" I don't believe in murder, but you can kill people if you want." "I don't believe in racism, but you can be racist if you want." "I don't believe in stealing, but you can be a thief if you want."

Good arguements against being pro-choice?

But what about...

"Are you fine with people haivng the choice to be what religion they want to be?"

"Yes."

"Then you are pro-Athiest."

Does this hold up?

-- Jacob R, (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), October 21, 2004

Answers

Bump.

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), October 21, 2004.

Hi Jacob R,

The biggest difference in the two basic arguments you present is that murder, racism, thivery, and abortion are all sins or injustices against another human being.

Allowing people to choose their religion is not a sin against another human unless certain practices of that religion are (such as human sacrifice).

So I still see being pro-choice as being pro-abortion because being pro-choice allows for the choice to murder another human being. In each of those three examples you first presented (murder, racism, and thivery), there is some act that is allowed. That act infringes on the rights of a fellow human and the practical end is the same.

I'm not the best at all the nuances of logical arguments, so I'm sure I'm missing something here.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

The argument I always use is that I am pro-choice. I respect a woman's right to choose not to have unprotected sex until she's ready to raise a child. Should she choose not to exercise that right, fine. But don't kill the unborn child because of your mistake. It's wrong. The baby didn't make the mistake, you did. Now it's your responsibility to have this child and make sure he has a good life, whether that means raising him/her on your own or adoption.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 21, 2004.

Agreed . anti-Bush, see we can agre om things.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 21, 2004.

You make some very good points anti-bush.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 21, 2004.

Yes I agree anti-B, but I would strike out the word “unprotected”. Even if both people have been sterilized, they know or should know that there is a slight possibility that a baby can still be conceived. (And of course the most widely used contraceptive method, condoms, has a very high “failure” rate. Not that most people are allowed to know this, of course. They are constantly told that condoms etc are “safe”, so when they do become pregnant it is such a shock that they are already mentally ready for abortion. Which explains why abortion rates go up, not down, when contraceptive use rates go up.)

So I would say, if you choose to have sexual intercourse, you are choosing to possibly conceive a baby. If you absolutely cannot face having a baby right now (even for only 9 months) don’t choose to have sexual intercourse. It ain’t rocket science.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 22, 2004.

Wow, we finally agree on something Anti-Bush! (Will you be changing your name after Nov. 2 if Kerry wins?)

The true moral choice is between having sex or not - after all, what is involved really is ONLY the "woman's body"! After conception then it's no longer "just" her body that's involved.

I think that phrase of yours would make a good bumper sticker.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.

"Will you be changing your name after Nov. 2 if Kerry wins?"

You know, I haven't really thought about it. I guess I'll have to. Or maybe I'll wait until he's innaugurated...but whatever.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 22, 2004.

WELL, now I know I have to Vote Bush... that way AB Can keep his Screenname for another 4 years! ( Sorry I make bad jokes...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 23, 2004.

i think bush has to win then, if anti-bush changed his name to anti- kerry i think i'd have a hard time thinking of him as the same person... thats what bipartisan politics does to you, it makes you think in terms of one, or the other, but not both.

in response to the arguement presented by anti bush, he's exactly correct, although i'd like to refine it a touch with some of kant's principle ethics and some of my thoughts as well. That is, when we look at an action we are required to judge it by principle (don't lie, don't murder, don't have premarital sex) and not by consequence (not hurting feelings, physical pleasure, etc). IF WE FAIL to regard only the consequences of the different choices in making a moral decision, we are responsible for the outcome of those choices (or should be). the moral decision tree would look something like this then:

1) the choice to have premarital sex: principle (or divine command) tell us that abuse of the sexual faculty is wrong. Our human desire tells us of a physical consequence to be gained. we ignore our faithful demand to follow the principle ethic, and we engage in the activity in desire for the "best" consequences. We have failed this moral choice.

2) the consequences: later break up with the partner and the girl becomes pregnant. Both share full responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

3) decision number two: Lets say for example here that the boy wishes to keep the baby and is willing to raise the child, even by himself if need be. the mother wishes to abort the baby. Again, the principle ethic tells us that murdering an innocent is gravely wrong, while the desire for consequence whispers of stronger financial stability, no pain of labor or embarassment for the pregnancy. The mother decides to abort the baby.

4) Consequence: An innocent life is ended prematurely. In this case the father was willing to do what is right, and to suffer the consequences for his actions, making his previous errors at least somewhat less egregious (although he is still accountable) because of his nobility (is that the right word in this case??) in this decision. The mother, on the other hand, has refused her consequences of her first failed moral decision, and in so doing has ended a human life, another consequence for which she will be accountable.

So anti bush is right, the first moral decision lies not in whether or not to have an abortion, but whether or not to engage in illicit sexual relationships... perhaps THAT is yet another deeper issue that needs work in society. maybe we are trying to treat a symptom instead of the actual disease, and yet, at this point is this a disease that we stand a chance of defeating at this point or are we better off to control the damage now, and fix it when we can?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 24, 2004.

I agree with all of you people who say that abortion is wrong but i disagree with making it illegal. I am a catholic but i really dont think that what we believe is a reason to take away the right of someone to do something based on their religion if they belive that they can have an abortion then go for it i dont think its up for us to belive. part of this whole abortion thing is its international effect which all of you have failed to mention. Because of Bush's policies there is no funding for contrception or abortion in third world contries where they need it. The women dont have the choice to have the sex and then they are having 8 kids that they cant afford and their bodies cant handle it seeing as how they dont have enough money to eat and to get the necessary pre natal care. o yea n a comment on the whole first thing about murder that is all relative and way oppinionated some people dont belive it is murder that is where a lot of the controvercy is.

-- Cassie N (sweetnsxy9696@hotmail.com), October 25, 2004.

I agree with all of you people who say that abortion is wrong but i disagree with making it illegal.

{ dO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY WE WAN TIT TO BE ILLEGAL?}-zarove

I am a catholic but i really dont think that what we believe is a reason to take away the right of someone to do something based on their religion if they belive that they can have an abortion then go for it i dont think its up for us to belive.

{Abortion isnt primarily a rleigiouissue though... Its about the righ to life. See, you say we dont have the righ tot take away soemoen elses righ ot abort. what tou are not seeign is that abortion ends the right of the child. The mist basic right we have is the right to life, and yet those who say Abortion shodl be legal claim the baby doesnt have this right, and the mother can take this right away as she so chooses.

restricting Murder is NOT the same as removign anyones rights.Quiet the conrary, itrotects the rights of the bbay, whom you fial to consider.}-Zarove

part of this whole abortion thing is its international effect which all of you have failed to mention.

{Internaitionak efect? what on earth dos thta have to do with the right of mothers to murder their own children?}-Zarove

Because of Bush's policies there is no funding for contrception or abortion in third world contries where they need it.

{Bush has no real power there, thats congress and its spending... and again, why woudl we want to support abortion in the third world? why is it needed? why is the mirder of baies needed in the third world? Are third wrld babies less vlauable human beigns than babies in America? Or are babies in geenral not relaly that important?}-Zarove

The women dont have the choice to have the sex and then they are having 8 kids that they cant afford and their bodies cant handle it seeing as how they dont have enough money to eat and to get the necessary pre natal care.

{Uhm... are you sure you have the fcts corect? if they have 8 chidlren then more htan lilel they are married. And again, its not abotu the womans rights and needs, muder is always wrogn and mist be opposed, and hter eis no justification for murder under any cercumstances.}-Zarove

o yea n a comment on the whole first thing about murder that is all relative and way oppinionated some people dont belive it is murder that is where a lot of the controvercy is.

{The reaosn they don beleive its murder is becaue they wan tot justify their actions. Science clealry tells us the Fetus is alive...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 25, 2004.

“there is no funding for contrception or abortion in third world contries where they need it. The women dont have the choice to have the sex and then they are having 8 kids that they cant afford and their bodies cant handle it seeing as how they dont have enough money to eat and to get the necessary pre natal care.”

I can’t believe this hoary old racist lie from the 1960s is still getting circulated. Nobody NEEDS contraception or abortion. Most people in Third World countries are poor rural subsistence farmers who WANT to have as many children as they can, to help work the farm and look after them in their old age. It is the over-fed, over- leisured Western man who is obsessed with his sexual pleasure who is likely to pressure women into sexual intercourse. The idea that people in the Third World (who do backbreaking manual work every day under the tropical sun from dawn to dusk, poorly nourished and weakened by disease) have "too many" children because of their excessive sexual activity, is racist poppycock.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 25, 2004.

that is all relative and way oppinionated some people dont belive it is murder that is where a lot of the controvercy is.

Moral relativity is not an arguement, dear child, moral relativity is an opposition to the idea that ANY morality can be judged. essentially, what you mean to say is that if some people don't believe rape is wrong (and some people don't see it that way) then they shouldnt be restrained from such activity. As an argument that has been debunked repeatedly by ethicists both religious and secular, i'm always surprised when moral relativism arguements rear their ugly heads.

Besides, as a catholic you should ascribe to a moral theory more like the Divine Command, or Kant's Principle ethics, or even Natural Law Theory... which would state that the murder of innocent life is ALWAYS wrong, which is also something you should know as a catholic. As i've said here before, if you are truly a catholic and share the catholic beliefs, you have a moral obligation to not only act on those beliefs but to try and ensure that others do not violate the moral wrong as well. We are called to bring an end to sin, not enable others to choose it in some asinine "it's my choice" babble.

Finally, listen to yourself. Arguing in favor of the right to murder babies when you claim to be catholic based on the CONSTITUTION? The same constitution that gives the basic right to life... right? As you should already know, the right of the government to remain in power is by the sponsorship of God. If the government is immoral than you have a higher duty, which is adherance to the moral code set by God, not by man. From your arguement, it sounds like you have your priorities mixed up... i certainly wouldnt want to explain to God about how the constitution supercedes His word...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 25, 2004.

Someone said: "I agree with all of you people who say that abortion is wrong but i disagree with making it illegal." WHAT IN THE WORLD KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT?

If it's wrong, it shouldn't be legal PERIOD.

"But if it's made illegal then women will have to go to the back street alleys to find a doctor." Or "We'll be back using coat hangers again."

In other words, "We have to let the mothers kill their babies in a manner that will bring the least likelihood of harm to themselves!"

Imagine if we applied that logic to other crimes! Enabling every sort of criminal his bad conduct because if we don't, "He might hurt himself!"

If abortion is the killing of an innocent child (which of course it is), then the answer is NO, WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!

Gail

BTW, When Roe v. Wade was first made the law of the land, the child was thought to be a 'blob of gel.' No heart beat, no individual traits or features, no PERSONHOOD! We now know that is NOT THE CASE!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 25, 2004.

Dear All!

I would like to thank all contributors for putting the whole abortion thing right. I have the same intuitions but sometimes find it hard to construct a logical argument, but don't you think you do not alawys have to be able to prove something to be deeply convinced you are right?

Anyway, you might be surprised but here in Poland, where I live, we are experiencing a mighty blow of liberal ideas right now. Issues commonly discussed is the right to abortion (as a "reproductative right of a woman"), gay and lesibian "marriage", sexual education at primary schools, contraseptives made available to school girls etc. Of course, all this is directed at the traditional catholic morality taught by the Church. At many universities the faculties of gender studies are opening and many young intellectuals pose as TV pundits on the issue. Needless to say, our recent integration with the EU creates the right atmosphere for such discussion.

I am surprised that pro-choicers use the very same arguments you quoted here: -mother's right to choose (father is "just the inseminator") -abortion underground as an outcome of anti-abotion legislation -relativity of values etc.

Another arguement used in a recent by a young Polish feminist writer is that pro-lifers in America are very much like terrorists: once they realised they will never achieve their autoritarian aims legally they turned to violence: they rally clinics, drag out and beat up women willing to have an abortion, murder aborter doctors etc. In short, pro-live movement is presented as a dangerous extreme and the pro-choice activists as defenders of civilisation and democracy. She writes something like: "Polish women, you have been opressed by fanatics for too long. You have to stand up for your right to control you own lives!" The sad truth is that to a large extent this is kind of message is easily absorbed by many young women and men, who have already taken in enough of "relativist" brainwashing through the media. This results in a situation that many people even if still officially pose as Catholics in front of their families, they in fact silently and practically adhere to premaritial sex, contrseption, pornography, divorce, abortion and whatever they judge "progressive".

I am very courious of your opinion especially on the real situation in the US.

-- Adam Sikora (adamcuc@wp.pl), October 26, 2004.

For over 20 years pro-lifers worked according to the "system" using the same tactics other protesters used - sidewalk protests, marches, etc. and we used the electoral system - congress and the presidency to advance our cause - precisely THE SAME WAY THE PRO-ABORTS DO THINGS.

But we lost in the courts - abortion wasn't voted into law via democracy. It was foisted into place by the courts, placing severe limitations on what "the people" can do.

Under Clinton the extremists in Planned Parenthood and other pro- abort groups (funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state, and local tax revenues) got a law passed banning even peaceful protests.

Up to that time millions of pro-lifers had peacefully protested. Suddenly forbidden to do so, the inevitable happened - violence broke out and a half dozen abortionists were gunned down and a half dozen clinics fire-bombed.

But it all ceased in the late 1990s and there hasn't been a SINGLE bomb or shooting attack on clinics in the last couple of years because the repressive law was largely overturned and people are able to gather to protest peacefully again.

But the ultimate battle is still in the courts - and that's how the abortionists see it too - they know they can't win if this is a democratically done thing.

They aren't above lying, fabricating statistics or making up claims of violence when none exist (just check the police reports!). Clinton's Department of Justice even launched an investigation for years to determine if pro-life groups were "terrorists" - wire-taps, surveillance, invasions... and found not a single case of terrorism, no bomb factories, no arsenals, no operational coordination, nothing.... and they were actually disappointed: they believed their own propaganda.

The average American pro-lifer is a WOMAN who is about 40 years old, a mother, a wife... about a third of the active pro-life women have also had abortions themselves and are trying to keep other women from suffering the same psychological and emotional problems they do.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 26, 2004.

the real situation in america is aweful regarding this issue, adam... by the way, welcome to our forum. I am often reminded of how closely the 43 million babies who have died since Roe V Wade resemble a silent holocaust on our part. its a simple thing really, take the quote you gave from your source: She writes something like: "Polish women, you have been opressed by fanatics for too long. You have to stand up for your right to control you own lives!" and now we change a few words and get:

"People, you have been opressed by jews for too long. You have to stand up for your right to control your own lives"

whenever people try to justify murder by this means it makes me cringe. this isnt a revolution, its wholesale murder of children and its disgusting.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 26, 2004.

Poland and the USA are in the same board, it seems...Adam...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

“whenever people try to justify murder by this means it makes me cringe. this isnt a revolution, its wholesale murder of children and its disgusting.”

There are problems here that no one seems to want to genuinely acknowledge or address, none of this is as black and white as many people would like it to be.

Under our legal system our government cannot (or should not) make and enforce laws based solely on religious beliefs or articles of faith. This is something that I think most people will agree is a good thing.

There are going to be disagreements over what is a faith based/religious belief, and what is not, this is something that is simply unavoidable.

I doubt that either side of this issue condones the murder of children (or anyone else). Yet, different people (on both sides of the abortion issue) find ways to rationalize why it is ok, under certain circumstances and for reasons that they deem reasonable, to kill innocent people and children. So, in the end, who bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding these kinds of moral issues, teaching them to our children and requiring us to live our lives accordingly…the government…or ourselves? Entrusting these decisions to the government, and relying on the government to enforce them can be a double-edged sword. None of this is easy.

Right now, there is a deep division among sincere people as to when a human life becomes a “person” and when a human life is no longer a “person”. Is a zygote a person, or is it a unique, living, group of cells with the potential to become a person? What about a person who “clinically” dies on the operating table but the body is temporarily kept alive to help insure the successful harvesting of the organs? Is that living human body, lying on the table, still a “person”? Can science answer either of these questions?

We also have the problem that can occur when the government attempts to enforce a law when the governed are divided. This can sometimes compound the problem and add more problems without curing what the law was designed to cure…witness the prohibition. Would making abortions illegal at this time (without changing people’s hearts) end the abortion tragedy, or would it simply add more problems compounding the tragedies?

These are legitimate questions and sincere people can differ on the best solutions.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.

Four more years of "anti-Bush"! :)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.

Chris,

A lot of issues become clearer if you lose the philosophical/legal concept of "person", and just deal with the plain reality of "human being". It doesn't matter whether an unborn child meets philosophical or legal definitions of "personhood". The unborn child is obviously a "being", by virtue of existing and having life. And any being who is the offspring of two human beings is inescapably also a human being. The willful, premeditated destruction of the life of a human being is murder, whether that particular human being meets anyone's subjective criteria for "personhood" or not. "Personhood" is merely one of several smokescreens intentionally created to cloud what is in essence a perfectly clearcut issue.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 04, 2004.

Paul,

“-A lot of issues become clearer if you lose the philosophical/legal concept of "person", and just deal with the plain reality of "human being". It doesn't matter whether an unborn child meets philosophical or legal definitions of "personhood"-”

It would be nice if one could, simply by saying it, make the concept of personhood irrelevant. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. The “plain reality” of it is that what makes killing a person ultimately so horrible is that a “person’s” life has been taken away, it is not so much that a living, biologically human body, has had it’s life ended.

“-The unborn child is obviously a "being", by virtue of existing and having life. And any being who is the offspring of two human beings is inescapably also a human being.-“

But, using your term again,---“plain reality”---people know the plain reality that a fertilized egg is not yet a chicken, and an acorn is not yet an Oak tree. They are each alive and each has everything needed to “become” a chicken or an Oak tree.

One can’t, through the use of semantics, turn an acorn into an Oak tree by claiming that since it is the offspring of an Oak tree…it must therefore be an Oak tree.

These are the kinds of things that really have to be acknowledged and truly addressed if we are ever going to make any headway toward a genuine and meaningful dialogue with those who see abortion as morally neutral. There ARE genuine reasons why abortion is immoral but one will never even get to discuss those reasons if one simply hits the other person over the head with a baseball bat while calling the person a murderer.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.

"what makes killing a person ultimately so horrible is that a “person’s” life has been taken away, it is not so much that a living, biologically human body, has had it’s life ended."

A: I didn't say a "human body". I said a 'human BEING", which by definition is a being composed of a mortal physical body AND an immortal spiritual soul. The Church makes no moral distinction between "person" and "human being"; however, other parties do so, on philosophical and legal grounds. That's why it is preferable not to play their game, but to stick to the terminology that can't be smokescreened. Abortion kills a human being, regardless of their various theories of "personhood", and no-one can deny that fact without looking like a fool.

"people know the plain reality that a fertilized egg is not yet a chicken, and an acorn is not yet an Oak tree. They are each alive and each has everything needed to “become” a chicken or an Oak tree."

A: Yes, just like a 5 year old child is not yet a man or woman, but is alive and has everything needed to "become" a man or a woman. A fertilized egg is not yet an ADULT chicken, and an acorn is not yet an ADULT tree, any more than a human embryo is an ADULT human being. But that is beside the point. A fertilized egg contains an embryonic CHICKEN and an acorn contains an embryonic OAK TREE, just as the uterus of a pregnant woman contains an embryonic HUMAN BEING. The embryonic chicken "becomes" an ADULT chicken through a gradual process of growth and maturation - but it doesn't become "a chicken" that way. It already IS a chicken. What else could the offspring of two chickens be? During the entire process from fertilization until Frank Purdue terminates it, there is never a single moment when the developing being is something other than it was five minutes earlier. Therefore, there is no "change" from one entity into another. The embryo in the egg IS a chicken just as surely as the newly hatched chick is, and just as surely as the full grown hen is. These various labels are simply different timepoints in the continuous development of one individual being. Embryo - fetus - newborn - toddler - pre-adolescent - teenager - middle age - octogenarian. No one of these is any more or less human than another. Human is human. Something non-human cannot "become" human through a biological process. No-one claims the fetus is "a man" or "a woman", but he/ she is most certainly a human person, and those who would try to mask that fact by proposing novel, self-serving definitions of "personhood", still have to face the plain reality that the embryo is a unique human being who has already begun the ongoing process of development that will continue until the termination - natural or otherwise - of his/her life.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 04, 2004.

“I didn't say a "human body". I said a 'human BEING", which by definition is a being composed of a mortal physical body AND an immortal spiritual soul. The Church makes no moral distinction between "person" and "human being";”

But that is the point of what I said earlier, “Under our legal system our government cannot (or should not) make and enforce laws based solely on religious beliefs or articles of faith. This is something that I think most people will agree is a good thing.”…This can, however, be a very difficult thing for some to accept in actuality when it comes to their own beliefs, but we cannot base our laws on how the Church defines a human being, or whether the Church says something is moral or immoral.

“Yes, just like a 5 year old child is not yet a man or woman, but is alive and has everything needed to "become" a man or a woman.”

But a five-year old child IS a person, it is just as illegal to kill a five year old, as it is to kill a 25 year old, no reasonable or sincere person disputes that.

“A fertilized egg is not yet an ADULT chicken, and an acorn is not yet an ADULT tree, any more than a human embryo is an ADULT human being. But that is beside the point.”

But in reality its not beside the point, a fertilized egg is no more a chicken than an acorn is an Oak tree. The egg will develop into a chicken just as the acorn will develop into an Oak tree unless they die or are killed…in which case their potential to become a chicken or a tree will have become extinguished. A chicken is made of flesh, bones, organs etc, an egg is made of absolutely none of these. Only as a sort of abstract concept could someone call an egg---a chicken.

“A fertilized egg contains an embryonic CHICKEN”

An egg IS an embryo, the word chicken describes what kind (chicken) of an embryo it is, not that the embryo itself is already a chicken… the embryo, however, will develop INTO a chicken.

“Something non-human cannot "become" human through a biological process.”

Ah but it can! A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human, the two, when joined together can, through a biological process become a human person.

“No-one claims the fetus is "a man" or "a woman", but he/ she is most certainly a human person,”

But that is precisely the problem that at least needs to be acknowledged, sincere people differ on the question regarding the point at which, from the very beginning, a zygote has developed into an actual "human person”. You can be completely sincere and “say” that a zygote “is most certainly a human person,” just as someone else can be equally sincere in their belief that it is not yet a human person, this is why we need to have a definition of personhood.

What both sides cannot deny is what you said regarding an embryo, that it has already begun the ongoing process of development that will continue until the termination - natural or otherwise...From "that" base we can build a moral argument that neither side can deny.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.

"Under our legal system our government cannot (or should not) make and enforce laws based solely on religious beliefs or articles of faith."

A: They shouldn't? "Thou shalt not steal" is an article of faith. The government makes laws based on that religious principle, because it is immediately obvious that failure to do so will result in behaviors destructive to society. As a member of society you are required to abide by that principle whether you accept the Judao-Christian Ten Commandments as authoritative or not.

The problem here is that the goverment already has a legal definition of "person" which is used throughout the court systems of the nation. That definition can be applied to companies, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, and societies, as well as individual human beings. Because the government can define what constitutes a "person" for purposes of litigation, some accept that the government can likewise define "person" in the more general sense - as a synonym for "human being", a concept which is defined by biological, social, and spiritual dimensions which no government is qualified to rule on. A human being is a human being when he/she comes into existence. Not when he/she reaches a certain size or age. Not when he/she leaves the shelter of his/her mother's body. And a human being has inalienable rights, the most central of which is the right to life. No government possesses the authority to declare otherwise.

"we cannot base our laws on how the Church defines a human being, or whether the Church says something is moral or immoral".

A: The Church does not determine what a human being is any more than it determines what God is. God is who He is, and it is the Church's responsibility to make that revelation known. Likewise, a human being is what a human being is, and that is what the Church is bound to reveal to the world. If the Church defined a human being any other way, the Church would simply be wrong - not just morally wrong, but factually wrong - because the essence of a human being is an objective reality, not subject to anyone's definition. Therefore, the government, like the Church, has no valid grounds for "defining" what constitutes a human person. When the government denied that people of African origin were human beings, the govenment was simply wrong - morally and factually. If the government denies that people are not human persons during the first nine months of their lives, the government is simply wrong - morally and factually. If the government doesn't base its laws on objective reality, those laws are invalid, de facto, and no-one who is aware of objective reality will accept or obey them.

"But a five-year old child IS a person, it is just as illegal to kill a five year old, as it is to kill a 25 year old, no reasonable or sincere person disputes that."

A: Is a five-minute old child a person? Can any rational person believe that the same child, five minutes BEFORE birth, was NOT precisely the SAME person? Can a thing be defined merely by location, without regard for the actual charateristics of the thing? Saying that an individual human being is not a person five minutes before birth, but is a person five minutes after birth makes as much sense as saying that a TV set, if moved from the living room to the kitchen, becomes a toaster. It is likewise absurd to claim that an individual, unborn at 9 months gestation, is not a person, yet another individual, born at 6 months gestation, and thereby far less developed, is a person.

"a fertilized egg is no more a chicken than an acorn is an Oak tree. The egg will develop into a chicken just as the acorn will develop into an Oak tree unless they die or are killed…in which case their potential to become a chicken or a tree will have become extinguished."

A: Not so. You confuse the concept of "chicken" - which is the name of a species - with the concept of "adult chicken". Is a chick which has just emerged from the shell a chicken? A baby chicken? Or it is some other species? Is a newborn baby a human person? Or some other species? Is the chick within the shell, just starting to peck its way out, a baby chicken? Was it a baby chicken two days earlier? A week earlier? Of course it was! What else could it be! Is a baby a human being five minutes before birth? Five days before? Five weeks before? Five months before? Obviously, he/she is. What else could he/she be? An embryo will not "develop into a chicken" or "develop into a human being". An embryo IS a chicken - or a human being - in the earliest days of his/her life. It can only develop into a more mature form of what it already is. I didn't "develop from" an embryo. I WAS an embryo, and so were you.

"A chicken is made of flesh, bones, organs etc, an egg is made of absolutely none of these."

A: An ADULT chicken has such anatomical structures. A baby chicken (or human) does not have all the anatomical structures of the adult. And a fetal chicken (or human) doesn't have all the anatomical structures of a newborn. Does that mean the newborn is less human than the adult? No! Does that mean the fetus is less human than the newborn? No! Does it mean that the embryo is less human than the fetus? No! If the embryo were not 100% human, there is no way he/she could develop into a human fetus, a human newborn, a human adult.

"An egg IS an embryo, the word chicken describes what kind (chicken) of an embryo it is, not that the embryo itself is already a chicken… the embryo, however, will develop INTO a chicken."

A: An egg is not an embryo. An egg is a fluid reservoir which serves as an environment for the developing embryo, and which contains a store of nourishment for the developing embryo. The egg is not a chicken, any more than a uterus is a woman. But the embryo which has begun his/her life within the egg - or within the uterus - is a new and unique individual of the species, whether chicken or human being; and if human, then deserving of the inalienable rights which belong to every human being.

"Something non-human cannot "become" human through a biological process.” Ah but it can! A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human, the two, when joined together can, through a biological process become a human person.

A: A sperm or an egg is not "a" human, but they are nevertheless distinctly human. Otherwise their union could not result in a human being. And once that union occurs, the sperm is no longer a cell belonging to the father, and the ovum is no longer a cell belonging to the mother. The resulting zygote is the first cell belonging to a new and distinct human person, deserving of his/her inalienable rights.

"people differ on the question regarding the point at which, from the very beginning, a zygote has developed into an actual "human person".

A: Yes they do. Which is why I avoid such philosophical issues. When the embryo becomes a "person" obviously depends upon the definition of "person" that you accept - and is therefore completely subjective. It is perfectly obvious however, that an embryo resulting from the union of a human sperm and a human egg cell is objectively a HUMAN BEING. It would be foolish to suggest that he/she is not a being, because after all, there he/she is - growing, respiring, metabolizing, excreting, developing! And it would be equally ludicrous to suggest that he/she is a being other than human, since he/she is composed entirely of human cells, and is growing and developing under the control of his/her complete and unique complement of human DNA - exactly the same DNA configuration he/she will have for the rest of his/her life.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 04, 2004.

" Under our legal system our government cannot (or should not) make and enforce laws based solely on religious beliefs or articles of faith.

They shouldn't? "Thou shalt not steal" is an article of faith. The government makes laws based on that religious principle,”

But that (because it might be an article of faith) is NOT why we have laws against stealing. Some of our laws (such as stealing) will coincide with religious laws and/or commandments, but they are not based on them. Surely you understand that.

“Because the government can define what constitutes a "person" for purposes of litigation, some accept that the government can likewise define "person" in the more general sense - as a synonym for "human being"

This is precisely the problem we have without a general consensus as to when a zygote becomes a “person”. If the government is to make laws regarding this we need to be able to define a person for “that” very purpose.

“A human being is a human being when he/she comes into existence. Not when he/she reaches a certain size or age.”

You seem to be using “human being” as another name for a person. In any case the above assertion is simply a tautology…A person is a person when a person comes into existence…The question is, when does a person come into existence? Do you equate a living, human body, with a human being or person?

“The Church does not determine what a human being is any more than it determines what God is. God is who He is, and it is the Church's responsibility to make that revelation known. Likewise, a human being is what a human being is, and that is what the Church is bound to reveal to the world. If the Church defined a human being any other way, the Church would simply be wrong - not just morally wrong, but factually wrong - because the essence of a human being is an objective reality, not subject to anyone's definition.”

Read what you just said, you are simply repeating tautologies. “a human being is what a human being is, and that is what the Church is bound to reveal to the world”. Of course a human being is what a human being is, no one is claiming otherwise! You then go on to say the Church would be factually wrong to define it any other way, “because the essence of a human being is an objective reality, not subject to anyone's definition”. If we can’t define a humane being we have no way of knowing whether a zygote is a human being. It seem as though you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You have earlier given us your definition of a human being and then claimed that the essence of a human being is not subject to anyone’s definition.

“Is a five-minute old child a person? Can any rational person believe that the same child, five minutes BEFORE birth, was NOT precisely the SAME person?”

I cannot imagine any rational or sincere person seriously claiming that five minutes before, the child was not a person or the same person. However, rational and sincere people can and do claim that 9 months before that, the zygote had not yet developed into the “person” that we are now talking about. To use your example of a child becoming an adult as an analogy, a child is not an adult, but a child will develop into an adult. Could a rational person really see an adult and claim that, 5 minutes ago, that person was not an adult??? Of course not! Yet the same rational person could certainly make the claim that 10 years ago that person was not an adult.

“I didn't "develop from" an embryo. I WAS an embryo, and so were you.” That is very close to simply begging the question of personhood. “I”, the “self”, am not made of cells. You can dissect my body, examine and test every cell or piece of matter that it is composed of and you will never find me, I am not my body, and I never was. When we talk about a zygote or an embryo developing into a person, we don’t mean that the cells become a person, it’s more like the brain developing to the point where thoughts and awareness come into the picture, although thoughts and awareness are not made up of those brain cells.

“You confuse the concept of "chicken" - which is the name of a species - with the concept of "adult chicken". Is a chick which has just emerged from the shell a chicken? A baby chicken? Or it is some other species?”

No confusion at all; an “actual” chicken, regardless of its age has certain characteristics that allow us to recognize it as an “actual” chicken. An egg possesses none of these characteristics. An egg, however, has the biological potential to grow and develop into an “actual” chicken.

“Which is why I avoid such philosophical issues. When the embryo becomes a "person" obviously depends upon the definition of "person" that you accept”

But if you are going to base your case in a secular court, that abortion should be illegal, then you are going to have to get involved in the question of when a zygote becomes a person or if it already is a person.

“It is perfectly obvious however, that an embryo resulting from the union of a human sperm and a human egg cell is objectively a HUMAN BEING.”

That’s the problem, it’s not perfectly obvious, is a human being a person, or is it a living human body? I am sure you are aware of the difference.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 05, 2004.

I must toss into this discussion that if one chooses to define "life" as the ability to have "thoughts" and "awareness"..then one may as well go over to the camp of people who advocate wiping out humans who have lost those abilities, for surely then they are no longer "human"..They used to be fully human when they could form thoughts and had awareness, but through accidents or illness they can no longer do so..so following your logic, that would make them non-human and therefore they could be subject to legislation allowing their caretakers to simply legally "abort" their existance. They would have no legal rights at all, since they really no longer exist as humans..no need to even obtain a court order, or have anyone speak for them..just kind of "poof"..whack them. Wheel those stretchers into a clinic somewhere, plunk down the money, and off they go. "See ya." We could call it the "caretakers right to choose law."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.

> Some of our laws (such as stealing) will coincide with religious laws and/or commandments, but they are not based on them."

A: It is really irrelevant whether a civil law is consciously "based" on God's law or merely "coincides" with it. The essential point is, civil law which does not "coincide" with God's law is unjust, immoral, and invalid. The validity of civil law depends entirely on its adherence to God's law. That's why we are not bound by any civil law which permits slavery, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual "marriage", or other clear violations of God's law.

> This is precisely the problem we have without a general consensus as to when a zygote becomes a “person”. If the government is to make laws regarding this we need to be able to define a person for “that” very purpose.

A: There can never be a general consensus on a question which is entirely philosophical and subjective. That's why we need to focus on that which is clearly, objectively definable. "Human being" has an innate, logically inescapable definition - which is precisely why the pro-death culture avoids the term and prefers to deal with ethereal concepts like "person" , which can be anything you define it to be.

> You seem to be using “human being” as another name for a person. In any case the above assertion is simply a tautology…A person is a person when a person comes into existence…The question is, when does a person come into existence? Do you equate a living, human body, with a human being or person?"

A: On the contrary, though I personally recognize that "person" and "human being" are indeed equivalent terms, I specifically avoid situations where essential issues are clouded by the intentional introduction of undefinable terms. I say "the intentional, premeditated killing of a human being is murder". They try to change the subject by saying "yes, but is it a person"? I reply "I couldn't care less if this human being meets your subjective standard of "personhood". The intentional, premeditated killing of ANY human being is murder." Keeps life simple. It is a well understood and universally accepted scientific fact that in sexually reproducing species, the life of an individual begins at the moment of fertilization, or as we say in Catholic circles, conception.

> "Of course a human being is what a human being is, no one is claiming otherwise! You then go on to say the Church would be factually wrong to define it any other way, “because the essence of a human being is an objective reality, not subject to anyone's definition”. If we can’t define a humane being we have no way of knowing whether a zygote is a human being."

A: But we CAN define a human being, very precisely! A human being is the offspring of two other human beings - an objective reality which begins at conception. Here, the definition must reflect the reality, or it is wrong. The reality will not conform to the definition. This is entirely different from a concept like "person" where there is no objective reality to dictate the terms of the definition. You simply decide what you want a "person" to be, define it that way, and voila! That's a person! Something you yourself have designed and "created", but only as a mental concept, not as an objective reality in any real sense.

> "I cannot imagine any rational or sincere person seriously claiming that five minutes before, the child was not a person or the same person. However, rational and sincere people can and do claim that 9 months before that, the zygote had not yet developed into the “person” that we are now talking about."

A: That line of reasoning simply doesn't hold up logically. If you agree that the child 5 minutes before birth is the same child, the same human person, who existed 5 minutes after birth, then you must agree that he/she was the same child 10 minutes before birth. 15 minutes. 20 minutes. Can that which was present 20 minutes ago be fundamentally different from that which existed 25 minutes ago? Obviously, no. If you repeat this process in 5 minute intervals 77,760 times, you will find the zygote, which is obviously the same entity it wll be 5 minutes later. 10 minutes. At each point in that process you will have to logically say that the being you are looking at is the exact same being he/she was 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes later. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the being present at the end of the process is the same being who was present at the beginning of the process. The original being didn't "become" something different. He/she simply went through the normal stages of development that characterize the life of what he/she IS - a human being - a process which will continue in that same person until death.

> "To use your example of a child becoming an adult as an analogy, a child is not an adult, but a child will develop into an adult. Could a rational person really see an adult and claim that, 5 minutes ago, that person was not an adult??? Of course not! Yet the same rational person could certainly make the claim that 10 years ago that person was not an adult."

A: Certainly! But that is not the issue. No-one is claiming that a human person at the fetal stage is identical to that same human person at the toddler stage. However, could any rational person accept that your theoretical adult is a human person, but the child he/she used to be was not a human person? That a non-human child developed into a human adult? That is what you are proposing - that something which is not a human being becomes a human being over time. That sounds like science fiction to me.

> “I”, the “self”, am not made of cells. You can dissect my body, examine and test every cell or piece of matter that it is composed of and you will never find me, I am not my body, and I never was."

A: No, a human being is not his/her body because in addition to our physical/ biological nature, we have an immortal spiritual nature, without which a human body is not a human person/human being. Therefore the human "I" or "self" consists of both matter and spirit. Our cells are indeed a part of our human identity. But so is our spirit and soul.

> "When we talk about a zygote or an embryo developing into a person, we don’t mean that the cells become a person, it’s more like the brain developing to the point where thoughts and awareness come into the picture, although thoughts and awareness are not made up of those brain cells."

A: The physical and spiritual are both components of a human person, and develop together. Both components are present from the moment of conception, which is why a human person is present from the moment of conception. A person, including all his/her components, grows and develops over time. The physical and spiritual aspects both grow and mature, taking on different form and increasing in complexity. Yet hopefully no-one would claim that the relatively primitive physical, mental and spiritual development of a newborn child makes him/her less than fully human. And if that is the case, then the stage of development he/she was at 5 minutes earlier cannot make him/her less than fully human. 10 minutes. 15 minutes. etc. etc.

Basing "personhood" on "thoughts and awareness" is one of the foundational heresies of the culture of death. That line of reasoning means that people with higher IQ scores have more value because they are "more human" or "more fully persons". Anencephalic children are non-human, non-persons, and can be discarded like refuse. Severely retarded individuals, people in irreversible comas following accidents, elderly people who are no longer "fully aware" are all expendable, since they don't meet the levels of sentience that someone's definition of "person" calls for. Problem is, the pro-death camp just can't deny one incontrovertible fact. All of these people are HUMAN BEINGS - the offspring of human parents, regardless of what other definitions they may or may not satisfy. But even though they can't deny this truth, they can try to distract us from it by raising unsolvable, irrelevant philosophical arguments about "personhood".

> "No confusion at all; an “actual” chicken, regardless of its age has certain characteristics that allow us to recognize it as an “actual” chicken. An egg possesses none of these characteristics."

A: Exactly! An actual "chicken", regardless of its age, has certain characteristics that allow us to recognize it as an actual "chicken" - namely, a full set of CHICKEN chromosomes which it acquired at the moment it came into existence, at the precise moment of fertilization, and which from that moment, for the rest of its life, absolutely define it an individual of that species - a chicken - regardless of what level of growth and development it has attained! Is a tadpole a frog? Yes, it is an immature frog. Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Yes, it is an immature butterfly. How do we know? Because it has exactly the same chromosomes and genes that it received at fertilization, and which will define the kind of being it is for the rest of its life. I already said that an egg is not a being, but only the brood chamber for a being. But the embryo growing within it - like the embryo growing in the womb of a human mother - already possesses everything that defines the kind of being it is, as it grows and matures. In the case of the chicken that inate identity is merely biological. In the case of a human person, biological and spiritual.

> "But if you are going to base your case in a secular court, that abortion should be illegal, then you are going to have to get involved in the question of when a zygote becomes a person or if it already is a person."

A: Yes, which is a question with no objectively valid answer. Which is exectly why such issues are endlessly debated in courts and philosophy classes. And which is why we must demand that the courts protect ALL objectively defined human beings from violations of their inalienable rights, instead of debating over which human beings deserve protection by conforming to some ever-changing subjective theory of "personhood".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2004.

“It is really irrelevant whether a civil law is consciously "based" on God's law or merely "coincides" with it. The essential point is, civil law which does not "coincide" with God's law is unjust, immoral, and invalid.” Actually, the fact that our secular laws are not “based on God’s laws” is quite important. What you or I sincerely “believe” to be God’s laws might be at variance with what others sincerely believe to be God’s law. Who, or which group gets to write our laws based solely on what they believe to be God’s laws, you and I, the guy down the street or the group worshipping in the mosque? If some of our laws, such as laws against stealing etc coincide with what you and I, or the guy down the street, or the group worshipping in the mosque believe to be God’s laws, that’s fine. And if anyone wants to personally define the laws that we think are beneficial to society and to ourselves, as God’s laws, that’s fine too. But our laws were not made because we determined that they were God’s laws, rather, we made them because we think they are beneficial to society, they would be made whether there were a God or not. “There can never be a general consensus on a question which is entirely philosophical and subjective.” If, indeed, this question is entirely philosophical and subjective, you have put your finger on the problem facing our secular courts and why they have tossed the decision back to the individuals who must actually make those choices. “That's why we need to focus on that which is clearly, objectively definable. "Human being" has an innate, logically inescapable definition - which is precisely why the pro-death culture avoids the term and prefers to deal with ethereal concepts like "person" , which can be anything you define it to be.” But seriously, aren’t you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the other side of doing? It’s a game of semantics and both sides play it, as you said--- “though I personally recognize that "person" and "human being" are indeed equivalent terms, I specifically avoid situations where essential issues are clouded by the intentional introduction of undefinable terms.”--- You then say (below) even though they are equivalent terms that we can define one (human being) but not the other. If you really recognize that they are equivalent terms, defining one defines the other. “But we CAN define a human being, very precisely! A human being is the offspring of two other human beings - an objective reality which begins at conception.” And so too is a “person” the offspring of two other persons or human beings (take your choice of terms). Now if we are going to sharpen this definition even further, we have to make a choice, is there a difference between a living human body and a person? If you are going to define a human being solely as the offspring of two other human beings and a conglomeration of living cells with a unique complement of human DNA…then any living human body is a “human being” including the body on a life support system before the harvesting of the organs. We would have no more right to switch off the life support system for that human being than we would for any other human being who depends on a life support system…but we know there is a difference, and that difference is the difference between a living human body and a person. A person would rightly be charged with murder if he intentionally disconnected another person’s life support system.

“That line of reasoning simply doesn't hold up logically. If you agree that the child 5 minutes before birth is the same child, the same human person, who existed 5 minutes after birth, then you must agree that he/she was the same child 10 minutes before birth. 15 minutes. 20 minutes. Can that which was present 20 minutes ago be fundamentally different from that which existed 25 minutes ago? Obviously, no.”

Remember the analogy…”Could a rational person really see an adult and claim that, 5 minutes ago, that person was not an adult??? Of course not! Yet the same rational person could certainly make the claim that 10 years ago that person was not an adult”. You are failing to take into account the reality of incremental and cumulative changes. In teaching and training someone to be a surgeon, is there any point at which one could claim 5 minutes ago the person was not a surgeon, now this person is suddenly a surgeon??? Is there a fundamental difference between a zygote and a person? “Fertilization of an egg by a sperm occurs soon after its release from the ovary (ovulation) into the fallopian tube to form a single cell embryo (zygote) containing the genetic material of the sperm and egg.” I think most reasonable and rational people would have no difficulty in recognizing that, yes, there is a fundamental difference between that embryonic cell and a thinking, feeling, person, with the capacity for awareness.

“Yet hopefully no-one would claim that the relatively primitive physical, mental and spiritual development of a newborn child makes him/her less than fully human.”

No one that I have ever debated makes the claim that “the relatively primitive physical, mental and spiritual development of a newborn child makes him/her less than fully human.”. However, if a newborn was born without a major portion of the brain, but had only that primitive portion that kept the body functioning but with absolutely no capacity for awareness, thought, sensation, or mental and spiritual development, would we have a person/human being? Or is it a “living human body” just as we have a living human body hooked to a life support system on the operating table with no capacity for awareness, thought, etc? We have the right to disconnect the life support system from that body, in effect, killing it, but we cannot disconnect “a person” who is dependant on his or her life support system.

A zygote has absolutely no capacity for awareness, thought, sensation or mental and spiritual development. However, it has, like us, unless it is taken from us, “a future” and these qualities will be a part of that future. Abortion is not simply destroying a zygote or an embryo… It is annihilating a future, and isn’t that why it is so much more tragic to see the life of a 16 year old snuffed out than the death of an 90 year old? And that is the purely objective fact that neither side of this issue can deny. The 16 year old had his or her future extinguished. I believe that’s the common ground that both sides share (whether they realize it or not) and the base from which we can work to reach into people’s hearts in order to help them understand the profoundness of what they are really doing. I don’t think you can get anywhere trying to tell them that they are murderers because a zygote is “already” a person or a human being. However, as I said earlier, from the moment of conception, that life has what we have unless it is taken from us…and that is a future. No one can deny that.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 07, 2004.

> "What you or I sincerely “believe” to be God’s laws might be at variance with what others sincerely believe to be God’s law."

A: Yes, undoubtedly. But what I KNOW to be God's law IS God's law, because it is taught infallibly by His Church. Civil law can never be in accord with what everyone "thinks" God's law might be. Still, the fact remains that it must be in accord with what God's law actually IS. Otherwise, it is invalid.

> "If some of our laws, such as laws against stealing etc coincide with what you and I, or the guy down the street, or the group worshipping in the mosque believe to be God’s laws, that’s fine."

A: And if such laws do NOT coincide with what God has revealed to be true, such as laws allowing the murder of unborn children, then not only will I refuse to obey such laws, but will do all in my power to oppose them.

> "But our laws were not made because we determined that they were God’s laws, rather, we made them because we think they are beneficial to society, they would be made whether there were a God or not."

A: Yes, sadly that is true. But regardless of the motives of the lawmakers, the final measure of the quality and value of the laws they make is how well those laws conform to the Law of God. For only laws which conform to God's Law can truly be in the best interests of society.

> "But seriously, aren’t you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the other side of doing? It’s a game of semantics and both sides play it"

A: No, it isn't a question of semantics at all. No rational person can reject the idea that "Every human being is the offspring of two other human beings". This is not an opinion. It is an irrefutable fact, and anyone who denied it or tried to argue against it would look like a fool. In contrast, there is no definition of "person" that cannot be countered by a dozen other theoretical definitions of the term, no one of which has any more inate authority or value than any other one, for they are all subjective, speculative opinions, nothing more.

> "You then say (below) even though they are equivalent terms that we can define one (human being) but not the other. If you really recognize that they are equivalent terms, defining one defines the other."

A: Bingo! Yes, obviously! It is only when you try to force "person" to take on a distinct meaning that it becomes impossible to define it objectively, since the subjective novel meaning is what you are trying to define. In fact, the term has no meaning at all, other than what you define it to be. Whereas "human being" has inate meaning which cannot be defined otherwise without doing violence to the objectively observable facts.

> "A human being is the offspring of two other human beings - an objective reality which begins at conception.” And so too is a “person” the offspring of two other persons or human beings (take your choice of terms)"

A: But the problem doesn't lie in recognizing that every person is a human being. No-one would deny that. The problem lies in denying that every human being is a person. And that is very easy to do when you have the freedom of dictating on your own terms which human beings deserve "personhood" and which don't. Hitler was a prime example of this kind of thinking, though dozens of others could easily be listed.

> "Now if we are going to sharpen this definition even further, we have to make a choice, is there a difference between a living human body and a person?"

A: There is no such thing as a "living human body" without a spirit and soul. The spirit is the life principle. Death is the separation of our spiritual self from out material self, resulting in a dead body. If the body is alive, the person is there, body and spirit.

> "If you are going to define a human being solely as the offspring of two other human beings and a conglomeration of living cells with a unique complement of human DNA…"

A: I don't define a human being solely as cells and DNA. That merely defines the human body. But I do define a human being as the offspring of two other human beings, both of whom were complete persons - body, soul, and spirit, resulting in a new human being who likewise is a complete person from the moment he/she comes into existence - body, soul and spirit. No one component can exist prior to the others.

> "then any living human body is a “human being” including the body on a life support system before the harvesting of the organs. We would have no more right to switch off the life support system for that human being than we would for any other human being who depends on a life support system…but we know there is a difference, and that difference is the difference between a living human body and a person. A person would rightly be charged with murder if he intentionally disconnected another person’s life support system."

A: On the contrary. A person could be charged with murder if he disconnected ANY person from life support - organ donor or otherwise - without proper authorization. On the other hand, ANY patient whose life is maintained only through extraordinary means, such as connection to mechanical devices - organ donor or otherwise - may legally, ethically and morally have life support removed with proper authorization. The Church does not require continuation of any medical procedure that is overly "burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome". However, until such disconnection occurs, the living person, regardless of the state of his/her brain or other anatomical components, must be treated with the same respect as any other person, and supplied with the basic essentials required for life.

> "You are failing to take into account the reality of incremental and cumulative changes. In teaching and training someone to be a surgeon, is there any point at which one could claim 5 minutes ago the person was not a surgeon, now this person is suddenly a surgeon???"

A: Incremental changes in a living thing may change its appearance but not its intrinsic identity. That's why a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same "thing", even though at a different age and different physical form. And why a human embryo and a human toddler and a human adult are the same "thing" - a human person - in spite of differences in age and physical form. Your example of a surgeon has no relevance. "Becoming" a surgeon is merely a matter of learning. The individual is a human person both before and after accumulating such learning. They were a man or a woman both before and after. They didn't "become" anything different in essence. They just learned something.

> "Is there a fundamental difference between a zygote and a person?"

A: Not if you recognize the common meaning of "person" and "human being". If you are playing "design-a-person", then it would depend on which definition happens to be popular today. If you listen to the Word of God as spoken through His Church, then you must accept that "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person" (CCC 2270)

> "there is a fundamental difference between that embryonic cell and a thinking, feeling, person, with the capacity for awareness."

A: There is an anatomical difference and a developmental difference, just as there is between a newborn and a teenager, but there is no "fundamental" difference, since fundamentally the embryo, the newborn and the teenager are one and the same thing - a human being.

> "No one that I have ever debated makes the claim that “the relatively primitive physical, mental and spiritual development of a newborn child makes him/her less than fully human.”. However, if a newborn was born without a major portion of the brain, but had only that primitive portion that kept the body functioning but with absolutely no capacity for awareness, thought, sensation, or mental and spiritual development, would we have a person/human being?"

A: Well, we would obviously have a being; and given that both the parents of this being were human beings, I'd be hard pressed to think of any kind of being this being could be - except a human being. Do you know of another kind of being two human parents can produce? Again, it's pretty straightforward once you accept the obvious and absolute definition of a human being as the offspring of two human beings.

> "Or is it a “living human body” just as we have a living human body hooked to a life support system on the operating table with no capacity for awareness, thought, etc?"

A: This is getting redundant, but a body cannot live without the spirit within; and when body and spirit are present, a human being is present. Now, it is theoretically possible that an actually dead body might be maintained in a state that simulates life, since we cannot know with certainty the moment at which the spirit separates from the body. But in any case where such uncertainty exists, we must assume that life is present.

> "We have the right to disconnect the life support system from that body, in effect, killing it, but we cannot disconnect “a person” who is dependant on his or her life support system."

A: Again, that is incorrect. We cannot directly kill ANY living person. However, if a person's body is no longer capable of sustaining its own biological life, we can allow that person to die a natural death, if the only means of prolonging life would be ""burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome".

> "A zygote has absolutely no capacity for awareness, thought, sensation or mental and spiritual development."

A: The same can be said of many accident victims and severely retarded persons. they are still the offspring of two human beings, and as such are human beings, deserving of their inelienable rights.

> "However, it has, like us, unless it is taken from us, “a future” and these qualities will be a part of that future. Abortion is not simply destroying a zygote or an embryo… It is annihilating a future"

A: That is true, but irrelevant. The reason it is immoral to kill a person is that he/she has the right to his/her life right NOW, irrespective of what might possibly lie ahead. Killing a 10 year old child is murder. Killing a 98 year old man is murder. Killing a child in his/her first 9 months of life is murder. The severity of the crime or the sin does not depend in any way upon the age of the victim.

> "isn’t that why it is so much more tragic to see the life of a 16 year old snuffed out than the death of an 90 year old? And that is the purely objective fact that neither side of this issue can deny."

A: What you are describing here is an emotional response, not an objective fact. Sure, if an elderly person is killed, it's easy to say, well, at least they had a long happy life. If a young person is killed we naturally regret all that he/she "might have been". But those emotional feelings do not affect the objective nature of the crime. It is still murder.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2004.

I once saw a bumper sticker that counters the one point that the pro- choicers always emphasize--"If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant." Obviously, people, something that is "not alive" in the uterus cannot be a baby. But if this is so, then why do women say they are "pregnant?" If an unborn child is not alive from the moment of conception, exactly how and when does it "begin" living?? Does anyone else see the beyond-fuzzy logic? But of course, if pro- choicers were to ever admit that a zygote or fetus (both of which are only names for a baby at different stages of development) were an actual human being, they would have no choice but to concede that killing one was murder, and we would finally have an end to this controversy. I am very much pro-life, and I wish I knew more people who were. I'm glad I discovered this forum. God bless.

-- Nell (fields_of_green@hotmail.com), November 08, 2004.

Paul,

Sorry about the delay in replying, my online time is often limited.

>> "What you or I sincerely “believe” to be God’s laws might be at variance with what others sincerely believe to be God’s law." A: Yes, undoubtedly. But what I KNOW to be God's law IS God's law, because it is taught infallibly by His Church. Civil law can never be in accord with what everyone "thinks" God's law might be. Still, the fact remains that it must be in accord with what God's law actually IS. Otherwise, it is invalid. <<

What you KNOW to be God’s law IS God’s law? Anyone adopting the position that you stated would immediately be discredited in a genuine or serious debate over a law or laws that should be passed in this country (those laws are ultimately what we are debating) and I’m certainly thankful for that. You “believe” the Church to be infallible in its teachings, and since the Church teaches that such and such is God’s law, you “believe” that it is God’s law, but you do not “know” it. What you “know” is the fact that such and such is what the Church teaches. You are guaranteed the freedom to hold that belief and to act accordingly (providing you don’t violate our civil laws)…but you can’t use the government to force others to believe or act according to those religious beliefs no matter how certain you are that your beliefs are true. Wisely, neither can Anglicans, Baptists, Muslims, Rastafarians, etc, use the government to force you to believe or act according to their religious beliefs.

“And if such laws do NOT coincide with what God has revealed to be true, such as laws allowing the murder of unborn children, then not only will I refuse to obey such laws, but will do all in my power to oppose them.”

We have no laws requiring anyone to have or provide an abortion, or to believe or accept abortion as being moral. Which law are you going to refuse to obey???

>> "But our laws were not made because we determined that they were God’s laws, rather, we made them because we think they are beneficial to society, they would be made whether there were a God or not." A: Yes, sadly that is true. <<

Sadly ??? I think wisely is the better term. As I sad earlier, in our country, no one can use the government to force us to believe or act according to “their” religious beliefs. Our government was not formed to enforce God’s laws.

“But regardless of the motives of the lawmakers, the final measure of the quality and value of the laws they make is how well those laws conform to the Law of God. For only laws which conform to God's Law can truly be in the best interests of society.”

You and I are perfectly free to believe that (and I do), but we can’t force others to accept laws based solely on what we believe to be God’s laws. I know that can be a tough cookie to swallow.

>> “"You then say (below) even though they are equivalent terms that we can define one (human being) but not the other (person). If you really recognize that they are equivalent terms, defining one defines the other."

A: Bingo! Yes, obviously! It is only when you try to force "person" to take on a distinct meaning that it becomes impossible to define it objectively, since the subjective novel meaning is what you are trying to define. In fact, the term has no meaning at all, other than what you define it to be.” <<

What you are forgetting is the fact that “we” give ALL words their meaning. Words themselves have no meaning other than what we define that meaning to be, and that includes person and human being. Is the Trinity made up of three persons but one God? Is God a human being? Is the Holy Spirit a human being? If you believe that the Holy Spirit, for instance, is a person but not a human being then you know that there is a difference between person and human being.

“There is no such thing as a "living human body" without a spirit and soul. The spirit is the life principle.”

That’s a religious belief and we cannot base our laws on such.

“On the other hand, ANY patient whose life is maintained only through extraordinary means, such as connection to mechanical devices - organ donor or otherwise - may legally, ethically and morally have life support removed with proper authorization.”

I’ll have to disagree with you here. You are grouping legally, ethically, and morally together. You are correct that legally, with proper authorization, any patient can be disconnected from a life support system, however…morally and ethically…I don’t think you can really say “any” patient. “Legally” we can execute people, “legally” we can fire bomb, or drop an atomic bomb, on a city full of people, “legally” a woman can have an abortion. I think all of these examples are morally and ethically wrong, but I can’t argue the case, in order to outlaw them, based solely on the fact that they are immoral because I believe they violate God’s laws (which I do believe).

“That's why a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same "thing"

But they are not the same thing. All butterflies have wings (a); caterpillars do not have wings (b); does (b) = (a) ? No. That’s why it’s a caterpillar and not a butterfly. The caterpillar will go through a metamorphosis and will eventually “become” a butterfly, but it is not a butterfly while it is still a caterpillar. Here is the objective definition of a butterfly: any of a large group of insects (order Lepidoptera) active in the daytime, having a sucking mouthpart, slender body, ropelike, knobbed antennae, and four broad, usually brightly colored, membranous wings. That is not the definition of a caterpillar. A caterpillar has absolutely none of these defining features. You can, of course, to use your words, redefine butterfly in a “novel” way so that it means “caterpillar”. But no matter what you call it, a caterpillar is no more a butterfly than a piece of photographic paper sitting in the developing solution is a “picture”. Once the solution has been applied the paper has everything needed for it to “become” a picture, just as a caterpillar has everything it needs (in its genetic code) to “become” a butterfly, and it is perfectly correct to call one an undeveloped picture, just as one can call a caterpillar an undeveloped butterfly, However, an undeveloped picture is not an actual picture just as the caterpillar is not an actual butterfly, each needs to develop into what it will become.

>> "A zygote has absolutely no capacity for awareness, thought, sensation or mental and spiritual development."

A: The same can be said of many accident victims and severely retarded persons. they are still the offspring of two human beings, and as such are human beings, deserving of their inelienable rights. <<

If such is the case, we are justified in disconnecting an accident victim from a life support system thereby ending a human life. We cannot do that to an accident victim or a severely retarded person, if that is not the case. If there is the capacity for “any” degree of awareness, thought, sensation etc, we know that we are dealing with a person, not just a living human body.

>> "isn’t that why it is so much more tragic to see the life of a 16 year old snuffed out than the death of an 90 year old? And that is the purely objective fact that neither side of this issue can deny."

A: What you are describing here is an emotional response, not an objective fact. Sure, if an elderly person is killed, it's easy to say, well, at least they had a long happy life. If a young person is killed we naturally regret all that he/she "might have been". But those emotional feelings do not affect the objective nature of the crime. It is still murder.<<

The objective fact is that a 16 year old has a future that the 90 year old doesn’t. How we respond to that fact can be the emotional response you are speaking of. I’m not necessarily speaking here of murder, both would legally be a crime, I’m simply speaking of the death of a 16 and 90 year old. If we believe there is any value to living out our lives (our future) we recognize the difference regarding their futures and we understand why we see the death of the 16 year old and 90 year old the way that we do.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 10, 2004.

To clarify something I said in my last not---[if such is the case, we are justified in disconnecting an accident victim from a life support system thereby ending a human life. We cannot do that to an accident victim or a severely retarded person, if that is not the case.]---

if such is the case, that an accident victim with absolutely no capacity for awareness, thought, sensation etc, is still a human being/person, we "should not" be justified in disconnecting that victim from a life support system thereby ending the life of that person any more than we could be justified in disconnecting someone with the capacity for “any degree” of awareness, thought etc. They are both dependant on the life support system for their survival. Yet, we do accept that in one case we can morally and ethically disconnect the life support system but in the other we cannot.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

"awareness, thought, sensation, mental or spiritual development"..ever been around a child who has severe autism? The child sits and stares into space,perhaps spins in circles or bangs his head against a surface with no apparent response to sensation of pain at all. He makes no eye contact, responds to nobody..he is "unaware, has no expression of thoughts, no sensation responses, and no mental or spiritual development". How about visiting a nursing home? Ever see the many elderly folks who are lying in beds who are non-communicative? They have no life- support equipment attached to them at all..they do not know who they are, or who you are. They have no independent "thoughts", no human- to-human communication, no "meaningful communication at all. They certainly have no longer any capacity for mental or spiritual "growth"..they're just kind of "there." They literally lay there uttering sounds such as "uh uh" with closed eyes. There is a fellow at Princeton University who is an Ethics Professor..his name escapes me at the moment..his "Ethics" philosophy which he happily teaches at Princeton and lectures upon, and writes about, is that these aren't "humans" at all and shouldn't be considered to BE human beings..precisely for the reasons that have been discussed here as valid reasons for abortions. They haven't the capability to THINK, COMMUNICATE, or EXPERIENCE MENTAL or SPIRITUAL GROWTH. He recommends that society be rid of them. Scary guy. It's not such a quantum leap is it?... to go from talking about zygotes to people on life-support to autistic kids to the elderly..? Where DO you draw the line? Lines become very blurry indeed. When civilized people can allow the murder of the unborn, they can allow the murder of anyone.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

First of all, there is a distinction between the ability to think and the ability to communicate - just as there is a difference between conceptual thought and perceptual thought (the latter shows up on brain-waves, not the former).

So just because we, the observer see no physical sign of perceptions - eyes staring off into space, etc, doesn't necessarily mean than the person is not thinking! People who have awakend from comas have spoken about dreams and desires and thoughts while trying to escape some dark maze of their minds....

Also we ought not discount the effect mercy has on those who are caregivers... it makes us better to care for those who are helpless.

What is better anyway - to love a child who cannot repay you, even with a smile, or to love a child who will please you in return in a thousand ways? To give knowing there will be no thanks in return or to give knowing you'll receive something back in spades?

Which attitude is more God like?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Lesley,

Re: The autistic child.

“He makes no eye contact, responds to nobody..he is "unaware, has no expression of thoughts, no sensation responses, and no mental or spiritual development".

But no one claims that an autistic child is unaware, has no expression of thoughts, no sensation responses, and no capacity for mental or spiritual development. Doctors, psychologists, and those who work with autistic children, would vehemently disagree with you.

“Ever see the many elderly folks who are lying in beds who are non- communicative? They have no life- support equipment attached to them at all..they do not know who they are, or who you are. They have no independent "thoughts", no human- to-human communication, no "meaningful communication at all.”

Yes, I have. My wife and I have been taking care of her 87-year mother here at home for the last 21 years. She is in the final stages of Alzheimer’s and has required total care for the last couple of years. Is she aware? Yes. Does she have independent thoughts? Yes, although they are fractured and disconnected, and they often have little to do with reality. “no human- to-human communication, no "meaningful communication at all.” Sometimes, for brief periods she is able, to a certain degree, to communicate. Unfortunately, what she communicates is her desire to no longer “be here”. She cannot understand why she is still alive and she doesn’t want to be. Her brothers and sisters are dead, her husband died 30 years ago and she has lost three of her children, but there are bits and pieces of her personality that are still left.

“It's not such a quantum leap is it?... to go from talking about zygotes to people on life-support to autistic kids to the elderly..?”

Actually, I think it is a quantum leap. There can be a world of difference between those on life support systems, that’s why we can unplug one and not the other. And abortion and killing the elderly or non-productive members of society are two completely different issues and would have to be addressed and judged separately. And I’ve never known or heard of anyone who seriously suggests killing autistic kids.

“When civilized people can allow the murder of the unborn, they can allow the murder of anyone”

In reality, that’s not the case. Therefore, if one is really trying to reduce abortions such claims can only weaken one’s credibility. The best offence in the fight against abortion is absolute honesty.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Joe,

“just as there is a difference between conceptual thought and perceptual thought (the latter shows up on brain-waves, not the former).”

Interesting. That’s something I hadn’t heard before, do you know of any links where I could learn a little more about this? Are dreams conceptual or perceptual thoughts? I would have thought of them as the former and they can be measured.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

?“It's not such a quantum leap is it?... to go from talking about zygotes to people on life-support to autistic kids to the elderly..?” --Joe

Actually, I think it is a quantum leap. There can be a world of difference between those on life support systems, that’s why we can unplug one and not the other. And abortion and killing the elderly or non-productive members of society are two completely different issues and would have to be addressed and judged separately. And I’ve never known or heard of anyone who seriously suggests killing autistic kids. -- Chris

Chris, Its disturbing that you think this way. Haven't you ever heard of a slippery slope? Haven't you heard of the Holocaust? Who would have predicted it 20 years earlier? Proponents of eugenics have been around for a long, long time. They made quite a bit of headway in the Third Reich didn't they? It took a world war war to put a stop to such heinous practices. But the concept remained, make no mistake about it. Why is it so hard to imagine killing autistic kids, or Alzheimer patients down the road when we already have cloning, and "assisted suicide" laws? I'm sure no one imagined in 1973, the mind-boggling amounts of abortions that would be performed year after year?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 11, 2004.

You've never heard of anyone wanting to kill autistic kids? Hitler did..he not only wanted to,he did. Hitler killed not only Jews and political enemies, but also ALL adults and children who were being cared for in State-run homes, regardless of their ethnicity..why? Because he saw them as "non-humans". BTW, I worked with severely Autistic children for years..I have first hand professional medical experience. For MANY Autistic children and adults who are severely affected, there is no way to objectively measure any of the parameters we have discussed. One can only conjecture. As far as who would want to recommend that the elderly infirm and other non-productive members of society be killed? Just as I told you, the Head of the Ethics Department of Princeton for one. It is he who ties it all in to abortion rights, not me. I think anyone who advocates abortion or the killing of any human being is immoral. I find it amazing that people cannot or refuse to see the connection between the two trains of thought. A fetus in any stage of development is not anything else BUT a human being..an autistic child who doesn't appear to be capable of independent thought, etc. isn't anything else BUT a human being..an elderly person who can do nothing but lay in a bed and grunt isn't anything else BUT a human being..ALL have body and soul and the right to live with each second which ticks as their future.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

BTW, that would be Professor Peter Singer..who was appointed to the Chair of Bioethics at Princeton University despite a huge protest in 1999. Professor Singer also advocates killing flawed newborns up to the age of 28 days. So much for "BioETHICS".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

Brian,

“Chris, Its disturbing that you think this way. Haven't you ever heard of a slippery slope? Haven't you heard of the Holocaust? Who would have predicted it 20 years earlier?”

Of course I’ve heard of the slippery slope. It’s a term that can be used for whatever purpose the user wants to use it. Usually it’s used as a reason to control other people’s behavior. Similar to, “if you give them an inch, they’ll try to take a mile”.

“It took a world war war to put a stop to such heinous practices”

And do you believe that those who think that in order to reduce abortions we’ve got to change people’s hearts, and trying to reduce abortions by making them illegal might not be the way to do it, and in fact might only add to the existing problems—do you think those people have the same mindset and beliefs as Hitler??? Except for the most extreme and unthinking fringe group, most of the pro-choice people I’ve debated see abortion as a tragedy.

“Why is it so hard to imagine killing autistic kids, or Alzheimer patients down the road when we already have cloning, and "assisted suicide" laws?”

Because we are talking about completely different situations; for starters, those who request assisted suicide must be mentally competent and want to be killed, do Alzheimer patients and autistic kids want to be killed? What does cloning have to do with killing autistic kids? You are loosely tying to tie these together, as if they were all the same.

“I'm sure no one imagined in 1973, the mind-boggling amounts of abortions that would be performed year after year?”

Without making abortion illegal, the abortion rates have been steadily dropping. For the period from 1990 to1999 the abortion rate went down 22 percent overall…The teen birth rate dropped 19 percent, and the teen abortion rate was down 39 percent.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Lesley,

“You've never heard of anyone wanting to kill autistic kids? Hitler did..he not only wanted to,he did. Hitler killed not only Jews and political enemies, but also ALL adults and children who were being cared for in State-run homes, regardless of their ethnicity..why? Because he saw them as "non-humans".”

To a certain extent you are correct, in order to kill one’s enemies we (including our own military) dehumanize the enemy; Hitler was no exception. However, autistic kids are not our enemy and it’s no surprise that Hitler is seen by reasonable people as a madman for the reasons you stated.

“For MANY Autistic children and adults who are severely affected, there is no way to objectively measure any of the parameters we have discussed.”

Not being able to objectively measure the parameters of their (or anyone elses) thoughts is quite a different thing than claiming that they have no awareness or thoughts.

“One can only conjecture. As far as who would want to recommend that the elderly infirm and other non-productive members of society be killed?”

True. However, and I’m being absolutely honest, I have, in all my life, never personally known anyone who seriously thinks we should do that. And I’d be willing to bet that you would find very, very, few people in our society who would be in favor of such. We all have elderly and infirm parents or other elderly loved ones and relatives. Because someone does not think that a zygote is a person yet, does not in any way lead to the conclusion that it is permissible to kill the infirm, elderly, or mentally disabled.

“I find it amazing that people cannot or refuse to see the connection between the two trains of thought. A fetus in any stage of development is not anything else BUT a human being”

That’s perfectly OK. But go back and read the exchanges between Paul and myself where I have put forth a few of the reasons why some people do, indeed, disagree with you.

“BTW, that would be Professor Peter Singer..who was appointed to the Chair of Bioethics at Princeton University despite a huge protest in 1999. Professor Singer also advocates killing flawed newborns up to the age of 28 days. So much for "BioETHICS".

I don’t know that much about Peter Singer, that is, whether he actually “believed” such things or whether he was challenging his students to think: Peter Singer has said, "obviously, most of these matters are controversial. At Princeton, as throughout my teaching career, I hope to challenge my students and stimulate them to form their own conclusions on such issues. In my students, I look for the ability to think independently, and I assess my students on the quality of their argument, not on whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions they reach." If Pete Singer’s position on these matters reflects his actual beliefs, he is, in my opinion, certainly outside the realm of what the majority of reasonable people think and believe.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

The very slippery slope is:

1. artificial means of contraception is not immoral. 2. sex is recreational. 3. sexual expression in public is not immoral. 4. homosexuality is not immoral. 5. public displays of homosexuality are not immoral 6. abortion is not immoral. 7. abortion involving minors without parental consent is OK. 8. 3rd trimester abortions are not immoral. 9. partial-birth abortions are not immoral. 10. assisted suicides are not immoral. 11. disposal of in-vitro fertilized embryos is not immoral.

The slippery slope continues with the advent of people such as Professor Singer in positions such as the Chair of Bioethics at Princeton, where he teaches his philosophy to hundreds of young undergraduate students, lectures to masses of people, etc. This is NOT some obscure person who has little effect upon society. This person's "ethics" are taught at an Ivy-league school. He is not considered to be a fringe element at all.

"when the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view be right to kill him." Professor Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics". and.. "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection then the life of a fetus." Professor Peter Singer, "Rethinking Life and Death".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 12, 2004.

Lesley,

What you have to keep in mind is the fact that “slippery slope” is not an intrinsic principle of law; it’s a projection into an unknowable future…a metaphor.

One has to carefully analyze each step and if it is not evaluated on its merits it can lead to unwarranted extrapolations. For instance, your slippery slope starts with “1. artificial means of contraception is not immoral.” You extrapolate from that and list a number of steps that you imply result from that. However, the things on the list have always existed, and some, like gay marriage or civil unions, have nothing whatsoever to do with contraception. Then, of course, there are people who do not see the responsible use of contraceptives by a married couple as immoral but find some or all of the other things on the list as immoral. One thing simply does not lead to the other. The reasons one might find contraception moral are not the same reasons one might find gay marriage or recreational sex, for instance, moral or immoral. That is the problem with “slippery slope” metaphors.

Re: Peter Singer.

>> “This is NOT some obscure person who has little effect upon society. This person's "ethics" are taught at an Ivy-league school. He is not considered to be a fringe element at all.” <<

He would not be considered a fringe element by whom? As I said, “I don’t know that much about Peter Singer, that is, whether he actually “believed” such things or whether he was challenging his students to think”. Keep in mind what he said, “I hope to challenge my students and stimulate them to form their own conclusions on such issues. In my students, I look for the ability to think independently, and I assess my students on the quality of their argument, not on whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions they reach."

Consider what he says here in regards to teaching his students to think:

“To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to imagine that their route to the university takes them past a shallow pond. One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class. I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation. I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world – and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance.

At this point the students raise various practical difficulties. Can we be sure that our donation will really get to the people who need it? Doesn’t most aid get swallowed up in administrative costs, or waste, or downright corruption? Isn’t the real problem the growing world population, and is there any point in saving lives until the problem has been solved? These questions can all be answered: but I also point out that even if a substantial proportion of our donations were wasted, the cost to us of making the donation is so small, compared to the benefits that it provides when it, or some of it, does get through to those who need our help, that we would still be saving lives at a small cost to ourselves – even if aid organizations were much less efficient than they actually are.”

I’ll be off-line for the next week or two but I want to thank those of you with whom I’ve debated these issues for the civil and courteous manner in which you all have replied to my posts.

-- Chris Murphy (barrier28594@yahoo.com), November 14, 2004.

He didnt askthes thigns of his students, he write them in a book where hsi own personal veiws are presented.Likewise, he has wirtten articles where he suggests te removal of Zoophilia as a taboo. In Nerve Magazine and Free Inquery he writes these.

He sin presentign ideas to students ot elarn, if he where he woidltn be cotnraversial. He is presentign these ideas to the public in he hopes that they are accepted.

Googel up his name, or better yet, head over to Amazon and look up his books...

Typ the name Peter singe rint he searhc bar, see what come sup... he actually is arguign for these thigns...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.

The sad thing about all this is the following: statistically only about 50% of non- or anti- Christians convert. So a growing number of former Catholics or former Christians will become a permanent feature in the West unless something significant happens.

Now in the Roman Empire, circa 300 AD there were about 50 million souls. In the age of the great Church Fathers, the fantastic bishops like Ambrose of Milan, etc. the Councils and heavy-hitting theologies and creeds, etc. the martyrs et aliquid, most of the Empire was not Christian!

Indeed the West didn't become Christian entirely for several centuries - until about 1100 AD - and here's the sad final detail: only a minority of Pagans actually gave up paganism to become Christians. Mortality (war, famine, plague) and Christian demographics (high birthrate and long life spans) have more to do with the end of paganism and rise of a Christian culture.

So what to do? Obviously pray for grace to be better apostles of our neighbors. Obviously work more actively to help Christianize our social milieu. Don't think that politics or economics or sports or anything is a region that is beyond the ken of the Gospel to inform and reform!

Most of the cultural problems we face as Americans have as the ultimate solution, a conversion of hearts to Christ's Gospel, in the Church, through loving friendships, empowered by the Holy Spirit in communion with the angels, saints, and Mary our Mother.

Homosexuals? People in urgent need of true friends, people who will love them not for their sex or any pleasure but because they are souls in need of Christ's peace!

Drug addicts? People in urgent need of parental figures, friends who will help them beat the physiological and emotional need for a fix, who will fill their minds and hearts with higher yearnings and desires...

Promiscuous heterosexuals steeped in porn and violence? People in dire need of true friends who will help them escape the slavery of vice, the compulsion of physical urges, and tyranny of myths that their lives only have meaning in the material here and now of instant and self-centered gratification.

If people were more loving and concerned for the good of others, they would not view sex as a contact sport. Women wouldn't seek contraception and abortion and men wouldn't seek to use women. The old and sick wouldn't seek suicide and the scientists wouldn't seek to use and abuse embryos. Respect for life - all human life - would pervade our society.

Terrorists and would-be utopian socialists? People in dire need of family and friends who can introduce them to true peace and the mission all souls are called to - the war to defeat sin and hatred through the cross and resurrection of Christ.

Poverty, Chastity and obedience are virtues vitally required for shoring up the virtures of faith, hope, and love.

History is dire in its warnings - if we fail to evangelize and believe in the Gospel we will, I repeat, we will most certainly end in warfare and societal decay and violence.

Mankind is engaged in warfare- only we have the choice of venue: it can be internal moral striving for moral perfection or external strife among brothers.

Let us pray that enough of us get active in evangelization so that we may spare our nation further strife.

Mother Theresa warned us that unless we stop abortion (and the whole ethic that makes it imperative) we won't succeed in achieving world peace. Peace cannot be obtained if the absolutely innocent are killed and not just that, but their termination is considered a right, a positive good to be promoted, protected, and praised in movies, print, theater, magazines, etc.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.

Wow, very well spoken Joe!

You've really hit on the source of it all and the true solution.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

killing a 5 minute old baby is murder,and killing that same baby 1 hour ago while it's still in the mother's womb isn't? this make no sense

a child is a child,born or unborn

however,i don't think you can consider a group of cells as a child or a human being no matter in what they will develop

we should make a difference between these two

-- Anonymous (anarchy_inthe_bedroom@hotmail.com), November 15, 2004.

And at what precise moment in the continuous 9-month development of the child does the change from non-human to human occur? If you don't have a definite answer to that question, then obviously we must assume that the humanity of the child results from the union of two human parents, and therefore exists from the very beginning. Killing the developing child at any stage of development would mean risking murder if you cannot specifically say when the child becomes human. This would be similar to a hunter who sees something moving in the bushes, and shoots before finding out what it is. It might be an animal, or it might be another hunter. If he shoots and kills another human being, he is legally and morally liable, since he was willing to risk killing another person.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.

no i can't exactly tell that.....

when the embryo or foetus shows enough similiar characteristics with mature ppl you can define it as a human being but i can tell that there is a big difference between an 3 week embryo that is NOT a human being(but just a bunch of cells that are going to develop in one)and a 4 month old foetus that has many things already developed and shows many similiar characteristics with an adult human being

if a aborting a zygote or embryo is murder because they're going to develop into human being,than is every menstruation also murder and every ejaculation a genocide...

-- Anonymous (anarchy_inthe_bedroom@hotmail.com), November 15, 2004.

In menstruation or ejaculation there is no new human being involved. The gametes involved are either the woman's cells or the man's cells. Once fertlization occurs, the resulting new cell (zygote) does not belong to the woman (who is now a mother) or to the man (who is now a father). That cell has a new and distinct genetic identity. It is the first cell of a new human being who has never existed until that moment, and who has all the same inalienable rights as any other human being. Anyway, no-one aborts a zygote. By the time a mother knows she is pregnant the baby already has eyes, ears, arms, legs, fingers, toes, and the visible beginnings of all major organ systems.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.

Our society has an amazing duplicity.

A woman who wants a child discovers that she is pregnant. She discovers this via missing one menstrual cycle and confirming the pregancy with an over-the-counter urine test. She is 5 weeks pregnant. She is overjoyed..she makes an appointment with an obstetrician..she announces to everyone she knows that she is pregnant..her friends and family rejoice. When she visits the physician, he confirms that she is pregnant, and gives her a date for the expected birth of her baby. She looks online for pictures of what the baby looks like in her womb at 5 weeks, 6 weeks, etc. She calls it a "baby". People ask her, "When is the BABY due?" Another woman who does NOT want a child becomes pregant..same timing. She is 5 weeks pregnant when she discovers it. She goes to an abortion clinic where she sees a physician who confirms the pregnancy. The terminology is vastly different. She hears that the fetus is 5 weeks in development and it is safe to terminate this pregnancy.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between the two unborn human beings except one is wanted and one is not.

Later on in pregnancy, in the 3rd trimester, a woman can have an abortion who doesn't want the unborn human being and that is legal. The unborn human being is legally killed. Yet,when an unborn human being who IS wanted in the 3rd trimester is killed by a criminal during a felony crime against the mother, (see the Laci Peterson case), the criminal is charged with murdering the unborn human being.

Again, the ONLY difference is that one unborn human being is wanted, and the other is not.

That is the real criteria for abortion..it has nothing to do with "defining when life begins"..it has only to do with "does the mother WANT the unborn child or NOT."

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 16, 2004.

sigh..once again I have to correct myself..for those of you who do not "know" me, I have MS..sometimes, particularly with numbers, or concepts involving numbers, my brain says one thing and my fingers type another. So if you read something I have written and it involves numbers, and you pick up an error, please feel free to correct it.. The facts are the SECOND trimester abortions are legal, not the third. Third trimester abortions, although they do occur, are rare. They are legal, but difficult to obtain. Second trimester abortions are not difficult to obtain, even "late" second trimester abortions. If a woman in the 19th week of pregancy wishes to have an abortion she can legally do so. If a woman who is 19 weeks pregnant is the victim of a violent assault, and as a result, her unborn child dies, the person committing the assault COULD be charged with anywhere from felony manslaughter to second degree murder depending upon the district attorney. Does this make ANY sense?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 16, 2004.

Lesley, look at the bright side: at least they are acknowledging that it is a child in some cases. I think it's good that we are at least breaking ground in that area, and perhaps such legislation will help others to see that it does not make sense to allow abortion either.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 16, 2004.

no lesley that doesn't make any sense,as i already said i am against these kinds of abortions

but i think we need a standard scientific definition what the conditions are to call something a human being

a zygote is not a human,it is only going to develop in one,it doesn't even have any organs yet

and what in the cases of rape?

for example: a 13 year old girl got kidnapped and raped,but she shouldn't take the pill or have an abortion but just simply give birth of the rapists child?

-- Anonymous (65432158@54212.com), November 18, 2004.

no lesley that doesn't make any sense,as i already said i am against these kinds of abortions

{There are no "Linds" of abortion...only abortion.}-Zarove

but i think we need a standard scientific definition what the conditions are to call something a human being

{We have an operaitonal one. "Members of the Genus Homo." A foetus is a member of this Genus in its earliest stages of development...}- Zarove

a zygote is not a human,it is only going to develop in one,it doesn't even have any organs yet

{Not accordign to sicnece. It has all the genetic matter to consttute beign called " Human", snce it is sicntificlaly classed as " Homo Sapein"...and is alive.}-Zarove

and what in the cases of rape?

{So we shoiudl kill the baby because of what the father has done? What about the cases where rape victims feel far, far worse afte abrotion? did you know clinical studies show that women who are raped and become pregnent fair better psycologiclaly and heal faster emotionally if they DO NOT abort? Did you knwo the guilt associated with aborton compounds the rape, rathe thsn eliveate the suffering?

Oh well, rather than care long term for the mother, or the child, yuo woudl hav us kill the child and desotry the woman who si alreayd in a uvlnerable and unstable cndition.Yeah that works...}-Zarove

for example: a 13 year old girl got kidnapped and raped,but she shouldn't take the pill or have an abortion but just simply give birth of the rapists child?

{Funny you mentioned this...Once ipon a time a 13 year odl Black girl was raped by an adult white male... and became pregnent... you woidl recocmend abortion because otherwise this girl woidl five boirth tto the rapists child! well, there is the problem, you arenthtinkign of the child at all, and are consignign the chidl to death based soely upon what his father did. Yes, his father wa a rapist, btu shoidl he be granted the death penalty becaue of what his father did? Accordign to you, yyes!

well, back to the story, which invovles a girl instead. She was the daughter of a rapist, you see. Her mother, nor grandpatenrs, even dreamed of suggestign abortion!

The chld was Born, and grw to become a world renown singer. Her name was Ethel Waters. The CHild of a rapist. Her mother was only 13 at the time of th rape. She, too, was a rapists child. Did she deserve death? was she so hideous that she didnt eserve life?

Really, hwo many raped women give borth to wonderful people? Why shoidl we kill a child, like ethel Waters, simpley based upon th unfortunate and tradic cercumstances of her conception?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

"A standard scientific definition".. The world had one for centuries..a woman was "with child" when she discovered that she had stopped menstruating, etc. Nobody said that she was "with potential child", or "with probable humanity", or any other terminology.. Oh, would they have changed their minds if they knew "it" was only a bunch of cells? The term "quickening" came into being to define that stage of pregnancy when the woman could feel the unborn child's movements. It was thought that LIFE began at that moment in some circles..yet don't you find it terribly odd then that centuries before this term came into the vernacular, Hippocrates counseled against actively terminating pregnancies at ANY stage? Abortion was never EVER considered to be morally correct, even when most of the world believed that "life" began at "quickening". It was unthinkable. Why WAS that? Because the ancients recognized that the woman was "with child"..and whatever stage of development the "child" was in, IT was HUMAN..always. It is only in our so-called "Modern" era that life is considered to be so cheap by some that our unborn can be defined as "things".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004.

I heard on a Catholic talk show that planned parenthood or some pro-choice organization called each widow who may have been pregnant with their husbands child who had lost hist life during 9/11 attacks to see if they wanted to have an abortion. Any merit to this?

If so I cannot understand the evil behind it.

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), December 17, 2004.

if an abortion of a zygote is murder,then not having as many children as you can is also murder,because if a zygote is a human being and it came to being by a fusion of a spermcell and an egg,then sprem and eggs are also human beings,killing the zygote that is potentially a human being is murder,but killing that same zygote 5 minutes ago before it came into being by the fusion isn't murder? if a zygote is a human being,then every spremcell and egg are potentially human beings

if abortion is murder,then masturbation is a genocide

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 17, 2004.

you people make no sense

anonymous is the only one right here

we do need a standard scientific definition what really a human being is

a zygote isn't one for sure,and anonymous made some pretty good arguments about this

a zygote is a group of cells after the fusion of a spermcell and egg,a zygote shows none mental or physical similarities or common charactheristics with fully-developed human beings

therefor it's impossible to consider it as a human being

i think you people don't even think about the arguments that we make,don't even think for one second that we maybe could be right,you're just trying to show how you are right and we are wrong,a forum should be about exchange of opinions and information and not about 'winning' the discussion and thinking that you've just made the best argument ever when you say "it's wrong because the church tells so and they're infalliable"

-- nathan de winter (de_nathan_Winter@msn.com), December 17, 2004.

if an abortion of a zygote is murder,then not having as many children as you can is also murder,because if a zygote is a human being and it came to being by a fusion of a spermcell and an egg,then sprem and eggs are also human beings,killing the zygote that is potentially a human being is murder,but killing that same zygote 5 minutes ago before it came into being by the fusion isn't murder? if a zygote is a human being,then every spremcell and egg are potentially human beings

{tHIS ARGUMENT IS INSANE YOU KNOW. aND NO, WE ARENT BEING hYPOCRITES HERE. The problem is than an egg Cell snt considered alive by Medical sicnece, and sperm cells die on there own within the Human Body if not coupledwith an egg cell. NOT havign a many Chuildren as possible is not murder since no new life is prodiced to take away. New life occures at conception, and not as a result of the potential for conception.

Simple logic rules you out.

The basic premise here is that you think that the potential life of pregnency is the same a the potential life of sperm scells and egg cells. The tprible is, serm and eggs are only potentially new life, whereas Pregnency is atual life. See, Pregnency sint potentially a human perosn, it IS a Human person. Not tha I anticipate you will know the difference.}-Zarove if abortion is murder,then masturbation is a genocide

{not only do Catholics teach that Masterbation si a sin, the logc dosnt follow...

See, Masterbation si the release of semen, which is not a new life, beause it has not fused with the egg cell. Sperm does not contain all nessesast 42 Chromosomes needed to form a Human person, neither does Pserm ahve anu capacity to grow or form biological proccesses. Potential is not the same as actual life. And pregnency isnt potential life but actusl, startign at conception.}-Zarove

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 17, 2004.

you people make no sense anonymous is the only one right here

{we make perfect sence,you just dont care for what we say...}-Zarove

we do need a standard scientific definition what really a human being is

{Yeah but if sicnece said the Zygote wasnt alive woidl you be saying this? You reject sicnece when itx convenent and use it when conveneint...}-Zarove

a zygote isn't one for sure,and anonymous made some pretty good arguments about this

{All Genes nessesary to be called Human, and bilogical proccesses. its obviously alive, and Human, in the earliest stages of development.}-Zarove

a zygote is a group of cells after the fusion of a spermcell and egg,a zygote shows none mental or physical similarities or common charactheristics with fully-developed human beings

{Neither do babies, yet they count as Human dont they? I mean, compare an adult man with a newborn baby boy, and hte newborn lacks much the man has... this means I can kill the newborn right? Afte rll, its not liek tis Human...It only has the potential to be such...}-Zarove

therefor it's impossible to consider it as a human being

{Based on what? your sayign so?}-Zarove

i think you people don't even think about the arguments that we make,don't even think for one second that we maybe could be right,you're just trying to show how you are right and we are wrong,

{I have thought abotu it, and never find myself infallable, but murder is murder and this issue is clear cut.}-Zarove

a forum should be about exchange of opinions and information and not about 'winning' the discussion and thinking that you've just made the best argument ever when you say "it's wrong because the church tells so and they're infalliable"

{You arent for exchane, you are for disparaign us in order to ttmept t shame us ito acceptign your argument, which wont work. Least of all since bbaies get kileld as a rsult...}-Zarove

-- nathan de winter (de_nathan_Winter@msn.com), December 17, 2004.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.

"{Yeah but if sicnece said the Zygote wasnt alive woidl you be saying this? You reject sicnece when itx convenent and use it when conveneint...}-Zarove"

****[i never said that a zygote isn't alive i just said that it's not a human being-nathan]****

{Neither do babies, yet they count as Human dont they? I mean, compare an adult man with a newborn baby boy, and hte newborn lacks much the man has... this means I can kill the newborn right? Afte rll, its not liek tis Human...It only has the potential to be such...}-Zarove "" ***[WHAT?? neither do babies???,i didn't came here to attack you,but are you insane? read again what i have posted :"a zygote is a group of cells after the fusion of a spermcell and egg,a zygote shows none mental or physical similarities or common charactheristics with fully- developed human beings "

babies obviously do,a foetus can even hear sounds in the uterus and later recognize them,they aren't really a person yet but they do show many many physical and mental common or even same caractheristics as adults,they do have a head,a heart,brains,a liver,arm,legs...etc,they do have emotions,drop a newborn on the ground for example,he'll start crying directly,what you are telling is a load of **** zarove...- nathan]***

-- nathan de winter (de_nathan_Winter@msn.com), December 17, 2004.

Dear Nathan,
Since you yourself are a zygote that by God's grace wasn't aborted at any stage of development, it gives you the opportunity to arrive here dismissing that simple truth. For that matter, I'm also a zygote who went all the way. Here to tell you that your views result from intellectual dishonesty. You won't face the facts because you reject God; the giver of life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2004.

"we do need a standard scientific definition what really a human being is"

A: "Being" is defined as "something that exists"; "an entity". A "human being" is an entity which is the offspring of human beings. There is no way a human being can come into existence except through other human beings; and a being who results from sexual union of two human beings cannot be any kind of being other than a human being.

"a zygote is a group of cells after the fusion of a spermcell and egg, a zygote shows none mental or physical similarities or common charactheristics with fully-developed human beings"

A: Actually a zygote is a single cell, formed by the fusion of two gametes. It is the first cell of a new and distinct being who has never existed before. If the gametes were human then the zygote cannot be anything but human, a human being with a new genetic code which has never existed before and will never exist again. Two human gametes cannot fuse to form a non-human zygote. The zygote exists; therefore he/she is a being. The gametes were human, therefore the zygote is necessarily human. Therefore, a human being, not any other kind of being.

The fact that the zygote doesn't possess all the attributes of an adult is obvious, but irrelevant. An embryo doesn't possess all the characteristics of a fetus. A fetus doesn't possess all the characteristics of a newborn. A newborn doesn't possess all the characteristics of a toddler. A toddler doesn't possess all the characteristics of an adolescent. An adolescent doesn't possess all the characteristics of an adult. This is called "growth and development". The growth and development of a human being. But the adolescent is no less human than the adult, the toddler no less human than the adolescent, the fetus no less human than the toddler, the zygote no less human than the fetus. They are all 100% human, and are in fact stages in the life of one human being. To intentionally kill a human being in any stage of growth and development is murder.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 17, 2004.

Absolutely correct, Paul, Well stated.
It's important, I think, to specify: ''To intentionally kill / [an INNOCENT] human being in any stage of growth and development is murder.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2004.

a zygote is a group of cells after the fusion of a spermcell and egg,a zygote shows NONE mental or physical similarities or common charactheristics with fully-developed human beings

a zygote doesn't have a life

a zygote doens't have a mind or a soul

it has no senses and no feelings

it has no body

it isn't a human and it's never gonna be one,a human can only develop out of one

i thought you people can understand the fact that i posted above why we can't consider a zygote as a human being

paul,your comment makes only sense to your catholic friends who share the same view but has nothing to do with reality

taking the pill ain't murder and most of the people agree with me

and if you want to give birth of a rapists child,go ahead,it's your life;but you can't force us to do so also

an abortion of a developed foetus is murder and i agree with what anonymous had posted but what you are telling is nothing but hypocricy

-- Nathan (de_nathan_winter@msn.com), December 17, 2004.

He says: ''i thought you people can understand the fact that i posted above why we can't consider a zygote as a human being,'' Understand a FACT? It's no fact just because you declare it. ''WE'' can't consider a zygote as a human being? Well, if you abort it, will anything be born? If you allow it to stay, will a goldfish be born, or a bat? No-- a Human Being. Again: You reject God, who gives life. Otherwise you would be OK with the truth, and obey Him--

But since you're after the sinful and nothing can be allowed to block you from the sinful, you reject God. That means you have to reject truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2004.

Actually, scientists do not classify something as human based on genetic makeup alone. Example given: Consider cancer research. As you may know, cancerous cells have the wondrous ability to divide a countably infinite number of times. As a result, there exicst cell lines derived from excised tumors. Now, as there were derived from a human being, these cells certainly have all of the genetic material required to become a human being. However, we do not call these cells human beings.

Genetic makup has little influence on how things are categorized. The reason is basically that genus and species names have been around longer than genetics, as a result genus and species classifications are based on the phenotype of the adult organism.

Now, just becuase I'm an ass and I get off on this shit, compounded with the fact that finals have put me in a bad mood, I'm going to take something you said and twist it horribly. (Hey, at least I had the decency to tell everyone that this is not what you meant):

Once fertlization occurs, the resulting new cell (zygote) does not belong to the woman (who is now a mother) or to the man (who is now a father). That cell has a new and distinct genetic identity.

So...what you're saying is that if someone here to say, clone a human being and implant the resulting embryo into a womans uterus, it would be ok to abort this fetus because it was not the result of the union of a sperm and egg?

Let me say this, I do believe that there is some sort of sanctity to human life. Therefore, I think it's wrong to destroy any life that has the potential to become human. That's why I think that taking antibiotics is morally irreprehensible. Why? Because, I believe in evolution. So, there is a remote possibility that over the course of billions of years, the bacterium that one would be killing, have the potential to evolve into human beings.

So, most of this has been absurdity and bullshit, but I'll try to be serious now. In a sense, the last paragraph is why an agnostic, or atheist, might have a hard time giving a zygote or blastocyst or fetus any moral significance. As an agnostic, I must admit that the choice of what I call human is an arbitrary line. I understand, and if you are reading this through a Christian or other religious paradigm should admit, that there is nothing that I could say that could convince you that my arbitrary distinction is correct. From my perspective it may be defensible to abort any developing human entity that is not yet able to survive outside of the womb provided only with comparable resources required by a baby which was carried to full term.

Now, if you've for some strange reason, had the patience to read the previous exposition, I will actually say something about what I believe. Not much of what I've said up until now is congruent with what I believe. Although I do not find abortion to be immoral, I would be hard pressed to come up with many examples where I would say it is the right thing to do. Examples include: if the safety of the mother is at risk, if the child would have some horrible genetic disorder (think tay sach's disease) and maybe a few others. Even though I would not encourage such a choice, I am still pro-choice for the following reason:

Basically, my morals are consequences of what I take to be axioms on existence. It follows from Godels thereom that if I try to construct a consistent set of morals from any given set of axioms, that there will be somethings that I can neither prove nor disprove to be morally right or wrong, it certainly seems that abortion may be one of these things. Furthermore, I recognize that what I take to be axioms is an arbitrary choice, so I can not in general argue that any other arbitrary set of axioms is inferior.

-- Reasonable (dontsendme@yahoo.com), December 17, 2004.

Whoa, Big Fella;
You've seen the trees & no forest so far. You are, in fact, a fetus brought to term by a human mother. That's flat out indisputable. Just because you fancy yourself reasonable and therefore agnostic, hasn't changed what you became, (once and never again) a human being. The resistance against admitting it drives you to make extravagant assertions, such as ''genus and species classifications are based on the phenotype of the adult organism.'' A dead fetus is classified as aborted, for the sake of this argument. A living fetus will become a person with minimal opportunities, mainly air and food. Skip the other classifications and skip the agnostic megillah.

If you and I are known to be examples of the human species, carried to term by women, then women bear children. Not phenotypes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2004.

Actually, scientists do not classify something as human based on genetic makeup alone.

{Correct. genetoc makeup as well as life make it Human.A blood cell makes it a part of a Human...see below...}-Zarove

Example given: Consider cancer research. As you may know, cancerous cells have the wondrous ability to divide a countably infinite number of times. As a result, there exicst cell lines derived from excised tumors. Now, as there were derived from a human being, these cells certainly have all of the genetic material required to become a human being. However, we do not call these cells human beings.

{But we do call the doners Human. The Mebryo is a living, viable , independant being. a cencerous tumour is not. it is only a cell withtaken form a Human.}-Zarove

Genetic makup has little influence on how things are categorized.

{If you call "Little Influsnce" most modern Biology...}-Zarove

The reason is basically that genus and species names have been around longer than genetics, as a result genus and species classifications are based on the phenotype of the adult organism.

{so Origionally baby anumals whwrent classified by Genus and Psiecies? Im afraid they where...}-Zarove

Now, just becuase I'm an ass and I get off on this shit, compounded with the fact that finals have put me in a bad mood, I'm going to take something you said and twist it horribly. (Hey, at least I had the decency to tell everyone that this is not what you meant):

{If you admit you afre twistign it, why shoudl we answer it? You know your beign unreasonable here...}-Zarove

Once fertlization occurs, the resulting new cell (zygote) does not belong to the woman (who is now a mother) or to the man (who is now a father). That cell has a new and distinct genetic identity.

So...what you're saying is that if someone here to say, clone a human being and implant the resulting embryo into a womans uterus, it would be ok to abort this fetus because it was not the result of the union of a sperm and egg?

{No, thats not what anyone said, but you knew this since your twistin things...}-Zarove

Let me say this, I do believe that there is some sort of sanctity to human life.

{Ok... you had us here then blew it...}-Zarove

Therefore, I think it's wrong to destroy any life that has the potential to become human. That's why I think that taking antibiotics is morally irreprehensible. Why? Because, I believe in evolution. So, there is a remote possibility that over the course of billions of years, the bacterium that one would be killing, have the potential to evolve into human beings.

{Yeah except the bactiria is causign real harm now, and that spacific bacteria wont spacificlaly do btu will be killed by our bodies anyway... so this is illogical.anyhting Liekwise, the chance is far too rmeote that Humans will ever evovle a second time, thugh intellegene may. }-Zarove

So, most of this has been absurdity and bullshit, but I'll try to be serious now.

{well it woidk make your name make more sence...}-Zarove

In a sense, the last paragraph is why an agnostic, or atheist, might have a hard time giving a zygote or blastocyst or fetus any moral significance.

{Only if they are stretchign things...you do relaise that its not us poor, feeble minded Chrisyaisn who alone beleive, with other poor diluded rleigiosu fools, that aboriton is worng whereas Atheists and agnostics tink its OK. Many Atheists and Agnostics oppose Abortion as well, and its not ultimatley a religious issue.Though rleigious veiws are based upon it.}-Zarove

As an agnostic, I must admit that the choice of what I call human is an arbitrary line.

{Good for you. But you dont speak for all Agnostics. what abotu Pro- Life Agnostics?}-Zarove

I understand, and if you are reading this through a Christian or other religious paradigm should admit, that there is nothing that I could say that could convince you that my arbitrary distinction is correct.

{I cant accpet it, nor cold I as an ahtiest, sicne you ane tbeing reasonable, dispite your name...}-Zarove

From my perspective it may be defensible to abort any developing human entity that is not yet able to survive outside of the womb provided only with comparable resources required by a baby which was carried to full term.

{SWhich means what tot he real issue? Leaglaly and Morally its mruder sicne you end a life needlessly, and it doesnt take rleigion ot tell you this...}-Zarove

Now, if you've for some strange reason, had the patience to read the previous exposition, I will actually say something about what I believe. Not much of what I've said up until now is congruent with what I believe. Although I do not find abortion to be immoral, I would be hard pressed to come up with many examples where I would say it is the right thing to do.

{If nto Immoral, then why is it wrogn though?

Because Murdering someone who is helpless is worng, an again thsi is futirle to think your not seeign this form a rleigiosu stanpoint, you a just trygn to soudn enlightened by acceptign it as not immoral, when indeed you know it is.}-Zarove

Examples include: if the safety of the mother is at risk, if the child would have some horrible genetic disorder (think tay sach's disease) and maybe a few others. Even though I would not encourage such a choice, I am still pro-choice for the following reason:

{Reason or not, murder is murder.}-Zarove

Basically, my morals are consequences of what I take to be axioms on existence. It follows from Godels thereom that if I try to construct a consistent set of morals from any given set of axioms, that there will be somethings that I can neither prove nor disprove to be morally right or wrong, it certainly seems that abortion may be one of these things.

{If you ignore the fac thta its contrary to the laws of life and special surival in a communal animal such as Homo Sapeians, and the fac thtta ending ones own childs life is reprehensable to higher primates...}-Zarove

Furthermore, I recognize that what I take to be axioms is an arbitrary choice, so I can not in general argue that any other arbitrary set of axioms is inferior.

{ Mien arent arbitrary btu are base don the law of consewuence and result, and the fact remains that mruder is murder.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 17, 2004.

======================================

Subject: on the role of pedophilia

Pedophilia plays a crucial role in this system of control through appetite. It is the sexual sin which excuses all other sexual sins. "I may be bad," says the homosexual propagandist in his more candid secret moments, "but I'm not a pedophile." The woman who has had an abortion is urged on by the culture to say the same thing. Pedophilia's significance derives from the fact that it involves children. And its effect can be noted in the recent hysteria involving child molestation at daycare centers. Daycare is just the tip of the guilt iceberg which involves children and sex, it goes down through that to contraception and beyond that all the way to abortion. Those who feel guilt with regard to children because they have either neglected or killed them, and those who feel guilt because of their sexual sins can find consolation in the fact that they are, at least, not pedophiles. When the Catholic Church, the only institution in the world which maintains the complete set of sexual standards, can be implicated in this sin, those same people feel even better. The major reminder of sexual dereliction has been exposed as hypocritical. They, meaning priests, are all perverts, they are no better than we are, etc. etc. In other words, I feel better already.

-- Danny (Triumphantone@world.com), December 18, 2004.

"if not immoral, then why is it wrong though?"

I didn't intend to say that it is wrong or immoral, rather, it's amoral. You see, as opposed to black and white, my paradigm allows a perception of the world in shades of gray, and colors even.

I want to make this clear, I don't think that I'm right. I would have to be truly incompetent to state that my morals are arbitrarily chosen, and then try to convince people that I'm "right." Moreover, I am not interested in having a serious debate on this topic with anybody else who thinks they are right, it is neither productive nor entertaining. What I would say in reference to myself is that, given certain assumptions, my point of view is valid, defensible, and congruent with other morals derived from the same set of principles. I would say the same thing about your perspective as well, that is given the assumptions you've made, your conclusions are defensible. As this argument has gone so far it is completely pointless. I think that if you start with the assumption that I'm wrong, that you can not possibly convince me that I indeed am wrong. Equally pointless is the argument that, "based on my assumptions, your conclusions are incorrect." What you must argue is that my assumptions are either arbitrary and capricious, or incoherent, and provide a more suitable set of axioms to work with. Now the first part is easy. While the axioms I have chosen are perfectly coherent, I have already said myself that they are arbitrary, so you only need to come up with an acceptable alternative. To put it more simply, what you must do, and what you have thus far failed to do, is convince me that say, 8 weeks after conception, the developing organism is human. The problem is, that you take this as a given, and I do not.

Slightly off topic: Can you tell me why we call lions and tigers different species? By what you've said so far, surely there must be some fundemental genetic difference. However, there isn't. They have mated in captivity, and they are close enough genetically to produce viable, fertile, offspring. They are classified as different species because they look differently, behave differently, live in different environments, and do not mate in the wild. The classification of species is based on phenotype, what the animal looks like, not the genotype.

-- --Reasonable (dontsendme@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.

Here's a reasonable remark: ''Moreover, I am not interested in having a serious debate on this topic with anybody else who thinks they are right, it is neither productive nor entertaining.''

Pray, what is productive at all, or ''reasonably'' entertaining, about your contributions? All you're giving this thread is your hubris. All the fifty-cent words, without any social grace. We don't have to debate nor agree. But we shouldn't talk down at serious contributors in a religious discussion. Can you come back later; when you've contemplated our views? We hold them for good reason.

''Anybody else who thinks they're right'' means believing Catholics. You got that right. But it looks like you lose the debate before it even starts.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 19, 2004.

"if not immoral, then why is it wrong though?"

I didn't intend to say that it is wrong or immoral, rather, it's amoral.

{weXCEPT, TIS NOT. EVEN aTHRISTS TEND TO AGREE ON BASIC MORALITY, SUCH AS "mURDER IS WRONG BECAUSE IT TERMINATES ANOTHERS LFIE AGAISNT THERE WILL, and is detremental to society."

yOU CANT HIDE BEHIDN THE ATHEIST ROUTINE SICNE MANY ATHIESTS OPPOSE MORAL RELITAVISM, AND MANY EVEN OPOSE aBORTION.}-Zarove

You see, as opposed to black and white, my paradigm allows a perception of the world in shades of gray, and colors even.

{So does mine, but I do at elats recognise the black and the white when tis seen. Clour comes form neutral choices such as preferences in food and movies and music and such...Not on rather or not its OK to murder oens unbirn child.}-Zarove

I want to make this clear, I don't think that I'm right. I would have to be truly incompetent to state that my morals are arbitrarily chosen, and then try to convince people that I'm "right."

{However, our mroals arent arbiutrary, and ar ebased on ogical, defensable facts of nture... Funnily, you think yo veiws are equel to ours, even though outrs have rpemise and yors is just persnal opinion...}-Zarove

Moreover, I am not interested in having a serious debate on this topic with anybody else who thinks they are right, it is neither productive nor entertaining.

{And so why even bother stoppoing by to discuss it? this is, after all, a discusion board. Not discussing the merits of whaty we beleive woudl be incompatable to the poin of this board and thread...

What yoyu relaly eman is that you arent prepared to debate your posiiton, because ytou want us to accept pur vews as eqelly arbitrary, wich wont work, sice there not.}-Zarove

What I would say in reference to myself is that, given certain assumptions, my point of view is valid, defensible, and congruent with other morals derived from the same set of principles.

{Ours arent devleped form the same se of principles and are ebtter than yurs because tey reflect objective reality. Heck, even somepr abportion argumens are better than yurs based on objective reality VS Pardigmal assumptions...}-Zarove

I would say the same thing about your perspective as well, that is given the assumptions you've made, your conclusions are defensible.

{I made no assumptions. Scnece tells us alone the Fetus is alive and Human. This is a fact. it is also a fac thta it is contrary to every survival instinct Humanity has had for the last 2000 years to kill ones own offspriung, at any stage of development...}-Zarove

As this argument has gone so far it is completely pointless.

{Thi is only your second post, and it was poitnles sin yor first since you don even pretend you are right, or that you r vriws have any vlaue...not very reasonable of you, reasonable...}-Zarove

I think that if you start with the assumption that I'm wrong, that you can not possibly convince me that I indeed am wrong.

{Uhm, thi sentnece dosnt queit make sence eithe rin context or alone...}-Zarove

Equally pointless is the argument that, "based on my assumptions, your conclusions are incorrect." What you must argue is that my assumptions are either arbitrary and capricious, or incoherent, and provide a more suitable set of axioms to work with.

{We alreayd have. Its called "Objective relaity". Onectively, society, and independant life forms, are nto benefited, btu harmed, by Abortion.}-Zarove

Now the first part is easy. While the axioms I have chosen are perfectly coherent, I have already said myself that they are arbitrary, so you only need to come up with an acceptable alternative.

{Or you can tead the alreayd chosen Avceptable alternative we are working form...}-Zarove

To put it more simply, what you must do, and what you have thus far failed to do, is convince me that say, 8 weeks after conception, the developing organism is human. The problem is, that you take this as a given, and I do not.

{If the entire science of embryology and Biology fail to convence you of this obviosu fact, then nothign will Im afraid...}-Zarove

Slightly off topic: Can you tell me why we call lions and tigers different species?

{Because htey are. You ar eocnfused owever because of variosu factors you havent throught through but are evident...

Different Speiceis, same Genus. like Homo Sapeins and Homo Neanderthalis...}-Zarove

By what you've said so far, surely there must be some fundemental genetic difference. However, there isn't.

{I bet if you had two sames of blood , one form a tiger and oen rom a Lion, a genetisist codl run tests and confirm whihc is which...}- Zarove

They have mated in captivity, and they are close enough genetically to produce viable, fertile, offspring.

{So? Sme speicies of robin can dothe same, btu are clealry ivergent speicies... One only needs ot be related closley enough, nto nessisarily a member of the same spoeicies.}-Zarove

They are classified as different species because they look differently, behave differently, live in different environments, and do not mate in the wild.

{And they look diffeently even though there DNA is Identical? Or is there DNA diffent slightly as well?}-Zarove

The classification of species is based on phenotype, what the animal looks like, not the genotype.

{Not any longer, genertics has rewritten large parts of our oldclassification system. Indeed, many Birds are now changed , lmped togather or taken apart as divergent, betwen an older Birdwathers book I have and a Modern wone, based on genetic tudies...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.

> "what you have thus far failed to do, is convince me that say, 8 weeks after conception, the developing organism is human."

A: Could you suggest another species it might be? What non-human species can result from a sexual encounter between two members of the human species??

> "They are classified as different species because they look differently, behave differently, live in different environments, and do not mate in the wild. The classification of species is based on phenotype, what the animal looks like, not the genotype".

A: Phenotype is merely the visible expression of genotype. The underlying cause of their morphological and behavioral differences is their genetic differences.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 20, 2004.

Allow me to rephrase, from where does it follow that 8 weeks after conception the developing organism have all of the rights and protections of an adult human.

Back off topic: Modern humans are to Homo sapiens sapiens as neandertals are to Homo sapiens neandertalis. Same genus, same species, different subspecies; that is, depending on who you ask. An issue with basing classification of species based on genetic sequences is: exactly how different is different enough to be considered seperate species? Your choice of modern humans and neandertals is unfortunate becuase there is ongoing debate within the scientific community about how divergent the two branches of hominid evolution are. The statement that homo neandertalis is indeed a seperate species is often based upon the observation that the difference between neandertal mtdna and human mtdna is approximately 3.6% while variation among modern humans is about 1.2%. But what does that mean? Well, not much really. If we are only considering mtdna then homo sapiens neandertalis and homo sapiens sapiens are more closesly related than chimpanzees are related to... chimpanzees. Actually, by the definition of species, two organisms must be of the same species to interbreed. From Biology by Campbell and Reece a species is defined as "a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature to produce viable, feritle, offspring, but who cannot produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other species." That's why we have subspecies. Maybe they can interbreed, but usually don't, or are quite distinctive in appearance, behavior or habitat, then they are a subspecies.

Back on topic: So two of my axioms are, one, there is suffering, two, there is nothing good or beneficial about suffering. From here, I assume that say 8 weeks after conception the developing organism is not capable of experiencing suffering in the same manner as an adult human, the mother for example. I also assume that living in poverty is a great cause of suffering, that the greatest cause of an individual living in poverty is lack of educational attainment, and that outside of external commitments anybody has the ability to achieve arbitrary educational attainment. So, take the above assupmtions to be true and consider a pregnant woman. Suppose that during the time span during which the developing fetus is incapable of experiencing suffering in an appreciable manner, she decides that it is best to abort this pregnancy so that she may finish high school, or college, or get married or whatever, then have a child and bring it up in a better environment. This is the best solution in that it is the situation which causes minimal suffering to the involved parties, and is by that reasoning morally acceptable. The conclusion follows from the assumptions. Also, it is irrelevant whether or not it is actually necessary for the woman to get an abortion to be able to finish high school, or college, or whatever, only that she percieves it to be as such, that was the assumption after all. Since the conclusion follows from the assumptions, the only possible objection is that the assumptions are not valid; show me where they fail.

-- Reasonable (dontsendme@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.

Allow me to rephrase, from where does it follow that 8 weeks after conception the developing organism have all of the rights and protections of an adult human.

{i DONT THINK WE WANT TO GIVE THEM THE RIGHT O VOITE JUST YET... as to the right to live, that is easy, it is absed on the simple natural law. As social animals, humans are nto designed, rathe rby natural selection on its own or directed by God ( As either is irrelevant here) to kill there own kind on a regular basis, and it is the very antithesis of speicial survival to kill oes own offspring. It disregards and cheapens life and makes th eoverall effect of ones own survival, as well asthe survvial of the family line which ho are geneticlaly preprogrammed to want to continue, detrementa;l.

The porganism is alive, and Human. You cannot arge that its not human wihtout answering "wat is it". you cannot argue that ts nto alive. Pnce you acknowledge thta its a living Human, then the regulatiosn we have as a society abut Murder shoud aply. Stage of development does not matter, since the irght to life is the most basic and fundamental of all Human rights.}-Zarove

Back off topic: Modern humans are to Homo sapiens sapiens as neandertals are to Homo sapiens neandertalis. Same genus, same species, different subspecies;

{Yeah thats a huge debate, as others woidl contend they are H.Neanderthalis,a nd not H Sapain Neanderthalis, and I beelive, alst time I hecked, this was the predomenent veiw.If not it is e sizable and ocntending alternative...}-Zarove

that is, depending on who you ask.

{Yes, I know, see above.}-Zarove

An issue with basing classification of species based on genetic sequences is: exactly how different is different enough to be considered seperate species?

{And how "Healthy" is healthy before your considered ill? This is the problem with most classificaiton systems we have thusfar developed.}- Zarove

Your choice of modern humans and neandertals is unfortunate becuase there is ongoing debate within the scientific community about how divergent the two branches of hominid evolution are.

{Neither H.Spaian nor H.Neanderthalis are Hominids, they are Human, full fledged.That muhc is Universlay agreed upon. A Hoinid is either an earlier ancestor, or else a divedrgent branch.

I chose this example for ocnveneince.there are others. Sedveral speicies of Birds, like th red breasted robin as pposed tot he General robins. They can mae and prodice viable offspring, bu are divergent enugh not to be classed as exactly the same speicies... but who knows about robins?

The point is thoug that lions and Tiges are closelt related speicies, and not the same species,a nd its not jjust base don appearance. ( which dffers because of Genotype.) }-Zarove

The statement that homo neandertalis is indeed a seperate species is often based upon the observation that the difference between neandertal mtdna and human mtdna is approximately 3.6% while variation among modern humans is about 1.2%. But what does that mean?

{Itg mans closely related but not quiet the same, not as related. Also, I think you miss my overall point hat lions and Tigers are couned as seperate speicies becase there DNA does dverge enough to count a seperate, though closley related.}-Zarove

Well, not much really. If we are only considering mtdna then homo sapiens neandertalis and homo sapiens sapiens are more closesly related than chimpanzees are related to... chimpanzees.

{Not qit. Chimps have closer relation, wlel, dependant on the speicies of chimpanzee...}-Zarove

Actually, by the definition of species, two organisms must be of the same species to interbreed.

{Not nessisarily, the definition has greatly grown and evled over time. Interrelated speicies can breed viable offpsring, that are fertile,a nd et still be cunted as seperare speiifes, epecially nwoadays that everyhtign is base don Genetics...}-Zarove

From Biology by Campbell and Reece a species is defined as "a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature to produce viable, feritle, offspring, but who cannot produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other species."

{Thats the simplistic, high school level definition, but the truth is that few Biologists retain this as a hard and fast law, and see exceptions in may differign groups.}-Zarove

That's why we have subspecies. Maybe they can interbreed, but usually don't, or are quite distinctive in appearance, behavior or habitat, then they are a subspecies.

{You arent relaly interested i your weak and unsupportable claims about Abortion are you?}-Zarove

Back on topic: So two of my axioms are, one, there is suffering, two, there is nothing good or beneficial about suffering. From here, I assume that say 8 weeks after conception the developing organism is not capable of experiencing suffering in the same manner as an adult human, the mother for example. I also assume that living in poverty is a great cause of suffering, that the greatest cause of an individual living in poverty is lack of educational attainment, and that outside of external commitments anybody has the ability to achieve arbitrary educational attainment. So, take the above assupmtions to be true and consider a pregnant woman. Suppose that during the time span during which the developing fetus is incapable of experiencing suffering in an appreciable manner, she decides that it is best to abort this pregnancy so that she may finish high school, or college, or get married or whatever, then have a child and bring it up in a better environment. This is the best solution in that it is the situation which causes minimal suffering to the involved parties, and is by that reasoning morally acceptable.

{Yeah if to discount the Psycologyical effects ont he mother, as well as the health problems. ( Psycology, nto biology, is my field, by the way). did you knwo abortion elads to increased chances of sterility, as well as Cancer, hernia ( no joke) and a host of other thigns that may case the mother to sffer? And always leads to scaring and pain.Long term.

Then ther eis the depression. Universlly, all women who abort enter a stge of depresison. Some suppres th feeligns, others dny them, but it causes a visible hift int here personalities.

The dperession cna be great enogut o csuse suicide, and always reduces the level f happiness and always incrfeases there suffering.

So youyr " Morally accpegable" slution , base don endign suffering, ha caused the mother herself to suffer physically and mentally.

but you can just gnore that.

Also, new research reveal that at 3 weeks, the fetus is somewhat capable of responding t its invironment on its own volition, therofr it can suffer. Heck even Amoeba;s can suffer...

so yoj just mirdered a baby and condemned the mother to depresiona dn physical problems... yeah what a way to end suffering!

sory, this remaisn morlaly unacceptable. wven in your paradigm.}- Zarove

The conclusion follows from the assumptions.

{Which gnroe the impact of aboriton ont he mothe and acts liek the mother is exacly the same after the abortiona s before and asumes the 8 week old fetus cannot suffer ... both of whihc are incorect assumotions to make.}-Zarove

Also, it is irrelevant whether or not it is actually necessary for the woman to get an abortion to be able to finish high school, or college, or whatever, only that she percieves it to be as such, that was the assumption after all.

{so the facts are irrelevant an all thats important is what th woman thinks at the time... yeah that makes snece... and you think education will help people? Cant we educae her ott he option of not murdering her chld and finishign High shcool? wouidln this be mroe morally aceptable than what you advocated?}-Zarove

Since the conclusion follows from the assumptions, the only possible objection is that the assumptions are not valid; show me where they fail.

{I just did.

Oddow you fil to admit error int h earlier assumption where you said we faile to sow it was Human...now its htis, and likely you will ignoe what we say and find another sophist argument to support babykilling...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.

Oh, I must jump in here.. "there is nothing good or beneficial about suffering".

Indeed there is much good and beneficial about suffering. People who have not experienced true "suffering" perhaps have little understanding of the great good which can be realized from it. Physical suffering, when dealt with in a spirit of grace, can bring one closer to God..suffering makes one look at issues such as pride. Pride often stands in the way of contemplating a person's realtionship with God..Jesus suffered physical pain..much more than I do on a daily basis.

From my daily pain in my wheelchair, and my nightly pain in my bed, I am able to give up pride..pride which held me back for years from seeing the love of God. People often ask me why and how I can be so happy and content when I am obviously in constant pain and "suffering" so? If it were not for the "suffering" I would not have been able to put aside my pride..

Suffering indeed has goodness and is beneficial.

Other aspects of "suffering"..a mother who goes hungry herself in order to feed her children.. a father who works two jobs to support his family..

suffering to self is unpopular, but good.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.