Who has the right to life?

[WIP]

Anything to say on the issue at hand, guyser?

Or are you so obsessed with me that you've forgotten the topic.

WIP, I believe in women having choice. I also believe that late term (5 months and more) abortions should occur only in rare circumstances. If a woman wants an abortion it should not take her six months of "waffling" to decide. If she waffles she should NOT have the abortion.

Thanks for the clarification! I think I got your posts mixed up with Sharon or Melanie. From what I've read so far, the requests for third trimester abortions are usually from women who were planning to have the child, but major health issues have come into play such as major birth defects or that the pregnancy is going bad and the woman's health is at risk. If it's for more frivolous reasons like the previously discussed sex-selection, these sort of reasons should be dismissed! If the baby isn't wanted, it could be adopted by a couple who are on a waiting list to adopt a healthy baby.

Drug/alcohol abuse by pregnant women is a totally different kettle of worms... I would be hardpressed to TELL a woman she had to abort, but for the sake of the child, it would be better than being born messed up for life.

I also have a problem "monitoring" or "detaining" pregnant drug/alcohol users during pregnancy as it is very intrusive.

However, once the defective child is born... take it away and prosecute the mother for endangerment/damages.

I'd say "Listen Bitch - you had the option to abort, but you chose not to; you chose to give birth to a child that you KNEW would not be able to function... so therefore we are prosecuting you to the full extent of the law."

That's what I'd say.

I have to disagree with you on this issue. I would rather be intrusive and protect the health of the fetus, than prosecute the mother for causing harm to her baby afterward. If a woman is careless and irresponsible enough to drink or take drugs during pregancy, I doubt the threat of prosecution afterward is going to influence her to go in to treatment for addiction problems.

[M.Dancer]

And at what point does abortion constitute "killing?" It's totally bogus if you consider destroying a fertilized egg as the equivalent of killing a baby!

When the life of the fetus has ended. Whether killing an embryo is the same as a fetus or the same as a 1 year old or the same as a 90 year old is moot.

[Melanie_]

Thanks for the clarification! I think I got your posts mixed up with Sharon or Melanie. From what I've read so far, the requests for third trimester abortions are usually from women who were planning to have the child, but major health issues have come into play such as major birth defects or that the pregnancy is going bad and the woman's health is at risk. If it's for more frivolous reasons like the previously discussed sex-selection, these sort of reasons should be dismissed! If the baby isn't wanted, it could be adopted by a couple who are on a waiting list to adopt a healthy baby.

Another reason for late term abortions can be access. Women living in remote areas may not have immediate access to abortions. Combine that with a partner or community that doesn't support her desire for an abortion, and it may take months to actually be able to have the procedure carried out.

I have to disagree with you on this issue. I would rather be intrusive and protect the health of the fetus, than prosecute the mother for causing harm to her baby afterward. If a woman is careless and irresponsible enough to drink or take drugs during pregancy, I doubt the threat of prosecution afterward is going to influence her to go in to treatment for addiction problems.

I agree with you, WIP. If a pregnant woman who has chosen to carry a pregnancy to term drinks or takes drugs, we should be able to do something about it. But it opens up the slippery slope argument. Do we also prevent them from smoking during pregnancy? More and more research is pointing out the negative effect of cigarette smoke on a developing fetus. What about trans fats? Will we prevent a woman from eating at McDonalds? Here is where I start getting tied up in knots. I have an issue with the state getting involved in micromanaging a woman's pregnancy, but at the same time there are definite health issues that can be prevented depending on the choices she makes.

[Drea]

Another reason for late term abortions can be access. Women living in remote areas may not have immediate access to abortions. Combine that with a partner or community that doesn't support her desire for an abortion, and it may take months to actually be able to have the procedure carried out.

I agree with you, WIP. If a pregnant woman who has chosen to carry a pregnancy to term drinks or takes drugs, we should be able to do something about it. But it opens up the slippery slope argument. Do we also prevent them from smoking during pregnancy? More and more research is pointing out the negative effect of cigarette smoke on a developing fetus. What about trans fats? Will we prevent a woman from eating at McDonalds? Here is where I start getting tied up in knots. I have an issue with the state getting involved in micromanaging a woman's pregnancy, but at the same time there are definite health issues that can be prevented depending on the choices she makes.

Exactly the dilema Melanie... It's a slippery slope to say pregnant women must be "monitored" to ensure they are not doing anything that could potentially cause birth defects, etc.

Perhaps all drug/alcohol addicted pregnant women should be given the option of abortion immediately. As in "right now, go down the hallway, the doctor is waiting". If they don't opt for abortion they should be housed in treatment facilites (paid for by the taxpayer) to remain "clean" for the duration of the pregnancy. As in "right now, there is a van waiting to take you to the facility".

Perhaps we should give all pregnant women drug tests and if the test is positive, just force them to abort and be done with it. "You want a baby? Prove you are clean, then you will be allowed to carry the pregnancy to term".

Smacks of extreme fascism imo and would never fly.

IMO abortion is perferable to giving birth to a child that will never be able to live a normal life.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Drea

[Melanie_]

On a personal level, the only woman close to me who had had an abortion was a sister-in-law who died about 10 years ago( not because of the abortion of course).

This is the only woman you are close to who has had an abortion that you know of. I can think of half a dozen women off the top of my head who I know who have had abortions, and if I spent some time at it I could probably name many more. Two were pregnant as teenagers, one was in the middle of an ugly divorce, one was pregnant as the result of rape, the others just were at a time in thier life when a child was not something they were prepared for. We probably all know women who have had abortions, we just don't know this detail in their lives.

[Melanie_]

Exactly the dilema Melanie... It's a slippery slope to say pregnant women must be "monitored" to ensure they are not doing anything that could potentially cause birth defects, etc.

Perhaps all drug/alcohol addicted pregnant women should be given the option of abortion immediately. As in "right now, go down the hallway, the doctor is waiting". If they don't opt for abortion they should be housed in treatment facilites (paid for by the taxpayer) to remain "clean" for the duration of the pregnancy. As in "right now, there is a van waiting to take you to the facility".

Perhaps we should give all pregnant women drug tests and if the test is positive, just force them to abort and be done with it. "You want a baby? Prove you are clean, then you will be allowed to carry the pregnancy to term".

Smacks of extreme fascism imo and would never fly.

IMO abortion is perferable to giving birth to a child that will never be able to live a normal life.

You're right, I can't support that kind of state control on a woman's reproduction.

Your last comment really brings us back to the beginning of this thread - who has the right to life? Is it preferable to abort all children who may have a genetic defect, such as Down Syndrome? Are we trying to engineer the perfect society, by eliminating all those who are less than perfect? How do we define "perfect"?

I know that wasn't really the angle you were coming at with your comment, Drea, but it is really the point I wanted to address when I started this thread. We've gone down some interesting paths in the ensuing 24 pages!

[sharkman]

We seem to be in danger of paralleling the 1930s era Germany who wanted a certain type of baby. Abortion and technology gives us the freedom to discard "unhealthy' babies, unwanted babies and babies of the wrong sex.

Friends of mine were advised to abort their baby due to apparent health concerns of the baby. They resisted the doctor's repeated advice and the baby turned out completely healthy. You can bet if they had aborted the baby they would never have found that out from the abortionist.

The reason given for later term abortions is false. People in outlying regions can easily book an abortion date with a clinic on a weekend or whatever, then drive the 5 or ten hours it takes to do it. There is no excuse for late term abortions except changing one's mind and wanting to throw away the baby.

[Drea]

We seem to be in danger of paralleling the 1930s era Germany who wanted a certain type of baby. Abortion and technology gives us the freedom to discard "unhealthy' babies, unwanted babies and babies of the wrong sex.

Friends of mine were advised to abort their baby due to apparent health concerns of the baby. They resisted the doctor's repeated advice and the baby turned out completely healthy. You can bet if they had aborted the baby they would never have found that out from the abortionist.

The reason given for later term abortions is false. People in outlying regions can easily book an abortion date with a clinic on a weekend or whatever, then drive the 5 or ten hours it takes to do it. There is no excuse for late term abortions except changing one's mind and wanting to throw away the baby.

Sharkman, I cannot imagine any woman who has felt the kicking and seen her tummy grow big, would "change her mind and throw away the baby" as though it's yesterday's garbage. Most women don't abort on a whim... or treat their pregnancy like it's no big deal.

Late term abortions (as pointed out earlier) occur usually when a health issue (spina bifida for example) is found in the developing fetus.

There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING like pregnancy -- nothing is as frightening, as wonderful, as stressful or as beautiful as the feeling of carrying that baby inside you... as a male you unfortunately will never get to experience it so you think that women treat it as casually as taking a poo.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Drea

[sharkman]

Drea, try to limit your insults regarding poo or anything else. Personally, I don't think you will be able to refrain, but we will see. Also, playing the female card on this is not helpful to the discussion. Late term and partial birth abortions are convenience abortions do smack of Germany circa WW II and I only hope we resist the trend to expect babies to come as if ordered from a factory.

You seem to have ignored my example of bad advice from the doctor. It does happen, you know. However, people that are only willing to carry a baby to term if it falls within their expectations, as one would return a blender, don't deserve advance notice on their baby.

[WIP]

We seem to be in danger of paralleling the 1930s era Germany who wanted a certain type of baby. Abortion and technology gives us the freedom to discard "unhealthy' babies, unwanted babies and babies of the wrong sex.

The prospect of gene therapy on fetuses to make "designer babies" is a good reason to start forming some ethical guidelines before in vitro genetic testing can detect the likelihood of ADHD, low I.Q. or same-sex orientation! Right now, medical ethicists are concerned about sex-selection, but the future could provide a whole new list of possible reasons for gene therapies to change the sex of a child in utero or abort fetuses which will be less than perfect! I believe that the likelihood of severe defects should give parents the option to choose abortion, but where should the cut-off line be? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,989987,00.html

The way I see it, what makes the abortion debate contentious is that a choice must be made between the rights of two competing interests. The majority of people instinctively don't find the right to life argument compelling until a fetus is getting in to the later stages of development, where it is developing the systems that will provide conscious awareness and make us human. But the advocates on either side don't recognize the right's of the other! Pro-life says a woman has no right to privacy as soon as she has an egg starting the fertilization process (and even earlier, if you consider Catholic pro-life's opposition to birth control), while pro-choice says it's not a human with any personal rights until the umbilical cord is cut! My gut feeling is that a sensible solution will have to recognize both rights and set the conditions where one set of rights takes precedence over the other.

Friends of mine were advised to abort their baby due to apparent health concerns of the baby. They resisted the doctor's repeated advice and the baby turned out completely healthy. You can bet if they had aborted the baby they would never have found that out from the abortionist.

And what if they were wrong? Do you know any people who are struggling to raise children with severe disabilities? Not everyone has the patience or resources to deal with added pressure of trying to give the other children adequate attention while dealing with a child that needs 24/7 care. And, needless to say the parents have no time for each other and the marriage often cracks under pressure after a few years. Your friends took that risk! It's good that the doctor was wrong, but the doctor was likely giving advice based on an acute possibility of abnormalities, not absolute certainty, and he may have been right -- and their lives may have ended up a living hell!

The reason given for later term abortions is false. People in outlying regions can easily book an abortion date with a clinic on a weekend or whatever, then drive the 5 or ten hours it takes to do it. There is no excuse for late term abortions except changing one's mind and wanting to throw away the baby.

How do you know women in outlying areas can easily book an abortion? Many remote areas of this country have enough problems providing basic health services, let alone abortion. And according to this, http://www.prochoice.org/canada/access.html there are no abortion services in P.E.I., and New Brunswick demands puts up a number of barriers before the province will pay for it. But the situation is even more difficult in America, where restrictive policies delay abortions needlessly into later stages of pregnancy:

Making abortion access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic in the anti-choice movement’s strategy. Today, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, yet anti-choice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on women’s access to abortion.

* Refusal clauses and counseling bans ("gag rules") limit women's access to honest information and medical care, making it virtually impossible for some women to access abortion services altogether. Learn more by clicking here.

* Congress has imposed restrictions on abortion care for women who depend on the government for their health care needs, including women serving in our military. Learn more by clicking here.

* Numerous federal and state laws aggressively limit young women's access to abortion care and information. Learn more by clicking here.

http://www.naral.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/

[Drea]

Drea, try to limit your insults regarding poo or anything else. Personally, I don't think you will be able to refrain, but we will see. Also, playing the female card on this is not helpful to the discussion. Late term and partial birth abortions are convenience abortions do smack of Germany circa WW II and I only hope we resist the trend to expect babies to come as if ordered from a factory.

You seem to have ignored my example of bad advice from the doctor. It does happen, you know. However, people that are only willing to carry a baby to term if it falls within their expectations, as one would return a blender, don't deserve advance notice on their baby.

"Playing the female card" no kidding... it's pregnancy we are discussing (happens only to females, whoda thunk it)

I guess we could have a convo about how it feels to have a circumsized or uncircumsized penis and I could make assumptions on how it feels, mkay? Never mind that I will never know for sure, but I can consider myself an expert because I sat beside a man on the bus last week... LOL

You are just too funny!

You assume women think of the fetus as nothing more than "a blender". So of course I believe that you don't understand what pregnancy means to a woman.

How could you possibly know what it is like as you have never done it? When I was a young woman I didn't know what it was all about either. So I am not blaming you or insulting you as you cannot possibly know how a woman (any woman) feels about her pregnancy... even if she tells you... it's not like doing it yourself.

Sadly, your opinions on pregnancy, birth and abortion are limited because of your gender.

Once again, I didn't mean to insult you... but NO woman (ok maybe a few mentally stunted ones) thinks of the growing thing inside of her as uselesss as poo or as disposable as an old blender.

So you said "blender" and I said "poo"... are we even?

Edited June 4, 2008 by Drea

[WIP]

Drea, try to limit your insults regarding poo or anything else. Personally, I don't think you will be able to refrain, but we will see. Also, playing the female card on this is not helpful to the discussion. Late term and partial birth abortions are convenience abortions do smack of Germany circa WW II and I only hope we resist the trend to expect babies to come as if ordered from a factory.

You seem to have ignored my example of bad advice from the doctor. It does happen, you know. However, people that are only willing to carry a baby to term if it falls within their expectations, as one would return a blender, don't deserve advance notice on their baby.

If you're going to play the irrational fear card, which usually takes the form of "Nazi Germany" these days, you shouldn't complain if you get a response that's emotion-based from the other side. And you might call it playing the female card, but the fact is MEN DON'T GET PREGNANT, so there is a subjective understanding of this issue that we cannot understand and can only look at from the outside. I don't know how much weight this gives the female perspective, but it's worth considering before you start telling women how to handle their pregnancies!

But honestly, "Nazi Germany!" Is the Nazi Germany card the ultimate conservative trump card to play for every issue from abortion to teaching evolution to fear of terrorism? Every time facts aren't enough and irrational fear becomes necessary to make the argument work, out comes Nazi Germany!

[WIP]

This is the only woman you are close to who has had an abortion that you know of. I can think of half a dozen women off the top of my head who I know who have had abortions, and if I spent some time at it I could probably name many more. Two were pregnant as teenagers, one was in the middle of an ugly divorce, one was pregnant as the result of rape, the others just were at a time in thier life when a child was not something they were prepared for. We probably all know women who have had abortions, we just don't know this detail in their lives.

There may very well have been abortions that I wasn't informed about, but my point is still the same -- since I didn't know about them, I hadn't given the abortion issue much thought until George Bush threw a bone to the pro-life movement in the form of cancelling the development of new lines of embryonic stem cells a couple of years back, and I discovered how obsessed some people can get over fertilized eggs that would otherwise be locked in a freezer until they had to be discarded.

[sharkman]

If you're going to play the irrational fear card, which usually takes the form of "Nazi Germany" these days, you shouldn't complain if you get a response that's emotion-based from the other side. And you might call it playing the female card, but the fact is MEN DON'T GET PREGNANT, so there is a subjective understanding of this issue that we cannot understand and can only look at from the outside. I don't know how much weight this gives the female perspective, but it's worth considering before you start telling women how to handle their pregnancies!

But honestly, "Nazi Germany!" Is the Nazi Germany card the ultimate conservative trump card to play for every issue from abortion to teaching evolution to fear of terrorism? Every time facts aren't enough and irrational fear becomes necessary to make the argument work, out comes Nazi Germany!

I didn't use the term Nazis but I don't know if you picked up on that. This is because it wasn't a Nazi based philosophy to begin with, Eugenics had its origins elsewhere and was quite popular among the leading thinkers of the day, such as Einstein.

Also, weren't the Nazis a far right wing beast, politically speaking? I've seen the Nazi card played by those on the left, blaming the right for everything that ails us, but since I didn't use the Nazi card, you may want to rethink your charge.

I still contend that saying since a man can't have a baby he has no right to speak on the issue is wrong headed thinking. It could be argued that women, being so connected to the issue emotionally and otherwise, are not able to think as clearly about abortions, but I wouldn't be in the group that thinks this.

[Oleg Bach]

I didn't use the term Nazis but I don't know if you picked up on that. This is because it wasn't a Nazi based philosophy to begin with, Eugenics had its origins elsewhere and was quite popular among the leading thinkers of the day, such as Einstein.

Also, weren't the Nazis a far right wing beast, politically speaking? I've seen the Nazi card played by those on the left, blaming the right for everything that ails us, but since I didn't use the Nazi card, you may want to rethink your charge.

I still contend that saying since a man can't have a baby he has no right to speak on the issue is wrong headed thinking. It could be argued that women, being so connected to the issue emotionally and otherwise, are not able to think as clearly about abortions, but I wouldn't be in the group that thinks this.

If you are going to genocide parts of a generation - there is one rule..let all live or destroy all life..there is no grey area..seeing that human beings are a greyish bunch - some gifted in certain areas and retarded in others..who is anyone to judge who is to live and who is to die?

[WIP]

I didn't use the term Nazis but I don't know if you picked up on that.

But you did say:"We seem to be in danger of paralleling the 1930s era Germany who wanted a certain type of baby."

And which political party was ruling Germany during the 30's, and makes a useful exclamation point for any argument seeking dramatic effect! And it is also the most misused debate point, since Hitler and the Nazis are tossed in where they don't belong. We know all about the Nazis enthusiasm for eugenics, but abortion was a capital crime in Germany that could result in the death penalty! That was likely a law that applied to the German population, it's not likely they objected to abortions among the populations they wanted to exterminate! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

This is because it wasn't a Nazi based philosophy to begin with, Eugenics had its origins elsewhere and was quite popular among the leading thinkers of the day, such as Einstein.

That "elsewhere" was primarily the U.S.A., which had the largest and most active eugenics organizations. But what is the evidence that Albert Einstein supported eugenics? Keep in mind that before about 50 or 60 years ago, very few people thought eugenics was an objectionable concept. Farmers practise eugenics all of the time breeding the healthiest and most desireable livestock, and since most people of European ancestry believed that the darker races were inferior, the idea of preventing breeding among undesireable populations was considered a good idea before WWII.

Also, weren't the Nazis a far right wing beast, politically speaking? I've seen the Nazi card played by those on the left, blaming the right for everything that ails us, but since I didn't use the Nazi card, you may want to rethink your charge.

Germany + 1930's = Nazis.

Right and left are meaningless terms without a frame of reference! Nazi was the German slang term for a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party -- their full name doesn't sound very right wing! And in most aspects the Nazis were a socialist populist party that believed in a state-planned economy that only allowed business to play a supporting role as long as they followed the guidelines of the Party. In other words - crony capitalism! The major points that set the Nazis and other fascist parties in Europe apart from the Communists was nationalism and racial and/or cultural superiority

I still contend that saying since a man can't have a baby he has no right to speak on the issue is wrong headed thinking. It could be argued that women, being so connected to the issue emotionally and otherwise, are not able to think as clearly about abortions, but I wouldn't be in the group that thinks this.

I didn't say a man has no right to speak on the subject -- hell, I'm a man and I'm speaking about it! But I do think that a woman who has gone through pregnancy and had babies, has a deeper, emotional connection to this issue that a man can't grasp. It's more than a little patronizing to assume that a personal understanding of the birthing process will limit the ability to think rationally on the subject. The emotional attachment may cause someone to hold more strongly to their positions, but that doesn't make it irrational thinking. If a person can put themselves in the position of a woman who is weighing the options of whether or not to have an abortion, it's more likely that more care will be put in to the opinion that has been formed than someone who's deciding with the detached perspective of never having to be in that situation personally!

It's worth mentioning that gender has little bearing on which side of the issue they support -- the polling data from the U.S. usually shows almost the same percentages of men and women supporting pro-life, pro-choice and the compromise positions in between.

The difference is how the argument is framed. A woman might first ask a rhetorical question of whether they personally would ever consider an abortion, men will just write about whether the procedure should be allowed. So a man might develope an informed opinion, but it won't have an intuitive connection with the subject. Does it matter? I don't know! But it could be a barrier to gaining a full understanding of the issue.

Edited June 5, 2008 by WIP

[sharkman]

WIP, if you want to argue with historians over whether the Nazi party was right wing or not, I'll just say that the weight of opinion is decidedly on the right, except for a few of their policies.

As for my intentions on the 30's era Germany, I suppose I could have simply used the term Eugenics, but that still might have brought an emotional knee jerk response. I can't remember where I got the idea that Einstein supported Eugenics, all I can find right now is that he was at one time one of the directors of the The Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, a German institute which promoted the sciences in Germany, and doesn't prove my point.

The prospect of gene therapy on fetuses to make "designer babies" is a good reason to start forming some ethical guidelines before in vitro genetic testing can detect the likelihood of ADHD, low I.Q. or same-sex orientation! Right now, medical ethicists are concerned about sex-selection, but the future could provide a whole new list of possible reasons for gene therapies to change the sex of a child in utero or abort fetuses which will be less than perfect! I believe that the likelihood of severe defects should give parents the option to choose abortion, but where should the cut-off line be? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,989987,00.html

The way I see it, what makes the abortion debate contentious is that a choice must be made between the rights of two competing interests. The majority of people instinctively don't find the right to life argument compelling until a fetus is getting in to the later stages of development, where it is developing the systems that will provide conscious awareness and make us human. But the advocates on either side don't recognize the right's of the other! Pro-life says a woman has no right to privacy as soon as she has an egg starting the fertilization process (and even earlier, if you consider Catholic pro-life's opposition to birth control), while pro-choice says it's not a human with any personal rights until the umbilical cord is cut! My gut feeling is that a sensible solution will have to recognize both rights and set the conditions where one set of rights takes precedence over the other.

Wip, by today's standards, what you've said sounds reasonable. But think of how our thinking on fetuses has changed. They are now viewed as a tumor to be removed, or a future baby whose harm can bring criminal charges, depending on whether the mother wants to keep it. How can the same thing be both? It can't. It is either life or a tumor, not either one depending on what the mother thinks. In our society, it therefore has become nothing.

Modern technology mixed with the view that a fetus is to be nothing unless the parents say otherwise, has given us modern day Eugenics. Discard the girl babies in China, discard babies here bases on convenience or health, and now we can manipulate the fetus in the womb to make babies how we want them. How is that any different than Eugenics? I know the goals are not the same, but the underlying philosophy to produce a baby with desirable traits is.

We have come full circle, but it's based on a consumer mentality, at least Eugenics of the past was trying to improve intelligence and avoid regression towards the mean.

Edited June 5, 2008 by sharkman

[WIP]

WIP, if you want to argue with historians over whether the Nazi party was right wing or not, I'll just say that the weight of opinion is decidedly on the right, except for a few of their policies.

My objection is not whether the Hitler and the Nazis were left or rightwing; it's a pointless argument since what defines left and right politics depends on the what country and what era we're talking about. My objection is to the way Hitler or Nazis gets tossed in almost as an exclamation point by all sorts of groups to bolster their arguments.

Here's an example of invoking Nazi Germany where it has no application: Ben Stein narrates a recent documentary attacking scientists and the theory of evolution, he invokes the collective memory of the gas chambers to try to make his point:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...zFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

Even National Review cut him loose for this overreach, and the ADL, which is getting annoyed at everyone playing the holocaust card, issued this statement to let Stein know that just being a Jew doesn't entitle him to misuse the Holocaust

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

Nuff said!

As for my intentions on the 30's era Germany, I suppose I could have simply used the term Eugenics, but that still might have brought an emotional knee jerk response. I can't remember where I got the idea that Einstein supported Eugenics, all I can find right now is that he was at one time one of the directors of the The Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, a German institute which promoted the sciences in Germany, and doesn't prove my point.

Why not leave the past history of the eugenics movement, which was supported by a broad-based acceptance of racial superiority, in the past? The new ethical dilemmas that could result from genetic testing and gene therapy treatments on fetuses in utero, are being proposed to improve the physical traits of the child, and some critics feel it could lead to "designer babies" with enhanced features that the parents desire; and more advanced genetic testing may identify relatively minor defects in the fetus that increase the use of third trimester abortions.

As long as there is a stalemate between the right to life and the rights of personal autonomy, there is no process to determine whose rights should take precedence under possible future scenarios. Should parents have the right to determine the sex of their child? Should they have the right to go beyond preventing genetic abnormalities, and make their child superior than average? Does the fetus have the right not to be tampered with by parents who want to make alterations that could determine the future of that child? There may be other challenges to come along in the future and it would be nice to have some sort of guidelines that have general agreement.

Wip, by today's standards, what you've said sounds reasonable. But think of how our thinking on fetuses has changed. They are now viewed as a tumor to be removed, or a future baby whose harm can bring criminal charges, depending on whether the mother wants to keep it. How can the same thing be both? It can't. It is either life or a tumor, not either one depending on what the mother thinks. In our society, it therefore has become nothing.

The question still remains: when does it become a human life that should be guaranteed personal rights? I don't know where an exact dividing line would be, but it's not at the stage of a fertilized egg, when there is not even the most rudimentary conscious awareness or other qualities that we identify with being human. In the early stages of development, you can't tell the difference between a human embryo from that of a pig, chicken, fish etc.! They all have tails and gill slits in the side of the neck area -- the only thing you could say for sure is that it is a vertebrate animal with a backbone.

The DNA blueprint that the embryo has, is not an absolute determining factor telling us what the future would hold. Identical twins have the exact same genetic code, since they develope from an egg that splits after the fertilization stage has completed. The twins appear and act so similar that non-family members have trouble telling them apart; but as they grow older, gene-expression from environmental factors causes them to look and act more differently even though they are raised in the same household. So I would see that early stage as having potential of a human life and would not consider it a baby!

Modern technology mixed with the view that a fetus is to be nothing unless the parents say otherwise, has given us modern day Eugenics. Discard the girl babies in China, discard babies here bases on convenience or health, and now we can manipulate the fetus in the womb to make babies how we want them. How is that any different than Eugenics? I know the goals are not the same, but the underlying philosophy to produce a baby with desirable traits is.

We have come full circle, but it's based on a consumer mentality, at least Eugenics of the past was trying to improve intelligence and avoid regression towards the mean.

Okay, but do you realize that even if you want an absolute pro-life system, that does not provide guidelines for how to deal with parents who want to determine the sex of the child or provide genetic enhancements? The majority are never going to accept the logic of the strong pro-life position, and if it was imposed on society, there would just be one more business on the blackmarket - abortions!

[sharkman]

Why not leave the past in the past, referring to Eugenics? I should think the answer is obvious, we need to be aware of past mistakes so we don't make them again, as well as past successes we can build on.

You are using a strawman argument by saying an absolute pro-life approach is faulty. Nowhere have I argued for this, I am only saying we are approaching a consumer based Eugenics way of selecting children with the desired traits. And that is deplorable.

As to your lengthy comments on Nazism, please remember I was not referencing them. I was referencing 30's era Germany. Nor did I reference Hitler. I referenced Eugenics. I'm not sure, but I believe you may agree that Eugenics was wrong, though I'm still not sure whether you agree with our modern approach to abortions being similar.

I think you are of the philosophy that everything is grey, there is little black and white in the world. Everything depends on something else, there are no absolutes, it's not a life unless the mother wants to keep it.

The question still remains: when does it become a human life that should be guaranteed personal rights? I don't know where an exact dividing line would be, but it's not at the stage of a fertilized egg, when there is not even the most rudimentary conscious awareness or other qualities that we identify with being human.

I can tell you the answer to this question of life if you are interested, though I've already said it. Life begins when the mother decides to keep it. If a month down the road she decides to abort instead, then it was never a life after all. This is the pretzel we have twisted ourselves into today.

Now, do not put words into my mouth about an absolute pro-life system. Can you not simply look at the way things are today and say it's not good?

[HisSelf]

I personally think that George Bush and Dick Cheney should be neither resuscitated nor cloned.

[sharkman]

Maybe you should add them to your ignore list.

[WIP]

Now, do not put words into my mouth about an absolute pro-life system.

Exactly what do you consider "absolute pro-life?" What was this paragraph supposed to mean then:

"But think of how our thinking on fetuses has changed. They are now viewed as a tumor to be removed, or a future baby whose harm can bring criminal charges, depending on whether the mother wants to keep it. How can the same thing be both? It can't. It is either life or a tumor, not either one depending on what the mother thinks. In our society, it therefore has become nothing.

"

So, you're not absolute pro-life! Then at what stage of development does the fetus change from a tumor into a baby?

Now this is putting words in peoples mouths:

I think you are of the philosophy that everything is grey, there is little black and white in the world. Everything depends on something else, there are no absolutes, it's not a life unless the mother wants to keep it.

Everybody who thinks there is no morality without their god or their religion eventually gets around to accusing unbelievers of relativism! You didn't notice that I was attempting to make an argument for an objective set of principles to deal with moral dilemmas created by new technology? Your holy books provide no answers as to whether there should be limits on gene therapy treatments!

Can you not simply look at the way things are today and say it's not good?

And what exactly does that accomplish?

[sharkman]

Yes, I am pro-life, but I find it odd that you can't comment on the issues I've raised. I have not argued for a pro-life approach. All I have said, and continue to say, is that laws which say a woman can decide the baby inside her is a life, and then one month later decide it is not is deplorable. I continue to say either it is a life or it isn't, and it shouldn't depend on if the mother changes her mind 1 month later.

But you can't seem to defend the way things are except to play the pro-life card. And now you've played the religion card. Very well, it seems you are not willing to comment on the issues I've asked you to, so good day.

[WIP]

Yes, I am pro-life, but I find it odd that you can't comment on the issues I've raised. I have not argued for a pro-life approach. All I have said, and continue to say, is that laws which say a woman can decide the baby inside her is a life, and then one month later decide it is not is deplorable. I continue to say either it is a life or it isn't, and it shouldn't depend on if the mother changes her mind 1 month later.

But you can't seem to defend the way things are except to play the pro-life card. And now you've played the religion card. Very well, it seems you are not willing to comment on the issues I've asked you to, so good day.

Why should I bother answering your questions when you have ignored mine? What kind of a question is " Can you not simply look at the way things are today and say it's not good?" anyway? Is that even worthy of a response? Anybody can bitch about the way things are, what are you proposing to do about it?

You complain that I dragged I brought up pro-life and religion, when you advanced arguments for your prolife beliefs and then tried to deny them! And then you accused me of moral relativism because I want a rational approach to future ethical dilemmas that could be raised by new technology. I know where those cards come from when the charge of moral relativism is made against everyone who doesn't accept the notion of transcendent sources of ethics and morality, and I'm going to insist that they are played out in the open where they can't be protected from direct challenge!

[Drea]

Yes, I am pro-life, but I find it odd that you can't comment on the issues I've raised. I have not argued for a pro-life approach. All I have said, and continue to say, is that laws which say a woman can decide the baby inside her is a life, and then one month later decide it is not is deplorable. I continue to say either it is a life or it isn't, and it shouldn't depend on if the mother changes her mind 1 month later.

But you can't seem to defend the way things are except to play the pro-life card. And now you've played the religion card. Very well, it seems you are not willing to comment on the issues I've asked you to, so good day.

Ok I'll bite...

...that laws which say a woman can decide the baby inside her is a life, and then one month later decide it is not is deplorable.

1. a woman does not decide if the law says the fetus has rights equal to that of a born person -- the law decides.

2. She CAN say "I'm one week pregnant with a baby!" then turn around a month later and say "I am going to abort this fetus". If the language she uses makes her feel better about her decision who are we to condem her?

When I was fourteen I had the cells growing inside of me removed... they were three/four weeks into their evolution into a human being. Happily it will never know. Happily, my young self got to graduate highschool, party, go to college, get married, get divorced, have a career, have a baby (on my timetable, when I was ready) and meet the man of my dreams.

So why would you deny a fourteen year old the right to have a good life? Is her life worth less (in your opinion) than that of the fetus?

In nature, if the lion pride is starving, the lionesses eat before the cubs... as the lioness can always have more cubs.

ROOOAAR!