This is the first step in overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Your thoughts?

.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago


Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.
Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.
The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

There's a book I've had recommended to me by many at my school that makes an excellent case for the decrease in crime over the last 30-40 years being attributable to abortion.

-- I don't think that it's unreasonable to argue that we see less crime when there's more abortion. How many more sociopaths would be in society today had mothers given born to unwanted and unloved children?

-- I don't think that it's unreasonable to argue that we see less crime when there's more abortion. How many more sociopaths would be in society today had mothers given born to unwanted and unloved children?

I think your last statement is debateable. Mental illness is caused by both environmental and genetic factors, probably the latter playing a larger role. I've seen many great people come out of broken homes and change their world for the better. The list of folks like that is too long to list here.

Even so, I think this is really moot point when it comes to the religious aspect behind all of this. Religious folks are more concerned with the morality of the act of abortion.

I think the issue here again, depends on where you define the start of life. Midtowner, you define the start of life closer to the time of birth, so it makes sense for you to have no problems with abortion. Folks like myself see the start of life at the point of conception.
I think we could probably argue this all day, as we've done in the past.


This is just an issue we'll have to allow our court system to work out.

I personally define the start of life as when a fetus becomes viable outside of the womb -- that's the definitive point where the life inside the woman is no longer her own. As far as I can tell as far as the entire gestation process, it's the only definitive point that means anything where these arguments are concerned, and as best as I know, that's the only middle ground to be had.

I don't like the middle ground because it's easy to compromise. I like it because it seems more reasonable than the abortion is always wrong vs. abortion is right all the time arguments.

As to abandonment leading to mental disease -- I attended a training as a volunteer for Oklahoma Lawyers for Children. Part of that training involved discussion on how these kids due to their parents negligence end up as the sociopaths that will later plague society. Perhaps not bringing these people into society is best.

This is the first step in overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Your thoughts?

.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago


Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.
Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.
The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.
Sounds good to me. They need to overturn Roe Vs. Wade.

Just think...if your mother aborted you, you would not be posting on OKCTalk.

Life starts at conception...period.

How does life start at conception? I'm glad you could clear that up for us and solve the entire debate there Keith.

Someone should probably also notify the Supreme Court since we solved it here on OKCTalk..

Does Todd get a medal or something now?

'cuz he should.

Yay I love it when they take away women's rights. Whoo hoo!

Yay I love it when they take away women's rights. Whoo hoo!
The fact is that overturning Roe v. Wade will not overturn abortion. It will just send the issue back to the legislature of each state, which have to answer to the people of that state.

Yay I love it when they regulate morality. HURRAH.

Sweet, you're framing the argument incorrectly, or at least you're showing your lack of understanding of the other side of it. They don't see it as legislating morality, they see it as legislating against murder.

Of course, it's interesting to me exactly how they arrive at that conclusion. From what I gather, most of them jump straight to the assumption that there is a life at conception without any further examination.

I don't consider something with the consciousness of a tadpole to be human, there is no more consciousness in those early stages folllowing conception than there was before. Abortion in those early term pregnancies is no more murder in my reasoning than it is when a woman has her period.

But to be clear sweetdaisy, I think we can all accept that murder is both illegal AND immoral. The fundamental question here is whether or not it's murder. You can't have an argument if you disagree on what you're arguing about :)

The fundamental question is: What is it? And since there is a debate on who/what it is, then we should not kill it. That is how we treat all other situations when we're not sure what something is. For example, hunters don't shoot at a rustling bush until they know what it is. Demolition crews don't implode a building without knowing for sure that nobody was in there. Why do we treat the preborn child any different?

The few arguments in this thread so far lending support to abortion were that the crime rate went down since abortion was legalized. And that may be so, but to attribute it to abortion seems somewhat of a stretch. Besides, if the crime rate does go down when those who didn't get much love are terminated, then perhaps our next move as a society would be to euthenize adoption centers and orphanages.

We can personally define anything, but science says a human becomes a human when it gets its own DNA. That point is conception. To argue that a human becomes a human at any other time goes against science.

If a human becomes a human when it is viable outside of the womb, that means at conception. Test tube babies are never in the womb, therefore a conceptus' viability is immediate. The truth is, a baby at 9 months will die outside the womb just as surely as a conceptus will unless it gets aid from someone.

The argument that bringing a baby into a potentially bad environment makes it OK to end its life is a philosophical point that doesn't hold water. Nobody can know for sure what the environment of the baby will be one day, one month or one year after it's born. There are so many variables. Heaven forbid the government get involved with decisions like that. Besides, some of the most inspirational people of all time, the ones we look up to, were the down-and-outers. My philosophical viewpoint is this: the chance at a great life is worth the risk of a bad one, let alone not even having a chance.

Someone said they didn't consider something with the consciousness of a tadpole to be human. That is including a lot of people who are in comas, are mentally retarded or have learning disabilities. Do we have the right to "abort" them.

Someone said that overturning Roe v. Wade removes the rights of women. Hold on a second... women don't have the right to kill a toddler. Where is their anger? I don't have the right to kill the dude across the street who always listens to his music too loud? Where's our freedom?! Duh, it's not an issue of freedom. This illustrates my main point: What is it?

Also, to assume that the baby inside a woman is "her body" is another scientific ridiculousity. The DNA of the two are completely different. If a mother is carrying a baby boy, does that mean that the woman has a *****? Of course not! And lastly, if you put a conceptus from a black couple into the womb of a white woman, that baby would be black. That alone should prove that the preborn baby is not a part of the mother's body.

So, it all comes down to: What is it? Just like in scenarios where the certainty of life is in question, we don't kill it. However, if it is a life, then there's no excuse good enough to kill it.

The fundamental question is: What is it? And since there is a debate on who/what it is, then we should not kill it. That is how we treat all other situations when we're not sure what something is. For example, hunters don't shoot at a rustling bush until they know what it is. Demolition crews don't implode a building without knowing for sure that nobody was in there. Why do we treat the preborn child any different?

You're missing the same point that the above poster I responded to missed (only you're missing it from the other side) -- or at least with these examples. You shift your argument towards the bottom. As to these, there is a vast gulf of difference between a fetus and a human being. One is capable of consciousness, the other is not. One can survive without aid, the other cannot. You get into these points more later, so I'll address them as I find them.


The few arguments in this thread so far lending support to abortion were that the crime rate went down since abortion was legalized. And that may be so, but to attribute it to abortion seems somewhat of a stretch. Besides, if the crime rate does go down when those who didn't get much love are terminated, then perhaps our next move as a society would be to euthenize adoption centers and orphanages.

Like I said, I'm not prepared to defend that allegation just yet. Give me some time to get my hands on the book for some Spring Break reading (I hear it's an excellent read) and I'll be fully prepared to address this issue. In the meantime, I'm taking a rain check. I find it a perfectly reasonable argument given what I know about the DHS/foster sytem (I trained as a volunteer for DHS last weekend) -- go ahead, ask me stuff :)


We can personally define anything, but science says a human becomes a human when it gets its own DNA. That point is conception. To argue that a human becomes a human at any other time goes against science.

Actually, that's a clever little shift of the facts -- lets keep these things in their own little capsules. What you are trying to do here is say that because something has human DNA, it must be human in the sense that it is alive.

This doesn't workin in our analysis here. The question is not whether it's human (which is of course a PART of what is requisite for there to be murder). The question here is whether it's alive. That's assuming that you believe that something must be both human and alive for it to be murdered. The law (our society's codified and generally agreed upon philosophy) is in general agreeance with this except for some anomolies like the Lacy/Connor Peterson statutes around the country.

Just be aware that the way you frame your argument here is essentially irresponsive to the question, at least for my purposes. Since what we're arguing is philosophy and not fact, there are no right answers, just a lot of people who think the other people are wrong :)



If a human becomes a human when it is viable outside of the womb, that means at conception. Test tube babies are never in the womb, therefore a conceptus' viability is immediate.

And no one has ever told me that the loss of a test tube baby was murder. I have never heard that a test tube baby could be viable outside the womb. Test tube babies are conceived outside the womb and then implanted. Thus, they are still not viable (as in they will never be human beings) until they have had a symbiotic relationship with a uterus.


The truth is, a baby at 9 months will die outside the womb just as surely as a conceptus will unless it gets aid from someone.

Absent proper care, this is true. That's not the argument though. At the point of viability, at least for my own purposes, a fetus can survive outside the womb with the latest in medical technology. This still (if memory serves) places the point of viability somewhere around 21-24 weeks. I'd set the marker as low as 21 even though the chances of survival are slim there.



The argument that bringing a baby into a potentially bad environment makes it OK to end its life is a philosophical point that doesn't hold water. Nobody can know for sure what the environment of the baby will be one day, one month or one year after it's born. There are so many variables.

Here's where you're wrong. We already know that mom does not want a baby. This does usually not bode well. So you would propose that we damage the life of the mother and the child by protecting a life which under my analysis never existed.


Heaven forbid the government get involved with decisions like that. Besides, some of the most inspirational people of all time, the ones we look up to, were the down-and-outers. My philosophical viewpoint is this: the chance at a great life is worth the risk of a bad one, let alone not even having a chance.


Yes, heaven forbid. Conservatives generally are against the intervention of the state in personal affairs. I guess you're not conservative? I've seen you claim as much.. here, I tend to think that you're not.


Someone said they didn't consider something with the consciousness of a tadpole to be human. That is including a lot of people who are in comas, are mentally retarded or have learning disabilities. Do we have the right to "abort" them.

MR is different from comatose. And as far as the comatose, we do have the right to yank the feeding tube/cease other life support measures if the brain activity dictates that the patient is braindead. Terry Shiavo anyone?

MR simply refers to individuals who are conscious, but have lower than average intelligence. You're not even talking about the same thing.


Someone said that overturning Roe v. Wade removes the rights of women. Hold on a second... women don't have the right to kill a toddler. Where is their anger?

Killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Not even remotely similar in my analysis (in yours, it's admittedly a different story). Thus, no anger.


I don't have the right to kill the dude across the street who always listens to his music too loud? Where's our freedom?! Duh, it's not an issue of freedom. This illustrates my main point: What is it?

Again, you misinterpret the real contraversy here. See above.


Also, to assume that the baby inside a woman is "her body" is another scientific ridiculousity.

That's a stupendeferousical word there.


The DNA of the two are completely different. If a mother is carrying a baby boy, does that mean that the woman has a *****? Of course not! And lastly, if you put a conceptus from a black couple into the womb of a white woman, that baby would be black. That alone should prove that the preborn baby is not a part of the mother's body.

Actually, this does mean that the mother has a *****. It's just inside her womb. You intend to prove that because you can transplant an organ, it means that there is life? If you die, but in doing so donate your organs, does that mean that you are still legally alive? Please don't let anyone with an agenda for murder hear about this loophole you've discovered.


So, it all comes down to: What is it? Just like in scenarios where the certainty of life is in question, we don't kill it. However, if it is a life, then there's no excuse good enough to kill it.

Thus the philosophical debate rages on!

I've noticed a lot of the time that most anti-abortionists are men. Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!

I know I digress from the real conversation here, but I often feel like men just don't "get it" because it doesn't happen to them!

I'm not saying that partial-birth abortion is okay, or even abortion past a certain time...but to abort within the first month or two to me is not murder because the child is barely anything at that point.

I understand there will always be those who won't understand my point of view or my beliefs, but they step all over them regardless. If we as a nation decide abortion should be illegal, how many women are going to start travelling to Mexico and get it done down there, risking their lives and infection?

Why do we in America seem to be on such a moral high horse when so much of the world has accepted this? I'm not saying that women and men shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but why do we feel the need to be "better" than everyone else when it comes to this issue?

What if the woman's life is at risk--can we not abort then? Do we value the life of a child that may or may not survive over the life of the woman? How can we make that judgement call?

Sorry, it's early and I'm rambling...guess I'll bring up the issue in my newspaper class since it seems this may go on for awhile. Might make for an interesting story if we ask students about their views. Teenagers often have a very different perception of the world.

Also, from a legal perspective, think about SD's idiotic premise. Their premise here is that the Supreme Court will allow a single state legislature to overturn a long-standing precedent.

SD is assuming that Alito and Roberts will allow this to happen.

The Supreme Court will not overrule itself without a reason. The only reason I see here is that they are being asked to say that a State Legisluature can trump the Supreme Court. Morality aside, this won't happen.

I think Luke's main point, in a nutshell, is that since we don't know when life begins (science pushes the viability point closer to conception every day), maybe we should err on the side of life. Since overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal, it will just start the debate in each state, I think it will be a good thing (if it ever happens).

Mid, I think justifying abortion because it may lower crime is a dangerous slope to walk down. The next logical step would be to run genetic tests to see if the baby has a genetic makeup that will make it more likely to commit crimes, and abort it if it does. Imagine the ramifications of that scenario.

Okie, we know the point of viability.. as I said, it's as early as 21 months. That's the only standard that really makes sense.

Your second point assumes a slippery slope. Assuming a fallacy in your argument doesn't work.

I believe that abortion in any case is the killing of another innocent human being. The argument of when one becomes human is dependent on our ability to keep it alive outside the womb? Eventually, with advances in medical science I imagine that gestation will be possible completely outside the womb. What then?

Midtowner, could you look one of those disavantaged children you have experience with in the eyes and tell them that they really shouldn't be alive because someone wrote a book and decided that they will be a burdon on society? Every life has worth. Every life deserves a chance. Yes, even those conceieved in a terrible way. Its not the baby's fault that it was conceived. Is it fair to the mother? Not really. However, is it fair to a woman that she is burdoned with a monthly cycle and men aren't? Again, no. Not everything in life is - or can be made - fair. This is just the way things are. Killing an innocent human will not change it and cannot be justified in my eyes.

This is such a loaded debate.

Can't we just sterilize and practice preventative measures? Like the women who have ten kids who are all in foster care and keep getting taken away at birth because they are drug addicted? Or the child abuser who kills a child and then gets pregnant a month later..

I know that is a simplistic idea with the 'rights' of women being infringed upon but it would appease both sides of the argument. .

You know, it's interesting.. Logically, I believe a woman should have the right to choose.. but on a side personal note.. when I first wanted children, I suffered quite a few miscarriages - even though logically I felt they were just the size of a grain of sand or not babies yet, I still grieved as if I had lost a full-term baby. So, I see the point of some anti abortionists yet can't fathom carrying a baby that was conceived because of rape...

Another issue is using abortion as birth control.. again - preventative measures. Give the kids access to it early on.. I know abstinence is taught but obviously that's not working.

Okay, now we have another mess to debate - carry on.

Okie, we know the point of viability.. as I said, it's as early as 21 months. That's the only standard that really makes sense.

Your second point assumes a slippery slope. Assuming a fallacy in your argument doesn't work.

I assume you meant 21 weeks. Otherwise the point of viability would be somewhere in the 7th trimester, or when the "fetus" was out of the womb for a year. :ohno: In fact, fetal viability is different in different parts of the world and is largely dependent on technology and medical care; therefore, it may become earlier as technology and medical science advance.

As for your second point, I know I'm not as smart as you are, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. I was assuming a slippery slope, which is the whole point. So tell me where the argument doesn't work?

It was weeks. Multitasking is not working as well this morning as it usually does :)

The abortion debate should be limited to the United States. Medical technology is pretty uniform accross the country.

A slippery slope is a fallacy. A fallacy is a logical argument that is by definition faulty. The slippery slope structural paradigm would state that if X happens, then Y happens, then Z must happen. The faulty part is that only X can happen -- Y need not necessarily follow.

In the instant case, you state that if we accept the argument that abortion lowers crime rates, that it will necessarily follow that we abort children with unacceptable genes. I'm saying that this assumption is illogical and even silly. I'm not trying to belittle anyone but your argument requires this massive leap of faith in that Y will necessarily follow X. X can certainly happen by itself. Y would only arise after a completely different ethical debate and for entirely different reasons.

The abortion debate should be limited to the United States. Medical technology is pretty uniform accross the country.

A slippery slope is a fallacy. A fallacy is a logical argument that is by definition faulty. The slippery slope structural paradigm would state that if X happens, then Y happens, then Z must happen. The faulty part is that only X can happen -- Y need not necessarily follow.

In the instant case, you state that if we accept the argument that abortion lowers crime rates, that it will necessarily follow that we abort children with unacceptable genes. I'm saying that this assumption is illogical and even silly. I'm not trying to belittle anyone but your argument requires this massive leap of faith in that Y will necessarily follow X. X can certainly happen by itself. Y would only arise after a completely different ethical debate and for entirely different reasons.

Yes, medical technology is pretty uniform across the country. But it is advancing rapidly, so the viability time will likely grow closer to the conception date in the future. That was the point of my argument.

Secondly, I grew up in Wisconsin so I'm aware of slippery slopes. Sometimes you make it across without slipping, but sometimes you don't. :smile: My point was that if you rationalize abortion by saying it lowers the crime rate, then you are leaving the door open, as we learn more about the genetic code, to the possibility of people rationalizing abortion based strictly on someone's genes. It may not happen, but it is sure a possibility.

Okie, we're not talking about the future, we're talking about now. As technology advances, our laws and ethics should adapt. Until then, there are no people in the building being demolished (to borrow Luke's scenario).

As to secondly, the rationale may bear some similar marks, but it is in no way "the same." You're talking about two entirely different acts and two entirely different moral questions.

It's an interesting discussion, but it's not the same discussion.

Okie, we're not talking about the future, we're talking about now. As technology advances, our laws and ethics should adapt. Until then, there are no people in the building being demolished (to borrow Luke's scenario).



I'm bringing up the future because we don't know what medical science will learn, so we don't know when life begins. We can surmise, based on limited current knowledge, that "life" begins at 21 weeks, but we don't know for sure. Medical science didn't used to know that babies in the womb could feel pain. Now they do. So, I stand by my position that, if we are going to err, we should err on the side of life.

The standard can shift as technology advances. The primary criterion that I'm using is the viability outside teh womb. As that shifts, so does the standard.

At the moment, however, it's 21 or so weeks.

How can we possibly legislate for things we don't even know or that may happen in the future? I mean, are we going to start making driving laws for hovercrafts?

How can we possibly legislate for things we don't even know or that may happen in the future? I mean, are we going to start making driving laws for hovercrafts?

Unless we can predict the future with substantial certainty, to legislate the future would be wrong.

Unless we can predict the future with substantial certainty, to legislate the future would be wrong.

Which is exactly why we should err on the side of caution.

As to these, there is a vast gulf of difference between a fetus and a human being. One is capable of consciousness, the other is not. One can survive without aid, the other cannot.

So then, consciousness is the defining factor? Survival without aid is the defining factor? If that's the case, then there are many others among us who need to be "aborted." What is it that makes a human life a human life?


Since what we're arguing is philosophy and not fact, there are no right answers, just a lot of people who think the other people are wrong

There are no right answers? That is absurd. Science relies on answers to be right and wrong. I am arguing from a scientific and philosophical position which has evidence. I am arguing that a preborn child is both alive and human at the point of conception. Prove to me that it is not. If it comes to opinion as to who is and is not alive, then there are a lot of other concerns for those among us, let alone the preborn. Some doctors are suggesting that a baby is not a full person until a month or more after birth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's been suggested.


And no one has ever told me that the loss of a test tube baby was murder.

I would consider that murder. In fact, that is why organizations like "Project Snowflake" exist. See: http://www.humanitas.org/news/news06232005.shtml


I have never heard that a test tube baby could be viable outside the womb. Test tube babies are conceived outside the womb and then implanted. Thus, they are still not viable (as in they will never be human beings) until they have had a symbiotic relationship with a uterus.

I agree with you on this part, actually. Test tube babies will not survive unless they are put in an environment which fosters that growth. Neither will a newborn, a toddler, children, and even some teens. Where do we draw the line?


Absent proper care, this is true. That's not the argument though. At the point of viability, at least for my own purposes, a fetus can survive outside the womb with the latest in medical technology. This still (if memory serves) places the point of viability somewhere around 21-24 weeks. I'd set the marker as low as 21 even though the chances of survival are slim there.

So, the life or death of an embryo is dependent on technological advances? Suppose we arrived at the technology that could support a zygote at conception, would you ban abortion then?


Here's where you're wrong. We already know that mom does not want a baby. This does usually not bode well.

I am arguing that a preborn baby at any stage after conception is a human life. If a preborn baby is a human life, then there is never going to be a good reason to end its life no matter how hard the circumstances. I'm sure there are families out there who have infants that they would rather not have after the fact. I know you wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to terminate the life of their child based on inconvenience. Again, you appeal to opinion and emotion. I'm appealing to facts.


So you would propose that we damage the life of the mother and the child by protecting a life which under my analysis never existed.

If I, in my analysis of you, deem you as never existing, can I end you? It's not a matter of what we deem or opine. What is the thing inside the woman? Science tells us that it is a human being from conception on.


Conservatives generally are against the intervention of the state in personal affairs. I guess you're not conservative? I've seen you claim as much.. here, I tend to think that you're not.

My point was this: that the government needs to be involved in a decision on whether or not it is OK to kill children is beyond me. It seems to be logical.


MR is different from comatose. And as far as the comatose, we do have the right to yank the feeding tube/cease other life support measures if the brain activity dictates that the patient is braindead. Terry Shiavo anyone?

The point is that if we have to look at someone's brain development and consciousness as signs of life, then there are a lot of ramifications that follow. Logically, those who are asleep (unconscious) are deemed not to be a human life because they are not conscious. Then we get into how much the brain should be developed before we determine it is a human life. The "brain capacity of a tadpole" needs to be quantified and then applied. If that's the case, perhaps a conceptus does have the "brain capacity of a tadpole." It's a slippery slope saying that one more developed brain is human and one less developed brain is not.


Killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two entirely different things.

How so? Logically, there are only a few differences: size, level of development, degree of dependency and location. Accepting any of these differences have ramifications that must logically be applied to those outside the womb.


That's a stupendeferousical word there.

Heh heh, thanks.


Actually, this does mean that the mother has a *****. It's just inside her womb. You intend to prove that because you can transplant an organ, it means that there is life?

No, what I am saying is that ***** is her son's. Not hers. They are two separate beings deserving of all the rights any person outside the womb has. The location of the son should have no bearing on his rights.


If you die, but in doing so donate your organs, does that mean that you are still legally alive? Please don't let anyone with an agenda for murder hear about this loophole you've discovered.

Body parts are not human beings. Human beings have the inherent capacity at conception to begin a developmental process that will continue through all stages (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) unless stopped naturally or artificially. These stages are all part of the process that every human being goes through (unless it is ended naturally or in the case of abortion, unnaturally). And throughout this process, the life in discussion is never NOT a living human being - different stages of humanity, indeed, but always a human being.

It all comes down to "what is it?" I argue that it is a human life. If it is not a human life, then what is it? A fish? Seriously, if the thing growing inside a woman becomes a "human life" at a magic day in the womb, what is it before then?

Lastly, Midtowner, I enjoy a good reasonable debate online. They're so rare though. I just want to say thanks for keeping it at a rational, non-emotional debate level. It's rare on the internet nowadays. Keep it up. :)

Please explain your conclusion... That we must legislate to avoid a current harm that may only be ascertainable in the future?

Pregancies are for approximately 9 months. If there are substantial changes in technology, we can account for those, however, we should not toss aside the right of a woman to determine what goes on in her own body because of some arbitrary designation that you're making. Give me justification for your arbitrary designation and then we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we have fertile ground on which we can agree to disagree.

Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!

The same emotional argument could be used to excuse beating women. "Women just don't understand how it is to be a man and have to put up with a nagging, demanding woman in the house."

Obviously, I'm being facetious. But, I hope you grasp the point. It really doesn't matter what type of emotion is involved or what type of excuses there are. There is no right to beat up women.

By the same token, we would all agree that it doesn't matter what type of situation a woman is in. She has no right to take the life of an inconvenient toddler. Likewise, since the baby inside her womb is a life deserving protection, it doesn't matter what the argument is. It is not ok to kill a human being.


I know I digress from the real conversation here, but I often feel like men just don't "get it" because it doesn't happen to them!

"Again, women just don't understand how hard it is for men to live with a woman." (facetious)


I'm not saying that partial-birth abortion is okay, or even abortion past a certain time...but to abort within the first month or two to me is not murder because the child is barely anything at that point.

Just because a 4 year old girl has a more undeveloped reporoductive system than a 21 year old co-ed doesn't make the 4 year old any more worthy of death. Of course not. The level of development is beside the point. From the moment of conception, it is a living human being in an early stage of life.


I understand there will always be those who won't understand my point of view or my beliefs, but they step all over them regardless.

Likewise.


If we as a nation decide abortion should be illegal, how many women are going to start travelling to Mexico and get it done down there, risking their lives and infection?

Using this logic, we should pass laws to make it easier for robbers to get to a safe in a bank. After all, we don't want them to get hurt. Of course not. Stealing is a crime that needs to be prevented. And if, as I contend, the baby inside a woman is a human being, then there is no good excuse to kill it.


Why do we in America seem to be on such a moral high horse when so much of the world has accepted this?

Consensus doesn't make an issue moral. There was a time in American history when the majority of people thought Blacks were not equal with others. There was a time when women couldn't even vote. The majority, we see now, was morally wrong. I have no doubt that one day we will see abortion in the same light.


What if the woman's life is at risk--can we not abort then? Do we value the life of a child that may or may not survive over the life of the woman? How can we make that judgement call?

This is a very real, very tough scenario. There is no good answer in this situation. In my opinion, the husband and wife should talk about it and come to a conclusion. It would be immeasurably difficult to follow through with either decision.

So then, consciousness is the defining factor? Survival without aid is the defining factor? If that's the case, then there are many others among us who need to be "aborted." What is it that makes a human life a human life?

No Luke, consciousness matters to a lesser degree (but it is a consideration). The tipping point on my scales is the point at which the fetus becomes viable without parasitic reliance on the mother. It is at that point that we're talking about two distinct lives -- not one that is reliant on the other to exist. If the mother simply wishes to have the thing in her body removed, and it has no chance of living otherwise, that really can't be murder. When you take something out that could otherwise survive, we're on ethically shaky ground.

I don't support the D&E procedure for that reason.


There are no right answers? That is absurd. Science relies on answers to be right and wrong.

No, science doesn't care what is right or wrong. That's morality. Morality is philosophy. We are engaging in a morality debate, not a scientific one. These designations are completely arbitrary and unscientific. Medicine has even struggled with the question as to when the real time of death for a patient is -- is it when they're braindead? Is it when the heart stops? These aren't scientifically answerable questions -- they're judgment calls.


I am arguing from a scientific and philosophical position which has evidence. I am arguing that a preborn child is both alive and human at the point of conception.

No proof could possibly be given that you are either right or wrong. What is "alive" and what is "human" is open to debate.


Some doctors are suggesting that a baby is not a full person until a month or more after birth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's been suggested.

I believe that suggestion takes its roots in cognitive ability. It's an interesting theory, it merits discussion, but I don't think these doctors were ever specifically advocating that we euthanize infants.


I agree with you on this part, actually. Test tube babies will not survive unless they are put in an environment which fosters that growth. Neither will a newborn, a toddler, children, and even some teens. Where do we draw the line?

You're talking about nurturing, I'm talking about the possibility of an organism to sustain itself even with all available technology at its disposal. Your objection is founded on an entirely different proposition than what it is that you're trying to refute.


So, the life or death of an embryo is dependent on technological advances? Suppose we arrived at the technology that could support a zygote at conception, would you ban abortion then?

Show me the technology, and we have a new debate. For now, the magic number (questionably) seems to be 21 weeks. You can't suggest that we curtail the rights of a woman to have an abortion now because of technology that may come in 20 years or may never come. Whether she has the abortion now or not, this future event is irrelevant to the situation at hand. As far as I'm concerned and for the same reasons, so is the argument you're proposing.


I am arguing that a preborn baby at any stage after conception is a human life. If a preborn baby is a human life, then there is never going to be a good reason to end its life no matter how hard the circumstances. I'm sure there are families out there who have infants that they would rather not have after the fact. I know you wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to terminate the life of their child based on inconvenience. Again, you appeal to opinion and emotion. I'm appealing to facts.

I'm arguing it's not. We're also both arguing opinion. What is human, and what is alive are again open to interpretation.


If I, in my analysis of you, deem you as never existing, can I end you? It's not a matter of what we deem or opine. What is the thing inside the woman? Science tells us that it is a human being from conception on.

I'll consider this answered above.


My point was this: that the government needs to be involved in a decision on whether or not it is OK to kill children is beyond me. It seems to be logical.

This is an emotional appeal that attempts to distort the argument. You first have to prove that we're talking about children. We're not. You are, but I'm not. I just don't buy the premise you're proposing.



The point is that if we have to look at someone's brain development and consciousness as signs of life, then there are a lot of ramifications that follow. Logically, those who are asleep (unconscious) are deemed not to be a human life because they are not conscious. Then we get into how much the brain should be developed before we determine it is a human life. The "brain capacity of a tadpole" needs to be quantified and then applied. If that's the case, perhaps a conceptus does have the "brain capacity of a tadpole." It's a slippery slope saying that one more developed brain is human and one less developed brain is not.

The law already has a method of dealing with invalids such as Terry Schiavo. It's okay to remove them from life support. If it would make you feel better, we could simply remove a fetus' life support and see how it does... You're arguing with a lot of 'perhapses.' It's not a slippery slope argument at all. I'm not saying if X, then Y. I'm saying simply X.

Refer to the above fallacy paradigm :)

I'm not prepared to give scientific fact as to the actual mental capacity of a 21 week old fetus. My guess is that you aren't there yet either.


No, what I am saying is that ***** is her son's. Not hers. They are two separate beings deserving of all the rights any person outside the womb has. The location of the son should have no bearing on his rights.

You say they're two seperate beings, I'm saying that if one part of a being is completely dependent on the other that your argument that they are 'seperate' is impossible to prevail on.


Body parts are not human beings. Human beings have the inherent capacity at conception to begin a developmental process that will continue through all stages (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) unless stopped naturally or artificially. These stages are all part of the process that every human being goes through (unless it is ended naturally or in the case of abortion, unnaturally). And throughout this process, the life in discussion is never NOT a living human being - different stages of humanity, indeed, but always a human being.

Body parts are as dependent on their host as a fetus is. What occurs in the future is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. Your same logic could be applied to a sperm or an egg. It doesn't appear to be a rational opinion to me. We apparently disagree on that point though and I'm perfectly willing to accept that.


It all comes down to "what is it?" I argue that it is a human life. If it is not a human life, then what is it? A fish? Seriously, if the thing growing inside a woman becomes a "human life" at a magic day in the womb, what is it before then?

I'd simply say that it's not a human life. It's certainly not a fish. It's not even a life until that magic point at which it is viable.


Lastly, Midtowner, I enjoy a good reasonable debate online. They're so rare though. I just want to say thanks for keeping it at a rational, non-emotional debate level. It's rare on the internet nowadays. Keep it up. :)

My pleasure.

Morality aside, this won't happen.

This is precisely why it is an inevitability.

Pregancies are for approximately 9 months. If there are substantial changes in technology, we can account for those, however, we should not toss aside the right of a woman to determine what goes on in her own body because of some arbitrary designation that you're making. Give me justification for your arbitrary designation and then we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we have fertile ground on which we can agree to disagree.
I maintain that the life of the child begins as conception. This is no more arbitrary than your designation of 21 weeks and seem more logical to me. As stated above, at the point of conception there is a distinct DNA set created from the mother and father. If DNA can be used to identify one person from another, could you not, at conception consider the fetus a person? It has a seperate identity. Yes, it is completely dependent on the mother, but that is irrelevant to its identity as a human being. At the point of conception (either wanted or not), the mother becomes responsible for the life of another. Her right to make decisions concerning her body then becomes secondary to the right of the child to live. As you know, this is just opinion, but it seems a logical conclusion to me.

No, science doesn't care what is right or wrong. That's morality. Morality is philosophy. We are engaging in a morality debate, not a scientific one.

My fundamental argument is a scientific one, not a moral one. The "thing" inside a woman at conception is a human being. That is a scientific reality. There has been no legitimate scientist to step forward to say that it is not a human being. To argue that the offspring of two human beings is anything but a human defies logic.

[Side thought: I would wager money that the majority of people who are pro-choice would have serious issues with me removing the embryos of a recently conceived seal.]

My fundamental argument is a scientific one, not a moral one. The "thing" inside a woman at conception is a human being. That is a scientific reality. There has been no legitimate scientist to step forward to say that it is not a human being. To argue that the offspring of two human beings is anything but a human defies logic.

[Side thought: I would wager money that the majority of people who are pro-choice would have serious issues with me removing the embryos of a recently conceived seal.]

A scientist could comment on that, but this is a qualitative analysis, not a quantitative one. Qualitative at some level, and especially on this question calls for a judgment question at some point. A judgment question tips the scales in favor of this being a philosophical rather than a scientific question.

A scientist could comment on that, but this is a qualitative analysis, not a quantitative one. Qualitative at some level, and especially on this question calls for a judgment question at some point. A judgment question tips the scales in favor of this being a philosophical rather than a scientific question.

With all due respect, I would really be interested in your response. Do you concede that the "thing" in a mother's womb is a Homo Sapiens?

I can understand why it would be hard to acknowledge that fact. I mean, if it is a human being then you're saying that you support it's death when you favor abortion. And that is understandably not an easy moral dilemma to try to get out of. Legitimizing the death of 4,000 human beings per day would be immensely difficult.

This is the first step in overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Your thoughts?

.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago


Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.
Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.
The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

If a woman says that if she cannot have an abortion, she will take her own life, I wonder if that would constitute ample legal justification for an abortion? I thought that the Supreme Court sits to interpret the law, not change it...

With all due respect, I would really be interested in your response. Do you concede that the "thing" in a mother's womb is a Homo Sapiens?

It's a philosophical argument to make. The answer to your question is what must a thing be in order to be a human being? We then procede down the road of qualitative analysis. This involves deciding what elements are essential to make something human.

You might pose that this debate ends with DNA. I don't think it ends with DNA. I can take your kidney out, it gas your DNA, but it is not a human being -- and without your kidney, you are still human.

I do think that a determinative factor here is that a being must be able to live in order to be human. Potential to live and actual capability are two entirely different things. I will even go so far as to argue that if we can hook a machine up to it and make it live, it's alive. Consequently, if we have to rely on the life of another to preserve the life of the being, it lacks a necessary quality to be human.

-- of course, that's just my opinion, and as I have shown, this is philosophical and not scientific. It all boils down to what you think is human. I will commend you though, most people don't think through it that far.


I can understand why it would be hard to acknowledge that fact. I mean, if it is a human being then you're saying that you support it's death when you favor abortion. And that is understandably not an easy moral dilemma to try to get out of. Legitimizing the death of 4,000 human beings per day would be immensely difficult.

Not really, you say they're human beings, I say they're not. They're simply growths that may at the election of their carrier be removed. Their having DNA is of no consequence whatsoever to me.

And also, I don't "favor" abortion. I favor the option to use it where needed. I think a child can be a blessing in the proper situation. I favor the choice of birth. Where that is not desired, then there are other things that may be done.

The answer to your question is what must a thing be in order to be a human being?

Indeed, it comes back to the question I posed originally: What is it? At the point of conception, what is it?

I'm using science to contend that it is a human being from the point of conception.

Luke, again, science does not rule on points of philosophy. I went to considerable effort to show you this distinction.

I maintain that the life of the child begins as conception. This is no more arbitrary than your designation of 21 weeks and seem more logical to me. As stated above, at the point of conception there is a distinct DNA set created from the mother and father. If DNA can be used to identify one person from another, could you not, at conception consider the fetus a person? It has a seperate identity. Yes, it is completely dependent on the mother, but that is irrelevant to its identity as a human being. At the point of conception (either wanted or not), the mother becomes responsible for the life of another. Her right to make decisions concerning her body then becomes secondary to the right of the child to live. As you know, this is just opinion, but it seems a logical conclusion to me.

And what makes you so sure that life doesn't always exist, long, long before that particular conception and that maybe, just maybe, the purpose of that life (this time around) was served in only say...........5-6 monthes inutero? And, it just because the physical tissues leave it's present host, may not mean anything except a job well and truly done...by both the host and the parasite. We all attempt to make judgements without really knowing any real facts, so it's all subjective anyway.

And what makes you so sure that life doesn't always exist, long, long before that particular conception
Because I define life in physical terms, not those of metaphysical fantasy. Egg meets sperm, makes a new human. To me at least, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.



and that maybe, just maybe, the purpose of that life (this time around) was served in only say...........5-6 monthes inutero?
This time around?
In any case, if the "life" ends naturally, so be it, but to intervene and kill it is not a natural event. If you agree that it is a life we are talking about, do you think we should have the right to extinguish that life? Where do you draw the line? Maybe a murderer should go free because the "life" he killed was meant to die at that particular time - "this time".



And, it just because the physical tissues leave it's present host, may not mean anything except a job well and truly done...by both the host and the parasite. We all attempt to make judgements without really knowing any real facts, so it's all subjective anyway.
Parasite? That's an...interesting choice of words. The facts that I have stated concerning conception are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the point at which a combination of human egg and human sperm becomes enough of a human being to deserve to live.

So, where exactly do you stand on this issue? With such a seemingly mystical view of things, I'm interested in how you view abortion.

Because I define life in physical terms, not those of metaphysical fantasy. Egg meets sperm, makes a new human. To me at least, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.

Precisely! You define matters as you comprehend them. Metaphysical is not necessarily a fantasy, it may, in fact, be more real than what you might define REAL. So, am I hearing you correctly to say that when Ms Egg meets Mr Sperm, whether it be in a petri dish, a test tube or a fallopian tube, life begins? Physical life or metaphysical life or don't you think that is important? And if that point isn't important, why is this discussion any more important than stepping on a cockroach, or worming your animals of creatures that are using them to survive?
[/B]

This time around? If that concept confuses you or the issue, I will remove it's reference, but to me, personally, I feel that it has relevance.

In any case, if the "life" ends naturally, so be it, but to intervene and kill it is not a natural event. I didn't say NATURALLY, nor did I imply it. We all, whether we admit it or not, provide the opportunity for other individuals every day to make choices, some good, some not so good, some are just to learn by. If you agree that it is a life we are talking about, do you think we should have the right to extinguish that life? From where are rights granted? What real rights do we have, certainly we have rights to survive, don't we? Where do you draw the line? Maybe a murderer should go free because the "life" he killed was meant to die at that particular time - "this time". I would think not, I would think that he did something wrong and will or should be punished, good lesson don't you think? He was given the choice not to kill as well, but he chose differently.


Parasite? That's an...interesting choice of words. Why do you consider it an interesting choice of words..look up the definition..it doesn't necessarily need to be detrimental, it doesn't necessarily need to be a negative. The facts that I have stated concerning conception are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the point at which a combination of human egg and human sperm becomes enough of a human being to deserve to live. Well, according to your simple physical calculations, they have lived, once they met and embraced

So, where exactly do you stand on this issue? With such a seemingly mystical Mystical? Just because I dare to suggest that there just may be something outside the box that could have bearing? view of things, I'm interested in how you view abortion.

Firstly, I don't think that you could ask that question to a million people, couched the way that you did and get someone to say, yeah, I am for it, I think it's the thing to do, I think that it's a great thing! But, neither are a lot of things that we are forced to do in life, just to survive. Of course, I personally could not nor would ever say that I am for abortion. Is it sometimes necessary, yes!!!!!!!!

Should someone be able to dictate to another how to deal with the issue of their own life or body? No!!!! You simpley cannot know what went into making the decision to go forth with what no woman would choose to do just for the hell of it.

I wonder from time to time how many men would adopt a more objective way of looking at this whole issue if it actually affected him personally, and I mean, if he had to make the choice about his own body. I have scrubbed in on necessary D and C's and believe me, there is life, physical and metaphysical when that fetus is expelled. You would be surprised to see how developed they are and their reactions to stimuli and to comfort, even though they may only have minutes more to live, yes, live. So, please don't judge me as cynical or a mystical airy fairy who live in a world of What if's. ALL CONCLUSIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, THEY ARE OPINIONS, AND THEY WILL AND DO CHANGE AS YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOUR AGE CHANGES AS WELL

I wonder from time to time how many men would adopt a more objective way of looking at this whole issue if it actually affected him personally, and I mean, if he had to make the choice about his own body.

I find it interesting that abortion has become THE issue for modern feminists (and those politicians who pander to them) when the early women's rights campaigners, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were adamantly opposed to it, and saw it as murder of a baby and exploitation of women. They saw it as a way for men to act like jerks and not have to take responsibility for their actions. How things have changed, and not for the better.

Abortion, were it not for the battle against gay rights would be THE issue for Bible thumping neocons... It goes both ways.

Abortion, were it not for the battle against gay rights would be THE issue for Bible thumping neocons... It goes both ways.

That's because us bible thumping neocons see it the way early feminists did, as killing an unborn child. I thought most good catholics were on the same page regarding abortion?

Precisely! You define matters as you comprehend them. Metaphysical is not necessarily a fantasy, it may, in fact, be more real than what you might define REAL.
I comprehend them based on concrete proven facts, not belief is something that is currently unprovable. The key word in your above statement is "may". What you state is no more concrete or provable than if I were to say we are decendents from an alien race. That may well be, but I'm not willing to adopt a lifestyle with that in mind and I'm certainly not willing to make laws based on those assumptions.


So, am I hearing you correctly to say that when Ms Egg meets Mr Sperm, whether it be in a petri dish, a test tube or a fallopian tube, life begins? Physical life or metaphysical life or don't you think that is important?
Exactly! Is that so hard to comprehend? I am speaking purely of the physical since anything else would simply be conjecture.


And if that point isn't important, why is this discussion any more important than stepping on a cockroach, or worming your animals of creatures that are using them to survive?
Surely you can see that human life does not equate with that of an insect? If you can't see what makes human life different then we have nothing more to discuss.



This time around? If that concept confuses you or the issue, I will remove it's reference, but to me, personally, I feel that it has relevance.
Although I'm sure it is important to you, your belief in the ethereal, spritual aspects of life is irrelevant to the arguments that I am presenting.


I didn't say NATURALLY, nor did I imply it.
Correct. I made that distiction because the abortion of an otherwise viable baby is not a natural event.


We all, whether we admit it or not, provide the opportunity for other individuals every day to make choices, some good, some not so good, some are just to learn by.
Um...okay. So, how does that make the killing of another innocent human life acceptable?


From where are rights granted? What real rights do we have, certainly we have rights to survive, don't we?
We have rights in nature. However, our rights are a product of our form of government. Among other things, we have the right to life. This is precisely my point. Who/what gives you or anyone else the right to end the life of another innocent human being?



Where do you draw the line? Maybe a murderer should go free because the "life" he killed was meant to die at that particular time - "this time". I would think not, I would think that he did something wrong and will or should be punished, good lesson don't you think? He was given the choice not to kill as well, but he chose differently.
So how is that any different if someone chooses to end the life (a.k.a. kill) a human fetus (a.k.a. baby)?



Parasite? That's an...interesting choice of words. Why do you consider it an interesting choice of words..look up the definition..it doesn't necessarily need to be detrimental, it doesn't necessarily need to be a negative.
I find it interesting because I believe you chose the words host and parasite for the effect of dehumanizing the mother-child connection. How many people would normally call a mother a host and the child a parasite?



So, where exactly do you stand on this issue? With such a seemingly mystical view of things, I'm interested in how you view abortion. Mystical? Just because I dare to suggest that there just may be something outside the box that could have bearing?
Perhaps mystical was a poor choice of words so I withdraw them. How about spritual?


Firstly, I don't think that you could ask that question to a million people, couched the way that you did and get someone to say, yeah, I am for it, I think it's the thing to do, I think that it's a great thing! But, neither are a lot of things that we are forced to do in life, just to survive. Of course, I personally could not nor would ever say that I am for abortion. Is it sometimes necessary, yes!!!!!!!!
Thank you. I agree that there are some cases where if the mother's life is put in danger it is acceptable, but it is a choice between two evils and would be a difficult decision.


Should someone be able to dictate to another how to deal with the issue of their own life or body? No!!!!
I generally agree, but when you have the life of another to consider, the mother's (excuse me, host's) wishes become secondary.


You simpley cannot know what went into making the decision to go forth with what no woman would choose to do just for the hell of it.
I don't make the claim to. I never implied that it was an easy decision to abort, only the wrong one; and one I believe is not rightly her's to make.



I have scrubbed in on necessary D and C's and believe me, there is life, physical and metaphysical when that fetus is expelled. You would be surprised to see how developed they are and their reactions to stimuli and to comfort, even though they may only have minutes more to live, yes, live. So, please don't judge me as cynical or a mystical airy fairy who lives in a world of What if's. ALL CONCLUSIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, THEY ARE OPINIONS, AND THEY WILL AND DO CHANGE AS YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOUR AGE CHANGES AS WELL [/B]
I have seen my two dead 12-week-in-utero sons (yes sons) expelled from their mother's womb after they died in-utero. I know how well developed they were. I also have no doubt in my mind that they were humans and that they deserved to live as much as they did and that there was no good reason for them to die. However, it was something we had no control over. Its not fair, but that's the way things sometimes go in life.

If I have offended you concerning your spritual beliefs I'm sorry. I am trying to make the point that, even if spritual matters are excluded from the discussion, there are very good reasons for not allowing abortions to take place. I don't disagree that time can change opinions because mine has changed over the years. However, whether there is life at conception is not opinion, its fact. My age and circumstances will not change that.

Luke, again, science does not rule on points of philosophy. I went to considerable effort to show you this distinction.

I understand that science doesn't rule on points of philosophy. And I understand that a portion of the abortion debate comes to philosophy.

However, for the purposes of finding some common ground, I'm going to step away from the abortion debate momentarily. I'm going to try to use only science to make a point.

(If we're going to split hairs then technically the only philosophy I am assuming is really a meta-philosophy which we all tend to hold to anyways - namely, that science is a valid and intellectual standard for studying our physical world.)

That said, animals reproduce after their own kind (If I'm not mistaken, this is called the Law of Biogenetics). I am appealing to this scientific principle when I simply ask: what is the entity that is within a woman after conception? Science has an answer. It is a Homo Sapiens. And it seems from the past few posts that you are having a hard time acknowledging this scientific fact. Now, regardless of the abortion debate or philosophy, I find it hard to believe that anyone (unless they disregard science) would disagree.

Once this is established, we'll have some common ground and try to work from there.

Thanks for keeping it civil. A rarity on the internet nowadays.

I comprehend them based on concrete proven facts, not belief is something that is currently unprovable. The key word in your above statement is "may". What you state is no more concrete or provable than if I were to say we are decendents from an alien race. That may well be, but I'm not willing to adopt a lifestyle with that in mind and I'm certainly not willing to make laws based on those assumptions.

Mad, although you weren't discussing it with me, there is no way of saying that there are facts when there is anything still debatable. It may not be a debatable point four you, however, please allow for the possibility that the universe does not unfold according to your opinions on "facts."

Mad, although you weren't discussing it with me, there is no way of saying that there are facts when there is anything still debatable. It may not be a debatable point four you, however, please allow for the possibility that the universe does not unfold according to your opinions on "facts."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the fact I was referring to is that life (as we currently know it) is created when conception occurs. What part of that can still be debated? I am very open to any evidence that suggests a different definition. However, simple faith or belief that life is defined differently is not evidence. If we are to wax philosophical about the nature of life and truth, then everything becomes relative to each person's viewpoint. Right and wrong no longer exist. That's not the reality I live in (or would want to). :)

Well, you say life occurs at conception. I'm arguing it occurs when the fetus becomes viable without the use of the mother-host (or even available medical technology). There is a standard here which you are simply assuming exists. I pose to you that it doesn't.

Now, you are free to have your opinion as to what the truth is here but at least acknowledge that your opinion is an opinion. Facts are things which are inherently self-evident and not open to explanation. There are some questions which have no factual answers possible. I belive this is one of them.

As soon as you recognize the ambiguity, you can understand the standpoint of the other side of the debate (although, I tend to find myself in the middle or even out in a distant third-place minority view rather than on 'either side').

Someone else can speak on this, but in my researching the D&E procedure (the procedure done to end the most advanced sorts of pregancies) I came accross information that seems to indicate that it is not available after the 24th week. It would appear that medicine in general recognizes the 24th week as the point that a fetus has at least a 40% chance of survival, and thus, a fair point to say that a fetus has a good chance of being viable. It's assuming a lot, but it appears that they follow the same logic that I do.

I understand that science doesn't rule on points of philosophy. And I understand that a portion of the abortion debate comes to philosophy.

However, for the purposes of finding some common ground, I'm going to step away from the abortion debate momentarily. I'm going to try to use only science to make a point.

You may find that our opinions of what science actually is and does differ greatly :) But I look forward to your reply.


(If we're going to split hairs then technically the only philosophy I am assuming is really a meta-philosophy which we all tend to hold to anyways - namely, that science is a valid and intellectual standard for studying our physical world.)

True, it is a valid standard. However, it cannot explain all things. Science only tells you what something is made up of. We can take a fetus at any point in its development and tell you exactly how much it weighs, what kinds of capabilities it would have, etc.. Science, however, (unless the concept is concrete) cannot describe a state of being. For example, science can not tell me whether I am happy or sad. It can look at my brain chemistry and say that it's probable, or that I have chemicals which tend to cause a certain effect, it can point out parts of my brain that are stimulated versus parts that are not, however, if you want to know whether I'm happy or sad, you'll have to ask me. The life versus pre-life question is even more difficult since you don't have something which has the capacity to tell you whether it's alive or not -- the mind is simply not there yet. Will it be? Yes, unless something goes wrong. The potential for life is not the same as life, therefore, it comes down to a judgment call and an arbitrary standard dictated mostly by your philosophical approach to the question. My belief is that you have a sack of cells that has grown to a point and may continue to grow and become more human, the sack of cells will eventually become alive, however, until it reaches the point where it is no longer dependent on some outside source, it is not alive -- it is simply a vegetable still on the vine.


That said, animals reproduce after their own kind (If I'm not mistaken, this is called the Law of Biogenetics). I am appealing to this scientific principle when I simply ask: what is the entity that is within a woman after conception? Science has an answer. It is a Homo Sapiens.

You can just say human; I don't think that there is much propability that we're discussing neandrathilc man, homo habilus, homo erectus, etc. As far as what we have there, I think it is athing which has the potential to become a human, yet it is in the process of development. The fact that it has DNA and cellular reproduction is simply a part of that development -- a step.


And it seems from the past few posts that you are having a hard time acknowledging this scientific fact. Now, regardless of the abortion debate or philosophy, I find it hard to believe that anyone (unless they disregard science) would disagree.

Except that its not science :)

Well, you say life occurs at conception. I'm arguing it occurs when the fetus becomes viable without the use of the mother-host (or even available medical technology). There is a standard here which you are simply assuming exists. I pose to you that it doesn't.
I considered the definition of life (a living organism) to be self-evident. As I understand you by your previous posts the question was whether or not it was a human being at the time of conception, not whether or not the entity was alive. I've never heard it argued that a fetus wasn't alive prior to a certain point in the gestation period.



Now, you are free to have your opinion as to what the truth is here but at least acknowledge that your opinion is an opinion. Facts are things which are inherently self-evident and not open to explanation. There are some questions which have no factual answers possible. I belive this is one of them.
Fair enough, but please also acknowlege that I did exactly that in a previous post. (From post #33: "As you know, this is just opinion,")



As soon as you recognize the ambiguity, you can understand the standpoint of the other side of the debate (although, I tend to find myself in the middle or even out in a distant third-place minority view rather than on 'either side').
I believe I do understand the other side of the debate (at least as far as I can being a male), but when this difficult decision has to be made it is my opinion that any benefit of the doubt should fall to the little life in the womb.

That's the point Mad -- it's all just an opinion. Whether you are in your shoes or my shoes, we are discussing opinion. When we start trying to pass off our opinions as irrefutable facts, we render ourselves incapable of coming to terms with the truth that there are in fact many truths.

And no, the definition of life is not self-evident. Medical ethics have struggled with this -- is it brain function? Is it a heartbeat? How about the fact that there can be deprivation of oxygen to the brain for some time before it suffers irreparable harm? We're not sure at exactly what point life ends until we pick a standard.

The beginning of life is not so different -- is it at conception? Is it at viability? Is it at birth? Is it at some arbitrary point in between? There are many different answers, each perfectly plausible to the very same question. The correct answer simply depends upon the standard which you choose to employ.

And for what it's worth, I respect your opinion and applaud you for having at least thought it through. Most don't -- that you've bothered to analyze anything puts you well ahead of the curve.

I want to point out that well-spoken, yet hollow responses to questions are attempts to muddy the waters. I am asking a simple straightforward question. If the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being (which is a logical assumption based on the Law of Biogenetics) then the burden of proof is on others to show evidence for what that "thing" is. Scientific questions require scientific answers, not philosophical ones. Midtowner has very articulately side-stepped my direct question appealing to science. He's twisted my argument into philosophical opinion. He's colorfully assessed my "qualitative analysis" and recommended I use "quantitative" instead (or was it the other way around?) He's called a human embryo a "growth" and a "sack of cells" but never said what that growth or sack of cells actually is. It seems to me that all this dancing hasn't lead to a clear answer on his part.

Leaving the abortion debate on the sideline, if anyone can simply show me that the product of two human beings is NOT a human being, I will concede my point. However, science shows (not to mention everyone who has seen a dog have puppies or a horse give birth or a woman have a baby) that animals reproduce after their own kind. Rabbits always beget rabbits, frogs beget frogs, turtles beget turtles and humans beget humans. Assuming we use the philosophical device of reason, rationale and logic to arrive at facts and truths rooted in scientific evidence (as well as witnessing births for ourselves), nobody has ever rationally claimed that the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being.

Luke, your logic employs the assumption that mere potential for something to become a thing means that it is in fact that thing. The potential to become human is not disputed. What is disputed is the arbitrary point at which something becomes human or alive.

There was no side step at all Luke, I was simply pointing out that lines you are attempting to draw are illusory.

A potential X is an actual Y. My question remains. If it is "not yet" a human (but has the potential to be), then what is it actually?

Then it is a "not yet" with potential.

This invites inquiry into the ethical dilemna behind terminating something with "potential" to be human. Of course, this happens every time we allow the women around us to ovulate, yet not become pregnant. That egg has a potential to become human. The only difference between it and a fetus is potential.

So again, we're faced with an arbitrary point at which we say something has enough 'potential' to become human. You choose conception, I choose viability. Therein lies the disagreement.

Is masturbation murder? Just thought I would inject a little humor into the discussion.

One could actually argue a case for it. Afterall, those millions of little sperms are actively swimming in search of an egg to fertilize. Items like spermicidal jelly kill the organisms -which implies all those things are alive. So wouldn't that mean the act of conception results in the start of one life and a virtual apocalypse of millions of other lives? Hehe.

This discussion is interesting in that it is doing more to concentrate on the scientific "when does life begin" question, rather than collapse in the very tired and judgmental tone that often results elsewhere.

My personal belief is the choice should be up to the woman. I don't like abortion, but I don't think it is an easy act for a woman to commit. Some belive women use abortion as a method of birth control, which I find ridiculous. The procedure has a high emotional and financial cost. If it were easy I know my town would not have such a huge number of unwed mothers (many of them teens still in high school). There wouldn't be so many children living in poverty either.

I don't know what's going to happen with the Roe V Wade thing. But if the extremely perverse, immoral costs of health care keep skyrocketing, I'm going to get a vasectomy and give up on ever becoming a father. If the cost gets much higher I'll know of one thing that will begin at conception: my calls to a bankruptcy attorney.

Then it is a "not yet" with potential.

A "growth," a "sack of cells," and a "not yet..." Vague. All "potential somethings" are currently an actual something. What is it?


This invites inquiry into the ethical dilemna behind terminating something with "potential" to be human. Of course, this happens every time we allow the women around us to ovulate, yet not become pregnant. That egg has a potential to become human. The only difference between it and a fetus is potential.

Again, science says that an egg left to itself remains only that. An egg. A sperm left to itself remains that, a sperm. A liver, kidney, lung or anything else with human DNA never has the potential to be a human being. Only when an egg and a sperm come together does the inherent capacity of it change.