Augustus Greatorex wrote:
You wish to discuss when it is legal to terminate a human life before birth. This is not a discussion on when life begins.
The term "abortion" is applied to two distinct and separate things: Pregnancy and embryo/fetus. Abortion of a pregnancy is not against the law in the USA, if there is no fetus. And no one is seeking laws requiring a woman bring a dead fetus to term or anything of that sort. I hope we are clear that we are discussing aborting living fetuses, not aborting pregnancies.
The discussion of when live begins is central to this issue because if it is not life, it can not be taken away. As I understand you argument, life begins with the fertilization of the egg and therefore fertilization marks the beginning of life.
I have made no appeal to religion in my opposition to aborting human life. I want the facts to be clear on what is being discussed.
You wish to discuss when it is legal to terminate ... (
show quote)
Since the legal community for the most part has not caught up with the scientific community it begs the issue to claim that a religious definition is not what is being applied here.
AvJoe wrote:
Since the legal community for the most part has not caught up with the scientific community it begs the issue to claim that a religious definition is not what is being applied here.
You asserted without supporting evidence mine was a religious motivation, as such,
you, not the legal community, nor the scientific community, are begging the question.
AvJoe wrote:
Because something exhibits a similarity to something does not make it so. a camelion and many other animals exiibit the ability to appear to be what they are not. Does an animal say an ape embro in its early stages of justation have similarity to a human embro.
Yes. An ape in gestation is an ape. While it gestates, it is a living ape.
Is it your contention that a pregnant human woman may unwittingly be carrying an ape fetus?
As for the question of legality/ethical and moral correctness
one could say that there is a diversity of opinions about that. Some whould argue that viability outside the womb should be the criteria. It is crtainly a perplexing question.
The argument of viability criteria for abortion of a human fetus accepts unequivocally the fact of human life of the fetus. It is no argument opposing what I have stated.
Allow me to make one additional point, what if any rights should the mother of that fetus have in making a decision.
Now we are dealing with two directly opposite views. Finally Should government even be involved in this decision.
This is not an additional point, but rather different argument altogether. Your points are not points in one coherent and logical argument. They are random arguments without method or continuity.
The mother of a fetus implies a choice already made, you should say "carrier" or "bearer," since "mother" is woman in relationship to a child or children she has given birth to, thereby belying the argument.
It appears we have no opposing views, just a handful of random arguments, thrown out hoping something will stick. As I said before, I think you want what I have said to be false, not that you have an argument against it.
HAPPY 4TH TO ALL MY OPP FRIENDS!
Because something exhibits a similarity to somethi... (
show quote)
Don't use all your gunpowder. We'll need that later. :-) :-D :-D :-D
Augustus Greatorex wrote:
Don't use all your gunpowder. We'll need that later. :-) :-D :-D :-D
I am going to respond here to your writings of July5, 13 00:04:53
First reading your responce Where did I say or imply a human woman might carry to justation an Ape baby. You have been watching too many planet of the Apes movies.
As for your therory being a religious, rather than legal theory two things come to mind.
1. Several States have passed or attempted to pass various restrictions, allowed proceedures some which depend on the so called status of the fetus, to fail to consider what State law has done to date and is attempting to do, belittles and voids the entire purpose of this discussion. Acknowleging the diversity of thought on, for instance, when to recognize a fetus, embro, fertilized egg, or even unfertilized egg, as somebody or some thing is not only important to the issue, it is the issue. Denying so denys an entire line of argument. It does not as you have stated, because the word fetus was used, shut down the argument of a fetus needing to be viable outside the womb in order to be "live" From a legal point this issue is not settled. From a moral/ethical point I still state that the bible bangers have been the most outspoken in denying any view but there own.
Finally, since we will need to seek some sort of legal agreement of the subject on a national basis and since Roe V Wade would have to be over turned in order for some to get their way the discussion must continue as a full discussion of all alternatives. We can not afford in my opinion a national legal discussion which leaves out any portion of the electorate.
Lasher wrote:
What is "justation?"
Lasher if the word justation is spelt wrong please correct me. If you are questioning the definition it is the period a female mammel carries a fetus/embro etc. (I do not wqant to argue the exact terminology since I believe you are smart enough to know what
AvJoe wrote:
Lasher if the word justation is spelt wrong please correct me. If you are questioning the definition it is the period a female mammel carries a fetus/embro etc. (I do not wqant to argue the exact terminology since I believe you are smart enough to know what
Continued (hit wrong button)
I mean remains in the womb from I suppose fertilization to birth.
AvJoe wrote:
Lasher if the word justation is spelt wrong please correct me. If you are questioning the definition it is the period a female mammel carries a fetus/embro etc. (I do not wqant to argue the exact terminology since I believe you are smart enough to know what
"Gestation" "mammal" and "embryo."
Lasher wrote:
"Gestation" "mammal" and "embryo."
Thank you for the correction.
AvJoe wrote:
I am going to respond here to your writings of July5, 13 00:04:53
First reading your responce Where did I say or imply a human woman might carry to justation an Ape baby. You have been watching too many planet of the Apes movies.
As for your therory being a religious, rather than legal theory two things come to mind.
1. Several States have passed or attempted to pass various restrictions, allowed proceedures some which depend on the so called status of the fetus, to fail to consider what State law has done to date and is attempting to do, belittles and voids the entire purpose of this discussion. Acknowleging the diversity of thought on, for instance, when to recognize a fetus, embro, fertilized egg, or even unfertilized egg, as somebody or some thing is not only important to the issue, it is the issue. Denying so denys an entire line of argument. It does not as you have stated, because the word fetus was used, shut down the argument of a fetus needing to be viable outside the womb in order to be "live" From a legal point this issue is not settled. From a moral/ethical point I still state that the bible bangers have been the most outspoken in denying any view but there own.
Finally, since we will need to seek some sort of legal agreement of the subject on a national basis and since Roe V Wade would have to be over turned in order for some to get their way the discussion must continue as a full discussion of all alternatives. We can not afford in my opinion a national legal discussion which leaves out any portion of the electorate.
I am going to respond here to your writings of Jul... (
show quote)
According to your argument only two possible types of theories exist "legal" and "religious." Since you ruled out legal, it must be religious. So what are scientific theories: Legal or religious?
As to your plea of viability outside of a specific environment, in certain environments you cannot survive. Does that make your life unviable?
Unless the purpose of this discussion is stated and known, on what basis do you claim the unknown purpose of the discussion is belittled or voided?
Augustus Greatorex wrote:
According to your argument only two possible types of theories exist "legal" and "religious." Since you ruled out legal, it must be religious. So what are scientific theories: Legal or religious?
As to your plea of viability outside of a specific environment, in certain environments you cannot survive. Does that make your life unviable?
Unless the purpose of this discussion is stated and known, on what basis do you claim the unknown purpose of the discussion is belittled or voided?
According to your argument only two possible types... (
show quote)
My point has been and still is that at some point a unified (Federal) definition of the existance if life will be developed, codified into law and used as the basis of the legal status of an unborn. You imply that religion and law are the only two theories that I believe to be available. If there is some additional sources (such as science) can you present a unified theory accepted by the scientific community? If not, and I believe there is no real scientific agreement, the scientists must revert back to the "big three" positions, based on law, ethics, and or religion.
Let us however take your lead, Do you accept the fact that live has to be viable and sustainable in order to be considered "life". Let's look at that question from the other side.....when are you dead? If your heart shuts down but other functions such as brain waves, breathing, and circulation have not ceased then are you dead. Or how about the situation where one has lost being viable except for machines. You could argue that because you still are exibiting certain functions of the body, you are still alive. This may only be temporary but at that moment they still are alive. Then again you might compare a fetus to someone on life support. They are being kept alive but could not function on their own. Now comes the question of the fetus. A fetus has never had the capacity to survive outside the womb and whould without "life support of the mother" survive.
In other words where do you draw that fine line and who makes that decision?
AvJoe wrote:
My point has been and still is that at some point a unified (Federal) definition of the existance if life will be developed, codified into law and used as the basis of the legal status of an unborn. You imply that religion and law are the only two theories that I believe to be available. If there is some additional sources (such as science) can you present a unified theory accepted by the scientific community? If not, and I believe there is no real scientific agreement, the scientists must revert back to the "big three" positions, based on law, ethics, and or religion.
Let us however take your lead, Do you accept the fact that live has to be viable and sustainable in order to be considered "life". Let's look at that question from the other side.....when are you dead? If your heart shuts down but other functions such as brain waves, breathing, and circulation have not ceased then are you dead. Or how about the situation where one has lost being viable except for machines. You could argue that because you still are exibiting certain functions of the body, you are still alive. This may only be temporary but at that moment they still are alive. Then again you might compare a fetus to someone on life support. They are being kept alive but could not function on their own. Now comes the question of the fetus. A fetus has never had the capacity to survive outside the womb and whould without "life support of the mother" survive.
In other words where do you draw that fine line and who makes that decision?
My point has been and still is that at some point ... (
show quote)
I apologize for the over long pause. I was dumbfounded that such is your is contention. That rather than stand up against tyranny of the government determining at will and besides common knowledge. You wish to discuss my surrender terms. Such a discussion is not to be.
I will not discuss the codification into law of the taking of innocent life, because the government has determined its suitability. Look to Nazi Germany, the civilians and soldiers tried by the Hague for their "crimes against humanity," if you think national law protects practitioners of foul deeds.
I reject your discussion of my unilateral surrender. I will discuss theory and science, but not my capitulation of free thought.
Augustus Greatorex wrote:
I apologize for the over long pause. I was dumbfounded that such is your is contention. That rather than stand up against tyranny of the government determining at will and besides common knowledge. You wish to discuss my surrender terms. Such a discussion is not to be.
I will not discuss the codification into law of the taking of innocent life, because the government has determined its suitability. Look to Nazi Germany, the civilians and soldiers tried by the Hague for their "crimes against humanity," if you think national law protects practitioners of foul deeds.
I reject your discussion of my unilateral surrender. I will discuss theory and science, but not my capitulation of free thought.
I apologize for the over long pause. I was dumbfou... (
show quote)
But that is exactly the point, since even science which you seem to hold in such high esteem, can not agree on a basic definition, then why should the law reflect your point of view. Where is your back-up for the life at fertilization theory other than in the bible?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.