SCOTUS steps in it

[Sciguy]

When it comes to saving one life or the other, it's a hard choice. But still, an abortion would seem like an option to keep open when it comes down to that.




But again, by what standard should we use to say when life begins?

[LoneWolf23k]

Here's a videoclip that might open some people's eyes about a fetus' right to live: The Right Brothers' "I want to live"

[JakeWasHere]

I know I shook up a lot of people by posting this topic - and repeating the kind of things my friend E used to say to me before he realized it was a sensitive subject. For that - for irritating the populcae of the board - I apologize.

It wouldn't be worth your while to waste your time thinking about the man or responding to his arguments, anyway. This is, after all, the guy who called me up and sang "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" over the phone the day Reagan died.

[RHJunior]

That's hippy gratitude for you.

[Gengar003]

... I could understand not liking a president, and perhaps also singing "ding dong the witch is dead," (though regardless, I believe that's a little over the top) but calling a friend and singing it to them?? WTFLOL!

[LoneWolf23k]

I know I shook up a lot of people by posting this topic - and repeating the kind of things my friend E used to say to me before he realized it was a sensitive subject. For that - for irritating the populcae of the board - I apologize.

It wouldn't be worth your while to waste your time thinking about the man or responding to his arguments, anyway. This is, after all, the guy who called me up and sang "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" over the phone the day Reagan died.

...Cripes, and people like that call us Right-wingers cold-blooded..

[Tbolt]

I know I shook up a lot of people by posting this topic - and repeating the kind of things my friend E used to say to me before he realized it was a sensitive subject. For that - for irritating the populcae of the board - I apologize.

It wouldn't be worth your while to waste your time thinking about the man or responding to his arguments, anyway. This is, after all, the guy who called me up and sang "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" over the phone the day Reagan died.

I was wondering if someone had gotten your account's password. The tone of the initial is a far cry from later posts. That rant made one of RH's flames look calm by comparison.

This is a discussion we can have, but can we have at least three posts of relatively rational dicsourse before the spittle starts shorting out the keyboards?

Although, I must admit, despite the rather horrible beginning, this is one of the calmest abortion debates I have seen, perhaps the majority of the venom was expelled in the first post...

[T.s.a.o]

Alright, this forum has too much sarcasm, or facisousness, but not enough humor. So pertaining to the SD events, Dave Ross wanted to know how a 13 year old victim of incest was going to get herself to the maternity clinic, and sugguested maybe her father could take her. Now what would be wrong with that? Sounds like poetic justice to me, but Mr.Ross said that as if he didn't see it that way .

[Kerry Skydancer]

When it comes to saving one life or the other, it's a hard choice. But still, an abortion would seem like an option to keep open when it comes down to that.




But again, by what standard should we use to say when life begins?

Life began approximately 4 billion years ago, according to the rocks; or at Creation, if you insist on that bit of mythology being literally true. In either case, life has been continuous since the beginning. Sperm and egg cells are alive, and so is the fertilized egg.

The real question is, at what point is it human enough to warrant rights? Not sperm and egg cells individually, that much is certain. At conception? A large minority of fertilized cells are non-viable and miscarry without the woman even noticing, and a smaller fraction miscarry naturally after the pregnancy is noticeable; the total is close to half, IIRC.

The -latest- that human rights should be granted, IMHO, is when the fetus can survive outside the womb with whatever med-tech is available, which is currently around 6 months. Anyone arguing later than that is not worth listening to. Human life is not infinitely valuable, but it is not a disposable commodity, either.

Where to put the line? That's the 64,000 dollar question. IMHO it should be an issue left to the woman, her spouse if there is one, her minister if she has one, and her parents if they're still supporting her. It ain't anyone else's business. Definitely ain't the government's. They screw up -everything- they touch, and this wouldn't be (and hasn't been) any different.

[Maxgoof]

My belief is that the spirit, which grows through living for the sake of others while in the physical body, lives after the physical body dies, and it is the real state of Man.

I view the whole argument of creation vs. evolution this way. Man is like a field of wheat. Once the wheat has been harvested, what difference does it make whether the soil it grew in was artificially fertilized by the farmer, or naturally dumped there by the river?

[Gengar003]

The -latest- that human rights should be granted, IMHO, is when the fetus can survive outside the womb with whatever med-tech is available,

"Available" med-tech will vary by how well-off a family/person is, and over time, "med-tech" could reach the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb from conception -- should it be easier for lower-income people get abortions? Should they someday be outlawed, once med-tech reaches the point where the womb's no longer needed to keep the fetus/embryo alive?

[Kerry Skydancer]

The -latest- that human rights should be granted, IMHO, is when the fetus can survive outside the womb with whatever med-tech is available,

"Available" med-tech will vary by how well-off a family/person is, and over time, "med-tech" could reach the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb from conception -- should it be easier for lower-income people get abortions? Should they someday be outlawed, once med-tech reaches the point where the womb's no longer needed to keep the fetus/embryo alive?

Ah, but that's the concomitant bit. Once technology progresses to that point, those who are against abortion can offer to -pay- to transfer the rape-child or any other unwanted fetus to the artificial womb ASAP. At this point you avoid additional trauma to the victim, it becomes a normal part of the post-rape physical check-up. Any other problems in pregnancy or unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with in the same way. Once you can prevent the 9-month enslavement of a rape victim to the rapist's child even in the case of adoption, the major argument -for- abortion in that case goes away.

As I said before, abortion should not be an easy procedure, but even adoption requires 9 months of hassle to the woman followed by a sometimes life-threatening delivery - but when the woman is no longer unequally punished by banning abortion, it can be reasonably banned. Mistakes can be transferred and the parents fined. Rape-children can be transferred at gov't or adoption agency expense. Medical emergencies can be dealt with before they become serious. This is technology we need to be working on.

[Narnian]

My belief is that the spirit, which grows through living for the sake of others while in the physical body, lives after the physical body dies, and it is the real state of Man.

I believe you are falling into Gnosticism if you accept this - the whole idea of the ressurection is to reunite the spirit and body back into the whole for eternity. The seperation of the spirit from the body is the disruption caused by the Fall and is actually the unnatural state of man.

[Narnian]

<Snip>But again, by what standard should we use to say when life begins?

<snip>The real question is, at what point is it human enough to warrant rights? Not sperm and egg cells individually, that much is certain. At conception?
<snip>
Where to put the line? That's the 64,000 dollar question. <snip>

I agree with you that this is the question - whenever I talk with pro-choice firends of mine we usually come to an agreement that if the fetus is human then it should not be aborted - the real area of discussion should be as you have stated when does humanity begin. If I believed it was viability as you say then I would agree that abortions should be allowed up to that point. But the answer is not that simple as there is no reason to accept viability as the target. We cannot know for sure. Why not hearbeat or brainwaves? Both of which appear long before viability.

Since we cannot say when human life begins with any certainty would not discression, being the better part of valor, dictate we should err on the side of the fetus?

[Kerry Skydancer]

Should we err on the side of the fetus? Maybe - I lean that way myself - but it's not that easy a call. We are balancing the rights of two human beings; at what point do the rights of a -potential- human override the rights of an -existing- one? It's a moral question with complex ramifications; and complex consideration is -not- a bureaucrat's strongest suit. Medical emergencies require a choice of which life to attempt to save. Rape and incest are situations where the woman - or sometimes only a girl - have already had their rights violated. Why must she continue being victimized for nine more months? What of people who used birth control but had a failure? There's a continuum of cases and people will draw the line at different places. I simply don't feel that the government is a useful entity to involve in that decision.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

I know I shook up a lot of people by posting this topic - and repeating the kind of things my friend E used to say to me before he realized it was a sensitive subject. For that - for irritating the populcae of the board - I apologize.

It wouldn't be worth your while to waste your time thinking about the man or responding to his arguments, anyway. This is, after all, the guy who called me up and sang "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" over the phone the day Reagan died.

...Cripes, and people like that call us Right-wingers cold-blooded..

I have come to the realization the Hard Core Liberals not only have no problem with other people dying, but are downright egar for them to die if it lets them make a political point.

Example: They abhore executions, unless it is an innocent man and lets them rail at how unjust capital punishment is.

[JakeWasHere]

That's hippy gratitude for you.

Step One. Become a CIA agent.

Step Two. Discover that you're wading balls-deep in corruption from the last five or six Presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. After fifteen years of this, you get really sick of it.

Step Three. Go on Nightline to discuss your agency's issues with honesty over the past twenty-five years. Tell about how they've spent the better part of three decades bullshitting the Presidents and Congress and the media and the American people and their own mothers. The one time the whistle actually needs to be blown, it's your lips on it.

Step Four. Get deported by Reagan and receive threats from your former colleagues. You will go to prison for life if you are ever caught setting foot on American soil again.

Step Five. Your son, who is eight years old at the time of your deportation, nurses a grudge against Reagan, the Republicans, and the federal government in general that lasts over twenty years and shows no signs of ever dying down.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Ummm, Jake? WTF is all that?

[Wanderwolf]

Ummm, Jake? WTF is all that?

I'd call it the condensed version, m'self...

Yours sadly,

The history-learning,

Wanderer

[JakeWasHere]

Wanderwolf has it right.

I basically gave you the shorthand version of the life story of E and his dad.