A Nation Rises

[QGator2414]

I know some will not like how this video was done.

That said if you have kids or have heard a child's heartbeat before they are born it speaks loudly to the wake up call we need...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Opl0jnKbn5Y

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The honest person that wishes to debate this issue realizes that abortion is a rare case where somebody's rights are being violated, no matter what legislation is enacted..

In another thread, many of us lamented the lack of fealty to the 9th amendment that our government has shown. Clearly, those of us that argue this cannot argue that a woman (and a man) do not have the rights to privacy, the rights to body determination and the rights on when and if to become a parent. And just as clearly, prohibiting abortion does indeed infringe on those rights.

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

So how does a civilized society resolve this? No matter which avenue is taken, someone's rights will be infringed.

Western civilization has employed the concept of the hierarchy of rights to resolve the rare cases of competing rights.

[bluelang]

Nice post MJW.

[QGator2414]

Well put response. I agree that someone's "rights" will be infringed upon to a point.

That said are one "rights" really being infringed on if they willfully (not rape or mothers life being in jeopardy) create a life?

[QGator2414]

Here is a powerful statement to the issue of abortion but also to the situation of rape and incest that many feel should be an exception.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_VDA8acKNSk

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

That said are one "rights" really being infringed on if they willfully (not rape or mothers life being in jeopardy) create a life?

When I talk about this with others, I avoid that particular argument, valid as it is. Employing that argument goes down the road to being judgmental, which tends to introduce too much emotion into the discussion.

[gator1986]

Another argument that no one will ever win....

[CHFG8R]

The honest person that wishes to debate this issue realizes that abortion is a rare case where somebody's rights are being violated, no matter what legislation is enacted..

In another thread, many of us lamented the lack of fealty to the 9th amendment that our government has shown. Clearly, those of us that argue this cannot argue that a woman (and a man) do not have the rights to privacy, the rights to body determination and the rights on when and if to become a parent. And just as clearly, prohibiting abortion does indeed infringe on those rights.

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

So how does a civilized society resolve this? No matter which avenue is taken, someone's rights will be infringed.

Western civilization has employed the concept of the hierarchy of rights to resolve the rare cases of competing rights.

Great points. Too bad we never hear any of them from the political enterprises that see this issue as nothing more than a political cash cow and who will keep the debate (see: never seek resolution of any kind) going from now until the end of time. . . or the USA, whichever comes first.

And now comes Gay Marriage. The second revenue stream for these corrupt political entities. Get ready to hash this one out for the next 100 years with no resolution.

[CHFG8R]

Here is a powerful statement to the issue of abortion but also to the situation of rape and incest that many feel should be an exception.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_VDA8acKNSk

Bottom line for the Pro-Lifers: You CANNOT have it both ways. It's either a life or it's not. If you believe abortion is taking a life, then the circumstances surrounding the conception of said life should not matter.

Sticky situation for you folks to be sure.

[CHFG8R]

Another argument that no one will ever win....

This is by design.

Wonder what the CEO of the American Family Association makes? Or their top lobbiests?

Ditto for the CEO of Planned Parenthood and their top lobbiests?


Want real answers? Follow the money.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

And now comes Gay Marriage. T

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

[CHFG8R]

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

It's also an easily solveable issue. Marriage Licenses are given a numerical designation, eliminating the major problem with this issue: The emotional connection to the word marriage. Then the government can focus on what it should be focused on. That being, whether a committed couple (opposite sex or same sex) is to be granted certain privilages with regards to probate, power of attorney in cases of medical hardship and tax status. These things are THE ONLY THING the government should be concerning itself with.

As for the word "Marriage" and it's definition? Leave that where it belongs, with Webster and the court of public opinion.

The beauty of this solution is that 1. Most Americans would go along with it and; 2. Those who have a problem with it will clearly be the extremeists. The reason it won't happen is just as easy: Money and no political pound of flesh to extract from the enemy.


Call me in 20 years and I'll bet my life the issue is still raging. . . and the lobbiests and folks at those non-profits will still be cashing their checks.

[mdgator05]

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.


I'd like to hear the non-religious case for an organism without a brain having rights. I mean that seriously.

[JerseyGator01]

Most of the early feminists were pro-life. Read up on Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an associate of Susan B. Anthony. She was non-religious.

The March for Life is an amazing event. 100,000+ on a weekday in the dead of winter in DC with a real peaceful feel to it. No wonder the media ignores it. They must have the public believe that all pro-lifers are terrorists as noted in this recent item from The daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/14/1178840/--Pro-life-terrorists-super-excited-about-this-year-s-Fetuspalooza#

[ChartsandGrafs]

The non-existent rights of a fetus or child in the womb do not supersede the rights of the mother to her own body. A fetus or child in the womb is entirely dependent on the mother for life, oxygen, and nourishment. The mother's body is the vessel, and the mother has primary claim to it. If a mother decides she doesn't want to be a mother while the fetus or child is in the womb, or simply no longer wishes to carry another organism around in her body, then it is her right and her right alone to terminate the pregnancy.

I don't like it any more than you guys like it, but it is what it is. We own our bodies and have primary claim to what goes on inside them.

[QGator2414]

When I talk about this with others, I avoid that particular argument, valid as it is. Employing that argument goes down the road to being judgmental, which tends to introduce too much emotion into the discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly. This topic seems to attract too much emotion all the time...:)

[QGator2414]

Bottom line for the Pro-Lifers: You CANNOT have it both ways. It's either a life or it's not. If you believe abortion is taking a life, then the circumstances surrounding the conception of said life should not matter.

Sticky situation for you folks to be sure.

I agree with Dr. Baucham on the issue and it is not that tricky for me. :)

[QGator2414]

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

Off topic...This is my preference.

[Dreamliner]

I'd like to hear the non-religious case for an organism without a brain having rights. I mean that seriously.

... which is precisely why I don't think people should have the right to vote.

[QGator2414]

... which is precisely why I don't think people should have the right to vote.

Do they? ;)

[gregthegator]

When I talk about this with others, I avoid that particular argument, valid as it is. Employing that argument goes down the road to being judgmental, which tends to introduce too much emotion into the discussion.

You know what...that's EXACTLY the BIGGEST problem...avoid the HARD discussion on ANY topic....and so it goes..................

[gregthegator]

by the way...my take on THIS subject...if men were the one's WITH THE burden...there wouldn't be ANY of THESE qualms or discussion...

[JerseyGator01]

Yet another way to stir up the emotions with that line of thinking. If city slickers had plantations, would they have been anti-slavery?

[gator1986]

This is by design.

Wonder what the CEO of the American Family Association makes? Or their top lobbiests?

Ditto for the CEO of Planned Parenthood and their top lobbiests?

Want real answers? Follow the money.

Perfectly said... Like your train of thought..

[gator1986]

Gay marriage is a much clearer issue, imo. There are no competing rights in that issue. Gay behavior, including marriage, should be legislated to the same extent that hetero-sexual marriage is legislated, or as much as premarital sex is legislated, or that marital fidelity is legislated. Which is to say, very little, if at all.

Here in the south... God hates gays!!

Once again, this is sarcasm before people start attacking me...

[QGator2414]

Here in the south... God hates gays!!

Once again, this is sarcasm before people start attacking me...

Definitely must be careful with what you type on a message board as who knows how one will take it... :)

[tegator80]

I agree that the abortion issue is a no-win argument. Not because of the extreme emotions but because the opposite of one stand is not in essence the stand of the opposition. After it is all said and done if you take a hard stand you just can not recognize the existence of an opposite side. I wish I could explain what I mean but it would take a small novel.

If I could assist the pro-lifers (whom I sympathize with), it would be to change your behavior away from attempting to portray a careless but probably scared woman as a murderer. If you honestly believe that a life is sanctimonious then why stop at protesting? Why are there so many people going out of the country to get infants but somehow we can't get our own to embrace our own, or a least have that message received in earnest? It seems to me that that is a sign of a poor social structure. I do not have the answers as to how to rectify it but it IS a sign that we just want to legislate others' behaviors and then go back to our tidily defined lives. Life is just not that simple.

[JerseyGator01]

The biggest PAC in the country is not the NRA, but quite often Emily's List. Guess what they stand for? Probably the largest PAC most have never her of.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

The largest salary for the American Family Association was $121K per their FY 2011 990 on guidestar.org.

The CEO of Planned Parenthood, working about 33 hours per week per their 990, was paid total compensation of $420K in FY 2011. Typically nearly half of PP's funding comes from the government. Not bad for a nonprofit.

[QGator2414]

I agree that the abortion issue is a no-win argument. Not because of the extreme emotions but because the opposite of one stand is not in essence the stand of the opposition. After it is all said and done if you take a hard stand you just can not recognize the existence of an opposite side. I wish I could explain what I mean but it would take a small novel.

If I could assist the pro-lifers (whom I sympathize with), it would be to change your behavior away from attempting to portray a careless but probably scared woman as a murderer. If you honestly believe that a life is sanctimonious then why stop at protesting? Why are there so many people going out of the country to get infants but somehow we can't get our own to embrace our own, or a least have that message received in earnest? It seems to me that that is a sign of a poor social structure. I do not have the answers as to how to rectify it but it IS a sign that we just want to legislate others' behaviors and then go back to our tidily defined lives. Life is just not that simple.

I think you are onto something with much of this.

Most of all it is the social structure comment. IMO this country lost its way long ago wrt culture. It is sad and hard to watch. If we built people up after making mistakes rather than accepting and rewarding them (whether it be easy way out or government programs) we would be better off. But as soon as you say someone made a mistake by creating a life they cannot afford to take care of or do not want then emotions go...

[CHFG8R]

The biggest PAC in the country is not the NRA, but quite often Emily's List. Guess what they stand for? Probably the largest PAC most have never her of.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

The largest salary for the American Family Association was $121K per their FY 2011 990 on guidestar.org.

The CEO of Planned Parenthood, working about 33 hours per week per their 990, was paid total compensation of $420K in FY 2011. Typically nearly half of PP's funding comes from the government. Not bad for a nonprofit.

This is about what I expected. Would be very interested in how much their respective lobbiests make. Probably the biggest check of all.

Though you and I differ on much with regards to this issue, we probably are in agreement on this (bolded). I've never understood why they have to depend on government support so much and given the division on the issue in this country, I've always felt it was patently unfair to ask that side (which represents a large number of citizens) to support financially something they find so distasteful.

If the cause is good and the message equally good, then they should be able to survive like any other non-profit. . . on donations not - as is the case - forced donations.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You know what...that's EXACTLY the BIGGEST problem...avoid the HARD discussion on ANY topic....and so it goes..................

Actually no, that is not the reason. As I demonstrated, that argument is not necessary and often derails substantive discussion.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

by the way...my take on THIS subject...if men were the one's WITH THE burden...there wouldn't be ANY of THESE qualms or discussion...

Terrible argument.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I'd like to hear the non-religious case for an organism without a brain having rights. I mean that seriously.

Sure. There are two tests.

1.) At what point after conception does life begin?
2.) At what point after life begins does human life begin?

Both tests have to be met.

So, let's tackle the first test, which is the easiest. The smart thing to do is produce a definition of life. That said, it is interesting to note that most biology books waffle about making a definitive definition of life. But they all agree that ALL life exhibits a number of common characteristics. Life is able to take in nutrition and in fact requires nutrition. Life exhibits growth. Life has the ability to reproduce. Individual life is genetically unique, (as opposed to being just an appendage of the host, in this case, the mother.) There are others, but these seem to be the most important ones.

The blastula, at the moment of conception, has all these characteristics, including the ability to reproduce, in the sense that it has an innate ability to reproduce, once it reaches a certain level of maturity. Just like a new born baby has only an innate ability to reproduce and no one questions whether a newborn baby is life. All unborn children at every stage of a pregnancy exhibits all of these characteristics. So, there is definitely life, from the moment of conception.

Said another way, had the Mars rover discovered something that grows and develops like an unborn child, we would confidently say we discovered life on Mars.

Now, about that second test. You are correct that we must try and define the life as human life. As you say, most of us do not give the right to life to non-human life. Hell, most of us think it is perfectly reasonable to raise animals for the expressed reason to kill and eat them.

There is only one objective test that I know of that can be applied to determine the presence of a human; test the DNA. At the moment of conception, with only one cell, the DNA of the blastula is uniquely human and uniquely individual. The DNA is different from the mother, the father and from all other humans, except for an identical twin. And the DNA is definitive and objectively human. Ergo, the life is human.

All this said, I do understand that for some, it is real hard to qualify a one celled animal as human. And if one does not, then perhaps it has no right to life and the other rights of the mother are more important.

But consider this; those that think that if the life is not yet human at conception, they also have to acknowledge that the life will eventually become human. So, at what point do we give the unborn the right to be human? That is where the debate continues to rage.

So, my final though is this; at whatever point we decide to give human rights to the unborn, what are the consequences for being wrong?

Let's take the extremes to answer that question;

If the unborn do no become human until birth, as some people argue, then restricting abortions takes away some very important rights from women and men. That is not a good thing.

However, at the other extreme, if human life beings at conception, as I argue, then we are sanctioning the killing of innocent human beings.

I have come to the conclusion that if I am to be wrong in my thinking about this issue, then I would prefer to be wrong by doing the least harm.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

. A fetus or child in the womb is entirely dependent on the mother for life, oxygen, and nourishment.

A newborn baby is completely dependent on the mother or father or guardian for nourishment and shelter from the moment of birth. It cannot live very long without someone else feeding it, sheltering and and caring for it. And if it has some serious respiratory problems, it might depend on a breathing apparatus to get oxygen. Is this newborn not life? Is it legal to kill it?

Also, here is another example. All life is specialized to one degree or another. For example, bacteria that live in your stomach cannot live in any other environment other than a stomach. It completely depends upon the host for food, oxygen and nourishment. Is it not life?


If a mother decides she doesn't want to be a mother while the fetus or child is in the womb, or simply no longer wishes to carry another organism around in her body, then it is her right and her right alone to terminate the pregnancy.


As someone else pointed out, the responsible moment of decision is before sex. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies occur with two people having a complete understanding of how conception happens and an agreement between two parties that engage in an activity can create a life.

[mdgator05]

Sure. There are two tests.

1.) At what point after conception does life begin?
2.) At what point after life begins does human life begin?

Both tests have to be met.

So, let's tackle the first test, which is the easiest. The smart thing to do is produce a definition of life. That said, it is interesting to note that most biology books waffle about making a definitive definition of life. But they all agree that ALL life exhibits a number of common characteristics. Life is able to take in nutrition and in fact requires nutrition. Life exhibits growth. Life has the ability to reproduce. Individual life is genetically unique, (as opposed to being just an appendage of the host, in this case, the mother.) There are others, but these seem to be the most important ones.

The blastula, at the moment of conception, has all these characteristics, including the ability to reproduce, in the sense that it has an innate ability to reproduce, once it reaches a certain level of maturity. Just like a new born baby has only an innate ability to reproduce and no one questions whether a newborn baby is life. All unborn children at every stage of a pregnancy exhibits all of these characteristics. So, there is definitely life, from the moment of conception.

Said another way, had the Mars rover discovered something that grows and develops like an unborn child, we would confidently say we discovered life on Mars.

Now, about that second test. You are correct that we must try and define the life as human life. As you say, most of us do not give the right to life to non-human life. Hell, most of us think it is perfectly reasonable to raise animals for the expressed reason to kill and eat them.

There is only one objective test that I know of that can be applied to determine the presence of a human; test the DNA. At the moment of conception, with only one cell, the DNA of the blastula is uniquely human and uniquely individual. The DNA is different from the mother, the father and from all other humans, except for an identical twin. And the DNA is definitive and objectively human. Ergo, the life is human.

All this said, I do understand that for some, it is real hard to qualify a one celled animal as human. And if one does not, then perhaps it has no right to life and the other rights of the mother are more important.

But consider this; those that think that if the life is not yet human at conception, they also have to acknowledge that the life will eventually become human. So, at what point do we give the unborn the right to be human? That is where the debate continues to rage.

So, my final though is this; at whatever point we decide to give human rights to the unborn, what are the consequences for being wrong?

Let's take the extremes to answer that question;

If the unborn do no become human until birth, as some people argue, then restricting abortions takes away some very important rights from women and men. That is not a good thing.

However, at the other extreme, if human life beings at conception, as I argue, then we are sanctioning the killing of innocent human beings.

I have come to the conclusion that if I am to be wrong in my thinking about this issue, then I would prefer to be wrong by doing the least harm.

That is a very narrow definition of life. Here is another criteria, in which a Pre-Brain/Pre-Organ fetus does not qualify.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm

Again, if the criteria is they will eventually do each of these things, then this changes the analysis. But clearly, cells with no differentiation and with the inability to respond or adapt to their environment would possibly not fit into even the category of "life" much less human life from a scientific perspective.

I would argue that faced with substantial uncertainty, we should allow individuals to make the decision as to whether something is right or wrong. If your approach is the correct approach, it will naturally win out in the market of ideas.

Based on your final statements, it would seem like you should be a big advocate of major action for preventing or at least lessening the effects of global warming. If you are wrong, we improved the environment for a little bit and lowered economic development for a short period of time by a smallish amount. If you are wrong, we are talking about the loss of most of the major cities in the world.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

That is a very narrow definition of life. Here is another criteria, in which a Pre-Brain/Pre-Organ fetus does not qualify.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm

So, ALL one celled animals are not life?

I think a good many biologists will disagree with you


But clearly, cells with no differentiation and with the inability to respond or adapt to their environment would possibly not fit into even the category of "life" much less human life from a scientific perspective.

You are confusing the life argument with the human life argument.

I would argue that faced with substantial uncertainty, we should allow individuals to make the decision as to whether something is right or wrong. If your approach is the correct approach, it will naturally win out in the market of ideas.

I do understand this argument, but what are the consequences of being wrong? Do a honest assessment of that question and see where you come out.

Based on your final statements, it would seem like you should be a big advocate of major action for preventing or at least lessening the effects of global warming. If you are wrong, we improved the environment for a little bit and lowered economic development for a short period of time by a smallish amount. If you are wrong, we are talking about the loss of most of the major cities in the world.

Different situation. Let's take it up in another thread.

[gatorman_07732]

The honest person that wishes to debate this issue realizes that abortion is a rare case where somebody's rights are being violated, no matter what legislation is enacted..

In another thread, many of us lamented the lack of fealty to the 9th amendment that our government has shown. Clearly, those of us that argue this cannot argue that a woman (and a man) do not have the rights to privacy, the rights to body determination and the rights on when and if to become a parent. And just as clearly, prohibiting abortion does indeed infringe on those rights.

But do the unborn have the right to their lives, the most fundamental of rights? I think a clear, non religious case can be made that the unborn, from the point of conception, do indeed have the right to their lives.

So how does a civilized society resolve this? No matter which avenue is taken, someone's rights will be infringed.

Western civilization has employed the concept of the hierarchy of rights to resolve the rare cases of competing rights.

Does the right to privacy out weigh anothers right of life? My thought is it is pretty selfish.

[DaveFla]

Wow. Able to sneak global warming into the discussion. Amazing.

BTW, MJW Knocked your pitch right out of the park.

[gatorman_07732]

Wow. Able to sneak global warming into the discussion. Amazing.

BTW, MJW Knocked your pitch right out of the park.

That answers if this is a religous thread

[reformedgator]

What parents on this forum ever considered the life in the mothers womb to be anything other than their unborn child & referred to it as such in unmistakeable language?

[QGator2414]

What parents on this forum ever considered the life in the mothers womb to be anything other than their unborn child & referred to it as such in unmistakeable language?

Can't wait to meet my son in a month!

[mdgator05]

So, ALL one celled animals are not life?

I think a good many biologists will disagree with you




You are confusing the life argument with the human life argument.



I do understand this argument, but what are the consequences of being wrong? Do a honest assessment of that question and see where you come out.



Different situation. Let's take it up in another thread.

I think you mean one celled organisms, not animals. And we don't typically consider bacteria life, despite the fact that they are organic.

I am not confusing the human life question with the actual life question. "Life" is essentially a philosophical distinction. Organic versus non-organic is not as philosophical, but the word life has a whole host of non-scientific distinctions, as even both of our provided criteria would recognize. However, the issue is how one defines a human life. For example, can something be considered a human life without the capability of living on its own?

I just fail to see how the argument that something has human DNA equates with it being somehow more deserving of legal protections than another organism with a developed central nervous system, short of the inclusion of some religious or semi-religious distinction, such as a soul.

The global warming comment is to demonstrate whether you are really honest about your criteria for how you make calls on issues with some level of uncertainty. It seems like you are just taking the conservative position anytime there is uncertainty rather than considering what the overall effect would be. I am not actively pursuing a debate on the scientific issue, but more on how your decision making criteria appear to be very different for different issues.

[gatorman_07732]

Can't wait to meet my son in a month!

February baby....whats the due date?
Congratulations

[CHFG8R]

That is a very narrow definition of life. Here is another criteria, in which a Pre-Brain/Pre-Organ fetus does not qualify.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm

Again, if the criteria is they will eventually do each of these things, then this changes the analysis. But clearly, cells with no differentiation and with the inability to respond or adapt to their environment would possibly not fit into even the category of "life" much less human life from a scientific perspective.

I would argue that faced with substantial uncertainty, we should allow individuals to make the decision as to whether something is right or wrong. If your approach is the correct approach, it will naturally win out in the market of ideas.

Based on your final statements, it would seem like you should be a big advocate of major action for preventing or at least lessening the effects of global warming. If you are wrong, we improved the environment for a little bit and lowered economic development for a short period of time by a smallish amount. If you are wrong, we are talking about the loss of most of the major cities in the world.


I see you two have waded into the quicksand. Well, here's the rub. There is NO DIFINITIVE ANSWER to the question you ponder. There are plenty of opinions on both sides, but nothing that could be presented - say in a court of law - as fact.

I have argued for years that this is a simple either/or proposition. Either it IS a life. Or it IS NOT a life. If the former, then the only way to legislate it is with existing murder laws. And abortion is clearly 1st Degree Capital Murder by definition if preformed by a doctor. Furthermore, to argue that it's something less than a life, and thus not punishable as murder, then you are beginning to make the other sides's argument for them.

The problem for the Pro-Life movement (but NOT their lobbiests), is selling the former to the American public.

However, it is the crux of the issue if you think about it. Logically, we need to come to some reasonable compromise on the very subject you two were talking about and move on. At what point is it acceptable and at what point is it not? The country will never accept the murder proposition - and the resulting legal nightmare it creates.

If you look at it, with this issue and gay marriage the debate is always framed in a way that only seems to serve the non-profits and political opportunists.

[mdgator05]

Wow. Able to sneak global warming into the discussion. Amazing.

BTW, MJW Knocked your pitch right out of the park.

Try to follow along better. We really aren't having that unapproachable a discussion.

BTW, I actually would welcome some more definitive scientific explanation, as I personally believe in the concept of a soul, but also recognize that I shouldn't be forcing my religious beliefs into government. That is why I made the initial post.

[mdgator05]

I see you two have waded into the quicksand. Well, here's the rub. There is NO DIFINITIVE ANSWER to the question you ponder. There are plenty of opinions on both sides, but nothing that could be presented - say in a court of law - as fact.

I have argued for years that this is a simple either/or proposition. Either it IS a life. Or it IS NOT a life. If the former, then the only way to legislate it is with existing murder laws. And abortion is clearly 1st Degree Capital Murder by definition if preformed by a doctor. Furthermore, to argue that it's something less than a life, and thus not punishable as murder, then you are beginning to make the other sides's argument for them.

The problem for the Pro-Life movement (but NOT their lobbiests), is selling the former to the American public.

However, it is the crux of the issue if you think about it. Logically, we need to come to some reasonable compromise on the very subject you two were talking about and move on. At what point is it acceptable and at what point is it not? The country will never accept the murder proposition - and the resulting legal nightmare it creates.

If you look at it, with this issue and gay marriage the debate is always framed in a way that only seems to serve the non-profits and political opportunists.

I agree with you. If a fetus is a baby, there would be no logical choice but to at the very minimum argue for life imprisonment for both the Doctor (as essentially a hitman) and the mother.

I differ from liberal orthodoxy in that I think that the appropriate dividing line should be the development of a functioning central nervous system. At that point, I think any argument that you aren't discussing a human being is weakened.

I think until some socially acceptable compromise is reached on this issue, we will just continue to engage in cultural trench warfare, where no side ever gains the definitive advantage but the issue will serve to further divide groups. As you pointed out, it is good for business for lobbyists and advocacy groups on each side. I am not so sure it is good for society.

[CHFG8R]

I agree with you. If a fetus is a baby, there would be no logical choice but to at the very minimum argue for life imprisonment for both the Doctor (as essentially a hitman) and the mother.

I differ from liberal orthodoxy in that I think that the appropriate dividing line should be the development of a functioning central nervous system. At that point, I think any argument that you aren't discussing a human being is weakened.

I think until some socially acceptable compromise is reached on this issue, we will just continue to engage in cultural trench warfare, where no side ever gains the definitive advantage but the issue will serve to further divide groups. As you pointed out, it is good for business for lobbyists and advocacy groups on each side. I am not so sure it is good for society.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Gay Marriage is the new one. Just watch, we'll be discussing it 20 years from now. The key issue there - and the only thing the government should be concerned with IMO - is whether same sex couples are awarded the same rights that "married" couples are with respect to probate, medical disability, tax status, etc. I think most Americans - including many conservatives - are okay with that. Instead we are given another stupid pissing contest where the two sides are literally using the word "marriage" as a weapon against one another.

[JerseyGator01]

Unlike what the feminists claim, doctors were typically the only ones considered for prosecution in the old days when an abortion was done. Pioneers of the AMA were pivotal in establishing pro-life laws before the fake feminists took over in the 60s.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Does the right to privacy out weigh anothers right of life? My thought is it is pretty selfish.

No, not in a system that requires hierarchy in rights.

For example, killing another human is not a legal remedy for denying the right to privacy.

[gatorman_07732]

No, not in a system that requires hierarchy in rights.

For example, killing another human is not a legal remedy for denying the right to privacy.

Just imagine the sick type of thought to reverse it, and we wonder why our society is in peril

[QGator2414]

February baby....whats the due date?
Congratulations

February 11th!

Thanks! It has been odd seeing blue around the house with two daughters... :)

[gatorman_07732]

February 11th!

Thanks! It has been odd seeing blue around the house with two daughters... :)

Oh I have two daughter myself, it would be weird. We have another Gator in here with a Feb 6 date.

[QGator2414]

Oh I have two daughter myself, it would be weird. We have another Gator in here with a Feb 6 date.

:)

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I think you mean one celled organisms, not animals. And we don't typically consider bacteria life, despite the fact that they are organic.

Simply not true. Again, had we encounted anything similar to simple bacteria on Mars, we would have declared that there is life on Mars.

For example, can something be considered a human life without the capability of living on its own?

Is a new born baby human? Because there is not one that has the "capability of living on its own."

How about a person that has to live life on dialysis? It that person still human?

I just fail to see how the argument that something has human DNA equates with it being somehow more deserving of legal protections than another organism with a developed central nervous system, short of the inclusion of some religious or semi-religious distinction, such as a soul.

How else do we determine the species of different animals? By DNA. It is objective, scientific and non religious.

It is also instructive that it is YOU that seem to feel the need to introduce a religious argument into the discussion

The global warming comment is to demonstrate whether you are really honest about your criteria for how you make calls on issues with some level of uncertainty. It seems like you are just taking the conservative position anytime there is uncertainty rather than considering what the overall effect would be. I am not actively pursuing a debate on the scientific issue, but more on how your decision making criteria appear to be very different for different issues.

The two situations are not even close to being similar. But I invite you to take that to another thread.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

But consider this; those that think that if the life is not yet human at conception, they also have to acknowledge that the life will eventually become human. So, at what point do we give the unborn the right to be human? That is where the debate continues to rage.

So, my final though is this; at whatever point we decide to give human rights to the unborn, what are the consequences for being wrong?

Let's take the extremes to answer that question;

If the unborn do no become human until birth, as some people argue, then restricting abortions takes away some very important rights from women and men. That is not a good thing.

However, at the other extreme, if human life beings at conception, as I argue, then we are sanctioning the killing of innocent human beings.

I have come to the conclusion that if I am to be wrong in my thinking about this issue, then I would prefer to be wrong by doing the least harm.

BTW, mad, I would truly like to read your explanation of when YOU think human life starts. And if you are wrong in either direction, what are the consequences?

[mdgator05]

BTW, mad, I would truly like to read your explanation of when YOU think human life starts. And if you are wrong in either direction, what are the consequences?

I think human life begins with the development of a central nervous system. Without the possibility of feeling pain or having thoughts, I would not classify anything as human life. If I am wrong on one side, then some cells without the capability of pain and without consciousness are killed.

[CHFG8R]

I think human life begins with the development of a central nervous system. Without the possibility of feeling pain or having thoughts, I would not classify anything as human life. If I am wrong on one side, then some cells without the capability of pain and without consciousness are killed.

I think that's a reasonable position that would be acceptable to all but the most devoted on both sides of the issue.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I think human life begins with the development of a central nervous system. Without the possibility of feeling pain or having thoughts, I would not classify anything as human life. If I am wrong on one side, then some cells without the capability of pain and without consciousness are killed.

So, when is that? First trimester? Second? 20 weeks? Longer?

And what are the consequences if we later find whenever we agree that it happens, we are wrong? On one side or the other?

And whenever it is, would you be willing to restrict abortions after that happens, assuming we can definitively ascertain when ti DOES happen?

[mdgator05]

So, when is that? First trimester? Second? 20 weeks? Longer?

And what are the consequences if we later find whenever we agree that it happens, we are wrong? On one side or the other?

And whenever it is, would you be willing to restrict abortions after that happens, assuming we can definitively ascertain when ti DOES happen?

Fairly early on in a pregnancy. Middle to the end of the first trimester. And yes I would be willing to restrict it. I think first trimester is a nice clean break that balances everybody's rights. I could be persuaded to move it a few weeks up from that point though, based on fetal development.

Now let me ask you a question: would you be willing to send people to jail for life for having an abortion?

[baygator1]

What parents on this forum ever considered the life in the mothers womb to be anything other than their unborn child & referred to it as such in unmistakeable language?

I spent a lot of time talking to my children in the womb well before they were born.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Fairly early on in a pregnancy. Middle to the end of the first trimester. And yes I would be willing to restrict it. I think first trimester is a nice clean break that balances everybody's rights. I could be persuaded to move it a few weeks up from that point though, based on fetal development.

I think your approach differs greatly from most abortions rights activists. Good for you. It is apparent that you have thought about this carefully.

I have often also considered the development of the human nervous system as a significant milestone in becoming human. But I could not come up with an objective reason for thinking that other than to wonder how human consciousness could be present if a human nervous system was not present. Why is human consciousness important to me?

Well, from a strictly theoretical standpoint, I am of the opinion that it is human consciousness that makes us human. But I do not know when that occurs, if it happens all at once. Or perhaps human consciousness grows through all the lesser forms of consciousnesses found in animals as the nervous system grows and develops to finally culminate at the human level.

Now let me ask you a question: would you be willing to send people to jail for life for having an abortion?

This is a damn good question. One that few pro-choice advocates think upon very deeply. Let me make my explanation even more personal than your question asks of me.

I have three adults daughters. What would I have done if during their teenage years one of them revealed she was pregnant and wanted an abortion? What would I do now, if that happened? Legally, I cannot and for the most part have never been able to prevent any of my daughters from getting an abortion if that was their choice. My only avenue was and is persuasion and I would avail myself of that.

But what would happen if abortions were illegal after, say 15 weeks? And one of my daughters asked and allowed a doctor, (or someone else) to perform one after that point? Would I then want her to be sent to jail? I would never want any of my children or loved one to spend time in jail. But I also know all my children are responsible for their own actions.

A woman that agrees to an abortion is both asking for and agreeing to allow someone else to kill her unborn child. She is not doing the killing but she is certainly a party to the decision. From an intellectual and emotional honesty standpoint, if one of my daughters had an abortion, illegal or not, I have to assert she not only allowed someone to kill her unborn child and my unborn grandchild, she ASKED them to do it.

All actions have consequences, legal or not.

This is no different a situation than if one of my children robbed a store.

[CHFG8R]

I think your approach differs greatly from most abortions rights activists. Good for you. It is apparent that you have thought about this carefully.

I have often also considered the development of the human nervous system as a significant milestone in becoming human. But I could not come up with an objective reason for thinking that other than to wonder how human consciousness could be present if a human nervous system was not present. Why is human consciousness important to me?

Well, from a strictly theoretical standpoint, I am of the opinion that it is human consciousness that makes us human. But I do not know when that occurs, if it happens all at once. Or perhaps human consciousness grows through all the lesser forms of consciousnesses found in animals as the nervous system grows and develops to finally culminate at the human level.



This is a damn good question. One that few pro-choice advocates think upon very deeply. Let me make my explanation even more personal than your question asks of me.

I have three adults daughters. What would I have done if during their teenage years one of them revealed she was pregnant and wanted an abortion? What would I do now, if that happened? Legally, I cannot and for the most part have never been able to prevent any of my daughters from getting an abortion if that was their choice. My only avenue was and is persuasion and I would avail myself of that.

But what would happen if abortions were illegal after, say 15 weeks? And one of my daughters asked and allowed a doctor, (or someone else) to perform one after that point? Would I then want her to be sent to jail? I would never want any of my children or loved one to spend time in jail. But I also know all my children are responsible for their own actions.

A woman that agrees to an abortion is both asking for and agreeing to allow someone else to kill her unborn child. She is not doing the killing but she is certainly a party to the decision. From an intellectual and emotional honesty standpoint, if one of my daughters had an abortion, illegal or not, I have to assert she not only allowed someone to kill her unborn child and my unborn grandchild, she ASKED them to do it.

All actions have consequences, legal or not.

This is no different a situation than if one of my children robbed a store.

I actually think it's the Pro-Lifers who don't think about this question enough, especially when you consider that this is their position on abortion (that, or their position is desperately inconsistent) and the ramifications it would have for our legal system.

It's also why I think this debate has become more about the survival and political power of the non-profits on both sides than actually finding some resolution to the issue.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I actually think it's the Pro-Lifers who don't think about this question enough,

You are right. That is what I meant to write.