Who has the right to life?

[White Doors]

You did? where? See above for the one's that I found.

Great! You just proved that the life represented by a fetus is no different from the life represented by a fruit fly. We are talking about 'human life' here and what the definition of 'human life' is. Nothing in your quotes even attempts to define what that means.

Wait.. Are you STILL confusing biology with law??

after all this you are insisting on confusing the two??

To what end?

[Riverwind]

Wait.. Are you STILL confusing biology with law??

after all this you are insisting on confusing the two??

To what end?

I am pointing out that your attempts to define life in biological terms are irrelevant. The definitions that you provided make no distinction between a fetus and a living pig on its way to the slaughterhouse. Both are living organisms according to the definition you provide. So why is ok to kill a pig but there is a problem with killing a fetus? We have already decided that not all life is of equal value since we regularily kill things. So we need to decide whether a fetus is the type of life that we can kill with impunity or whether it is the type of life that deserves protection. There is no biological answer to that question - it is moral/religious question.

IOW: many may agree that a fetus is a form of biological life most do not agree that a fetus is a type of life worthy of extraordinary protections.

I am arguing with you on this point because you being deliberately deceptive when you say 'life starts at conception' when you really mean to say 'my definition of human life starts a conception'.

[geoffrey]

What would you think if scientists came up with an inutero cure for down syndrome? The effect would be the same - people with down syndrome would be eliminated from society. Would you say that is a bad thing? Are you saying that people should refuse medical treatment that prevents a child from become disabled because they would be taking something away from that child by forcing them to be 'normally abled'?

Great question RW. A 'cure' would be fine... I have no problem with eliminating Down's Syndrome from society, I have a problem with eliminating those with Down's Syndrome from soceity. They have an inherent self-interest, and I'm not a believer that the state or any other person has an arbitary right to destroy your liberty based on a list of undesirable features.

If we could cure all spinal cord injury sufferers tomorrow, I'd be all for it. If you had a plan to kill them all tomorrow to elimate spinal cord disabilities from society, then I'd certainly have to object.

I can understand why people want to show compassion towards people with down syndrome and do not believe that they are any less human because they are disabled. However, it is absurd to pretend that down syndrome is a desirable trait that we would like to preserve. I suspect that most parents who love their down syndrome child would not hesitate to have their child treated if there was a 'cure' available.

It's not neccessarily a trait that we wish to preserve, but I don't believe in killing off people with traits that we don't like to preserve. It's grossly arbitrary. Like we've determined before in this post:

Trudeau's eyes were striking blue. Chretien and Martin had blue eyes. Rae, Dion and Kennedy too. Harper and Duceppe have clear blue eyes. Layton has blue eyes.

I'll go with eye colour. Ignatieff can't win, his eyes are brown.

If you don't have blue eyes, your hooped. Might as well push 'em all off. A quick review of Canadian political and business leaders will show that a vast majority are blue eyed. What right minded parent would allow their child to be born without blue eyes? Or without blonde hair (though brunettes are making a come back)?

I don't have blue eyes by the way, so this isn't personal bias. I'm one of the extremely rare green eyed, dark haired people.

[White Doors]

IOW: many may agree that a fetus is a form of biological life most do not agree that a fetus is a type of life worthy of extraordinary protections.

I am arguing with you on this point because you being deliberately deceptive when you say 'life starts at conception' when you really mean to say 'my definition of human life starts a conception'.

Ahh.. but that's where you are mistaken. I wasn't put any morality on it whatsoever. a fetus is alive, that was my ONLY point. I found it fascinating that those on the pro-choice side could delude themselves to ther point that they think it is not.

I am not sayign that all abortion is wrong and in fact gave my views on abortion in ONE of the posts. The rest has been me sticking to my guns that a fetus is ALIVE. I agree that we give 'value' to all sorts of different things that are alive. That was not my point of debate here. It was to make people aware that the fetus is alive.

I'm glad that you can finally agree that it is.

[White Doors]

I don't have blue eyes by the way, so this isn't personal bias. I'm one of the extremely rare green eyed, dark haired people.

I have black hair and blue eyes.. Does that make me 'rare' too?

I want to be rare!!

[Riverwind]

Ahh.. but that's where you are mistaken. I wasn't put any morality on it whatsoever. a fetus is alive, that was my ONLY point.

You are being duplicitous. You insist on claiming the fetus is alive only because you wish to impose your morality on the discussion. Whether a fetus is biologically living is irrelevant to the discussion because many things are biologically living and we don't have a debate about whether there is something wrong with killing them.

My feeling is the only thing that is relevant when discussing abortion is the arbitrary line when most people agree that the mass of cells called a fetus is a distinct human being that has a life independent of the mother. That arbitrary line is a question of religion/metaphysics and not a question of science.

[Catchme]

IOW: many may agree that a fetus is a form of biological life most do not agree that a fetus is a type of life worthy of extraordinary protections.

I am arguing with you on this point because you being deliberately deceptive when you say 'life starts at conception' when you really mean to say 'my definition of human life starts a conception'.

I'm glad that you can finally agree that it is.

No riverwind did not agree that it is. You are putting words where there were none in order to support your belief that is when "life" commences.

It is NOT when life commences. Nor does biology definitively say that it does and indeed only suggests that is where the "potential" for life could begin.

Again, look at the freezing of embryo's, you are repeatedly ignoring this very pertinent aspect, as it does not support your personal beliefs. If life was considered to occur at conception, by science/biology, there would be NO freezing of embryos.

Moreover, you again refuse to look at the Law of when rights are confurred and why it is so.

[Charles Anthony]

That arbitrary line is a question of religion/metaphysics and not a question of science.

I agree. Given that everybody is free to have a difference of opinion on it, the next responsible question is how should the different opinions be balanced?

[Catchme]

The differing opinions are already balanced. The Right of Conscience and self determination are the balance.

There is NO life or rights until the first breath is drawn.

[AndrewL]

The state. No other body can grant rights.

The State has been increasingly not taken responsibility for a child that is physically and mentally handicapped. The right wing want to ensure the pregnancy goes to term and then not have the state responsible for the care of that child afterwards.

That may be so. But nonetheless, the right to life can only be granted by a state. Sans state, you have to fight for and defend your life, nobody has a right to anything. Or everybody has a right to everything, to put it another way.

Andrew

[jdobbin]

If a fetus isn't human life then what else could it possibly be nitwit?

Can you not answer and question without being abusive?

[White Doors]

Ahh.. but that's where you are mistaken. I wasn't put any morality on it whatsoever. a fetus is alive, that was my ONLY point.

You are being duplicitous. You insist on claiming the fetus is alive only because you wish to impose your morality on the discussion. Whether a fetus is biologically living is irrelevant to the discussion because many things are biologically living and we don't have a debate about whether there is something wrong with killing them.

My feeling is the only thing that is relevant when discussing abortion is the arbitrary line when most people agree that the mass of cells called a fetus is a distinct human being that has a life independent of the mother. That arbitrary line is a question of religion/metaphysics and not a question of science.

You are being absurd. A fetus is ALIVE. It has no rights in Canada that people who are born - have. That doesn't make the fetus any less ALIVE however.

That's like saying you are 'kind of pregnant'. It is alive. There is no debate on that.

The debate is on wether it is conscious and is fully human and when that occurs.

Can you not see what I am saying here?

Look, if it makes your opinion on the morality of abortion uncomfortable because you don't like to think that the fetus is alive then maybe people here should re-examine their views on it.

I realize it is alive and I still think that there are instances where abortion is moral. It is is EASY to think ALL abortions are moral if you refuse to believe the fact that it is alive.

If you do then you are only lying to yourself.

[jdobbin]

That may be so. But nonetheless, the right to life can only be granted by a state. Sans state, you have to fight for and defend your life, nobody has a right to anything. Or everybody has a right to everything, to put it another way.

At this time, the state only affords full human rights after birth.

And those human rights seem pitifully inadequate.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/09/homeless....g.ap/index.html

A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said.

Witnesses who said they saw the incident Thursday wrote down a phone number on the van and took down its license-plate number, which helped detectives connect the vehicle to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site.

[White Doors]

Again, look at the freezing of embryo's, you are repeatedly ignoring this very pertinent aspect, as it does not support your personal beliefs. If life was considered to occur at conception, by science/biology, there would be NO freezing of embryos.

Why would I have an issue with the freezing of embryos?

The freeze them in cases where people are having difficulties getting pregnant. I have no moral qualms with that. it's not like the fetus is going to remember it!

[White Doors]

Moreover, you again refuse to look at the Law of when rights are confurred and why it is so.

You are thick We all know this from other threads but I will explain. I wasn't speaking about RIGHTS.

got it? I was speaking of biology. The fetus is ALIVE by all definitions of the word.

If it is not, then please show me why.

The debate is over wether it is conscious, does it feel/remember pain etc etc.

[jdobbin]

I agree. Given that everybody is free to have a difference of opinion on it, the next responsible question is how should the different opinions be balanced?

Maybe they shouldn't be. Or rather, maybe they can't be.

At any rate your view is a rather liberal one. It is not much different than Rodney King saying: "Can't we all get along?"

It could be the answer is no. No, not until all of you are dead.

[Riverwind]

Look, if it makes your opinion on the morality of abortion uncomfortable because you don't like to think that the fetus is alive then maybe people here should re-examine their views on it.

This is my entire friggen point. Like most people, I eat meat and I swat flies and think nothing of the life extinguished as a result. I also happily take antibiotics even though I know it will murder millions of tiny lives that have decided to inhabit in my body. For me a fetus is nothing more than a fly, pig or a colony of bacteria - technically a form of life but not something that is worth further consideration.

However, you likely don't agree with that assessment because you have decided that the a fetus is somehow more important than these other types of biological lives. You got quite indignant when I compared a fetus to mould growing on a piece of bread. Technically speaking I am right - there is no difference between the life of a mold or a fetus. Both meet the scientific definitions of life that you posted. However, you don't really want to use the scientific definition - you want to claim that the fetus is alive in the same way a baby is alive. That is why you rejected my comparison to mold even though it is biologically accurate.

We are talking about human life here - not a biological life. The real question is not whether a fetus is alive at conception. The real question is when does this fetus turn into something that can or should be considered human. Each person relies on a different definition - some simply go on faith. Others use different biological definitions. Still more prefer to use the current legal definition.

So if you want to insist that a fetus is 'biologically alive' then make it clear that you are not inisting that the fetus is a 'human life' and that from a biological perspective there is little difference between a fetus and any other 'biological life'. Without that qualification your claim is nothing more than an opinion about when human life begins.

[August1991]

Good, clarifying post Riverwind. But I'll go one step further.

The real question is not whether a fetus is alive at conception. The real question is when does this fetus turn into something that can or should be considered human. Each person relies on a different definition - some simply go on faith. Others use different biological definitions. Still more prefer to use the current legal definition.

As harsh as it may seem, the real question is not "when does human life exist?" but rather "how far do we go in protecting human life?" That is, since we cannot protect all life, which life gets to live?

You can call this utilitarianism but triage exists and we must make choices.

I have offered a critieria: let's choose the way of least mayhem.

[Wilber]

There is NO life or rights until the first breath is drawn.

It blows me away that someone could say there is no life until the first breath is drawn. I'm pro choice but I there is no way I could convince myself that is a certainty. It seems the height of arrogance to me to make that kind of assumption.

[Charles Anthony]

Given that everybody is free to have a difference of opinion on it, the next responsible question is how should the different opinions be balanced?

Maybe they shouldn't be. Or rather, maybe they can't be.

I believe they can.

At any rate your view is a rather liberal one. It is not much different than Rodney King saying: "Can't we all get along?"

No, it is very different. My view holds freedom to be sacrosanct -- a concept that reflexive socialists have trouble accepting.

It could be the answer is no. No, not until all of you are dead.

The answer is YES and only the aborted people need to die.

I have offered a critieria: let's choose the way of least mayhem.

I have a better way: let pregnant women choose and pay for it themselves.

[jdobbin]

I believe they can.

No, it is very different. My view holds freedom to be sacrosanct -- a concept that reflexive socialists have trouble accepting.

The answer is YES and only the aborted people need to die.

I have a better way: let pregnant women choose and pay for it themselves.

I don't think that social conservatives believe in freedom. They can't help but peek into the bedrooms of the nation.

If the right wing would leave pregnant women to make that choice and pay for it themselves, it might be a better way. But they just can't help themselves but to deny choice.

For this reason, this will never be settled. Ever. And no, we can't get along.

[Melanie_]

Believe it or not, I’m going to return to my sperm argument. Life doesn’t begin, life continues. Both the sperm and egg, before conception, are living cells. When they combine, another form of living cell results – how is the fertilized egg any different, in terms of life, than the unfertilized egg? We don’t have a problem with discarding unfertilized eggs, or sperm that have not fulfilled their mission, and I don’t see any difference in discarding them after they have combined.

To return to the Down Syndrome issue - Down Syndrome isn't something that can be "cured". It is a chromosomal anomoly, and you can't remove an extra chromosome from every cell in a person's body. It isn't a disease, and in fact people with DS can be just as physically healthy as anyone else, although often it can be associated with secondary disabilities. My real issue here is not about abortion, but about the implied message that we should eliminate Down Syndrome from our society. It also means that a woman's "choice" to continue a pregnancy becomes a public statement, open to scrutiny and criticism from those who disagree with her choice. Many in our society, and some posting here on this board, would say that, by making that choice, she should accept full financial and social responsibility for that child. Would there be a move to deny coverage for medical costs? Social supports? Special education? I'm wondering how several people here might respond to these questions.

[guyser]

Mel, the fine mother of four getting me thinking again.

My real issue here is not about abortion, but about the implied message that we should eliminate Down Syndrome from our society. It also means that a woman's "choice" to continue a pregnancy becomes a public statement, open to scrutiny and criticism from those who disagree with her choice. Many in our society, and some posting here on this board, would say that, by making that choice, she should accept full financial and social responsibility for that child. Would there be a move to deny coverage for medical costs? Social supports? Special education? I'm wondering how several people here might respond to these questions.

As for the financial and social responsibility for that child, that will always reside with the parents , assuming of course they are competent. Just because is no reason to give up on a DS child.

But for damn sure I "hope" no one here is advocating denial of medical social or special ed requirements. (but the real fight are the moronic school boards who always seem ready to drop special ed needs in a heartbeat , but never say "here,take $4000 off middle management budgets to pay for it)

[Catchme]

There is NO life or rights until the first breath is drawn.

It blows me away that someone could say there is no life until the first breath is drawn. I'm pro choice but I there is no way I could convince myself that is a certainty. It seems the height of arrogance to me to make that kind of assumption.

Please follow along, I am not saying that Wilbur, I am reiterating what the LAW says in Canada. They made that decision, not I.

Their deliberations were actually very dynamic and all encompassing. It is an interesting read actually. Their findings were based on science, the medical community input, human rights, and other Canadian laws in regards to Rights bestowed upon Canadians with; why, where, when and how taken into consideration.

Not taken into consideration was; personal opinion, morality beliefs, or religious input. And correctly so.

[Wilber]

There is NO life or rights until the first breath is drawn.

It blows me away that someone could say there is no life until the first breath is drawn. I'm pro choice but I there is no way I could convince myself that is a certainty. It seems the height of arrogance to me to make that kind of assumption.

Please follow along, I am not saying that Wilbur, I am reiterating what the LAW says in Canada. They made that decision, not I.

Their deliberations were actually very dynamic and all encompassing. It is an interesting read actually. Their findings were based on science, the medical community input, human rights, and other Canadian laws in regards to Rights bestowed upon Canadians with; why, where, when and how taken into consideration.

Not taken into consideration was; personal opinion, morality beliefs, or religious input. And correctly so.

That is not what you said. The Supreme court expressed an opinion and the law is based on that opinion. It could rule that the sun rose in the west and that would be the law but it would still be just be a law based on an opinion. Again, you cannot seem to separate the two. Just because you wish to believe something does not make it a reality, it just makes it your reality because you wish to believe it. I guess I am just not conceited enough to think that what I believe is the absolute truth. That is why I am pro choice.