scientific and medical opinions of the day when the issue of the embryo entity is discussed.

Now all of a sudden, to them, the scientific community is simply ‘opinion’ and even accused of being entirely in error, when the scientific opinion does not reach the conclusion they desired. When I am reminded of the outcry that these same people frequently make when other topics are discussed and someone holds such little regard to scientific findings and testimony, they accuse them of social-political or religious motivations to go against the scientific community, and dismiss them as fanatics or uneducated rubes.

But whether they like it or not, the medical community does determine an embryo to be an organism and an organism to be a live entity, and in the case of human parentage, a human entity embryo is produced. Medical dictionaries, encyclopedias and clinical terminology all say the same thing … The human embryo is Alive, an organism, and self directing of it’s own growth. And if anyone should try to claim that an embryo entity 'occurs' only at implantation or later (any other period of time outside of fertilization)…

C. Ward Kischer, an emeritus professor of human embryology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, points out that the Nomenclature Committee of the American Association of Anatomists has rejected the term “pre-embryo” for inclusion in Terminologia Embryologica, the official lexicon of scientific terminology.

Because there is no such thing. Embryo ‘beginning’ starts at fertilization. Duration and durability of such an organism is irrelevant.

Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, says this, “The entity that would die is already, and not potentially, a whole living member of the species homo sapiens, which is directing its own integral organic functioning and developing by internal self-direction towards the next stage of maturity. What will cause its death is the fact that it is being deprived of a suitable environment.”

The question is not, what is it, as the pro-choice side tries to focus on, but what rights should we grant it? The scientific/medical community knows what it is, but that in no way means that the community as a whole agrees with what should be done with it. Does it mean that the community must determine that it needs to be protected, or do the rights of the would-be mother to not bear children over-ride such recognitions?

But until the pro-choice side is willing to start discussing the real issues and the real implications of the medical/scientific conditions involved, they’ll continue to present a false front based on misdirection and misconceptions.

If I am wrong, the pro-choice debater should have no problem finding a medical dictionary or a source of medical terminology that says that the embryo is NOT an organism, or that the human embryo is not a complete entity, or that the embryo is NOT living. But they will not produce such sources, because they don’t exist. Instead, they will argue that they don’t ‘accept’ the findings and conclusions of the medical community or they might argue that process does not apply to their argument, or that, the medical sources are simply opinion, and not proven. (again, I remind myself that if the issue was something like, oh, I don’t know, evolution in high school, the tables would be turned faster than you could shake a fetus off a pogo stick, about how much weight should be given to the collective scientific community opinion).

Instead of that though, concentrate on the real question brought on by the issues of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, for example.

“Is it ethically justifiable to create,” in Dr. Pettett’s words, “nascent human life”? And then to extract undifferentiated cells before nature begins its work to differentiate those cells and form a unique fully formed human being? Is such deliberate ending of human-life development unconscionable? Does harvesting stem cells from the blastocyst to maintain or improve the quality of life of existing persons create a further culture of life?

The answer might be yes, it might be no. But if you are thinking about a different question, then you are simply distracted and misdirected.

Blogger Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com) raises an interesting question.

It's never really been an issue because in places where abortion is freely available, the rape exception doesn't matter, and in places where it's restricted, it's been restricted by making abortion clinics rare and forcing women to undergo counseling or wait 24 or 48 hours before getting one, etc.

So what would be required to actually make a rape exception work?
This has nothing to do with the topic except that you brought it up. Does a waiting period of 1 or 2 days out of a gestation period of 280 days really make a difference? I mean, isn't someone committed to getting an abortion going to schedule the appointment, wait the two days, then show up at the appointed time and place? A women's clinic isn't McDonald's; one doesn't just decide to drop in for a D&C, does one?

What are the requirements if they are not physical?

Where did I say they are not physical?

I am astonished, flabbergasted even, by the turning of the tables that the issue of abortion brings out in people. Normally, the people that would be all for endorsing the popular scientific opinion of the day over any social-political or religious rationales for an issue that needs the government to enact a position on, turn it all around and argue against accepting scientific and medical opinions of the day when the issue of the embryo entity is discussed.

Strawman. We aren't talking about scientific or medical opinions, but are instead talking about personal opinions of a minority of scientists and doctors. Every opinion that happens to be held by a scientist or doctor are not scientific or medical decisions.

I am a scientist. I am of the opinion that mice are cute. Does that make it a scientific opinion?

A "popular scientific opinion" or "medical opinion" would be backed up with much more than "I said so," or logically fallacious arguments.

Now all of a sudden, to them, the scientific community is simply ‘opinion’ and even accused of being entirely in error, when the scientific opinion does not reach the conclusion they desired.

And another strawman. No one has said that the scientific community is an opinion or in error. Individual scientists, on the other hand, certainly can be.

But whether they like it or not, the medical community does determine an embryo to be an organism and an organism to be a live entity,

Yes, because the few people quoted in the law represent the entire community.

Meanwhile, you have yet to show a definition of "live entity" that the embryo actually meets.

If I am wrong, the pro-choice debater should have no problem finding a medical dictionary or a source of medical terminology that says that the embryo is NOT an organism, or that the human embryo is not a complete entity, or that the embryo is NOT living.

We have already shown repeatedly that the embryo does not meet the definition of living organism that you personally posted. In other words, you have already done this for us.

“Is it ethically justifiable to create,” in Dr. Pettett’s words, “nascent human life”? And then to extract undifferentiated cells before nature begins its work to differentiate those cells and form a unique fully formed human being? Is such deliberate ending of human-life development unconscionable? Does harvesting stem cells from the blastocyst to maintain or improve the quality of life of existing persons create a further culture of life?

Hell, this guy bluntly states that the blastocyst is not yet a unique human being - that it hasn't even begun the process to become such a thing. Are you actually trying to agree with me? He makes a clear distinction between ending an actual life and simply ending the development that might lead to it.

This has nothing to do with the topic except that you brought it up. Does a waiting period of 1 or 2 days out of a gestation period of 280 days really make a difference? I mean, isn't someone committed to getting an abortion going to schedule the appointment, wait the two days, then show up at the appointed time and place? A women's clinic isn't McDonald's; one doesn't just decide to drop in for a D&C, does one?

The extra time makes a difference in a state where there is only one clinic available in the entire state (there is more than one such state). A woman has to take off of work to drive all the way to another city, sometimes 100's of miles just to get there and be told to come back in a couple of days.

I am astonished, flabbergasted even, by the turning of the tables that the issue of abortion brings out in people. Normally, the people that would be all for endorsing the popular scientific opinion of the day over any social-political or religious rationales for an issue that needs the government to enact a position on, turn it all around and argue against accepting scientific and medical opinions of the day when the issue of the embryo entity is discussed.

Now all of a sudden, to them, the scientific community is simply ‘opinion’ and even accused of being entirely in error, when the scientific opinion does not reach the conclusion they desired. When I am reminded of the outcry that these same people frequently make when other topics are discussed and someone holds such little regard to scientific findings and testimony, they accuse them of social-political or religious motivations to go against the scientific community, and dismiss them as fanatics or uneducated rubes.

But whether they like it or not, the medical community does determine an embryo to be an organism and an organism to be a live entity, and in the case of human parentage, a human entity embryo is produced. Medical dictionaries, encyclopedias and clinical terminology all say the same thing … The human embryo is Alive, an organism, and self directing of it’s own growth. And if anyone should try to claim that an embryo entity 'occurs' only at implantation or later (any other period of time outside of fertilization)…

C. Ward Kischer, an emeritus professor of human embryology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, points out that the Nomenclature Committee of the American Association of Anatomists has rejected the term “pre-embryo” for inclusion in Terminologia Embryologica, the official lexicon of scientific terminology.

Because there is no such thing. Embryo ‘beginning’ starts at fertilization. Duration and durability of such an organism is irrelevant.

Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, says this, “The entity that would die is already, and not potentially, a whole living member of the species homo sapiens, which is directing its own integral organic functioning and developing by internal self-direction towards the next stage of maturity. What will cause its death is the fact that it is being deprived of a suitable environment.”

The question is not, what is it, as the pro-choice side tries to focus on, but what rights should we grant it? The scientific/medical community knows what it is, but that in no way means that the community as a whole agrees with what should be done with it. Does it mean that the community must determine that it needs to be protected, or do the rights of the would-be mother to not bear children over-ride such recognitions?

But until the pro-choice side is willing to start discussing the real issues and the real implications of the medical/scientific conditions involved, they’ll continue to present a false front based on misdirection and misconceptions.

If I am wrong, the pro-choice debater should have no problem finding a medical dictionary or a source of medical terminology that says that the embryo is NOT an organism, or that the human embryo is not a complete entity, or that the embryo is NOT living. But they will not produce such sources, because they don’t exist. Instead, they will argue that they don’t ‘accept’ the findings and conclusions of the medical community or they might argue that process does not apply to their argument, or that, the medical sources are simply opinion, and not proven. (again, I remind myself that if the issue was something like, oh, I don’t know, evolution in high school, the tables would be turned faster than you could shake a fetus off a pogo stick, about how much weight should be given to the collective scientific community opinion).

Instead of that though, concentrate on the real question brought on by the issues of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, for example.

“Is it ethically justifiable to create,” in Dr. Pettett’s words, “nascent human life”? And then to extract undifferentiated cells before nature begins its work to differentiate those cells and form a unique fully formed human being? Is such deliberate ending of human-life development unconscionable? Does harvesting stem cells from the blastocyst to maintain or improve the quality of life of existing persons create a further culture of life?

The answer might be yes, it might be no. But if you are thinking about a different question, then you are simply distracted and misdirected.
Interesting. Is this what passes for an argument in your world? Please see the scientific fallacies thread. One of them mentioned is the spurious belief by those who do not understand science that scientist + opinion = scientific opinion. If the means by which he reached the opinion is not scienitific, neither is the opinion. We have shown the flaws in each of these OPINIONS through scientific means. Feel free to present an actual argument instead of strawmen when you've got the juice.

The extra time makes a difference in a state where there is only one clinic available in the entire state (there is more than one such state). A woman has to take off of work to drive all the way to another city, sometimes 100's of miles just to get there and be told to come back in a couple of days.
So an abortion is a procedure that is done on a 'drop-in' basis? I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that a woman won't call ahead and schedule an appointment. I wouldn't even go to the doctor for a cold without calling to see if they can fit me in to the schedule.

Where did I say they are not physical?Most things observable are made up of molecules, is all. You said that molecules were not the sole cause of life, so what is?

Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you're unsure about what pronoun to use you should always either alternate between "he" and "she", use "s/he", or(if you feel like being a cold ) "it." ;)


For the record, though I'm a conservative, gun-toting, libertarian, pro-choice feminist, I didn't think that that was confusing enough so I went with being male, too. :cool:

Nice to know you're male. I thought my infatuation with you might mean I had some closeted lesbian tendencies.

I have to ask, just out of curiousity as we argued the other night about it, how far into a pregnancy do you think it is acceptable for an abortion to be carried out? Is it acceptable up until the point the child is born, or some point before?

Personally, I would support it for medical reasons up until the point when the child could survive were it actually born; this is currently 28 weeks in the UK, although I think it should be a bit lower now that children have survived younger than this. If it were threatening the mother, then I would support it slightly later, but much later and you have to start thinking about trying for a birth and at least giving the baby a chance.
As far as I'm concerned, until the fetus can survive outside my womb. Until then, it's a trespasser at my mercy.

Most things observable are made up of molecules, is all. You said that molecules were not the sole cause of life, so what is?

I didn't say that molecules were not the sole cause of life either. Molecules (or atoms at least) are the sole cause of all matter - and life is certainly made up of matter.

I said that life is not determined completely on a molecular basis. Molecular biologists stick to the microscale - the issues of how things intereact on the molecular level. However, the basis of the biological definition of life is not, as the molecular biolgists quoted would claim, "Simply having all the building blocks." The building blocks have to be working in specific ways - on the scale of the entire entity.

Just having DNA that is being transcribed and translated does not equate to a living organism. I can do this, at least to a point, in the lab with no cells even involved. Each of the cells I have in culture has all the DNA necessary to code for an entire organism, and is transcribing and translating that DNA, but none of them are organisms.

In order to meet the biological definition of an organism, the entity as a whole must demonstrate the properties therein. If you trace that all the way down to the very root, there are certainly molecular processes driving each requirement, but the molecular processes do not equate to the requirement.

Most things observable are made up of molecules, is all. You said that molecules were not the sole cause of life, so what is?

No she said it wasn't the sole definition. It's like saying that molecular biologists are experts in archeology because everything is composed of molecules. It would certainly be spurious. It's simply a question of focus.

No she said it wasn't the sole definition. It's like saying that molecular biologists are experts in archeology because everything is composed of molecules. It would certainly be spurious. It's simply a question of focus.What sort of other requirements are you talking about? Isn't life based on molecular chemical reactions? How else do you define it?

What sort of other requirements are you talking about? Isn't life based on molecular chemical reactions? How else do you define it?

In order to be considered alive, an entity must meet the folliwng requirements (as an entity, not as single cells):

1)Metabolism - taking in and using nutrients
2)Growth and Development
3)Excretion of Wastes
4)Sensing and Responding to Stimuli.

Yes, all of these things have *at their base* chemical reactions. But just looking at the molecular scale will not tell you if they are being met.

2 is basically met from the first division. 1 and 3 are met when the vascular system begins functioning. And 4 is met when a rudimentary nervous system begins functioning.

And 4 is met when a rudimentary nervous system begins functioning.How old would that be?

How old would that be?

Roughly 8-9 weeks gestation. That's when it becomes an organism. It's also after the majority of abortions and the vast majority of elective abortions.

However, it isn't until the beginning of the third trimester that a fetus meets the medical requirement for life.

In order to be considered alive, an entity must meet the folliwng requirements (as an entity, not as single cells):

1)Metabolism - taking in and using nutrients
2)Growth and Development
3)Excretion of Wastes
4)Sensing and Responding to Stimuli.

Yes, all of these things have *at their base* chemical reactions. But just looking at the molecular scale will not tell you if they are being met.

2 is basically met from the first division. 1 and 3 are met when the vascular system begins functioning. And 4 is met when a rudimentary nervous system begins functioning.

Before a system analyses is done, the scales (below) must be applied before a subject can take the test. If the object to be tested can be identified as one of the sub-categories, the subject is not qualified to have the 'organism' test applied to it.


1. Cells
2. Tissues
3. Organs
4. Organ Systems

only then,
5. Organisms

If none of the first four steps (I left molecular out, etc., for being irrelevant in this case) applies to the target object, then the four tests listed above by Dempublicents1 are applied to the object.

Dempublicents1 has stated on previous occasions that she does not like to quantify the 5) 'reproduction' step on the organism level but on the species level, so she left there as well (which would be true to things like a bee colony, but not usually applying to higher mammal species, like humans, but it is an accurate surmising of the test all the same). However, Dempublicents1 also like to pretend like cellular actions do not qualify as responses, but I’m afraid she has made that a personal requirement to meet her qualification, it’s not the scientific standard. If it was a scientific standard, no plants (for example) could pass it.

Before a system analyses is done, the scales (below) must be applied before a subject can take the test. If the object to be tested can be identified as one of the sub-categories, the subject is not qualified to have the 'organism' test applied to it.


1. Cells
2. Tissues
3. Organs
4. Organ Systems

only then,
5. Organisms

If none of the first four steps (I left molecular out, etc., for being irrelevant in this case) applies to the target object, then the four tests listed above by Dempublicents1 are applied to the object.

Dempublicents1 has stated on previous occasions that she does not like to quantify the 5) 'reproduction' step on the organism level but on the species level, so she left there as well (which would be true to things like a bee colony, but not usually applying to higher mammal species, like humans, but it is an accurate surmising of the test all the same). However, Dempublicents1 also like to pretend like cellular actions do not qualify as responses, but I’m afraid she has made that a personal requirement to meet her qualification, it’s not the scientific standard. If it was a scientific standard, no plants (for example) could pass it.

First, that is not true. The test for organism is used to show it is not part of another organism or an organ. Not the other way around.

Second, you fail to see that your means of applying the tests at a cellular level makes EVERY cell an organism. Skin cells grow, they react as a cell, they excrete as a cell, respond to the same types of stimuli at a cellular level that an embryo does and they take and metabolize nutrients. Without looking at systems the definition becomes useless unless you predetermine what categories something belongs to which is a circular argument and NOT science.

How old would that be?

Actual function? 9-11 weeks is about the lowest I've seen any credible source place it.

If you want actual brain function (which isn't, in and of itself, necessary for response - although it is the way human beings respond to most stimuli), you are looking at something much later - some 20 weeks or so.

Before a system analyses is done, the scales (below) must be applied before a subject can take the test. If the object to be tested can be identified as one of the sub-categories, the subject is not qualified to have the 'organism' test applied to it.

You are absolutely wrong, as there are single-celled organisms. Thus, a single cell can absolutely have the test applied.

Your problem here is that you have things backwards. Those distinctions are not looked for before applying the test for life, but are instead a direct result of it. You can only have organs and tissues in an entity that has already been determined to be an organism.

Dempublicents1 has stated on previous occasions that she does not like to quantify the 5) 'reproduction' step on the organism level but on the species level, so she left there as well (which would be true to things like a bee colony, but not usually applying to higher mammal species, like humans, but it is an accurate surmising of the test all the same).

It isn't a matter of "not liking to" do it, but is instead a matter of the way it is applied in biology. The reproduction step is only used in defining species. No biologist would claim that a mule, an infertile person, or a bacterium which had could not divide was not an organism. However, to be a species, a set of organisms must be able to reproduce. Thus, mules are not a species, but are instead simply a hybrid of the donkey and camel species.

However, Dempublicents1 also like to pretend like cellular actions do not qualify as responses, but I’m afraid she has made that a personal requirement to meet her qualification, it’s not the scientific standard. If it was a scientific standard, no plants (for example) could pass it.

I have never said that cellular actions do not qualify as responses. In single-celled organisms, cellular actions are all you have. However, in a *multi-cellular* organism, the responses must go beyond the single cell level. A multicellular organism responds through systems (tissues and organs, if you will), not on the single-cell level.

Indeed, this distincition is absolutely necessary to biology in order to label organs, tissues, and individual cells within a multicellular organism as such, instead of as organisms unto themselves.

...
You are absolutely wrong, as there are single-celled organisms. Thus, a single cell can absolutely have the test applied.

Your problem here is that you have things backwards. Those distinctions are not looked for before applying the test for life, but are instead a direct result of it. You can only have organs and tissues in an entity that has already been determined to be an organism.


Single cell organisms are tested because they are not cells, tissues, organs or organ systems belong to another entity. Thus, they are tested because they 'pass' the, none of the above, required credential before they aretested.

The question is not, what is it, as the pro-choice side tries to focus on, but what rights should we grant it? The scientific/medical community knows what it is, but that in no way means that the community as a whole agrees with what should be done with it. Does it mean that the community must determine that it needs to be protected, or do the rights of the would-be mother to not bear children over-ride such recognitions?

But until the pro-choice side is willing to start discussing the real issues and the real implications of the medical/scientific conditions involved, they’ll continue to present a false front based on misdirection and misconceptions.

Interesting use of selective awareness.

Yest, there are pro-choicers that have been arguing from a medical perspective. There have also been those of us who couldn't give a damn about medical definitions regarding life.

The problem with most of both pro-life and pro-choice is that they rest on factors which simply do not matter. Abortion is about the law, potentially competing rights, and the level of government intrusion that we as a society will find acceptable.

So, lets discuss the real issues. I'll even, for the sake of argument, give you the gift of saying that a fetus is a person. So, lets look at the prevailing arguments brought out by the pro-life side:

1) Any fetus is a human life and ending that life constitutes an act of murder.

Rebuttal: Not all acts of murder are criminal. An unwanted pregnancy is a violation of bodily sovereignty, can easily be seen as constituting theft(of one's own bodily resources), and puts the mother at significant risk for adverse health effects up to an including death. Rape, robbery, and assault are all crimes against which homicide is a justifiable and legal defense.


2) A fetus is a person and as such has all the rights afforded to a person under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Rebuttal: Neither english common law nor US precedent has traditionally recognized a a fetus as a person under the law at all stages of it's development. Aside from the issue of abortion, the ending of a pregnancy without a mother's consent has not traditionally been considered murder but only assault. It is only recently that states have begun enacting laws that allow a charge of murder for killing an unborn fetus and nearly all of these laws have been put forward as a toehold manuver from the pro-life movement. Indeed, even as recently as 1997 such conservative jurists as Samuel Alito have ruled that a fetus does not constitute a person under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and cannot be the subject of a wrongful death law suit(Alexander v. Whitman, 1997).


3) Due to the uniqueness of the situation, a fetus has a special claim upon the body of the mother.

Rebuttal: Parents have no unseverable obligations to their offspring under the law. A parent is fully able to put a child up for adoption and give up parental rights at any time, regardless of whether such an action is or is not good for the child. Indeed, many states have safe haven laws which allow the mothers of unwanted children to drop them off at certain designated safe areas(churches, fire departments, hospitals, and police stations) within a given period of time after giving birth, no questions asked.

Even beyond the pro-life movement's desire to assert unprecedented parental obligations upon pregnant women there is the problem of the thriteenth amendment. Even if a child could assert a reasonable claim upon the body of the parent, the prohibition against involuntary servitude would seem to invalidate such a claim.


4) Women, by virtue of having sex, enter into an implied contract to carry a pregnancy to term because they understand and accept the small but significant risk of becoming pregnant.

Rebuttal: Any such contract would be unenforceable(at best) and likely void on it's face as it arguably fufills four of the five factors which can individually void a contract.


Any legal arguments I missed?

Single cell organisms are tested because they are not cells, tissues, organs or organ systems belong to another entity. Thus, they are tested because they 'pass' the, none of the above, required credential before they aretested.

Wow, circular logic much?

So, according to you, in order to test for whether or not a grouping of cells is a multicellular organism, you must first assume that it is a multicellular organism. Yeah, that makes sense.

*snip*

Interesting. Truly. I don't know if I have enough time to address it properly today, being about time to log off, but additionally, you should start your own thread with that, it's a different angle (I was already feeling guilty for falling too far out of this thread's topic base, I'd feel worse for taking it farther out).

Wow, circular logic much?

So, according to you, in order to test for whether or not a grouping of cells is a multicellular organism, you must first assume that it is a multicellular organism. Yeah, that makes sense.

If you know it's an organ in a larger entity, or cells of an organ, you don't test it to see if it’s an organism, you already know it’s not. If you've determined it's NOT a multicellular collection of cells of a entity/organisms, then you can test it.

You're the one placing the cart before the horse. You must first determine that the object is none-of-the-above before testing to see if it is an organism.

Interesting. Truly. I don't know if I have enough time to address it properly today, being about time to log off, but additionally, you should start your own thread with that, it's a different angle (I was already feeling guilty for falling too far out of this thread's topic base, I'd feel worse for taking it farther out).

You'd feel worse? You have to log off? You're not sure if you have the time to address my arguments?

Is that cowardice I smell? Theres no shame in admitting what everyone else can already see, bub. Ah well, you're in good company. I sure that you, Velia, and Adriatica II will have a good time.

If you know it's an organ in a larger entity, or cells of an organ, you don't test it to see if it’s an organism, you already know it’s not. If you've determined it's NOT a multicellular collection of cells of a entity/organisms, then you can test it.

You're the one placing the cart before the horse. You must first determine that the object is none-of-the-above before testing to see if it is an organism.

I'm interested. How do you test it to determine it is not an organ or part of a larger entity? There must be a defined measure for conducting such a test, no?

You'd feel worse? You have to log off? You're not sure if you have the time to address my arguments?

Is that cowardice I smell? Theres no shame in admitting what everyone else can already see, bub. Ah well, you're in good company. I sure that you, Velia, and Adriatica II will have a good time.

Interesting that you took what was intended as a compliment and twisted it into trying dare me to knock a stone off of your shoulder, or drawing a line in the sand and challenging me to cross it to fight. That's too bad.

But honestly, I have 8 minutes left. Make a new thread for legal abortion issue/questioning, it looks like a good one, why be insulting about that?

If you know it's an organ in a larger entity, or cells of an organ, you don't test it to see if it’s an organism, you already know it’s not.

In other words, you have to first assume that is is an organism, as you can only have organs or cells that are a part of a larger organism if such a cell exists.

If you've determined it's NOT a multicellular collection of cells of a entity/organisms, then you can test it.

You can't possibly be as idiotic as you are pretending to be. You cannot possibly determine that it is not a a part of an organism *before* you test to see if the entity is an organism. The only way for things to be part of an organism is if the entity itself is an organism.

Like I said, circular logic. According to you, you have to assume that something is an organism before you can apply the test. This is ludicrous.

You're the one placing the cart before the horse. You must first determine that the object is none-of-the-above before testing to see if it is an organism.

Wrong. You aren't a biologist, so I'll forgive you, but the things you are saying are truly idiotic. It is logically impossible to determine that the object is none-of-the-above without *first* determining whether or not the larger entity is an organism. Only organisms have organs or tissues. Thus, you cannot determine whether or not something is an organ or tissue without first determining whether or not the larger entity is an organism.

Interesting that you took what was intended as a compliment and twisted it into trying dare me to knock a stone off of your shoulder, or drawing a line in the sand and challenging me to cross it to fight. That's too bad.

But honestly, I have 8 minutes left. Make a new thread for legal abortion issue/questioning, it looks like a good one, why be insulting about that?

No, I took the compliment, but I'm not here to make friends. Especially not in this discussion. I'm sick and tired of the abortion argument. I'm sick of people bending over backwards to prove or disprove issues that are completely and utterly insignificant so they can, eventually, make an emotional plea. I don't care if the fetus is a baby, a person, or a citizen. I don't care if its the reincarnation Siddhartha Gautama or the second coming of Christ. It doesnt matter if it is alive, conscious, or feels pain.

All that matters is it's legal status within our society and the legal status of the individual it is using as an unwilling host. Thats it. Either you bring a valid legal argument to the table that fits within the constraints of the society in which you leave or you don't. That leaves you exactly four choices: change the constitution(which you've failed to do), sit down and tollerate the fact that in a free society some people will do things that are deeply offensive to your religious and moral views, start a violent revolution, or move.

This underhanded by-whatever-means-necessary movement that you've allied yourself with is a cancer upon our society and a direct threat to my liberty. So yeah, I've drawn a line in the sand. There isn't room for compromise and there isn't room for appeasement. Those who wish to limit my liberty(which is exactly what you're trying to do if you cannot come up with a compelling legal argument) are not someone who has a different preference in beer, they are my enemy. This isn't a friendly discussion, this isn't an academic issue. This is standing up for the principles of personal sovereignty upon which this country was based. Take your dark ages theocracy elsewhere.

this thread was meant to be about the exception in anti-abortion laws, not about when a zygote becomes a "life".

I think the original purpose of this topic was to discuss why, given the anti-abortion position that abortion is murder, is this murder then justifiable in the case of rape.

So, why is it justified to kill this 'child'?

I would propose it is because the rape exception is a Machiavellian attempt to make an abortion ban a little more palatable to the general populous. They are willing to allow some to be killed so long as they can get this first step passed – then they will move on an outright ban.

this thread was meant to be about the exception in anti-abortion laws, not about when a zygote becomes a "life".

I think the original purpose of this topic was to discuss why, given the anti-abortion position that abortion is murder, is this murder then justifiable in the case of rape.

So, why is it justified to kill this 'child'?

I would propose it is because the rape exception is a Machiavellian attempt to make an abortion ban a little more palatable to the general populous. They are willing to allow some to be killed so long as they can get this first step passed – then they will move on an outright ban.

I think you give the anti-choicers too much credit and assuming that their positions are usually even logical.

Generally, it seems to be more because they want to punish women for daring to have sex without the intent of procreating. Obviously, such a punishment cannot be applied to women who were raped.

They only bring in the "murder" and such to make it sound good.

this thread was meant to be about the exception in anti-abortion laws, not about when a zygote becomes a "life".

I think the original purpose of this topic was to discuss why, given the anti-abortion position that abortion is murder, is this murder then justifiable in the case of rape.

So, why is it justified to kill this 'child'?

I would propose it is because the rape exception is a Machiavellian attempt to make an abortion ban a little more palatable to the general populous. They are willing to allow some to be killed so long as they can get this first step passed – then they will move on an outright ban.
You are 100% right.

I think you give the anti-choicers too much credit and assuming that their positions are usually even logical.

Generally, it seems to be more because they want to punish women for daring to have sex without the intent of procreating. Obviously, such a punishment cannot be applied to women who were raped.

They only bring in the "murder" and such to make it sound good.
You're right, too, except for one detail: the part about them not being able to apply their moralistic punishment on a woman who was raped.

Trust me, these people certainly can put that punishment on a rape victim. They can easily denounce rape victims as sluts and murderers. Look at their jargon and their propaganda and tell me I'm wrong.

The only reason they don't do it now is because they are trying to push their agenda through the mainstream of society. But trust me, if they ever win whatever revolution they're dreaming about, that mainstream will become the enemies of god just as much as you and I.

In other words, you have to first assume that is is an organism, as you can only have organs or cells that are a part of a larger organism if such a cell exists.

You have to 'assume' by doing your best effort, that you have correctly obtained the entirety of an object that you want to study. In that, you have to have all of it before you can test it, and this is done via observation and research before testing it. You cannot test a mere section of an object to see if it is an organism, or else you will get flawed results. To do a test you must attempt to obtain the specimen in it’s entirety and then you simply choose to test it before you dissect it. If you do dissect it, you know it will be less than the whole and not an organism, therefore there is no need to test that ‘unless’ you have dissected an organism and you then find a part that doesn’t perform a function (such as a parasite or an offspring etc.,).

You can't possibly be as idiotic as you are pretending to be. You cannot possibly determine that it is not a a part of an organism *before* you test to see if the entity is an organism.

You are flatly wrong, in error and your accusations are without merit. You must contain the entire object to test it, it takes zero logic to know that if you cut it in half before you test it, it is not the whole of it and it cannot be the organism. Your assertion is faulty.

Additionally I do not appreciate your implied name-calling, especially when you are wrong in your assertion that we test organisms from the smallest size outward. From the cell size outwards instead of from the specimen/creature size inwards.

You posit that you can cut an object into sections and THEN test individual sections to see if they are organisms? It's incongruous. Can you cut the foot off of an elephant to test the foot and see if it is an organism? No. Or do you test the elephant before your cut it into pieces? Of course we do. Your posit would require that we cut it into pieces first and then test it from the cell outward, testing all of the cells, tissue and organs as we work our way outward. However, you are wrong, we do it from the outside in. When we get the heart, for example, we know it’s an organ, not an organism. You only pretend otherwise, however distastefully with insults as you wish does not make your assertion correct.

The only way for things to be part of an organism is if the entity itself is an organism.

Close enough. The object must be complete, whole, uncut, so you CAN’T dissect it before testing it, it’s quite simple. If you dissect it, you can't test the sections of it, it wouldn’t make any sense to bother unless you found a piece that you couldn’t identify from the dissection and anatomy sciences.

Like I said, circular logic. According to you, you have to assume that something is an organism before you can apply the test. This is ludicrous.

The ludicrous statement is the one you are making. You must attempt to provide (after observation and study) that you have provided the complete and entire object before you apply the test.

Wrong. You aren't a biologist, so I'll forgive you, but the things you are saying are truly idiotic. It is logically impossible to determine that the object is none-of-the-above without *first* determining whether or not the larger entity is an organism. Only organisms have organs or tissues. Thus, you cannot determine whether or not something is an organ or tissue without first determining whether or not the larger entity is an organism.

You are wrong. See above answers and scenarios. You must try to determine if you have dissected a specimen before testing it. To dissect an object first and only THEN begin to test the sections to see if they are organisms is a ridiculous statement and in error and would produce bad results if one tried.

You have to 'assume' by doing your best effort, that you have correctly obtained the entirety of an object that you want to study.

And this doesn't make what you said any more correct. It is still impossible to determine whether something is an organ or a tissue unless you have already found the larger whole to be an organism. Thus, you cannot begin by figuring out if it is an organ or tissue. You must begin by figuring out if the entity you are looking at is an organism. Then you can begin to define tissues and organs.

You cannot test a mere section of an object to see if it is an organism, or else you will get flawed results.

And yet this is *exactly* what you are advocating when you say you must determine that something is not a tissue or an organ yet.

To do a test you must attempt to obtain the specimen in it’s entirety and then you simply choose to test it before you dissect it. If you do dissect it, you know it will be less than the whole and not an organism, therefore there is no need to test that ‘unless’ you have dissected an organism and you then find a part that doesn’t perform a function (such as a parasite or an offspring etc.,).

You don't know any such thing. I can scoop up what looks to be a single entity - what appears to be a bunch of algae. However, it will not respond as an entity. So I go further in. Come to find out, I am looking at a colony of single-celled organisms, not a single organism.

Meanwhile, something within an organism may actually perform a function and still be a separate organism. Have you ever heard of a symbiote? Symbiosis can occur such that one organism lives wholly within another.

You are flatly wrong, in error and your accusations are without merit.

Not in the least. In fact, you obviously think that you are wrong, since you are attributing your own argument to me and then trying to refute it, backing up what I originally said - that the entity you wish to test for organism status must be looked at as a whole, not in parts.

You must contain the entire object to test it, it takes zero logic to know that if you cut it in half before you test it, it is not the whole of it and it cannot be the organism. Your assertion is faulty.

Maybe that is because I never made any such assertion. In case you missed the entire conversation, *I* am the one calling for testing on an entity-wide level, while you are suggesting that testing at the single-cell level will determine whether or not a grouping of cells is an organism.

Additionally I do not appreciate your implied name-calling, especially when you are wrong in your assertion that we test organisms from the smallest size outward. From the cell size outwards instead of from the specimen/creature size inwards.

Once again, you are attributing *your* assertion to me. Are you really this dishonest?

When we get the heart, for example, we know it’s an organ, not an organism.

We do not, however, determine that *before* we determine whether or not the entity containing the heart is an organism - something you were suggesting we could do. We can only even posit that the heart is an organ after already determining that the entity containing it is indeed an organism.

Close enough. The object must be complete, whole, uncut, so you CAN’T dissect it before testing it, it’s quite simple. If you dissect it, you can't test the sections of it, it wouldn’t make any sense to bother unless you found a piece that you couldn’t identify from the dissection and anatomy sciences.

And yet, according to you, you can observe organs and tissues without dissection - before determining if the entity as a whole is actually an organism. Once again, you are attributing your own assertions to me.

The ludicrous statement is the one you are making. You must attempt to provide (after observation and study) that you have provided the complete and entire object before you apply the test.

Once again, this is *my* argument - the one you were arguing against.

...
And yet this is *exactly* what you are advocating when you say you must determine that something is not a tissue or an organ yet.

You are the one that has advanced repeatedly that known organs, like your oft repeated heart example, can be tested as organisms. When you now say that you know that they cannot be tested as organisms because they are known organs? But that hasn’t stopped you from deceitfully trying to apply the test to them anyway to get the false positive as a counter to the embryo positive result.

...
Meanwhile, something within an organism may actually perform a function and still be a separate organism. Have you ever heard of a symbiote? Symbiosis can occur such that one organism lives wholly within another.

Of course they can. And I already mentioned at least two different scenarios when an internal object can be or needs to be tested. You are mistaken when you imply that I haven’t already accounted for and mentioned such possibilities already.

...
Not in the least. In fact, you obviously think that you are wrong, since you are attributing your own argument to me and then trying to refute it, backing up what I originally said - that the entity you wish to test for organism status must be looked at as a whole, not in parts.

You are the one that has repeatedly said we can test cell sizes and outwards, including organs, now you are actively back-peddling. I’ve said all along that tissues and organs and other entity parts cannot be tested as objects to be determined if they are organisms. I’ve posted the anatomy list several times to remind people that organs and tissue cannot be tested independently of their entity.

...
Maybe that is because I never made any such assertion. In case you missed the entire conversation, *I* am the one calling for testing on an entity-wide level, while you are suggesting that testing at the single-cell level will determine whether or not a grouping of cells is an organism.

Then you haven't been reading correctly. I've said repeatedly that known organs and tissue cannot be tested as organisms. In fact, that's when you started becoming insulting and accusatory in your responses.

I asserted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10557601&postcount=198) that the specimen must be determined before the test to be a complete and whole subject before it is to be tested:
Before a system analyses is done, the scales (below) must be applied before a subject can take the test. If the object to be tested can be identified as one of the sub-categories, the subject is not qualified to have the 'organism' test applied to it.

1. Cells
2. Tissues
3. Organs
4. Organ Systems

only then,
5. Organisms

If none of the first four steps (I left molecular out, etc., for being irrelevant in this case) applies to the target object, then the four tests listed above by Dempublicents1 are applied to the object.

That speaks for itself.

...
Once again, you are attributing *your* assertion to me. Are you really this dishonest?

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what you wrote and what I wrote, and see which one of us was saying that organs and tissue and cells are not qualified to have the organism test applied to them? YOU are the one that has time and time again said that 'hearts' (and blood cells and even excrement) can be determined to be organisms, when NOW you claim that you have been saying all along that they can't even be tested? Your dishonesty accusations would be laughable if they hadn't turned so offensive.

...
We do not, however, determine that *before* we determine whether or not the entity containing the heart is an organism - something you were suggesting we could do. We can only even posit that the heart is an organ after already determining that the entity containing it is indeed an organism.

As I said, we need to observe and test the elephant before we start dissecting it so we DO know that the heart is an organ and not an organsim before even getting to the heart. Observations of an object must be done to determine if it is indeed a specimen that can be tested before it is tested. YOU have asserted that we can test cells and organs, but that produces bad results and false positives. I have asserted that you can't get accurate results from cutting the elephant into sections and then testing each section. Where have I been in error? I have not. You are simply trying to change your posit to try and recover from an undefendable position in the debate, and trying to assert that you have been saying something different all along.

Shall we go back and see how many times you have suggested that an organ could pass the organism test? But now you say that you've known all along that it can't even be tested? But if so, why then didn’t that stop you from making the analogy? You did it anyway didn’t you, and now you bring up the question of my honesty?

...
And yet, according to you, you can observe organs and tissues without dissection - before determining if the entity as a whole is actually an organism. Once again, you are attributing your own assertions to me.

This is entirely fallacious. I said organs and tissue cannot be tested. I also said the object/specimen must be tested as a whole, and I've said it all along. Your argument has fallen apart. You have switched your posit with total abandon and now show a complete disregard to every single time YOU said that organs would or could pass the organism test. And now you've repeatedly resorted to insults and implied personal attacks and false accusations to address the shortcomings of your posit. I've asked you to stop with the insults, and you've shown no interest in doing any such thing. Until you stop, I'm ending my discourse with you.

(I was already feeling guilty for falling too far out of this thread's topic base, I'd feel worse for taking it farther out).


So, Dubya, what does biology have to do with a rape exception to abortion that the law doesn't? Does rape somehow effect gestational development?

this thread was meant to be about the exception in anti-abortion laws, not about when a zygote becomes a "life".

I think the original purpose of this topic was to discuss why, given the anti-abortion position that abortion is murder, is this murder then justifiable in the case of rape.

So, why is it justified to kill this 'child'?

I would propose it is because the rape exception is a Machiavellian attempt to make an abortion ban a little more palatable to the general populous. They are willing to allow some to be killed so long as they can get this first step passed – then they will move on an outright ban.

My logic behind it is since consentual sex is the occation when she implictly accepts the possibility of having a child, obviously in the case of rape she doesnt ergo she has the right to not have it if she did not want it in the first place.

My logic behind it is since consentual sex is the occation when she implictly accepts the possibility of having a child, obviously in the case of rape she doesnt ergo she has the right to not have it if she did not want it in the first place.
and that makes sense to you? that its OK to murder a baby if its conceived unwillingly but not OK if the mother decided to have sex? the actions of a 3rd party is the deciding factor in the worthiness of a particular life?

that makes no sense to me

and if you think that its wrong for an embryo conceived through consentual sex to be aborted, why arent you out picketing fertility clinics since they are constantly killing embryos that were completely willingly conceived? doesnt that make fertililty clinics that much more evil?

So, Dubya, what does biology have to do with a rape exception to abortion that the law doesn't? Does rape somehow effect gestational development?

I would have to come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a rape exception to begin with. Either it's legal, or it's not, but how the pregnancy itself came about should not affect the determination of if abortion is legal or not.

and that makes sense to you? that its OK to murder a baby if its conceived unwillingly but not OK if the mother decided to have sex? the actions of a 3rd party is the deciding factor in the worthiness of a particular life?

that makes no sense to me

Politics is the art of the possible

If it were up to me I would outlaw abortion in all cases, but I understand that that isnt politically possible. Seeing as my rationale for that comes from my moral perspective. So a perspective comming from a more rational perspective comes in


and if you think that its wrong for an embryo conceived through consentual sex to be aborted, why arent you out picketing fertility clinics since they are constantly killing embryos that were completely willingly conceived? doesnt that make fertililty clinics that much more evil?

How do you know what kind of protest forms I engage in? You dont. Dont presume to know anything about my political activities.

Politics is the art of the possible

If it were up to me I would outlaw abortion in all cases, but I understand that that isnt politically possible. Seeing as my rationale for that comes from my moral perspective. So a perspective comming from a more rational perspective comes in


so you lie about your reasons because it sells better politically??


How do you know what kind of protest forms I engage in? You dont. Dont presume to know anything about my political activities.

too late, i already assume it and will continue to do so unless you go to the effort to convince me that you do differently.

so you lie about your reasons because it sells better politically??

Lie is an overused word to criticise people

I do not "lie" about my reasons. I just told you what my reasons were. The fact is that you cannot use those reasons in politics as we have seen people state before, it is unethical to legislate morality for the simple reason that not everyone shares it. The only case for legislating a moral issue is a majority opinion from the public. Thus I have provided a reasoned argument not based on morality.


too late, i already assume it and will continue to do so unless you go to the effort to convince me that you do differently.

You have no grounds upon which to assume it so you are being rather foolish.

My logic behind it is since consentual sex is the occation when she implictly accepts the possibility of having a child, obviously in the case of rape she doesnt ergo she has the right to not have it if she did not want it in the first place.


Your position is unsupported by actual contract law. You keep banging the drum of "sex equals consent to incubate," yet you still have not explained how you are going to reconcile your belief with the law of the land.

I would have to come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a rape exception to begin with. Either it's legal, or it's not, but how the pregnancy itself came about should not affect the determination of if abortion is legal or not.

So why then, in a discussion ostensibly about a rape exception, are you willing to argue about the implications of biology and neonatal development in laws regarding abortion but not about the implications of the laws of the society?

Lie is an overused word to criticise people

I do not "lie" about my reasons. I just told you what my reasons were. The fact is that you cannot use those reasons in politics as we have seen people state before, it is unethical to legislate morality for the simple reason that not everyone shares it. The only case for legislating a moral issue is a majority opinion from the public. Thus I have provided a reasoned argument not based on morality.

That sounded quite a bit like questioning the meaning of the word "is." You are split hairs and get into semantics as much as you want, but dishonesty is dishonesty, and deceit is deceit. You are to be held to a higher stander of truth than the rest of us because you have decided to be a member of a community which places ultimate value on obediance and submission. You have been told by your God not to lie, you don't get to play in the grey.

Were I still a Christian, I'd be very uncomfortable with using deceit to accomplish what I believe is the will of God. As I am now, I just find it slightly ironic. The pride of an angel and the tools of an adversary seem strange arms for a Crusader of God.

That sounded quite a bit like questioning the meaning of the word "is." You are split hairs and get into semantics as much as you want, but dishonesty is dishonesty, and deceit is deceit. You are to be held to a higher stander of truth than the rest of us because you have decided to be a member of a community which places ultimate value on obediance and submission. You have been told by your God not to lie, you don't get to play in the grey.

Were I still a Christian, I'd be very uncomfortable with using deceit to accomplish what I believe is the will of God. As I am now, I just find it slightly ironic. The pride of an angel and the tools of an adversary seem strange arms for a Crusader of God


Lie means an intentional deception. I have not intentionally decieved anyone here. I have stated my views on abortion. However because of the nature of the origin of logic behind those views, they cannot be legislated. However if you can provide a secular reasoning for it (and I have) then it can be legislated.

Let me give you another example. A marxist may believe that no one should be allowed to enter private schools simpley because their parents can afford to pay for them as (he argues) it renforces class distinction hence he wishes to abolish private schools. However that may be poltically impossible, so what he does instead is to force the private schools to accept more pupils on the basis of selectivity (IE scolarships) and fewer on the basis of the parents paying the fees. He has not lied there at all.

You are the one that has advanced repeatedly that known organs, like your oft repeated heart example, can be tested as organisms. When you now say that you know that they cannot be tested as organisms because they are known organs? But that hasn’t stopped you from deceitfully trying to apply the test to them anyway to get the false positive as a counter to the embryo positive result.

I never said anything about testing known organs - they have already been tested. Once we determine that the larger whole is an organism (say, for instance, me), we can test for what parts of it are organs, tissues, etc. In that case, we may have to apply the test to something that *might* be an organ, in order to determine if it is a separate organims living as a symbiote or is simply an organ.

You are trying to say, "This is an organ, therefore we shouldn't test it," which is ludicrous, as we are talking about testing things that have not yet been determined to be organs, tissues, or organisms.

Of course they can. And I already mentioned at least two different scenarios when an internal object can be or needs to be tested. You are mistaken when you imply that I haven’t already accounted for and mentioned such possibilities already.

Then how can you assume something is an organ before testing to see if it is a symbiote?

You are the one that has repeatedly said we can test cell sizes and outwards, including organs, now you are actively back-peddling.

No, you are twisting what I have said. You are saying that we cannot test something that is known to be an organ. I am saying that we cannot know if it is an organ without first testing it - and without testing the larger whole. Both outside-in and inside-out tests may be needed. One cannot determine if something is an organ without both - but the outside-in test must be performed first, as nothing can be an organ without being a part of an organism.

I’ve said all along that tissues and organs and other entity parts cannot be tested as objects to be determined if they are organisms. I’ve posted the anatomy list several times to remind people that organs and tissue cannot be tested independently of their entity.

They had to be tested in order to be categorized that way. This is the problem. You are basically saying we could take an unknown entity - which we did not yet recognize as an organism because we had not yet applied the definition, and then say, 'These are its organs, so we won't test that." Of course, we cannot do that, because we don't even know if the larger whole is an organism, much less that it has any organs. We don't know that until we test.

Then you haven't been reading correctly. I've said repeatedly that known organs and tissue cannot be tested as organisms. In fact, that's when you st[/arted becoming insulting and accusatory in your responses.

*known* organs and tissues have nothing at all to do with the conversation, except that we do know that an organism must meet requirements that an organ does not.

We are talking about testing that which is not yet determined - in other words, not known.

Meanwhile, you have been the one repeatedly stating that we should look at an embryo from the single-cell stage, rather than as an entire entity.

I asserted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10557601&postcount=198) that the specimen must be determined before the test to be a complete and whole subject before it is to be tested:

That speaks for itself.

There you go again saying that we can determine that something has organs and tissues before we even know if it is an organism - a ludicrous claim, as only organisms can possibly have organs and tissues. We cannot possibly determine that something is an organ without first testing the larger whole.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what you wrote and what I wrote, and see which one of us was saying that organs and tissue and cells are not qualified to have the organism test applied to them? YOU are the one that has time and time again said that 'hearts' (and blood cells and even excrement) can be determined to be organisms, when NOW you claim that you have been saying all along that they can't even be tested? Your dishonesty accusations would be laughable if they hadn't turned so offensive.

I said they would be organisms under *your* definitions. The definitions that have been used to classify them as organs are the ones I have been using. The tests were applied and they were found to be organs and tissues. If we switched to the definitions you have been advocating - like that in the SD bill, we would have to retest all entities under the new test - and hearts and excrement would no longer be organs, but would instead be organisms, as they would meet the requirements therein.

This is how definitions are used. If you change a definition, you have to reevaluate the conclusions you came to using the old one.

As I said, we need to observe and test the elephant before we start dissecting it so we DO know that the heart is an organ and not an organsim before even getting to the heart.

We can't possibly know that without testing the heart itself. If we have determined that the elephant is an organism, then we know it is possible that the heart might be an organ when we get there. It also might be a symbiote. So we need to figure out which one it is. As it turns out, it is an organ.

YOU have asserted that we can test cells and organs, but that produces bad results and false positives.

Once we have determined the nature of the larger entity, we do have to test the smaller pieces - in order to determine if they are truly a part of the whole, or other entities living as symbiotes.

Meanwhile, you have repeatedly asserted that as long as the single cells of an entity meet the defnition of life, the entity itself does. It seems that *you* are the one who wants to apply the test to pieces of a larger whole.

Shall we go back and see how many times you have suggested that an organ could pass the organism test?

None. It wouldn't - that's why it would be called an organ.

Now, if you changed the definition - as SD is trying to do, then all organs might pass the test.

This is entirely fallacious. I said organs and tissue cannot be tested.

But that single embryonic cells can.

I also said the object/specimen must be tested as a whole, and I've said it all along.

If that were the case, you wouldn't have repeatedly stated that we could test the embryo on the single-cell level.

You have switched your posit with total abandon and now show a complete disregard to every single time YOU said that organs would or could pass the organism test.

I have never once stated that organs would be organisms under the actual definition of life - only under the new definition you are positing.

You do understand that if you change the definition, things must be retested, right?

And now you've repeatedly resorted to insults and implied personal attacks and false accusations to address the shortcomings of your posit. I've asked you to stop with the insults, and you've shown no interest in doing any such thing. Until you stop, I'm ending my discourse with you.

What insults? Keep in mind that demonstrating your ignorance of biology is not an insult.

Lie means an intentional deception. I have not intentionally decieved anyone here. I have stated my views on abortion. However because of the nature of the origin of logic behind those views, they cannot be legislated. However if you can provide a secular reasoning for it (and I have) then it can be legislated.

Let me give you another example. A marxist may believe that no one should be allowed to enter private schools simpley because their parents can afford to pay for them as (he argues) it renforces class distinction hence he wishes to abolish private schools. However that may be poltically impossible, so what he does instead is to force the private schools to accept more pupils on the basis of selectivity (IE scolarships) and fewer on the basis of the parents paying the fees. He has not lied there at all.

Yes, but you are more than missing my point. The entire pro-life movement is predicated upon deception. You hold a belief which the majority of the population does not and you attempt to enforce that belief. At first, you made your attempt directly: outlawing abortion, challenging rulings that made abortion legal, seeking a constitutional ammendment to ban the practice, etc As you suffered each defeat your movement moved a little bit further from the direct approach. You might admit that your goal is to ban abortion, but that is an end result which you play down. You constrcut thin secular reasoning for enforcing your belief(reasoning which is both substantially weaker than the reasoning of the other side and built around an unsupportable view) which even you admit is basically putting the cart before the horse. You cherry pick what science and law you wish to invoke, completely ignoring more relevant topics. Look at TRAP laws and other harassment measures. The pro-life movement admits that they are designed to make abortions harder to get while at the same time talking about making abortion safer or protecting parental rights.

You are dishonest and underhanded. You play fast and loose with science and the law, you attempt to use small amounts of truth to veil your intentions. You admit that you are trying to slowly beat back abortion, trying to start it down a slippery slope. Christian ethics and Machiavellian maneuvers are never compatable, even when you are trying to "save babies." Once you start down that easy road, once you start playing with little tricks and temptation, you have made a very real choice. You know who your master is.

I never said anything about testing known organs - they have already been tested. Once we determine that the larger whole is an organism (say, for instance, me), we can test for what parts of it are organs, tissues, etc. In that case, we may have to apply the test to something that *might* be an organ, in order to determine if it is a separate organims living as a symbiote or is simply an organ.

We ‘might’ have to do that, but if the basic anatomy is anticipated, and we have no reason to think there is anything out of the ordinary, then the vast majority of organs and tissue will not be tested.

So unless you start talking about entirely alien life forms, anatomy sciences will do the dissecting after organism is determined (such as cataloging new animal sub-species as they are discovered).

You are trying to say, "This is an organ, therefore we shouldn't test it," which is ludicrous, as we are talking about testing things that have not yet been determined to be organs, tissues, or organisms.

Try as you might your argument fails because it is NOT ‘unexpected’ to find lungs, hearts and stomachs for example, in fact, it would draw vastly higher levels of interest if such organs were not discovered inside the anatomy of a new species. We do not, despite your hypothesis of the extreme possibilities, test a new subspecies blood pumping device to determine if it is a symbiote or an organ. Unless there was a ‘reason’ to wonder about separate ‘awareness,’ no such tests would be applied to an organ. Perhaps you have been watching too much sci-fi television and are wondering if organs are habitually tested to see if they are separate organisms.

They had to be tested in order to be categorized that way. This is the problem. You are basically saying we could take an unknown entity - which we did not yet recognize as an organism because we had not yet applied the definition, and then say, 'These are its organs, so we won't test that." Of course, we cannot do that, because we don't even know if the larger whole is an organism, much less that it has any organs. We don't know that until we test.

You are in error. Your fantasy as led you to speculate and hypothesize the outer extreme of imaginary anatomy. But short of that, earthbound biology has revealed, by daily practice, itself to be is far more predictable. Results are cateloged in anticipated when it come time to determine what is an organ and tissue and what is truly unexpected.

*known* organs and tissues have nothing at all to do with the conversation, except that we do know that an organism must meet requirements that an organ does not.

We are talking about testing that which is not yet determined - in other words, not known..

Known organs and tissue has *everything* to do with this conversation, we are talking about human embryos after all. We don’t know everything about them yet, but we are not talking about the alien biology here either.

Meanwhile, you have been the one repeatedly stating that we should look at an embryo from the single-cell stage, rather than as an entire entity.

Yes I am. Because at the beginning, the entire organism IS a single cell entity. It should come as no surprise that they must are tested as cellular organisms at that stage, because that is what they are. You should not be surprised either. Why do you pretend to be surprised that they are tested as cellular creatures?


I said they would be organisms under *your* definitions. The definitions that have been used to classify them as organs are the ones I have been using. The tests were applied and they were found to be organs and tissues.

MY definitions? That’s interesting. I quickly began referring to YOUR organism test after you first posted it (as it was essentially the same as my own) and I used yours thereafter when I talked about it at all. I only specified what conditions had to be applied before we can use and apply your test. Which test did you think that “I” made up?

If we switched to the definitions you have been advocating - like that in the SD bill, we would have to retest all entities under the new test - and hearts and excrement would no longer be organs, but would instead be organisms, as they would meet the requirements therein.

I switched no definitions, although you tried to switched definitions to not allow a cellular response (in error because cellular responses do count).

his is how definitions are used. If you change a definition, you have to reevaluate the conclusions you came to using the old one.

Then stop changing the definitions to match your objectives. At no stage of the organism test does it say that a central nervous system is required (for example), but you have stated it several times. You need to utilize the provided wordage without adding to them to make them accurate.

We can't possibly know that without testing the heart itself. If we have determined that the elephant is an organism, then we know it is possible that the heart might be an organ when we get there. It also might be a symbiote. So we need to figure out which one it is. As it turns out, it is an organ.

You are in error. Even before dissection has begun, we will have ‘heart’ listed as an anatomy organ we will expect to find and will want to measure. It would be far more disturbing to NOT find a heart organ when dissecting a new species. You have the scenario backwards.


Now, if you changed the definition - as SD is trying to do, then all organs might pass the test.

Wrong. No organs would be qualified the have to the test applied to them. You simply are upset that the DNA in the cell argument is used, and you want to say all cells have DNA in them, which is of course accurate, but no other cells are ‘functioning self directing entities’ despite your best efforts to pretend that all organs might pass the test of the zygote. But they do not. Timed interval observations reveal the untruth of your analogy.


If that were the case, you wouldn't have repeatedly stated that we could test the embryo on the single-cell level.

Again, at one point, all human embryos are single cell entities. As you very well know. We can test them because that IS the entirety of the organism.

I have never once stated that organs would be organisms under the actual definition of life - only under the new definition you are positing.

You do understand that if you change the definition, things must be retested, right?

MY ‘organism’ test is the same as yours, If referenced yours more than once. The biologist definitions, the medical dictionary definitions, the med terminology usage definitions are the ones I am using. YOU are the one that argues that the medical books and biology book definitions do not apply, not I.

You simply don't remember where we started. The point is that whether they are "known" or not the definitions have to apply properly. That means even if we "know" it's an organ if the definition of organism applies to it and makes it suddenly a parasite or symbiont, then the definition is flawed. You're using the excuse that because we already happen to know how to categorize everything else we're talking about that somehow changes the fact that your definition would miscategorize things we know it shouldn't apply to. There is your flaw.

The way they create a definition in science is to test it against knowns. We tested your use of the definition against knowns and you failed. Try another definition and accept that your effort was flawed. Biology definitions DO apply. You are using them incorrectly. You applied the tests of an orgainism in a way that would qualify an organ as a symbiont. It also makes a four-celled embryo, four seperate organisms because you are applying the definitions to each of those cells alone and not as a group.

Lie is an overused word to criticise people
<snip>
"Logic" is an overused word, too.

Let's work through this:

First, you said:

Politics is the art of the possible

If it were up to me I would outlaw abortion in all cases, but I understand that that isnt politically possible. Seeing as my rationale for that comes from my moral perspective. So a perspective comming from a more rational perspective comes in (emphasis added.)

Next, you said:

I do not "lie" about my reasons. I just told you what my reasons were. The fact is that you cannot use those reasons in politics as we have seen people state before, it is unethical to legislate morality for the simple reason that not everyone shares it. The only case for legislating a moral issue is a majority opinion from the public. Thus I have provided a reasoned argument not based on morality. (emphasis added again.)

1. You clearly are admitting that your acceptance of a rape exception to abortion bans is nothing more than political expediency. In fact, you do not want to see a rape exception. You want all abortions banned. But, until challenged by Ashmoria, you argued in favor of a rape exception as if you really believed in it. Clearly, this was not the truth, and you knew it to be untrue but said it anyway, which is the definition of a lie. Your reasons for telling a lie don't turn it into the truth.

2. You also said that your stance on abortion is based on your morals. You acknowledge that not everyone shares your morals and that, because of that, it is unethical to legislate morality. But here you are, a member of the anti-choice movement, supporting and advocating laws which will do exactly that -- legislate your morality for everyone else to live by whether they like it or not. You can't have it both ways. You can either legislate morality or you can't. You attempt to reconcile your statements by declaring that your argument is rational, not moral. But you've already admitted that your view is based on morals, and you have not addressed Ashmoria's objection that an argument that says it's okay to murder babies under some circumstances but not others makes no sense by your own moral criteria. The "logic" of your argument collapses on itself. Plus, as stated above, you don't really believe this argument. So it's neither logical nor honest.

(PS: Please note how I refrained, despite temptation, from bringing up how you accidentally(?) implied that it's not rational to be moral. ;) )

Pardon me for jumping in, but if it grows in your body you should be able to decide what happens to it. I mean, why don't we just make killing weeds illegal? They're living. They're not sentient, but they're living.

I'm interested in knowing how utilizing morals based on society's overall opinion works; I was thinking about it and I don't really see how it's all that much better than using an absolute (because relative views can contradict themselves, and seemingly a society cannot change for the better if everyone used them). So, would anyone mind explaining?

I'm interested in knowing how utilizing morals based on society's overall opinion works; I was thinking about it and I don't really see how it's all that much better than using an absolute (because relative views can contradict themselves, and seemingly a society cannot change for the better if everyone used them). So, would anyone mind explaining?
Claiming that it's okay to impose morals on society because others want you to is similar to one kid pointing to another kid and saying, "He told me to do it." It is usually utilized by people who lack the courage of their convictions and want some authority they can hide behind in case they get blamed for their actions.

Claiming that it's okay to impose morals on society because others want you to is similar to one kid pointing to another kid and saying, "He told me to do it." It is usually utilized by people who lack the courage of their convictions and want some authority they can hide behind in case they get blamed for their actions.No, no. I was interested in the how people using relative judgements justify their actions, not how they see objective ones.

No, no. I was interested in the how people using relative judgements justify their actions, not how they see objective ones.
Your observation is a little flawed. People who claim to be utilizing morals based on majority opinion are actually arguing absolute morals, not relative ones. The claim to majority opinion is an attempt to prove the universal application of a moral argument they already believe to be an absolute truth. Their proof = everyone believes the same thing (except for a minority, but that's why they have to make it a law).

Relative morals/ethics are different. There are two different kinds. There's moral relativism, which is a messy little bog of people either making up excuses for almost anything or else trying to accommodate everyone. Then there's situational ethics (not morals -- morals are never situational, but ethics can be). The bad side of situational ethics is when people make up different rules for themselves for each situation -- those are false ethics. The good side of situational ethics is when people adapt ethical rules to make them applicable to reality -- such as "murder is always wrong but killing is not always murder, such as when it's in self-defense" and so forth.

Your observation is a little flawed. People who claim to be utilizing morals based on majority opinion are actually arguing absolute morals, not relative ones. The claim to majority opinion is an attempt to prove the universal application of a moral argument they already believe to be an absolute truth. Their proof = everyone believes the same thing (except for a minority, but that's why they have to make it a law).Ok, because I was wondering what makes the majority's opinion better than some arbirtrary absolute when it can be contradictory in theory and in practice. An example would be slavery, racism, etc. These may have been ok to most people at one time, but now we don't think that - why not?

Relative morals/ethics are different. There are two different kinds. There's moral relativism, which is a messy little bog of people either making up excuses for almost anything or else trying to accommodate everyone. Then there's situational ethics (not morals -- morals are never situational, but ethics can be). The bad side of situational ethics is when people make up different rules for themselves for each situation -- those are false ethics. The good side of situational ethics is when people adapt ethical rules to make them applicable to reality -- such as "murder is always wrong but killing is not always murder, such as when it's in self-defense" and so forth.Mhm, the personal moral relativism is pretty much useless, I can see that. D'you mind telling me more about how the decisions on what constitutes 'false ethics' are made?

Ok, because I was wondering what makes the majority's opinion better than some arbirtrary absolute when it can be contradictory in theory and in practice. An example would be slavery, racism, etc. These may have been ok to most people at one time, but now we don't think that - why not?

Mhm, the personal moral relativism is pretty much useless, I can see that. D'you mind telling me more about how the decisions on what constitutes 'false ethics' are made?
I can't beyond saying that false ethics are entirely self-serving and geared toward desired short-term results. If in analyzing the ethics in question you find that's how they work, then they are false. By "false," I mean that the person is claiming they are following an ethic, but they are lying.

If you're interested, Alan Dershowitz (who, regardless of what one may think of him, is a very talented and experienced lawyer) just put out a new book entitled "Rights from Wrongs" in which he proposes a theory of legal rights as corrections made by society in response to experienced wrongs -- like slavery, racism, etc. Like most lawyers, he is big into situational ethics, so if you want to know how that works, you may want to read this.

(I'd have posted some quotes, but I just loaned my copy to my mom.)

Yes, but you are more than missing my point. The entire pro-life movement is predicated upon deception. You hold a belief which the majority of the population does not and you attempt to enforce that belief. At first, you made your attempt directly: outlawing abortion, challenging rulings that made abortion legal, seeking a constitutional ammendment to ban the practice, etc As you suffered each defeat your movement moved a little bit further from the direct approach. You might admit that your goal is to ban abortion, but that is an end result which you play down. You constrcut thin secular reasoning for enforcing your belief(reasoning which is both substantially weaker than the reasoning of the other side and built around an unsupportable view) which even you admit is basically putting the cart before the horse. You cherry pick what science and law you wish to invoke, completely ignoring more relevant topics. Look at TRAP laws and other harassment measures. The pro-life movement admits that they are designed to make abortions harder to get while at the same time talking about making abortion safer or protecting parental rights.

You are dishonest and underhanded. You play fast and loose with science and the law, you attempt to use small amounts of truth to veil your intentions. You admit that you are trying to slowly beat back abortion, trying to start it down a slippery slope. Christian ethics and Machiavellian maneuvers are never compatable, even when you are trying to "save babies." Once you start down that easy road, once you start playing with little tricks and temptation, you have made a very real choice. You know who your master is.

I'm sorry. But I just had to laugh at this. It is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life. What you are talking about is simply politics. I have an opinion. I believe that abortions are wrong. That opinion comes from my religious point of view. However, religious points of view cannot be legislated, under normal circumstances. So hence a secular logic is constructed which supports the same idea but is not complete in its aplication. I do not like that but I have to accept it. Its called compromise. People (politicans in particular) have to do this all the time. I would also aprecieate you not making your accusations personal saying "You are dishonest and underhanded" is extremely offensive. You may say "The pro life movement is dishonest and underhanded" at which point you would be required to provide examples, but to call me that is exceptionally rude and bordering on flaming. In your view the reasoning is not as strong, but I would beg to differ. As for playing hard and fast with science, I would like some evidence of this. I've already provided evidence of a United States government report that concluded (with only a minortiy of one disagreeing) that life began at conception. Thus any definition of personhood is legal only, unscientific and ultimately arbitary. As for the point about making abortions safer, the following investigation shows that the legalisation of abortion actually has a massive increasing effect of the number of illegal abortions and that if abortion were criminalised, many women would not seek out illegal abortions

Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased.

In various surveys 40-85% of the women said they would not have aborted their babies if it had been illegal

We ‘might’ have to do that, but if the basic anatomy is anticipated, and we have no reason to think there is anything out of the ordinary, then the vast majority of organs and tissue will not be tested.

So unless you start talking about entirely alien life forms, anatomy sciences will do the dissecting after organism is determined (such as cataloging new animal sub-species as they are discovered).

We didn't know to expect these things when we first started observing and categorizing them.

Your problem is that you are stuck on categorizations that came out of these tests. If the test, or even the application of the test changes, everything must be looked at again. Meanwhile, we are talking about categorizing that which has not yet been categorized - looking at something in order to determine what it is when it is actually unknown.

Suppose an alien life form came to Earth and started studying us. Suppose they had come to the same definition of life as humans, but don't have the types of organs we do. They would know that it is possible for one organism to live within another as a symbiote.

So they would apply the test to humans - and find that human beings are living organisms. Then they would dissect a human and look at the inside. They would not know if a heart/kidney/etc. was an organ or a separate organism, so they would have to test for it. By the standard biological application, they would come to the conclusion that these things were organs, not organisms. By your application, which only requires a look at the individual cells within the entity and how they react, they would come to the conclusion that all of our organs, and indeed, each of our individual cells, were actually symbiotes, rather than organs.

Try as you might your argument fails because it is NOT ‘unexpected’ to find lungs, hearts and stomachs for example, in fact, it would draw vastly higher levels of interest if such organs were not discovered inside the anatomy of a new species.

Irrelevant. We are talking about looking at something as yet uncategorized. Once upon a time, these organs would be largely unknown. If we were an objective race studying human beings, they might be wholly unexpected.

Known organs and tissue has *everything* to do with this conversation, we are talking about human embryos after all. We don’t know everything about them yet, but we are not talking about the alien biology here either.

Are you suggesting that an embryo is known to be an organ or tissue of a larger whole? If not, this is a completely spurious comment.

We are discussing how to test something that we do not yet have categorized to figure out whether or not it is a living organism. Thus, those things that have already been categorized are irrelevant unless you want to change the definition or its application, as you clearly do. At that point, we have to recategorize everything, as the usage has changed.

Yes I am. Because at the beginning, the entire organism IS a single cell entity. It should come as no surprise that they must are tested as cellular organisms at that stage, because that is what they are.

So the blastocyst is nothing more than a collection of a lot of single-celled organisms? Interesting viewpoint.

MY definitions? That’s interesting. I quickly began referring to YOUR organism test after you first posted it (as it was essentially the same as my own) and I used yours thereafter when I talked about it at all.

No, you didn't. You have taken the definitions and misapplied them, as I have shown time and time again. This is why, under your definition and application, organs = organisms - because you apply the test differently than biologists.

I only specified what conditions had to be applied before we can use and apply your test. Which test did you think that “I” made up?

You said we had to make sure something was not an organ before we could test to see if it is an organism - a ridiculous claim, as we cannot even begin to test for organs until we have already tested for organisms.

Then stop changing the definitions to match your objectives. At no stage of the organism test does it say that a central nervous system is required (for example), but you have stated it several times. You need to utilize the provided wordage without adding to them to make them accurate.

I never said that a CNS was required for life. I said that an entity-wide mechanism for stimulus response was necessary. In mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles (at least), that system is the nervous system. In other types of organisms, the system is different. But as long as we are looking at multicellular organisms, there is a system there.

You are in error. Even before dissection has begun, we will have ‘heart’ listed as an anatomy organ we will expect to find and will want to measure.

Not if we are just beginning to categorize things.

Wrong. No organs would be qualified the have to the test applied to them.

Anything can have the test applied - anything. I could apply the test to a rock. I would find it to be nonliving.

You simply are upset that the DNA in the cell argument is used, and you want to say all cells have DNA in them, which is of course accurate, but no other cells are ‘functioning self directing entities’ despite your best efforts to pretend that all organs might pass the test of the zygote.

I'm not upset - I'm amused. And to say that no other cells are "functioning self directing entities" is to demonstrate a complete and utter ignnorance of biology. *Every* cell is a self-directing entity. That's what the DNA is for, after all.

Again, at one point, all human embryos are single cell entities. As you very well know. We can test them because that IS the entirety of the organism.

So, for a split second, you might argue that there is a single-celled organism. And after that first split, what is it? A collection of single-celled organisms?

MY ‘organism’ test is the same as yours, If referenced yours more than once. The biologist definitions, the medical dictionary definitions, the med terminology usage definitions are the ones I am using. YOU are the one that argues that the medical books and biology book definitions do not apply, not I.

I never said they don't apply. I pointed out how, in at least one case, they are inconsistent. And no, your test is not the same - as you apply it in such a way that organs and individual cells within a multicellular organism are, themselves, organisms.

I would also aprecieate you not making your accusations personal saying "You are dishonest and underhanded" is extremely offensive. You may say "The pro life movement is dishonest and underhanded" at which point you would be required to provide examples, but to call me that is exceptionally rude and bordering on flaming.

This is silly. She is responding to what *you* have posted, and you are not the entirety of the "pro life movement." Thus, she can only comment on your argument - which she sees as being dishonest and underhanded.

In your view the reasoning is not as strong, but I would beg to differ. As for playing hard and fast with science, I would like some evidence of this. I've already provided evidence of a United States government report that concluded (with only a minortiy of one disagreeing) that life began at conception.

Now you are outright lying. The "report" stated that there were many disagreements, but that those who disagreed (actually being *honest*) stated that their opinion of when life started would be only that - their opinion. Thus, they were not included. Nowhere in the report was it suggested or proven that a majority agreed with their view, and given the outrage of most of the scientific and medical community at this decision, I would think that the majority lies the other way.

I'm sorry. But I just had to laugh at this. It is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life. What you are talking about is simply politics. I have an opinion. I believe that abortions are wrong. That opinion comes from my religious point of view. However, religious points of view cannot be legislated, under normal circumstances. So hence a secular logic is constructed which supports the same idea but is not complete in its aplication. I do not like that but I have to accept it. Its called compromise. People (politicans in particular) have to do this all the time. I would also aprecieate you not making your accusations personal saying "You are dishonest and underhanded" is extremely offensive. You may say "The pro life movement is dishonest and underhanded" at which point you would be required to provide examples, but to call me that is exceptionally rude and bordering on flaming. In your view the reasoning is not as strong, but I would beg to differ. As for playing hard and fast with science, I would like some evidence of this. I've already provided evidence of a United States government report that concluded (with only a minortiy of one disagreeing) that life began at conception. Thus any definition of personhood is legal only, unscientific and ultimately arbitary. As for the point about making abortions safer, the following investigation shows that the legalisation of abortion actually has a massive increasing effect of the number of illegal abortions and that if abortion were criminalised, many women would not seek out illegal abortions
but adriatica it IS dishonest and underhanded to pretend to have reasons other than your real reasons for opposing abortion, it IS dishonest and underhanded to put forth secular arguments for what is a religious stance. yes, politicians do this kind of thing all the time, that is because they are dishonest and underhanded.

This is silly. She is responding to what *you* have posted, and you are not the entirety of the "pro life movement." Thus, she can only comment on your argument - which she sees as being dishonest and underhanded.

Either way I would have liked to have seen more evidence as to why



Now you are outright lying. The "report" stated that there were many disagreements, but that those who disagreed (actually being *honest*) stated that their opinion of when life started would be only that - their opinion. Thus, they were not included. Nowhere in the report was it suggested or proven that a majority agreed with their view, and given the outrage of most of the scientific and medical community at this decision, I would think that the majority lies the other way.

I'm not sure which report you are talking about but this is a brief summery of the one I am discussing

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins.

but adriatica it IS dishonest and underhanded to pretend to have reasons other than your real reasons for opposing abortion, it IS dishonest and underhanded to put forth secular arguments for what is a religious stance. yes, politicians do this kind of thing all the time, that is because they are dishonest and underhanded.

It is not dishonest to compromise. That is what I am doing here, compromisng. I am freely and openly admiting that I have religious reasons for my views. However, I cant legislate my views. That does not mean I am not entitled to discuss secular reasons also for banning abortion. If there are secular arguments for it why is it dishonest to put them forward. It is a position. I wish to ban abortion. I wish to do so because of my own faith based reasons but I am not using the faith itself as an argument as to why you should ban abortion. I am using secular reasons. That is not decitful at all.

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins.

Do you have anything more up to date ?

I'm not sure which report you are talking about but this is a brief summery of the one I am discussing

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins.

And you don't quote them, provide a number of quotes, or any evidence of how well those invited to speak represent the general community.

Thus, it is *incredibly* dishonest to claim that you have evidence of the opinions of a majority.

It would be like me going to a church, picking out 30 people, going to a communist meeting, picking out 30 people, asking them a moral question, and then claiming that my sample represented all human beings.

but adriatica it IS dishonest and underhanded to pretend to have reasons other than your real reasons for opposing abortion, it IS dishonest and underhanded to put forth secular arguments for what is a religious stance. yes, politicians do this kind of thing all the time, that is because they are dishonest and underhanded.

I'm suprised to be defending Adriatica but the point is, he has a reason to begin with, his "real" reason I geuss. However this reason cannot be used to legisalate, being based on religion, so in order to legally oppose abortion, he needs a secular line of reasoning, which he has. He has also made no attempt to hide his "real" reasons, his isn't being dishonest about why he wants to ban abortions, he's not trying to sneak some hidden agenda past everyone.

It is not dishonest to compromise. That is what I am doing here, compromisng. I am freely and openly admiting that I have religious reasons for my views. However, I cant legislate my views. That does not mean I am not entitled to discuss secular reasons also for banning abortion. If there are secular arguments for it why is it dishonest to put them forward. It is a position. I wish to ban abortion. I wish to do so because of my own faith based reasons but I am not using the faith itself as an argument as to why you should ban abortion. I am using secular reasons. That is not decitful at all.
But you're not compromising. You are not proposing a system that would satisfy the needs of both those who oppose abortion and those who want to preserve the right to choose. If that's what you wanted you would not have to do anything at all because we already have a system that (a) allows people who oppose abortion to choose never to have one no matter what the circumstances while still allowing others to make a different choice; (b) allows people who oppose to try to persuade others to agree with them and also choose not to have abortions; and (c) already restricts certain types of abortions, indicating that compromise has already been reached.

What you are really doing is complaining about having to wait to get your way because current politics block you from just imposing your views on society. At the same time as you say this, you also admit that you do intend to push through your agenda piecemeal, without compromise, as changes in public opinion allow you to. That is not a program of compromise.