When does life begin?

[Cleita]

Does it begin at conception or does it begin at birth or anytime in between? Wolfie just asked one of the candidates this question. My answer to Wolfie.

Life began in mom's ovaries when she created an ova and in dad's testicles when he created sperm there is no doubt that eggs and sperm are alive. So what happens to all those ova and sperm when they don't hook up? They die. Is this murder?

I think the real question should have been, "When does the fertilized ova get a soul?"

Well, does anyone have an answer and proof of that answer? I think not.

Maybe a more pertinent question would be, "When does that zygote (fertilized ova) become human?"

My own biological knowledge tells me that the zygote goes through various stages of "evolution" before it actually becomes a recognizable human and that human embryo cannot live outside it's mother's womb before a certain stage of it's development has been achieved.

So really what is the question?

Do conservatives really want to know when life begins? Because if they do any competent scientist can tell them.

Do they want to know when that individual gets a soul? Can they prove that there is such a thing as a soul and if there is, what kind of soul does that developing embryo have at various stages of development? Is it the soul of an amoeba through a fish and so on before it becomes a human soul?

If there is parallelism in the universe then it appears to me that the soul would also go through various stages of "evolution" becoming human when the material being becomes human.

I hope he read it.

[RapidCreek]

1. Every sperm is sacred.....

RC

[ComerPerro]

5. Damn you

But I posted the lyrics.

So


HA!!!!

[RapidCreek]

51. Hehehehehe

Beatcha to it!

RC

[lastknowngood]

2. after the kids get their on home and get

married.

[rocktivity]

30. Joke

Priest: "Life begins at conception."
Minister: "Life begins at birth."
Rabbi: "You're both wrong. Life begins when the youngest finishes college and the dog dies."

rocknation

[Timefortruth]

35. Amen to the minister! nt

[travisleit01]

236. LOL :) n/t

[Champion Jack]

3. somewhere around 25

[ComerPerro]

4. Every sperm is sacred

You know the words, sing along:

Every Sperm is Sacred


There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

[outinforce]

44. I must say, ComerPerro

It rather seems to me that you have a pretty low opinion of Roman Catholics.

That's OK, I suppose.

But do you really think it truly appropriate to tear them down by saying mocking things that bear little reality to what Roman Catholicism actually teaches??

Or am I misunderstanding the point of your little ditty??

[RapidCreek]

52. it's not his little ditty

It's Graham Chapmans and is taken from the Monty Python movie, The Life of Brian, I believe. As far as Mr. Chapmans opinions of Catholics, you'd have to take that up with him....evidently though he feels your sperms are sacred....I should think you'd be flattered!

RC

[outinforce]

54. Thanks, RapidCreek

Thanks, RapidCreek, for clearing up my confusion.

I do have a couple of observations.

First, even if Graham Chapman is the author of the little ditty which was posted in this thread, ComerPerro was the one who posted it to this thread. Since it appeared in his (that is ComerPerro's) thread, I do feel somewhat justified in calling it "his" little ditty. My own view is that if I post something that someone else has written in one of "my" posts, I assume a sense of "ownership" -- as in "owning" the idea or concepts in the item that someone else has written. That is, of course, unless I say that it is something I disagree with.

It does seem to me that ComerPerro, by posting Mr. Chapman's ditty without comment, does present a few of Roman Catholics that is mocking and inaccurate. (I was about to say "insulting", but since I am not Roman Catholic, I really cannot be "insulted".)

I have no way of knowing, really, why ComerPerro chose to post something like this here. I can only share my own observations about the appropriateness of posting, under ComerPerro's name, a ditty that I find to be more than just a bit offensive, since it demeans and mocks a religion -- and does so, as best I know, using things that that particular religion does not really believe.

Second, I am having a difficult time understanding why you think I would be "flattered" because someone thinks my sperm are sacred.

Perhaps you could explain why you think I should feel "flattered".

Thanks in advance.

[treepig]

62. no sense of humor today i see?

the persecution complex of roman catholics is a bit hard to fathom, considering they're one of the most influential organizations of the past thousand years or so, but anyhow. . .

[outinforce]

83. Still Have My Sense of Humor, I Think

I think, treepig, that I still have my sense of humor.

And I really have no "persection complex". I am not, never have been, and never will be (as far as I know) a Roman Catholic.

But I find ditties such as the one which was posted earlier to be not only unfunny, but quite offensive.

I happen to be gay, and I would be offended if someone were to post (just to be "funny") a ditty which denegrated gay folks. I am not African-American, but I would not at all find it funny if someone were to post a ditty denegrating African-Americans. Nor am I a woman, but I would find it offensive in the extreme is someone were to post a "funny" little ditty that made fun of women the way the ditty we are discussing makes fun of Roman Catholics.

but anyhow, thanks for sharing your observation that I have lost my sense of humor today. I think I still have it.

It must be that you and I have different views of what is offensive and what is funny.

[treepig]

91. so am i safe to assume that you're offended the likes of

tv shows like "will and grace?"

anyhow, if i had your view of life, would i ever be thankful that seinfeld finally stopped making his dreadful tv show - it did nothing but provide non-stop (supposedly humorous, ugh) stereotyping of almost-middle aged white people (which i happen to be). now if we could only get it out of syndication . . .

[outinforce]

109. "Will and Grace"...

doesn't offend me -- too much.

I am more offended by "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". Because it makes it appear that every single gay guy is just so, so, well....glamorous. In other words, rather than presenting to its audience an accurate picture of what and who gay guys are, Bravo has chosen to make it appear that all gay guys fret about their clothes, their skin, the color of their walls, ad nauseum. And that, I think, confirms in the minds of many straight folks their own steortypes of what gay men are like. There are many gay guys I know like the "fab five". But I know many, many more who are nothing like those 5.

South Park (written by two gay men) did what I consider to be an absolutely fabulous job of satirizing Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. If you happened to see it, then you know what I am talking about.

And, no, I did not find Seinfeld to be particularly offensive.

And, out of curiousity, what exactly do you think "my view of life" is??

[Az]

110. Did I miss them

coming out? re Southpark

[outinforce]

112. If You Have Not Seen...

the "Metrosexual" episode (during the most recent season), try to see it. It is absolutely FAB-U-LOUS.

[smirkymonkey]

167. Matt and Trey are Gay???

Not that it matters, but I have never heard this stated before and I am a huge SP fan. Is this true?

[outinforce]

207. Well, There is Really Only One Way to Know For Sure......

I have never actually had sex with either Matt or Trey, so I can't say for sure that they are gay.

But, girlfriend, my gaydar goes into mega-overdrive when I see those two guys, and watch their program.

And, for what it is worth, friends of mine in Colorado tell me, strictly entre-nous, that Trey and Matt are gay.

[GinaMaria]

251. think so

I believe they have been featured in magazines together. Not sure about articles. I'll do a search. BRB

Gave a quick look, can't find anything. Could be wrong. Sorry

[smirkymonkey]

257. Damn, I thought they were

kind of sexy in that "mentally unstable" way! Seriously though, I did have a little crush on them.

Oh well, I guess I'll move on. :)

[treepig]

163. umm, about your view of life

guess i was just referring to your propensity to take offense at other's rather harmless (albeit possibly tasteless) silliness.

[outinforce]

208. Thanks...One of the Great Things

about life in these United States is that I have the right to be offended and you have the same right to be offended. And we can both look at or read the same set of words -- I can get offended, and you have the right to think I am a little off-kilter.

But (and I think this is really cool) there are no laws that criminalize speech law, simply because they say something that someone finds offensive.

I'm told that in Canada and in Belgium, people can actually be punished because they say things that some people might find "hateful".

Can you imagine?

[treepig]

234. i believe there's a huge difference between the current discussion

and what will get you locked up for hate speech in canada or belgium

ok, i don't know anything about belgium, but in canada the "hate speech" in question (unless there are cases i have not heard of) involve at least two separate holocaust deniers, one of which taught his theories to grade school children. whether of not that should be a criminal offense i suppose could be a matter of debate, but i can certainly guarantee that no one in canada would be convicted of a crime for making jokes about something for entertainment purposes. even about the holocaust, no matter how tasteless that might be (or how offended some people might be). simply ridiculing someone or something does not rise to the level of "hate" speech, even if the object of riducule happens to be offended (i'm sure there are plenty of republicans who find DU offensive - but big deal, they can handle the situation like adults and deal with it).

similarly, comedy along the lines of "every sperm is sacred" - while mocking catholics, is clearly not intended to stir up hatred or incite violence against them (and if such emotions are triggered in anyone viewing the movie, i suggest it is more a problem with the person, rather than the movie - just like i think any reasonable person would blame the serial killings of the son of sam on the person who committed the killings, not on the bible - the book that apparently inspired these rather anti-social activities of mr. david berkowitz).

the bottom line for me is that there is a firm boundary between offensive speech and hate speech.

[outinforce]

235. I Think I see Your Point. However,

Thanks (once again) treepig for a thoughtful and civil reply.

I have a couple of questions, though.

I'm having difficulty understanding why the Canadian cases you cite (teaching children that there was no holocaust) could be characterized as "hate speech". Perhaps I am missing something, but my own notion is that unless the "teacher" incited her/his students to go out and committ some act of violence or couple her/his own rather bizarre theories of history with some statement that suggested that a particular ethnic group is engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie and deceive the entire world, I'm not sure where I see "hate" being involved in that case.

I want to be clear -- I firmly believe that millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled folks, gypsies, and other people which the Nazi regime deemed as living lives not worth living were put to death by the Nazis. It was one of the worst crimes against humanity in history, in my book.

But merely espousing the wacky theory that it did not happen is, to my way of thinking, much like saying that people from the USA never landed on the moon.

Unless -- unless the espousal of either of those bizarre theories of history is coupled with an incitement to violent action against, I suppose, the people who the wacko feels are perpetrating what s/he considers to be the massive "fraud".

Your point about the song and the movie is well taken. However, when only the words to the song are posted on a public web page such as this, it is possible that people will see -- and react to -- only those words, without understanding that the words come from a movie in which all relgions (or religion in general) are mocked. You in fact may say (and I may agree with you) that the intention of the person who posted those words to this public web page was not to incite hatred. But I can understand how a devout Roman Catholic could feel that the intention behind posting those words was exactly that. There really is no way to know exactly what the person who posted the words to the webpage intended.

My concern about laws forbidding "hate speech" is that they presume to know the intentions of the person who uttered the speech, and that they may put people who never had any intention of saying something hateful into the position where they would be required, in effect, to somehow "prove" before a third party that they did not intend the speech to be hateful.

I would much rather give anyone free rein to say whatever -- odious, vile, offensive, mocking -- they want to. My limits would not be whether or not the speech was "hateful". Rather, I would set the limits at things like "direct incitement to violence against another person (with no restrictions on who the "person" is), or causing a panic -- things like that.

[anti_shrub]

202. Matt and Trey

Aren't gay.


Funny you would think that, cause some folks here think Matt and Trey are right wing freepers now because of the smoking episode.

[dwckabal]

228. You have obviously never seen a Monty Python movie

It's a song from the movie Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

Graham Chapman was one of the members, along with John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Michael Palin.

The skit takes place in "The Third World" which is shown as a very poor part of a city in England. In it, a working father (played by Michael Palin)comes home, and announces to his wife and children that the kids will have to be sold for medical experiments, because he can't afford to feed them anymore. Mind you, part of the joke is that he and his "wife" (played by Graham Chapman) have about 100 kids in the house. When one of the children suggests that he could "have it cut off," ("it could be pulled off in an accident," one of the children chimes in) he proceeds to explain that as a Roman Catholic, God would see through such a cheap trick, and he and the family sing the song posted to a wonderfully choreographed dance number. Finally, as the children are being led of to be sold, they walk past a Protestant couple in their home. The husband, seeing all of the children, proceeds to expound at length on how he can prevent pregnancy by using a condom, because as a Protestant he doesn't believe in all that "Papal claptrap". The skit ends with the narrator saying, "So despite Protestant attempts to promote sex for pleasure, children continue to be born everywhere."

I hope this helps. You definitely misunderstood the "point" of his post. It was a joke. Monty Python poked fun at every group imaginable, even the British (which they all were, except for Terry Jones, who is American).

[Crowdance]

76. It was "The Meaning of Life"

"Ohh, get that, would you, Deirdre?"

[cushla_machree]

140. Why do they have so many children...?

Because every time they have sexual intercourse they have to have a baby.

that movie kills me everytime. as a former catholic, it amuses me greatly.

[bloom]

98. I think it is appropriate to point out that people

have different views - even if the song does that in a humorous way.

[outinforce]

111. "Appropriate"

How I love the term "appropriate".

I do not disagree with you that it is appropriate to point out that people have different views.

Where I must disagree, however, is that the song "Every sperm is sacred" does so in a "humorous" way.

I know several people who would think it would be ever so funny to compose and sing a song along the lines of "Let's Kill All Our Babies".

In such a song, the composers would distort and mock the viewpoints of people who support the right of women to choose to end their pregnancies.

They would all laugh and giggle as they sung it among themselves, and they honestly would not be able to understand how anyone could fail to find it funny. And they would think that anyone who was actually offended by such a song either had no sense of humor or had a very warped view of life.

And others, in response to people expressing their sense of being offended at such an unfunny song, would suggest that it is "appropriate" to point out that people do, after all, have different views.

But that would still not make such a song "funny" or "humorous".

Nor would it make it non-offensive.

I hope you understand.

[bloom]

122. Since this is obviously such an important issue for you

does that mean you will be voting with the Repulbicans who share your viewpoint? I don't know of any Democratic candidates who are planning on reversing Roe V. Wade.

Please correct if I'm wrong. I know you will.

[outinforce]

133. Which Issue Are You Talking About????

Are you talking about the issue of treating people with whom one disagrees with respect? That is the "issue" I have with the song "Every Sperm is Sacred". And you are quite correct, Bloom, that is an important issue for me.

I don't know why you would think that I would vote with Republicans who might happen to share my own view that people who disagree with one another should treat one another with respect, when there are many, many Democrats who share this view with me. Many of them post regularlt on DU. And I think I am correct when I observe that most of the Democratic candidates for President also feel that treating people with respect and dignity is better than mocking, belittling, and distorting the viewpoints of others.

Or are you talking about the issue of abortion?

If so, why do you think that I would refuse to vote for anyone who is not in favor of reversing Roe v. Wade? Have I ever said that I favor reversing Roe v. Wade? I don't think that I have, but if you can find a post of mine where I have said that I am in favor of having the Supreme Court "reverse" Roe v. Wade, please do let me know.

And, just so you know, I happen to know lots and lots of life-long Democrats who share some of my concerns about the laws governing abortion in the USA.

And, as far as I know, all of us plan to vote for the Democratic candidates this Fall.

Any more questions?

[cushla_machree]

141. i always say

some people just don't get monty python, what can you do

I believe the catholic church was VERY upset with this movie. though i believe the life of brian was much better poking fun at the whole religion thing.

[outinforce]

142. And I Always Say

I may not be able to define "hate speech", but I know it when I see it.

"Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge. Say No More."

[cushla_machree]

154. hate speech?

thats a stretch. Never saw any harm in poking a litte fun at the hard line stance of others. I don't think the idea that "they'll take you as soon as you're warm" is that far off base. they just won't take you if your homosexual!

as far as hate speech is concerned, someone like the pope deserves it. ghastly man if you want my opinion.

[outinforce]

158. Yes. Hate Speech

Let me understand you here.

You think that there is some hate speech that is perfectly OK? You think that hate speech -- as long as it is directed towards a person you happen to find "ghastly" is "deserved"?

You might want to weigh in on this thread in the Civil Rights/Privacy/Equality forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=5777

Suffice it to say that I think you and I have vastly different views of hate speech. I donn't think it is ever warranted. You apparently do.

[cushla_machree]

168. oh come on

monty python guilty of hate speech?

this is almost too funny.

anyone who would construe "every sperm is sacred" into anything other than a joke, needs to lighten up.


Is every criticism directed towards someone "hate speech"?

This sounds like a job for john ascroft!

[KTM]

201. You obviously didn't see the movie

"The Meaning of Life" went well beyond bashing a singular religion. I must admit, even taken out of context, I think it a huge stretch to call this "Hate Speech," and find it suprising that an intelligient individual such as yourself could be offended by such a simple song.

However, the movie actually made fun of MANY religions - the scene immediately following this one made fun of Protestants. They also made fun of intellectuals, Americans, French, philosophy, medicine... they point of the movie was that across mankind, despite all of our preening and attempts to rationalize and promulgate our individual belief systems, nobody has been able to fully grasp the elusive "Meaning of Life." They showed many belief systems, and people's attempts to define this one thing which man has forever sought. They made fun of all of them. They showed that while we are all different, and all groups seem to preach that THEIR belief is the correct one, that in the end - no matter what we believe - we all struggle with the same basic question of "why are we here." They showed that as different as we all are, we are all the same. And they did it with great humour.

For many of us, this song is very funny - not only because of the lyrics, but because it reminds us of ALL the things Monty Python gave us, and how their irreverence actually reached across boundaries and gave common ground to so many of us, regardless of our core beliefs. I dare say, take any group of people - Repub and a Dem, Catholic, Jew, man, woman, adult, teen, nerd, jock... we may not always share each other's points of view on a lot of things, but if one says "She turned me into a newt" another will reply with mock incredulation, "A newt ?!?"

To be offended by this little snippet seems so odd to me... is PETA offended by the "Dead Parrot" sketch ? Do woodsmen recoil at "The LumberJack Song ?" There is a difference between making fun of a singular person or group and poking fun at all of humanity. I think somewhere along the line, you missed the joke.

[outinforce]

213. You Are Correct....I Did Not,. BUT --

I think there is a lesson here.

Before anything else, KTM, thank you for saying that you consider me to be an intelligent person. From what I know of you, I think the same of you.

The lesson I take from the conversation on this thread about "Every Sperm is Sacred" is this: Two, or three, of four, or five intelligent people can disagree about what constitutes "hate speech". One person's "hate speech" is another person's "simple", funny, non-offensive, or humorous song.

How a person views a set of written words (or hears speech that is spoken) depends upon several things, one of which is context.

Although I am a big fan of Monty Python, I have seen only one or two of their movies -- and "The Meaning of Life" was not one of them.

You have the benefit of having the "context" in which "Every Sperm is Sacred" was originally done. For you, it is simply a funny, humorous song that pokes fun at one of several religions. I thank you for pointing this out to me. And I also am in no position to tell you that your own observations about the song are wrong. Your beliefs about the song are just that -- your beliefs. And they are valid for you.

The same probably goes for the person who originally posted the song to this thread. I made the mistake (at least I hope it was a mistake) of imputing motive to his posting of the song. I thought that he was posting the song because he "hated" Roman Catholic people or the teachings of the Roman Catholic church or the beliefs of Roman Catholic.

But that was because I lacked the context of the song. And, I would submit, my observations (for me) about the song were just as valid as your observations (for you) were about the song.

All of which is to say that I am of the opinion that I (and I am speaking only for myself here) should be very careful -- very careful -- before I call the words written or spoken by another person "hate speech". Because if I do that, I pre-suppose that I can somehow know -- only from the words the person has written or the words s/he has said -- that the person is "hateful". It is altogether possible that I might be wrong in making such a judgment, because I may lack the complete context in which the words I object to were written or spoken.

Furthermore, I draw another lesson from this conversation, and it is this. Irrespective of judging "hate speech", I must be very careful not to imput motive to written word. I cannot assume that because someone writes words here that I might think indicate an anti-gay or anti-Catholic (or anti-woman) bias, that that person -- because of those written words is in fact anti-gay, anti-Catholic, anti-male, or anti-woman. And I should never accuse someone publicly of such biases (based only upon the words they have written) without checking it out first.

Thanks again, KTM, for your thoughtful post.

[RapidCreek]

219. I can define hate speech quite easily

It involves hateful speech...of which this "little ditty" is absent. If I say "the sky is blue" is that Hateful? If I do so in a humorous way, it that hateful? The Catholic Church has made effusively clear, on occasions to numerous to mention, that the only appropriate place for a sperm, outside the path from the testicles to the last stop in the urethra, is someplace between the labia and the and an egg. In otherwords...using a condom is not "appropriate", masturbation is not "appropriate", sexual intercourse with any intention of purpose aside from impregnation is not "appropriate". Hence the rather elementary assertion that every sperm is sacred...as it relates to the creation of more little Catholics, is true whether you like it or not.

If I were to say "Bush Lied about Iraq's possession of WMD's" I assume in your eyes it would be a statement of fact....not the remark of a Bush Hater/Basher, per se. The average Neo-Con would wink, wink, nudge nudge, and respond...."I may not be able to define 'hate speech' but I know it when I see it". If on the other hand I were to say "Bush is a subhuman, newly minted, stinking piece of shit, who has no reason to live", that would be hate speech.

Remarking on uncomfortable truths....humerously or otherwise is not hate speech....it is what it is.

RC

[outinforce]

229. Truth

"Remarking on uncomfortable truths....humerously or otherwise is not hate speech....it is what it is."

Therein lies the rub.

I am gay. And if, for someone the "uncomfortable truth" about gay men is that we all mince about with limp wrists and lisps in our speech, who am I to say that her/his version of "truth" is not accurate -- especially if the only gay men s/he has known have mincing lispers?

And so, if s/he were to write a ditty that s/he felt were an ever-so-funny description of gay men, would s/he be guilty of "hate speech", and who would get to make that determination about the nature of "truth" involved in her statement? Me? You? A person with slightly homophobic views?

Your own version of "truth" regarding the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, is valid for you. It reflects what you know and understand the RC church to teach. But my own version (and I am not and never have been a Roman Catholic) of "truth" concerning what the RC church teaches regarding the most appropriate place for sperm is different from yours.

Your version of "truth" says that the RC Church teaches that "the only appropriate place for a sperm, outside the path from the testicles to the last stop in the urethra, is someplace between the labia and the and an egg."

My version of the "truth" regarding the teachings of the RC church is that the RC church has no problem with nocturnal emissions -- wet dreams -- in which sperm leaves the urethra, but does not enter the labia on its way to an egg. My version of "truth" concerning what the RC Church teaches is that they do not teach that wet dreams, which involve sperm leaving the urethra but not fertilizing an egg, is not a sin. Furthermore, my version of "truth" regarding what the RC church teaches regarding sperm is that it is perfectly OK for sperm to leave the male urethra, and to pass the female labia, and then for every single one of them to die, because there is no ovum to fertilize. I believe that the RC church calls this the "rhythm method" of birth control.

So, given your version of "truth" regarding what the RC church teaches with regard to sperm, I can see how you would not call the song "Every Sperm is Scared" a form of hate speech. But I hope you can also understand how someone with my version of "truth" regarding what the RC church teaches about sperm would find that song quite offensive, and even hateful.

THAT is, in my own humble estimation, the problem with the whole notion of "hate speech". One person's humorous song is another person's hate speech. One person's "truth" is another person's "hateful utterance".

Versions of truth are not always as cut-and-dried as "The sky is blue", especially when the involve what people are like or what they think or believe.

[bloom]

237. Other truths....

I think generally Hate Speech refers to speech that encourages violence against others out of bigotry in regards to religion, race, ethnicity, etc. I think you are twisting it to mean any form of expression that ridicules another group. I don't think that is the usual definition. Yes - the Republicans are trying to define "Liberals putting down Bush" as Hate Speech. But they are just stupid.

The one thing that the Catholics are is consistent. I have to give them that.

They also have an agenda that I do not agree with that would overturn Roe V. Wade and also to prevent gays from acceptance in society. Views that they take to the political arena and to the media in their own way. Views certainly worthy of examination. One way of examining them is through songs and films. This is usually called expression, not hate speech.

I don't think even the anti-choice people would think it would be
"...ever so funny to compose and sing a song along the lines of "Let's Kill All Our Babies"." (outinforce). I think they would be quite aware that they were creating a disgusting song with the intent to be obnoxious and hateful. And in fact, some of the tactics that "Right to Life", etc. have employed have led their followers (at least one) to murder.

Can the same be said of this song? I don't think so. It is not inciting people to violence. It incites some people to laugh.

That is not the same as calling people murderers when they are not. And encouraging violence against them.

[outinforce]

243. Thanks, Bloom

I think I understand a bit better know.

I do have a question, though.

When you say, "Yes - the Republicans are trying to define "Liberals putting down Bush" as Hate Speech. But they are just stupid.", is your motivation for saying that "Republicans are stupid" hatred? Or are you just poking fun?

[bloom]

246. There was a news article I saw today

someone has been printing shirts that say, "Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them."

If the shirts just said, "Boys are stupid", I would think that would be perhaps a mean to thing to go around wearing. Not very nice. When the "Throw rocks at them" is added - that is encouraging violence and I would say that it puts it in the category of Hate Speech.

There have been threads around here dealing with people's feelings towards Republicans or esp. Bush* type Republicans. I certainly hate a lot of things that they do. I try not to generalize that feeling towards groups of people. I'm shocked and offended when I hear "Freepers" calling for violence against liberals. I don't think saying that Republicans are stupid is hatred.

Their attempt to categorize Liberals expressing anger at Bushes* policies as Hate Speech does anger me. Because I feel they are doing it so they can get away with more killing and more money going to their interests. And I just hate that! see http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031113.html

(I suppose the short answer was that I was poking fun).

[outinforce]

248. I Enjoy "Talking" with You, Bloom

I saw the same article. And I thought it was just awful that anyone would sell shirts that say "Boys are Stupid -- Throw Rocks at them".

And I agree with you -- waering a shirt that says that is both mean and hateful.

I'm sure, though, that there are lots of folks who would tell you and me to just "lighten up" -- no one really expects people to throw rocks at boys.

I'm also pretty sure that there are folks who would say that wearing a shirt which only says "Boys Are Stupid" is hate speech. Because, some would say, it isn't true that boys are stupid. And these same folks would say that wearing a shirt with that sort of saying is itself hateufl and could possible encourage people to do mean and terrible things to boys.

So, you and I would be between two groups of people. People who think that a t-shirt that says "Boys are Stupid -- throw rocks at them" is just humorous, and who would say that you and I have no sense of humor, AND another group of people who would tell us that they couldn't possibly tolerate the sort of what they call "hate speech" that they find on a t-shirt that only says "Boys Are Stupid".

I hate being in situations like that, don't you?

That is why I think a lot of the talk about "hate speech" is just silly.

[bloom]

256. One of my favorite greeting cards says:

"Men are stupid - Women are crazy"


I don't know if I would ever send to anyone - but it makes me laugh, anyway. I suppose - since everyone is insulted more or less evenly - it is funny to me. If it just said "Men are stupid" - it seems like one would be like "huh?"

Sometimes there is probably an implied evenness - that some may see and some may not see. That may be the case with the song that started this line of thought. Part of what makes it possible to be funny in insulting an entity like the Catholic Church in that way is the extent to which they have controlled people/insulted people.

The t-shirt thing seems like a reaction, also, of women who have felt disempowered by men. So they want to make a statement. And it is so outrageous it seems funny to some people. (Although I think it is going too far.) And perhaps it is a matter of laughing at ones desire for revenge.

Some things never get resolved in a normal way. I think that is why such sentiments show up as they do.

But there does have to be a line - and as you point out, it's not the same for everybody.

[RapidCreek]

238. Your Gayness isn't the issue here

then again....where you leave your sperm, if you are male homosexual....and your intentional avoidance of it, if you are female homosexual is an issue, at least in the eyes the Catholic church. In fact, I believe it has described both behaviors as deviant and the practice of either a cause for being ostracized. Is that hateful? Would a little ditty describing the situation, poking fun at it's unfairness, inanity and hypocrisy be hateful? I'll let you be the judge of that. As far as your nocturnal emissions are concerned, they, in the eyes of the Catholic church, are a result of unclean thought. Mine would be fine and dandy, of course, as my sexual fantasy's don't involve members of my own sex. I apologize for not including in my description an exception for my brand of nocturnal emissions. I shan't address the rhythm method as it's professed effectiveness is a fallacy. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076995/
A fallacy which the Catholic church is and has been well aware of, hence it's advocation of such as a means to "avoid" pregnancy.

Hate speech is designed to elicit violence or hostility toward it's subject. Poking fun at or seriously addressing the inanity of a particular train of thought is not hateful. As far as poking fun at the idiosyncrasy's of femmy male homosexuals....it is hardly hateful....unless the message of the fun poking is designed to elicit hate of femmy homosexuals. One would have to wonder why homosexuals themselves poke fun at it....if indeed it is hateful. Mel Brooks pokes fun at the idiosyncrasies of those of his own faith....his fun poking does not seek to inspire violence, hatred or hostility toward those who exhibit such idiosyncrasies, however.

Political correctness is all fine and good, politicall sanctimony becomes a bit tiresome, however. I think you need to consider the difference.

RC

[outinforce]

242. Thanks, RapidCreek

Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply.

I do have a question about something you said, and I ask it just to make sure I understand what you are saying.

You say, "Hate speech is designed to elicit violence or hostility toward it's subject."

I think I can pretty much know when someone is saying something that elicits violence. For instance, if someone says, "Let's kill some gay folks", Or "Get your gun "cause were going to hunt down some Catholics", I think I would be on pretty safe ground to say that either of statements would be speech that is designed to elicit violence.

Where I have some difficulty is the "or hostility towards its subject" part.

If I say something like, "Freepers suck", or "Republicans are mean, vile people", or "Corporate bosses are blood-suckng bastards", am I not saying things that a reasonable person could conclude was "designed to elicit hostility towards its subject"??

I would hate it if, in saying these things about Freepers, Republicans, and Corporate bosses, one were to conclude that I had negaged in hate speech or in hatemongering.

Can you help me out here????

[outinforce]

244. One More Question, If You Don't Mind.....

RapidCreek, I do have one more question to ask, and I ask so that I can get a better understanding.

You say, "If on the other hand I were to say "Bush is a subhuman, newly minted, stinking piece of shit, who has no reason to live", that would be hate speech."

Now, I happen to agree that Bush is a subhuman, newly-minted, stinking piece of shit". If I were to say only that -- and leave off the part about him having no reason to live, would I be uttering hate speech?

In other words, is my expression of my opinion regatrding George Bush itself hateful, or is it merely an expression of my opinion which, as a free person, I ought to be able to express without fear of legal implications.

And is what makes the comment you used as an example of hate speech "Bush......., who has no reason to live", hate speech only because it contains the phrase, "who has no reason to live", and thus could be considered, taken as a while, to be an icitement to violence against him?

[GinaMaria]

254. Have you seen it?

The movie. There's a part where they cut to the uptight British couple talking about basically passionless sex. I think in the film's context, it's less a jab at Catholic and more a British humorist poking at his own culture. You may or may not see it differently after viewing the movie.

There's also a sex education segment in the British public school (like Eton). It's a boy's boarding school and the teacher brings in his wife and has sex with her in front of the class while explaining sex in technical terms. I thought it was a little funny. Someone I dated who went to a British public school, rolled on the floor laughing hysterically :shrug:

It might be more of a British humor thing.

[outinforce]

255. I Think You Will find the Answer to Your Question ---

if you look at post #213 in this thread.

[mdmc]

6. Life doesn't end

so it can't begin.

[kentuck]

7. It begins before inception......

It begins in your soul and most of us are really "murderers", even those that think birth begins at inception.

[kentuck]

249. Inception? What was I thinking? :-)__~~~

:) I meant "reception"...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. at conception

and if you are like the vast majority of pro-lifers (not ALL) it ends at birth.

[Cleita]

12. Yes, that blows the whole pro-life argument doesn't it.

They have no problem sending that baby to war when he is eighteen to kill other babies as collateral damage.

[ComerPerro]

15. It doesnt stop there

Shit, they will be right with the mother while she is pregnant. But as soon as she has a child, they abandon her and call her a whore.

And they sure as hell don't want to help families get by.

[9215]

160. Nice one!

:thumbsup:

[Devlzown]

9. How the hell is a presidential candidate

supposed to know the answer to a question like that? They ought to tell them that their running for President, not God, when confronted with questions like that.

[Cleita]

13. It's too bad he was too gracious to blow that back at him.

eom

[ComerPerro]

16. This is where Republicans trounce us

They can answer such a question.

Its just like all there other bullshit beliefs.

"Life begins at conception, becuase God says so, and because that is the party line."

Fuck them. They never think, they never analyze, they never wrestle with the issues. Its just, "life begins at conception".

[bloom]

95. I don't think God ever said one way or the other.

Legally - I thought it began at viability - which isn't set in stone, either.


The big war this year might be between those who see the world in black and white (Biblically- but by their own definitions) and those who see shades of gray.

[Dark Star]

10. My answer to Wolfie:

Science argues with itself.

Religions disagree with each other.

That is why I believe the government has no place in this discussion.

My position is this is too important to let the government rule on this matter; it must be left to the woman and medical professiona.s

[oostevo]

32. Very well said.

I'll have to remember that.

[info being]

11. I don't know, I'm still waiting for it to begin

When do people stop asking questions that cannot be answered?

[Sapphocrat]

14. Well, it DOESN'T begin at 40...

...I can tell you that much.

But seriously... Great response, Cleita. Although I think I like mdmc's reply for succintness and unimpeachability: It doesn't end, so it can't begin.

Considering the belief that God is eternal, and we are all of God, I'd like to see the most religious of the anti-choice brigades rebut that one.

[opihimoimoi]

17. LIFE begins at Opi's Luau

Come, wine, women, and song

[Karenina]

25. I'm SOOO THERE!!!

:toast: Sashimi, anyone? Hamachi and Toro for me, thanks. Hold the rice!

[Sapphocrat]

39. Oh, Opi, I've been hoping...

...for an invitation back to my paradise! :D

Opihimoimoi No Ka Oi!

[opihimoimoi]

50. Come, we go eat Haupia pie and ice cream

Meet me at Makawiliwili,

bring ukulele

[yankeeinlouisiana]

20. Life doesn't begin at 40? Shoot!

I was so looking forward to next year! ;-)

[BlueJazz]

18. The only person I know who ever had soul was

..James Brown...WAAAOOOW...EH!..I Feel Good...du,du,du,du....dududu
I knew that I would now.....

[yankeeinlouisiana]

19. With your first breath of air!

n/t

Edit: spelling error

[soothsayer]

23. the soul enters the body at the first breath

that's the one i like

[Mikimouse]

21. Depends on what type of life we are talking about...

At early stages of our development, we have gill slits, and later we are almost indistinguishable from chick embryos. Since we ultimately eat both of those, I don't understand why it is such a problem for the fundies. When does HUMAN life begin? I have placed a call to God and have yet to receive an answer. All I got was : HI, God here! I'm sorry that I can't answer your prayer right now, but if you leave your name, number and affiliation, I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Please leave a message after the bell; By the way, if this is Jerry, Pat, or Oral, forget it!

[sweetheart]

22. life begins and ends right NOW

We're only alive NOW. We can use this moment to take on an intellectual conjecture about theory on being alive... but the only fact we have is the present moment.

Its sorta ironic that to waste life focusing on some hypothetical conjecture its itself a denial of life and living it. It is a sort of mental illness to be locked in to some pubescent fantasy about reproductive tissue, all to avoid the more immediate richness of this magical gift, life.

Even more ironic that those who are so lost in fantasy claim to be defending life... when in fact they squander life, by the empirical example of their own sad mental illness.

A woman knows that life is inside her, and a man knows similarly. It will be gone soon enough. It is amazing the perversion of a society based on perverting life and squandering it, that that society claims to protect the sanctity of such a thing while wasting it by the tanker-load.

Your spirit was alive long before your body existed and will be alive long after... this everpresent "I" spirit awake reading these words right NOW. Life never began in an intellectual folly. Life is.

[Karenina]

26. You go, girl.

:loveya:

[Eileen]

24. When the kids leave home and take their dog!

The question "When Does Life Begin" is a red herring that the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) has been using for far too many years to catch and confuse unsuspecting dupes.

The question is totally irrelevant and without an answer since any point on a continuum chosen as <b>the</b> start point is chosen to promote a particular religious or political agenda.

The question is totally irrelevant and without an answer since any point on a continuum chosen as the start point is chosen to promote a particular religious or political agenda.

Something does 'start' at concception allright but it is not life which already exists but - - the reproductive process - is what it is. Some more observations on the question are - HERE -

- Eileen`s always in process page -

Eileen

[ma4t]

27. newly found realization

I've just recently realized that life truly begins when the last kid moves out of the house.

[devilgrrl]

28. Life begins after 40!

:silly:

[9215]

29. After you find DU

:bounce: :hi:

[mulethree]

31. began

The cell that formed the ova/sperm was alive before then, it divided from another live cell and so on back till you get to the parents ova/sperm and so on grand-parents and so on till you get to some life form that had no parent(s). Long time ago - yet in a sense that ancient life form is still alive.

[baldguy]

33. about 3.8 billion years ago.

[bloom]

100. I would LOVE to see Clark or somebody say that to Wolf!! n/t

:)

[iverglas]

164. wasn't it actually 4004 BC or some damned thing?

but cereally, "about 3.8 billion years ago" would be exactly my answer, so thanks for sparing me the googling of looking it up.

"Life as we know it", anyhow, eh?

.

[Kitsune]

34. After the third cup of tea in the morning.

No signs of life before then.

(and yes, tea, not coffee :P )

[Fescue4u]

36. The answer depends on what party you belong to.

The truth is, we don't know.

[Robin Hood]

37. When consciousness begins.

Memory is a product of consciousness. Whom here remembers being a baby?

[0007]

106. I can buy into that one!

[Frank Rose]

38. When God created man(Adam), he.....

Formed him and breathed into him to give him life. When Jesus stopped breathing, his human life was over, so taking breath seems to be a Biblically sound criteria for life. It's a great big Bible, and those are just two points, so probably not a definative explaination, smarter people than me will say I'm wrong. I say I won't judge, lest I be judged.

[Robin Hood]

40. Other than the prescribed belief that the bible gives you.

What do you think independently of that?

[Frank Rose]

42. Actually, the Bible is

open to alot of interpretation, some good, some republican, I just read it and live on. Didn't mean to sound too "preachy".

[cushla_machree]

144. ive never found

any part of the bible that could be related to "republican"

[Frank Rose]

45. OK, re-read you question and realised

I totally missed the point, sorry. My independent view of such matters would be hard for me to filter out, but, what I would say is the common sense answer is that anything that can be killed, must be alive. Again, I'm no authority, but if I eat corn, I'm not killing a corn plant, just eating the seed. The seed (kernnel) was a product of fertilization, so is it alive before it is planted and grows? or is it just potential life?

[san antonio]

48. I think you missed the point again.

I think he was trying to mock the fact that you take to heart the teachings of the bible. There are quite a few very anti-anything-religious people around here.

[Robin Hood]

87. I wasn't mocking anyone.

I was just curious what he/she thought about this issue without the filter of religion. Is that mocking?

[Sophree]

169. I believe life begins at conception as well.

It's not necessarily based on what the Bible says, although I would say that it is based on my spiritual and religious views.

It's hard to explain, it's just something "I know in my knower," so to speak.

[Az]

92. Life

A tricky word. When you eat a salad you are indeed destroying life. Cells work together in order for their DNA to be replicated. Thus though individuals cells perish the basic coding lives on. Thus each individual cell is alive. In fact the only thing we consume that was intended to be consumed by any stretch of the word is fruit.

The trouble comes when we start trying to define which forms of life we value. What criteria we attempt to impose on an already confused construct. Why is the life of a cow worth less than a dog? Why is a rhutabaga's life span less important than a person's?

We are the measure of that which we value. The universe does not impose any value on anything. As we grow as a society we learn to apply broader and broader understanding of the things around us and our values change in concordance.

[Solomon]

41. Life Begins

with the gleam in the eyes of a horny man and woman. :evilgrin:

[outinforce]

43. Ahem

I was going to say that I hate to break up this little party. It is always so enjoyable to hear the sound of one hand clapping.

But.....

"Life began in mom's ovaries when she created an ova and in dad's testicles when he created sperm there is no doubt that eggs and sperm are alive. So what happens to all those ova and sperm when they don't hook up? They die. Is this murder?"

Really? Your life began in your mom's ovaries as an ovum, and my life began in my mom's ovaries as an ovum, too. And your life began in your dad's testicles as a sperm cell and my life began in my dad's testicles as a sperm cell, too.

I was not aware of this fact. I was not aware that any of my dad's sperm or any of my mom's ova ever contained the exact DNA that I now posess. Perhaps you are different from me in that your DNA is the same as that of your mom's ova -- or at least the ova that led to the creation of (sorry, I mean began) your life. And perhaps you are also different from me in that your DNA is the same as that of your dad's sperm -- or at least the one that led to the creation of (oops, there I go again --- I mean began) your life.

Please do educate me some more concerning this fascinating biological point.

And, if a sperm and an ovum fail to unit, and both die, is it murder?

Not in my book. My opinion (I would not want to state this as fact, you understand) is that murder is the premeditated and intentional destruction of a human being. There is also something about malice aforethought, in my opinion, that murder entails. Now, it is my own opinion that neither sperm nor ova are human beings. (You, I take it, have some sort of factual information that indicates that a human being begins its life as a sperm and as an ovum -- sort of a pre-conception view of when life begins.) I confess that I do not have the biological education that you obviously have. My opinion is, unfortunately, terribly outdated. But my opinion is that sperm and ovum are not human beings.

And, even if they were, I know of very few people who would sit around planning and premeditating -- with or without malice aforethought -- on the intentional destruction of these little tiny human beings.

So, no, my own opinion is that the death of an ovum and the death of one or of a million billion sperm is not murder. But that is only my own personal opinion. I do not state it as fact. Only opinion.

" think the real question should have been, "When does the fertilized ova get a soul?"

Well, does anyone have an answer and proof of that answer? I think not."

Well, here you and I are of the same opinion....no one really knows for sure when the fertilized ovum (which, I think, having been fetilized, becomes something other than an ovum -- more like another being, separate and distinct from its father and mother -- but that is just my own opinion) get a soul.

"Maybe a more pertinent question would be, "When does that zygote (fertilized ova) become human?""

I don't want to sound nasty here, so please do not interpret what I am about to ask as being nasty, but please do help me understand.....is the "real question" we are discussing here "When does the fertilized ovum get a soul", or are we discussing a "more pertinent question? Is being more pertinent better or worse than being real???

"My own biological knowledge tells me that the zygote goes through various stages of "evolution" before it actually becomes a recognizable human and that human embryo cannot live outside it's mother's womb before a certain stage of it's development has been achieved."

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that because the zygote in a human woman's womb goes through various stages of evolution as it develops that it is not really a human zygote? Are you suggesting that, at some point during her pregnancy, a human woman is actually carrying a fish in her womb? Or, before that, a worm? Are you saying that I would be incorrect to refer to a zygote in a human woman's womb as a "human zygote", because that zygote has yet to pass through all the stages of evolution?

"So really what is the question?"

Good question.

"Do conservatives really want to know when life begins?"

How about liberal pro-life folks? DO we really want to know when life begins? I surely do.

"Because if they do any competent scientist can tell them."

Are these the same competent scientists who would say, for instance, that my life began in my dad's testicles and my mother's ovaries?

Thank you, Cleita, for indulging me in a few thoughts and questions. I mean no disrespect in sharing these thoughts with you and in asking these questions. I really do want to understand your point of view.

And I hope you want to try to understand mine -- flawed though my point of view obviously is.

[Cleita]

46. So you don't think ova or sperm are alive when they leave the host body?

As I read these posts, I get the impression that some don't have a concept of what life is, or organic life as we know it. A plant has life. A dead plant doesn't have life. An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be alive. If a dead ova and a dead sperm come together, do they create a living zygote? I don't think so.

Your little facinating segue from life to DNA is kinda missing a few steps in between. Please explain how you got there since DNA wasn't mentioned for the purpose of this post?

Now you may not like my choice of words like the evolution of a zygote so please feel free to use words you are more comfortable with. It won't change the fact that a mass of human cells is not a human being at that moment and will take some development to get there.

[outinforce]

53. Thanks, Cleita. This May Help

Thanks, Cleita, for your thoughtful response. I will try to respond to your observations and questions in this post.

"As I read these posts, I get the impression that some don't have a concept of what life is, or organic life as we know it. A plant has life. A dead plant doesn't have life. An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be alive. If a dead ova and a dead sperm come together, do they create a living zygote? I don't think so."

I think I understand the concept of life. I know, for instance, that a plant has life and that a dead plant does not have life. I also understand (I think) that an organism does not have to be sentient in order to have life (I know of very few plants that have anything approaching what I call sentience). And I think I understand that if a dead ovum and a dead sperm come together, nothing can be created. My understanding is that dead or un-living things cannot create life.

If anything I have written on this thread has cuased you to think that I do not have a concept of what life -- or organic life as we know it -- is, then please point it out to me. I do think it important, when disucssing issues such as this, that both people in the conversation understand what the other person is saying, so I would welcome anything you might have to say regarding my understanding of what you term "life".

"Your little facinating segue from life to DNA is kinda missing a few steps in between. Please explain how you got there since DNA wasn't mentioned for the purpose of this post?"

I may have mis-interpreted your original post. But here is what I thought: Your title of the thread was "When does Life Begin?". It is possible to define the term "life" a number of different ways, and depending upon how "life" is defined, to arrive at totally different answers.

For instance, it is possible to define "life" as "life on the planet earth", and to then respond to the question, "When does life begin", by saying that "life" began a long time ago in the primordial soup. Or, it is possible to define "life" by saying that each person -- each human being -- has a particular "life" -- "my" life is different from "your" life. If you use this definition, then each "life" has a beginning and an end. The end point of each "life" is the point at which that individual "life" dies, or ceases to exist.

I thought that this was the type of "life" you meant in your question, "when does life begin". I may have mis-understood you, but I thought that when you said that "life" begins in mom's ovaries and dad's testicles, that you were speaking of a particular "life". I thought, for instance, that you were saying that my life began when my father's testicles produced the individual sperm that later fertilized an ovum in my mother, AND that my life began when my mother's ovaries produced the individual ovum that my father's sperm later fertilized.

The problem I have with saying that my "life" began at those two points is really this: Why stop with my mom's ovaries and my dad's testicles? Couldn't I say that my life really began when both of my grandfathers' produced the individual sperm cells that later fertilized the ova which each of my grandmothers' ovaries produced, AND that my life began when both of my grandmothers produced, in their ovaries, the ova that were later fertilized by my grandfathers' sperm?

It seems to me, however, that the best way (for me, anyway) to define when "my" life began is to say that it began -- biologically -- when a unique set of cells that I and only I possess came into existence. That is why I introduced the discussion about DNA. It seems to me that "my" life -- which is uniquely mine -- can only be defined in terms of something which is uniquely mine -- my own personal DNA sequence. Otherwise, I think I would have to say that "my" life began thousands or even millions of years ago when my first "grandmother" produced an ovum and my first "grandfather" produced a sperm that later became, through hundreds of generations, my parents, and then me.

"Now you may not like my choice of words like the evolution of a zygote so please feel free to use words you are more comfortable with. It won't change the fact that a mass of human cells is not a human being at that moment and will take some development to get there."

Again, I may have mis-interpreted the words in your original post. You spoke of the evolution that a zygote and embryo go through, and I tho;ught that you were suggesting that a zygote or embyo in a human woman's womb is,, at some early point in its development, something other than "human".

I must have mis-understood you, because I now see that you refer to "a mass of human cells".

So, I think that you and I agree that the contents of a human woman's womb is always "human" -- it never contains "a mass of fish cells", or a "mass of worm cells". It always contains "a mass of human cells".

Now I would suggest that a "mass of human cells", living inside a human woman's womb is "life" -- NOT necessarily a "being" -- but "life". And, since it is always "human", I would suggest that the contents of a human woman's womb is always "human life".

But that is not the same thing as saying that it is a human being.

"Human life", as I use the term here, refers to a biological situation. The contents of a human womsn's womb is always alive and always human. It is not dead, and it is never "fish" nor "worm".

But "human being" is a term that carries with it certain philosophical connotations -- some people will say that "human life" becomes a "human being" when it obtains a soul. Others will say that "human life" becomes "human being" when it acquires awareness or sentience. And, as you correctly point out in your original post, there can really be no agreement on this issue, because no one can demonstrate when "human life" becomes "human being" -- in part, because we have no objective criteria by which we can judge what is "human being" and what is not "human being".

It seems to me that your question about when "life" begins is a biological question.

Once the definition of "life" is agreed to, then it is fairly easy to arrive at an answer to that question. But, it seems to me that if you wish to say that "human life" and "human being" are the same thing, you will not be able to get to an answer that is objectively provable.

[cushla_machree]

146. who says we have a "soul"?

theoretically, i would say life never "begins" because it has always been.

you never truely die either, because your DNA lives on in your offspring. and DNA is the code of life.

plus i think you are missing the point on DNA "being the same as your mom's ova" of course my DNA isn't the same as my mothers, but then again it is. just rearranged and added to. i carry some identical genes as my mother, and some as my father. One does have 2 sets, one from the father and one from the mother. how they interact i would say makes you different.

[outinforce]

156. Who Says?

Who says we have a soul?

Not I, although I can see how I might have miscommunicated my view on this. In responding to Cleita's question about "When does the fertilized ova get a soul?", I gave a reponse that could lead a person to conclude that I think we have a soul.

What I meant was this: Although I cannot be certain whether we have souls or not, even if I were to say that we did have souls, no one really knows for sure when a human zygote/embryo/fetus/baby gets a soul.

I hope that that responds to your question.

I am fascinated by your observation that I will never die.

I have a cousin who died three years ago of ovarian cancer. She had no children when she died, and her body was cremated. Would you say that she never "truly died".

I have no offspring and never will. When I die, my DNA goes with me (I think). Will I then "truly die"??

And I am likewise fascinated by your observation concerning DNA, "of course my DNA isn't the same as my mothers, but then again it is. just rearranged and added to." I think you are saying that you and I could be related, since my DNA is your DNA -- but mine is just re-arranged and added to. Or am I missing something?

And I am also fascinated by this, "i carry some identical genes as my mother, and some as my father. One does have 2 sets, one from the father and one from the mother. how they interact i would say makes you different."

At what point in human gestation do the two sets of identical genes -- one from the mother and one from the father -- begin to interact? Don't they begin to interact at a very very early stage of a pregnancy -- almost right after conception? And, if that is so, then do I understand you correctly to be saying that the thing which makes you different (the interaction of the two sets of genes) also occurs at a very very early stage of pregnancy?

[cushla_machree]

177. well

Im not arguing for or against having a soul. I have no idea, Id like to think that i have one. When i was a child, it always troubled me because if i have a soul, does my dog have one as well? I could never get over that question.

As for never truely dying, I think your digging a little too deep here. You ask questions that can and probably will never be answered. If you die with no children, obviously you leave no DNA. Debating that point would be a waste of time. But simular DNA is alive and passing on in other people, of close relation or no relation. The question would be do you die only in the physical sense, or is there something more? I don't know, these debates get tiresome. But the code of life continues long after you die in other persons. hell, one could throw in that chimps have over 90% identical DNA as ours. And on and on the discussion could go..



I believe chromosomes interact right at conception. The results of fertilization include restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. Is your point being that what makes you different, makes you living? People can argue about when you are "human" or at what point you have conciousness- but the fact still remains that life begins at conception. What this means to each individual is different, however.

[jokerman93]

47. There is only life

the whole fallacy of this is the belief in a "human" soul. Religionists obsess about the start of human life as if it were somehow more divine and precious than any other "life" to which we (as a civilization obsessed with dominion and consumption) daily subject to atrocity and irrevocable harm on a planetary scale.


When does a human being come into existence? Sometimes, after many years of struggle, learning, work and yes, suffering, some human animals may develop what we could call a soul that might fulfill what it means to be a human being.

But a fetus in a womb? That's the mother's body. She must be free to choose the character and quality of her own health and life.

The whole abortion debate is fallacious and sickening.

That's my godless liberal opinion anyway -- which (as far as I know) I'm still constitutionally free to express.

[Astarho]

49. From a cultural perspective

Many cultures hold that life begins with the first breath (I suppose because respiration is one of the apparent signs of a living organism). In many languages, the words for spirit and breath are related.

Spirit (and it's English derivitive, respirate) comes from the Latin word for breath. Greek translations use Pneuma, which appears in pneumonia.

[Jane Roe]

55. "I think therefore I am"

Descartes wrote these famous words and I agree with them. I think life begins when the z/e/f, infant or toddler begins thinking thoughts of the type contemplated in Descartes' statement. The only problem is that we don't know when that is exactly.

Roe v Wade (ie, the law) basically says that life might begin as early as viability and certainly begins no later than birth.

[outinforce]

66. But......

"I think life begins when the z/e/f, infant or toddler begins thinking thoughts of the type contemplated in Descartes' statement. The only problem is that we don't know when that is exactly.

Roe v Wade (ie, the law) basically says that life might begin as early as viability and certainly begins no later than birth."

Doesn't Roe v. Wade then presume to answer a question that is unaswerable?

You and I may agree that life begins when an infant or toddler begins thinking the types of thoughts of the type contemplated by Decartes. But how do we know, with any precision, when an infant or toddler actually begins to think those types of thoughts? Can we really even agree on what types of thoughts those would be?

By defining "life" as beginning no later than the point of birth, doesn't Roe v. Wade do some violence to the notion you have that life begins when an infant or toddler begins thinking Cartesian-type thoughts?

And should you not have the right to decide such matters of life and death for yourself? Doesn't Roe v. Wade sort of guarantee, as part of the right to privacy, the right for each American to decide for him/herself the answer to such philosophical questions?

But doesn't the Supreme Court, in saying that life begins no later than birth, deny you the right to privately determine -- for yourself -- when you think an individual life begins? And if your own private, well-thought-through determination is that life actually begins at some point after fetus is born, then hasn't the Supreme Court effectively trampled your right to make such philosophical determinations?

[Jane Roe]

82. Some answers:

"Doesn't Roe v. Wade then presume to answer a question that is unaswerable?"

No, they propose to have the state legislature answer this question on a state-by-state basis. It is a sort of "checkerboard morality" like we use for criminal law and divorce laws. But, yes, they are tossing the states a question that they consider unanswerable at the present time. They seemed to contemplate that some states would err on the side of caution and that others might err on the side of freedom of choice for those presently able to make meaningful choices.

Cartesian "thought" question:

There is a lot of philosophical writing on what Cartesian thought is. I am not yet familiar with it. I just want to get inclined DUers to tackle this body of literature and then report back to see if we can build a consensus on what Cartesian thought is and how we might recognize it in others.

"Violence" to the Cartesian thought def'n:

Until just now, I assumed that the cerebral cortex developed prior to 6 mos., so up til now, I thought there was considerable violence at the early end of their definition. I feel even better about R v W then I did this morning.

Moving to the late end of the range circumscribed by R v W, I like the idea that the R v W court was unassuming enough to give the states freedom to do some margin of injustice to the late term fetus (as many states have chosen to do). Intellectual humility on the part of the federal government is a big part of federalism, and I am a federalist, first and foremost (eg, I think Lincioln should have allowed SC to secede peacefully). R v. W shows just this kind of humility that I like.

"Determine for myself when life begins":

I think the government needs to protect human rights, at the state and federal levels. To do this, it is required to, between the state and federal government, define when life begins and ends. Roe v Wade provides a framework for making such a definition, and, because the Constitution doesn't explicitly deal with the start-of-life issue, that is all the Roe v. Wade court should have been doing. They put the unanswerable issue right where the 10th amendment tells them to.

[outinforce]

86. But (again)....

I think I understand your position here, and that is that Roe v. Wade gave a great deal of lattitude to the states.

But I thought that the position of the Court in Roe v. Wade was that people had certain rights which the states could never take away. ANd I thought that the Court said in Roe v. Wade that one such right was the right to privacy. And I also thought that the COurt said, either in Roe v. Wade or in subsequient decisions, that the right to determine one's one answers to the great philosophical questions fell within the right to privacy.

In other words, while I accept your statements about Roe v. Wade giving the various states wide lattitude in crafting their own approaches to the issue of abortion, I had thought that Roe v. Wade (and some decisions that followed) limited states in many ways.

And I thought that one such limitation was that states were restricted to the extent that their actions interfered with the privacy rights of any individual living with a given state.

So my question still is this -- if you or I were to say that it is our deeply-held and well-thought-through belief that life does not begin until six months after birth, is a state which passes a law saying that ending the life of a post-born fetus (because, remember, for this example, it is my deeply-held belief that life does not really begin until some event that occurs six months after birth) is murder restricting my right to privacy by saying that I have, in effect, no right to decide the great philosophical questions of the day on my own?

[Jane Roe]

123. Answers

These are difficult question. I will do my best to articulate my understandings of the correct answers:

I think that privacy rights can only be infringed by givernment (state, fed or other) laws. (I may be wrong about this -- there is constitutional theory that says that some amendment(s) may apply directly against individuals. However, I don't think the 14th amendment and the other rights included in penumbrial privacy analysis are such amendments.)

Therefore, for constitutional purposes, the question is not: "what do I have a right to do?" Rather, it is, "what actions are the governement prevented from forbidding me?" The constitution doesn't give you a right to draw your next breath -- if anything, it only says that the government is prevented from regulating your breathing in ways which violate explicit and/or implicit rights guarantees in the constitution and covered by the shadows these rights cast.

So the question becomes, if you want to kill an infant and state law says you can't, is that state law rendered unconstitutional by your right of privacy. I am not sure that any baby-killers have yet tried this defense, and I think I know why. Constitutional rights (like privacy) are not absolute -- rather, these rights are balanced against other societal interests that states are allowed to protect.

In the first instance, the states guess at what societal inetersts are. The states guess by passing laws aimed at protecting what they believe important societal intersts to be. The Supreme Court has the duty (upon request) to second guess the states and decide if the important societal interests are really important enough. The societal ineterest asserted at various times by various states are not adjudged in a vacuum -- they are weighed against the amount that constitutional rights are compromised in a sort of metaphysical calculus that is difficult to articulate with conventional calculytical symbology. What's worse: the constitution does not attempt to list the important societal interests that can be protected -- the Supreme Court has to set its own lights there without a lot of external constraint.

On a slightly different note: It is not clear to me that states are constitutionally required to pass laws against infanticide. It might seem an anomaly that privacy rights vis-vis the government is a federal matter, but (perhaps more dear to us) rights to continue living vis-a-vis other individuals who would kill us is a matter left to the states for protection. In my opinion, this anomaly exists because we used to give the states a lot more credit for good judgement and responsibility back in the antebellum era when the constitution was mostly drafted.



A question you didn't ask:

When must the Sct define the privacy right?

The SC is only required to do its balancing act at the time a case comes up that necessarily requires the balance to be set in a certain area. Roe did not require the court to balance the rights of 6-9 month fetuses at all -- it would have been sufficient for the court to strike down the Texas law because it set the privacy rights balance wrong with respect to first trimester fetuses.

In fact, one could argue that everything Roe says about 6-9 month fetuses is obiter dicta. When the PBA act gets up to the SCt, maybe this is how they will treat Roe's "law" for the 3d semester.

Another question you didn't ask:

How precisely must the Supreme Court define the privacy right -- is absolute precision required?

Assuming that some case, someday squarely presents a balance of privacy rights of pregnant women versus the rights of 3d trimester fetuses, how precisely must the SCt perform its balance?

It may be that the very precise contours of our privacy rights are not really required to be safeguarded by the supreme Court, just so long as they make a reasonable rough cut. Perhaps a hypothetical will demonstrate the issue involved:

Private sodomy is protected by the privacy right. Public sodomy is not. If you commit sodomy in behind an open picture window opening out onto the public street, then you are not protected by your privacy right. On the other hand, if you practice sodomy in a perfectly soundproof and lightproof room, then you are protected.

The emerging question should be manifest at this point: How big, how transparent; how publicly accessable must that window be at the exact point the privacy right stops protecting your conduct?

While the cases haven't come up yet (Thompson is still too new), it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court never, ever gave numerical window area, light transmissivity and viewing angle values so that we could precisely delineate the exact contours of the privacy right. At some point they leave these questions to state laws, judges and prosecutors.

I wonder how precisely privacy rights in the context of a late term pregnancy will come to be defined as we get more physiological info re late term fetuses.


Final note: I wish people would post these things in the civil rights forum so that we have more time to think about our answers on the deeper issues.

[Az]

56. Life began billions of years ago

Everything since then has been a continuous process of that same moment. A sperm fertilizing an egg is just another step in this process and both components are an aspect of life themself. Their combination is a furtherance of this life. Everything around us is part of this dance of life. In fact life is extremely commonplace.

It is not life that is of critical interest to us. It is the rise of individuality within the sea of life. The mind. A skin cell cut loose of its origin is still life but its death means little to us on any particular scale. It is only when life expresses itself as a functioning individual that be begin to project identity upon it.

The organization of the brain represents a key moment in this on going dance. When a fetus forms a fully functioning brain there is then the potential for an individual mind to arise from this mass of grey matter. To be specific that which we are looking for is the actual moment wherein a functioning brain brings together enough information for its systems to become selfaware. That would be the moment of "life" that we seek in recognising another human being.

Unfortunately this moment is not readily recognisable externally and thus we project our expectations upon a physical external appearance. In other words if it looks like a human it may be a human being. If we collect enough secondary information we may alter our conclusion (hmmm humans don't have hinges, maybe its a manican).

Life is an easily confused subject. It is not readily defined. Is a fire alive? It consumes. It breathes. It reproduces. It can die. In the end we see that the word life is really just a preferential term applied by us to special conditions exhibited by perfectly ordinary matter.

[outinforce]

57. I Think I Understand What You are Saying

What I am a little less clear on is why you select the moment you do.

"When a fetus forms a fully functioning brain there is then the potential for an individual mind to arise from this mass of grey matter."

That is most certainly true. But if you are talking about "potential", why stop at the point at which a fetus forms a fully functioning brain?

Isn't it also the case that when a zygote begins its existence at the point of conception, the potential for an individual mind also occurs? Granted, it's a few steps removed from the point at which you select. But I am having difficulty understanding why the "potential" for an individual mind at the point at which a fetus develops a fully functioning brain is any more valid than the "potential" human mind that a just-fertilized zygote represents. Can you help me out here?

"To be specific that which we are looking for is the actual moment wherein a functioning brain brings together enough information for its systems to become selfaware. That would be the moment of "life" that we seek in recognising another human being."

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that "life" begins when the potential for am individual mind exists, or are you saying that "life" begins when a fully fucntioning brain is not only able to, but actually does, bring together enough information for its systems to become self-aware? I don't mean to be difficult here, and I really do want to understand what you are saying.

Also, if you are, in fact, saying that "life" begins when a fully functioning brain brings together enough information for its systems to become self-aware, do you have any information to show when that actually occurs? Could it occur, for instance, six months after birth? Does it occur at birth? Does it occur before birth? How do we know, exactly, when it occurs? And, if we cannot know when it occurs exactly, would one implication of the uncertainty be that each parent could decide for him/hersefl, based upon his/her own beliefs about the nature of life. And would that mean that it would be an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of parents to tell them that, if their belief system is such that they believe that selfawareness is not obtained until six months after birth, they must not "post-birth" abort their child?

[treepig]

60. well, "thought" cannot occur before the cerebral cortex is formed

therefore, a fetus cannot be thought to be "human" before the third trimester for sure.

[Jane Roe]

65. Some people put cerebral cortex formation earlier . . .

"6 months or later, when the fetal brain's higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation." 2 Carl Sagan discusses this point in his final book. He suggests that the one factor that is uniquely human is our ability to think. Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and "large-scale linking up of neurons" begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy -- the sixth month."

To read more of this interesting analysis of the beginning of life visit:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

Clarification: my quoting and linking to this site should not be taken as an endorsement of the truthfulness or wisdom of the facts and opinions there expressed.

[treepig]

68. yeah, ok

i've seen 26-29 weeks cited (suppose that's on the early end of the third trimester).


but the point remains, before that there's nothing distinctly unique about the developing fetus that would make it "human" (with "human" used in a sense different from, say, the billions, or perhaps trillions, of human cells being grown and abused in labs every day).

[outinforce]

77. I Disagree (respectfully, I hope)

"before that there's nothing distinctly unique about the developing fetus that would make it "human" (with "human" used in a sense different from, say, the billions, or perhaps trillions, of human cells being grown and abused in labs every day)."

I respectfully disagree with this statement, treepig.

There is something that is unique about a developing fetus.

And that is that it is a collection of cells that possess their own unique DNA sequence. If that collection of cells is destroyed entirely, it cannot ever be replicated. It is a collection of cells that is unique from any other collection of cells walking the planet.

You, as an individual, have your won unique DNA. If you are destroyed, that uniqueness also is destroyed. You can cut your hair or clip your fingernails, and the cells in your hair and in your nails will contain your own DNA. But the thing that is "you" can be, I think, defined biologically as the unique group of cells which is alive and which possesses your on unique DNA.

[Az]

79. It is not uniqueness that we are trying to protect

It is not particular DNA sequences that we refer to as humans. Twins share identical DNA but are different individuals. This is because their subjective experiences and minds are seperate. It is the collection of experiences recorded in the brain and giving rise to sentience that we distinguish individuals through.

[outinforce]

88. Not Exactly, I Think

"It is not particular DNA sequences that we refer to as humans. Twins share identical DNA but are different individuals."

Granted, in the case of identical twins, there are, following birth, two groups of cells with the same DNA patterns.

But, before the twins (or triplets, or quads, or quints) were born, is it not the case that whatever existed in their mother's womb was different, distinct, and unique from any other similar collection of human cells in existence? And isn't it also the case that if that collection of different, distinct, and unique cells which the twins' mother carried in her womb had been destroyed, that same set of unique, distinct, and different cells could never exist again?

It seems to me that your position is that life should be defined according to some philosophical notion -- something to do with "mind" and "subjective experiences" and "sentience".

And that is fine with me.

I just don't happen to agree.

I don't agree because IO think that it is really too difficult to define, objectively, what "mind" or "subjective experiences" or "sentience" is.

And, even if we could somehow arrive at some objective definition for any or all of those terms, I think it would be impossible to arrive at a way to measure them. How, for instance, would we be able to measure how much "mind" is enough to qualify something to be "live". I don't mean to be offensive here, but I think that in your own posts, you must realize the difficulty.

You stated, I think, in one of your posts that it was sufficient for a brain which had the potential to become a "mind" to qualify something as being a human being.

It is this lack of precision in definition and measurement that, I think, leads to a place where there is never going to be any agreement.

The question that started this thread was "When Does Life Begin"

Not "When does a Human Being Begin to exist".

I think the answer to the question of life -- or more particularly "human life" can be answered objectively and biologically.

[Az]

194. Life is not really the question at hand

Life is an on going process. My initial response to this question is still the answer to this issue. Life began several billion years ago and everything since then has just been a continuation of that moment. Everything that the molecular process interacts with becomes part of the process and thus becomes alive. That is whatever is absorbed or processed through biological actions is incorporated into the contiunation of life.

This is a long winded way of saying that life does not begin in the womb because it is simply a continuation of an on going process. What occurrs in the womb is just another stage of life.

The sperm and the egg both constitute living cells. Thus their combination is just a furtherance of life.

Your point seems to be based around the notion that this combination is unique. But the twins issue shows us that uniqueness is not our criteria for identification of an individual. It is not a special sequence of chemicals that we seek to preserve. If this were the case then we would strive to make sure that some sample of our DNA is encased someplace extremely safe. Instead we find that nearly every effort is put towards preservation of the identity that we develop within our brain.

We can survive a great deal of damage to our body and still retain our identity. Thus our identity and that which we seek to ultimately preserve is not our body(although preserving it would be preferential). Given a forced choice of keeping your arm or your brain I think most will opt to keep their brain.

It is not a question of whether that which is in the womb (or petri dish or whereever) is alive or not. It if also not a question of whether it is a unique strand of DNA. The key to the issue is to determine what it is that we seek to preserve ultimately in ourselves and project the same expectation upon a body that potentially can be expected to posess the same desires at this moment.

Thus a human body with no brain could not be said to hope to survive. We may be caught emotionally by a resemblance to a human being but in fact without a functioning brain there is nothing with which to generate a mind with.

So to conclude, there has never been a break in the process of life that lead to yours or my existance. That is we are the current end results of billions of years of a continuous process. You resulted from the union of two living things in which a sperm (a living thing) was delivered to an egg (another living thing). The joined union of these two living things constituted a another living thing. Eventually this grew into a cluster of cells which then further developed into a fetus. Once the entire work constructed a brain it began to process data and at some point soon after that sentience arose from the entire process. And that process was the beginning of your awareness. The issue then is not one of when did life start but rather what aspect of life is it that we wish to extend consideration to.

[outinforce]

209. Are You Saying then.....?

Help me out here.

You state with what I take to be a great deal of assurance that "My initial response to this question is still the answer to this issue."

"The" answer? As in the only possible answer?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying (I think) that "my" life began billions of years ago.

But that was before I had any brain or sentience.

I'm confused now.

Did "my" life begin before the birth of my parents? And did the lives of each of my parents begin before my grandparents were born?

Can you help me out here?

[Az]

211. Terms

The process, that you are the current result of, called life started billions of years ago. You are one of trillions of current end products of that moment of selfsustained chemical reproduction. Each and every living thing on this planet is part of that process. You are a unique expression of that process. We perceive ourselves as seperate from all the other life forms on this planet but we are in direct unbroken connection to the same process that began everything else on this planet (with a few recent exceptions occurring in labs).

The reason this point comes up in this conversation is because we seem to be trying to pinpoint the moment at which life begins in the womb. This is a false topic. Life transitions in the womb. It does not begin. Two living cells join together to form a third cell comprised of the DNA of two hosts. At no point in this process are we dealing with nonliving material transitioning into living material(that actually takes place in the dietary and respitory processes).

Thus the answer to the original question asked: When does life begin? is answered properly by pointing to the moment of abiogenesis when the chemical process that started our particular chain (not necissarily the first one either) started up. Everything since then has been one unbroken series of transitions from one form to another.

[outinforce]

214. Have I Been Incorrect All These Years?

I think I understand you here, Az.

You are saying, I think, that it is a false topic to discuss when life begins in the womb.

I have been telling people (since my last "birth" day) that I am 52 years old.

Have I been incorrect, from your perspective, in doing so?

Would it be more accurate, from your point of view, for me to say that I am billions of years old? I ask because I think I hear you saying that it is impossible to pinpoint the exact point when "my" lilfe began, and that "in a direct unbroken connection to the same process that began everything else on this planet" -- a process that began billions of years ago.

Can I now, based upon my age, apply for and get Social Security????

[Az]

215. Social convention

Social convention is based on that which is easily recognised by the bulk of society. Thus the first occurrence where we actually see the baby as seperate from the mother is the moment of birth. Thus your birthday is based on this date. The period of time from conception to this moment is by no means consistant. For example Jackie Chan claims that he was inutero for an entire year before he was born due to his mother's fear of Doctors. Social measurement of age is essentially biologically arbitrary. It is fixed on the first interaction with the outside world.

From my point of view the moment of conception would be the arrival of your unique genetic code. The moment that your brain became fully functional would be another marker. The moment your brain gathered enough data to achieve sentience would be the moment that the individual I now know as you arose from within the tange of matter in your brain. And the moment you were seperated from your mother would be the date I would socially wish you a happy birthday and remind you to get your license plate tags updated.

Biology is not interested in being convieniant. It is what it is and our langauge and understanding simply try to describe it as best we can.

[outinforce]

230. Thanks, Az

Thanks, Az, for your thoughtful reply.

It helped me to understand a bit better.

Thanks again.

[treepig]

80. the DNA argument is weak

after all, if you were to be unfortunate to get cancer, your cancer cells would be genetically unique - their DNA would be different from that in any other collection of cells on the planet.

however, i suspect you'd be all in favor of destroying this genetically unique human cell collection as rapidly and completely as possible.

[outinforce]

93. Good Point

I confess that I am not an expert on oncology, so I was not aware that if I had a cancerous tumor in my body, the cells composing that tumor would have a DNA sequence different from mine.

And, yes, I am certainly all in favor os destroying cancerous tumors.

But I think (or at least I certainly hope) that we can agree that there is something completely different from a cancerous tumor and an unborn child.

I think (or at least hope) that we can at least agree that an unborn child -- as a genetically unique collection of human cells -- is, at eight months' gestation is more a member of the "human family" than a cancerous tumor that has existed for eight months.

And I think (or at least hope) that we can agree that an unborn child at eight months' gestation is much more like an individual human being than a cancerous tumor ever could be.

Can we at least agree on these things?

[Az]

97. Intent vs Reality

A woman carrying a fetus she intends to give birth to is already of a mindset that she is carrying a person. She has already begun projecting an identity upon the fetus bereft of a mind being present within its body. This does not make it a person. This does not make it a Human Being.

[outinforce]

119. I Quite Agree

The "feelings" of a woman carrying a zygote/embryo/fetus -- or her own mindset regarding whether the contents of her womb is or is not a human being has nothing to do with whether the contents are or are not a person or are or are not a Human being.

But that works both ways, I think. A woman who is carrying a fetus that she does not intend to give birth to does not change the status of that unborn child simply because she does not intend to give birth to it.

[treepig]

104. clearly, cancer cells are vastly different from a fetus

the point i was trying to make is that the genetic uniqueness argument is shaky.

also, at eight months, i agree that a unborn child is indeed "human" insofar as the cerebral cortex, which is necessary for thought processes to occur, exists at this stage (and since we can't really determine for sure if thought is or is not taking place within this structure, it's prudent to err on the side of caution).

however, before the cerebral cortex forms (let's say pre-5 months), i maintain that it's difficult to justify granting the fetus status as a full fledged member of the human family.

incidently, the problem with cancer cells is that they have regressed to the point where they resemble fetal cells in many respects. for example, most healthy adult cells lack the ability to divide and grow, by contrast fetal cell have a tremendous capacity for growth (and that, of course, is the problem with cancer cells - they regain the fetal cell's ability to grow, but lack the fetal's cell mechanisms that tell the cells when to stop growing)

[outinforce]

117. OK. Thanks.

Thanks, treepig, for your thoughtful reply.

As a result of your observation, I will want to think through my own viewpoint.

I do have a few questions, though. And please understand that these questions represent an effort by me to understand what you are saying better.

"also, at eight months, i agree that a unborn child is indeed "human" insofar as the cerebral cortex, which is necessary for thought processes to occur, exists at this stage (and since we can't really determine for sure if thought is or is not taking place within this structure, it's prudent to err on the side of caution)."

I understand you to be saying a few things here. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.

I understand you to say, first, that a necessary condition for being included in the "human family" is that thought processes exist. And I understand you to say that the thought processes necessary for inclusion in the "human family" can occur if (and only if?) a cerebral cortext exists. In other words, a "thing" which may contain human DNA is not a part of the "humanm family" unless it possesses a cerebral cortext -- and I think you are also implying that the cerebral cortext must "function" in one form or another, but I do not want to put words into your mouth.

I also understand you to say that it is really not possible to know with any certainty at what point a "thing" -- even if it has a formed cerebral cortext -- begins to have "thought processes". More precisely, I understand you to say that we cannot know whether a human fetus at eight months' gestation, even if it has a formed cerebral cortext, has the "thought processes" necessary for inclusion in the "human family".

And I also understand you to say that since we cannot know with certainty whether a human fetus at eight months' gestation, with a formed cerebral cortext has or doesn't have the "thought processes" necessary for inclusion in the "human family", the prudent thing to do, in terms of determining whether such a fetus is or is not a member of the human family, is to "err on the side of caution", which I understand to be saying that such a fetus is, in fact, a member of the human family -- even though it may not possess the "thought processes" necessary for inclusion in the "human family". I think you are saying here that since we don't really know whether an human fetus does or does not meet the condition for being a part of the human family, it would be a better thing to assume that it does than the alternative -- assuming that it does not, and thereby perhaps destroying members of the human family.

If my understanding is correct, then I have a question about something else you wrote> "however, before the cerebral cortex forms (let's say pre-5 months), i maintain that it's difficult to justify granting the fetus status as a full fledged member of the human family.
"

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a cerebral cortext can form as early as five months' gestation time. And so,. because a cerebral cortext is necessary for "thought processes", a human zygote/embryo/fetus before five months gestation could never be considered a member of the "human family" -- even though it is still a "human" (as opposed to "fish) fetus.

But do I understand the implication of this correctly? If, at eight months gestation, it is "prudent to err on the side of caution", then wouldn't the same type of prudence also suggest that it would be prudent to say that any human fetus at five months' gestation, and which possesses a cerebral cortext, should also be assumed to be a member of the "human family". And wouldn't that mean a result that is more restrictive that the plan outlined in Roe v. Wade?

[Az]

126. Ah there is the problem

Roe V Wade is not based on the moral argument of whether its a human being or not. It is based on the privacy and rights of the mother. Thus it is a woman's right to walk away from the matter at any given point as no one can be enslaved to another. The more likely another individuals life is endangered by such an action the more convoluted the matter becomes. But the crux of the matter is the woman's right to control her own body.

The discussion of when life begins does not directly bare upon the legal matter. It is an interesting conversation from an ethical moral standpoint.

[treepig]

81. i think you're getting dangerously close to the "every sperm is

sacred" meme that you previously objected to.

after all, every sperm also has the potential to develop into a unique human being.

also, the stem cells used in labs have the potential to develop into unique human beings

but, in both cases, while these cells are "alive" and "human" they are not human life in the sense that you would be criminally liable for murder for killing them. so the key question is when the transition takes place - as described more eloquently by others on this thread, it would have to be when what make a human uniquely an individual - the ability to think - that "life" begins in the sense that it's worth protecting from a legal point of view.

[outinforce]

99. Potential? Who Said Anything About "Potential"??

I went back and looked at the post you were responding to, and I don't think I mentioned anything about "potential", so I am having a bit of difficulty understanding why you would think that "potential" human life has any meaning or significance for me at all.

I may be misunderstanding your point here, however.

I thought I had said that it is my belief that it is the uniqueness that could be conmsidered to define the beginning of "a" human life. I don't think "potential" has anything to do with the question of when "a" human life begins.

After all, we are all "potentially" dead, but I would think it odd if someone were to say that "potential" death is the same as "actual" death. "A" human life ends at death -- it does not end at some point of "potential" death.

"A" human life begins at some point. You, I think, are suggesting that it begins when the biological components of a human zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby have the ability to "think".

But what, exactly, do you mean by "think", and how can we know the precise moment when a human zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby actually begins to "think".

I would suggest that there is no way at all to "know" when a human zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby begins to "think". The very notion of what it means to "think" is an imprecise, non-scientific notion.

But, I think (no pun intended here), it is possible with great precision to define, for instance the point at which a human life ends. And we can do so, I think, in precise biological terms.

And I think we can also define when life begins the same way. That is what I have tired to do in some of the posts I have made to this thread.

I appreciate your observations and comments, treepig. Thanks.

[Az]

101. Its not uniqueness that drives the issue

Twins are a perfect example. A twin loses no subjective identity by having another genetic clone of themself in the world. We do not go around kulling extra copies of individuals whose DNA happens to seperate inutero. It is the rise of the mind within a brain that we percieve as the person. Not a cluster of cells in a petri dish or a womb.

[treepig]

115. thought processes require the existence of the cerebral cortex

(i believe that's a fairly universally-accepted fact)

therefore, before the cerebral cortex develops (i.e, at 26-29 weeks), thought is not possible. therefore, it can definitely be said that a developing "baby" cannot "think" before this point - after that, I agree with you that the exact moment when thought begins is difficult to define.


and, bringing up the point when human life ends stirs up a whole new hornet's nest. this issue is far from cut and dried (for example, wrt organ donation - when you really don't want a donor to be "dead" in the traditional sense of the word - "brain dead" is a much preferred option so the organs can be harvested while the heart and lungs are still functioning).

also, there's the whole issue of keeping people alive just a wee bit longer to facilitate the training of medical students (after all, experience doing procedures on soon-to-die people is much better training to doing the same procedure on a cadaver).

[outinforce]

128. As a Potential Organ Donor Myself,

I understand the conditions that need to be met in order for me to be a good candidate for donating any of my vital organs.

I understand that if I am "dead dead" -- no heartbeat and no respiration for a fairly long period of time -- I am not a good candidate for organ donation.

But if I am "brain dead" -- the higher functions of my brain have ceased to function, but my heart is still beating and I am still able -- on my own or with the aid of a respirator -- to continue to breathe, then I am an excellent candidate for organ donation.

While there may be some disagreement among people regarding whether a body that continues to breath and whose heart continues to beat is or is not "dead", there can be, I think no serious debate concerning what I call being "dead dead" -- respiration and cardiac function ceased totally for a long period of time.

That is to say, I think it is possible for us all to agree that there is a point at which "a" human life definitely ends. Some may think it ends earlier, and others may disagree. But all will agree that the prolonged absence of a heart beart and breathing means, without question, that the "human being" no longer exists, and has died.

This is why I do not consider the "death" of sperm cells or of ova to be the death of a human being. Sperm cells and ova are never "human beings", to my way of thinking.

The question of when "a" human life begins is more difficult. I know that my own mother still speaks of when she was pregnant "with me", meaning that she considers that I was inside her womb. In other words, my mother thinks that "I" eixsted before "I" was born. Not being a woman myself, I am not sure how other women refer to their children before they were born. I don't know whether the words my mother uses (pregnant "with you", "I could feel you kick before you were born") are expressions unique to my own mother's life, or whether phrases and expressions such as this are a fairly typical way of how women themselves view the contents of their own wombs.

[cushla_machree]

150. There is something that is unique about a developing fetus

are you only referring to the human fetus?

Id have to say a chicken embyo is pretty damn unique as well. What makes the human fetus any more special? early on they go through some of the same stages. I have trouble recognizing a fish embryo and chicken embroy with pictures of a human at various stages.

I always thought all life was unique, which is why i never saw a developing fetus as anything spectacular- or rather more so than any other form of life.

Plant conception is pretty darn amazing as well IMO.

the abortion line was always easy to draw for me. a fetus is part of a women for 9 months, therefore her property and not the governments to make laws upon. Taking away that right just doesn't make sense to me, nor giving a fetus rights.

[outinforce]

159. Just to be clear here

Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions concerning your own beliefs, let me ask you this:

When you say, "the abortion line was always easy to draw for me. a fetus is part of a women for 9 months, therefore her property", are you saying that a fetus is the same thing as a woman's tooth? Or her appendix? Part of her body that is her own property?

[cushla_machree]

180. to be clear

I was separating it from "property" of the state. i was using the term rather loosely. A fetus is part of a womens body just as her appendix is. Though I'd like to think people would hold a fetus above that of their appendix! But when a women gets pregnant, it is her that is carrying the child. until we develop children outside the uterus, the fact that a fetus is part of the women will not change. Americans all have different views on this issue, and being a secular nation, i think its important to respect them.

When you give rights to a fetus, your going to run into some problems. Can you arrest a mother for endangering her fetus if she drinks while pregnant? Do frozen embryo's have rights? Does every miscarriage warrant a death certificate? If a pregnant women attempts suicide should we arrest her for attempted murder on little baby sue? the fetus-rights argument just gets ridiculous.

Everyone can argue over when you become fully human, but its not going to change the fact that life begins at conception. Without a doubt. It is what this means that differs for everyone. A fetus can develop brain waves, but that doesn't mean it is a fully sentient being. potential to be one, yes. Every month a potential life dies in my uterus (each ova is unique, and once gone will never be again). If it is lucky enough to be fertilized, it may never implant or it may later miscarry do to problems of viability. Does all this mean that each fertilized egg "dies" and goes to heaven, never to live?

Religion is almost impossible to remove from the abortion debate. You have to get away from the idea that god is putting buns in the oven. To me, life is a random chance. There is so many things that could go wrong, it is a miracle that any fetus comes to term in my eyes. i think life just happens, and there is a continual march towards life and survival. Therefore i am against the government drawing up laws upon someones uterus. My body, my choice. If there is a god, he can take this stance up with me when i die. I have never entertained the thought of getting an abortion, but no one will ever change my mind that that wasn't my decision to make.

[KTM]

204. Damn !!

You know, I've been sitting here in my office readng this massive thread.. a lot of well thought out, intelligient observations and discussion, for quite some time. I'm sure my GF is wishing I would come back to the other room, but I cant tear away. I love a good, intellectual, non-inflammatory debate. (Ya think our friends at that other politically oriented site could hold such a civil discussion on this topic ??)

Anyway, I just had to stop reading and reply to your post... wait.. I hafta read it one more time....

Damn !!

That's really a great post. Well said !!

[cushla_machree]

241. thanks

this whole thread was daunting, but its nice to know someone saw mine throught the sea of other posts.

Ive had a debate on abortion on a freeper type website before. its not fun. it usually resorts to "baby killer" and links to pictures of aborted fetus's.

[treepig]

206. "the fact that life begins at conception" ????

really, you know for sure that that's a fact?

from my understanding of biology, both of the partners needed for conception (i.e., the sperm and egg) are quite alive before conception, too. therefore, your fact is not really a fact after all, just your opinion.

[cushla_machree]

240. true

but as for conception, a new life does begins. Without the fusing of an egg and sperm your not going to get a baby. thats what i was trying to say. life "begins" could be all relative, but for the sake of argument, from the moment of conception the journey of life as we know it begins.

[Az]

210. Just a slight modification

The issue of when life begins is really moot. There is no start of life within our life spans. That is to say that which makes a fetilized egg comes from two living things already. So it is not a start of life, but rather a combination of two unique living things. You could point to the union of the sperm and egg as the unique transition of two oranisms into one. But it is not a start of life.

We are the end results of a billion years running continuous process of life. Starting from the moment of abiogenesis and running to this very moment we are part of an unbroken series of complex organic chemical reactions. Thus the only instance of life starting is moment zero of our particular biochemical sequence.

Incidently this is not the only instance of life initiating from inorganic material. We have succesfully reverse engineered simple virie and been able to transition from static nonactive molecules into a functional organisim. Thus this would constitute a case of life starting.

[treepig]

216. just to be a pain in the ass

i feel obliged to point out that viruses technically aren't life. why? that's because one of the criteria for life is that an organism must be able to reproduce on its own. (of course, then it can be claimed that you or i are not alive, since we cannot reproduce on our own).

notwithstanding splitting of words, it really is pretty cool that a something as complex as a virus can be made from small chemical compounds.

more information from http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html

First de novo Virus Synthesis

In a Science magazine report this past summer, Eckard Wimmer, Jeronimo Cello and Anika Paul, Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, described the first de novo biochemical synthesis of a virus, based on published gene sequence information and using "off the shelf" commercially available DNA material. The implications of this historic achievement for making much larger viruses or bacteria from scratch are not immediately clear; the genome sequence of the poliovirus is very small in comparison to viruses such as smallpox. The theoretical possibility that current knowledge could permit the creation of potential agents of biological warfare generated intense media interest around the world.

The project was supported by DOD's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but its significance goes well beyond the current urgency. Prof. Wimmer, whose laboratory has been studying poliovirus for three decadesand who worked with his colleagues for two years on this project, points out that the emergence of polio epidemics in the early 20th century highlights the complexity of policy issues related to biomedical progress. It is a powerful irony that the epidemics are traceable in part to modern hygiene, which broke the chain of natural immunization that had previously provided protection against this then-near-ubiquitous virus through a combination of infant infection combined with defense by maternal antibodies. A public health condition unprecedented in world history will be created when the approaching global eradication of wild types not only frees the world of poliovirus, but the consequent termination of vaccination programs thereafter produces a world population devoid of poliovirus antibodies.

[Az]

218. Agreed however

The virie was in fact the first attempt at this. I believe there were further experiments on some simple bacteria but I am not finding the corobarating articles so I backed it down to the viral experiment that I was aware of.

TIGR has been doing some experiments along this line and were ready to roll on the bacterial version of it several years ago but halted to consult with various ethical consultants due to the implications. I believe I heard they did proceed with the study and were succesful but an reluctant to post it as fact if I cannot confirm it.

[treepig]

222. what TIGR did was make a bacteriophage

basically, the polio virus took three or four people two years of effort to make.

TIGR had a streamlined method that is much quicker (one person in two months, or something like that). however, there were objections about constucting viruses that infected humans (you know, aiding and abetting the terrorists). so what the TIGR people did instead was make a bacteriophage (a bacteriophage is a virus that infects bacteria and is absolutely harmless to humans, hence the bioterrorism concerns do not come into play).

as far as making a bacteria from scratch - there's no way that can be done right now. perhaps the genome could be made de novo (some bacteria have genomes of "only" around 1 million base pairs, which is still 100x larger than the polio virus, but probably doable). however, unlike viral dna which comes alive in the proper host cell, bacterial dna will not do so, you have to provide the complete complement of proteins, metabolites and membranes, all in approximately the correct stoichiometry. right now people are still trying to figure what all of these components are - once that is accomplished (which should be in the next year or so), somebody could make everthing and put it together and see what happens. the synthesis of proteins is not trivial however, and the whole project would probably require funding at the level expended in iraq for three or four days, and god knows the country can't afford that.

[Az]

223. Ah, thankyou

I feared I may have been fastforwarding their research a bit. Thanks for the info. It does strike the right bells my memory was tripping over.

[outinforce]

72. I'm Afraid....

I'm afraid I don't understand, treepig.

If the contents of a human woman's womb is not "human" before the third trimester, what, exactly, is it?

If it is not correct to call it a "human" embryo or a human fetus, then is there another more correct term? Is it a "worm" embryo? Is it a "fish" fetus?

What is it if it is not "human"?

[Az]

78. Human being

Human is hopelessly too wide a term for this discussion. It can mean any number of things. A skin cell from a human is certainly a human skin cell but it is not a walking, talking, human being. A stomach is a fully developed organ but it is not a human being. A cadaver has everything a human does but is not a human being. A fully functioning body without a brain is not a human being.

[Az]

61. Reasoning

The criteria I use is not one of that which has the potential to have a mind. This would be in line with the antichoice crowd stating that a fetus is a potential person. Rather the criteria I am siding with is that everything biological and physical must be in place for a mind to arise from. Thus the existance of a functioning brain is a potential source for a mind to arise from but does not mean one has arisen.

It is a necissarily grey area because we simply do not have the means to pinpoint exactly when all the interaction of the wiring within the brain gives rise to a coherant self. Thus from a legal standpoint we attempt to determine when the minimum requirements are met and draw the line there.

[Jane Roe]

58. So any group of beings can be denied human rights . . .

because there is no meaningful boundary between humanity and non-humanity, no external criteria by which to judge who the 'true' hmans really are?

This sounds like a dangerous political philosophy to me. Sounds like the type of philosophy that leads to things like Negro slavery, infanticide and Holocausts.

On edit, further thought: maybe "expresses itself as a functioning individual" is your key criterion for human life. What does "expresses itself as a functioning individual" mean? Is it something that automatically starts happening the second the umbilical is cut? Does it stop happening when a person become old and listless in a nursing home bed?

[Az]

74. There are no inherant rights in the universe

Rights are an agreed construct we have created for interaction with others. Thus if the systems of morals and ethics we decide as a group to adhere to include not recognising other sentient things as individuals it is ours to define. And yes this is dangerous. Unfortunately we do not have an instruction book for living handed to us at birth. We have had to devise our own means of both understanding and surviving the world around us.

The best we can do is strive to understand the world around us as best we can. Find the systems and methods which seem to work the best for the greatest number. And be as open as possible to the issues that others may have that we can learn from them as well.

Specifically refering to the methodology of determining life I mentioned I fear the terms I use may seem cold and unforgiving to some. However it is simply an attempt to examine the things we have learned about life in conjunction with our social/psychological reactions to things. Thus that which we are trying to protect under the overly broad title of life is actually functioning human beings.

A functioning human being is that which has developed to the point that a mind has begun to arise out of the brain that the body has developed. Once established we extend certain rights unto this entity and certain considerations. We have learned that this process can be interupted and restarted again under certain circumstance. Thus a body that enters into a coma, while currently a nonentity in reality, is extended rights of a being in the hopes that biology or medicine will return them to a sentient condition. However if in time it is realised that sentience is not going to return a descision must be made which will be emotionally difficult.

Consideration of the individuals associated with a declining individual must be taken into account. As we are not able to directly experience the subjective experience of another we project our learned identity of them upon the physical representation their body represents to us. Thus their body retains our identity of them whether the individuals mind remains therein or not. To simply rip away their hopes and love because we have a means of stating that their mind is no longer present is to painfull to warrant any benefits possible. Furthermore the decline of a mind is not always swift.

Another caveat is the fact that sometimes an identity can be severed thorugh illness or injury. That is the brain can be damaged in such a way that the memories and identity that once resided there are destroyed yet the brain continues to function. A new identity eventually esteablishes itself. This identity has no less a right to exist.

[Jane Roe]

124. Is there a firm basis for saying . . .

that the Holocaust was wrong?

That Negro slavery was wrong?

If there are no inherent rights then there would seem to be no basis for moral condemnation of these phenomena.

[Az]

132. It is a vexing problem

But in the end the only thing determining right and wrong is social consensus. Morality and ethics come about through a combination of two aspects. One is our own personal perspective. That which we find benificial to ourselves. Second is the society in which we find ourselves. What allows it to function best is determined to be good.

Our personal experience is static. That is the determining factors of what we experience as right or wrong stay relatively fixed. That which hurts us is bad and that which improves our lot in life is seen as good. But societal values are more fluid. They accumulate knowledge of how past behavious affected the society. Thus at one time it may have been considered good to keep other humans as property but now is scene as being evil.

It is the ability to project our own sense of self onto others that drives societies learning curve for ethics. While seeing certain peoples as nonhuman one is able to distance oneself from the notion of being enslaved. Thus sympathy is withdrawn from such victims. However as understanding that they are no different than anyone else increases projection of self onto them takes hold and the notion of slavery becomes less defensible within the social context.

Our society is moving from an ethical basis that believed its foundations were set in concrete within the universe to one that realises we must work out for ourselves what is right and wrong. It is only in a fixed dogmatic ethical system that you could deem one set of people as trash worthy of execution. In an open system that learns as it goes such a notion would quickly fall apart as more and more see their common ties with these other people.

The trouble for many is that such a relativistic moral basis seems to lack a high ground from which to condemn others. Condemnation is part and parcel with the older dogmatic style of morality. It implies that these individuals are Evil and deserving of destruction. Relativistic approaches would suggest that their actions be condemned and a means of correcting their approach be sought. If a society finds that an individual or group cannot be brought into line with what is current accepted norms then it is expected that it is capable of defending itself should the need be present.

[outinforce]

135. You Understand, Of Course....

I hope this post is not considered to be hi-jacking this thread, but since we have a discussion elsewhere in this very thread on the number of angels and pinheads and dancing, I think I am on pretty safe ground.

As I was saying, you are aware, Az, that your view of the nature of human rights is very much at odds with the views held by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

They held that all men and women (well, actually, they did say men) were endowed by their creator with certain rights that could never -- never be taken away. They felt that human beings had certain rights, just because they were human beings.

Among those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That gives me at least a way to condemn Negro slavery and the holocaust that is completely independent of whether anyone else agrees with the "badness" of it or not.

Both Negro slavery and the holocaust took away the rights that human beings have. And THAT is ALWAYS wrong. Always.

[mulethree]

171. hmm

Well if you take out the part about being endowed by the creator, and put in instead, something like "this collection of wise men believes that the best basis for a civilization would be if we all granted each other" ....

Then I think you are back into the previous excellent posts.

[outinforce]

232. But That is Not What They Said

Thanks for your response, mulethree.

I appreciate the issue you raise, but I would suggest that what the framers of the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had in mind was a bit different from what you suggest.

You suggest (I think) that if one removes references to a "Creator", then what one is left with is "this collection of wise men believes that the best basis for a civilization would be if we all granted each other"

My own view is that the framers said something much different, and much more "reviolutionary".

They did not, I think, say that certain rights are "granted" to human beings by other human beings.

They said, as I understand it, that human beings have -- simply because they are human beings and irrespective of what "rights" other human beings may "grant" or "agree to give" -- some basic rights which can never ever be taken away.

This concept, I think, was (and still is) one of the most revolutionary things about the US Declaration of Independence. It says that no king, no monarch, no tyrant, no President, no Congress, no one at all can take away certain rights that any person has. And it says that the reason no one or no government (or, for that matter, no church or religious organization) can take away certain rights from any human being is that human beings have, as part of being human beings, these rights.

It is on that basis that I am able to say that slavery or the holocaust is wrong. Both reduce people to "things" -- and both attempt to remove basic human rights.

[Az]

195. Ah but we do not live in a vacuum

The founding fathers were indeed wise and ahead of their times. But they still struggled with concepts that we have overcome since then. They could not clearly argue that slavery was wrong. Our social fabric has changed since even then.

But if you are looking for a concrete path to keep the documents alive then one need only remember that none of the founding fathers sprang fully formed into this world. They were all born of parents and they and the rest of society around them constitute both their creators and the structure from which we draw our morals, ethics, and ultimately rights.

We are all part of a continuing process that has developed civilizations, societies, ethics, morality, and from all this we derive our understanding of the universe around us as well as how we are to treat our fellow human. Thus each generation is created by the generation that precedes it. As are its frameworks and boundaries to be respected or challenged as each generation explores the world further.

[mulethree]

176. well

I think all life has the right to try to survive.
Long term survival usually being procreation, the right to try to procreate.

Hmm what if that life form is a cancer cell, or a country or a world?

[Az]

196. Will vs Right

All life (nearly by definition) will try to survive. There is nothing inherant to the universe that says it has a right to. Rights are abstract constructs and as such are created and maintained within our minds. So just as a beetle does not have an inherant right to survive it does not realise the question even need be asked. It is not a concern as it does not create such conundrums for itself to have to struggle with.

[XNASA]

59. "Life Begins at the Hop...........

Boys and Gurrrrrrrrrrlllllssssss"

[Jane Roe]

67. More of Partridge on Parturition

Maybe:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 senses start working (then there's liiiiife).

[outinforce]

71. Are You Talking About ....

Are you talking about a building in Hanover, N.H.?

[Solomon]

63. Jeeez. If life begins in my nuts

then I am a mass murderer on a scale that would make Stalin, Mao, and Hitler blush. :wow:

[ieoeja]

64. Around 4 billion years ago.

On Earth, that is. No idea about the rest of the universe. And then, of course, there is whatever existed before the universe to consider.

Why can't you ask an easy question like, "what's the answer to life, the universe, and everything?"

[outinforce]

69. Answer, If I Remeber Correctly.....

The answer to the easy question you pose is, if I remember correctly...

42.

[libview]

70. right after your first marrage

[elfwitch]

73. Old Jewish Joke...

When does life begin accoring to Jews?
After the kid graduates from medical school.

[Hubert Flottz]

75. When one is Born Unto A Bush female!

Anything less would be UNCIVILIZED!

[Indiana Democrat]

84. The second God creates life...

...Which I guess is at conception.

[treepig]

89. i'll say a big hearty AMEN to that

and now please come join me in my campaign to get "civilized" countries like canada and the uk to rethink their dreadfully permissive stances on stem cell research

[elfwitch]

90. really?

Two cells, ten cells, one hundred cells, one thousand cells, have the same rights and privileges as and entire human being?

Two cells, ten cells, one hundred cells, one thousand cells, has a soul?

Two cells, ten cells, one hundred cells, one thousand cells, is more important than the woman carrying it?

REALLY??

[Indiana Democrat]

96. If God creates life...

...I am sure he could make sure two cells that will one day be a baby have a soul.

No?

[elfwitch]

113. how about this?

If God creates life, wouldn't he wait to put a soul in to it until he was sure it was going to come out and be a real person?

What would be the point of putting a soul in to every clump of cells?

Did you know that the average woman in her life cycle has at least three fertilized egg clusters that never even attach to the lining of the uterus? Three cell clusters that were an egg and a sperm that came together and made "life" as you define it. Three cell clusters that a woman's body rejects outright for an unknown reason. Should we mourn the loss of each of these souls that never got a chance?

Don't you think God would be wise enough to hold off until the soul has some place to stick to and possibly actually breathe real air?

[Indiana Democrat]

131. You're trying to assume what God would do?

If that's what we're doing, then why does he kill puppies?

[elfwitch]

134. Why not, you are trying to assume God's intentions...

All of these arguments about when life begins are just different ways of framing a very personal belief based issue. Since there is ABSOLUTELY no way to prove this issue once way or the other, doesn't it all just boil down to belief?

So then what we have is a situation where you say your belief is more correct than mine. If you believe that life begins the second egg and sperm collide, the that is your prerogative. If I believe it doesn't then that is mine.

All the trouble happens when people legislate beliefs. Even worse is the use of language to frame an issue. "She's a baby, not a choice" comes to mind. The second you say that two cells is a baby, you have framed the issue as murder.

Should a woman be convicted of murder if he body aborts on it's own? Is it murder if a woman is 2 weeks pregnant and a friend accidentally knocks her down and she miscarries?

If you believe that it is really only justifiable in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, so on.... Then you are on their side.

If you choose to look at a zygote as a baby, it is your right. If I choose not to, it is mine. The second your choice is mandated to override mine, there is a problem.

Beliefs should not be law.

[Indiana Democrat]

153. I don't think it's "Justified" in any case.

In other words...Why kill an unborn baby because it was conceived via rape? What did the baby do?

As for defining it as a "Zygote" or any other medical term...

The ONLY time I hear that is when abortion is being discussed. I've never heard someone say: "Honey, I'm pregnant, there's a beautiful little zygote growing inside me". Nope...It's always a "Baby". Until someone wants to abort it, that is.

I think that says a LOT.



That being said...

I'm Pro-Choice...Just not strongly so. Personally, I don't like the issue and wish it would stay the way it is now and go away AS an issue.

If that means anything.

[elfwitch]

217. Would you try to talk a rape victim into keeping the product of the act?

You really can't be saying that?
Would you? I don't know if you are male or female, but if you are/were female, would you keep the product of a violent assault on your body?

We'll even use your language for a minute. Should a baby have to be born in to a world where it might eventually know that it's father committed a criminal act against it's mother? Should a woman be forced to carry around a reminder of that action for nine months? Should she have to go through all the body changes and health risks because someone attacked her? Don't you think that the woman would hate that baby? You might even argue that she wouldn't have to be forced to keep the baby, she could give it up for adoption. Should she have to put her body though all that even for that reason?

That would be horrible. Women are not baby machines. The second you give the fetus the same or more rights than the mother, that is what you are doing to her. You are turning women in to life factories.

Regardless of when life begins, it cannot be sustained without the mother. A mother's rights supersede what she is carrying until it can survive without her.

[Indiana Democrat]

220. "The Fetus" you say.

I say "Baby".

And again...The baby did nothing wrong...Why kill it?

As for "Hating the baby because it was conceived via rape"...

Kill the baby and that's convenient. Allow the baby to live and it might discover a cure that ends the urge to rape. Or at least it has a chance to.

It's all about life...The gift of life...Beautiful life.


And to answer your first question...

I would most certainly try to talk the woman into sparing the child after she had been raped...To me, it's not about legislation, it's about hearts and minds.

[Az]

221. Would you be able

to identify the difference between a petri dish with a human (single fertilized cell) in it and a dish with a skin cell in it?

[Indiana Democrat]

224. I can't...

...but God can.

Or...Are you saying an unborn baby is just an unviable peice of tissue? Having an abortion is kind of like popping a zit?

[Az]

225. Social issues vs Science issues

We do not live life in a lab. That is we apply emotional irrational experiences to that which is around us. Further our language clouds the matter by linking emotional issues into it through association.

You seem to believe that a single cell has all the import of a fully developed human being because some quality was imparted unto it by god. I do not share this belief.

I examine the issue at hand. Attempt to determine the best moral argument within the context of the issue and what we know about it. And from there I decide what is the moral path to follow. Thus to my thinking a cluster of cells with human DNA and no brain is not a human being and should not be dealt with as such. I would hardly equate it with popping a zit but I do not equate an abortion with killing a person.

[treepig]

226. ok, you can call me god

if the only qualification is distinguishing between a skin cell and a fertilized egg (it's fairly trivial, there are thousands of labs in this country that could do so in a few minutes).

[Az]

227. Tangent

The point I was trying to make was that the typical cues we use to visually identify a human being are not present in the example. Thus there is less ground for an emotional appeal to the similarity it may bear to a fully developed human.

[treepig]

233. ok, i wasn't sure what your point was

however, now that you bring it up, visual clues themselves can be quite misleading.

someplace, (not online unfortunately) I have a four-part picture with a several week old human embryo/fetus, and a pig, chimpanzee, and another species I can't recall right now (maybe a dog?) at a comparable point in development. the point, however, is that without labeling, very few people can correctly "guess" which fetus goes with what species. in fact, just correctly identifying which one is human is hardly ever done (and no, it's not just that the human is confused with the chimpanzee - most mammalian fetuses bear uncanny resemblance to each other at certain stages).

[Sophree]

172. Yes, it does boil down to belief.

I believe life begins at conception and a soul is created at conception. I'm not trying to legislate beliefs- this is just my truth, what is true to me.

[KansDem]

85. About 5 pm on Friday...(eom)

[htuttle]

94. Life began on Earth a billion years ago or so...

..And has pretty much been an unbroken chain ever since.

Any other answer is just arbitrarily drawing lines where there are none.

[slackmaster]

143. A toast to the post

You reflect my thoughts exactly.

:toast:

[LunaC]

102. According to the IRS

you can't claim an exemption until the kid is born.

[Az]

103. Yep that ones been tried

People have tried to declare a fetus before its born.

[Misinformed01]

105. Easy. Right after the fetus

graduates from school, and gets it's own Visa card.

[Mike Niendorff]

107. I'll have to come back to this question later ...

First, I have to finish counting the angels dancing on the head of this pin.


MDN

[Az]

108. Its three

You can only get three angels on there. Any more is just silly.

[Mike Niendorff]

114. begone, heretic!

Only the savage and the heathen could possibly answer with any number less than five!


MDN

[Az]

116. Must be using

Anorexic angels.

[Mike Niendorff]

118. nonsense :)

You simply lack faith.

God is able to make angels that dance really, really, really fast.

Hence, the answer must be at least five.

Read any textbook on Scientific Fiveism. It's all laid out quite clearly in Earth's six-thousand-year-old fossil record.


:evilgrin:


MDN

[Maeve]

120. Unless the dance is a troika

Then it's three. O8) O8) O8)

[bloom]

127. I think there are millions

[Maeve]

130. sounds like a folk dance, then

Or an angelic mosh pit...

[iverglas]

166. yer both wrong

Angels dance on the points of needles, not the heads of pins.

Heads of pins must have been some heretic Prostestant variation or something.

.

[BigDaddyLove]

121. No one truly knows, but in my opinion it begins at.....

conception.

Thinking it begins at a later (more convenient) stage of development is nothing more than a way to somehow justify having an abortion....."it's just a bunch of cells; not life, so therefore I'm not really killing anything or anyone....it's only a medical procedure".

I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion....I think it's an awful thing to do, especially having been involved with it twice.

The time to decide not to have a baby is before you have sex, not once a pregnancy is involved....and 90% of the time (when rape and incest etc. isn't involved), it's used as birth control.

[bloom]

125. It's my belief

that many birth control methods go into effect AFTER conception. Even birth control methods employed by Republican, probably pro-life people.

I think there are probably many more "abortions" a day than anyone imagines.

And the only way to avoid that happening would be for everyone to abstain unless a pregnancy is desired.

Or to be gay.




For those who truly want an extreme viewpoint.

[Mr.Green93]

129. tomorrow

[beyurslf]

136. god if every sperm is a life

think of all the murders committed by teenagers alone in their beds.

[apsuman]

137. If I may

Pro-life types think that the unborn are all of the following:

1. Life
2. Human Life
3. a person

Now, the first two positions are are a priori (sp?), I think that it is pretty evident that Wolfie thinks the question is referring to number three above.

And while I like your style, your answer is exactly the opposite of what any Dem candidate should utter. There have been many fine suggestions in this thread tho.

[Cleita]

151. Fair enough but I wasn't answering for a Dem

candidate. My position was that Wolfie's question was nonsensical and a better question would have been about when an organism acquires a soul or becomes human because it appears those were the premises he was framing his question with.

In reality, we are led into infinity about this because we don't presently have facts to prove or disprove this. I think the real motive behind the pro-life advocates has nothing to do with protecting the sacredness of life but has everything to do with controlling women. They don't trust women to make a reasoned decision about their reproductivity, so they must do it for them.

Since the same factions are also pro-war and pro-death penalty, it doesn't say much for their belief in the sanctity of life so I still have to conclude it's about controlling women.

[slackmaster]

138. Mary Ann

[Fleshdancer]

139. Can you honestly have a factual answer to a philosophical question?

I think we can all have an opinion on when life begins, but I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. We just don't know.

[Cleita]

145. This is my point exactly.

Why are news guys like Wolf allowed to ask questions like this that have no answers, but are intended to inflame a segment of the population against the candidate they are interviewing?

[bloom]

147. One would have to wonder if Wolf is employed by the RNC

By the nature of some of the questions.

[outinforce]

149. Why Are News Guys Allowed?

"Why are news guys like Wolf allowed to ask questions like this..."

I dunno, Cleita.

My guess, though, is that it probably has something to do with freedom of the press.

I'm not sure I'd feel totally comfortable living in a country where "news guys", or, for that matter, "news women" had to get permission concerning the types of questions they could ask people running for the highest office in the land.

One of the real benefits of the Internet, though, is that people like me and you can come to places like DU and voice our outrage at what we see, and enter into discussions with people who may agree with us, people that disagree with us, and folks who aren't quite sure whether or not the agree or disagree, but who just want to explore the issue a little bit more.

I don't think I have thanked you for beginning this thread, so let me say thanks. I have learned a lot by participating on this thread which you initiated. And I have gotten to "know" (to the extent one can "know" others on the 'net) some other people. Please let me also apologize to you if any of the posts I directed to you was too harsh or severe. I sometimes don't realize how I come across, and I try not to insult people who, like you, pose intelligent questions and seek intelligent and civil discussion.

[Cleita]

152. Thanks I appreciate that.

I sometimes am hesitant to post these types of questions because I am afraid they will get out of hand. My intent is to explore, not be dogmatic about what I think.

[outinforce]

157. I thought as much.

In my book, you are to be admired for having the courage to bring this subject up.

One thing about threads like this that I also appreciate -- they give me the opportunity to practice the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

That is something that takes lots and lots and lots of practice.

And I'm afraid I still don't have it right.

Thanks again for your courage and graciousness.

[iverglas]

170. allow me to *not* misinterpret your question

Why are news guys like Wolf allowed to ask questions like this that have no answers, but are intended to inflame a segment of the population against the candidate they are interviewing?

You meant, maybe, why are they allowed by their corporate masters to ask questions like this?
(I.e., not why are they allowed by law, or the gummint, or some other dreadful tyrannical mechanism?)

When interpreted that way, as I would suspect you meant it, any answer that involves free speech, constitutional rights, the wishes of democratic and peace-loving people anywhere, blah blah blah, would be just, well, one of those straw-fella things, wouldn't it?

As to the answer to your question -- why, I think you provided it in the latter part of the question itself:
to inflame a segment of the population against the candidate they are interviewing.

Might we suspect??

.

[Cleita]

173. Dupe

[Cleita]

174. I wasn't thinking about the constitutional thing when I posted this.

I was thinking about journalistic standards, which of course they don't have. It was rhetorical, like why would any journalistic outlet allow one of their journalists to ask a lame ass question like that? We know it's meant to inflame. The candidate was visibly squirming and all he said over and over was that a woman had a right to choose and Wolfie kept pressing over and over that he wasn't answering the question. It was a display of media whoredom calculated to make the candidate look like one of those abortion guys.

This is the best I can explain what I was thinking when I posted that.

[iverglas]

212. exactly - that's what I meant

You didn't say anything that provided any grounds for thinking you needed a lecture about freedom of the press ... but you got one anyway.

One can only wonder why ... anyone ... would have thought it pertinent to offer such a lecture ... or thought it wise/decent to insinuate that you might have been in need of it.

.

[outinforce]

231. You Did A Fine Job the First Time, Cleita

I assume responsibility for mis-interpreting your question. I had no desire or intention to "dis" you ion any way, and I apologize if my remarks did that.

Still, though, I do wonder about the wisdom of acquiescing in the notion that it would be ok for the people in charge of any journalistic outlet (whether CNN, ABC, BBC, VOA, The New YOrk Times, or any other journalistic outlet) the ability to "allow" or "disallow" professional journalists that work for them to ask certain questions.

I am no journalist myself, but the few professional journalists I know would, I think, take rather strong exception if I were to suggest that the people in charge of the places they work should be able to "allow" or "disallow" them to ask certain questions.

Something to think about......

[9215]

161. Very good!

and so true. :thumbsup:

[Edge]

148. I think real life begins when the baby is born.

When the baby is still inside its mom, it isn't living. It's simply existing.

[Cleita]

155. This is a point I have thought of too.

A baby is sort of a budding of another being, but not a different being until it becomes able to exist on it's own.

[Sophree]

175. A baby can't exist on its own until it is at least

4 or 5 years old.

Picking apart the difference between "living" and "existing" sounds like rationalization to me.

Pregnant women speak of having a life inside them, and that's how I see it.

[Cleita]

178. Actually, a baby can as long as there is someone there

to look after it. There would be no adoption if this were not possible. But while it's gestating, there is a point that it can't survive outside of the womb. So it really physically is still part of the mother. Now I know science has come up with ways to transplant embryos or maybe even grown them in a test tube but for purposes of this argument, let's not go there because it really isn't relevant. Now as far as souls and that argument goes, it really is up to the individual to decide that for themselves because no one knows for sure.

[Sophree]

179. But you see what I'm saying, right?

When you make the distinguishing factor of life beginning "when the life can exist on its own," you are not acknowleging that babies need the care of another human being to survive long after birth.

I understand what you're saying, too.

[Cleita]

181. My argument is about biology.

Your argument is about nurture.

[TexasMexican]

162. I disagree.

If my girlfriend (hopefully my wife someday) was pregenent with our child that we wanted, if she was attacked by someone or someone who was driving recklessly crashed into her car, and this caused her to have a miscarrage, then I would feel that it would be just the same as if there was a baby and it was killed.

Are you implying that people who are in that situation, that thier emotions are wrong? That there was no loss, since the baby wasnt living, it was just existing?

[bloom]

183. While I think it is tragic

when things happen to a fetus - car accident, and esp. someone purposely injuring the fetus through the mother, etc. I don't think there would be the SAME level of reaction that there would be if the child had been born and was living on its own.

And no I wouldn't say that their emotions are wrong... I just don't think it is the same - or that their emotions would rise to the same level of a loss.


(I say this as a mother with grown children.)

[KoKo]

165. At that "first encounter" when "love is in the eye," or as a result of a

"brutal rape" or "inscest from family member," or the result of a loving relationship where one to many children would mean the difference between food and shelter for all, or devastation.

At that point ....though....it's the "eggs in the nest." What happens afterwards is up to the "mother," and the family.

??? :shrug:

I think it's the one who "incubates" what has happened who needs to have the final word. But, then that leaves more up to the mother to have judgement than others would want to admit. And, in some cases there needs to be "family discussion" but only when it's a solid marriage and it's about "how many more little mouths can we feed and cloth and house." In that last case scenario....it would be the "Partners" choice to decide and the decision would weight heavily, I would think.

In the other cases......well....it's up to the mother to decide imho......Even if the mother...isn't always reliable for judgement...it's still up to her. She's the one whose left alone with this anyway....it's her life which needs to make the "ultimate decision," over "incubation" or "delivery" into the "unknown."

This is NEVER an easy choice for any woman. If it doesn't bite you on the decision it will come back years later as a "Haunt." So, to have "protections and councilling in place, is most important. If that's not available...then it's still the woman's choice, imho.

[CertusLaurus]

182. You are correct that the beter question is.......

when does it become human. However, the even better question (and more relevant to the national debate) is when does it deserve Human/Constitutional Rights?

I'm gonna say something here that may not be popular, but as an attorney who has studied Constitutional Law, from a legal standpoint, Row v. Wade was one of the worst decisions ever written. The fact is that the Constitution leaves decisions like these in the hands of the states, and this should be no exception. It shouldn't be outlawed, nor should it be condoned at the SCOTUS level.

The beauty of our system is that it allows for regional differences in moral standards- which is why it has lasted so long. Just like I don't want the mormans in Utah telling me what not to do, I shouldn't be telling them what to do. I know its unpopular around here, but if we don't respect each other enough to allow for our differences to co-exist (the true meaning of diversity) we are doomed.

[Cleita]

184. First, welcome to DU.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, but my view is there are some laws that should be universal and women's rights are one of these. Unfortunately the Mormons in Utah do not score high in this matter.

The problem with the abortion issue is, that it isn't about the sanctity of life but about allowing women to make the final decision about their reproduction. Even the Catholic Church prior to the nineteenth century did very little interfering in women's matters of birth control and abortion. In 1869 Pope Pius IX outlawed abortion among Catholics, declaring that the human soul was born at conception. Before this it was pretty much a non-issue.

If a woman wants to obey the laws and rules of her religion, this is what pro-choice is about, but a woman's right to chose shouldn't be determined by a state law that is made by legislators because their religion is in the majority.

[CertusLaurus]

187. Not all moral issues are guided by religion......

Moral law (if you believe in one), exists outside of religion. One's view of moral law can be influenced by religion, to be sure. However, one can make moral choices without a religious influence.

For instance, as a Christian I can't say that the Bible directly denounces abortion. I can say that it is implied that God views the fetus as a human soul, but I can't say that there is clear moral law on the issue. However, I can say that as a Father, my 21-month-old son was just as human as he is now when he first appeared in a sonogram.

Now then if I as a Father (or Mother, as my wife agrees with me) want my children to grow up in a community where life is respected, why shouldn't I be allowed to lobby the legislature in my area to pass a law the does so? Personally, I would want such a law to have exceptions for life-of-the-mother (along the lines of a self-defense argument) and rape (as a continuing/ongoing battery argument).

Most of the pro-choice arguments I hear are completely selfish in that they want the ability to choose EVEN IF the fetus could be proven to be human, simply because it lies within them. I simply can't make the argument that a life is or is not human simply because of a six-inch change in location (inside/outside the womb). I see the issue more as one's choosing to accept responsibility for one's actions rather than choosing to undergo a procedure.

[Cleita]

188. Legislating a woman's reproduction is saying that she

doesn't have the brains to make the right choice. It's simply another way of controlling women, no different than making them wear veils because veils are really not about modesty but about making a woman lose her identity and therefore easy to ignore.

Government has no business in this biological and medical decision anymore than your senator, representative or priest should be in the room while your wife gives birth.

[CertusLaurus]

189. I don't want to supress women,

I just want them to take responsibility for their actions. And no, they didn't get there alone, but you don't want the father to have a say either.

I obviously not going to convince you, I 'm just trying to let you know that there are rational arguments on the other side that have nothing to do with oppressing women or religious beliefs.

[Cleita]

190. Oh, you are wrong.

A decision like this is never to be taken lightly and it never is. It is between the woman, her doctor and family, which includes the father. But the law does not belong in this medical decision except to make sure that the physician and clinic are licensed and safe to operate in. Now that I have said this, what occurs in your family is your business, but don't butt into another family's decision.

[CertusLaurus]

191. How about a law that gives

the father a right to have a say in the decision? Without such a law, your desire that the decision be between "the woman, her doctor and family" is meaningless.

[Cleita]

193. Didn't I say family included the father?

In most cases where a woman decides to have an abortion it's because a father is pretty much not around. Either she was raped or abandoned or if she and her boyfriend were very young, they both agreed it was the best thing to do.

Still, a father cannot have the final decision. He is not the person who will carry, birth and take care of the child for eighteen years. Maybe he'll be around but circumstances change and the lion's share of the child raising will be left to the mother.

Again this thing that the father has to be included tells me that most men want the final decision. Sorry, but this doesn't work for me. It's that control issue, you see.

[Az]

199. Its not fair to the father

but no person has the right to enslave anothers body without their permission. Yes this leaves the male in a lowered position. But then I doubt that they have counted every single emission and regretted the loss of every single sperms as the loss of an individual.

[Az]

198. Responsibility

This seems to be one of the key issues argued by opponents of choice(not suggesting you are one). A woman should take responsibility for their actions. The implication seems to be that once pregnant the responsible thing to do is to stay pregnant. In my mind this is the furthest thing from the truth possible.

We have the ability to readily and safely end a pregnancy. So this sets abortion as a viable option as far as safety is concerned. The question then becomes one of what is the right thing to do. Thus we have to explore the moral and ethical issues involved in the question. It is for this reason that we discuss the nature of life and what it is we value in life. If we determine that although a cluster of cells is alive this does not make it a human being then the issue of killing them off becomes a much lower burden morally.

Thus we have a situation where a woman becomes pregnant. She has a readily available option to abort. Performed early enough there is no moral or ethical dilema. So to insist a person create another human being simply because they were careless seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility.

Pregnancy is not a punishment. We have the means and understanding to make it a very specifically decided moment in ones life. To relegate the creation of a human being to a matter of ooops seems to me to be the ultimate disrespect of life.

[Scout]

258. thank you!

:toast:
excellent post.

[RapidCreek]

239. regional differences in moral standards

do not supersede ones constitutional rights as a US citizen. When a state seeks to hamper ones rights as outlined by the Constitution it certainly falls under the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

If the state of South Dakota decides that stealing is moral and uses that as a basis to remove from its codified laws those laws which make theft illegal....there is no remedy at the Supreme Court level? Give me a break. More accurately, the state of South Dakota is not empowered to legislate morality....no state is and any attempt to create law with morality as a basis for that legislation, regardless of it's end result, would be put down, as well it should be. Legislation in this country is based upon liberty. The protection of Liberty is what the constitution is about...not enforcing the majorities opinion of morality on the minority. The foundation of liberty is that we all have the right to do whatever we want, provided what we do affects no one without his or her consent.

Morals cannot be legislated.

From a legal viewpoint Roe vs. Wade is perhaps incomplete. Or at the very least addresses only half of a situation regarding the protection of liberty.

If human life begins at inception then we must assume that human liberty does as well. The joined gametes have the same rights as the person in whose body they reside. If then a woman in whose body those gametes reside decides she does not consent to the effects this situation has on her body she should be free to decline the gametes residency and they should be removed from her body. Similarly, if a parent does not care to raise a child, he or she has the right to give that child up for adoption. If we give Jeb Bush the benefit of the doubt we will assume that those removed gametes dohave a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness....indepentantly. If we acceed to the belief that joined gametes should enjoy the same liberties as a fully developed human being, we must protect that right by making every effort to keep them alive after their removal from a womans body. Since joined gametes have no means by which to generate the capitol required to keep themselves alive or the ability to express a desire to pursue that course, the same considerations and arrangements must be made as would be made for a fully developed human in similar custodial dependant circumstance....and their continued survival would derive upon the effectiveness and scope of those arrangements. Such a system would require funding....and that funding would necessarily fall upon the state....until a different interested sponsor might volunteer or the gametes should develop into an 18 year old human being. In short such funding would be drawn from the tax base. It follows that before that funding could be drawn from the tax base it must be present.

While I applaud the concept of including all individuals under the umbrella of Constitutional protection....I question whether those who believe in the inclusion of joined gametes would be willing to pay the taxes necessary to fund a system designed to insure those protections in an equitable fashion.

RC

[Good Fences]

185. Life begins

at conception. EOF.

Because it begins at conception, abortion is killing.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

So if the sperm is alive and necessary for conception, it follows

that jerking off should be a crime. And wet dreams. And birth control. Conception is the POTENTIAL for life. Ask any woman who has had miscarriages.

[opihimoimoi]

192. Would ET have a Soul? Rights? Can ET get Citizenship? A Passport?

A drivers License?

[Az]

200. ET

Soul? Not unless you can provide an description of one that we can measure.

Rights? Yes. As a sentient being able to express themself they certainly should be extended rights.

Citizenship? I have no problem with that.

Passport? See Citizenship

A drivers license? No. Did you see ETs legs? He would never be able to reach the gas pedal.

[opihimoimoi]

205. LOL, "long legs"........... :o)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

186. DUPE

DUPE

[Az]

197. Are you saying

That an egg is not a living cell? How bout a sperm? Is it not an organic cell?

Every breath you take. Every step you take. Every moment you exist you kill millions of living things. Your very existance is a dance with death. It is not a question of whether abortion is killing a living thing. It is a question of deciding which things we should not kill and which things should not trouble us when we do kill them.

[arewethereyet]

203. about the "soul" question

that would be a religous one.

Can't speak for everyone but in Judeaism, it starts once the child is born.

Case in point: I thought it was odd that my orthodox jewish friends did not have a baby shower till their daughter was born, I asked why, answer is that its not real till the squeel (OK I paraphrased that).

No soul till it hits the air. This would render the partial birth abortion proceedure taboo, prior to that, no worries.

As Jesus was a Jew and did hold tothe articles of his faith, this carries over to Christianity (like it or not).

In case you were wondering.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

245. Wrong question. You don't want "life", you want "consciousness".

And that would be somewhere in the middle of pregnancy -- 4th to 6th month.

[Jane Roe]

247. Disagree

You don't want "consciousness," you want "thought." One problem with "consciousness" is that it seems to imply some degree of accurate self-awareness and/or memory, which neither fetuses nor borned infants seem to possess.

Also, under either propsed criterion, I am not sure that we know that 4th to 6th month is the time. What evidence compelled you to place consciousness in 4th to 6th?

[DEM FAN]

250. Don't YA Know. It's When The Penis Enters The Vagina.

;-)

[Hammie]

252. I think the real question is when does person-hood begin.

It is a fuzzy concept that is impossible to nail down. It is exactly analogous to asking when does middle age begin, or old age? It all three cases it is a process. Certainly very few would dispute that a newborn baby is person. On the other hand, very few would dispute that a freshly fertilized egg is a person. Even people that claim that it is true don't actually believe it, how many funerals have you been to for first trimester miscarriages? None right? So for 9 months an embryo transitions from clearly non-person to clearly person. Anywhere in between, individuals of good will can decide is the threshold beyond which person-hood is achieved. I guess in the absence of certainty, I would err on the side of caution and set the threshold kind of low, maybe 4.5 months?

[EV1Ltimm]

253. like the shirt says: at 50!! n/t

[IowaBiker]

259. At age 18.

I'm neither pro-life not pro-choice. I'm pro-crastination. Why not take some time to make this decision?

Until age 18 parents should have every right to see if the potential for life is there, and if it is not, then abort it.

"Timmy, you're Mom and I are thinking about having an abortion."

"Doooood, I didn't know Mom had a bun in the oven!"

"She doesn't, son, it's just that the one we started 17 years ago is still a little half baked."

It would solve a lot of problems.

--Brian

[outinforce]

260. Why Not? Works for Me......

I think the solution you are proposing here, IowaBiker, is a good one, grounded in the logic of the current laws covering abortion here in the United States.

Another poster, who I'm almost certain is pro-choice, has observed that "If we determine that although a cluster of cells is alive this does not make it a human being then the issue of killing them off becomes a much lower burden morally."

In other words, there is really no objective, scientific basis on which to determine that "a cluster of cells" which is alive is or is not a human being. It is simply up to "us" -- "we" determine when a "cluster of cells" becomes a human being.

We could, I guess, use whatever "we" decide in order to make this determination. Of course, one outcome that "we" would want in making such a determination would be a "lower burden morally", because "we" all want to be certain that "we" don't carry around any "moral burdens" when it comes time to kill the live cluster of cells.

So I guess since it up to "us" to make this determination, "we" can decide whatever "we" want. 18 years sounds good to me. Before 18, no one can vote, so "we" certainly do not have to worry about any electoral "clout" one the part of the "cluster of cells" that have not yet become human beings. We would, of course, have to have some sort of justification (even if its flimsy) for selecting 18 years, because you just know that there are going to be some people who will consider it an intolerable restraint on their freedom to choose when they are told that "clusters of cells" after the passage of 18 years cannot legally be killed.

I'm less sure about the means for aborting these "cluster of cells". I do know of a couple of doctors -- one is in Kansas some place -- who have been particular supportive of abortion rights, and who have come up with some particularly ingenios way for doing abortions -- especially late-term abortions. Perhaps they could find a way to crush the skull of the "cluster of cells", and then vacuum out its brains.

Just a thought.