A Nation Rises

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

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

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

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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/7c...cs_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]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

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]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

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]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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

February 11th!

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

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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