Redstate

Let's see he believes life begins at conception and yet is pro-abortion because it's not "personhood" yet.  

He wants to curb violence on television and in films - but in an "appropriate" way at an "appropriate" time.

He believes his convention speech is important - but not that important.

He believes that the folks at the fundraiser are the heart and soul of America - because they are artists and doesn't art mimic life and life mimic art?

Yes.  Oh, and i'd like some Vermont maple syrup with my flapjacks please.

Thanks!

"Once you concede that this is a human life inside of the womb, there are only two ways for you to go - down the path of questioning the doctrine of the pro-abortion establishment, or the path of callous disregard for human life."

A three day old embryo is a human life, of course. I believe that a three day old embryo does not deserve the moral protections and status of a born child, and my opinion represents a "callous disregard for human life"? That's awfully tough to swallow for me and for a solid majority of Americans.  

Terrible post.

To get where you are, you must decide that one group of humans -- the three day old ones in utero -- are less human, less persons, or simply less worthy of protection under law than another group, say, newborns. In other words:

I may not kill a newborn, because I believe that the moral protections that attach to a person have attached to that newborn.

I may kill a three day old, because I believe that the moral protections that attach to a person have not attached to that three day old. There is no science in support of my position; there cannot be, as I have arbitrarily picked one group of humans as less than worthy of moral (and legal) protections.

So, do tell: At what age do those protections attach? And why? And are we down personhood row? I'd think liberals and libertarians especially would be deeply cautious of describing any group of humans as non-persons.

Yes, I do believe your opinion represents a callous disregard for human life. The previous poster, quite eloquently, spelled out why. I'd just like to add something more. Just because a statement is "tough to swallow", does not make it wrong. And it's hardly a solid majority of Americans. Americans are split almost 50/50 over the issue of abortion.

Finally, just because someone says you're wrong, doesn't make their opinion into a "terrible post". Are the only good posts ones that you agree with? Posts that don't say you're wrong?

I believe that a three day old embryo does not deserve the moral protections and status of a born child, and my opinion represents a "callous disregard for human life"? That's awfully tough to swallow for me and for a solid majority of Americans.

Spoken like someone who didn't look at the polls.  The majority of Americans disagrees with you, and has for several years now.  The median is the Bob Dole position, and you're taking the Hillary Clinton position.

Terrible position.

Although I disagree, I can see the reason in holding that an embryo thre days after fertilization is not a 'person.'  But abortions are not performed on such embryos.  Many are done after the first trimester, when the baby in utero has a heartbeat and many other disquieting features in common with a new born.  Most abortions are done late in the first trimester, when the fetus looks a lot more like a baby than a blob of cells.

A resonable person could still still hold that a first trimester fetus is so undeveloped that it may be viewed as not yet a person.  But those who take this approach, to be honest, must acknowledge the developmental sophistication even of the 60 to 90 day old fetus.  Frankly, I do not think a respectable argument can be made for labelling second-trimester babies non-human on developmental grounds.  The maturation that occurs in the second trimester -- such as lung development -- does not strike me as morally pivotal.  

Augustine is pro-life, Kerry is pro-choice. Augustine obviously believes that pro-choice positions show a disregard for human life, and what Kerry belives about when life begins wouldn't make a difference to that. but Kerry actually agrees with the pro-lifers like Augustine on this point of when life begins, and yet Augustine actually wants to make out like it's even worse for Kerry to agree rather than disagree on this point. this is a ridiculous argument.

Personally I also believe that life begins at conception, but i think that allowing people the choice to have abortions is necessary. Like Kerry I think we should discuss alternatives to abortion. Abortion shouldn't be illegal, here in australia we don't need to go back to backyard abortions, but abortions shouldn't by any means be encouraged. I'm pro-life in principle, I'd prefer it if abortions never happened, but I want to see everything possible done to discourage abortions short of actually making them illegal.

and this is an utter disregard for human life I suppose?

 

Given that you've got at least one contributor to this site who would nod in general agreement with beef's second paragraph.

Quack, quack.

Yes.  It is.

I'm a reluctant pro-choice. Tragic and awful as abortion in the first trimester done for life-style choice (about 90% of them), I don't think such abortions are the province of the government. They are the province of societal pressure, where we must proclaim loudly that such abortions are immoral and we must promote and reward the courage of women who bring to term their inconvenient babies and give them up for adoption.

Most Americans feel as I do. Don't interfer in 1st trimester abortions for single, adult, competent women. Outside of those parameters, most Americans agree to varying degrees of legislation (ie parental notification, ban partial-birth abortion).

But Kerry goes further, he supports even the "choice" for partial-birth abortion. That moves him squarely into pro-abortion camp of NARAL and NOW.

The conundrum of abortion is that we are dealing with two separate entities that cannot go their separate ways early on.at either side of the argument happy.

In good faith, riddle me this:

How does one believe that human life begins at conception, but oppose making the deliberate termination of that life illegal? The "personhood" argument seems ridiculous on its face; the slope is deeply slippery, and I'd tread it with care.

There are many that contradict your poll, acting as if Zogby is the only source is a bit disingenuous.

It's all a matter of the questions asked of course, the more the question presents the life of the fetus, the more anti-abortion the answers (e.g. Zogby).  The more the question stresses the woman, the more pro-abortion the answers (see NBC's poll on my link, for a 53% pro-choice and 29% rape, incest, life of woman stat).

According to CNN/Gallup 66% of Americans thought abortion should "generally be legal" during the first 3 months of pregnancy.  Of course, "generally be legal" is a far cry from the "for any reason" wording of Zogby.

while I was working on the last paragraph. Sorry for the fragmented sentences.

No legislation that tries to balance the interests of both these entities are going to make the camps on either side of this argument happy.

"How does one believe that human life begins at conception, but oppose making the deliberate termination of that life illegal? "

Because I can't prove it* even to my own satisfaction.  I don't think that we ever will.  I don't think that we can.  And abortion is not a place where we can assume group consensus: that Zogby poll mentioned earlier has 18% who utterly oppose it, 13% who would permit it under all circumstances - and 69% picking an intermediate spot.  So I don't have a societal moral consensus to fall back on, either.  Well, I do, but the consensus isn't very helpful, because it's being about as ad hoc about it as I am.

So... I reluctantly support the status quo, and don't like it very much.

Moe

*'It' being the existence of the soul, which I suspect more than a few people are talking about when they say 'human life'.  Not saying anything about anybody in this particular case, mind you.

regarding partial births, these have rarely been done on the "choice" of the mother alone, and even then the fetus is not viable.  The issue, it seems to me, is whether or not 2nd trimester abortions should be legal in themselves (the method here is less important to me as I'd rather not see a fetus die in the womb or outside), and whether or not 3rd trimester D&Xs should be legal.

abortion is a monumentally simple issue. It only becomes complicated when we try to do what we want to do despite what we know is right.

Either life begins at conception or it does not. Again a pretty simple biological proposition.  The baby has a heartbeat at week 4 and has its own blood type-- this at .3 of the first trimester. At this point it is clearly a living creature biologically separate from the mother, not merely a tissue blob.

If you accept life begins at conception you are confronted with another very simple question. Is it right, is it moral, to kill an innocent human being for your convenience, or even the rare case when the life of the mother is at risk, when even a murderer is afforded legal due process? It is not an easy question but it is an exceedingly simple one.

Conversely, you can go down the "personhood" track advocated by Dr. Peter Singer. While I think his philosophy is abhorrent and only a half-step removed from Auschwitz, if that, he at least has the virtue of being consistent and assigns the comatose, the severely retarded, the severe Alzheimer's patient the same rights afforded a fetus: none.

Why Kerry felt compelled to gratuitously profess a belief that is virtually irreconcilable with abortion just baffles me. It didn't impress the NARAL crowd and it certainly won't sway anyone who is pro-life.

the proponents of it never offered any evidence that it was necessary to save the life or physical health of the woman.

Many years ago I read about this procedure in a Sunday feature of the Los Angeles times, who was interviewing the "inventor" of D&X. He was quite open on the reasons why, main one being to make sure when doing late-term abortions (and he acknowledged that some of them had nothing to do with the health of the woman) that a doctor was spared the inconvenience of delivering a live baby after a saline abortion (such survivors have testified before Congress, usually greeted with hostility by "pro-choice" Congresswomen). No one has a problem with the procedure used on a fetus that has died in utero, the problem comes when it is used on a viable baby literally inches from birth.

Even under Roe v Wade, 2nd trimester abortions CAN be regulated by the government, however, any such regulation is met by the threat of lawsuits by the usual groups. So, for instance in the state of Calif., one can open up the yellow pages and see advertisements for abortions for any reason whatsoever up to 24 weeks gestation.

IMHO, abortion after 12 weeks gestation should be done only for cause (physical health of woman, fetus abnormalities).

Until we receive our handy Soul-O-Meters (with Spritual Health Dials!) (TM). I recognize your qualifier, but neither Augustine nor I are debating the soul; indeed, virtually no one is. Without walking through the logical progression, when I, at least, say "human life," I mean "a living being whose deoxyribonucleic acid chains are those of a human." I don't need to know whether one is ensouled to know that one is human; for all I know, every human on earth has moments without a soul. Unlikely, but it doesn't enter the analysis.

The question is: What lives in the womb is undoubtledly a human life, as defined above. How does one say, "sure, it's human, but folks should be free to kill that human at will"? I'm not trying to be snide, but you don't take that position for post-utero humans, right? If you don't, how do you know they have souls? I know some Plaintiffs' lawyers who I'm convinced, in my weaker moments, are soulless; should I be able to termit them at will?

I stress again I'm not being snide, just uncomprehending.

"If you accept life begins at conception you are confronted with another very simple question. Is it right, is it moral, to kill an innocent human being"

WHOA!  Stop right there.  You haven't proved yet that the fetus is a human being, even to those who have endorsed the assumption in your previous paragraph that it's alive.  From a strictly mechanistic and secular perspective its obviously living tissue and it has the nigh-inevitable potential to become a human being, absent external factors - but you don't have to be that crazy f*ck Singer in order to look at it differently than you would, say, a six-month old baby.

Moe

but you don't have to be that crazy f*ck Singer in order to look at it differently than you would, say, a six-month old baby.

At what point do you look at it the same way? I'm not being smart; I'm honestly curious. And when? And why?

when brainwaves can be detected from the fetus.  That pegs it around 10-12 weeks.  Incidentally, that's about when it morphologically starts to look like a human, rather than say, a chicken, or reptile embryo.

Quickening, generally (somewhere between 18 to 24 weeks); a fetus will have developed by then to the point where my worries about whether I'm wrong about all of this will have turned into outright internal screaming.

Moe

(1) So a human whose brainwaves can't be detected is no longer a person? Again, I'm not being snide: What if the brainwaves go too low to be detected? What if our measuring apparatus is insufficiently sensitive? What if a 21 year-old adult briefly experiences a gap in the wave of polarization/depolarization -- can we kill him without consequence at that time? Is he still a person?

(1a) Brainwaves start, we believe, at five to six weeks. (H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120.)

(2) That "looks like" argument is fairly dangerous. I presume that was just tossed in as a note.

When it moves to the point that the woman carrying the kid can feel it? (In my experience, that means month four, but it can vary.) Doesn't that strike you as a tad subjective?

Just like every other aspect of human society and culture that can't be expressed as a mathematical equation (and not all of those, either).  Lines in the sand are like that - and I cannot justify drawing this particular one at conception with any purely secular argument currently out there, including yours.  This is the best alternative that I - and a whole other bunch of people, actually - have come up with.

Sorry about that.  Really.

I'm pro-life.  A three-day old embryo, however, is not a "person" by any standard.  It is a potential person, and, as such, is entitled to rights less than a person.  

Personhood is defined by more than merely biology.  This is not a new or radical thought.  We routinely define who is, and who is not, a person based on matters other than biology.  A brain-dead individual may be kept "alive" indefinitely (we now have the technology to do so).  He is indisputably a human being.  He is indisputably "alive," in the same sense that an embryo is.  The fact that an embryo relies on the mother and the brain-dead human relies on technology is immaterial.

Yet, we have no problem killing the brain dead human by disconnecting him from the machines that keep him alive.  We have many reasons.  It costs a lot (so do babies).  It not natural (and yet it is within our power).  We're not really killing a person, we're merely removing the support for life (and thus as it is with embryos "aborted" by the Pill).  

Indeed, the only real distinction one can draw is that an embryo has the potential to be a person, and a brain dead human does not.  Ahh.  QED.*

von

*Obviously, this implies that an embryo is entitled to more rights than a brain-dead person.  Obviously correct, and the rights grow as the potential develops.  The pill is permissible:  embryos are aborted, if at all, only incidentally.  The morning-after pill acceptable, in appropriate circumstances.  Stem cell research allowable, under strict rules.  After than -- and the line is grey -- abortion is justified only if another life is at stake (the question of rape and incest are most difficult for me).

I appreciate your points. But:

Bright line rules are much easier to live by. There are two undebatable points in the life of a fetus: Conception and birth. Anything else is minutiae, and only probative to the question of whether the child is human/a person/whatever. If we must err -- and we must -- on one side or the other, I'd rather err on the side that presumes terminating the pregnancy is code for killing a child.

Put differently, should my brain waves ever become depressed, and folks believe I'm no longer a person for that reason, I would like everyone to presume I'm a person, and continue feeding me.

The cost of erring on the side of life is high. The cost of erring on the side of no-life is potentially irretrievable.

Conversely, you can go down the "personhood" track advocated by Dr. Peter Singer. While I think his philosophy is abhorrent and only a half-step removed from Auschwitz, if that, he at least has the virtue of being consistent and assigns the comatose, the severely retarded, the severe Alzheimer's patient the same rights afforded a fetus: none.

Take a look at the "personhood" track that I outline above.  The absolutist position advocated by Dr. Singer is not the only one.

Just for convenience.

Neglecting reality? Really? So to what criteria can you point that shows humanity (or personhood, if you prefer)? Brain wave function? I'll put aside the biology (briefly): Tell me what objective criteria you rely on to get to this point.

And then, as a bonus, outline when the potential person is actually a person, again with clear indicia that anyone can observe.

You're conflating, incidentally, social mores with legal ones. Socially, we may have no problem treating a brain dead human as a non-person; that does not mean, legally, that the brain dead human is legally a non-person. And you're conflating the ability to kill someone by omission with treating that someone as a non-person.

And as a Southern boy, let me be real clear on this: In the history of this country, there are only two classes of living human beings we've decided, at law, are not persons: Slaves and unborn children. For what should be obvious reasons, we need to all be reeeeallly sure before we say, That group of humans over there are non-persons. Indeed, since we kinda treat the unborn potential person as the property of the woman carrying her (for one has the right to destroy only one's own property), one might go so far as to suggest we've accidentally recreated a rather ugly regime from scratch.

we have no problem killing the brain dead human by disconnecting him from the machines that keep him alive.

Yet many people do.  Including me.  Including people fighting over Schiavo.  Including anyone who has ever struggled with that issue.

I had an elderly religion professor in college who insisted on making that distinction, between human life and personhood.  He was devoted to it, talking about it at every bioethics class, to the point of obsession.  It's one that a lot of people make, and there's a certain logic to it.  

You accept Kerry's position - that from conception until some future point of development which neither he nor you specify, there exists in the womb a human being who does not count as a person.  But what is the measure of personhood - heartbeat? brain activity? birth? - and what degree of brain-activity is sufficient for a patient to not be considered a "person" any longer?  

But I wouldn't expect you to be specific.

On my own part, I find the distinction between "human beings" and "persons" to be false, vile and monstrous.  So I was not surprised to learn that, as a young boy in Germany, my professor had once been a member of the Hitler youth.

Do you know how many times I've made bigger errors on this site alone?

That's a matter of belief.  The point where human life begins, however, is a fact of medical science - one that Kerry accepts.  And that's why he's in trouble.

I'm not sure what polls you're looking at.  Every year when Gallup polls on the subject, they turn in the same basic result as Zogby - that a majority of Americans take the Bob Dole rape-incest-life of mother exceptions.  Been that way since 1993-1994.

You accept Kerry's position - that from conception until some future point of development which neither he nor you specify, there exists in the womb a human being who does not count as a person.

I have no idea if Kerry actually meant that -- indeed, I still don't really understand his comments.  (I'm not sure that he does either.)  But I'd suggest that you've missed my point:  I'm willing to concede that there's a human being, in the biological sense, from the very moment of conception.  I just don't believe that this is the end of the inquiry as to whether it is also a person.  (A brain dead human is also a biological human being, though not a person.  And you'll find the polling on that -- to the extent that such things have weight with you -- decidedly in my favor.)

I'd rephrase my argument as follows:  An embryo is a human being, and a potential person.  It always is such until it becomes viable outside of the womb (or, thinking of the future, a womb substitute).  The fact that it is not a person, however, does not mean that it has no rights; to the contrary, it vast and important rights -- the right to life, to continue to exist, to become was it was conceived to be.  These rights are not disregarded lightly, and they increase as the potential for personhood increases.  (Embryos, in addition lacking even unconsciousness, self-abort all the time; nine week old fetuses arguably have a limited consciousness, and are much more likely to survive.)  In all events, however, where a potential person's life conflicts with an actual person's life, the actual person's life "wins".

Yes I agree that it is immoral to abort a fetus. I just don't think that you should legislate that morality. This is because the consequences are that abortions will continue on regardless, you cannot deny this, and there will be greater risks to the health of the pregnant woman.

Then what? Yeah, we start locking up those women and those who help them right? Hmmm, I'm just not comfortable with the scenarios that come to mind where you outlaw all abortion. I mean, morally I with you in principle, but again forcing in this way onto other people isn't very progressive at all.

Ok, Moe. What if he were to phrase it like this:

If you accept that an innocent human life begins at conception you are confronted with another very simple question. Is it right, is it moral, to take an innocent human life?

Does that clarify the argument for you?

Many thanks for the admirable and much needed distillation of the argument from Streiff.

I think this line of reasoning points to what must be done by the pro-life movement: stick to the basics and don't fight the battle on the opponent's terms. If you don't believe that a human life is what's at stake in the abortion question, there's perhaps not much to be gained from debating. But I suspect the vast majority of people do indeed comprehend that the entity in question is a human life. And yet apparently large numbers of them can be persuaded that as a matter of law these human lives can be ended, even when self-defense is not involved. It it to these vast numbers of people that the pro-life movement should make its pitch -- relentlessly, energetically, and unapologetically.

"Does that clarify the argument for you?"

No; it does not address the point that in a strictly secular sense a fetus can be just as easily defined as a potential human life, not a human life it- or him/herself (just to cover all the options).

If you describe any stage of post-conception development as a "potential human life," you're putting yourself diametrically opposed to every responsible doctor in existence.  

The fetus is human, and it is alive.  It is by definition a human life.  It is as human and alive as you or me, genetically speaking.  That's a secular and scientific evaluation.  It's one that the overwhelming majority of doctors accept.  It's one that John Kerry even accepts.

The question is how much we value that human life, and whether we rely on the legal distinction others have made on this thread of the fetus being a "potential person."  I think that's a false and wrong distinction, but let's avoid sloppiness in language as we debate it.

No; it does not address the point that in a strictly secular sense a fetus can be just as easily defined as a potential human life, not a human life it- or him/herself (just to cover all the options).

Sure, a fetus can be defined as a potential human life. Likewise it can be defined as a real human life -- as real as yours or mine.

I'm not contending that one cannot define such things any way one chooses. Rather I'm contending that defining a fetus as less than human is, well, wrong (in the moral sense). And I'm furthermore making the case that the pro-life movement shouldn't surrender any ground on the question.

Well, sh*t, I guess that tells me off.

"Rather I'm contending that defining a fetus as less than human is, well, wrong (in the moral sense)."

I agree.  In the moral sense.  Unfortunately, this is a situation where (in my opinion) the moral argument cannot be imposed on those who disagree with us.

"And I'm furthermore making the case that the pro-life movement shouldn't surrender any ground on the question."

That is indeed your position, and I do not contest your right to hold it.

Why don't you propose a workable law that can fit with your attitudes about this? Attacking someone because they accept that reality is not black and white is simple, but offering an alternative that is consistent with our legal framework is much harder.

Do people have the right not to be subjected to indignities just so someone can be happy that they extended their life for a few unhappy days longer?

The embryo is part of the mother and cannot survive on its own. The fetus is still part of the mother and cannot survive without intervention until into the third trimester. The law does not, and has not, recognized the fetus as human. It is not a human life by definition for the law. It is not a separate life, biologically. If the mother does, the embryo and early fetus necessarily die with her.

You're getting pretty hot about this. Adding "responsible" poisons the discussion. It implies that everyone who disagrees with you is irresponsible. Elsewhere you added a gratuitous Nazi reference. Take it easy. You're a better writer than that.

Nothing in the cited article refutes my post. I maintain that the majority of Americans - a substantial majority, even - do not believe that a three day old human embryo merits the same moral status as a born human being.

I don't understand. Please clarify what it was in the Zogby article that refutes that statement.

I'd actually take that one step further--not only does the law grant the mother the "property" right of destruction, thanks to the Laci/Connor law, it explicitly denies the right of destruction to anyone else without the permission of the "owner."  I wonder how many more parallels will accumulate in our jurisprudence?

I'm deeply uneasy about the Laci/Connor law as a resting point for our jurisprudence.  The explicit formulation of the law in this case is "life begins when your mother SAYS it does."  I quite favor strong parental rights where their own children are concerned, but this is ridiculous.

An embryo is NOT "part of" his mother.  They are biologically distinct entities, as defined by their genetic codes.  Indeed, at least half the time, the embryo is male--are you saying that half of all pregnant women are hermaphrodites?

Your characterization of Peter Singer's philosophy is flat-out wrong when you assert that he assigns ZERO rights to the fetus, or severely retarded, or comatose.

His position is that "the life of a fetus is of equal value to the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, [and] capacity to feel." (from Singer's book, Practical Ethics)

I probably disagree with that position, but if you're going to attack it, at least characterize it properly.

Have you even read any of his books?

1. Kerry's views are not contradictory as Augustine suggests.  Kerry makes it relatively clear (a) that he is talking about personal v iews and that there is a difference between personal views and what the law is and should be and (b) that "begins" does NOT equal "arrives."  That is, the journey (fetus development) does not equal the destination (a person) and that he does NOT believe that a fetus is a person at conception.
   
2.  Not all western religions believe that abortion is forbidden.  In fact, in traditional Judaism it is REQUIRED to have an abortion if not having one will threaten the life of the mother.
   
3.  Ultimately, abortion is a moral issue - and one where there is NOT anywhere near uninamity on what is or isn't moral (as there is in the case of other criminal laws).  Criminalizing behavior in such circumstances is, IMO, the completely wrong approach to take.  

If the majority of society disapproves of an action that is at base a moral issue, and such action should be criminalized behavior, what to do?  Should society have stand for an action that most of it disagrees with?

Nope, I'm not wrong on the biology. I'm just looking further than mere genetics. An embryo and fetus are totally dependent on the mother and are physically part of her. Most fetuses cannot survive outside the mother until well into the third trimester.

Legislating morality is a BAD idea - even if you can get a super-majority.  Think prohibition.

Traditionally, criminal laws are almost exclusively based on property rights.  Those few that aren't (public drunkeness, drug laws, etc.) are mostly ineffective and frequently ignored or downplayed by law enforcement and the judiciary.  

Abortion can only be viewed as a "property" issue IF the fetus is recognized as a human - something we can't agree on. Where we (virtually) all do agree (third trimester), it is already outlawed.

So, you have caught streiff exaggerating Singer's views and set the record straight; probably a worthwhile thing to do.

Still, how far wrong was streiff in the end?  

The fetus does nnot have "zero" rights, it has the rights of a "non-human animal."  

The irresistable question:  so, waht rights do non-human animals enjoy?

Answer:  well . . . zero, or close to it.

Your statement is just flat out wrong.

I did not address the "value" of the fetus. I said rights. RIGHTS.

On those grounds Singer would agree with me. Animals do not have rights. They can be killed with relative impunity, depending on the jurisdicition, and can be killed for sport, money, or convenience everywhere.

Have you read anything by Singer?

Think back to the 1850's when we couldn't agree that slaves should be recognized as human in the eyes of the law.  The religious, moralistic abolitionists kept fighting to impose their beliefs on slave owners and their apologists -- and now we can hardly imagine how any decent person disagreed with them.  I would score that as one instance where legislating morality was a very good thing.

Unless you believe in spontaneous generation a fetus is a human. Genus Homo Species Sapiens. It can't be anything else. It is a human being. You point is only valid if you believe that we change species. The difference between a first trimester fetus and a newborn infant isn't any more drastic that the transformation from a newborn to a geezer.

By making human status contingent on physical or mental abilities is exactly what Singer does.

Incest? Bigamy? Animal welfare? Prostitution?

What makes this issue special.

"Nope, I'm not wrong on the biology. I'm just looking further than mere genetics."

It has been a while since I've seen anyone so thoroughly undercut the credibility of their point so utterly in so few words.  Congratulations.

"Unless you believe in spontaneous generation a fetus is a human."

No, from a strictly materialistic and secular point of view it is something that will eventually develop into a human being.

(Gritting teeth) And I am not making "human status contingent on physical or mental abilities"; I am simply recognizing that absent a religious/metaphysical argument there is not a sufficient compelling reason to pick conception as an arbitrary development point.  Which apparently makes me morally equivalent to a man who once told a severely handicapped woman to her face that he supported the idea that people like her should be killed at birth.

I won't spit that back out at my accuser, but I'll be damned if I swallow it.

Moe

After all, we already rule that humans without brainwave activity are legally dead and may be "killed" by either starvation or withdraw of life support.  So yeah, it shouldn't be too surprising to draw the line there.

The brain might start to activate then, which is unsurprising, but conscience brain waves that we recognize as human do not start until a few weeks later than your source, which is quite old.  At any rate, abortion during the first trimester can be reasonably debated, I feel.  I don't like it, but it can be done. It becomes very hard to morally defend it for non-emergencies in the second, and impossible in the third.

As far as my aside, it was just that.  You'll note I didn't base my argument around it.

Moreover, the attempted dichotomy between legislation based on "property rights" versus "morality" begs the question.  On scrutiny, 'property rights' themselves are no more than social norms, that have been held so universally and for so long that we forget they originally represented the opinions of the folks who won long-ago debates about (not quite the right word) morality.  It bears remembering that the whole notion of individual property rights has been rejected by some.  

All of which are examples of laws that aren't traditional criminal laws and aren't particularly effective.

First: Incest, between consenting adults, isn't illegal.  Incest and Bigamy relate to whom can marry legally and openly.  Nothing criminalizes a man living with two or more female sex partners - even if one of them is his sister.  We aren't criminalyzing behavior, just refusing to recognize it legally.

Second:  The "crime" of bigamy relates to fraud - depriving the second wife of her "property" rights of having a legal wedding that is valid.

THird:  Animal welfare may be the exception that proves the rule but the reality is that it is rarely enforced and VERY RARELY results in any jail time.  Criminally speaking, it is the far closer to jaywalking than robbery or assault.

Fourth: Prostitution only proves my point.  It is rarely enforced in any meaningful way and the law is openly flouted in pretty much every area of the country.  Those arrested are typically released quickly and queitly until they are arrested again a few weeks later.

it is largely irrelevant as I indicated that the only time that "morality" can be legislated is when virtually everyone agrees - as we all do with respect to our property rights  - both those relating to property as commonly understood (theft, arson, fraid, etc.) and to the rights relating to ownership of our own bodies (assaults, rape, murder, etc.).

Did your argument about physiology get deleted accidentally?

I have been a good prolifer; gave money, picketed clinics.  I think the law's protection should begin at conception.

Still, the view that a fetus becomes 'human' at some point after conception is not disreputable or morally incoherent.  

Many intelligent moral folks, in many times and places, viewed "quickening" -- weeks after conception -- as the morally significant point.  Our knowledge of fetal development is better, but even those people knew that the creature growing in utero before quickening was 'human' in the biological sense.

Also, we should charitably bear in mind that criminal restrictions on abortion burdens a right most of us would view as fundamental:  the right to decide for oneself whether to have a baby.  (Anyone here want to argue Griswald was wrongly decided?)  It is not unreasonable for some folks to be hesitant of taking away such a fundamental right based on a judgment -- necessarily more theological than scientific -- that a fetus at 2 months, not yet displaying most of the qualities we seek to protect in a human, is nonetheless morally equivalent to a new born baby.

Put it this way.  Birth control pills often work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. But many pro-lifers, even though they believe a human life begins at conception, do not advocate criminalizing the Pill, most likely (if they thought about it) based on a developmental judgment that a fertilized egg is less worthy of protection than 3-month fetus.  If those folks can get a pass for thinking that way, maybe we should be gentle in disagreeing with folks in the neo-quickening school of thought.

I suspect you are against 'legislating morality' mainly becuase you think it wrong to do so, even if it could be done successfully.  

In any event, I agree that the state cannot successfully criminalize an act if most people don't think it's wrong, and large numbers are willing to do it despite the law: the Prohibition problem.

Sometimes, though, passing a law is the key to gaining consensus.  How about the civil rights laws?  Millions of voters disagreed, and resisted obedience.  The laws were enforced anyway, and now we have a much better consensus for those laws than we had in the 60's.

I honestly am, if for no other reason than I'd lose a lot of in-laws of whom I'm quite fond.

But I suppose I can't stop other people who strongly believe it's ok to do so, right? Lord knows, the health of the folks who have to deal with Democrats would improve significantly. I don't want to impose my morality on them.

This is because the consequences are that abortions will continue on regardless, you cannot deny this, and there will be greater risks to the health of the pregnant woman.

(1) But criminalizing a behavior provides a disincentive to the behavior; we would reduce the number of abortions (there isn't really any doubt that the number of abortions skyrocketed after Roe).

(2) Yes, but health can mean "not feeling as comfortable today." To quote a fellow poster, Bzzz! Wrong answer! You argue life, we can talk. You argue Not really enjoying life as much as I might otherwise, then you're sacrificing another human's life -- progressively, to be sure -- for another's comfort. Are you prepared to make that self-sacrifice? I'm not. One imagines most humans, in utero and ex utero, are not.

And who cares about progressivism? We're reactionaries, here.

Everything is black and white, if you look closely enough.

Kerry is weaseling because he believes he needs to. He's not seeing shades of gray, he's creating them.

How about this, and it has a decent, though by no means certain, chance of passing: Abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother. See? Now we're not balancing one life against someone's health or convenience; we've decided not to force someone to be a martyr. Ta da!

I'm not Augustine, though. I'm sure he could word or devise such a law better.

(1) My source is old to make a point: Pre-Roe, we knew that brain waves -- your initial criterion -- started very, very early. In point of fact, I believe we're now thinking four to five weeks, but I didn't have time to find the source.

(1a) Six months ex utero children have lesser cognitive abilities than adults. Can we kill them, too? How do you argue that brain waves themselves are "conscience(sic)"? If you mean, Brain waves in the part of the brain normally associated with conscious activity, well, heck: A smack on the head can leave you without those for periods of time. Why can't we kill unconscious people?

(2) After all, we already rule that humans without brainwave activity are legally dead and may be "killed" by either starvation or withdraw of life support.  So yeah, it shouldn't be too surprising to draw the line there.

We "rule" no such thing. We are not judges, and judges, blessedly, don't make this distinction. There are two further problems, aside from your language choice: Allowing someone to die is very different from killing him; and there is a very large different between allowing someone to die who has already passed from living brain activity, as opposed to someone on the upswing into brain activity (taking your terms as a given).

Those are arguments for some time other than 12:41 a.m., however.

No.

Consensus these days is 20-22 you have a decent shot. By my math, that's month five.

That no one would be so silly as to say that one human is "part of another" once we'd established that they are unique creatures. How ridiculous.

1) You get brain waves from dog, cow, monkey, etc fetus.  Obviously their life isn't sacrosanct, even post-partem.  I'm talking about the higher order brain waves unique to humans.

1a)  No, that's obviously retarded.  Also, we can't kill unconscious people because they already are people.  If you could go back in time before they manifested higher order brain waves and then kill them, well ok.  But that's a pretty goofy idea.  It goes back to the idea that you aren't a person without a mind, and you cease to become a person when your mind dies.

2) What do you mean we rule no such thing?  How do you think most organ transplants take place?  

Before going further, where do you stand?  Lets say one week after conception?  Is that a person?  I'm pretty sure that the mass of potential person would qualify for all the standards that would allow you to terminate the life of a brain dead patient.  So, where do you draw the line?  At the first meeting of sperm and egg?  When its two cells?  Four?  That's a person?  

(1) Sure you do; but who said anything about life being sacrosanct?

(1a) Why is it obviously retarded? Why are they people and a four-week old human not? What makes them people if their higher-order brain functions aren't up and running (which you seem to imply is the test)? And as to the last, isn't that what you're suggesting? What do you propose as the gold standard of personhood?

(2) I mean, strictly speaking, we do not "rule." Rule is a term of art referring to what judges do. (Hence, the second sentence.) Organ transplants are surgical procedures during which a healthy organ is used to replace or supplement an unhealthy organ in an unconscious animal; what does that have to do with this?

Where I stand is that conception does the trick. That way, I never have to decide that whole groups of humans aren't people, and I never risk advocating the murder of millions of persons. This way, I don't need to make up a test with all sorts of logical fallacies for what constitutes a person; I simply decide that all humans are persons, and don't run the risk of repeating any of the twentieth (and nineteenth) centuries' biggest errors.

As I presume you would not treat that human as a person, I ask again: What makes a human a person?

it is largely irrelevant as I indicated that the only time that "morality" can be legislated is when virtually everyone agrees - as we all do with respect to our property rights  - both those relating to property as commonly understood (theft, arson, fraid, etc.)...

So, if the pro-life side can get, say, 98% of the public to agree that fetuses are human beings whose lives merit legal protection, is it then permissible to take the steps to draft laws extending to them that protection?

And anyway, it's simply not the case that morality  must be agreed upon by virtrually everyone. The reality is in our system you only need a majority.

That's not really the case. Morality is legislated, or ruled by common law judges, and folks either actively assent or in practice don't give two shakes. Put it this way: Do you really think Americans went from effectively pro-life in 1972 (when all but a handful of states outlawed abortion) to effectively "pro-choice" in 1974 (the first full year after Roe)? Don't be silly. Rational apathy rules. Only if something terribly upsets the people will the rule either come to be, or repealed.

Yes, they will survive with intense medical aid at 20-22 weeks. I had been thinking of independent survival which is somewhat beyond 30 weeks.

My understanding is that the biggest developmental problem for 20-week preemies is the development of the lung surfaces that process oxygen.  That strikes me as a more arbitrary threshold for personhood than 'quickening,' which has at least an historical basis.

Why don't you talk to a woman who has been pregnant about this.

1)  You I guess, since you're arguing that a zygot should have the same legal protections as you or I.

1a) The thing that primarily separates you and me from a chimpanzee, for example, is our more developed cerebral cortex.  If you would compare our brains to an ape, or dog, or what have you, you'd notice that our brains are much more wrinkled and walnut like.  That increase surface area is what makes our unique consciousness possible.  Its what makes you you and me me.  A four week old embryo does not have this feature.

Obviously the gold standard of personhood is consciousness.  And by that I mean that which is specific to humanity.  Now, I'm not interesting in playing silly games like "Would you kill forest gump?  How about rain man?  What about a person with a lobotomy?"  just in case you're going to go that route.  

2)  Semantics aside, doctors "rule" persons dead all the time due to no brain activity, and they have specific criteria that they use to establish this on an EEG.  That's how you get a lot of donors, if I take a nasty shot in the head, I'm gone, but my heart and lungs haven't got the message.  So my wife, in accordance with my wishes, lets them harvest my lungs, eyes, kidneys, or what ever, after which point I undergo biological death and they dispose of me.

As for conception, that might work for you, but you don't have very strong scientific legs to stand on.  I could just as easily play silly games  like asking you what the difference between a fertilized egg and a non fertilized one, or a sperm cell?  I mean, is it the chromozone counts?  People have missing or extra chromozones all the time.  Is it the fact that sperm don't become babies on their own?  Well, many times fertilized eggs don't become babies either, for various reasons.  Which brings me to the next point.

I mean, should we prosecute a mother that miscarries for manslaughter?  Should we force women to be confined to beds and hospital wards when they find out they are pregnant?  After all, that would reduce the amount of miscarriages, and protect more innocent life.  

Just as I recognize that dying is not a binary on/off situation, and that the law reasonably allows leeway in how we pronounce people dead and what we do with them, I think there is an equally gray area when someone is becoming a living human being.  And just as I trust the person's family, physicians, and legal establishment to make sane decisions about a person's end of life, I trust the same mechanisms to do so for the start of life.  Does it get abused?  Sure, all systems do.  But I'd rather have the occasional abuse than dictate which areas are black and white for each individual woman, couple, and child.  I think this is, in balance, the more reasoned, mature, and scientifically informed view.

If you have a matter of faith that is overriding other concerns, I respect that.  But I don't think its right to legislate based on that criteria.

Not only is that beside the argument; beneath the level of a rational argument; and stupid; it's curiously mistaken in its factual premise. My wife was sitting over my shoulder as I typed that. She's been pregnant three times before, and she found your analysis, let us put this gently, jejune.

But then again, she grasps elementary genetics, and, bonus! she was never so self-absorbed that when she felt one of our little ones' feet sliding up and down her womb, she thought, Wow, I'm feeling my own body move within me!

Maybe she's missing that all-consuming narcissism that your side of this argument relies on? Maybe her grasp of biology isn't limited to the introductory classes English majors have to take in college? Or maybe your point is the sort of emotional retort usually standing in place of a declaration that the exhortant has nothing left to offer?

To paraphrase: freelunch, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(1) Yes.

(1a) How much consciousness? How does one measure it? You're the one who decided that a human is only a person if he or she is conscious; do clarify how you quantify the relevant minimums needed for consciousness. Please. You're the one demanding strict scientific proof; kindly offer objective criteria. I eagerly await your analysis.

(2) Semantics to the side, dead people are harvested for spare organs by their explicit pre-death wishes. Show me the unborn kid who wants to die, and we can talk. Until then, apples and oranges.

(3) Conception: I have no scientific legs to stand on? Truly? So a unique human creature (I'm not even getting into personhood) isn't in existence at the instant of conception? This only happens later? Please, do tell me why the scientific consensus of decades is wrong.

(3a) Your various canards:

(i) A fertilized egg has 23 paired chromosomes. An unfertilized egg has 23 unpaired chromosomes. A fertilized egg has a sex. An unfertilized egg does not. A fertilized egg, if not aborted deliberately or spontaneously, will someday carry on fatuous arguments in internet chat rooms. An unfertilized egg has to hope to be fertilized to pull that off.

(ii) Very good: Neither ova nor sperm become babies on their own. When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they hug and kiss and do other things, and then maybe a sperm joins with an egg and becomes a baby.

(iii) You're right: Sometimes fertilized eggs die. Nature's cruel. My wife and I experienced that first hand. On to your next silly point:

(iv) Do you even understand what manslaughter is? Or how one might come to be charged with it?

(v) No; all we ask, all we have ever asked, is ordinary care.

(vi) Yes, but locking you down with chains will reduce the likelihood that you'll get out on the road and kill someone. We don't force unreasonably precautions on folks on the off chance that someone will die; I see no reason this should be different, except for your desire to create a straw man by a reductio ad absurdum.

(4) There is no gray line on human life. Your science is, let us be frank, sub-par. You are using the terms "human life" and "person" interchangeably; this is error. What you mean is, some humans aren't persons, and I recognize gray areas there. My response is simple: That's one hell of a dangerous road to walk.

Your "trust" is a copout. Might we then infer that it's open season on everyone? I might have good, rational, well-thought-out reasons to kill someone in cold, well-reasoned blood; may I do so? Please? I can persuade my family, possibly my physician, and, where I used to practice, the legal establishment to either allow me to do so, or to pardon it afterward. Is this acceptable? Insofar as you object to any perceived ad hominems here (and in case it isn't clear, I'm comparing you to apologists for slavery), might I suggest that arguing that a scientifically illiterate view is more "reasoned and mature" than mine might just have started this little game.

(5) You misunderstand: I can point to conception and say There is a unique human life. You would insist on personhood (without, I note, any objective criteria for the same) before you allow that human the dignity of continued existence. I presume that all humans have that dignity (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, some garbage like that) built in; this way, I don't run the risk of the host of humans through history who've decided that some men are created less equal than others. I'm sure you catch my drift.

(6) Just to be fair: I eagerly await citations to well-established medical or biological journals showing that an embryo is not a human being, or, since I rather doubt that one is coming down the pike any time soon, a personhood index, with accompanying measurement device.

Quickening was an evidentiary standard for whether or not an abortion had been induced, not a measure of personhood.

1. In light of the evolution of this point, your reply is nonsensical.
   
2. Hmmm... I'd rather you show me the four week old fetus that can express or even conceive of the idea that they'd like to live.  Yet you'd give their preference for life, for the biological definition of life over the mother's health and wishes, I'd presume?  
   
3. But personhood is the key thing, isn't it?  I mean, a warm slab of brainless meat kept alive by a heart lung machine, or even merrily beating on its own, is still a human being.  Who cares?  Yet we can shut them off, with or without their permission, in accordance with law and familial consent.  Interestingly enough, you're not even as right as you are about what you think you are right about.  All kinds of freaky stuff happens with a fertilized egg.  Sometimes it splits in two, making two unique persons.  Sometimes, it splits, and then recombines, making one unique person out of two unique persons.  Intrauterine fratracide?

3i)  Sometimes, sometimes it has more and sometimes it has less.  Sometimes a fertilized egg has freaky combinations of sex that could be quite confusing someday to the future person possessing said sex.  If you find this line of argument persuasive, then what if we go down the list of the very real differences between a fertilized egg and, say, a ten week old fetus?

3ii)  Simple grandstanding on your part.

3iii-v)  Why would your personal experience be germane to convincing me of the wisdom of your argument?  If I were a teenager who's father raped me and I had an abortion, would it make any difference to you?  And for another hint, you aren't the only person in this discussion between two people who has had an emotionally painful miscarriage in their life.  At any rate, if you think a miscarriage is a termination of a person, then why shouldn't we demand more extra-ordinary care? How do you see what goes on at a fertility clinic, where they have vitrified human beings...

3vi)  Why is it that only you are allowed to make absurd arguments, like asking me why I don't support killing people who've been temporarily knocked cold or retarded children?  If you want to dispense with such meaningless arguments, then fine by me.

4)  I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, or if I have badly put it, but I think its clear from the first post that I differentiate between human life (a brain dead corpse, fertilized egg), and a person.  As far as gray lines, you are largely correct, but we make decisions on terminating human life on litterally a daily basis.  Some life is judged to die so that others can live, or have a better quality of life.  See state executions, war, collateral damage, voluntary helmet laws for motorcycles, police actions, etc.  And yes, abortion.  Some of these decisions affect admittedly guilty people.  Some affect innocent lives.  Yet we still do not shy away from making them.  I'm sure you'd agree with that, at least.  I feel crazy for even pointing this out, but I do so to illustrate that the gray area lies in how we make these decisions.  You yourself say you wouldn't protect unborn human life at any cost.

I might have good, rational, well-thought-out reasons to kill someone in cold, well-reasoned blood; may I do so? Please? I can persuade my family, possibly my physician, and, where I used to practice, the legal establishment to either allow me to do so, or to pardon it afterward. Is this acceptable?

First, now it is you who are confusing personhood and life.  Killing a potential human, while not desireable, isn't the same as killing an actual human.  Secondly, if you convince a jury to let you go, you're a free man.  That's how the system works.  And yes, I have faith in that system.

Next, take a deep breath.  You're taking this in a nasty direction I have no desire to go.  I'll withdraw my comment that I perceive my views as more scientific, if it will chill you down a few degrees.  Though really, what would you believe?  That I wilfully and knowingly hold a non scientific view point?  And if I also think my view is more mature, you feel justified in comparing me to a racist?  Again, hmm....

However, I am troubled by your insistance that many of the views you hold are black and white.  This implies that others holding the black view in your mind are what?  Psychopaths?  Equivalents to Nazi's apparently.

5) I have objective criteria for personhood.  Any doctor can look at an EEG and determine whether a person's mind is still alive.  In the fetus' case,  specifically at the level of development we're talking about, which goes down to a fertilized egg, the machinery in which a mind would inhabit is simply not present.

I catch your drift just fine.  I'm not arguing that darkies or retards or homos or those d*$# dirty jews aren't men deserving of the consitutional protections you mention.  So let's please stop equating nazism and the disgraced policies of eugenics with my views, ok?  If you won't, then you're not interested in convincing me, and to be frank, I'm not interested in convincing you.  Again, if you think I attacked you into provoking this view, fine.  I sincerely apologize.

So, let's just start at a one week old embryo?  Please elaborate your position.  Are contraceptives, including those that prevent a fertilized egg from successfully embedding itself into the uterus murder?  Should a victim of rape or incest be forced to carry the result of the crime forced upon them to term?

6) Why should I have to prove that a fertilized egg isn't a person?  By any objective personhood index I could find or come up with on my own, it is going to fail except at the very edges of the continuum where its a theoretical potential person.  Why should I be burdened with disproving what I feel is a negative?

(1) No, it's not. And note that I didn't engage in more argument than you in this reply.

(2) I'd rather you show me the unconscious human who can do the same thing.

(3) Why is it the key thing? Because you so assert? Charming.

(3i) If you really want to start arguing exceptions, we can be here all day.

(3ii) No, it's actually called "sarcasm."

(3iii-v) I never asserted I was the only one; my point is that your argument is a reductio ad absurdum with no understanding of the relevant terminology.

(3vi) To the contrary: I think your whole argument is absurd. Please, don't think I haven't noted; please continue.

(4) Most of the first of this point is a rehash. So I'll skip right to the subpoints:

(a) Actually, I confuse nothing of the sort. "Personhood" is nebulous. "Alive" is not. Nor is "human life." Thus, my continued insistence on objective criteria for "personhood" -- unless you can show, logically, and with due attention to science, easily measurable, readily ascertainable criteria for "personhood," then it would seem everyone has an open presumption against their continued existence. Every day, I deal with folks incapable of rational argument, and I mean that precisely, not perjoratively: What makes them conscious enough to escape the axe? That they can write their name? I've had clients who could not, because of age or intellectual capacity. Reason? Plenty who couldn't. Speak? Nope. I'm actually rather serious: Do we have to hook up an EEG to every human to make sure they can live? Because you don't know they're manifesting the "right" brain waves until you do. And what's the minimal number of correct polarization/depolarization waves? And the frequency of the same?

(b) Actually, I usually presume that those decreeing whole groups of humans non-persons are actually doing so out of willful blindness, scientific ignorance, or a desire to do something that would be compromised if they admitted to the personhood of the subject of that action. I don't presume malice on the parts of those holding such a view, but I am open to it.

(c) Actually, I wasn't going the Nazi route. I was heading the antebellum American slaveholder route. One presumes from your writing style that you're not from that region; I am. If you grow up there, you learn forward and back all of the ridiculous arguments used to justify chattel slavery; it's actually sickening to see the same, old arguments resurrected again, with a complete lack of historical perspective attending them. (Properly, Nazis thought of their targets as sub-men; slaveholders thought of their targets as non-men.)

(5) Putting everything else to the side (I think (c) answers that): A one week old embryo is a human being. I presume that it's a person, so that I don't repeat the worn, tired categorical errors mentioned above. Deliberately taking the contraceptive to destroy that embryo deliberately destroys that human life; inadvertantly destroying the embryo is a tragedy. And: Yes -- what has the child done to the woman carrying the child? I have no problem bringing back the death penalty for rapists; solve the problem at the source. Punish the criminal, not the innocent human.

(6) Why should I have to prove that a fertilized egg isn't a person?  By any objective personhood index I could find or come up with on my own, it is going to fail except at the very edges of the continuum where its a theoretical potential person.  Why should I be burdened with disproving what I feel is a negative?

Because you're the one arguing for their deliberate extermination. And because you really can't escape the flaws in your argument: I have two former clients, one four, one nine, the former of whom will die by 11 and never reach the intellectual capacity of a one-day old (the doctors describe her as being "functionally constantly unconscious") and one who will never reach the capacity of a one year old (and who'll die at 20). Pray tell, how are they conscious in any sense of the word? Children aren't aware of themselves as individuals until at least a few months old; in no meaningful sense are they "conscious" or "sentient" (which is what I rather think you mean -- after all, chickens are conscious). Children with Tay-Sachs, by age five or so, are basically no more aware than newborns, if that. Tell me how they get to live (all of them), under your regime.

You haven't offered an argument that actually addresses the physiological dependence of the embryo and fetus on the mother. You chose, instead, to fall back to insults and misleading comments about what I said. You still have to deal with the fact that the embryo is physiologicically a part of the mother.

By now you should know that pregnancy is a development process that allows the baby to become a separate life. Up to the point of birth, the fetus is as dependent on the mother as any other of her cells. Sometimes, the birth occurs too early, and that baby is not prepared to survive. Some die, others are able to live only with massive medical intervention. Now, as you know, none of those facts have anything to do with the fact that the baby has different genes.

"My Side"? Can you tell me exactly what I would like to see done to change the law about abortions? Frankly, I've found that the best allies that NARAL has are the folks who insist they cannot ever compromise on there pro-life platform, they refuse to consider anything less than making abortion a more serious crime than it has ever been in the history of American jurisprudence. Not only do they energize the NARAL base, but they make sure that sensible alternatives are never considered. NARAL, of course, helps feed these people with their unreasoning defense of specific late-term mechanisms.

1. You're going through all kinds of mental hurdles to escape the fact that we routinely decide to terminate all forms of life up to and including humans.  But then you go to the "killing rain man" route and say I'm committing logical fallacies.  And you even use the fancy latin terms for them.  Here's something to think about:  I full knew I was using logical fallacies to highlight your own, and mentioned the fact while I did it.  You played yours straight up.  For shame.
   
2. Hey, before you knock them on the head, I'm sure they'd express a desire not to be killed while their out cold.  Some might even come up with a document that legally binds people on exactly when they find it acceptable for the medical community to kill them.  And a single cell can't do that because...?  They lack fingers to sign the document?  Or, because they lack the mind to formulate such a concept?
   
3. You asked, I answered, you condescend.  Really, its shameful.  Again you refuse to admit we routinely kill human life all the time.  Ergo (latin!) we don't use human life as sole arbitrar of who we do and do not kill.  But, I find you're anti-pulling the plug on people.  And I guess anti-war and anti-death penalty too.  If so, then at least you are self-consistant.

3i) Which is kind of the point.  Bilogical differences between what you consider human life and not human life are arbitrary.  If simply listing an exhaustive list between the differences between one thing and another works for you, there are huge differences between a fertilized egg and a four week old.

3ii-blah)  Well, I can't escalate the verbal violence here without violating the posting rules.  I guess you win.  Again, shameful.

4) So what?  You understood me the whole time and are simply grandstanding?  Ok.

4a) You're uncomfortable with grey areas.  Me too.  That's why, although personhood begins when the cerebral cortex develops, and the ability to have personality, memories, and thoughts develop, I'm actually content to define it as when brain waves are first detected, which is way, way, way before personhood.  I still find abortion regrettable under these circumstances, but cannot abortion during these times with murder.  Now, let me spell it out for you.  That means obviously I'm against MURDERING SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB! Because I don't have a reliable way to determine if they are people or not, but I do if they don't have the biological equipment to hold consciousness.  

4b) And the same for me for those that presume to make decisions, like not allowing victims of rape to take a pill that will not allow a fertilized egg to take hold in her womb, for her.  Though I must admit, the malice, or the lack of compassion, to me is usually pretty clear in these cases.

4c)  Hah, you judge me from my writing style.  I was wondering what irrelevant personal detail you'd drag into the debate this round.  I'm from Indiana, but spent four years in Texas growing up, from 10-14.  Loved it.  I spent every summer from 6-16 in Mobile Alabama living with my mother's side of the family on their dairy ranch.  Now where was I?  Oh yeah, I don't have the slightest idea what your predjudices about where I grew up have to do with anything.  As an aside, I find your over use of the most arrogant sentance prefix in the English dictionary, "Actually," to more fitting of a northeast liberal.  So there!  :-)

Anyway, I could care less about your route.  Their all disgusting comparisons, and nonsensical ones to boot, and if we were in a real life situation, say, talking this over a beer and you made them, I'm not sure what would happen.  I'm pretty sure I'd at least start tuning you out though.  

And its pretty clear that while slaveholders might have bleated that their charges were non-human, they didn't have any informed view to fall back on.  Or did they do double blind disections of white and black brains, hook up EEG's, and cognative studies?  No, they didn't?  Well, what I bunch of stupid cruel idiots then.  Then again, if their slaves had been single fertilized cells, instead of ACTUAL PEOPLE, they might have had a point.  How much cotten a MINDLESS CELL could pick would be another issue.

5.  So you value the life of a single cell above that of an actual human.  Amazing.  Thank god I don't have you making my decisions for me or my family.  And thank god that you never will.
   
6.  You are hysterical, I find.  The burden of proof that a single cell is a person lies entirely on you, my friend.  I admit its a human life, but then you've never really admitted that its acceptable to terminate any human life.  Which makes me think you'd like to make the decision for families that decide to pull the plug on their loved ones.  Again, thank god you weren't setting the rules governing my grandmother who passed away two months ago from cancer.  I could have still been keeping a bedside vigil for her warm corpse, at my grandfather's or taxpayers expense, instead of just starting to rebuild and emotionally recover.

Moreover, if we had your view of human life, we would never have gone to war with Iraq (think of the truly innocent lives lost, what did they do?), and we'd never execute criminals (after all, we can't 100% prove they are guilty).  In short, we'd be paralyzed making any decision in the real world that touched on the stopping of human life.  You fail to admit this because it would be devastating to your argument and your world view.  

I see why you get people that don't see a single cell as a person confused with slaveholders.  You confuse everything else, too.  Like repeatedly asking me why my view for something inside a mother's body without a brain doesn't inform my view of human life outside of the body without brainwaves.   I might as well ask why you support swatting flies but not killing people.  It doesn't scan.  The one has nothing to do with the other.

But since you've decided to amp up the personal attacks despite my attempts to make peace rather than go forward with reasoned debate, and you were talking past me at the first reply as noted in the paragraph above...  I'm done here.  Feel free to respond, I'll definately read it.  Then you can count coup and feel good about defeating the forces of evil yet again.  

From Animal Liberation:

"The capacity for suffering is the vital characteristic that gives a being the RIGHT to equal consideration." (my capital letters)

Since animals have the capacity for suffering, according to Singer, they therefore have the RIGHT to moral consideration.

This is not particularly complicated. There are narrowly defined constructions of rights, defended by some philosphers, that would classify Singer's assertions as "welfarist" and not technically based on rights. Nevertheless, any conventional, "dictionary" definition of the term would include Singer's views, as, indeed, Singer himself does in the excerpt above.

Later.  

That there's a difference between being dependent on and being part of.

I see there's little point in this debate. You perceive that I'm misconstruing you, and respond like a scalded cat when I reply to an ad hominem. I think your science background would be cutting edge no later than 1920, and your ability with the language considerably earlier than that. Neither of us is actually arguing with the other.

Good day.