Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Savant]

Heh, what crazy person would be "for abortion". I know you folks aren't sympathetic to mothers who make this tough choice and go through the ordeal, but rest assured it is a terribly unpleasant experience that stays with you. At least you have that, you choice-haters make it just a tad more terrible than it already has to be. Yay for you!

[northtexan]

Quote by: Pale RIder Quote by: Pale RIder The thing is that I am not simply voicing an opinion. I have presented plenty of legitimate evidence that we are human beings from the moment of our conception. I have seen nothing from your side of the argument suggesting in any way that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being. So, yes, you hold an illogical position because you can offer nothing in the way of evidence to support it in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary. Actually, I have presented evidence. You, and all the other pro choicers have presented opinions. .

Pale Rider, you are a troll. I see no value in continuing a conversation with a troll so lacking in integrity. I will try to find out how to put you on 'ignore.'

[northtexan]

Quote by: Savant So there you have it. Pale Rider knows exactly what humanity involves and can isolate the meaning of life. He has proven beyond any doubt that a fetus deserves the same rights as any other "person". I therefor propose that all pregnant women be immediately arrested for false imprisonment / child abuse and that these innocent fetus' be set free immediately. All miscarriages should now warrant an autopsy to determin if the mother's involvment in the death was criminal. If it can be proven that a mother's diet or activitys contributed to the demise of the person that she held captive in her womb, penalties should range from manslaughter to murder. The implications of Pale Rlder's are mind boggling. The list of crimes commited by pregnant women and absently tolerated by our ignorant society is endless! Force feeding. Suffocation. Torture - when you consider the sensory deprovation/overload of the womb. Do you have any idea how loud it is in there, OSHA would throw a fit if it were a workplace!! And don't get me started on the brutal act of childbirth. Women have been known to break a childs bones and even go so far as killing them during that terrible practice. We can tolerate this no more. FREE THE FETUSES!!!

Ah, you have made me see the light! Oh, yes, we need to bow down and worship at the alter of the embryo! All praise the great guru, Pale Rider! http://www.volconvo.com/forums/image...es/biggrin.gif

Good one, Savant.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Savant You make a good point (again), SteveA. But I wonder if the Supreme Court can replace a judgement with none.

Many people think of court precident as if it were law. It's not. Each court decision stands alone regarding a single case. The reason why the concepts of precident evolved is because, especially in the case of the Supreme Court, where representatives are appointed for life, people tend to rule similarly over time though it doesn't mean a new case can't have a different ruling.

[Savant]

Quote by: northtexan Pale Rider, you are a troll. I see no value in continuing a conversation with a troll so lacking in integrity. I will try to find out how to put you on 'ignore.'

Ahh, give the guy some credit. At least he would admit that I am not a fetus...

[northtexan]

Quote by: Kuldeep I am really tired of listening to this debate with no conclusion! First, let me tell you that you were not egg and not even sperm. Since either you can be egg or sperm, since you are one so you can not be both at the same time!!! However, Pale RIder has authoritatively said again and again, you started existing as combination of egg and sperm just from the time sperm enters the egg i.e. Conception. Although, he has not been able to reply northtexan who has asked about the "time interval" in which fertilised egg gets divided into two or more identical Zygotes , which get developed into more than one fetus later. One identity becomes two or more. It would definitely take some time for a fertilised egg to get divided into two or more identical fertilized eggs, which later gets developed to identical twins or triplets. This, very clearly shows you are not you just from the point of fertilization, but become somewhat later in case of identical twins at least!!!------- How much time it takes, is the real debate??????? To best of my understanding, no member has been able to through scientific light on this point!!!! Earlier, I agreed with Pale RIder's statement that "Individual Life" starts at conception, but northtexan's statement as mentioned above has again put a question mark in my mind???? It takes some specific time for the fertilised egg to decide whether to grow singly or first get divided into two or more identical equivalent fertilised eggs. I am of the openion that life starting and becoming "you as you" are two different things. It is because of which, I opened a new thread "Who we are in reality and at what point of time in life we become that?" To my surprise, most of our scholar members are silent on the question put there!!! Life exists both in egg and sperm as per biological science and that is why I have put the word start of "Individual Life" instead of simply "Life". Lot of energy and time has been spent by number of friends in the group to iron out what is human being with no concrete decision. I do not understand what type of human being you are trying to figure out in egg, sperm or fetus!!! So, If you are able to find correct answer to my thread question viz, who are you in reality? The whole debate will end. On some other thread, you have rightly said that we have to invent "Mind Reader Tool" and use it for reading mind of fertilised egg if it at all has one, then only we can find when it becomes individual and not other wise!!! However, if you have come out of electrical pulsating force of living cell, I would again remind you of "Thought Tool" which is actually "YOU", which is concious even without body and fetus. This "Thought Force" called SOUL enters the fetus much later after fertilization as supported by Hindu and Islam beliefs mentioned in the very first post on this thread

I had wondered when someone would bring up ensoulment. Of course, a 'soul' such as you reference ("concious even without body and fetus") can be said to be a religious concept (as you explicitly note), so should not be the basis of law: after all, even religious believers place ensoulment at different points. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to argue over ensoulment here.

Let's say that there is some 'consciousness without body' that at some point is infused into what will be a human, making it human. When might that happen? The Catholic Church declares that we do not know exactly when, but that it could be as soon as fertilization, so nothing should interfere from fertilization on. Many Protestants claim that ensoulment occurs at fertilization -- althought what Biblical support for that position they may have, I cannot fathom. I have heard others argue explicitly for the moment of implantation -- which does avoid the twins-sharing-souls conundrum). The traditional Christian and Jewish view was that ensoulment was at 'quickening,' when the fetus began to move in the womb. As you note, other religions place ensoulment later, as late as at birth. Which of these definitions might be right (assuming as we are that souls do exist)? I will note the argument of a poster on another DB (long since discontinued, and I never knew her name). She argued that ensoulment occurred at brain birth. The analogy she gave was that a soul being ensouled into a fetus before brain birth would be like a 747 buzzing around a new airport trying to land, when the runways had yet to be constructed. I love the analogy, and I will make an argument for the position.

Let's continue to assume that a soul exists that accounts for our consciousness, that is therefore to some degree independent of the brain and nervous system, as well as of the rest of the body. Now we do know that consciousness may continue even if cut off from sensory inputs, but that it suffers from such treatment (e.g., as shown by experiments in sensory-deprivation tanks). What would consciousness be like before it had ANY sensory input? And what would it be doing before it had any sensory input, or output? Now, whatever one thinks science has explained about the contribution of the brain and nervous system to consciousness, it has demonstrated very conclusively many of their functions with regard to sensory input, and output -- and this includes that the brain organizes sensory inputs. Thus, before there are any nerves at all (as in an embryo), there are no sensory inputs; but more importantly, before there is a working brain, there is no organization of sensory inputs into sensations, into views of one's environment and feelings of one's own body. Thus, a working brain, connected to at least some parts of a nervous system with active receptors, would be a sine qua non for sensations of the world on which a soul could act. In consequence, I argue that the most reasonable points for ensoulment would be at the moment of or after brain birth. The soul might COME independently of the body, but it has no function without a working brain.

Now, let's relax the assumption of the existence of a supernatural soul, or a soul independent of body. In fact, many of us do think in terms of consciousness and self-awareness as being a functional equivalent of a 'soul' -- albeit, not independent of the body and a functioning brain. In this sense, a soul would be seen as a process of the brain. At what point might such a 'soul' exist? Well, we don't know, because we have no machine nor protocol to see into the brain of a fetus, of a newborn, or even of a one-year old -- although as a child learns to communicate, we can begin to question them about what they think, so have some insight. As I have said, I can see giving the benefit of the doubt to the brain-born fetus, because I don't know what said fetus is capable of. What about a newborn? Well, from the moment of birth, not only is the baby free of the mother's body (though very dependent on what is most often supplied by the mother and her body), it is acting on its own in the world -- e.g., breathing. As I understand it, scientists have shown that newborns have an inborn ability to recognize the human face; and newborns quickly learn to identify the specific faces of those who care for them. Thus, the newborn is in active social interaction, building its abilities. I don't know whether it is in any sense self-aware so early in its life, but it is clearly using its brain to learn to get along in a social world, so to build to consciousness and self-awareness if it doesn't already possess them. We do know that consciousness will change over the first year or so of the newborn's life, as the brain restructures as its grows in that year. But even if the brain function is transformed well after birth, this does not in any way invalidate the functioning that it did before that transformation -- in tact, that functioning is apparently essential to a successful transformation and to the further maturation of consciousness. I therefore cannot hold with Pale Rider's assurances that self-awareness and similar functions are acquired well after birth -- they were at least in process before then.

So, whatever one's definition of 'soul,' I argue that it is most logical to see ensoulment as occurring somewhere between brain birth and baby birth. But of course we cannot definitely establish this to everyone's acceptance, because we are speaking of philosophical and moral arguments, not just of scientific findings (despite Pale Rider's silly argument that his philosophical view is wholly supported by science).

[northtexan]

Quote by: carriew it may not state one but it will be loud and clear. if they go againts roe vs wade wont abortions go back to being illegal? because they were before hand. the only thing allowing abortion clinics to run is roe vs.wade. oh and did anyone know here (i can find a link if need be) that the roe is no longer for abortion...

Abortion was originally outlawed in this country because of, or at least with the excuse of, it's being an unsafe procedure. That is, it was outlawed as a threat to the physical health of women. By the time of Roe v. Wade, this was no longer the case; in fact, birth was a greater threat to the physical health of women that was abortion as provided by qualified medical providers.

But I'll tell one thing that this country will revert to if Roe v. Wade is overturned: as some states rush to make abortion illegal once again, there will again arise back-alley abortions as an illegal industry, displacing the current safe, legal abortion clinics. Many women will suffer and die due to the back-alley industry, just as they did before Roe v. Wade.

Both Roe and Doe, the original plaintiffs in the cases that went to the SCOTUS, have since renounced their support of abortion. However, it was their CASES that went to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS decision that delivered women from their horrible situation before Roe v. Wade. What Roe and Doe now think is totally irrelevant. Various posters on this board have noted that they have changed their positions on abortion over the years; that has also happened with Roe and Doe.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant I won't pretend this is a debate for you Pale Rlder, so I'll leave it at its good to see you at least admit there are differences between human things. I was once a human sperm and will someday be a human corpse, if only time did not exist your argument would be a very strong one. I would have the same value the entire time. Sadly the value of a life, and particularly a human life does rise and fall with time. Its why kids have less rights than adults, why seniors get a different menu at Dennys, and why interests of blobs of cells are represented by their hosts.

Actually, if you understood the biology of human development, you would not say that you were once a human sperm. The sperm that contributed half of the chromosomes that make up your DNA fingerprint was a cell that belonged to your dad. And the egg was a cell that belonged to your mom. Upon your conception, both sperm and egg ceased to exist. You have never been anything but what you are and you were never part of either your father's body or your mother's body. The cells of their bodies can be easily idenified as belonging to them via DNA testing. Just as easily, any cell from your body can be identified as not belonging to them. Related yes, but not now nor ever part of their bodies.

Actually, kids have fewer priveledges than adults. They have the same number of rights. Rights generally don't depend on age. Especially the right to live. Learn some biology. We can talk about what you have learned.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: northtexan Pale Rider, you are a troll. I see no value in continuing a conversation with a troll so lacking in integrity. I will try to find out how to put you on 'ignore.'

Nice try, but you have presented no evidence to support your position. Call me names if you wish, but the fact remains that you have not substantiated your position in even the smallest way. Is this how you take it when you are proven wrong? Name calling? And you say that I have no integrity. At least I presented evidence to support my position.

Quote by: northtexan Ah, you have made me see the light! Oh, yes, we need to bow down and worship at the alter of the embryo! All praise the great guru, Pale Rider! http://www.volconvo.com/forums/imag...ies/biggrin.gif Good one, Savant.

I love the smell of senseless sarcasm. Smells like....VICTORY!!

Hope it makes you feel better. It only shows, however that you can't defend your position. Must be frustrating for you. I know it was for me when I was a pro choicer and came up against someone who mercilessly tore down every argument that I could present. I did an enormous amount of research trying to prove that I was right and he was wrong. The more I learned, the more evident it became that I was quite simply, wrong. Being a thinking person, I had little choice but to adjust my position. Guess that is the difference between you and me. I am a thinking person who can't justify holding a false position.

Quote by: SteveA Ahh give the guy some credit. At least he would admit that I am not a fetus...

But you were one and you were just as human then as you are today.

Quote by: Steve A There's more than a paper argument involved, there are physical difficulties in attempting to place a fetus into the custody of society (and who would the new mother be) but if we wanted to argue genetic differences from the mother, there are likely millions of cells in your body that have different genetic codes, even if they aren't cancerous. I'm not going to go save them from being killed if you decide to shave. And if you claim they are alive, I've heard vegetarians argue the same things in defense of various animals yet feel little need to step up to their defense. If you want to argue that the cells have an independent soul, it first needs to be proven (and even then I'd still likely be skeptical). If they have an independent life somehow, what differentiates them from embryos in other animals and does anyone even remember anything about what such life was like in the womb? No, so we have no first hand accounts. A cluster of cells doesn't seem human in any typical sense and there's no consciousness because it takes neural pathways that don't exist at conception to have mental functions. But personally, my greatest worry is that these views will be abused similar to this: http://economichumanrights.org/face...issaroland.html

Actually Steve, all my cells, and all your cells, even cancerous cells are easily identifiable as your cells. They all have the same DNA signature.

Are you suggesting that because it might create some difficult paperwork that it is better to kill them? Homeless people cause difficult paperwork, should we kill them as well. And while your link is a sad story, it is clear that this sort of thing happens even with Roe firmly in place. I don't think that you can demonstrate that it would happen more often if Roe were reversed and even if it would happen more, it is still a poor argument to suggest that it is better to kill them than take the chance that they MIGHT get caught up in such a situation.

I have not argued for or against the existence of souls. That is something that you are bringing into the discussion.

Memory? You believe that you must remember in order to be human? You have no memory of being an infant but you were one and you were a human being. You have no memory of being born but it happened and you were human before it happened and after.

If that "cluster of cells" isn't human, it should be no sweat for a bright guy like you to provide some evidence (other than your opinion) that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being in one stage of development or another until the day he or she dies. Lacking that evidence, all you have is an opinion in the face of some pretty substantial scientific evidence.

Quote by: Steve A The possibities of such things happening are removed when a strict wall of separation between state and family is securely in place.

It is a bit late to be worried about government being involved in your life. I dare say that you can't name even three things that you may do with no government involvement without going into the most mundane aspects of your life.

Quote by: Steve A Whereas, there's little fear of rampant abortions destroying my children unless others claim a natural right to encroach on private family issues. If government is granted authority over unborn life, it can easily decide to take it away, and has done so in some countries already. But most of all if I tried to take it upon myself to protect people in Mexico, Canada or New York, I'd likely find a lot of people uninterested in my assistance unless they were asking for such help.

If government can claim that a particular group of human beings are not human beings and proclaim that they have no right to live, then we have already passed the point that you claim that you fear. If one group of humans can have their right to live denied, then any group can. If you fear the government suddenly deciding that you have no right to live, then, logically, you should be pro life. Your argument is contradicting itself.

Quote by: Steve A I agree, we need government to provide services like protection of life and property etc. because we paid for it and likely most people wouldn't have agreed to support such an endeavor if it didn't. But people who may claim to represent the interests of things that have no voice or perceptible desires (at least to me) goes beyond what seems any legitimate representation of governmental. Like I said before, I'd agree that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned but not because everyone should declare abortion illegal but because it's not an issue that can be resolved adequately at a federal level, IMO - some people may wish to disallow abortions while others allow it and it seems purely a matter of faith as to what is right or wrong.

I agree with you in principle on at least part of this statement. If Roe is overturned the decision will revert back to the states and then We the People will have the opportunity to have our say. That is what has caused this conflict in the first place. Nine robed judges should not be making such decisions for the entire nation. There was never such a conflict in Europe over abortion even though there are plenty of people in Europe who are against abortion because the people (via their representatives) made the decision. It wasn't just decided for them by some unelected judges.

When Roe is overturned, I am sure that some states will allow abortion but I doubt that abortion on demand could even pass in the most liberal states. When we have our say via the legislative process (even if it doesn't go the way all of us would like) I believe that abortion will be diffused as a national political issue.

[SteveA]

PaleRider, I apologize for having gotten caught up in the whether or not abortions should be legal debate. I got sucked into the details and admit I'm not supportive of abortions, just like I'm not supportive of drinking alcohol, gambling, or public education.

So let's assume that yes, me and you decide abortions should be illegal we talk to our wives, and they agree and even get most everyone on the block to agree. What does that mean and how does that tie into government? Obviously, if we talking about preferred house colors there'd be little need to have everyone paint their houses the same color (unless they wanted to). Now if there was some threat to our safety or security, we can easily institute something through agreements between ourselves to protect our self interests (as long these don't encroach on others similar interests to do similarly) and even declare abortion illegal within whatever sphere of influence we share in common.

But, the difficulty in extrapolating this out to, say, a neighboring block whether most everyone felt the opposite, is that none of us have much of any legitimate claim to say what their self-interests are and last time we checked, noone was able to interview an unborn child to know its desires and even assuming we were able to verify such desires, is it worth having both groups of people fight over and destroy what could otherwise be a peaceable arrangement?

I've never understood how someone else having an abortion can threated my ability to have children. The only possible way such could occur is if they assumed representation for my child. I'd have to say it seems as though the desires of the parents should have heavier weight than an uninvolved individual.

So, anyway, yes, I'll avoid the detailed debates on whether or not an embryo is a child or not, because it seems better to be safe than sorry but I don't see enough rationale to intrude upon the similar freedom someone else should have to determine this for themself.

I agree with you in principle on at least part of this statement. If Roe is overturned the decision will revert back to the states and then We the People will have the opportunity to have our say. That is what has caused this conflict in the first place. Nine robed judges should not be making such decisions for the entire nation. There was never such a conflict in Europe over abortion even though there are plenty of people in Europe who are against abortion because the people (via their representatives) made the decision. It wasn't just decided for them by some unelected judges.

And it's not just judges either. It's a social disease that everyone feels entitled to a voice in everyone elses private affairs (look at the other private property decision they passed recently :().

Anyway, I'd really like to see people head back toward more individual liberty and accountability. The view "a man is a king of his own castle", is what I see as the foundation of a free nation. I know not everyone would handle such a scenario well and will make mistakes but people learn from making them. But we've been catered and coddled (and occasionally bludgeoned) for so long that it will take a while for people to relearn how to live in freedom (but I hope we see a return of it).

Oh and, I'd love to see the day when "We the People" is replaced with "We as individuals" ... but that's off topic.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SteveA PaleRider, I apologize for having gotten caught up in the whether or not abortions should be legal debate. I got sucked into the details and admit I'm not supportive of abortions, just like I'm not supportive of drinking alcohol, gambling, or public education.

Simply drinking alcohol which is legal, or getting out and endangering others while under the influence of alcohol which is illegal?

Quote by: SteveA But, the difficulty in extrapolating this out to, say, a neighboring block whether most everyone felt the opposite, is that none of us have much of any legitimate claim to say what their self-interests are and last time we checked, noone was able to interview an unborn child to know its desires and even assuming we were able to verify such desires, is it worth having both groups of people fight over and destroy what could otherwise be a peaceable arrangement? I've never understood how someone else having an abortion can threated my ability to have children. The only possible way such could occur is if they assumed representation for my child. I'd have to say it seems as though the desires of the parents should have heavier weight than an uninvolved individual.

I am sure that discussions very much like this took place when we began talking about the end of slavery. I suppose that someone said that if you don't like slavery, then don't own a slave. And it would be a pretty sure bet that there was much talk of self interests.

Tell me, how would someone else owning a slave in the US threaten your ability to be a free person? It wouldn't at all if you were born a free person. But could you condone one group of human beings owning another group and having the sole say over whether they lived or died?

Tell me the truth...would you argue that the decision of whether or not to own a slave should be left to each individual? Or would you be arguing that there is another interest there that is not being considered at all. That the slave is a human being whether the law says that they are or not and that they have a right to live as free human beings the same as everyone else?

To your argument that we can not interview an unborn and have them tell us that they want to live, I say that we can't interview them and have them tell us that they want to die either but it is a pretty sure bet that the majority would give the same answer as the average man on the street.

Quote by: SteveA So, anyway, yes, I'll avoid the detailed debates on whether or not an embryo is a child or not, because it seems better to be safe than sorry but I don't see enough rationale to intrude upon the similar freedom someone else should have to determine this for themself.

How could you separate the issue of whether or not a slave was a human being from the issue of whether or not it should be left to each individual as to whether or not he or she would own slaves. How could you separate the issue of whether they were human beings or not from the fact of the 14th amendment? The fact is that whether or not the unborn are human beings can not be separated from the discussion. It is the very foundation of the discussion.

If you can demonstrate to me that they are not human beings, then aborting them is of no more consequence than clipping your toenails. But if you can't then you are talking about killing human beings for no better reason than convenience which (in my opinion) is a far greater wrong than slavery ever was.

For me, and most pro lifers that I have talked to, the abortion issue is a human rights issue. Human beings have an inalienable right to live and that is trumped by another person's convenience every time. You say that you don't see enough rationale to intrude upon the similar freedom someone else and that we should have the freedom to decide for ourselves. Again, would you make the same argument that each of us should have the freedom to decide whether or not to own slaves? At the root of the discussion was the question of whether or not slaves were human beings and at the root of this discussion is the question of whether or not unborns are human beings. I have presented plenty of evidence supporting my position that we are all human beings from the moment of our conception, the pro choice side has only presented opinion. Unsubstantiated, uncoroborated opinion, and nothing else. Exactly what the slave holders were able to present when anti slavers argued that blacks were human beings, just the same as the rest of us.

I don't keep hammering the question of whether unborns are humans because I enjoy the sound of the words, I keep hammering the question because it is central to the issue. When you are talking about killing a group at will, without consequence, and you claim that it is ok because they aren't really humans, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate in some real way that they aren't humans. Your opinion is simply not enough.

Quote by: SteveA Andit's not just judges either. It's a social disease that everyone feels entitled to a voice in everyone elses private affairs (look at the other private property decision they passed recently :().

It is the judges. Again, the constitution is clear on when government can take our property. This decision flies in the face of the constitution just the same as the abortion issue does. Nine unaccountable judges have made a decision for us all that we know is in opposition to the constitution. If we decided legislatively in DC that the government could take your property and give it to private parties for development, while there would be some grumbling, there would not be a great outcry.

Quote by: SteveA Anyway, I'd really like to see people head back toward more individual liberty and accountability. The view "a man is a king of his own castle", is what I see as the foundation of a free nation. I know not everyone would handle such a scenario well and will make mistakes but people learn from making them. But we've been catered and coddled (and occasionally bludgeoned) for so long that it will take a while for people to relearn how to live in freedom (but I hope we see a return of it). Oh and, I'd love to see the day when "We the People" is replaced with "We as individuals" ... but that's off topic.

Tell me, as a libertarian, are you ok with slavery? I know that within the libertarian philosophy there is plenty of room for the practice. That was one of the reasons I steered away from libertarianism in my youth. That and the fact that individuals would inevetably form syndicates and by their very nature, syndicates are a worse form of governance than what we have now. In a nation of syndicates, we would become a society in which the strong prospered and the weak either served or died.

[Savant]

Ahh! Hehe, slavery finaly showed up in this debate. Have the Nazis made it in yet? If not, allow me to bolster PaleRlder's extremely powerful, valid, and fact founded winning argument by adding:

Hitler. Hitler, Nazi Nazi Swastica Nazi = prochoice!!!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant Ahh! Hehe, slavery finaly showed up in this debate. Have the Nazis made it in yet? If not, allow me to bolster PaleRlder's extremely powerful, valid, and fact founded winning argument by adding: Hitler. Hitler, Nazi Nazi Swastica Nazi = prochoice!!!

Blacks could be enslaved in this country because government decided that they were not human beings. Unborn human beings can be killed in this country because government has decided that they are not human beings.

Perhaps you can explain the philosophical difference. Or maybe you can't. It may be that pointless sarcasm is all that you have. At this point, it is all that you have demonstrated anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong anytime.

[Savant]

I made my argument pages ago. Just because you trudge on ignoring it and declare yourself the winner doesn't obligate me, or any of the other folks who have tried fruitlessly to get you to even understand their position, to have to repeat it endlessly.

Blacks could be enslaved in this country because government decided that they were not human beings

. FALSE Most of the people in our government at the time were well aware that there was more than one race in our species, and that blacks were a race of humans.

Unborn human beings can be killed in this country because government has decided that they are not human beings.

FALSE The existance of unborn human beings is debateable. The government has made no such declaration.

Philosophical difference between approving of abortion and approving of slavery = same as phillosophical difference between approving of walking dog with a leash and approving of eating chicken. Unrelated and irrelevant.

A person can dissaprove of slavery and have little or no opinion regarding abortion. Same with the dog walking and chicken eating.

[SteveA]

We need a different thread .... anyone want to start a new discussion elsewhere?

but to address the comparison between abortions and slavery:

... Tell me, as a libertarian, are you ok with slavery? I know that within the libertarian philosophy there is plenty of room for the practice.

Actually, slavery is probably the primary thing libertarians oppose. Libertarian views are based upon rejection of this. Grabbing a bunch of people at gunpoint and forcing them to comply to ones own views, without any legitimate claim of being personally harmed but against their desire to be helped is definitely unlibertarian. Force is viewed as only valid in self-defense or in defense of ones vested interests. I've already heard the all "wage-labor is theft and slavery" arguments, and I don't buy into it. People have a right to voluntarily trade, including have children or not and if there's no consensus between the groups as to when a child deserves protection by the group, then it remains a private affair, IMO.

I agree that some parallels could be seen with slavery. Is a woman less of a woman, and instead a public utility as soon as she becomes pregnant? We might be claiming to be "saving" or liberating someone and so such an invasion into someone elses life is merely an unavoidable evil but look at how such views have worked out with us trying to set up a government in Iraq - as long as we were truly protecting or freeing people asking for such help, it's not a problem but it's easy cross that fine line - if you're going to "free" someone, make sure you have their consent.

And, yes, this issue does have strong correlations with slavery - the civil war was less over slavery, and Lincoln even stated as much, than over a desire to (forcibly) "unite" the nation despite the claims that southern states were being unfairly treated in many other ways.

That was one of the reasons I steered away from libertarianism in my youth. That and the fact that individuals would inevetably form syndicates and by their very nature, syndicates are a worse form of governance than what we have now.

By syndicates, I'm assuming you're referring to private institutions like businesses, churches, community group etc.? Consider the Catholic church, they have wide reaching membership yet don't need to wield political power to enforce their views, it's an entirely peaceful and apparently rewarding private endeavor (and should remain such).

Why is it that the large and heavy handed nation states are the ones that create worse governance - because they're an enforced monopoly and don't need to be responsive to individuals. Smaller, less force wielding organizations don't have a monopoly and must treat their "customers" better.

In a nation of syndicates, we would become a society in which the strong prospered and the weak either served or died.

No, the strong prospered and weak died because we have a system that no longer protects individual rights and instead places everything in the hands of the majority. If you insist on comparing it to slavery, then I would argue that it's slavery by means of pure democratic/mob rule. Just because we might happen to outnumber some minority doesn't mean we should use that power to enslave them, yet politics have become viewed not as a way to peaceably govern between people but to impose views on others when there's no legitimate need to do so. Let "red states" be red states and "blue states" be blue (and purple ones purple). America should be a buffet, not a vigorously stirred melting pot.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Savant I made my argument pages ago. Just because you trudge on ignoring it and declare yourself the winner doesn't obligate me, or any of the other folks who have tried fruitlessly to get you to even understand their position, to have to repeat it endlessly.

Sorry, I must have missed any valid point that you believe that you made. Lets take a look and see.

The fact of the matter is, there is no actual begining or end to life. Life is a concept, not a measurable event. Why would I state something so obvious? Because people don't seem to recognize that the most important thing about an idea like life, is that we remember it is just an idea - a perception.

No point there because there certainly is an actual beginning to an individual's life which is the topic of this thread. How could you miss something so obvious?

Apparently you can't see how far short of the meaning of life this is. Imagine you were sitting next to a blind person, and they said: "Hey, what's red?" And you opened up the dictionary and said " Red - A color. Manifested in such objects as strawberries and firetrucks."

You really got stung on this one...Remember?

I am starting to think you are deliberately missing my point. Electrodes could prove the existance of energy, but as most folks know, a body (particularly a human body) will show electrical activy long after what most folks consider death (brain death).

Ahh...that was a grand failure. Attempting to somehow connect the end of life with the beginning of life.


So there you have it. Pale Rider knows exactly what humanity involves and can isolate the meaning of life. He has proven beyond any doubt that a fetus deserves the same rights as any other "person".

Sarcasm. No point there. But you are good at it. It woud be better, however if your talent leaned more towards being able to make a valid point.

Since we are playing with falacies that sound right, heres a classic.

According to your argument, fetus == human. Therefore human == fetus! Thus... I am a fetus. Abort me!

No point there....just flawed logic.

I won't pretend this is a debate for you Pale Rlder, so I'll leave it at its good to see you at least admit there are differences between human things. I was once a human sperm and will someday be a human corpse,

No point there, just conclusive evidence that you don't understand the biology of human reproduction.

So where was your point in all this savant? You offered some opinion, but you didn't coroborate it in any way at all.

Quote by: Savant FALSE Most of the people in our government at the time were well aware that there was more than one race in our species, and that blacks were a race of humans.

This is the problem with not knowing what you are talking about. Someone is always just waiting around to slap you down with the facts. Chief Justice Taney, in his decision refered to them as an inferior race of beings.

Quote by: Savant FALSE The existance of unborn human beings is debateable. The government has made no such declaration.

Science has stated quite clearly that we are human beings from the moment of our conception. That the judges of the SC didn't grasp the science doesn't change the facts.

Quote by: Savant Philosophical difference between approving of abortion and approving of slavery = same as phillosophical difference between approving of walking dog with a leash and approving of eating chicken. Unrelated and irrelevant.

Slaves lived or died at the whim of their masters. Unborns live or die at the whim of their mothers. The philosophical connection is obvious. Sorry you didn't get it. Guess philosophy isn't your bag.

Quote by: Savant A person can dissaprove of slavery and have little or no opinion regarding abortion. Same with the dog walking and chicken eating.

Well, a person could fail to make the connection and thus have little or no opinion. Guess you proved that. Congratulations.