Henry Morgentaler Given Honour?

[WIP]

Ok, so it is ignorance. An embyo does self replicate, it's called cell division. It replicates and gradually becomes more and more specialized. It is a life, on it's own and unique from the mother in whom's womb it resides. it is unique and it is growing.

I am not the one tied up in knots. The definitions are clear despite your inability or unwillingness to understand them.

By your two definitions, sperm are a 'life' therefore testes are no longer needed to produce them, right? That's what you said, so it's only logical - amirite? lol

Same logic, no need for ovaries to produce eggs anymore, because the eggs are a life form and therefore can grow and reproduce on their own. lol

Are both sperm and egg living tissue? of course. Are they seperate lives in and of themselves? not a chance.

All the link I supplied and definitions that there are back me up.

You two, conversely, have supplied nothing other than pedantics.

carry on if you must. I will run and get you a larger shovel.

Since you are so determined to keep the abortion debate going, I have to ask again why you and the rest of the prolife crowd, are so overwhelmed by the fertilization process that all other considerations, especially the rights of the mother, are secondary to making sure every zygote is brought full term?

Personally, I think this is a totally idiotic way of determining the value of human life! At the zygote stage, when the fertilization process is complete, we're talking about 70 to 150 cells in total. There is no brain, no neurons, no sense of sensory awareness, and yet you and other prolifers keep telling us we should give it the same level of value as a baby, or even a fetus that has started to develop the systems that will make it capable of becoming fully human. A housefly has a brain with 100,000 neurons -- if you feel no concern over flattening one with a flyswatter, you should feel no qualms about embryonic stem cell research or morning-after birth control pills! In the natural order of things, at least half of all fertilized eggs are aborted naturally by miscarriage -- for the religious, this makes God the most prolific abortionist of all time!

And 'life begins at conception' is totally bogus in the first place, since there is no magical demarcation of "conception" but instead, there is a fertilization process that can go off in many different directions, including splitting of the embryo to form identical twins, two fertilized embryos merging into one - to form a chimera, and your simple biology 101 lesson failed to note that two different sperm cells can fertilize the same egg cell and add to the male side of the new genome. If the embryo splits, it can form a rare semi-identical twin: http://www.livescience.com/health/070326_semi_twins.html

The emphasis you place on forming a new human genome also gives the false impression that it is a blueprint which will determine future development of the person! The reality is that environmental factors, including the physical environment the child is growing up in, social interaction, and even personal interests can cause genes to be expressed that will determine how the brain developes later in life -- things that can't be determined with a DNA blueprint! http://www.livescience.com/health/050708_i...ical_twins.html

Put all of the overwrought attention to new human genomes aside and the real motivations for forcing women to bring fertilized eggs to term is either:

A. the magical belief that immaterial souls animate the body and are the source of our personal identity. Every new discovery made in neuroscience that correlates mental activities with brain function chips away at this notion. In the case of embryos, substance dualists never venture to answer whether souls split in the case of twins, or merge together in the case of chimeras!

B. to have control over the reproductive process and take the choice over when and how many children to have, away from the women who have the babies. No surprise that if you ban abortion and birth control, then every woman who is healthy and fertile, will have as many children as her husband wants -- not how many she would like to have! This is how it was done in the old days, and it's no surprise that when women are able to control pregnancy, they have far fewer children than previously.

[g_bambino]

At the zygote stage, when the fertilization process is complete, we're talking about 70 to 150 cells in total. A housefly has a brain with 100,000 neurons -- if you feel no concern over flattening one with a flyswatter, you should feel no qualms about embryonic stem cell research or morning-after birth control pills! In the natural order of things, at least half of all fertilized eggs are aborted naturally by miscarriage -- for the religious, this makes God the most prolific abortionist of all time!

Quite right.

[gc1765]

The emphasis you place on forming a new human genome also gives the false impression that it is a blueprint which will determine future development of the person! The reality is that environmental factors, including the physical environment the child is growing up in, social interaction, and even personal interests can cause genes to be expressed that will determine how the brain developes later in life -- things that can't be determined with a DNA blueprint!

I agree with this.

Some folks use the argument that an embryo is a human life because it contains the DNA necessary to make a human being, but the problem is that DNA is just one of the many molecules needed to produce a human. Is an instruction booklet on how to build a car the same thing as a car? Or do you need to have an engine, a body, and tires as well?

[Oleg Bach]

Since you are so determined to keep the abortion debate going, I have to ask again why you and the rest of the prolife crowd, are so overwhelmed by the fertilization process that all other considerations, especially the rights of the mother, are secondary to making sure every zygote is brought full term?

Personally, I think this is a totally idiotic way of determining the value of human life! At the zygote stage, when the fertilization process is complete, we're talking about 70 to 150 cells in total. There is no brain, no neurons, no sense of sensory awareness, and yet you and other prolifers keep telling us we should give it the same level of value as a baby, or even a fetus that has started to develop the systems that will make it capable of becoming fully human. A housefly has a brain with 100,000 neurons -- if you feel no concern over flattening one with a flyswatter, you should feel no qualms about embryonic stem cell research or morning-after birth control pills! In the natural order of things, at least half of all fertilized eggs are aborted naturally by miscarriage -- for the religious, this makes God the most prolific abortionist of all time!

And 'life begins at conception' is totally bogus in the first place, since there is no magical demarcation of "conception" but instead, there is a fertilization process that can go off in many different directions, including splitting of the embryo to form identical twins, two fertilized embryos merging into one - to form a chimera, and your simple biology 101 lesson failed to note that two different sperm cells can fertilize the same egg cell and add to the male side of the new genome. If the embryo splits, it can form a rare semi-identical twin: http://www.livescience.com/health/070326_semi_twins.html

The emphasis you place on forming a new human genome also gives the false impression that it is a blueprint which will determine future development of the person! The reality is that environmental factors, including the physical environment the child is growing up in, social interaction, and even personal interests can cause genes to be expressed that will determine how the brain developes later in life -- things that can't be determined with a DNA blueprint! http://www.livescience.com/health/050708_i...ical_twins.html

Put all of the overwrought attention to new human genomes aside and the real motivations for forcing women to bring fertilized eggs to term is either:

A. the magical belief that immaterial souls animate the body and are the source of our personal identity. Every new discovery made in neuroscience that correlates mental activities with brain function chips away at this notion. In the case of embryos, substance dualists never venture to answer whether souls split in the case of twins, or merge together in the case of chimeras!

B. to have control over the reproductive process and take the choice over when and how many children to have, away from the women who have the babies. No surprise that if you ban abortion and birth control, then every woman who is healthy and fertile, will have as many children as her husband wants -- not how many she would like to have! This is how it was done in the old days, and it's no surprise that when women are able to control pregnancy, they have far fewer children than previously.

SOUL is not supernatural and in fact it as all matter is - simply energy..it is NOT immortal or eternal. It is simply energy driven by some natural force that animates matter....sure it may have devine qualities but is not fully devine. Once you die are prior to the first death which is prior to being born...and on to the second death which is when you leave the material world because the soul disappates and the matter it holds together degrades...NOW spirit is another matter - it is devine and eternal and comes from the infinite intelligence that is the universe or "God" or goodness (as we call it) ..

For instance in old literature it would say "four souls were lost at sea" - or "what good does it to a man if he gain the riches of the world and loses his "mortal" soul" ....soul is temporal like the body - where as spirit or "holy spirit" is eternal and can only be absorbed into the flesh on request...much like a vampire can not enter your home (body) unless invited...God is polite - but the holy spirit is a benevolent parasite that sustains the flesh....so to make a long story longer...the stealing of souls through abortion is a no no...it is the stealing of the animation of life...and only devine order can birth or kill....so Henry really does not have a devine licence from head office to destroy the animation that is goodness...he's coo coo...and operates like a privateer...and the man from what he reveals in his old age is quite eccentric and off the mark...to hell with the old bugger and his smooth genocide.

[Black Dog]

Hey Oleg: still waiting for an actual citation of that Morgentaler quote you were all riled up about.

[charter.rights]

I agree with this.

Some folks use the argument that an embryo is a human life because it contains the DNA necessary to make a human being, but the problem is that DNA is just one of the many molecules needed to produce a human. Is an instruction booklet on how to build a car the same thing as a car? Or do you need to have an engine, a body, and tires as well?

That's an interesting analogy....but YES! To a mechanic an instruction booklet (and perhaps even a picture) is the same thing as a car. It is only a matter of time and construction but the car exists, if even only in his mind. In order to build a car and then drive a car he must have first worked out the details in his mind. I digress.......

We can use all kinds of definition of what constitutes a "human being". However, the only one that counts right now suggests that an embryo and fetus are not human. They do not share human traits and mannerisms at the early stages and for the most part they don't have working opposable thumbs...which separates us from other species....In terms of abortion the embryo and fetus are not human, and have no rights beyond the right of the mother to choose to either proceed or terminate her pregnancy.

[White Doors]

Since you are so determined to keep the abortion debate going, I have to ask again why you and the rest of the prolife crowd, are so overwhelmed by the fertilization process that all other considerations, especially the rights of the mother, are secondary to making sure every zygote is brought full term?

Personally, I think this is a totally idiotic way of determining the value of human life! At the zygote stage, when the fertilization process is complete, we're talking about 70 to 150 cells in total. There is no brain, no neurons, no sense of sensory awareness, and yet you and other prolifers keep telling us we should give it the same level of value as a baby, or even a fetus that has started to develop the systems that will make it capable of becoming fully human. A housefly has a brain with 100,000 neurons -- if you feel no concern over flattening one with a flyswatter, you should feel no qualms about embryonic stem cell research or morning-after birth control pills! In the natural order of things, at least half of all fertilized eggs are aborted naturally by miscarriage -- for the religious, this makes God the most prolific abortionist of all time!

And 'life begins at conception' is totally bogus in the first place, since there is no magical demarcation of "conception" but instead, there is a fertilization process that can go off in many different directions, including splitting of the embryo to form identical twins, two fertilized embryos merging into one - to form a chimera, and your simple biology 101 lesson failed to note that two different sperm cells can fertilize the same egg cell and add to the male side of the new genome. If the embryo splits, it can form a rare semi-identical twin: http://www.livescience.com/health/070326_semi_twins.html

The emphasis you place on forming a new human genome also gives the false impression that it is a blueprint which will determine future development of the person! The reality is that environmental factors, including the physical environment the child is growing up in, social interaction, and even personal interests can cause genes to be expressed that will determine how the brain developes later in life -- things that can't be determined with a DNA blueprint! http://www.livescience.com/health/050708_i...ical_twins.html

Put all of the overwrought attention to new human genomes aside and the real motivations for forcing women to bring fertilized eggs to term is either:

A. the magical belief that immaterial souls animate the body and are the source of our personal identity. Every new discovery made in neuroscience that correlates mental activities with brain function chips away at this notion. In the case of embryos, substance dualists never venture to answer whether souls split in the case of twins, or merge together in the case of chimeras!

B. to have control over the reproductive process and take the choice over when and how many children to have, away from the women who have the babies. No surprise that if you ban abortion and birth control, then every woman who is healthy and fertile, will have as many children as her husband wants -- not how many she would like to have! This is how it was done in the old days, and it's no surprise that when women are able to control pregnancy, they have far fewer children than previously.

wow, please show me where I said I disagree with a woman having the right to abort a zygote?

Thanks for proving my point that the radical 'pro-choice' people ignore science in their effort to 'prove' scientifically, mind you, that abortion ir 'right'.

I think a woman shuld have the right to choose, up to a certain level of development.

Please try to see past the end of your nose.

and btw, you are quite right, conception is way over rated. lol

Edited July 18, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

I agree with this.

Some folks use the argument that an embryo is a human life because it contains the DNA necessary to make a human being, but the problem is that DNA is just one of the many molecules needed to produce a human. Is an instruction booklet on how to build a car the same thing as a car? Or do you need to have an engine, a body, and tires as well?

I believe in a balance of the two. DNA and environment.

Certainly if you DNA says you are going to be a certain blood type, you will get that blood type, regardless of 'environental' influences.

your instruction booklet/car metaphor is a new intellectual low

[White Doors]

We can use all kinds of definition of what constitutes a "human being". However, the only one that counts right now suggests that an embryo and fetus are not human. They do not share human traits and mannerisms at the early stages and for the most part they don't have working opposable thumbs...which separates us from other species....In terms of abortion the embryo and fetus are not human, and have no rights beyond the right of the mother to choose to either proceed or terminate her pregnancy.

Thanks, I'm sure everyone here is aware of the law in Canada as it now stands.

The conversation that I am trying to have is that I think a fetus should have rights after a certain level of development.

Opposable thumbs? haha What do you think the war amps would think of that criteria?

haha

omg..

Edited July 18, 2008 by White Doors

[WIP]

SOUL is not supernatural and in fact it as all matter is - simply energy..it is NOT immortal or eternal. It is simply energy driven by some natural force that animates matter....sure it may have devine qualities but is not fully devine.

If I can stop right here; if you believe the soul is the product of energy, presumably produced by brain function in this case, then every lifeform and non-living thing that uses energy also has a soul -- since they also produce and/or use energy. By this definition, my computer also has a soul.

Once you die are prior to the first death which is prior to being born...and on to the second death which is when you leave the material world because the soul disappates and the matter it holds together degrades...NOW spirit is another matter - it is devine and eternal and comes from the infinite intelligence that is the universe or "God" or goodness (as we call it) ..

I'm not sure if I got all that, but what you are describing sounds like Pantheism - the belief that the creator and the creation are one and the same, so the universe is a living, self-conscious entity. It is a common viewpoint outside of Western religion and philosophy, but it is also an unfalsifiable belief since it makes no claims that don't also have materialist explanations.

For instance in old literature it would say "four souls were lost at sea" - or "what good does it to a man if he gain the riches of the world and loses his "mortal" soul" ....soul is temporal like the body - where as spirit or "holy spirit" is eternal and can only be absorbed into the flesh on request...much like a vampire can not enter your home (body) unless invited...God is polite - but the holy spirit is a benevolent parasite that sustains the flesh....so to make a long story longer...the stealing of souls through abortion is a no no...it is the stealing of the animation of life...and only devine order can birth or kill....so Henry really does not have a devine licence from head office to destroy the animation that is goodness...he's coo coo...and operates like a privateer...and the man from what he reveals in his old age is quite eccentric and off the mark...to hell with the old bugger and his smooth genocide.

Okay! I don't know where to go with this paragraph! It sounds like you are describing the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit along orthodox understanding, but your earlier descriptions of God, spirit and soul are pantheistic or animistic. Many of the simple nature-worshipping religions that began with hunter/gatherer tribes follow this line of thought, and there are more sophisticated expressions of pantheism found in many Eastern religions; but Christianity is part of the Western tradition that makes a clear distinction between creator and creation, man and animal, and living and non-living matter. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for spirit is the same as for breath, and when you stopped breathing, that meant the lifeforce had left your body and returned to God. But in the New Testament, many verses express a belief that the soul continues on after the body dies. Now "stealing souls through abortion" is what inspires most people to believe that an embryo is equivalent to all human life, since the "soul" would be dropped in fully formed, making even a zygote with less than 100 cells already a self-conscious, self-aware entity in the eyes of many believers.

I first dealt with this concept a couple of years ago when I was a member of a U.S. conservative forum, and the embryonic stem-cell debate was the hot topic; and that's when I first realized how much damage an unfounded, unsupportable belief can do, when it denies research that could potentially save lives because of a belief that a frozen embryo is already consciously aware. As long as there is that 25 to 30% of the population that wants to set the mark for conferring personal rights on a fertilized embryo, backed by well-funded conservative religious prolife lobbyists, this issue will remain unresolved.

[WIP]

wow, please show me where I said I disagree with a woman having the right to abort a zygote?

Thanks for proving my point that the radical 'pro-choice' people ignore science in their effort to 'prove' scientifically, mind you, that abortion ir 'right'.

Yet another empty, rhetorical accusation that provides no facts so that it cannot be challenged!

I think a woman shuld have the right to choose, up to a certain level of development.

Please try to see past the end of your nose.

and btw, you are quite right, conception is way over rated. lol

Then what the hell are you arguing about in the first place!

We've been down this road before, and it amazes me that you aim your gun at the pro-choice side, since a majority who support abortion rights do not support third trimester abortion without restrictions, and would only allow it under circumstances where the mother's health is at risk, or the fetus has serious birth defects.

Right now, what would be considered a 'serious defect' is the important point to clarify, since genetic testing may lead some to have abortions for reasons that might seem frivolous to others! In many countries, like India and China, they already have a crisis on hand, because of a culture that favours boys over girls leads to abortions of females. It would be nice if a clear-thinking society could leave ancient superstitions in the past and make rational ethical decisions that are going to increase as technology continues to advance!

[Black Dog]

We've been down this road before, and it amazes me that you aim your gun at the pro-choice side, since a majority who support abortion rights do not support third trimester abortion without restrictions, and would only allow it under circumstances where the mother's health is at risk, or the fetus has serious birth defects.

I would argue that anyone favouring any sort of restriction on abortion isn't pro-choice at all, since external restrictions are the antithesis of free choice. It's a mushy, middle of the road sentiment that doesn't hold up to scrutiny and opens the door to the complete erosion of reproductive rights. The way I see it, the law may be silent in Canada, but women having abortions are already choosing to restrict the timing of the procedure. So why legislate the status quo?

[WIP]

I would argue that anyone favouring any sort of restriction on abortion isn't pro-choice at all, since external restrictions are the antithesis of free choice.

When it comes to the abortion issue, third-trimester abortions are a small percentage of the total number and are usually requested because of concerns over health or birth defects. Most women make their decisions over whether to continue pregnancy long before that time anyway; but is a woman's privacy rights absolute, even overriding the right to life of a fetus that is essentially not much different than a newborn baby? If she has post-partum depression and smothers her newborn with a pillow, she could be charged with infanticide! Does it really make any sense that no crime is committed if the fetus was aborted just prior to the delivery date?

It's a mushy, middle of the road sentiment that doesn't hold up to scrutiny and opens the door to the complete erosion of reproductive rights.

Inspite of advocacy groups tugging at us and arguing extreme positions on this issue, the majority of people consistently fall in that mushy middleground, as you call it. Sometimes ethics is a gut reaction to a problem, rather than a philosophical debate, and most people aren't willing to confer personal rights on a fertilized egg, but neither are they willing to deny human rights to a fetus that is close to the same level of development as a newborn baby.

The way I see it, the law may be silent in Canada, but women having abortions are already choosing to restrict the timing of the procedure. So why legislate the status quo?

I mentioned previously that increased advance use of genetic testing may alter the status quo. Should a third trimester abortion be considered because the child may be diabetic or colour-blind? At some point, someone will have to come up with a way of establishing some rational guidelines for this sort of issue and the end-of-life issues surrounding euthanasia.

[Oleg Bach]

When it comes to the abortion issue, third-trimester abortions are a small percentage of the total number and are usually requested because of concerns over health or birth defects. Most women make their decisions over whether to continue pregnancy long before that time anyway; but is a woman's privacy rights absolute, even overriding the right to life of a fetus that is essentially not much different than a newborn baby? If she has post-partum depression and smothers her newborn with a pillow, she could be charged with infanticide! Does it really make any sense that no crime is committed if the fetus was aborted just prior to the delivery date?

Inspite of advocacy groups tugging at us and arguing extreme positions on this issue, the majority of people consistently fall in that mushy middleground, as you call it. Sometimes ethics is a gut reaction to a problem, rather than a philosophical debate, and most people aren't willing to confer personal rights on a fertilized egg, but neither are they willing to deny human rights to a fetus that is close to the same level of development as a newborn baby.

I mentioned previously that increased advance use of genetic testing may alter the status quo. Should a third trimester abortion be considered because the child may be diabetic or colour-blind? At some point, someone will have to come up with a way of establishing some rational guidelines for this sort of issue and the end-of-life issues surrounding euthanasia.

Hey guys euthanasia and subtle genocide is still rampant in our world of clever modernistic slow murder...remember how a couple of centuries ago the English were attempting to rape pilage and harrass the IRISH out of existance? Well maybe some old tribes (extended national families) should be removed from the face of the earth...for instance all the decaying crack head whores and skinny males in my area are being driven into the ground via abortion and intentionally condoned drug addiction...come to think of it they are genetically a nasty violent lot of inbreds anyway..point being - maybe the anglo elite here in Canada hired Henry to finish the job?

[White Doors]

Most women make their decisions over whether to continue pregnancy long before that time anyway; but is a woman's privacy rights absolute, even overriding the right to life of a fetus that is essentially not much different than a newborn baby? If she has post-partum depression and smothers her newborn with a pillow, she could be charged with infanticide! Does it really make any sense that no crime is committed if the fetus was aborted just prior to the delivery date?

Wow, for all of your kicking and screaming, we actually agree.

The only reason I brought up the life begins at conception thing is because I didn't. Look back, someone else did and I responded to it. If someone is going to make a choice to abort, they should be relying on all the facts and the facts state that the new life begins at conception. That's all I was ever saying. Unfortunately, for alot of people, ideology clouds their judgement and reading comprehension to which you were not immune.

[Black Dog]

When it comes to the abortion issue, third-trimester abortions are a small percentage of the total number and are usually requested because of concerns over health or birth defects. Most women make their decisions over whether to continue pregnancy long before that time anyway; but is a woman's privacy rights absolute, even overriding the right to life of a fetus that is essentially not much different than a newborn baby? If she has post-partum depression and smothers her newborn with a pillow, she could be charged with infanticide! Does it really make any sense that no crime is committed if the fetus was aborted just prior to the delivery date?

Again, since this is an excercise in arbitrary line-drawing, one must be concious of the slippery slope. That is: if you declare abortion wrong afte rthe third trimester, what's stopping someone from saying it's wrong from the second or first? I'd much rather err on the side of caution in than create a wedge to drive through reproductive rights.

Inspite of advocacy groups tugging at us and arguing extreme positions on this issue, the majority of people consistently fall in that mushy middleground, as you call it. Sometimes ethics is a gut reaction to a problem, rather than a philosophical debate, and most people aren't willing to confer personal rights on a fertilized egg, but neither are they willing to deny human rights to a fetus that is close to the same level of development as a newborn baby.

I don't see why the majority opinion, baseless as you say it is, matters here.

I mentioned previously that increased advance use of genetic testing may alter the status quo. Should a third trimester abortion be considered because the child may be diabetic or colour-blind? At some point, someone will have to come up with a way of establishing some rational guidelines for this sort of issue and the end-of-life issues surrounding euthanasia.

I concur. But I don't think arbitrary restrictions without extensive debate and examination are the answer.

[White Doors]

slippery slope?

About as relevent as saying that if it is ok to kill up to the moment of birth, why not for the first year after birth?

they can't speak, are totally dependant on a care giver, no one has memories of their first year of life..

you have to do better then 'slippery slope' BD, you always treat slippery slope with disdain so I am suprised you would retreat to that.

[WIP]

Again, since this is an excercise in arbitrary line-drawing, one must be concious of the slippery slope. That is: if you declare abortion wrong afte rthe third trimester, what's stopping someone from saying it's wrong from the second or first? I'd much rather err on the side of caution in than create a wedge to drive through reproductive rights.

The only thing making it a wedge issue is the privatization of ethics and morality, so that prolifers do not feel obligated to back up why they feel the 'right to life' should be absolute, or alternatively, why should the actual time of birth be the dividing line deciding when we have new life that should be protected?

The debate right now is conducted between two opposing interest groups who are unwilling to compromise. The slippery slope argument is used by every group which fears even a small compromise will cause their movement to collapse. It reminds me of one time at a union meeting a few years back, when I asked why we were spending so much of our money on grievance procedures to prevent management from firing a few workers who are habitually in trouble, and most of us would agree, can't do their jobs -- but our union steward, in his thick, cockney accent jumped up and started lecturing me about how 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and we are all in danger, if we allow these weak links to be broken'. Now, eventually these idiots with mental or substance abuse issues end up getting fired anyway, but I am always amazed that the people who think that digging in their heels and holding out to the bitter end - feel that this makes their situation safer! In the abortion debate, it's the late term abortions that raise broad public disapproval and could be used to advance a dogmatic prolife agenda. Taking this issue off the table would weaken the argument for any fanatical prolife agenda that would move abortions back to the blackmarket.

I don't see why the majority opinion, baseless as you say it is, matters here.

It was just an observation, but I have always found it interesting that public attitudes have remained fixed regardless of the efforts of two competing sides.

I concur. But I don't think arbitrary restrictions without extensive debate and examination are the answer.

Unless issues of ethics and morality start to move from private personal beliefs into the public sphere, there won't be any way to establish a set of guidelines that most people can agree upon.

[Black Dog]

slippery slope?

About as relevent as saying that if it is ok to kill up to the moment of birth, why not for the first year after birth?

they can't speak, are totally dependant on a care giver, no one has memories of their first year of life..

you have to do better then 'slippery slope' BD, you always treat slippery slope with disdain so I am suprised you would retreat to that.

Except there's ample evidence that the slippery slope slants one way and not the other. Can you honestly conceive of anyone supporting infanticide? No. On the other hand, there's late term abortion bans, parental consent legislation, murder charges for in utero victims etc. The slippery slope can be fallacious, but not always.

WIP

In the abortion debate, it's the late term abortions that raise broad public disapproval and could be used to advance a dogmatic prolife agenda. Taking this issue off the table would weaken the argument for any fanatical prolife agenda that would move abortions back to the blackmarket.

Since most late term abortions are conducted for health reasons, restricting them would have serious consequences for those who require them And if you made exceptions for health reasons, you'd be left with a law that would have almost no real-world application but to act as a sop to a group that opposes the procedure from Day one. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

[WIP]

Except there's ample evidence that the slippery slope slants one way and not the other. Can you honestly conceive of anyone supporting infanticide? No. On the other hand, there's late term abortion bans, parental consent legislation, murder charges for in utero victims etc. The slippery slope can be fallacious, but not always.

Maybe I didn't express my point clearly enough earlier about why I believe issues of ethics and morality should be discussed and evaluated openly, rather than closed off as private matters -- the point I was trying to make is that the pro-choice side is always going to be under assault because they rarely if ever defend the ethics of abortion. The only people making a public case are the prolifers who wave bloody signs around and talk about baby-killers! If your default response is "it's a woman's right to choose" or "it's a matter between a woman and her doctor" that says nothing about the ethics of abortion! A lot of people want to know what the difference is between a late term fetus and an infant, besides whether or not the umbilical cord is still attached! Should fetal development play a role in determining whether there should be restrictions on abortion? As long as it's a 'private matter', the issue doesn't get settled, and all abortion rights are subject to revision!

WIP

Since most late term abortions are conducted for health reasons, restricting them would have serious consequences for those who require them And if you made exceptions for health reasons, you'd be left with a law that would have almost no real-world application but to act as a sop to a group that opposes the procedure from Day one. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

Most rational people who respond to the question of banning or restricting "partial-birth abortion," always make exceptions for reasons such as health risks or birth defects. But, with improved prenatal testing, some guidelines are going to be needed to stop perfectionists from aborting late term fetuses because they are the wrong sex, may be diabetic, club-footed etc..

[Black Dog]

Maybe I didn't express my point clearly enough earlier about why I believe issues of ethics and morality should be discussed and evaluated openly, rather than closed off as private matters -- the point I was trying to make is that the pro-choice side is always going to be under assault because they rarely if ever defend the ethics of abortion.

One doesn't really discuss the ethics of an appendectomy or colonoscopy either. It's a medical procedure.

A lot of people want to know what the difference is between a late term fetus and an infant, besides whether or not the umbilical cord is still attached! Should fetal development play a role in determining whether there should be restrictions on abortion? As long as it's a 'private matter', the issue doesn't get settled, and all abortion rights are subject to revision!

The issue is unlikely to ever be settled because there's no way to achieve consensus. As long as there's enough people who buy into the "life begins at conception" side, abortion will be a contentious issue and subject to revision. Which is why it's important not to get bogged down in academic debates about the nature of the fetus and life itself.

Most rational people who respond to the question of banning or restricting "partial-birth abortion," always make exceptions for reasons such as health risks or birth defects. But, with improved prenatal testing, some guidelines are going to be needed to stop perfectionists from aborting late term fetuses because they are the wrong sex, may be diabetic, club-footed etc..

I think such people will always find a way. More to the point, though, I think legislating based on a very minor and specific set of circumstances is a bad idea because it ends up having broader reaching effects that may be quite unintended.

[White Doors]

I think such people will always find a way. More to the point, though, I think legislating based on a very minor and specific set of circumstances is a bad idea because it ends up having broader reaching effects that may be quite unintended

really? then perhaps you can cite where this has happened where they have 'arbitrary limits' on abortion.. I don;t know, such as the rest of the civilized world? Canada is the only western country that has zero limits.

You can look to France where it is at 20-24 weeks with provisions for health reasons after that.

All of Europe is this way and they seemingly have no issue with it.