On a purely legal footing, just about every law we have refutes what you just said. Not least of which is "The pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But on a personal note, it's hard for me to believe that the same person who wrote the above paragraph wrote the one below.

In that paragraph, you sounded like you very much cared about life. And even if you are as hardened against life as you purport, surely you can see that if there's one group of people that do deserve saving, it's innocent children.

Walk up to a child sometime, point a gun at his or her head and ask them if they'd rather live or die. Despite your "child is likely to live a miserable life" argument, I'm pretty sure the answer would be live, regardless of SES. So you're not really helping these "miserable" children. You're helping parents who don't want to raise a baby or are too selfish to give them up for adoption.

That's the proverbial slippery slope when you start talking about "competent" people deciding which "incompetent" people live or die.

Better they all should live.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Are unborn babies protected by US law? To answer that, we have to decide if they're US citizens, which leads us back into the "when does life start" question. I'm not inclined to answer that question because (a) it's at least partly a matter of personal belief, and (b) I don't care when life starts because I don't think there's very much that's special about it.

Or else, if it is special, then why is only human life special? Shouldn't we refrain from killing animals for food, when vegetables or even vitamin pills can nourish us just as well? Hell, when it comes to that, fruits and vegetables are alive too. Is it sentience that makes human life special? Okay, then at what point does a fetus achieve sentience? Before or after it departs the womb?

I care more about equality. It's not fair that the US military is attacking people who haven't wronged them. The US military are big wastes of carbon atoms, and so is everyone in the middle east. We all are. It makes me angry to see one waste of carbon atoms presume to be somehow better than another.

Of course the idea of "innocent people" is, in reality, absurd. We're all guilty of something. When I said "innocent" in that case, I meant that the US military is out there right now killing people who have not personally wronged it. It's unjust.

Justice is important to some people because they think that all humans are equally special. It's important to me because I think that all humans are equally crap. Not that big a difference, when you think about it. I couldn't even tell you what's out there that's more important or special than humans, but that still doesn't make us any less crap.

What gives any of us big piles of crap a right to life? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Maybe our ability to defend it. What gives anyone else a right to take our life from us? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Maybe a breach of the Social Contract. Maybe self-defense.

Why, so they can grow up and join the Army and kill Middle Easterners who never did anything to them?

Maybe not. Plenty of sane and rational people commit suicide, lots of them teenagers from what I hear. There have been times in my life when I wanted never to have been born, and there will certainly be such times again.

If the parents have a good reason not to want a child, surely they deserve help as well. What's a good reason? That's a matter of opinion. One more reason we shouldn't let the courts legislate it.

As for adoption, I understand that there is a shortage of parents willing to adopt, especially if the baby is not white. But I can't cite a source for that.

Precisely why I said "theoretically" and that "we have to do the best we can". We can't always be right, but legislating one way or another is just an excuse not to have to make the decision on a case-by-case basis, which is of course how all decisions ought to be made, in an ideal world.

What's the difference between deciding to have an abortion and deciding to pull the plug on someone's life support? It's a tough call, and the person affected might have an opinion one way or the other if we could talk to them, but we can't, so we guess, and hope we were right.

I disagree. What with overpopulation, starvation, war, all the terrors a child (or adult) might have to face in this world, I don't see how you can make a blanket statement like that.

You can probably tell from all the indecision* in this post that I'm not the best person to defend the pro-choice movement on a moral basis. In fact, I don't believe in morality at all, not as a universal absolute. I only believe that everyone should adopt their own ethical code which allows them to coexist harmoniously with all those around them, and which, to paraphrase Kant, they honestly believe would function well as a universal law. I think that in many cases, abortion can fit into such an ethical code. In many others, it cannot.

To me, the important question in the abortion debate is not "is abortion right?", but rather "should abortion be legal?" I think there are compelling reasons why it should be, some of which I outlined in the other thread. If you don't think it's right, don't have one. Go evangelize about how it's wrong. But I think we're safest if we keep it legal.

(* I'm so undecided that I considered deleting this whole post. But I wouldn't want you to go without a reply. I reserve the right to rephrase or change my mind, though.)

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

Now if only humans were any good at that "coexisting harmoniously" thing, we'd be all set wouldn't we?

Woah, you can stop that line of reasoning right now. I am not a US citizen - I am an Australian citizen. If I were visiting the US and some bloke shot me in the head, would that not be a crime because I am not a US citizen? If somebody has no citizenship at all - a stateless refugee or some such thing, is killing them not a crime in any country? The thing that makes it a crime is the killing of a human being, not a citizen.

You are free to argue to case for the non-killing of animals and plants all you like. However, whatever conclusion you come to will not detract from the inherent value of human life, unless you decide that no life at all is worth anything.

Quick! Run out into your back yard! A group of bigger stronger cockroaches are attacking a group of smaller, weaker cockroaches who have done nothing wrong! Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

...which makes it okay to kill unborn children? Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

If the parents have a good reason not to have children, maybe they should use contraception, or just not have sex. I wonder what proportion of expecting parents in the US honestly had no idea that having unproptected sex could lead to pregnancy. Somehow, I doubt there would be very many of them.

The precise opposite is true - too few children are being given up for adoption. People who are incapable of having children of their own find it very difficult to find babies to adopt in the US, UK, and Australia, and generally have to adopt from second- and third-world nations where the number of mothers who die in childbirth is greater.

There is an extremely big difference. One person is being kept alive despite nature. Without that man-made machine, they would be dead. Unborn babies, on the other hand, are right where they are supposed to be, in a natural mechanism designed to protect them and help them grow. To turn off life support is to let someone die. To perform an abortion is to kill something that would otherwise live.

I disagree. What with overpopulation, starvation, war, all the terrors a child (or adult) might have to face in this world, I don't see how you can make a blanket statement like that.

---

It is a very simple, and perfectly true "blanket statement" - the best default choice of of being alive and being dead is the former. Bad circumstances might make living undesirable or difficult, but this does not mean that the whole human race is better off dead.

It is illegal for me to walk up to a man on the street and stab him through the heart with a carving knife. Most would also say that it is wrong for me to do such a thing. However, if that same man were holding a gun to my wife's head, I would stab him through the heart without hesitation to save the life of my wife, and the Australian legal system would, after carefully examining my actions, let me walk free. Simple enough example of killing a human being being wrong in most cases, but justifiable in another.

In all Western countries that I know of, it is currently legal for a woman who is three months pregnant to go into an abortion clinic to have her unborn baby killed, for the reason that she already has two kids, and she and her husband are saving for a new boat, and it would be inconvenient. I think that this is utterly outrageous, and totally wrong. On the other hand, a woman who works with my wife recently discovered that she had cervical cancer at an early stage. It was also discovered that she was about one month pregnant. If she did not get an abortion, she and her unborn child would die. If she got the pregnancy terminated, the cancer would be easily treated and she would make a full recovery. One life taken prevents two from being lost. Simple ethics. Killing the baby is sad, but if it had not been done they both would have died. The abortion was justifiable.

I do not think that abortion should be outright banned, but it should be restricted to cases in which it is absolutely necessary. We are talking about killing babies, here. Sure, they aren't born yet, but does that really matter?

Oh, evil_d, I just have to say... basing a moral argument upon your own apathy toward the human race is a pretty bizarre stance. "I really don't care about this issue, therefore..."

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

It's illegal in Ireland.

Surely the reason killing someone is wrong is because it prevents them living the rest of their life? Isn't that why the death of a child is often considered even more tragic than the death of an adult?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you accept it, using contraception or even not having sex at all, is akin to murder! When you shoot your load into a condom, or abstain from sex, you've quite possibly stopped someone from having the chance of life, haven't you? Just because the person isn't conceived yet doesn't mean they've lost any less. Killing someone, be they foetus or fully-developed human, and throwing sperm away, both have the same ultimate consequence: no person.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, but it seemed relevant. Anyway, I'm off for a wank.

Sinner!

---
Worldwide Front for Islamic Jihad against Jews, Crusaders and Naughty Monkeys

Fair enough. Then we have to decide whether they're human beings. I don't believe we're equipped to answer that question, at least not yet.

What inherent value of human life? Where did you get the idea that human life has inherent value? Can you form a rational argument to convince me that it does? And while you're at it, can you form another rational argument to convince me that both animal and plant life have less value than human life? In all seriousness, I am perfectly willing to be persuaded of these facts. It would certainly ease my conscience about a lot of things.

Probably not to the cockroaches. Anyway, I don't have to defend my reasons for being interested in justice or equality. I'm not asking you to believe the same thing, just explaining where I'm coming from. Sorry if you don't see it. I'll bet you're interested in justice too, and I'll bet that it's at least partly because of your belief in Christianity. I don't believe in Christianity anymore, but that doesn't stop me from respecting your interest in justice.

...which makes it okay to kill unborn children? Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

---

That statement was not meant to support abortion, but rather to refute the idea that all humans value their lives.

Why must there be a default choice? Why not, as I suggested, consider every case individually and on its own merits?

I didn't say everyone was, just some people.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that. I'm only saying that we shouldn't enact a law to this effect. I don't trust government bureaucrats to make the decision about what's "absolutely necessary" for someone else.

You are concerned that irresponsible people are getting pregnant and then having abortions because they just can't be arsed to raise a child. I understand that. But I don't think it's fair to characterize the majority of abortions that way. Even I have enough faith in human beings to think that most probably consider the matter carefully before proceeding.

Nor do I think that even a partial ban on abortion is a viable solution. People will find ways to beat the system. If they can't, then they'll have an illegal abortion with insufficient medical care. Or else they'll give birth to a child which they resent from day one. I just can't see how that's fair to the child.

But it's not my place to make that decision for the child, you say. No, and neither is it yours. You have no more right to force life on a child than I have to force death on it (not to imply that I would want to force anything). Therefore it seems to me that the thing to do is let the decision fall to the parents. And I hate to mimic a bumper sticker, but, if they're not competent to make that choice responsibly, then how can they be competent to raise a child?

I don't know, maybe it does. Andy's point is worth considering. Sperm are babies that aren't born yet, aren't they?

Notice that I specifically said I could not make an argument on moral grounds. You may rest assured that I would not allow my relative disinterest in an issue to inform my opinion on it. My relative disinterest in this issue may cause me to stop contributing to this coversation. My opinion on the legality of abortion is based mostly upon matters of practicality. I neither have nor want a blanket opinion on the ethics of abortion. My willingness to believe that abortion might be okay in some cases is influenced by a number of other opinions I hold, among them: life is not inherently valuable, sometimes it is better not to be alive, sometimes one life must be sacrificed for the sake of another.

Obi and DexX, I don't think we're as far apart on this issue as we seem to be on the surface. Let me emphasize that I'm not in any way trying to encourage the practice of abortion. And I think we all agree that it's a necessity in some cases. How many cases, or what percentage of the total, I won't presume to know. But it's my opinion that government regulation of abortion will do more harm than good. There's something tragically ironic about supposedly democratic governments that won't trust the judgement of their own citizens. Increasing the reach of the law is far overrated as a technique for bringing about an ideal society. Sometimes you just have to to give advice, and then let go and hope for the best, and I think that this is one of those times.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

evil_d, I appreciate your answering my post though you weren't inclined to do so. Since you said you have somewhat of a disinterest in this conversation, I'll understand if you break it off. However, until then, I'm gonna keep replying.

Fair enough. Then we have to decide whether they're human beings. I don't believe we're equipped to answer that question, at least not yet.

---

We're equipped enough to take a reasonable guess: brain function. But even if we weren't, you can't say, "I can't answer that question, so it's an unimportant one." Obviously life begins sometime in the womb. The baby isn't different two minutes before delivery and two minutes after. Just because we aren't certain of the answer doesn't mean we can ignore the question.

What inherent value of human life? Where did you get the idea that human life has inherent value?

---

Where did you get the idea it doesn't. I've gotta say, evil_d, though I respect your opinion on most everything, I think your "human life doesn't matter so abortion's fine" argument is insane. Completely. Do you believe there should be laws against murder, rape, assault? If so, why? Human life doesn't have any value.

I find it somewhat surreal that you actually need convincing that human life has inherent value. If there is even one more person on this entire forum that believes similarly, I would be shocked.

But if you need to ask about the value of human life, or are in a bad place where you need convincing, how about this:

- Empathy. Compassion. Love. The smile of a child. Courage. Strength. Honor. Resilience. The bright eyes of an old man. Evolution. Adaptation. Progression. In short, picture everything you hate. Then picture its opposite.

Actually, just the simple process of being able to imagine the opposite of what you hate should prove to you human life has value.

I love all life. I really do. It's the reason I'm solidly pro-animal, anti-death penalty and pro-life. Consistency.

However, if you really don't see the difference between a human and your tomato plant, look at your toaster some time.

I realize you were talking to DexX here, but let me stress something again. I don't know if you were doing it _d, but I know others were, so let me say: being pro-life doesn't have a damn thing to do with religious inclination. I'm an atheist and pro-life. Because the christian right has been the only organization with the balls to stand up for pro-life, lots of people think pro-life is synonomous with christian. It's not. They're two separate issues. So anyone out there who feels the need to argue against the pro-life position based on an anti-christian sentiment, don't. Your argument is without merit and brings nothing to the discussion.

There were times you wish you were never born, but still you're here. You got to make that choice about your own life. That's pro-choice.

Why must there be a default choice? Why not, as I suggested, consider every case individually and on its own merits?

---

Because life begins somewhere. It does. And if go out on a limb and take the rational (I sincerely consider your view irrational, evil_d) view that life has value, your next step is to protect it from the very point it begins.

I didn't say everyone was, just some people.

---

Again, their choice, not yours.

The majority of abortions are based on the simple criteria of whether the baby is convenient or not. Not on whether the baby is alive or not.

I honestly have to say that if the two strongest arguments that pro-choice proponents have are "it's gonna happen anyways so why make it illegal?" and "life has no inherent value", the future of the pro-life movement looks very good. The first argument can be refuted by comparing it to rape, murder, assault, or any other crime. The second is so silly that someone supporting it could be shot in the head and be fine with that.

I really dislike this pretense. Again, children want to live. Ask a few. So don't pretend you're on the child's side by wanting to abort them. You're not.

Quick, little Cindy is being forced to live! Hold a pillow over her face!

Holds no water.

Let's say a parent decides they want to kill their 3-year old toddler. Should this be allowed? If not, why? (And "if not", you're going to have to contradict yourself one way or another.)

You're completely ignoring adoption. What DexX says is ABSOLUTELY true: the demand curve for infant adoption is MUCH higher than the supply curve. (Haven't you heard the stories about 5-year adoption waiting lists?)

I don't know, maybe it does. Andy's point is worth considering. Sperm are babies that aren't born yet, aren't they?

---

No, they're not. IMO, you make the same mistake that andy did in his reasoning, namely the bolded section below.

quote:

---

Surely the reason killing someone is wrong is because it prevents them living the rest of their life? Isn't that why the death of a child is often considered even more tragic than the death of an adult?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you accept it, using contraception or even not having sex at all, is akin to murder!

---

Sperm has no life. Therefore no "rest of their life." It has the potential for life. BIG difference. The difference that allows me to say I believe in aborting a fetus before life begins (pre-brain function imo), but not after.

Do you want a blanket opinion on the ethics of rape? I may seem to be beating a dead horse, but I'm trying to point out that if you hold your "life has no value" argument, you need to be consistent on all damaging agents to life, or else you're simply contradicting yourself.

I have a blanket opinion about rape. Anti-. And I have a blanket opinion about aborting something with life. Anti-. Luckily, since my opinion of when life begins (~ 5 weeks) doesn't conflict with a rape or incest victim aborting a non-living fetus, I avoid some VERY tough decisions. As far as danger to the mother, I don't believe this is an abortion issue, but rather a common sense one. The doctor should do his best to save both, but if he can't, use his training to figure out who has the best chance for survival.

Again, would you allow people to trust their own judgment on murder, rape, assault? Those who are against murder aren't allowed to murder, and those who have no problem with murder can? You see, it's the same weakness in this argument. The only out I can see is that you're saying that "we don't know when life begins, so it's different", but you committed yourself against such an argument when you said "life is without value," thereby negating any influence this can have on your opinion.

I agree with this. So let me say:

- If you believe in the value of human life,

- and if you believe life starts sometime in the womb,

- then the only logical position would be not to believe in abortion after the period you have decided life begins, whatever that may be.

That's truly as simple as If A and B are True, so must C be.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Very nicely put, ObiJo. I don't think I can add useful anything to that.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

This discussion is taking time and energy I'd rather not spend on it now, so I intend for this to be my last reply. I'll try not to make it too incendiary.

Agreed on all counts.

Where did you get the idea it doesn't.

---

I asked myself, what makes human life inherently valuable? And I didn't have an answer. You've provided your answers, but sadly they're not what I was looking for.

Inherent value. Human beings can make their lives valuable to other human beings by virtue of the things they do with them. There are many people whose lives I value, including many of the folks on this site. I just don't think they were born valuable. They earned it. I'm proud of them. I hope I can make my life valuable too.

I pay taxes to support a government which, in theory, relieves me of much of the personal responsibility for protecting these lives which I value so much. This is why I am in favor of laws which aim to prevent people from harming human life, or making it miserable.

I'm unclear on what you mean by pro-animal. Are you vegetarian? Vegan? Opposed to hunting for sport? Opposed to slaughterhouses for food production? Opposed to animal testing in laboratories? What if the testers adhere to a strict code of ethics? What else?

I realize that. I'm not one of those who were saying that it did.

I never said I wanted to abort anyone, and I do apologize if I've come off as some maniacal serial killer.

I'm only saying that abortion might be the best thing -- the lesser evil, if you like -- in some cases. DexX said the same. We have different opinions on what kind of extenuating circumstances are required to make abortion the lesser evil. To briefly summarize what I know of them, yours seem to be based on physical and medical criteria, whereas I'm willing to consider psychological and financial criteria as well. But, again, I think our most important difference is over the question of who should be legally empowered to make the judgement call.

I'd add that you can't make a generalization like "children want to live". Some don't. Tragic but true.

No, to be honest, I haven't. This is inconsistent with what I've heard, but I'll believe it if you can show me.

If this is true, then I do agree that bearing the child and then giving it up for adoption is likely preferable to abortion in cases where the health of the mother is not a concern.

This is exactly how many pro-choice advocates feel about a developing fetus. And sperm do have life. They're cells, they move under their own power, they can die.

Actually, I don't want a blanket opinion on anything. Ideally I would like to consider every single situation on its own merits. But even if rape turns out to be wrong in every single case I consider -- as I imagine it would -- I'll still want to consider the next individually.

This is, for reasons I don't understand, an attitude which has made me very unpopular in the past.

So what's your opinion on aborting a fetus younger than five weeks for reasons of mere convenience?

Again, would you allow people to trust their own judgment on murder, rape, assault?

---

Well, we do this already when we try supposed criminals before a jury. On the other hand, I would probably feel better about a ban on abortion if a panel of 12 of your peers got to decide whether you could have one, instead of a lone bureaucrat.

quote:

---

- If you believe in the value of human life,

- and if you believe life starts sometime in the womb,

- then the only logical position would be not to believe in abortion after the period you have decided life begins, whatever that may be.

That's truly as simple as If A and B are True, so must C be.

---

This logic is fine as long as you insert "inherent" before "value".

Isn't this what we do currently? In the US, abortions are prohibited after a certain point, aren't they? I don't really know, but that was my understanding.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

This discussion is taking time and energy I'd rather not spend on it now, so I intend for this to be my last reply. I'll try not to make it too incendiary.

---

Me too. :)

Inherent value. Human beings can make their lives valuable to other human beings by virtue of the things they do with them. There are many people whose lives I value, including many of the folks on this site. I just don't think they were born valuable. They earned it.

---

So, if human life isn't inherently valuable, when does it become so? When do we "earn" it? 3 years? 10? When you learn to walk? Drive? Get a job?

It's a terrible road you go down when you start thinking that some life has value, and some doesn't. Who gets to decide? What's the criteria? I'm sure the Nazis were SURE the Jews' lives had no value. Is that acceptable in your opinion? I doubt it.

The value of human life isn't based on action. It's based on its simple existence. That is, it's inherently valuable. Otherwise, the lives of infants and toddlers don't have value either since someone's life only becomes "valuable to other human beings by virtue of the things they do with them." So, by that reasoning, a newborn's life has NO value to its parents. None. It hasn't done anything yet, so if it lives or dies, they're cool with it.

You could argue the child's life has value to parents who obviously want the child, having not aborted him or her. But I could say an aborted life would have had equally as much value to an adoptive couple.

So, even by your standard, a child's life has inherent value.

I'm unclear on what you mean by pro-animal. Are you vegetarian? Vegan? Opposed to hunting for sport? Opposed to slaughterhouses for food production? Opposed to animal testing in laboratories? What if the testers adhere to a strict code of ethics? What else?

---

I'm not a vegetarian, though I've tried to be unsuccesfully. (I always use the self-serving logic that the cow is already dead in the store when I see it, so what does it matter if I eat it.)

When I use the term pro-animal, I mean that I am against against cruelty to animals (including hunters' snares, laboratory tests, and the individual variety) and believe much stricter punishments should be in place for those that practice the cruelty.

I never said I wanted to abort anyone, and I do apologize if I've come off as some maniacal serial killer.

---

The sentence before the passage you quote said something along the lines of "This is a pretense I hate." My comment was more of a statement against that pretense in general, and not specifically against what you had said. In other words, my you's were universal. Sorry for the confusion.

Not quite the same. I'm using physical and medical criteria to form an opinion on when life begins. You're using psychological and financial criteria to form an opinion on whether the pregnancy is wanted, dismissing any consideration of life since you feel it has no inherent value.

Again, who should be "legally empowered" to make the judgment call on whether its okay to kill a 6-week old infant? By your reasoning, how could this child have any more "inherent value" than a child in utero?

Women don't want to be raped. Overwhelmingly true, right?

No, to be honest, I haven't. This is inconsistent with what I've heard, but I'll believe it if you can show me.

If this is true, then I do agree that bearing the child and then giving it up for adoption is likely preferable to abortion in cases where the health of the mother is not a concern.

---

Here is the best page I found. I was looking for one that didn't have a political tilt to it, and also one that touched upon both private and public adoption techniques, a distinction I just learned myself while looking for a page.

So what's your opinion on aborting a fetus younger than five weeks for reasons of mere convenience?

---

I'm completely fine with it.

My only caveat is that if new medical evidence came out convincing me that life starts at 3 weeks (or 4 months for that matter), I'd obviously be inclined to change my opinion on when I believe life begins, and therefore when I think abortion isn't permissible past.

quote:

---

quote:

---

- If you believe in the inherent value of human life,

- and if you believe life starts sometime in the womb,

- then the only logical position would be not to believe in abortion after the period you have decided life begins, whatever that may be.

That's truly as simple as If A and B are True, so must C be.

---

This logic is fine as long as you insert "inherent" before "value".

---

Done. :)

Isn't this what we do currently? In the US, abortions are prohibited after a certain point, aren't they? I don't really know, but that was my understanding.

---

Doe v. Bolton specifically made abortions legal at any point during pregnancy. Late-term abortions (7, 8, 9 months) are regularly performed in the United States in a cruel and gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion.(Not for the weak-kneed.)

In summary, I'm all for freedom of choice. But if we don't defend that freedom for the most vulnerable members of society, then the concept is meaningless. And this big shit-and-giggles experiment we call democracy is too.

Thanks for the conversation, all.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Just in case anyone missed it in the earlier forum, I am going to post this article by Carl Sagan again.

Her makes a very good, scientific case that Roe v. Wade happens to coincide with a common-sense definition of when life begins. If you want to skip to the good part, start here.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

quote:

---

Just in case anyone missed it in the earlier forum, I am going to post this article by Carl Sagan again.

Her makes a very good, scientific case that Roe v. Wade happens to coincide with a common-sense definition of when life begins. If you want to skip to the good part, start here.

---

This was a good link, fuzzyman. I had missed it in the other thread, so thanks for sharing it. Two things I'd like to say about it:

- For the most part, it is discussing scientific evidence of when life begins and saying no abortions should be performed after that period. Though I differ with their assesment of when life begins, I completely agree with their reasoning of: after life begins, no abortion.

- You'll notice my first three words of the previous paragraph were "For the most part". That's because the article explicity states that it isn't only looking at scientific proof for the beginning of life, but rather, it's looking to "strike a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life." This puts in question the objectivity of their "scientific case that Roe v. Wade happens to coincide with a common-sense definition of when life begins."

So in response to their timeframe, take a look at this.

If you'd rather not read the whole page, here's the main thrust:

So, one has to ask themself, if there is a scientific difference of opinion on when brain function begins, who should we listen to? Luckily, fuzzyman's link answers that:

quote:

---

When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?

We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively--that is, on the early side.

---

But even if you agree with the Sagan link, you still have to disagree with the U.S.'s current abortion laws. They are not just based on Roe v. Wade anymore.(Doe v. Bolton)

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

You crazy religious wackos!

Hail Marx! Hail Lenin! Hail Mao! Up with mandatory, state-performed abortions!

(This so-called "fight" is just too nice.)

---
What others say about boorite!

I tried to stay out of this thread, really I did. It wasn't easy for someone as easily baited as myself. But then I went crazy imagining all the terrible things you were saying about me in here, so I caved. I see I needn't have worried. I'll reply to a few more things from Obi's last message, and then maybe this'll really be my last post. (Probably not, but I can hope.)

Offhand, I'd say a life becomes valuable when someone else values it. You address this later:

I would argue the first sentence, yes, and, as hinted at in my previous post, I agree with the second.

The obvious question of what happens if a child is born with some terrible defect and no parents want to adopt it is an extremely tricky area which I'll stay out of mostly because I don't really know what to think of it. Although, to be honest, it's my experience that there are parents out there who are perfectly willing to adopt such children. A former professor of mine, one of the biggest curmudgeons I'll probably ever know, somehow has the patience to raise a child, not biologically his, with Down's Syndrome. He's also rumored never to go anywhere that can't be reached by wheelchair, because someone in his family is in one. I admire him, even if I don't understand him.

Not exactly. If every unborn child has a couple willing to adopt it, then every unborn child gets assigned value, but I still wouldn't say the value is inherent. This difference may be important only to the structure of my personal philosophy, but I'm wary of saying things I may have to reverse later.

I'm kind of the same, except for the part about having already tried.

Necessarily true, because it's not rape if they want it.

Seriously, I think there are more people who don't enjoy being alive than you think. I don't have figures or anything, it's just the impression I get from what observation I've done over the course of my life. Some people are just trudging on because they're afraid of Hell, or because other people depend on them, or because they lack the strength to defy their self-preservation instinct, or because they just have hope (justified or not). But now I'm getting away from the subject at hand.

Seems good. I haven't read all of it (or any of the other links people posted); hopefully I'll get to later.

So what's your opinion on aborting a fetus younger than five weeks for reasons of mere convenience?

---

I'm completely fine with it.

---

That was not what I expected you to say at all.

Of course. Strong medical evidence one way or another would definitely swing the tide of this debate.

But perhaps some of the most telling pieces of data are the figures quoted in the previous thread, which said that between 40 - 50 percent of the population held either view. If we (collectively, as a species) had any real idea at all, this would be an entirely different debate.

There's a lot more I could say on this and tangential subjects, but I'll try to leave well enough alone.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

Here's the $0.02 of a person on the fence.

One of the main tenets of our society is that life has inherent value. As I see it, killing someone is not wrong only because they will be mourned, but also because the victim has lost the chance of all the enjoyment they would have gotten from life.

By your argument, evil_d (if I understand it correctly), killing a hermit who didn't know anyone and whose death would go unnoticed would be perfectly okay. But intuitively, that can't be true. The hermit would have been robbed of all future pleasure.

Well... I think you're probably following me fairly well, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with your example, nor do I think it's all that clear-cut. Forgive me, though, if I don't present my thoughts on it. I'd really rather invest less time and worry in this thread than I have been.

This discussion seems to have come to concern mostly my defense of my own philosophy. Regardless of my own faith in it, I can't realistically expect others to adopt it. We haven't really heard much reasoning from other pro-choice advocates, perhaps out of an unwillingness to be associated with my unpopular views. If anyone else has a good argument they'd like to share, by all means, take a shot at it. I'm interested too.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

On the contrary, I have no problem being associated with your views... in fact I agree with a good number of them to varying degrees. I just don't have a lot to say on the issue of abortion. Sorry ObiJo, I know you said you've been looking for a way to get more pro-choice people to talk about their positions on the subject, but it's not something I enjoy. These discussions never end well in my experience.

Offhand, I'd say a life becomes valuable when someone else values it. You address this later:

I would argue the first sentence, yes, and, as hinted at in my previous post, I agree with the second.

---

Just to make it clear, I was arguing this from what I had gathered was your vantage point. (ie, someone can only have value if they are valued by someone)

My opinion is that life has inherent value, not because it has value to someone else, but because it has value to the person, themself. (This goes directly to andy's hermit analogy too.)

I know all about people who don't want to be alive. (And I have the cigarette burns to prove it.) When I was a teenager I had deep depression. I remember one time, I went out into the garage to go to the store in my 78 GMC Jimmy. (How anyone can be depressed while owning a 78 GMC Jimmy still eludes me.) When I started my truck up in the garage, it backfired. Next thing I know, my mom and sister were running into the garage with terror on their face. They were sure I had just killed myself.

So, I know about adults not wanting to live. But we were talking about children, that children don't want to live. This is something that just isn't true. Go look up the suicide rate by age sometime. How many occur before the age of 10? See what I'm getting at? Children aren't born suicidal. Children want to live.

The self-preservation instinct you talk about only proves that. When do babies cry? When they're hungry, when they're tired, when they need to be changed. There is no other period in our lives when our self-preservation instinct is stronger than when we are babies. When we are born, we want to live. Life has inherent value because it is inherently valuable to that life from the beginning. Not based on value ascribed to us by others. But by the value we ourselves give to it through our very existence.

The hermit values the hermit's life.

I believe we do have a real decent idea of when life begins. Brainwaves. It's just that a lot of people make the litmus test convenience rather than life.

So what's your opinion on aborting a fetus younger than five weeks for reasons of mere convenience?

---

I'm completely fine with it.

---

That was not what I expected you to say at all.

---

Why not? My reasoning all along has been don't abort life, not don't abort. I've looked at the evidence of when life begins, formed an opinion, then said don't abort after that period.

I understand that sentiment. It was the reason I postponed raising the topic for a couple of months; I didn't want it to turn into a shouting match.

Often times, I won't discuss or share political opinions with friends, not wanting to put a wedge between us. I think this thread has proven to me that friends can talk about these kinds of emotive issues without it turning ugly.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Hey Jes... suck on this!

---
Poop.

To me, it's unfortunate that there even needs to be legislation regarding abortion, since when life starts is purely a religious one, and the government should keep their paws out of it. You don't beleive in abortion? Fine. Don't have one.

That said, if we do have to legislate, I think the concept that it is too late to abort if the fetus could survive outside the womb is a reasonable one.

Then again, I think they should take "In God We Trust" off the money and "Under God" back out of the pledge.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

I'm against abortion morally but I believe women should have a right to choose. After all, we are in a free country that shouldn't be controlled by religious principles.

RW... you are such an ass.

---
peddling the funny around since 09/24/2002

Wow! It's great to see ObiJo posting in these forums again. Oh, wait...

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

Okay. I see these arguments that proclaim "THESE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO GROW UP AND DO BAD THINGS ANYWAY, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL KILL THEM." as completely ridiculous. Isn't there an equal chance that one of these unborn children could have done great things for people? There's no way of knowing how a child is going to turn out. Sure, he might be born into a poor family, he might be abused and ridiculed, spending his half his childhood in juvie, but there's no way of knowing that for sure. Making that kind of judgement is positively silly.

Overall I'm not really on one side or the other when it comes to this debate, I'm pretty divided on the issue. I just think that some people have picked a seriously shitty way of arguing their point. That's all.

---
It's grime time.