Abortion

quote:

---

On the other hand I find it hard to rationalise aborting a human life because they are inconvenient.

---

I am growing uncomfortable with the slightly strident, judgemental language which is beginning to creep into your posts.If the person having an abortion actually thinks of the "zef" as a mere inconvenience (and I am not convinced that this is true for many women), do you really want them to raise this child?How many unwanted children have you adopted, or were a foster parent for? Have you ever come close to doing something like this? Do you know any friends or aquaintences who have done this?I know of one couple who adopted a little girl...from Thailand. That's ONE. Every other married couple that I know in my generation is pretty much breeding like bunnies.The fact is, people don't want the children who are available for adoption right now, because they'd rather make their own.I am not saying that abortion is the answer. I think abortion is terrible. We need to make sex education and family planning much more a priority, and we need to educate and elevate the status of all women in our culture to full and equal, so girls will have solid senses of self-worth. We need to teach our boys to have much more respect for a woman's body as more that an object of his sexual desire. We need to stop "adultifying" and sexualizing images of children in advertizing and entertainment.I am just saying; who is going to raise all of those children if you force the mothers to carry them to term?

//I am growing uncomfortable with the slightly strident, judgemental language which is beginning to creep into your posts.//
It seems that if one is "playing" devils advocate that one adopts the rhetoric of the argument.//If the person having an abortion actually thinks of the "zef" as a mere inconvenience (and I am not convinced that this is true for many women), do you really want them to raise this child?//
Exactly.
Of course the Lifer response is that these women should simply adopt out any unwanted newborns.//The fact is, people don't want the children who are available for adoption right now, because they'd rather make their own.//
Damned genetit imperative.There are at least 50,000 children awaiting adoption in the US alone... that out of the 500,000 in the US Foster Care program.
Most are fostered to other family memebers.The likelihood of being adopted, in the US, if you're not a healthy, white baby is small.//I am not saying that abortion is the answer. I think abortion is terrible.//
I quite agree.
I'd be perfectly happy if there were only absolutely necessary abortions done because sex ed, government support and social mores made all the rest unecessary.//We need to make sex education and family planning much more a priority, and we need to educate and elevate the status of all women in our culture to full and equal, so girls will have solid senses of self-worth. We need to teach our boys to have much more respect for a woman's body as more that an object of his sexual desire. We need to stop "adultifying" and sexualizing images of children in advertizing and entertainment.//
Amen sista!
Testify!//I am just saying; who is going to raise all of those children if you force the mothers to carry them to term?//
According to Lifers there are an adequte number of infertile or childless Lifer couples just *WAITING* for them.
Riiight... that and 50cents will get you a cup of coffee.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

//1)Why? I seem to remember that in your first post here you pretty much agreed with my position on the matter.....//
Why not?
You seem to have no difficulty with this "hall monitor" mentality... I was simply hoping you had something meaningful to add to the discussion.//2)Thats fine however your replies border on the ad hom so please follow Percys guidelines and "debate the issue not the person"....//
Ah, what I fine line I tread, eh? Also, assuming that you are a Evolutionist, you may have noticed from your dealings with Creationists and Fundamentalists that at some point it becomes obvious that the person *is* the issue.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

In a nutshell:
The issue of an ethical/moral rationale for abortion is moot as personal philosophies are just that, personal.
As soon as Mark, or any other male for that matter, is able to abort, he can offer a valid ethical/moral rationale for his decision... until then such a stance is pointless.
If he wants to chastise women for their choices, thats his issue.On the issue of the *legality* of abortion.
As I've pointed out to Mark, the basis for it in the US is British and US common law as well as Hellenic and Jewish law to some extent.
Check out the Roe V Wade transcript and judgement.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/decision/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/audio/reargue/transcript.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/audio/argue/transcript.html
http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/roeins.htmYou'll discover that none of these arguments are new.In the US one is endowed with the rights covered in the Constitution at birth or upon naturalization.
This is why the children of illegal immigrants are considered US citizens.The basis for my position on abortion legality rests entirely on the protection of the individual inherent in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It is my contention that the state has absolutely *no* right to interfere with a womans reproductive decisions except to provide protection for adequate services for her needs.
In other words, licensed and regulated hospitals, OBGYNs, GPs, and abortion clinics.
It is in this area that, IMO, the SCOTUS dropped the ball.The state oversteps its authority when it dictates the outcome of a pregnancy.
The state also abuses its own citizens by administering judicial punishment for obvious psychological issues, ie., the state of South Carolina putting a woman in jail for being a pregnant crack addict rather than helping her solve her addiction problems.
"A new twist on the feticide concept has now brought the issue full circle. In Whitner v. State, No. 2446 (S.C. Oct 27,1997) the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a viable fetus was a "person" for the purposes of the state's child neglect statute. In doing so, the court upheld a woman's conviction for criminal child neglect for ingesting crack cocaine while pregnant in her third term, thus causing her child to be born with cocaine products in its system."
http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htmApproximately 28 states have adopted shady feticide laws, sponsored by Pro Lifers, who's wording is obviously intended to impinge on a womans right to abortion.
Such laws could easily be worded so as to bring punishment on those who commit feticide without threatening this previously established right and focusing on the *woman* and not the fetus.If the goal of Lifers is to reduce the number of abortions then let them do so as Schraf indicated, by using eduaction and social change.
The repeated attempts to illegalize abortion stem directly from a religious belief and is akin to fascism.On the issue of a biological rationale of "worth" of a fetus.
While the idea of "worth" is entirely subjective and essentially a red herring in this discussion, lets at least address the biological basis for it.
There is no issue that the zef in question is of the species homo sapiens.
There is no issue with the fact that it is alive and growing.
What is at issue is that its potential is meaningful and that its "worth" is equal to or supercedes that of a born, fully actualized, adult human being with already established legal rights.In comparing the two we find that a zef is sorely lacking in the primary indicator of "human being-ness", a functioning cerebral cortex.
Joseph Fletchers "indicators of humanhood" which includes the following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity are based solely on the higher brain functions of the cerebral cortex and nothing else.
Without the CC, no human being is capable of *any* of the above activities.
The human neo-nate is not capable of self-awareness, self-control or much else beyond eating and excreting until at least 6 to 8 weeks of age, at which point the CC begins to tentatively assert itself.
It isnt until the next 4 to 8 weeks that the CC eventually takes over voluntary control of what were previously involuntary activities controlled by the same portions of the lower brain that control autonomic functions.
From this point on the CC grows at an enormous rate as it learns and evolves.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

​

[This message has been edited by bretheweb, 02-24-2002]

[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb:
In comparing the two we find that a zef is sorely lacking in the primary indicator of "human being-ness", a functioning cerebral cortex.
Joseph Fletchers "indicators of humanhood" which includes the following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity are based solely on the higher brain functions of the cerebral cortex and nothing else.[/b][/QUOTE]Be careful with this one ... you're heading towards dehumanising alzheimer's sufferers here. And be doubly careful because our capacity to correctly assess at least 4 of these depends on communication. [QUOTE][b]
Without the CC, no human being is capable of *any* of the above activities.
The human neo-nate is not capable of self-awareness, self-control or much else beyond eating and excreting until at least 6 to 8 weeks of age, at which point the CC begins to tentatively assert itself.
It isnt until the next 4 to 8 weeks that the CC eventually takes over voluntary control of what were previously involuntary activities controlled by the same portions of the lower brain that control autonomic functions. [/QUOTE][/b]
I would be extremely cautious about potentially dehumanising neonates in this way. For example, it is only in the last few years that the official body of anaesthesioligists in the UK recommended the use of anaesthesia during all operations on neonates - until then it was not thought they could feel pain. The general trend of studies in infant growth has been to push back the significant steps in the development of cognition earlier and earlier.The issue of which point in development we allow abortion seems to me to require a surer philosophical footing than this: because the
criteria of what constitutes a full human life is too dependent on the current state of science.Mary Warnock approached this subject from a slightly different perspective when considering the use of embryos for research - noting that up to the point at which an embryo may divide to form twins it cannot be securely predicated personality, because at that point it is not clearly one or two persons, and uniqueness would appear to be an essential of personhood. Her conclusions included the proviso that the exact timing of this stage will vary and indeed any law based on such a criterion (roughly a 14 day limit) would require constant review in the light of new research.14 days is clearly so early as to rule out abortion, though not the morning-after pill. Nevertheless, her approach seems to be a correct one - though she herself does not extend it to the issue of abortion.My personal feeling is that abortion is not an acceptable option - but it is an option that individuals in society will resort to. Societies as a whole have many ways of making permissable those actions which they would generally consider repulsive. The killing of civilians in wartime has been justified, even when purposeful; the frequently gruesome and always calculated execution of a convict: language and laws find ways to permit these things when the good of society as a whole is at stake.Abortion however is seen as being only for the benefit of a very few individuals and therefore unacceptable to many. Part of the answer must be to recognise not only the human status of a prenatal child, but the human and social status of its mother and the of the child itself if born. Unfortunately we demonize the "crack addict mother", the "promsicuous teenager", even the "heartless career woman" rather than embracing them as cherished and valuable members of society. (And in how many cases are such the product of an earlier, subtler demonization and turning away from the "rebellious teenager", the "difficult child", or of an emphasis on financial and social and career success that demotes the status of those who stand in our way?)Too often, pro-lifers take a view that all human life is sacred, only to desanctify through words and deeds the vulnerable, the confused, the fallen, the lost and the enemy. [b] [QUOTE] From this point on the CC grows at an enormous rate as it learns and evolves.
[/b][/QUOTE]On a lighter note, I know what you mean here, but evolves may be the wrong word to use on this forum in this context. :-)

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-24-2002]

//Be careful with this one ... you're heading towards dehumanising alzheimer's sufferers here.//
Ok, but would you consider someone who has completely lost their CC, regardless of specific disease, as exemplifying human being-ness?
If so, what is your criteria for such?Remember, we are already taking about homo sapiens, so please dont resort to DNA answers.//And be doubly careful because our capacity to correctly assess at least 4 of these depends on communication.//
To the list we might add then, "the ability to communicate".I dont necessarily agree with all of Fletchers list.
I'd leave it at self-awareness.
But either way, the very structure of the neonatal CC, til about 2 months, makes self-awareness a complete impossiblity.
That puppy is on "lizard brain" cruise control.In any event, the same rationale that considers neonates as legal persons, regardless of a lack of self-awareness, because they are born, also protects those in coma's, Alzheimers patients, those declared brain-dead, etc.//I would be extremely cautious about potentially dehumanising neonates in this way.//
If we are attempting to establish a criteria for humanity how can they be "de-humanized"?
Obviously you consider them human beings based on some other criteria.
What exactly is that criteria?//For example, it is only in the last few years that the official body of anaesthesioligists in the UK recommended the use of anaesthesia during all operations on neonates - until then it was not thought they could feel pain.//
And I dont disagree.
Better safe than sorry, I say.
But, IIRC, the main point of that recommendation was that the intense pain of pre-natal surgeries effected the growth patterns of the nervous system... not beause the neo-nates actually "feel" the pain.
POST note 94.
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdfPAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand///The general trend of studies in infant growth has been to push back the significant steps in the development of cognition earlier and earlier.//
Any citations for this?
I'd love to read them.Obviously greater scientific knowledge will continue to inform us on these decisions, but it is foolish to think that this increased knowledge of biology will dictate an answer.//The issue of which point in development we allow abortion seems to me to require a surer philosophical footing than this: because the
criteria of what constitutes a full human life is too dependent on the current state of science.//
I dont disagree, but science is not going to answer this question, merely reinforce the decision.
Again, to turn this around, why is it acceptable to limit a womans rights simply because she is pregnant?
If this were applicable to men as well, I'd be a little less concerned about it, but then I suspect if men were as intimately involved there'd be less of an issue.//Mary Warnock approached this subject from a slightly different perspective...//
And yet the only thing being established there is that a *potential* human being exists.
Not that one is fully actualized.Did you know that less than 20% of all fertilized eggs make it to birth?If we were to declare 14 day old zygote/embyo's to be legal persons and they die, who is responsible?How do they investigate the death of that *child*?//Nevertheless, her approach seems to be a correct one - though she herself does not extend it to the issue of abortion.//
Ok, but that would merely be the argument from potential.//My personal feeling is that abortion is not an acceptable option - but it is an option that individuals in society will resort to.//
Acceptable to whom?
Have you ever been involved with someone who chose to abort?//Societies as a whole have many ways of making permissable those actions which they would generally consider repulsive. The killing of civilians in wartime has been justified, even when purposeful; the frequently gruesome and always calculated execution of a convict: language and laws find ways to permit these things when the good of society as a whole is at stake.//
And abortion, like war, has been with humanity since its inception.As I pointed out before, I'd be perfectly happy if the only abortions that took place did so for medical necessity only and therefore every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy.
But illgalizing abortion and rendering half of the population potential second class citizens is an absolutely and completely unacceptable solution.//Abortion however is seen as being only for the benefit of a very few individuals and therefore unacceptable to many//
A little more than one fifth of all pregnancies are terminated yearly.
Thats not a minority.
"The 1996 total of 6.24 million pregnancies included 3.89 million live
births, 1.37 million induced abortions, and 0.98 million fetal losses. This means that 62 percent of pregnancies in the United States ended in live birth, 22 percent ended in induced abortion, and 16 percent ended in fetal loss."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_29.pdf//Part of the answer must be to recognise not only the human status of a prenatal child, but the human and social status of its mother and the of the child itself if born.//
While I understand what you mean and I know that you mean well, I disagree with the idea of "recognizing the human status of a prenate" as I've yet to see anyone create a workable solution that does not strip women of their rights.
Because in the end this entails endowing legal personhood on prenates.//Unfortunately we demonize the "crack addict mother", the "promsicuous teenager", even the "heartless career woman" rather than embracing them as cherished and valuable members of society.//
Agreed.
Which is why the *real* solution to the issue is one of educating and empowering women and supporting their decisions.//Too often, pro-lifers take a view that all human life is sacred, only to desanctify through words and deeds the vulnerable, the confused, the fallen, the lost and the enemy.//
Agreed.//On a lighter note, I know what you mean here, but evolves may be the wrong word to use on this forum in this context.//
HeheheheReally?
(not playing innocent very well, am I?) brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
On the other hand I find it hard to rationalise aborting a human life because they are inconvenient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I am growing uncomfortable with the slightly strident, judgemental language which is beginning to creep into your posts.

​

---

How is that strident or judgemental? Most people get abortions because they are pregnant & don't want a baby, no? They have an abortion because it is inconvenient. I in no way say it is a flip decision. I was witness to this myself. It was an agonising decision that I am glad I never had to make, & my heart went out for her. But it was still, at the end of the day, a decision of convenience. If pointing this out is judgemental, then so be it.Whilst we are being critical of each other, the next time you avoid my question by posing your own, I'm going to call you Redstang, OK? Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I asked for a rationale for a cut off for the point where a human can be terminated or not. You said birth, I asked why, you said because a baby is independent, a zef isn’t. I pointed out there are examples of dependent people that have been born, comas, etc. A new born baby is dependent, not necessarily on it’s mother. But being "dependent" doesn’t mean dependent on its mother. If you meant it to, you should have said so. Be specific.When I say human, I mean the species Homo sapien sapien. A gestating ball of cells in a human female qualifies.So, if birth or independence isn’t a criteria for not terminating, what is? Or if you want to have another bash as these two, then by all means.That western civilisation allows abortion, or any government in particular is irrelevant. It is the act itself that is in question, so pointing to places that allow it as part of your argument is circular.Lastly, I never called abortion evil. I used the term lesser of the two evils purely in a comparative manner, as you very well know. That you are prepared to twist lesser of the two evils into abortion is evil is a disgusting twist on my words. And it is you who despise intellectual dishonesty? Spare me.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

//I asked for a rationale for a cut off for the point where a human can be terminated or not.//
And you expressed some difficulty with what I proposed.//You said birth, I asked why, you said because a baby is independent, a zef isn’t.//
Actually what I stated was the legal facts here in US regarding personhood... and made no attempt to "rationalize a cut off point for abortion".You seemed confused by this distinction.I did, in a later post, give my rationale for my opinion on this.
Will you respond to that at some point?//I pointed out there are examples of dependent people that have been born, comas, etc.//
Irrelevent as being born makes them independent *from their mothers* regardless of later difficulties, ie., coma.
I suppose I should have pointed out the obvious.
Silly me.//A new born baby is dependent, not necessarily on it’s mother.//
Exactly.
It is independent of its mother.//But being "dependent" doesn’t mean dependent on its mother. If you meant it to, you should have said so. Be specific.//
Again, given the topic of discussion, I didnt feel that pointing out the blindingly obvious was necessary.
I stand corrected and will endeavor to do so in the future when posting to you.//When I say human, I mean the species Homo sapien sapien. A gestating ball of cells in a human female qualifies.//
This is not at issue.
The issue of two homo sapiens can only be homo sapien.
Did you not understand the quote from Practical Ethics?We're not talking about ducks here.
We're talking about what constitutes "human being-ness".
I feel that Fletchers definition is closer to a rational perspective than anything else I've read.Feel free to explain your definition.//So, if birth or independence isn’t a criteria for not terminating, what is?//
So now I'm doing your job too?There is no viable criteria for setting a point for a prenate to not be terminated if that is the womans wishes.The reality is that given the choice, most women will abort within the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy (88%) and any that abort after 21 weeks do so almost exclusively for medical reasons of wanted pregnancies.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.htmlSo *your* job is to construct a convincing argument that will compell women in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy to give up their individual reproductive rights to carry that unwanted pregnancy to term.I'll wait.//Or if you want to have another bash as these two, then by all means.//
Lord why?
I'm no masochist and this dicussion with you have become increasingly pointless.
I'll pass, thanks.//That western civilisation allows abortion, or any government in particular is irrelevant.//
Not for setting legal precedence it isnt.
Please, for your own sake, at least acknowledge that there is a legal aspect to this issue.//It is the act itself that is in question, so pointing to places that allow it as part of your argument is circular.//
No act takes place in a vacuum Mark.
Sorry, but you dont get to sanitize this into a purely theoretcal discussion.When you face the choice of aborting, you can certainly share with us your rationale for not doing so and I will respect it no matter what I think of it.However, if you are attempting to have your *personal* philosophy dictate what effects others, in this case women with unwanted pregnancies, you'll have to explain just how you would do this without involving the governmnet and law and in a fashion that does not strip women of their reproductive rights.//Lastly, I never called abortion evil. I used the term lesser of the two evils purely in a comparative manner, as you very well know.//
Do I?
Please explain how exactly are you aware of what I know?That you were attempting a comparison is obvious, that you were doing so in a manner that indicated a particular mind-set is also obvious.
I just found your choice of the word "evil" telling is all.//That you are prepared to twist lesser of the two evils into abortion is evil is a disgusting twist on my words.//
Then may I suggest you learn to choose your words more wisely and develop a finer grasp on your native tongue.//And it is you who despise intellectual dishonesty? Spare me.//
::applause::
You play the offended intellecual very well.
I'm not buying it... but good try nonetheless... pip, pip and all that.brett
ps...just curious, do I get to call you "Redstang" for avoiding all the questions I asked you in the post you responded to?------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//I asked for a rationale for a cut off for the point where a human can be terminated or not.//

​

And you expressed some difficulty with what I proposed.

​

---

Yup, & I gave my reasons, & you still haven’t satisfactorily explained that rationale.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//When I say human, I mean the species Homo sapien sapien. A gestating ball of cells in a human female qualifies.//
This is not at issue.
The issue of two homo sapiens can only be homo sapien.
Did you not understand the quote from Practical Ethics?

---

I did, do you understand a human foetus is a Homo sapien. You can argue with zoologists if you wish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

We're not talking about ducks here.
We're talking about what constitutes "human being-ness".
I feel that Fletchers definition is closer to a rational perspective than anything else I've read.
Feel free to explain your definition.

---

Wrong, were talking about what constitutes a human being, a Homo sapien sapien. Not human being-ness. A functioning cerebral cortex is IRRELEVANT to what makes a Homo sapien, a Homo sapien. It is the genetic information that is carried that ultimately defines the species. Homo sapien sapiens are humans, ergo, anything that is genetically human, is human. You have picked up on Fletchers definition because it enables you to say zefs aren’t human, & it is easier for you to rationalise abortion that way.
If you don’t agree, what species are zefs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//So, if birth or independence isn’t a criteria for not terminating, what is?//
So now I'm doing your job too?

---

How on earth are you doing my job? You made this criteria, not me, back it up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Or if you want to have another bash as these two, then by all means.//
Lord why?
I'm no masochist and this dicussion with you have become increasingly pointless.
I'll pass, thanks.

---

Put up, or shut up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//That western civilisation allows abortion, or any government in particular is irrelevant.//
Not for setting legal precedence it isnt.
Please, for your own sake, at least acknowledge that there is a legal aspect to this issue.
//It is the act itself that is in question, so pointing to places that allow it as part of your argument is circular.//
No act takes place in a vacuum Mark.
Sorry, but you dont get to sanitize this into a purely theoretcal discussion.

---

Good grief! Of course abortion is/isn’t enshrined in law (depending on location). You are trying to use the fact that western civilisation/governments have legal abortion, to support your claim that abortion SHOULD be legal. This is CIRCULAR, because you are using the legality of it to satisfy your claims it should be legal.
Do you understand why you cannot use circular reasoning?So, finally, to return to the original question.What criteria do you apply to a human (that’s species, right?), that allows a termination at one point, but not another? And please rationalise it.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

//Yup, & I gave my reasons, & you still haven’t satisfactorily explained that rationale.//
And I think I explained to you that I wasnt resopnsible for your inability to comprehend.//I did, do you understand a human foetus is a Homo sapien.//
Ah then apprently you *did not* comprehend the Singer quote.//You can argue with zoologists if you wish.//
At what point will you comprehend what I post?
As I pointed out, the taxonomy of homo sapiens is not at issue.//Wrong, were talking about what constitutes a human being, a Homo sapien sapien. Not human being-ness.//
We most certainly are, Mark.
DNA defines Homo sapiens.
End of story.
Once again for the fourth time, that is not what is at issue.
An anencephalatic infant is still a member of the species homo sapiens.
A corpse is still a member of the species homo sapiens.
Neither embody the qualities of human beings.
Of human being-ness.//A functioning cerebral cortex is IRRELEVANT to what makes a Homo sapien, a Homo sapien.//
Sigh.
You are pretty good at building strawmen, Mark.
But not advancing this discussion.Now will you actually address the issue Redstang?//It is the genetic information that is carried that ultimately defines the species.//
Bravo, you've passed Bio 101.//Homo sapien sapiens are humans, ergo, anything that is genetically human, is human.//
But not a human being.
As my neurologist friend likes to point out, her liver is genetically human, but it is not a human being.//You have picked up on Fletchers definition because it enables you to say zefs aren’t human, & it is easier for you to rationalise abortion that way.//
LOL
You're too funny, Mark.
Fletchers definition describes human beings and accepts that we are talking about the species homo sapiens.
Actually I stumbled upon Fletchers definition which succiently described what I'd been thinking.
And just so you know, Mark, there is no reason for *me* to "rationalize" abortion as I will never get one.
What I'm doing is dismantling your argument so that you will eventually understand that *you* cannot rationalize making it illegal.//If you don’t agree, what species are zefs?//
Lord, man, are you really this dense?
Or do you simply not read the posts through?//How on earth are you doing my job? You made this criteria, not me, back it up.//
You seem unwilling to even attempt to defend your position and are begging me to do it for you.
Sorry... wont happen.
I simply wont enable intellectual laziness.//Put up, or shut up.//
LOL
Read for comprehension.//Good grief! Of course abortion is/isn’t enshrined in law (depending on location). You are trying to use the fact that western civilisation/governments have legal abortion, to support your claim that abortion SHOULD be legal.//
Ah the appeal to universal morals... how droll.
"Enshrined"?
Another telling choice of words.No, Mark, what I'm doing is explaining to you *why* abortion is legal in western civilization, since this is the socitey we both share.
You want to argue about abortion in China, you're on your own.//This is CIRCULAR, because you are using the legality of it to satisfy your claims it should be legal.//
No, Mark, in fact, if you'd comprehended my posts, what I'm doing is telling you that *my* position is far more "liberal" than what exists in either of our countries.
My contention is that abortion should not be limited at all, except by birth.
Your inability to comprehend this is amusing at best.//Do you understand why you cannot use circular reasoning?//
Do you understand why I dont consider your framing of the argument in this manner relevent?//So, finally, to return to the original question.//
Very well Redstang.
But let me suggest that you peruse my prior posts at your leisure and perhaps respond to some of the questions I've put to you.
I'd be delighted to read your responses.//What criteria do you apply to a human (that’s species, right?), that allows a termination at one point, but not another? //
LOL
Birth is the only valid criteria that allows termination at one point, but not another.
Infringing on the reproductive rights of a woman is both unjust and fascist.
Placing the rights of a non-senitent, unactualized prenate over that of a born, sentient, fully acutalized human being can only be viewed as vile and criminal.//And please rationalise it.//
I'm convinced that there is nothing anyone could possibly say that could satisfy your definition of "rationalize" in this instance.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:
... would you consider someone who has completely lost their CC, regardless of specific disease, as exemplifying human being-ness? If so, what is your criteria for such?

---

Interesting. One could cease to be human, but still be alive? This reminds me (in it's approach) of the recent thinking of the Polish biologist Korzeniewski who has proposed a new definition of "life" which excludes infertile humans. He was attempting to address the problem that it is easy to describe life but not at all easy to define it. I think the same difficulty arises with descriptions and definitions of humanity. Fletcher's list is a good description of the functions of a fully formed human, but rather fails as a definition. [b] [QUOTE]I dont necessarily agree with all of Fletchers list.
I'd leave it at self-awareness. But either way, the very structure of the neonatal CC, til about 2 months, makes self-awareness a complete impossiblity. That puppy is on "lizard brain" cruise control. [/b][/QUOTE]From personal experience of my son's development, I would be astonished if self-awareness were not developed before 2 months. But your argument is question-begging, the definition of self-awareness being itself epistomologically prickly. And in practical terms, I don't think we know enough about the structural relation of the CC, or any brain structure and aspects of consciousness to support this argument fully even given an acceptable definition.You are right that neonates are protected by the same principles as the mentally incapacitated - and in my mind, this is quite right. Hard cases arise however. A fetus delivered with the aim of saving it extremely early may be considered as a perilous neonate to be protected. Another fetus of the same age may be delivered as an aborted fetus and would not be considered protected.But the different status afforded them does not arise from any developmental difference between them or any possible integral
definition of their humanity: rather their status is arbitrarily granted them. (As the Nazi mayor of Vienna said - "I decide who is a Jew.") The definition would appear to be reduced to a question of who decides, and who has the right to decide. This does not seem to me to be a sound basis.

quote:

---

Slightly out of original order to suit the flow of my replyBut, IIRC, the main point of that recommendation was that the intense pain of pre-natal surgeries effected the growth patterns of the nervous system... not beause the neo-nates actually "feel" the pain.

---

Indeed. Of course, they cannot be sure a neonate feels pain and the report was a model of ethical reasoning. Similar problems apply to animals and other beings who cannot communicate complex ideas to us such as we could begin to infer definite mental states. Thanks for looking out the links - I'll use them. I'll try to find some references to support my assertion of the "general trend of studies." I was being vague deliberately - I had discussed it casually with an educational psychologist as an aside to some work-related research I was doing. [b] [QUOTE]Obviously you consider them human beings based on some other criteria. What exactly is that criteria?[/b][/QUOTE]Well maybe it's not so obvious, but yes I do consider that there are unborn fetuses who are fully human and deserving of protection. But there are two separate issues, The humanity we can predicate of a fetus and the protection we can reasonably give. In my opinion both are graduated properties, not absolute.I don't go with one of the major arguments of anti-abortionists. "Potential human" is not logically the same as "actual human" - just as a potential criminal is not logically the same as an actual criminal. But it seems to me nonsensical that "humanity" can be arbitrary.As I have said (and you have agreed, I think) society is quite used to juggling varying degrees of protection to individuals: enemies, criminals etc. Even the poor may find their right to life-saving medical treatment, or food and water, mitigated by economics.Nevertheless, it seems to me more practical and ethically less challenging to mitigate rights than to mitigate the definition of humanity. [b] [QUOTE]Again, to turn this around, why is it acceptable to limit a womans rights simply because she ispregnant?[B][/QUOTE]This is an example of what Antony Flew calls "The fallacy of the pseudo-refuting description." It is not "simply" because she is pregnant, it is precisely because pregnancy entails a very complex relationship between a woman and
(let's say) "something else." And this relationship is complex biologically, emotionally and philosophically - and correspondingly complex legally.Your suggestion is perhaps that a woman's rights over her own body change as a result of pregnancy and that this is unfair - but the rights that change are those rights related to her pregnancy. She had no duties to the fetus until the fetus is conceived. I don't have a duty to maintain my car in a roadworthy condition until I have a car! It's an empty argument, methinks. [B] [QUOTE]And yet the only thing being established there is that a *potential* human being exists. Not that one is fully actualized.[/b][/QUOTE]Agreed to an extent - but I think she has identified an important fulcrum for leveraging any concept of "personhood." [b] [QUOTE]Did you know that less than 20% of all fertilized eggs make it to birth? If we were to declare 14 day old zygote/embyo's to be legal persons and they die, who is responsible?[/b][/QUOTE]I was not suggesting this was to be legal definition of a person - I was suggesting that it is a starting point for considering personhood. Mary Warnock has identified the kind of thing we should be looking for in a definition (back to that definition / description thing). [b] [QUOTE]//My personal feeling is that abortion is not an acceptable option - but it is an option that individuals in society will resort to.//
Acceptable to whom? Have you ever been involved with someone who chose to abort? As I pointed out before, I'd be perfectly happy if the only abortions that took place did so for medical necessity only and therefore every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy. But illgalizing abortion and rendering half of the population potential
second class citizens is an absolutely and completely unacceptable solution.
[/b][/QUOTE]I'm sorry - I had intended to write "elective abortion is not acceptable." I do not doubt that abortion for medical necessity is acceptable. And I include potential mental suffering in the parameters that may require it. And though I am not going to go into my personal life here, yes I have discussed such things when they were matters of practical import. [b] [QUOTE]//Abortion however is seen as being only for the benefit of a very few individuals and therefore unacceptable to many//
A little more than one fifth of all pregnancies are terminated yearly. Thats not a minority.
[/b][/QUOTE]You misunderstood me. Sorry. I was trying to contrast something such as the execution of a murderer which some hold benefit to society as a whole (unbelievable though that seems to me), while the abortion of an individual fetus benefits only a small number immediately affected. I don't think this is morally additive - a lot of abortions, benefitting a lot of affected individuals does not equate to a single execution benefitting society as a whole. Anyway, you'll know by now that both horrify me, so I'll not go further on this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Yup, & I gave my reasons, & you still haven’t satisfactorily explained that rationale.//
And I think I explained to you that I wasnt resopnsible for your inability to comprehend.

---

You haven’t explained yourself. If you think your going to get away with this crap, dream on. To comprehend, I have to have been given a comprehensible answer. Indulge me, summarise it here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//I did, do you understand a human foetus is a Homo sapien.//
Ah then apprently you *did not* comprehend the Singer quote.

​

//You can argue with zoologists if you wish.//
At what point will you comprehend what I post?
As I pointed out, the taxonomy of homo sapiens is not at issue.

​

//Wrong, were talking about what constitutes a human being, a Homo sapien sapien. Not human being-ness.//
We most certainly are, Mark.
DNA defines Homo sapiens.
End of story.
Once again for the fourth time, that is not what is at issue.
An anencephalatic infant is still a member of the species homo sapiens.
A corpse is still a member of the species homo sapiens.
Neither embody the qualities of human beings.
Of human being-ness.

​

//A functioning cerebral cortex is IRRELEVANT to what makes a Homo sapien, a Homo sapien.//
Sigh.
You are pretty good at building strawmen, Mark.
But not advancing this discussion.

​

Now will you actually address the issue Redstang?

---

Tut, tut. It is YOU who have evaded MY original question, not the other way around. Get it right.For the record, the reason I don’t respond to your cutesy word bytes is because posts will grow exponentially in length. I have to bring you back to the original point. Remember? the one you are trying to get out of answering claiming I don’t comprehend your answers?I DO comprehend what you write, I just disagree with it. Address the area of disagreement instead of resorting to insults. Do you really think what you write should be immediately accepted by your readers, & those that fail to do so have a comprehension problem?As Mr Pamboli says in message 43, Fletcher only describes a well developed human, & you are trying to get away with this definition. We are talking about the termination of human life as a whole, it is YOU who are trying to make the definition one of fully formed human life. Whether they are a zygote or not does not matter to their species. If the definition you're quoting was universally accepted there would be no debate. Now, you can try to terminate the life of a corpse if you wish, I wish you luck, since termination of what is not alive is not in issue, I fail to see the relevance, probably my comprehension.You have tried to narrow the definition of what a human is, by only allowing a definition that has passed a certain level of development pass through your filter. You may have sanitised it to yourself this way, but as I have shown you. A zef is human.A zef is human, not fully formed, but human. The issue is the termination of human life, not fully formed human life, or well developed human life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//It is the genetic information that is carried that ultimately defines the species.//
Bravo, you've passed Bio 101.

​

//Homo sapien sapiens are humans, ergo, anything that is genetically human, is human.//
But not a human being.
As my neurologist friend likes to point out, her liver is genetically human, but it is not a human being.

​

//You have picked up on Fletchers definition because it enables you to say zefs aren’t human, & it is easier for you to rationalise abortion that way.//
LOL
You're too funny, Mark.
Fletchers definition describes human beings and accepts that we are talking about the species homo sapiens.
Actually I stumbled upon Fletchers definition which succiently described what I'd been thinking.
And just so you know, Mark, there is no reason for *me* to "rationalize" abortion as I will never get one.
What I'm doing is dismantling your argument so that you will eventually understand that *you* cannot rationalize making it illegal.

​

//If you don’t agree, what species are zefs?//
Lord, man, are you really this dense?
Or do you simply not read the posts through?

​

//How on earth are you doing my job? You made this criteria, not me, back it up.//
You seem unwilling to even attempt to defend your position and are begging me to do it for you.
Sorry... wont happen.
I simply wont enable intellectual laziness.

​

//Put up, or shut up.//
LOL
Read for comprehension.

​

---

Do you, or your neurologist friend understand his/her liver isn’t a whole organism?Since I’m so dense, what species are zefs, the ones that reside in humans, that is? ie Answer the questio0n without resorting to insults.Instead of your cute, evasive answers, try to actually answer with substance. YOU have claimed birth is a cut off point, you are refusing to back it up further. It is not intellectual laziness on my part that you refuse to do this. So, put up or shut up. And you think I have trouble comprehending?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//Good grief! Of course abortion is/isn’t enshrined in law (depending on location). You are trying to use the fact that western civilisation/governments have legal abortion, to support your claim that abortion SHOULD be legal.//
Ah the appeal to universal morals... how droll.
"Enshrined"?
Another telling choice of words.

​

No, Mark, what I'm doing is explaining to you *why* abortion is legal in western civilization, since this is the socitey we both share.
You want to argue about abortion in China, you're on your own.

​

//This is CIRCULAR, because you are using the legality of it to satisfy your claims it should be legal.//
No, Mark, in fact, if you'd comprehended my posts, what I'm doing is telling you that *my* position is far more "liberal" than what exists in either of our countries.
My contention is that abortion should not be limited at all, except by birth.
Your inability to comprehend this is amusing at best.

---

Nope, by pointing out that abortion is legal, isn’t telling me why. By pointing out that birth is a cut of point since time immemorial isn't telling me why. I have asked you What criteria do you apply to a human (that’s species, right?), that allows a termination at one point, but not another? And please rationalise it. Saying it’s legal, or is based on antiquity, doesn’t do this.Why is the word enshrined telling?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//So, finally, to return to the original question.//
Very well Redstang.
But let me suggest that you peruse my prior posts at your leisure and perhaps respond to some of the questions I've put to you.
I'd be delighted to read your responses.

---

As I pointed out, it is YOU who have failed to answer the ORIGINAL questions, not me. When you have, I’ll be happy to tackle yours, OK?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:

//What criteria do you apply to a human (that’s species, right?), that allows a termination at one point, but not another? //
LOL
Birth is the only valid criteria that allows termination at one point, but not another.
Infringing on the reproductive rights of a woman is both unjust and fascist.
Placing the rights of a non-senitent, unactualized prenate over that of a born, sentient, fully acutalized human being can only be viewed as vile and criminal.

​

//And please rationalise it.//
I'm convinced that there is nothing anyone could possibly say that could satisfy your definition of "rationalize" in this instance.

---

Brett, if you can’t, then don’t. Don’t even reply.I fear that having your position questioned has you running for such tactics as your so dense, not my problem you don’t comprehend etc. So indulge me, summarise your answers in the next post, taking into consideration my concerns with your original claims that birth & independence are not good criteria for determining when a human can/cannot be terminated. Since I’m so dense & haven’t comprehended.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
[b] How is that strident or judgemental? Most people get abortions because they are pregnant & don't want a baby, no? They have an abortion because it is inconvenient. I in no way say it is a flip decision. I was witness to this myself. It was an agonising decision that I am glad I never had to make, & my heart went out for her. But it was still, at the end of the day, a decision of convenience. If pointing this out is judgemental, then so be it.[/QUOTE]

​

I think that "inconvenient" is too light a word, and is therefore implying that it is a flip descision. I don't think that most women struggle and agonize over a descision of "convenience".

​

So, do you think it would be OK for the state to force women to carry all pregnancies to term?

​

You also make it sould as though carrying and giving birth to a baby is a walk in the park for a woman, with no risk to her health or life.
Having an abortion is far less risky that carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering it.

​

I ask you, in the woman you knew who had that abortion; did you offer to raise that child, or did anyone involved with her offer?

​

[QUOTE]Whilst we are being critical of each other, the next time you avoid my question by posing your own, I'm going to call you Redstang, OK?

​

Mark

​

[/b]

---

I don't think I avoided your question, and you actually didn't answer mine.

//Interesting. One could cease to be human, but still be alive?//
One could cease to be a human being and still be alive, most assuredly.
Ones DNA will never change, right?
Once a member of the species homo sapiens, always a member of the species homo sapiens.//This reminds me (in it's approach) of the recent thinking of the Polish biologist Korzeniewski who has proposed a new definition of "life" which excludes infertile humans.//
lol
I can see where he'd get that from, but then how do you define "infertile" once cloning becomes common place?//He was attempting to address the problem that it is easy to describe life but not at all easy to define it.//
I dont recall where I saw it now, but someone defined life as "that thing that carries information to ensure propagation"... or somesuch.
"Life" is a slippery thing, most definitely.//I think the same difficulty arises with descriptions and definitions of humanity. Fletcher's list is a good description of the functions of a fully formed human, but rather fails as a definition.//
If by "fully formed" you mean with a fully formed cerebral cortex, I quite agree.
Infants and toddlers are quite capable of most all of his criteria and as such is at least a good starting point.
As I said in another post, for me the only real criteria is self-awareness as it avoids most of the communication issues.//From personal experience of my son's development, I would be astonished if self-awareness were not developed before 2 months.//
Your mileage may vary, dad. //But your argument is question-begging, the definition of self-awareness being itself epistomologically prickly.//
Hmm... possibly.
But given that all I'm talking about is an indicator of awareness of self as distinct from others, its not terribly complicated.
From a stictly logistical perspective, how is this determined if the infant is blind, deaf, mentally retarded, etc.What i'm wondering is what makes people so uncomfortable about the idea that newborns arent human beings yet?I mean, you are aware that in relation to other primates abilities at birth the human infant is about 10 months premature, right?
That the size of out heads means that we're all born "premature" in comparison.//And in practical terms, I don't think we know enough about the structural relation of the CC, or any brain structure and aspects of consciousness to support this argument fully even given an acceptable definition.//
I hate to disagree here, but in fact we do know enough to support this definition... which is why I came to this conclusion.
I read a book called "The 3 Pound Universe" way back in '88 and became completely fascinated by neuroscience.
Its a great primer if you can find it.//You are right that neonates are protected by the same principles as the mentally incapacitated - and in my mind, this is quite right. Hard cases arise however. A fetus delivered with the aim of saving it extremely early may be considered as a perilous neonate to be protected.//
So long as it is born, ie., has taken its first breath, it is fully protected just as you or I.//Another fetus of the same age may be delivered as an aborted fetus and would not be considered protected.//
Quite true.
But the reality of the situation is that the earliest a preemie can be saved like that is 22 - 24 weeks LMP, with any likelihood of survival that is, and that less than 1% of all abortions are done after 21 weeks LMP and the overwhelming majority of those are on wanted pregnancies that simply will not survive or endanger the woman.
http://www2.medsch.wisc.edu/childrenshosp/parents_of_preemies/survival.html
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html//But the different status afforded them does not arise from any developmental difference between them or any possible integral
definition of their humanity: rather their status is arbitrarily granted them.//
Ah... sort of.
There is no theoretical developmental difference, but the reality of it is that abortions done after 21 weeks LMP are done on fetuses with conditions incompatible with life.
Also, I do not consider birth an arbitrary distinction.//(As the Nazi mayor of Vienna said - "I decide who is a Jew.")//
You mean like the Southern states deciding who was a citizen prior to the Civil War?Yes, I know there have been all sorts of bad decisions made... lets not dregde up that sort of thing.//The definition would appear to be reduced to a question of who decides, and who has the right to decide./
Why would anyone else but the woman involved be the one to make the decision?You'll have to come up with some compelling argument for anything else.//This does not seem to me to be a sound basis.//
Ok, but lets not confuse the issue of human being-ness with the issue of who gets to decide who has an abortion.
I've presented my perspective on what constitutes a human being and why DNA alone simply isnt adequate.
I've also presented my perspective on why the government should not be involved in limiting a womans right to abortion.Now where do you stand?//Indeed. Of course, they cannot be sure a neonate feels pain and the report was a model of ethical reasoning.//
Excellent.
And I quite agree.
What they are definitely sure of is that a neonate has the *capacity* to "feel", ie., comprehend, pain in that it has a functioning cerebral cortex, as opposed to a prenate.//Similar problems apply to animals and other beings who cannot communicate complex ideas to us such as we could begin to infer definite mental states.//
Agreed.
And that these other animals are not of the species homo sapiens would be enough to exclude them from this issue.
Singers philosophy has lead him to this exact same conclusion, btw and he is an avid animal rights spokesperson.//Thanks for looking out the links - I'll use them.//
No prob.
I've been arguing this online for quite a while.
Let me know what else you're looking for and I'll see what I can find.//I'll try to find some references to support my assertion of the "general trend of studies." I was being vague deliberately - I had discussed it casually with an educational psychologist as an aside to some work-related research I was doing.//
Works for me.
I've taken to jotting stuff down, myself... it sucks getting old.
lolI'm always happy to study scientifically acquired knowledge... hell, its what lead me to this conclusion.//Well maybe it's not so obvious, but yes I do consider that there are unborn fetuses who are fully human and deserving of protection.//
Then which ones arent deserving?//But there are two separate issues,//
At the very least.//The humanity we can predicate of a fetus and the protection we can reasonably give.//
Hmmm...
The reason I posted the quotes from Singer was to distinguish better between the genetic aspect of "human", ie., of the species homo sapiens, and the social aspect of "human", ie., characteristics we recognize as obviously like "us".//In my opinion both are graduated properties, not absolute.//
Why/how is the biological aspect a graduated property?//I don't go with one of the major arguments of anti-abortionists. "Potential human" is not logically the same as "actual human" - just as a potential criminal is not logically the same as an actual criminal.//
Excellent.//But it seems to me nonsensical that "humanity" can be arbitrary.//
Why?
If we are not talking about the biological aspect of "human", then what are we talking about?
The social/philosophical/moral aspect of it, right?Who defines these things?
The society that the discussion exists in.Societies change.Did you peruse the Roe V Wade decision notes I posted the link to?
What the Justices attempted to do was maintian a consitant line of reasoning based on earlier social definitions as well as the current interpretations of the Constitution.//As I have said (and you have agreed, I think) society is quite used to juggling varying degrees of protection to individuals: enemies, criminals etc. Even the poor may find their right to life-saving medical treatment, or food and water, mitigated by economics.//
Oh absolutely.
When I argue this it is with the understanding that there are no absolutes and that this is something we work to create if we believe in justice and fairness.//Nevertheless, it seems to me more practical and ethically less challenging to mitigate rights than to mitigate the definition of humanity.//
Which is why we have the hodge-podge of our current abortion rights laws in the US.
The Justices were unwilling to do just that, create clear-cut definitions, rightly so, and left it to our elected representatives to initiate this definition.
(excuse me while I laugh)
Needless to say, our elected representatives have repeatedly dropped the ball.//This is an example of what Antony Flew calls "The fallacy of the pseudo-refuting description." It is not "simply" because she is pregnant, it is precisely because pregnancy entails a very complex relationship between a woman and(let's say) "something else."//
Ok, but why does this relationship, which can only pertain to women, "allow" the government the right to limit it?
Would we "allow" the government into our bedrooms to ensure that adequate birth control is being used prior to coitus?//And this relationship is complex biologically, emotionally and philosophically - and correspondingly complex legally.//
Hmmm... I dont follow that it is complex legally by its nature.
The "complexity" must be attached to it from outside sources.Thats like saying because grapes are juicy and green and sweet, migrant workers are typically illegal aliens.//Your suggestion is perhaps that a woman's rights over her own body change as a result of pregnancy and that this is unfair - but the rights that change are those rights related to her pregnancy.//
Well, let me rephrase and ask, why it is acceptable to limit her rights because she has entered into this new "relationship".And those rights change only *because* of her prengnacy.//She had no duties to the fetus until the fetus is conceived. I don't have a duty to maintain my car in a roadworthy condition until I have a car! It's an empty argument, methinks.//
But, to keep your analogy alive, when you acquire a car, whether you want one or not, (she was cute and drove a big truck, you were drunk and the next thing you know she's left the keys in the warm spot on the bed) you are *legally obliged* to maintain that car in pristine condition for the duration of its life(as opposed to say having it implanted into a body cavity and lugged around).
Is this fair?//I was not suggesting this was to be legal definition of a person - I was suggesting that it is a starting point for considering personhood. Mary Warnock has identified the kind of thing we should be looking for in a definition (back to that definition / description thing).//
Ok, but regardless of the time frame we are discussing, the legal issues remain... who is responsible?
How is this determined?
As a British friend once quipped, "will they invent the Panty Police?".//I'm sorry - I had intended to write "elective abortion is not acceptable."//
An MD explained to me that the word "elective" is often misunderstood by laypeople. It means, basically, "not an emergency procedure".
It doesnt mean, as it sounds to us, "optional".My understanding is that all abortions not done for physical reasons are considered done for psychological/emotinal reasons.//I do not doubt that abortion for medical necessity is acceptable. And I include potential mental suffering in the parameters that may require it.//
Then we dont have any real issue here.
Because while most Pro Lifers respect the idea of physical danger being an acceptable rationale for abortion, few accept emotional/psychological suffering.//And though I am not going to go into my personal life here, yes I have discussed such things when they were matters of practical import.//
Oh absolutely I wouldnt want you to share personal matters here, but I was simply wondering if you'd known anyone.
In this sort of thing, experience matters.//You misunderstood me. Sorry.//
Gotcha.
No prob.//I was trying to contrast something such as the execution of a murderer which some hold benefit to society as a whole (unbelievable though that seems to me),//
Agreed.//while the abortion of an individual fetus benefits only a small number immediately affected.//
Ok, but I'm still not sure why this matters.//I don't think this is morally additive - a lot of abortions, benefitting a lot of affected individuals does not equate to a single execution benefitting society as a whole. Anyway, you'll know by now that both horrify me, so I'll not go further on this one.//
While I understand the rationale behind Capital Punishment, my main concern with it, aside from the obvious one of human fallibility and racial bias, is that the government should not have the right to take someones life.
Just as it should not have the right to make a surgical procedure illegal based almost exclusively on one groups religious beliefs.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.