Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[fushigi]

...

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Do you remember any of your time in the womb? Do you remember delivery? Do you remember life in the womb? Specifically, do you remember pain in the womb? That is NATURES defense mechanism for the INNOCENT child.

Really? So I guess I can't be held liable for pain caused to retrograde amnesiacs, since they won't remember what I did to them either. It's just nature's defense mechanism for an innocent victim.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: sevendogs Philosophical and scientifically speaking, life line is never disrupted. Only life generates life.

Regarding life, it's debatable whether a person who is catastrophically injured and has only motor functions for brain activity is considered alive. Though they may contribute a sperm or egg. They breath and can survive by suppliments through a needle, but is that living?

A baby at birth has some memories of life in the womb. So that is living.

An embryo that has no upper level functions is the same as an adult vegetable. They have no upper level mental functions. They are akin to insects, perhaps not even that developed.

The potential is there to grow, but at the time of abortion, those functions have not yet formed, so they do not exist.

Genetic intelligence exists however. Information passed on by the parents may contribute to future society. Would we want that information passed on?

As for "Does life exist at conception", the potential for life exists. As stated earlier, long ago when we were still part of our Sun, the potential for life existed then. We only exist now because of a narrow thread of consequences that lead up to our existence.

Personally, I've acquired some knowledge about genetic intelligence. Information passed from one generation to the next based upon genetics. There are certain combinations of genes that are being passed on that I would like to see terminated: Sloth, ADHD, and excessive hormonal imbalances (rage, irrational behavior, manic emotions, ...). I would like to see Genetic Dating become available. I'm for diversity, but the effect from drugs and alcohol are troubling from a genetic lineage point of view. Children are born whose children will be afflicted with the same emotional retardations.

Many people value the people now being concieved, but have absolutely no conscience related to the babies born 5 generations from now.

Do you realize that only 2 consecutive 105 year old people were needed to connect 1776 and the birth of our country to the present? They didn't have indoor plumbing and broad leafs were a valued asset; to both of those people.

So what is being discussed here? Is this a discussion for enlightening the human mind, is it an attempt to bind and restrict the evolution of humanity, or possibly some other more sinister attempt at propogating the corruption of the minds of people with irrational relationships.

Can you provide a rational concept if it is based upon ficticious and reasonably disputable evidence? No, so why do people keep trying!

People try to force their beliefs upon other people because they do not want to be wrong. Even at the expense of being right.

If life is reasonably disputable, then no law can reasonably be inacted to govern that disputable life.

I would say that any person willing to pay for the raising of the conceived embryo, should be allowed to transfer the embryo to a laboratory or other woman willing to carry the child, rather than letting the aborted embryo terminate.

Any person not willing to bear the cost of raising the embryo should not have any say as to the final termination of the embryo. As cited repeatedly elsewhere, if the embryo is an individual, then it is separate from the host; and must be treated accordingly.

So if a group apposes abortion, then they have the option of raising the embryo themselves. If they do not, they are as complicit as any other person involved with the abortion.

[namguy69]

I'm not disputing what you say, but life begins at conception, a side form social issues. I completely understand what your saying and I can't say I totally disagree with you because I don't.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: Really? So I guess I can't be held liable for pain caused to retrograde amnesiacs, since they won't remember what I did to them either. It's just nature's defense mechanism for an innocent victim.

The fact that there is a born, citizen victim would preclude that.

A fetus is not born, has no identity or legal standing, nor is an individual.

[kilkee]

Killing is killing. There is no other way around it.

It is the result of the feminist activists and their influence on the Canadian Supreme Court, who in order to make a decision, read Trudeau's international Charter -- for everyone in the world. Then they pompously decide that killing is not killing and a fetus is not a fetus but a pregnancy tissue.

As the population goes down and we import foreign refugee claimants to fill the jobs, we will eventually realize that our population has completely changed over to people who do not use the abortion clinics. They also have a different religion and their women wear burkas.

We may not like this eventual change but this is what is in the cards.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kikee said: Killing is killing. There is no other way around it.

So admit you're a killer.

Do you eat meat, or vegetables? Both live.
Do you wear leather? It lived.
Do you step on insects as you walk? They live.

Yes, we are all murderers.

Some deal with it more realisticly than others.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The fact that there is a born, citizen victim would preclude that. A fetus is not born, has no identity or legal standing, nor is an individual.

Hmm... guess if you can't maintain your moral justification for killing a fetus, you move to a legal one. Nice change of tack.

However, if the standard for legally killing someone is simply that organism's legal standing, I suppose if we discovered a primitive tribe living in the rainforests of Brazil we'd be within our rights to kill them?

There is also this business about being "an individual." What's your definition of an individual?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So admit you're a killer. Do you eat meat, or vegetables? Both live. Do you wear leather? It lived. Do you step on insects as you walk? They live. Yes, we are all murderers. Some deal with it more realisticly than others.

Human life is the highest form of life. We've got the brains, and supposedly the souls.

Killing for food is not murder. It's called survival.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: Hmm... guess if you can't maintain your moral justification for killing a fetus, you move to a legal one. Nice change of tack.

Who penalizes for morals?

Is that not what we are talking about in the end, about penalization for actions committed, in societies eyes?

Laws are what courts, governments and societies deal with.

What is a citizen? define:citizen - Google Search

What is an individual? define:individual - Google Search

What is a fetus? define:fetus - Google Search

There are also specific legal defintions unique to Nations, States and smaller entities.

We ALL have our own moral codes, and they are SUBJECTIVE to the INDIVIDUALS.

Society adopts a code of law, which is not interchangeable with morals.

Fushigi said: However, if the standard for legally killing someone is simply that organism's legal standing, I suppose if we discovered a primitive tribe living in the rainforests of Brazil we'd be within our rights to kill them?

What don't you understand here?

Simply because they are primitive, does not mean they don't have individual NATURAL rights, which is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by BIRTH, not conception.

If it were by conception, that would mean that EVERY birth would have to be successful. That is not the case, naturally, or artificially by human influence.

Fushigi said: There is also this business about being "an individual." What's your definition of an individual?

A born, human being, NO LONGER ATTACHED to the mother by a life-line, or umbilical cord.

[Osborn F Enready]

Marilyn Monroe said: Human life is the highest form of life. We've got the brains, and supposedly the souls. Killing for food is not murder. It's called survival.

I know this, but many of your fellow humans and citizens deny it.

Regardless, whatever the REASON, or the rationalization, murder is murder, killing is killing, and we rationalize it by the context from which we view it.

The reason we see abortion differently, is because we are all different individuals with our own contexts, requiring our own choice to be content as individuals.

Individual choice allows a person to make a choice and live with that choice being only to blame themselves for that choice. That makes the critical choices bearable, since there is no place to lay the burden but upon yourself, and the only cop-outs are the pleas of the filter of context with which we have learned, which only we have the power, and will to change.
This highlights the necessity of enlightenment and education, in the individual.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I know this, but many of your fellow humans and citizens deny it. Regardless, whatever the REASON, or the rationalization, murder is murder, killing is killing, and we rationalize it by the context from which we view it. The reason we see abortion differently, is because we are all different individuals with our own contexts, requiring our own choice to be content as individuals. Individual choice allows a person to make a choice and live with that choice being only to blame themselves for that choice. That makes the critical choices bearable, since there is no place to lay the burden but upon yourself, and the only cop-outs are the pleas of the filter of context with which we have learned, which only we have the power, and will to change. This highlights the necessity of enlightenment and education, in the individual.

A bit off the subject matter I just thought I throw this in also.
What about the terminal people? I feel they should have the right to end their life when there's no hope of survival.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Namguy, and individual rights allow that to happen.

I think any person should be able to end their life once they are an adult, and willfully choose to do so.

Nature provides that right, and there is no reason government should seek to limit that right.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn Society adopts a code of law, which is not interchangeable with morals.

And yet laws change - why? Because society's interpretation of the moral or ethical standards behind the law - or its effects - changes. That's why we debate: to ensure that our laws always reflect the most moral, ethical reflection of our beliefs.

Quote by: Osborn A born, human being, NO LONGER ATTACHED to the mother by a life-line, or umbilical cord.

And why this standard? Is it the fetus's physical connection to the mother, or its physical dependency on the mother than deprives it of status as an "individual"?

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: And yet laws change

And they also have a process for changing, and that process is limited and can't violate basic individual rights.

Fushigi said: - why? Because society's interpretation of the moral or ethical standards behind the law - or its effects - changes.

Correct, but the law must meet Constitutional requirements before being passed, and even if passed, has no merit as law as long as it doesn't meet Constituional conformity.

Fushigi said: That's why we debate: to ensure that our laws always reflect the most moral, ethical reflection of our beliefs.

Agreed, but regardless of how our morals, ethics or beliefs change, there are LAWS that require constitutional conformity, of process, and application, and language.

Fushigi said: And why this standard? Is it the fetus's physical connection to the mother, or its physical dependency on the mother than deprives it of status as an "individual"?

Common sense.

The mother, at any time while carrying a fetus, can have a natural abortion. This is a clear signal of the LEVEL of dependency the fetus has on the mother at the time until birth. The baby can die of natural means, including starvation, stress, falls, impacts, etc. There is NO WAY a government can force a woman to carry to term, by law alone. There is no way for enforcement, and punishment would be inappropriate, since the outcome is entirely dependent on the situation, and could easily be "steered" in trial by media coverage and demonization based on valued morals by a large number of Americans, namely, Christians.

It is OBVIOUS that there is no way to enforce a law to force a woman to carry if she wants to abort, to PREVENT that action. It is obvious that when abortion is outlawed, they still occur in unsafe enviroments and often causing other injury on top of the original operation. ITs obvious that if a woman really wants to abort, she has the NATURAL option.

Man has no place to step between man and nature here, as the fetus is a PART of the mother, though a seperate entity. It is a living part of the mother until delivered, and until that time, the mother is an individual INCLUDING the fetus.

A woman has an individual right to abort, if she so chooses. The government has no place in the decision, and nature provides that FACT.

This is a nation that is based on individual choice, and if doctors want to provide that option to women who choose it, the law has no right to come between them OR their right to privacy for that contracted operation.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: dotcoma I used to be pro-choice, but I thought about it for a while, and the privacy issue no longer makes sense to me. If you truly beleive life begins at conception then you have no right to privately destroy that life. It is like taking someone's life in your basement and claiming prosecution would be a violation of privacy in my opinion. So what are you feelings on this controversial social issue?

Everytime you take a breath, you destroy thousands of living things that are more developed than the blob of cells you are worried about.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Correct, but the law must meet Constitutional requirements before being passed, and even if passed, has no merit as law as long as it doesn't meet Constituional conformity.

Now there's the problem, isn't it. The reason there are so many thousands of posts on this issue. The Constitution guarantees a right to life AND liberty. So we're involved in a tricky balancing act on this one: what's more important, the life of the fetus or the liberty of the mother?

Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of life. But as you are a LIBERTarian, I'm not surprised you'd prefer to err on the side of liberty.

Quote by: Osborn The mother, at any time while carrying a fetus, can have a natural abortion. This is a clear signal of the LEVEL of dependency the fetus has on the mother at the time until birth. The baby can die of natural means, including starvation, stress, falls, impacts, etc.

All things that can happen after the baby is born too...

Quote by: Osborn There is NO WAY a government can force a woman to carry to term, by law alone. There is no way for enforcement, and punishment would be inappropriate, since the outcome is entirely dependent on the situation, and could easily be "steered" in trial by media coverage and demonization based on valued morals by a large number of Americans, namely, Christians. It is OBVIOUS that there is no way to enforce a law to force a woman to carry if she wants to abort, to PREVENT that action. It is obvious that when abortion is outlawed, they still occur in unsafe enviroments and often causing other injury on top of the original operation.

Here you're talking about logistics, which is a separate matter. This argument is too tricky to jump to that level right away and has to be deconstructed to its basic nature first. IMHO, that basic nature is a moral question, as well as the Constitutional one mentioned above.

Quote by: Osborn A woman has an individual right to abort, if she so chooses. The government has no place in the decision, and nature provides that FACT.

In cases outside some accidental miscarriage, the woman has to make a conscious decision to end the fetus's existence. Again, this is something a woman can do after parturition, so I don't see how it differentiates the two.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: Now there's the problem, isn't it. The reason there are so many thousands of posts on this issue. The Constitution guarantees a right to life AND liberty. So we're involved in a tricky balancing act on this one: what's more important, the life of the fetus or the liberty of the mother?

Its not relevant. The fetus is not a legal entitiy, a born citizen, or an individual. It does NOT meet the criteria.

Fushigi said: Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of life. But as you are a LIBERTarian, I'm not surprised you'd prefer to err on the side of liberty.

Its not just that though Fushigi, its about the clarity of the laws, the common threads that bind us. The fetus is not a child, not an individual, not a born citizen, not a legal or named entity. It meets NO requirement legally standing, to have rights, period.

I respect your "opinion", but it is an individual one, and not one that could be enforced by law in a society based on liberty of the individual, that happens to have our Constitution.

Fushigi said: All things that can happen after the baby is born too....

That is not the point. After the baby is born, the baby is a PART of the action, an individual, a named entity, a BORN citizen.

In the womb, it meets NO criteria to have rights.

Fushigi said: Here you're talking about logistics, which is a separate matter. This argument is too tricky to jump to that level right away and has to be deconstructed to its basic nature first. IMHO, that basic nature is a moral question, as well as the Constitutional one mentioned above.

Once again, morals are subjective, and have no place in OBJECTIVE law.

Fushigi said: In cases outside some accidental miscarriage, the woman has to make a conscious decision to end the fetus's existence.

Regardless of reasoning, its possible, naturally WITHOUT her conscent, just from outside factors such as stress, which she may not be able to even control. This would automatically put all mothers under the gun of penalty by simply having a natural miscarriage, and GUILT would be ASSUMED until proven innocent. THIS IS BACKWARDS.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its not relevant. The fetus is not a legal entitiy, a born citizen, or an individual. It does NOT meet the criteria.

It could be established as such by a Constitutional amendment.

Quote by: Osborn Its not just that though Fushigi, its about the clarity of the laws, the common threads that bind us. The fetus is not a child, not an individual, not a born citizen, not a legal or named entity. It meets NO requirement legally standing, to have rights, period.

It could through Constitutional amendment.

Quote by: Osborn I respect your "opinion", but it is an individual one, and not one that could be enforced by law in a society based on liberty of the individual, that happens to have our Constitution.

It couldn't? I believe it could, through a Constitutional amendment.

Quote by: Osborn In the womb, it meets NO criteria to have rights.

Again...

Quote by: Osborn Once again, morals are subjective, and have no place in OBJECTIVE law.

Except inasmuch as they can cause an impetus for the change of said OBJECTIVE laws.

Quote by: Osborn Regardless of reasoning, its possible, naturally WITHOUT her conscent, just from outside factors such as stress, which she may not be able to even control. This would automatically put all mothers under the gun of penalty by simply having a natural miscarriage, and GUILT would be ASSUMED until proven innocent. THIS IS BACKWARDS.

Slippery slope with an inaccurate foundation. Are parents automatically assumed guilty of murdering their babies when those children become victim to SIDS?

[Osborn F Enready]

You cannot USE a Constitutional Amendment to REMOVE rights, which is what you would be doing.

Removing rights VIA the Constitution and Bill of Rights, something EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Passing and amendment, if it DID happen, would violate this right reserved to the people....

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but up