US Becoming Pro-Life

[PLC1]

Conscious in what manner? Its not till hours after our birth (once we've come out of the shock of being born) that we begin to notice we have digits and limbs attached to our body and its that type of cognizance that leads us to the realization we have some control over our motor functions.


When does the soul leave the body? Can you really say someone is dead without this knowledge? We have only mapped about 75% of the genomes contained in DNA, perhaps the "soul" will be found coded in the areas we are yet to unlock.


At conception. At no point is a fertilized human embryo something other than human. The DNA is distinctly human. If they were not species specific, we wouldn't have to worry about harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos, we could simply harvest them from any mammal we wanted.

You can't answer the questions, so you stopped looking.
No, we're not stuck between the extremes. Watch the video above and tell me at what point (how many weeks) you think the "fetus" is human enough to no longer be denied his right to life.
There is simply no excuse for the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion:

Its absurd to argue that is not a human being... Just as it was absurd that people once argued blacks were not people, but chattle or property. For Progressives to claim themselves as the "enlightened" ones, they certainly have a pension for supporting brutal acts against their fellow man.

----------

Post Scriptum:
PLC1, I didn't see your answer to my question... Was slavery also a "gray" zone?

Slavery, seen from the perspective of 2009, is not a gray zone, no. A human being is human being, regardless of his race or national origin.

Now, back to the question of when a human becomes a human. Your argument is that it happens at the moment of conception, as a unique human DNA is created at that time.

Your argument is as good as any, as no one really knows, but, let's go with the premise that life begins at conception, and that, therefore, there is no difference between ending a life a day or two after it begins, and ending it a year or two after it begins.

I think we'd all agree that deliberately killing a two year old would be murder. Our laws reflect that.

Most of us would agree that killing a child a few minutes before it is to be born (partial birth abortion) is really no different from killing a newborn. We would label that as a murder also, even though our laws don't agree.

But, your argument that human life begins at the moment of conception leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is no difference between infanticide, partial birth abortion, and abortion within the first few days of conception. A human life is a human life, regardless of the stage of development.

The logical conclusion to that is that a doctor performing any abortion, and the woman seeking that abortion are guilty of the crime of murder, and should be treated accordingly.

I don't think you really believe that, do you?

If you don't, then you don't really believe that a zygote is the same as a baby, and therefore only think you believe that life begins at conception.

If you really did believe that, then you'd be adamantly in favor of outlawing abortion. How can you justify murdering innocents?

(Pandora: I'm not sure what decision led to the legalization of partial birth abortion. Maybe it wasn't a Supreme court decision, but the fact is that it remains legal.)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What I'm referring to is the partial birth abortion. As long as the baby is killed before it sees the light of day, it's all legal. That's where I'm coming from when I say that abortion is legal up until birth.

Note, I didn't argue that it should be legal. As I said earlier, there is no real difference between that "procedure" and dashing a newborn's head against the wall.

In rare, very very rare, instances it might be a choice between the life of the baby, and the lives of both mother and infant, in which case it's better that one die than both.


The Scott Peterson case, like other similar cases, is quite interesting. Charging the killer of a pregnant woman with a double murder does seem to be a conflict with the assertion that a baby isn't a baby until it's born.

As I said earlier, no one really knows when a human life begins, so there are bound to be contradictions, and endless arguments on both sides of the question.

actuly its not all legal just becuse it has not seen the light of day.

 

[PLC1]

actuly its not all legal just becuse it has not seen the light of day.

OK, so the reason it remains legal, while dashing a newborn's head against the wall is not is.....

What again?

 

[top gun]

I agree with you about the kids, we should protect kids and they can decide about if they want to wear seat belts when they grow up. You are rarer than you might think, I know many many people who believe in abortion rights but don’t think I have the right to not wear my seat belt or a helmet when riding a cycle.

I still don’t agree with you on obama’s position but you made some great points, its nice when we can disagree respectfully

Dang we will have to find something new to fight about now
After Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear plants we might be able to get a heated debate going again

This is what should always happen, I much prefer it... but unfortunately often does not because everyone is more interested in scoring some political points than really coming together to work out a compromise solution.

People should be able to disagree without being completely over the top disagreeable and the goal should not be to just win, but to find common ground.

I'm obviously in the Obama corner and fight pretty strongly for what I truly believe is as a better overall philosophy than the neo-con direction... but that doesn't mean I have to be a carbon copy or can't open up to the possibility of some things the other side promotes as holding value.

I'm sure we'll go at it tooth & nail again soon but you've been very reasonable during this exchange so I'll give you another example of probable common ground.

I personally could care less if Gitmo is closed or not.

I've yet to see any real virtue to the idea of spending millions of dollars to just build another facility. This position much like my one on taking out the Somali pirates may seem less than a leftward tilt. But here's my reasoning.

The only reason to shut down Gitmo is symbolic. It's not that the place itself is bad as far as prisons go. It's what's been reported to have went on there at times that is the only issue. That area itself in Cuba is as much an American holding as say the US Virgin Islands. It's US territory.

So the issue to me is that the prisoners are treated under Geneva Convention standards... not that they are moved from Gitmo.

But I also have no problem with them doing life or something so close to it that they'd be far to old to cause any future damage in one of our SUPER MAX prisons here on the mainland.

But if it costs more than the transportation cost to move them, even coming from a left leaning perspective I really don't see the big benefit.

See you never know what you might find out without good dialog. Sometimes there is common ground just sitting there waiting to be used.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, so the reason it remains legal, while dashing a newborn's head against the wall is not is.....

What again?

becuse its not?

 

[PLC1]

becuse its not?

Partial birth abortion is not legal? Are you sure?


This is from Wiki Answers. Maybe it's wrong. If it is, then partial birth abortion is illegal, just as it should be.

According to \"The Vagueness of Partial-Birth Abortion Bans: Deconstruction or Destruction?\" by Maureen L. Rurka in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the United States is the only country in the world where it is still legal for a woman to get a partial birth abortion.

People say \"If it jeapordizes the woman's health\" But if you read the fine print, you'll learn that the governemtns defines the woman's health as mental health, physical health, spiritual health, emotional health, etc.

So If she simply sees the baby as an inconvenience, she could claim that it will effect her \"mental health\" and have a partial birth aborition without any further questions.

 

[Pandora]

Partial birth abortion is not legal? Are you sure?


This is from Wiki Answers. Maybe it's wrong. If it is, then partial birth abortion is illegal, just as it should be.

The link is correct its legal if a woman's HEALTH is in question not just life but again how can making a woman have a breech baby help her health or life and how can killing the baby help her life or health so its just slippery wording to skirt around the ban.

I believe it’s not legal in every state though I am not sure and the states like Kansas where it is legal doctors like Tiller break the law by not getting a second opinion before he gives the abortion. When you are over 5 or 6 months you have to have a second opinion before you have the abortion and Tiller fudged his records to get around that.


But again even with the ban that is useless, partial birth abortion goes against Row vs. Wade. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal only until the “fetus” was viable.

 

[Pandora]

This is what should always happen, I much prefer it... but unfortunately often does not because everyone is more interested in scoring some political points than really coming together to work out a compromise solution.

People should be able to disagree without being completely over the top disagreeable and the goal should not be to just win, but to find common ground.

I'm obviously in the Obama corner and fight pretty strongly for what I truly believe is as a better overall philosophy than the neo-con direction... but that doesn't mean I have to be a carbon copy or can't open up to the possibility of some things the other side promotes as holding value.

I'm sure we'll go at it tooth & nail again soon but you've been very reasonable during this exchange so I'll give you another example of probable common ground.

I personally could care less if Gitmo is closed or not.

I've yet to see any real virtue to the idea of spending millions of dollars to just build another facility. This position much like my one on taking out the Somali pirates may seem less than a leftward tilt. But here's my reasoning.

The only reason to shut down Gitmo is symbolic. It's not that the place itself is bad as far as prisons go. It's what's been reported to have went on there at times that is the only issue. That area itself in Cuba is as much an American holding as say the US Virgin Islands. It's US territory.

So the issue to me is that the prisoners are treated under Geneva Convention standards... not that they are moved from Gitmo.

But I also have no problem with them doing life or something so close to it that they'd be far to old to cause any future damage in one of our SUPER MAX prisons here on the mainland.

But if it costs more than the transportation cost to move them, even coming from a left leaning perspective I really don't see the big benefit.

See you never know what you might find out without good dialog. Sometimes there is common ground just sitting there waiting to be used.

I think you have a very good point when it comes to Gitmo and again I agree with you there. I personally dont like when I hear they may never get a day in court but I have no problem with keeping them at Gitmo. I do have a problem with bringing them here to American prisons though.

 

[samsara15]

Send the Gitmo prisoners back from where we got them. We got them by brute force, and we can send them back the same way.

 

[GenSeneca]

Slavery, seen from the perspective of 2009, is not a gray zone, no. A human being is human being, regardless of his race or national origin.

... A human being is human being, regardless of race or national origin but not regardless of his stage of development in life... So ones race doesn't change ones species, but the stage of development an individual finds himself in does call ones species into question...

I just don't see how a human being can be anything but human at any point in their life.

Now, back to the question of when a human becomes a human. Your argument is that it happens at the moment of conception, as a unique human DNA is created at that time.

Can you argue with the science behind that conclusion?

Your argument is as good as any, as no one really knows,

I gotta stop you there... No one really knows...

When we were arguing that blacks were humans, not property, exactly who were the people saying "No one really knows"?

let's go with the premise that life begins at conception, and that, therefore, there is no difference between ending a life a day or two after it begins, and ending it a year or two after it begins.

So far I agree...

Most of us would agree that killing a child a few minutes before it is to be born (partial birth abortion) is really no different from killing a newborn. We would label that as a murder also, even though our laws don't agree.

I agree and find not only the law but Doctors who perform the procedures in need of review.

But, your argument that human life begins at the moment of conception leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is no difference between infanticide, partial birth abortion, and abortion within the first few days of conception. A human life is a human life, regardless of the stage of development.

I know... its totally absurd... like arguing that a human is a human regardless of whether their skin is black, red, yellow or brown.

Actually, there are some differences, which I've addressed further down...

The logical conclusion to that is that a doctor performing any abortion, and the woman seeking that abortion are guilty of the crime of murder, and should be treated accordingly.

Is that the only logical conclusion? We have several terms that all result in someone being dead, Manslaughter, Murder, Homicide etc. and they can all be predicated by other words such as negligent, aggravated, premeditated etc. and those words combine to reach much different punishments even though they all result in the death of an individual.

I don't think you really believe that, do you?

I didn't reach your conclusion because our paths of logic took different paths. You went down the "one size fits all" path of "abortion=murder", I took a path less traveled. We can't ban all abortions any more than we can ban the irresponsible behavior that led to those abortions. What we can do is punish the irresponsible behavior that results in the death of an innocent individual.

If you don't, then you don't really believe that a zygote is the same as a baby, and therefore only think you believe that life begins at conception.

Fear not, I'm consistent. The life of an individual human being does begin at conception.

If you really did believe that, then you'd be adamantly in favor of outlawing abortion. How can you justify murdering innocents?

I think the practice should be voluntarily abandoned by women and doctors alike. Banning the practice only addresses the effect, abortion; not the cause, irresponsibility. We can't force people to be responsible in their own lives, but we can punish them when their irresponsibility results in the death of another individual.

 

[PLC1]

I think the practice should be voluntarily abandoned by women and doctors alike. Banning the practice only addresses the effect, abortion; not the cause, irresponsibility. We can't force people to be responsible in their own lives, but we can punish them when their irresponsibility results in the death of another individual.

But, given the rest of your logic, that's like saying that a serial killer should voluntarily abandon the practice of killing whoever his chosen victims are. We can't force them to be responsible and stop killing people, but we can punish them when their irresponsibility results in the death of another individual, if and when we catch them.

Given the statement that there is no difference between human beings in different stages of development, then an abortionist is no different from a serial killer.

Killing a days old zygote, a near term fetus, a small child, or an adult is all the same. Doing so on purpose, and without the need to kill in order to protect another life is murder.

Abortion in the first term should still be legal, but needs to be discouraged.

I can agree with that second statement, but holding both of the above views at the same time is a prime example of Orwellian doublethink. The two statements are incompatible.

 

[Pandora]

But, given the rest of your logic, that's like saying that a serial killer should voluntarily abandon the practice of killing whoever his chosen victims are. We can't force them to be responsible and stop killing people, but we can punish them when their irresponsibility results in the death of another individual, if and when we catch them.

Assume for a moment that murder was legal. Just any murder… Do you think the murder rate would stay the same, increase or decrease? I can tell you it would for sure increase at least by one because I can think of one person I would have killed at one time in my life.

Because murder is illegal the murder rate is what it is, if it were legal the murder rate would be so very much higher. Many doctors now doing abortions just would not do abortions if it was illegal and many women now getting abortions would be more careful about becoming pregnant if abortion were not as easy to get as an appointment for a tan or hair cut and were called for what it is, killing your baby. Considering the variety of birth control these days there is really no reason except for an unexpected rape for anyone to become pregnant. In the old days before condoms, birth control pills and all the choices of birth control people had far fewer unwanted pregnancies, it happened but it was not as it is today. So people can be more responsible if they are expected to be.

And just like there are murders now even though murder is illegal some doctors like Dr. Tiller would still do abortions legal or not, they would just charge more for them. And some women like my mom would still get them just under other names like DNC’s

A man who was drunk driving and got in a wreck and killed the people in the other car and the passenger in his own car would “usually” not get the same time in jail or the same charges as someone who killed their wife or killed a 3 year old kid they raped. One gets vehicular manslaughter and 7 years the other the death penalty but both killed.

I know there are two people here in Oregon in prison for ten years for intentionally beating a mans head in with a baseball bat till he died, I also know someone in that same prison who got 13 years in prison for various auto thefts with no violence involved at all and there are abortionists who kill babies on purpose and get paid for it and other doctors who get sued for everything they have for a mistake or oversight that killed a baby just a few hours older than the one the first doctor slaughters, the rules are strange no matter how you look at it.

I think though your description of serial killers and abortionists are interestingly comparable especially when you are talking about ones like Dr. Tiller. If Dr. Tiller could not get his kicks with the partial birth abortions and then taking pictures of the dead baby alone and with their parents who just had them killed and giving them baptism certificates and feet/hand print art he might have to get his jollies being a serial killer in the grade schools around Kansas.

Abortion in the first term should still be legal, but needs to be discouraged.

.

I oddly agree with you but only by states rights not federal and only in states that voted it in and with reasons like they were raped or their body can not handle a pregnancy and I feel terrible that I just said what I did because I know that its very hypocritical of me to know killing another person is wrong and a baby who has been conceived by rape is no less a person than a baby who was not. But what I wonder about is why you think that it both should be legal and yet discouraged. Why discourage it if there is nothing wrong with it because you don’t think it’s a person, human or maybe even has life?

And also how do you discourage it? Obama said he wanted to reduce the number of abortions but how? You never did say what you thought he meant. We should be able to agree he is not going to reduce abortions in women who were raped or women who might die if they carry a baby to term so he must be talking about women who were not too careful about taking their pill or what ever form of birth control they used.

How can he make those women more responsible and those women (the 95 percentile) who pick abortion because they don’t feel ready for a baby or don’t want more kids or are not finished with college or they are single… the ones I refer to as selfish, how is he going to stop them from being selfish especially when he doesn’t think there is anything wrong with an abortion. What selfish person says im willing to sacrifice a few months of my life so another wont die then adopt them out and not be terribly comfortable when their president tells them there is nothing wrong with abortion.


so far only Gen has been consistant in this debate, you and I have both rode the fence while one foot dangles on each side.

 

[GenSeneca]

But, given the rest of your logic, that's like saying that a serial killer should voluntarily abandon the practice of killing whoever his chosen victims are. We can't force them to be responsible and stop killing people, but we can punish them when their irresponsibility results in the death of another individual, if and when we catch them.

Totally wrong... a serial killers victims are not the result of the serial killers irresponsibility.

Given the statement that there is no difference between human beings in different stages of development, then an abortionist is no different from a serial killer.

Yes it is. I can buy beer or I can brew it. I can buy wine or I can brew it. I can buy liquor but I can't brew that... The law decides what is and isn't legal, even if its an unjust, or just stupid, law.

Killing a days old zygote, a near term fetus, a small child, or an adult is all the same. Doing so on purpose, and without the need to kill in order to protect another life is murder.

We disagree on the application of the term murder.

Abortion in the first term should still be legal, but needs to be discouraged.

Here's your doublethink at work... in your mind its not a human on day 48, but day 49 it suddenly is.

I can agree with that second statement, but holding both of the above views at the same time is a prime example of Orwellian doublethink. The two statements are incompatible.

That doublethink is all you brotherman... You're the one who lives in the instant gratification world of microwaves and thinks that shortcuts through the force of government are the only way to get things done.

I want to see the welfare state dismantled... I'm not so naive as to suggest we do it overnight. Same with Abortion... I would like to see it gone the way of the dinosaur but it will take time if we are to do it right and not end up in a situation like that of prohibition.

 

[Dr.Who]

it is a difficult and heart wrenching decision, not to be taken lightly. It is a decision to be made by the people involved, not by the government.

Since when is outlawing killing living human beings not rightfully a role of government?

 

[top gun]

I think you have a very good point when it comes to Gitmo and again I agree with you there. I personally dont like when I hear they may never get a day in court but I have no problem with keeping them at Gitmo. I do have a problem with bringing them here to American prisons though.

We should probably take this to some Gitmo thread but you're right they should be sentenced by somebody for something. And I don't care if they put them in one of our SUPERMAX prisons here in the states. They'd actually have a lot worse living conditions here. And Gates made a great point today on the Today Show. He said... We've had terrorists in our SUPERMAX prisons for 20 years and never had a single problem... and he gave some Hamas examples.

The thing I'm against is spending money to build any new prison when we already have one up and running. It's an economics thing to me. As long as they're not being tortured anymore what difference does it really make where they are held.

If you have other feelings on this I'll look for you on one of the Gitmo threads.