I don't have to defend this because you learn it in Biology class, and it's not my argument.

Though I was under the impression something only required meeting 4 of the 5 bits listed.

Either way, all this is covered in a biology class.

Why are they an exception, and why cannot others 'be an exception'? How exactly, are people who are too young to be able to reproduce (i.e., kids, babies) not exceptions as well?

I didn't say they weren't.

Besides, kids and babies have everything there once they're born, it's just not tapped.

I don't have to defend this because you learn it in Biology class, and it's not my argument."I don't have to defend it because someone told me it in biology class." Eh?

I didn't say they weren't.

Besides, kids and babies have everything there once they're born, it's just not tapped.So they can reproduce as soon as they're born? How exactly do children produce babies when they have no sperm or eggs to do so with?

"I don't have to defend it because someone told me it in biology class." Eh?
Exactly, because it's not my argument, I don't care, you've already learned it and thus know the details of it.

I think that this is exactly the problem. You decide you know something and you simply talk past me because I don't hold your opinion to be the truth. jmac's definition of life is not my definition, and I pointed out some problems with his ideas about what life is. Are they not problems? Can you tell me that a being who is genetically incapable of reproducing is not a human person?
We're talking about fetuses though, and they are not developed enough to fulfill all of the requirements of life. Also, even if "my" definition is not how you define life, it is how the scientific community defines it, which is a community that bases their views on fact, not belief.

We're talking about fetuses though, and they are not developed enough to fulfill all of the requirements of life. Also, even if "my" definition is not how you define life, it is how the scientific community defines it, which is a community that bases their views on fact, not belief.Why is the case of someone unborn different from the case of the child that can't reproduce because (s)he is too young? That definition is generally accepted, but obviously has exceptions. Worker ants are usually classified as 'life' by scientists, though they have no way of reproducing ever. People who never have the ability to reproduce are classified as being alive. That definition does not allow children to be alive; we know they are (hopefully you do), therefore it must be inaccurate.

It is important to note that life is a definition that applies at the level of species, so even though many individuals of any given species do not reproduce, possibly because they belong to specialised sterile castes (such as ant workers), these are still considered forms of life.

# Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

This to me seems a more likely support for early stage abortion. During most of the residency inside the mothers womb, all the process work is done by the mother, not the "child".

Children eventually grow into adults. A fetus, in any stage, cannot reproduce, because by the time it can it is no longer a fetus, it is an adult. Those who cannot reproduce, ever, should, theoretically, be able to reproduce, it's the result of an outside influence or defect that they can't.

Also, for clarification, when I refer to fetuses in this thread, I'm refering to an those that can still be legally aborted.

You say fetuses are not alive because they don't apply to the above "rules" of life. But somehow fully grown humans are an exception. And this is just stated with no reason why other then if it wasn't denied the argument about fetuses being alive would collapse on itself.
I agree with having to make sense of your arguments. Just because someone points out the obvious does not make them a smartass. :¬:

5. Heredity: A process whereby living things pass on genes during reproduction. All living things have DNA molecules inside their cells that encode information to direct growth and development ? a set of blueprints, called genes.

I think it was already stated that embryos have genes that make them into the people they are. Please correct me if I am wrong :dozey:

Embryos don't pass on their genes to their offspring, seeing as they have no offspring.


***Edit***
I'm going to bottomline this. Science says that fetuses are not living, thus no murder has been commited, thus there is no basis for outlawing abortion other than the beliefs of some, and the beliefs of some do not override fact and should not dictate the laws of this (or any other) country.

Children eventually grow into adults. A fetus, in any stage, cannot reproduce, because by the time it can it is no longer a fetus, it is an adult. Those who cannot reproduce, ever, should, theoretically, be able to reproduce, it's the result of an outside influence or defect that they can't.A child, at any stage before puberty, absolutely cannot reproduce ever. You're not going into 'oh, look what it's going to do it the future', are you?

Puberty refers to the process of physical changes by which a child's body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction.

# Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

This to me seems a more likely support for early stage abortion. During most of the residency inside the mothers womb, all the process work is done by the mother, not the "child".It has an independent circulatory system and processes food itself, by necessity. It is an independent organism from the mother; obviously her tissues would reject direct contact.

"The mother's circulatory system is not continuous with the fetus's. Blood does not normally flow from the mother to the fetus and back; only materials carried in the blood are exchanged. Therefore, maternal blood cells such as B lymphocytes are not normally transferred to the fetus, although the antibodies produced by B lymphocytes do cross the placenta.

This separation of circulatory systems is very important for immunological reasons. Half the fetus's genes come from the mother and half from the father. The father's genes are "foreign" to the mother. The difference is potentially enough to trigger an immune response. The separation of the mother's and fetus's tissues and blood reduces the likelihood that the maternal immune cells will encounter fetal cells and launch an attack against the fetus. What about the placenta itself? Although white blood cells such as T lymphocytes and natural killer cells are plentiful in the endometrium, they do not react against the villi of the fetal chorion. The reason for this is not completely known, but it appears that proteins on the surface of the villi keep them safe."


[1] Chang, Dennis. "At what stage, if any, do a mother and fetus share a circulatory system? In particular, can a mother's B lymphocytes be transferred to the fetus?"
http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fdevelopmental%2Fans_004.html)

But they are living things. Because they have those genes that their parents pass onto them.

They have to fulfill all of the requirements. Also, you just brought up another requirement that fetuses do not meet.

No. I pointed out that they come under the text...

"...All living things have DNA molecules inside their cells that encode information to direct growth and development ? a set of blueprints, called genes..."

I don't want to have to point out every little thing and me too get called a smartass :)

I'm going to pop back in here to just point something out:

I think we all need to agree that a fetus is technically alive. It is a form of life.

But of course that doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to the morality behind killing it. Cows are alive and yet we kill them. Murderers are alive and yet we kill them. Bacteria is alive and yet we kill it.

Science doesn't recognize them as life, reguardless of what you believe.

All I'm saying is that if a fetus is really alive or not has no impact on the debate. We kill all sorts of living things and consider it to be moral.

Science doesn't recognize them as life, reguardless of what you believe.I haven't seen you post many biologist's definitions of life in this particular case. You posted about something that is generally accepted (with qualifications!), then said that all five of the points are the only way to define life and then start denying the qualifications (made by the biologists you curiously leave out of your arguments!). You're not sounding terribly scientific yourself.

I don't have time to argue this point to the depth that it needs to be. But you are only repeating what you read or are told. It only took a logical eye to see flaws in those 5 laws of life that you posted.

Here's how wikipedia defines life:

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life)

Here's how wikipedia defines life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeI'm) interested in knowing exactly why you left out the qualifications. Surely, those are part of the definition? In particular, these points:

Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, the generally accepted biological manifestations are that life exhibits the following phenomena:

Exceptions to the conventional definition

It is important to note that life is a definition that applies at the level of species, so even though many individuals of any given species do not reproduce, possibly because they belong to specialised sterile castes (such as ant workers), these are still considered forms of life. One could say that the property of life is inherited; hence, sterile hybrid species such as the mule are considered life although not themselves capable of reproduction. It is also worth noting that non-reproducing individuals may still help the spread of their genes through such mechanisms as kin selection.

For similar reasons, viruses and aberrant prion proteins are often considered replicators rather than forms of life: they cannot reproduce without very specialised substrates such as host cells or proteins, respectively. However, most forms of life rely on foods produced by other species, or at least the specific chemistry of Earth's environment.

Viruses reproduce, flames grow, some software programs mutate and evolve, future software programs will probably evince (even high-order) behavior, machines move, and some form of proto-life consisting of metabolizing cells without the ability to reproduce presumably existed. Still, some would not call these entities alive. Generally, all six characteristics are required for a population to be considered a life form.

@Samuel Dravis-
It's not just one biologist, it's biologists in general :)

@Samuel Dravis-
It's not just one biologist, it's biologists in general :)So you somehow know their opinions because...? Have they collectively told you? Do you have a study or some statistics on how many of biologists recognize fetuses as alive or not, or are you, uh, 'just saying'?

I'm interested in knowing exactly why you left out the qualifications. Surely, those are part of the definition? In particular, these points:

Umm... because I posted the link to it?

I posted how it defines life... if you wanted to know more that's why the link was there.

It's not a matter of their opinions, it's the consensus that appears in things like biology text books and such.

It's not a matter of their opinions, it's the consensus that appears in things like biology text books and such.So the entire collective of biologists wrote any specific biology book? I seem to remember them being attributed to a specific author...

This is rediculous. Either come up with something real, like statistics, that supports your supposition or be ignored.

It's the consensus among biologists. Also, they didn't all write a book, I honestly hope that you said that as a joke or to make some futile attempt at making a point here.

It has an independent circulatory system and processes food itself, by necessity.
Your own link disagrees with you.

The mother's body supplies the fetus with oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies, removes the fetus's carbon dioxide and other metabolic waste materials, and helps regulate fetal growth and physiology by circulating hormones.

It's not self-sustaining, it requires the mother's assitance in it's own growth. Without the mother it'll never become a full-fledged human life.

I don't have time to argue this point to the depth that it needs to be. But you are only repeating what you read or are told. It only took a logical eye to see flaws in those 5 laws of life that you posted.
Except as it is, there are no flaws. Naturally every rule has exceptions, especially ones dealing with a complex issue such as life.

It's the consensus among biologists. I honestly hope you have something reasonable that supports your view.

Your own link disagrees with you.

It's not self-sustaining, it requires the mother's assitance in it's own growth. Without the mother it'll never become a full-fledged human life.What I said was that it does not require the mother to process the nutrients. You might say, that since you cannot make nutrients into edible food for yourself, you therefore not alive. Is that true? You depend on the plants to process the energy from the sun into something you can use. Are you somehow less human because you depend on the plants? I'd say that dependence on outside food sources is part of the human condition; it's just how we're made. We're not capable as a species of processing direct energy into something that our bodies can use. Saying that's a criterion for being human is assumed, because no humans exist (or have existed, ever) that can. Every person uses their mother's body in such a way; it's also part of the human condition. I can guarantee you that no human has been born without nutrients processed by plants, then by the mother. This may change in the future, with artificial wombs for example, but they will still depend on something that processes their food for them.

Except that the fetus requires the mother to process the food for it. Where as a living human does not. It can do that on it's own.

Except as it is, there are no flaws. Naturally every rule has exceptions, especially ones dealing with a complex issue such as life.

As you stated there are exceptions. Just not when it goes against your point of view. As it shows when you could not own up between the genetic eunuch argument and the argument about a fetus being unable to reproduce.

@TK-8252

First let me say there is a difference between humans and animals.
Humans are capable of higher order thought process. Animals are not. 'nough said :nod:

If you are going to compare humans to animals then you might want to bring up some proof for it. I don't feel the need since it is kinda obvious that we are much more stophisticated than even the smartest animals. :)

Except that the fetus requires the mother to process the food for it. Where as a living human does not. It can do that on it's own.It utilizes the nutrients provided by itself. What is your opinion on people, such as infants, who require their food to be processed by a means other than themselves (the mother's milk or otherwise)? You wouldn't just force feed them adult food and expect them to be able to handle it because they're people, surely? Also, some people cannot process some foods themselves anyway. While this is not a total inability, does it make them less human than you or I?

I don't know about you, but I consider it 'normal' for the fetus to take nourishment from the mother, and obviously to do so said food must go through her body first, the same as with her milk after the child is born (interestingly enough, men can provide milk as well, so it doesn't need to be the mother, but the same thing happens - it's processed by someone else).

@TK-8252

First let me say there is a difference between humans and animals.
Humans are capable of higher order thought process. Animals are not. 'nough said :nod:

If you are going to compare humans to animals then you might want to bring up some proof for it. I don't feel the need since it is kinda obvious that we are much more stophisticated than even the smartest animals. :)

Humans are animals.

I was talking about their minds. The way we think. The way we handle situations. I thought I would be understood with "Higher order process"

I honestly hope you have something reasonable that supports your view.
Perhaps this? (http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=life) Maybe something from MIT's biology department? (http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/cb/cellbasics.html) The one from MIT only has three though, two of which (the ones Insane Sith and I have mentioned) fetuses do not have, and the other was not disputed here.

Fetuses don't metabolize? Ofcourse fetuses can't reproduce, even new born babies can't. And i've mentioned this before, its hard to draw the line of where the human life actually starts, babies in the third trimester have survived abortions and have grown up just like anyone else. If your not sure where it really begins why risk it?

To some it's worth the risk, and it may even be better for their child not to be born.

To some it's worth the risk, and it may even be better for their child not to be born.

True enough, but even if we agree some people are "better off dead" that doesn't mean it's right to arbitrarily kill them. Maybe their life will improve? Maybe their hardship will be worth the risk in the long run? Human beings have a talent for overcoming adversity and making good things come out of bad, at least if history is any indication.

That's a major reason why I'm against abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia/assisted suicide (but I promise not to muddy the waters with those oither issues, just using it as an illustrative point).

I think we went in a big loop... they already hashed it out about "it would be better to die than live a horrid life" sort of thing.

That's a major reason why I'm against abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia/assisted suicide (but I promise not to muddy the waters with those oither issues, just using it as an illustrative point).

Oh I get it, you're pro-life pro-suffering! :)

Perhaps this? (http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=life) Maybe something from MIT's biology department? (http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/cb/cellbasics.html) The one from MIT only has three though, two of which (the ones Insane Sith and I have mentioned) fetuses do not have, and the other was not disputed here.In the interests of being as correct as possible, I asked a biologist I know. She has a B.S. in biology and is certaintly competent enough to answer the question. I showed her the 'requirements' for life, like so:

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I then asked her "Do these rules describe all life?" to which she answered, "No, it looks like it describes most things, but there's always exceptions." She gave basically the same reasons I gave, and which the wiki article gave (note I did not show her anything save the five rules; I'm not interested in bias).

So there you have it, from the mouth of a biologist herself.

About your sources, however - the first is simply a list of definitions. Pick one and then I'll talk about it. Your second, the MIT one, is an incomplete definition (it clearly says, "For a more extensive definition read chapter 1 of Purves or discuss these properties with your tutor"), so how do you know they aren't describing it more accurately in the textbook?

I notice that neither one of your sources show that a majority of biologists accept that these rules must be strictly followed when defining life, and, when I asked the one biologist I know, she says you're wrong. If you can come up with some type of poll or whatever showing that the majority do believe as you do, then good. At present, though, I'd say you're not convincing me very well.

Oh I get it, you're pro-life pro-suffering! :)

Not to drag religion into this, but I think Buddha said it best: "ALL life is suffering."

Should you put a shotgun in someone's mouth the instant they get a toothache? That's ridiculous! I'm for easing suffering and learning to deal with it, not killing the patient. ;)

@Kurgan-
I was talking more along the lines of birth defects. Some are incurable and the child would lead a pain-filled life until they die at an early age.

@Samuel Dravis-
I'm not about to waste my time researching this to meet your standard of proof, which seems impossible to meet. This type of consensus if similar to a mathematical convention, like c being the hypotenuse of a triangle. Try to find a poll of mathemeticians that agree with that one :xp:

I think most of you are overlooking the fact that is is not your decision to make, and it is not a decision the legislature should make. It should be the decision of the woman in question and maybe the father.

I think most of you are overlooking the fact that is is not your decision to make, and it is not a decision the legislature should make. It should be the decision of the woman in question and maybe the father.

Well see, that too is a value judgement, and that's the whole reason we're discussing this! Abortion is permitted in the US because the Supreme Court decided that it was part of an implied constitutional right to privacy, as has already been laid out.

@Samuel Dravis-
I'm not about to waste my time researching this to meet your standard of proof, which seems impossible to meet. This type of consensus if similar to a mathematical convention, like c being the hypotenuse of a triangle. Try to find a poll of mathemeticians that agree with that one :xp:My 'standard of truth' is simply a request for you to show that you are correct in your statements. If you won't give reasonable proof for your assertions, I'm not so sure you even have an arguement.

I think most of you are overlooking the fact that is is not your decision to make, and it is not a decision the legislature should make. It should be the decision of the woman in question and maybe the father.A decision the legislature should make is one that protects the people's rights. A decision that I can make is one that upholds my moral code, and it seems to me that attempting to protect innocent life falls under that. I don't think I'm 'overlooking' something. I've already shown why I don't think that relative judgements can be used reliably in this situation, so don't assume I have to follow them.

No, I'm not going to just take your word on it (which is basically all you've given me) when you declare that it's perfectly ok for someone to arbitrarily decide whether or not to kill innocents. That's how it appears to me, and I will take action based on that.

Not to drag religion into this, but I think Buddha said it best: "ALL life is suffering."

Should you put a shotgun in someone's mouth the instant they get a toothache? That's ridiculous! I'm for easing suffering and learning to deal with it, not killing the patient. ;)

Except I'm not Buddhist, and if that person wants to solve their toothache with a shotgun, that's their business.

I was kinda amused with a recent episode of Battlestar Galactica I finally got around to watching. It involved a girl smuggling onto the Galactica to get an abortion. Her parents wanted her back, abortion evil, ect ect. The President ("Pro-women-can-do-what-they-want-with-their-bodies) grants her asylum and let's the girl have the abortion (then outlawing it to preserve the human race, but since our population isn't below 50,000 I don't think we have to worry about that).

I still maintain that abortion should be allowed for special cases (rape, ect), but not for "the condom broke" or something. Some people may agree with that, but what I'm reading is that abortion would not be allowed period.

I guess I'm riding the fence. They should be allowed to have the abortion, it's their body the parasite is occupying, but people shouldn't be coming in every year because they get pregnant for having irresponsible sex.

Well, I decided to take a day off from this thread, for the most part. Too much heavy thinking... and way too much heavy typing for my admittedly limited skills.
Getting back to the 'splitting-off-from-this-thread' discussion:
If you really think it's necessary. It is, as you say, directly related to your idea of whether or not abortion should be legal (in fact my objection to it was the reason for this particular discussion). It's as good a subject as any for this thread.
Yes, I do. We have steered well clear of the original subject (which seems to be back on track, somewhat...) and have gotten more into dissecting personal moral philosophies, which, while it does has bearing, is a far broader subject that could be applied to other situations, outside of just this one.
Seems a worthy topic for further, but perhaps less heated discussion, outside of this divisive subject. I'd be glad to go into it much further, in another venue, but to me it seems to be sidetracking the topic at hand.

I have stated my position, both in this particular thread, but in others in the Senate; but here it is again, in the clearest possible language I can muster, for the record:

Personally, I find myself morally opposed to abortion.
However, I find it just as wrong to attempt to use the Government to force my views on those that may not share my particular moral objection on a subject such as this where there is clearly not a universal consensus among the American public. (A national debate is probably in order to find what consensus truly exists,.. if any.)
I also don't believe banning abortions will ever truly serve to reduce the number that take place in this country in the long run.
Therefore, I think abortions should remain legal: but every attempt should be made using education, contraception, and easy access to social services such as adoption, as possible; to seriously try to reduce the numbers to as close to nothing as is likely to ever happen in an imperfect world.

All that being said:

I do think Roe v. Wade will be eventually overturned; perhaps by the end of this decade.
I don't think that's altogether a bad thing.
I don't think it will be overturned by this particular effort by the South Dakota legislature to push it up to the Supreme Court, however. This effort is premature, since the moderate middle of the country isn't totally along for the right-wing ride yet. The country still isn't as conservative on some subjects as a few folks would like to believe. It will most likely be a stillborn effort, and in my opinion should be, (if you pardon the language,) aborted.
Once Roe is overturned, the states will be mired down in legislative and judicial battles for years following.
It's a pretty sure bet that it will remain legal on both coasts, and a few other selective states... and illegal over the rest of the nation.
Eventually conservatives, bolstered by this victory, will attempt a federal nation-wide ban, not only of abortion, but perhaps on many forms of birth-control. Sex education, other than the "Abstinence-Only" variety may also get targeted in the fray. (Pornography might also... but since that's such a cash cow for a lot of people, it will never go anywhere.)

Ultimately, there will be a large enough backlash, with the political center moving to the left on these subjects, that the entire process will most likely take place all over again... only this time I hope that instead of a fairly weak court ruling like Roe, it will be part of a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy from Governmental interference on matters that should be personal. One that will be far, far more difficult to ever overturn.

But that doesn't mean someone won't try...


So far, nobody has really discussed what we can realistically expect to see if and when Roe is really overturned.
It's gonna be a mess. A state by state battle. It's gonna tie up state governments and court houses for decades... except for the ones like S.D. who have their positions on the books already.

I can be fairly sure that there will even be attempts to ban abortions here in the fine Commonwealth I find myself living in... but I don't realistically foresee that ever taking place. The entire Northeast, as well as all of the West Coast will be hold-outs, I believe.

Unless there's a move towards a Federal ban. And that, I believe, would be the biggest mistake.

I will start with this, because it seems to me the most important feature of this debate. And I would ask the anti-choicers here to adress this point before they move on to my other points.

The anti-choice side here is arguing from fundamentally fallacious premises. In the anti-choice rethoric, there are two implicit assumptions:

The first assumption is that it is possible to point to a stage in foetal development where the foetus suddenly and magically ceases to be a lump of chemicals and becomes a full human. In other words, there is an implicit assumption that there is a point at which contraception goes from completely unproblematic to completely unacceptable.

The second assumption is that there is no consideration that justifies compromise on this issue. That under no circumstances is it acceptable to even risk crossing the imaginary line imposed by the first assumption.

I would argue that the first assumption is stupid. In fact, there is no discontinuities during pregnancy that can justify such an assumption. Thus, if an ethical discontinuity is assumed where there is no biological counterpart, it will necessarily be an arbitrary distinction that can - in principle - be placed anywhere and everywhere. And no matter where it is placed, it will yield unacceptable conclusions.

The second assumption is just plainly hypocritical. Clearly, there are no other ethical principles - none at all - where breaking them can never be justified.

The freedom of the press, for instance, is absolute. Yet we feel justified in compromising it if it is used to publish instructions on how to make sarin gas along with an anti-semitic tract, and directions to the nearest jewish temple.

Or take the principle that society shall never condone arbitrary killing - the very principle invoked by the anti-choice taliban. This principle is unsustainable. In war - for instance - we must be willing to accept the killing of innocents. In medicine, we must be willing to accept the fact that some patients are going to die who could have been saved, had we spent sufficient resources on their treatment. But had we done that, those same resources could not have been spent on - say - providing clean drinking water to our citizens, or finding ways around antibiotics resistance in bacteria.

Every decision involves a tradeoff between principles and practicality. To claim otherwise is to lie.

In this case, the tradeoff is between the woman's self-evident right to practice her sexuality as she wishes, the woman's equally self-evident right to not be hampered unduely in her life by the exercise of said right, and the legitimate need of society to avoid using resources on caring for an unwanted child on the one hand, and the ethical problems associated with terminating a pregnancy on the other hand.

I never claimed - and will never claim - that it is completely unproblematic to terminate a pregnancy. What I do claim is that it is not equally unproblematic to terminate a pregnancy a minute after conception and a minute before birth. That pregnancy involves a gradual transition from non-human to human. Similarily, it is not equally beneficial for the mother to terminate the pregnancy early and late. The inconvenience imposed is obviously affected by many different factors, but it is equally obvious that the benefit of terminating the pregnancy decreases over time.

It follows that there is a point at which it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy/kill the infant. Where that point is depends in part on the current technological state of society.

In some prehistoric societies, suicide and infanticide were necessary as a means of controlling the size of the population, in order to avoid overstraining the environment that sustained the whole of society. I would argue that while such practices should not be taken lightly, they are not always unethical: Were they not carried out, the ensuing environmental collapse would kill far more people than the measures themselves (as, in fact, was the result when ignorant and intolerant missionaries put a stop to the practice). Similarily, as the ability to (and cost of) sustaining the foetus outside the womb and caring for it during infancy and childhood goes up, the point where abortion/infanticide is no longer acceptable is pushed back in time.

But biology and technology can only answer part of the question. There remains two distinct political decisions: How much relative weight should be given to the foetus, the mother, and to the interests of society as a whole? And how great a risk of overstepping the boundries of what we consider ethical are we willing - as a society - to take?

Both of these are non-trivial decisions. And neither has a cut-and-dried answer. But as long as the anti-choice taliban refuse to acknowledge that these are legitimate questions and that other people's answers have at leasts some merit, all discussion of these subjects will be fruitless.

- JS

EDIT: Goddamn XEmacs and its stupid character limit!

Ultimately, there will be a large enough backlash, with the political center moving to the left on these subjects,

Why do some people keep assuming that the US government will remain accountable to the citizens?

If it's the case that the U.S. government won't ever be accountable to the citizens, then all these battles are already lost, and the debate is already over.
Personally, I'm not that pessimistic about the situation yet...

Honestly, it hasn't gotten that far yet... no matter how it might seem from the outside.

If enough U.S. citizens react in one way, the politicians will change their song... or lose their jobs.
Politicians are, by and large, opportunists... and most of them are willing to tone down their rhetoric and subjugate their own ideology in order to keep their jobs.

Besides: How many of them are preaching an ideology just because that's what they think their electorate wants to hear? Say the right words = Get elected. I'm sure there are more than a few of them that this applies to.

The anti-choice side here is arguing from fundamentally fallacious premises. In the anti-choice rhetoric, there are two implicit assumptions:

The first assumption is that it is possible to point to a stage in foetal development where the foetus suddenly and magically ceases to be a lump of chemicals and becomes a full human. In other words, there is an implicit assumption that there is a point at which contraception goes from completely unproblematic to completely unacceptable.

It has already been pointed out that fetuses development is incremental. A tree does not grow up as soon as the seed hits the ground; likewise a child is not born an adult. But your failure to offer a point when a lump of cells becoms a child does not give you the right to kill it, if you did you could very well kill a human because of your ignorence of the matter.


The second assumption is that there is no consideration that justifies compromise on this issue. That under no circumstances is it acceptable to even risk crossing the imaginary line imposed by the first assumption.


There is a reason that I (The Anti-choice Taliban as I have been called) dont feel there is room to compromise. It?s because of your failure to point out when they become a ?human? that it comes back too. So you very well may be killing a human being. Since it is my opinion that we should try to protect all human life form conception to natural death, and the fact that I know that those globs of cells are the building blocks of human life, the very things that make us individuals. You may say that It does not have a brain, or other organs, nerves whathave you. But only several weeks after conception that fetuses brain has already started growing. Are you going to kill it now? Im an adolescent. My brain will not be fully developed till my early to mid 20s. The point is that you cant slap a scientific principle on everything. Somethings you just must look at with logical perspective.


I would argue that the first assumption is stupid. In fact, there is no discontinuities during pregnancy that can justify such an assumption. Thus, if an ethical discontinuity is assumed where there is no biological counterpart, it will necessarily be an arbitrary distinction that can - in principle - be placed anywhere and everywhere. And no matter where it is placed, it will yield unacceptable conclusions.


I am sorry if I am misquoting you but I believe it is you who are assuming this.


Or take the principle that society shall never condone arbitrary killing - the very principle invoked by the anti-choice Taliban. This principle is unsustainable.


I will pretend to know what you are talking about.
Fine. Next time I am in a bad mood I will just run out into the street and go postal. [/sarcastic] For socitity to exist it must have a value system.


In war - for instance - we must be willing to accept the killing of innocents.


That innocents will be killed. Not that we are just going to start killing them.


In medicine, we must be willing to accept the fact that some patients are going to die who could have been saved, had we spent sufficient resources on their treatment. But had we done that, those same resources could not have been spent on - say - providing clean drinking water to our citizens, or finding ways around antibiotics resistance in bacteria.


Incomparable analogy


Every decision involves a tradeoff between principles and practicality. To claim otherwise is to lie.


So you would chose practicality over principle? Just a yes or no will work.


In this case, the tradeoff is between the woman's self-evident right to practice her sexuality as she wishes, the woman's equally self-evident right to not be hampered unduely in her life by the exercise of said right, and the legitimate need of society to avoid using resources on caring for an unwanted child on the one hand, and the ethical problems associated with terminating a pregnancy on the other hand.


This is horrid. If the woman gets pregnant it is her and her partners fault for not having responsible sex. In our constitution there is no right to practice your sexuality, and then kill a child because you dont like the consequences. If people want to have sex, more power to them. BUT that does not give them the right to take away someone elses rights. Because in our constitution, there is a right to LIFE. Unlike your self-evident rights to be able to do whatever you want to without facing any consequences.


I never claimed - and will never claim - that it is completely unproblematic to terminate a pregnancy. What I do claim is that it is not equally unproblematic to terminate a pregnancy a minute after conception and a minute before birth. That pregnancy involves a gradual transition from non-human to human. Similarily, it is not equally beneficial for the mother to terminate the pregnancy early and late. The inconvenience imposed is obviously affected by many different factors, but it is equally obvious that the benefit of terminating the pregnancy decreases over time.


Again, you fail to tell us what you think makes someone human! Is it not enough to be conceived by two humans, to have the DNA, genes, cells and be in your mothers womb? AND the fact that every minute you are becoming more able to reach your potential, that being a fully grown active member of society. Sure some people may fail to reach that potential. They may make bad choices, like drop out of highschool, or do drugs, or in worse case they die before they can actually learn to enjoy life. This may mean they die in a car accident or any number of things. Snuffing out that ?Embryo? ?Fetus? ?baby? ?Human?, is denying them their right to life. And that is something no one has power to do.


It follows that there is a point at which it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy/kill the infant. Where that point is depends in part on the current technological state of society.


I bet you can guess that I disagree.


In some prehistoric societies, suicide and infanticide were necessary as a means of controlling the size of the population, in order to avoid overstraining the environment that sustained the whole of society. I would argue that while such practices should not be taken lightly, they are not always unethical: Were they not carried out, the ensuing environmental collapse would kill far more people than the measures themselves (as, in fact, was the result when ignorant and intolerant missionaries put a stop to the practice). Similarily, as the ability to (and cost of) sustaining the foetus outside the womb and caring for it during infancy and childhood goes up, the point where abortion/infanticide is no longer acceptable is pushed back in time.


This has no bearing. There is nothing preventing us from taking care of these children if they are born. There are a wealth of options our there that would let mothers support their child.




But biology and technology can only answer part of the question. There remains two distinct political decisions: How much relative weight should be given to the foetus, the mother, and to the interests of society as a whole? And how great a risk of overstepping the boundries of what we consider ethical are we willing - as a society - to take?

Both of these are non-trivial decisions. And neither has a cut-and-dried answer. But as long as the anti-choice taliban refuse to acknowledge that these are legitimate questions and that other people's answers have at leasts some merit, all discussion of these subjects will be fruitless.


*Sigh* back again. You can?t make that judgment unless you know when a fetus is human. I believe that since they contain everything they need to grow into what you call a human there is no reason to kill them and every reason for them to live. Until you can clarify when it is unacceptable to abort them, I cannot answer your arguments in a comprehensible way. Because for all reasons to debate about this we have to work together in a small degree.

Life is hard when your an anti-choice Taliban *sob*

::EDIT:: One last thing. I wish you would bring up when you consider a child to be human, whether through incremental development or just popping into awareness (I dont care which you pick just pick one and when you consider them to be human) I already stated my opinion on this and the fact stands. If I am wrong no humans will have died. If you are wrong that means that we have murdered thousands of people.

ty

if you did you could very well kill a human because of your ignorence of the matter.

Not only is that an absurd statement, but we're all a little dumber for having read that.

Unlike your self-evident rights to be able to do whatever you want to without facing any consequences.

Abortion is a consequence, and it has it's own negative consequences.


And that is something no one has power to do.

And yet, here we are.


There is nothing preventing us from taking care of these children if they are born.

The fact that there are already more children in adoption facilities than can be adopted out, in any realistic sense, means that statement is a bunch of bull****.

And that's just adoption facilities in America, I won't even touch on Africa.


I believe that since they contain everything they need to grow into what you call a human

They also have everything needed to grow up into a chimpanzee, but I don't see you fighting to protect our simian brothers.