On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:01:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Prometheus wrote:

See, but I don't *believe* that a fetus is a human being from the day
of conception.

Err on the side of caution.

By forcing others not to do what they feel they must?

Why does it have to be all the way or not at all?

OK, for the sake of discussion, we'll assume that it doesn't have to be like
that. Fine. Now draw the line. Specify a point at which the fetus becomes a
human being, and explain why it is not a human being before that point but is
one after.

I submit that there are only two logically defensible places where that line
can be drawn: conception, or the commencement of electrical activity in the
brain.

My idea, not belief, is that a human being must have some connection
to it's reality before it is actually alive. When it begins to
observe and think, that is sufficient for me to agree that it should
be protected. I can't draw that line in stone, but it seems to be
somewhere between 10 and 14 weeks, and three months sounds reasonable.
If it is a glob of cells dividing on auto-pilot, I can't believe that
that it is particularly worthy of protection.

An
infant is a human, a fetus in the late stages of development is more
human than not.

It's human. Period. It ain't a frog, is it?

Up to a certain point, they're pretty hard to tell apart without using
DNA. We share an awful lot of DNA with other mammals, so if that is
the gold standard, why aren't other mammals protected?

A blastocyte is almost indistingishable from any other species.

Utterly false. Its DNA is unmistakeably *human* DNA.

Without using DNA. DNA is a blueprint, not life itself.

I've met plenty of people that aren't worth any more than a sack of
meat, and a spoiled one at that.

Hmmm.... Is it OK to kill them? Please explain why or why not.

The short answer is no, because it is illegal.

If it were not, it may be in some cases- our president has been in a
position to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of inmates on
numerous occasions, and I don't believe he was too gung-ho about
pardoning those on death row.

In other instances, it is OK to kill someone who is initiating the use
of physical force against you, intending to cause you serious harm or
death. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another to prevent them from
continuing to kill or trying to kill others. In all cases, they must
initiate the use of force, and killing is the last resort.

The whole deal is a bio-mechanical
process- cattle work the same as you and me, and we eat the damn
things and use their skin for shoes. But they're God's Lil Children
too.

No, they're not. They're animals. They're not humans.

Humans are animals too. What makes humans inherantly better than
animals? I've never had a problem with the great majority of animals,
but there are a whole lot of humans that do nothing good for
themselves or others, and more than a handful that cause a great deal
of harm.

The people who want abortions do not want the potential child. We are
overpopulated enough as it is without forcing drug addicts and
prostitues and 15-year old rape victims to make a stilted
almost-attempt at *raising* a child.

Straw man, and a damned poor one at that. The vast majority of abortions are
performed for reasons of convenience, or as birth control after the fact.
Cases such as you cite are a small portion of the total; and in any event,
nothing prevents those mothers from giving the babies up for adoption. Nobody
is *ever* "forc[ed]... to make a stilted almost-attempt at raising a child".

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution by protecting the cases that
fall into the "straw man" category. The others need to examine their
values for themselves.

Who the **** is going to take
care of it once it's born? Who wants a life where they are hated and
resented for the fact of their existance? You're quite the
humanitarian, damning those darling innocents you love to a life of
neglect and abuse. This is a stupid ****ing argument- you have
children you love, so damn every unloved one to hell on earth because
you *know* you're right.

Preventing abortion is not the same as condeming unwanted, unloved children
"to hell on earth" or "a life of neglect and abuse". Many babies, unwanted by
their biological parents, are adopted into loving homes where they are wanted,
treasured, and given a life that their biological parents could not possibly
have provided.

And many are shuffled from foster-home to foster-home. Many are kept
by unfit parents and mistreated. Being an unwanted child and being
reminded that you are one is far worse than being aborted. It's great
when a child is wanted and treasured, but this isn't always a shiny
pretty world where gumdrops grow on trees and Uncle Reamus sings
Zip-a-dee-do-dah. There is a lot of ugliness all around, and it's not
all abortion-related. You can crusade to save an embryo, but it means
nothing without a corresponding crusade to protect every single child
after it is born. It can't be done. Banning abortion will, in fact,
damn some children to unbearable levels of torment. Why *save* them
for that? Why save them for adoption when there are boat-loads of
foreign babies that need homes?

A mass of cells is not a slave. It is not a
Jew. It's a goddamn blob of tissue.

A blob of tissue that just happens to have a unique and complete set of human
DNA, that needs only a little time and care.

Every seed has the potential to grow, but if they all did, there would
be no room in your garden.

Why not let cancer grow and
discover it's potental? After all, that is a mass of human cells as
well.

Now you're equating fetuses with tumors. You're starting to sound desparate.

Less desperate than ****ed off. I've cooled off a *little* now, but I
don't take kindly to accusations of murder. I've never killed or even
seriously wounded another person (nor have I been a participant in or
witness to an abortion), and being called a murderer is unjust.

Maybe it has a soul. Maybe trees have souls, and you
shouldn't cut them up to make boxes and armoires.

Wow.

Can you say they don't? Can you say a frog or a lizard or a spotted
owl doesn't have a soul? Sometimes you just need to make the call for
yourself- without someone else telling you how you *must* think.
There are derivisions of Bhuddism whose adherants wear gauze over
their mouths to prevent them from inhaling insects and accidentally
killing them. If they were to become the majority, how would you like
it if they picketed your house and told you you were going to hell
because you ate a hamburger? What if they passed a law to make it a
capital crime to swat a fly, or smash a poisonous spider? There are
degrees to everything, and just because a certain percent says
something is so, that doesn't make it true.


Aut inveniam viam aut faciam