OK, well, I guess I'll have to tell my sister who is pregnant to stop spending those SSI checks and using her medicaid to pay for her doctor visits and medical care. She will not be happy to hear this Turok.
i am trying hard to understand your reasoning, and am having difficulty. we are speaking of living creatures, not dead ones. the dna structure( at the root ) is what distinguishes one LIFE from another and one living individual from another. DNA is not human life but it allows us to distinguish one human life from another even if one of the humans happen to be living inside another one. surfer
Turok, how can you say for sure that life begins somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd trimester? How can you make that statement. What, you think suddenly out of the blue life just happens out of no where 12 weeks into a woman's pregnancy? This seems a little bit odd. How do you defend this? What the hell is going on with that fetus the first 12 weeks then?
I am thinking about it. I think about a 8-1/2 month old fetus. How can we not regard it as an individual. Now I think about a 6 month old fetus. I see pictures of it. It looks human. Now I see pictures of a 3 month old fetus, still differentiated, appearing humanoid. I see pictures of the aborted 3 month old fetus, and they are revolting. Now I see a picture of one month old embryo, and I can barely tell whether it is a human embryo or a different species. Now I go back to a picture of a newly fertilized egg, and all I see is a big cell, and it bears nothing that resembles personhood. The anti abortion argument is now it is accorded full legal recognition. Now I go back a moment further, before the moment of fertiilization, and the anti abortionist concludes it is not an individual, only a cell. This seems arbitrary.
>Turok, how can you say for sure that life begins >somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd trimester? >How can you make that statement. First, the position clearly stated *for me*. Not "for you", or for "everyone", but just "for me". So as it is written it's EASY to make that statement...I hold opinions, you hold opinions. Some of those opinions may rub off on each other through dialog and many will not. As alluded, this particular opinion is formed through the process of considering the separate viability of the fetus. I find it a sound opinion *for me* to implement in my life. >What, you think suddenly out of the blue life just >happens out of no where 12 weeks into a woman's >pregnancy? If you payed any attention to what I wrote you would realize the stupidity and absurdity of that question Mav. Here is what I wrote: >Do I think protected human life begins promptly >at the start of the second trimester? -- no Please try to perk up and actually engage. Asking a question in such a loaded and accusatory manner that has been clearly answered doesn't get us very far. You have never seen me arguing when "life begins". This has been on purpose. "Life" and "human life worthy of legal protections" are quite different to me (see frozen egg example previously posted). It is very provable that "life processes" in some form begin at conception. The question is *at what point* are those processes worthy of full legal protections? I clearly believe that it occurs neither at conception nor birth, but *somewhere* in between. In the absence of a better presentation (still open) I have chosen to use separate viability as my yardstick. Separate viability is not an option in the first trimester. Separate viability is very often an option even early in the third trimester. Separate viability is *sometimes* an option in the second trimester (though in the later stages) so for my own decision and to as you say "err on the side of caution", I have placed the entire second trimester off limits. So, as an exchange, I'll ask you to respond to the fertilized and frozen egg scenario from my previous post. Murder as they thaw? Illegal detention in the freezer? JB
While in my younger days I favored reproductive choice for libertarian reasons, I am now firmly pro-choice. Like Mav and Surfer, I'd rather society err on the side of life. That being said, I'm impressed by both the sincere compassion for life, and the civility of this debate by those I disagree with. Optional, Turok, and dgabriel have displayed touching, humanistic comments. Bravo, gentlemen! As a Catholic I believe life begins at conception but I accept legitimate scientific, moral and religious challanges to my view. No pun intended though, it's hard to cut this baby in half.
Mav: >See, I can respect the fact that you admit >you don't know for sure where you stand, >just somewhere in the middle. The above is from an earlier post and I'm hoping that by now you see that I *do* know where I stand...there is nothing "unsure" about it. Any questions regarding my surety? >Come on man, lets throw all our cards on the >table and be honest about this. What is the >real issue here that you disagree with? Since I have been nothing but open regarding my position on this matter I don't even follow the question. I disagree with you regarding the point at which a fetus is due the protections I seek as a 43 year old man. What is the "real issue here" (as opposed to that one) that you disagree with? JB
Like you Pabst, I'm totally amazed that this one hasn't gotten out of hand. As talkative as I am I usually leave this one alone because it is hard to come to any sort of mutual conclusion. As you stated, props are due to all involved for the tone of the debate. Best wishes. JB
Genetic structure is distinguishable, true. As you clearly say, "DNA is not human life" and I agree. So the DNA which is the basis of the fetus is not a human being. It is a potential human being, in the same way a fertilized egg is a potential chicken. Yet, an egg is not a chicken, fertilized or not. It can become a chicken when it hatches, and can survive outside of the egg. This transitional period between pure potential and fully realized potential in actuality following birth is a very gray area. DNA exists prior to, and after the human life ends. So, clearly human life is something different than and more than the DNA itself. There is a saying, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Human life is like that. What human life is, as mysterious as it is to define, this thing we call human life extends beyond the sum of the DNA and genetic structure itself. Some label human life certain levels of brain activity, others say it is human consciousness, some say soul, but it is scientifically very difficult to pin down what exactly human life is before the time of birth. We know clearly when human life is gone upon death, but while it is with us it is a mystery that science hasn't solved, and pre birth is even less clear. The question is, and the important and central question is what exactly determines a human life as different from the collection of parts? Was Mary Shelly's monster in Frankenstein a human life because it had DNA and was a collection of parts? If science learns to create an artificial womb, creating a human life completely in the lab, is that the same as the human life born from a woman? If you had your internal organs replaced with those from different DNA, would you be experiencing more or less of human life? Would your true individuality be different due to the introduction of organs from different DNA? Just exactly when do the genetic parts become a human being, as clearly the genetic parts exist after the human being dies. Now, if I were to decide about abortion or termination of a fetus, I would make it the reasonable and informed choice of a woman not the state, but allow that choice to be available only during a time when the fetus cannot become a human being, i.e. exist outside of the womb of a woman. This is not a fixed time, not a fixed term, but is the product of the limits of human science. At what point could a fetus be "born" and sustain life independent of the host of the fetus, i.e. survive in an incubator. Science now allows for babies to be "born" prematurely where in the past they would not have survived. It seems to me that from the time of conception to the point in development of a fetus that it could be not be "born" prematurely, that is, a time when it could not survive upon leaving the womb that abortion should be a choice of the woman and should be legal. During this period, it would be a woman's choice to abort the fetus. Beyond this point, when the fetus can be "born" the Government can step in and control the process if the woman is not inclined to bear the "child." The solution for those women who did not want the "child" at this stage would be to allow the woman to go in and "abort" the "child" into an incubator. We currently allow women to abort their responsibility for their children....it is called giving them up for adoption. I see little difference between this giving up a child, and premature birthing. However, when there is no human being present, simply a mass of genetic material that has the potential to someday be born if everything proceeds properly, but is not capable of birth and survival outside of the womb, either that birth coming naturally or forced by science, I continue to prefer to give the woman the right to decide what happens. For those who have strong religious feelings on the matter, I remind them that God will punish the woman if she is wrong, and the fetus will, if it is in fact a soul, be fully taken care of upon termination of the vessel known as a body or fetus as the case may be. I fully encourage people to practice faith in God and trust in His Eternal judgment as it is carried out in God's world and in God's time, yet equally and fully encourage leaving those personal religions and religious beliefs out of matters of state in this governance of this world.