Support the Sanctity of Human Life

By Congressman Paul Broun Posted in Comments (184) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The fight for the unborn remains front and center in the national political debate. Congress recently debated the Mexico City Policy in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and once again discussed whether to provide federal funds to organizations that promote abortion. In addition, Planned Parenthood in suburban Kansas City has a pending 107 indictment before a grand jury for performing unlawful late-term abortions and other unconscionable acts.

In this current climate of hostility toward life and particularly the unborn, Republican and Democratic Members alike who cherish life must let our voices be heard that we will protect and defend the innocent and most defenseless among us.

Read on . . .

Along with millions of Americans, I believe in the sanctity of human life. Human life begins with fertilization, and we have a moral and constitutional obligation to protect and defend every precious soul that comes into existence. This is why I have introduced the Sanctity of Human Life Act (H.R. 4157), which defines life as beginning with fertilization. My bill also makes it clear that a human life would be created in the process of human cloning (SCNT), should this immoral procedure be practiced in the future.

My bill declares, in part, that “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person” and continues by declaring that “the life of each human begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent… at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.”

I believe that the right to life is our most important fundamental right, and that it should be defended vigorously and absolutely. From a medical and scientific basis, there is no doubt that human life begins at fertilization. It is only right that we recognize these unborn children as "persons" and provide them with the protections of the 14th amendment.

My legislation already has attracted 39 cosponsors, including Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey (Chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus; Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania (Chairman of the House Values Action Team); and Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas(Chairman of the Republican Study Committee). I am grateful for their support.

Together, we can take a stand for the most innocent among us. I hope that you will see fit to ask your Member of Congress to join this effort.

I suspect this bill will get nowhere in the current congress, but thank you for introducing it anyway.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm with Fred!

"In this current climate of hostility toward life and particularly the unborn, Republican and Democratic Members alike who cherish life must let our voices be heard that we will protect and defend the innocent and most defenseless among us."

I have to admit I have a hard time taking this expression of concern seriously. Does RedState support prenatal and early childhood support programs even if they require TAX INCREASES? How about free, high-quality daycare programs for the children of working mothers? How about guaranteed health care (by whatever means)?

I agree that the unborn are human beings deserving of protection, but the born are too. So are their mothers. Infants and children are innocent and defenseless for many years after they are born, will RedState go on record supporting the programs they need (health, education, special services for the disabled, etc.) even if taxes have to be increased?

I laud your expression of concern, but what usually happens (not always, only usually) is that Conservative concern for the sacredness of life usually takes a backseat to their concern for tax relief. Problems like these CANNOT be solved by THROWING MONEY AT THEM, but wisely spent money is NECESSARY to deal with the problems children face in this country; especially poor children.

Please understand: I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, but after half-a-century of life, I know there is some truth to the old saying that "Liberals believe the right to life begins at birth; Conservatives believe that right ENDS at birth."

sean s.

You would find much support for such programs. And many have been integral to Administration policy and bills passed in Congress.

However, you cannot think your comment that "throwing money at problems is not the answer" will be taken seriously since you mention tax increases several times. Your implicit assumption is that we have to spend lots of money on new programs for children.

And no, I doubt you will find support for tax increases here for any reason. If you did more than swoop in to comment and had read anything anybody here has said, you'd know that a good many of us here don't believe that tax increases actually increase government revenue anyway (quite the opposite) and even if they did, the answer is still in cutting any number of wasteful, ineffective, duplicative, and downright inane programs and agencies that we waste billions on every year.

And further, if you did a little homework, I'd bet you'd find that the federal and state governments already have quite a few programs to provide just the kind of support you are calling for. The problem is nobody bothers to go out and educate themsleves - they expect someone to come to their door bearing a check. Maybe you can help support these "in need" children by spending some time looking into what's available and getting the word out to the people who could use those services rather than coming in here and implying that if we are not willing to raise taxes and spend more money on new federal programs "for the children" that we have no standing to disapprove of abortion.

You said: "Liberals believe the right to life begins at birth; Conservatives believe that right ENDS at birth."

First - I'm guessing you're not long for this site.

Second - you're patently offensive. Conservatives believe even your miserable existence is worthy of protection. What we DON'T believe is that you have some sort of right to have the American taxpayer financially support you and provide some base middle-class existence.

Your statement is only true if you define "right to life" as a "right to a certain standard of living."

Reldim,

Forgive me if I reply to both of your sequential post at one go.

Regarding "You said: 'Liberals believe the right to life begins at birth; Conservatives believe that right ENDS at birth.'" Actually, all I did was quote an old saying I heard YEARS ago. I did say there is SOME truth to it, but I did not state it as a universal truth. All generalizations are imperfect.

If "No Child Left Behind" is the kind of support you refer to from the Bush Administration, then you need only ask anyone who works in a school about the enormous unfunded mandate it is. Schools are forced to cut programs or raise school levies all across the nation because the program demands services but supplies no funds. Having children, and coming from a large family (meaning: lots of nieces and nephews) I am well aware there are many state programs which "provide" the services I mention. I put provide in quotes because these programs are notoriously underfunded. Child Welfare agencies all across America are starving; case workers have too many children to take care of, and children (remember those sacred, innocent lives?) children fall through the cracks left and right. When children fall through the cracks, they often die.

"The problem is nobody bothers to go out and educate themselves - they expect someone to come to their door bearing a check." Good idea. Have you ever tried to negotiate the labyrinthine system on which the needy depend? I have. I know many others who have. It's a full time job. There are folks who are supposed to help, but they are overloaded and just don't have the time to do it right. Where does a single mother working multiple jobs find the time to do all that AND be the parent she's supposed to be? The system as is dysfunctional. It is starving for capital. This is something any business person knows about.

Perhaps modern conservatives have forgotten what everyone used to know: there ain't no free lunch. Education costs money, but pays for itself down the road. If you have some other mechanism for getting money to our schools besides Taxes, I'm all ears. Similarly goes health care; a dollar spent on prenatal care saves nine dollars later on. Money spent on preventative medicine saves even more and increases worker productivity. But many people work in places where health insurance is unaffordable. Money is lost for lack of spending money.

I do realize there is a lot of waste in government, but there seems to be little agreement as to what programs are "waste". I suspect it's a canard. There's less waste than there is simple inefficiency caused by too few resources trying to do too much work.

More importantly, we don't necessarily need BIG GOVERMENT programs, but we do need to spend capital to start up and regulate programs. Can't do it for free.

Am I offensive? I take that to mean I dare to disagree. In modern politics, that seems to be the choice one has: conform or offend. So be it. At least I wasn't rude. After nine years in the Navy I know ALL THE WORDS. But I'll try to be good.

Am I long for this site? Depends; if discussion and dialog are not actually wanted; if comments are expected to praise heaped on praise, then yes, I'm not long for this site. If I must agree to be welcome, I can actually find other uses for my time. Like trying to find a blog site where disagreement does not equal offensiveness. (This trait is not limited to conservative bloggery, I've run into it on liberal sites too.)

Lastly: I don't need any government support. I suppose you take my comments to be self-serving, but actually I'm doing quite well. But I look out at a world full of people who are not so fortunate, and wonder where the hell (oops.) all those Christians went. "That what you do for the least of my children, that you do unto me." Do any of those words ring a bell? I know it's an inexact citation, but I got the gist of it. That's my guiding principle. It's not a very conservative principle. So be it.

sean s.

You make the same assumptions that social work can only be carried out by government. You make an appeal to Christian charity, but government is not charity, and furthermore you do not know what any of us do with our own money.

You state that government programs are seriously unfunded (no evidence) and that some kids die! (again no evidence). Well, guess what? If those programs are so important then why do we spend over 100 billion a year on farm subsidies? Why do we spend money on bridges to no-where? Why do we give money by the billions to other nations?

Because our system is corrupt, so even if taxes go up what makes you think that any of that money will go to the poor?
Why don't you stop trusting government (at any level) and join us in fighting against the waste and fighting for the unborn.
And fight for poor children and families, because low taxes, and a strong economy give poor folks the best chance to get out of poverty.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

In fact, you probably won't find a lot of support for that monstrosity here either.

The federal government, at least to most RedStaters, is not the answer to your ills. Or anybody's. Children fall through the cracks because people like you think that the answers lie in Washington - thousands of miles away from the kids. Run by petty bureacrats who have no stake in making sure that anybody is actually bettered by the programs that they administer. And totally unaccountable to anybody.

We've been "spending capital" to start up programs for over 40 years - since the War on Poverty. They don't work. They never do. They likely never will. The best "solutions" to the issues you address are found in local communities, through civic organizations, church groups, the local community center. The closer the program to those it is aiming to help, the more likely it is to help. And the less you involve the government the better the results.

I'm not a Chirstian my friend. Nor do I much care for taking Christian Democracy. The words of Jesus were not meant as a governmental manifesto or a political platform. But if you wish to see your quote implemented, why don't you go out and help all those people dealing with the "bureaucratic mess." And while you're at it, maybe you can wake up to the fact that the "mess" is caused by government. Ever run into a wall of red tape at an urban soup kitchen or a church shelter for the homeless? Didn't think so.

I fully approve of people investing themselves in the betterment of the people around them. I like helping people too. What I don't like is being compelled via taxes and regulation to help groups defined by others (Congress) in the ways that those others (Congress again) decide is the best way to do so.

As for your length here - it is entirely dependent on you being nice. I found the quote offensive. And the fact that you suggested there was ANY truth to it was what made me take offense from you. IF you are going to throw around quotes like that with any measure of agreement, you will find more people offended than I.

Simply wow. You make a lot of accusations that are simply false, and then have the nerve to say Christians aren't being Christian if they don't support tax increases to have government do what they would be able to do if taxes were lower and charity were allowed to flourish.

But again, you want to quote a guiding principle, but you only have the "gist of it." Perhaps, if you want to understand what charity is, you'll quote it properly and realize that we render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But Caesar wasn't interested in funding stem cell research, making welfare payments to people who are able to work.

The rest of that statement is that we render what is God's to God's. And quite frankly, charity should be a voluntary thing, and it should also be done by private organizations who realize value for money.

The King James Version of the Bible states "Faith, Hope and Charity, these three yet remain, but the greatest is Charity."

Maybe you can explain why NCLB resulted in the largest increase in Federal education spending of all time. It was enormously expensive. There's a reason why Teddy supported it, you know.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

lots of federal spending, but it also includes some mandates who's cost has to be met by the local school boards.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Daring to disagree is not the problem.

I will only address one of your many Known Facts, and it is to tell you where the Christians in my church and neighborhood are. They are out helping people, feeding the sick and unemployed, caring for and nurturing families, and stroking checks when they are not able to actually get out on the front lines. And we have heard of the verse you cite. You may want to check out that particular book when you get a chance.

Please feel free to provide us with some information that will make us share your opinion that Christians don't care, government programs are underfunded, children who fall through the cracks are not because of worthless parents, and government run health care will continue to provide the high standard of care we enjoy now.

written by a congressman about a bill that he introduced.

Second, you're solution to not having government funded day care is to kill the kids? Surely there are other solutions to that problem.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm with Fred!

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm with Fred!

Thank you for the correction regarding who wrote the post.

Second, my concern about daycare is to make sure it's affordable by those who need it. Daycare for an infant or young child is very, very expensive. The working poor are the ones who need it the most, and can least afford it. If you have some other way to make sure they can afford it, and that the daycare is more than just a warehouse for children, then I am open to your ideas. From where I stand the government has a responsibility to see that it happens somehow.

Abortion is not the alternative, but if the People are willing to throw the kid away after being born, why object if the mother wants to throw the kid away even earlier?

It's a matter of consistency.

sean s.

If people carelessly engage in activity that leads to unwanted pregnancies, why should we all then be on the hook for it? There are many adoption agencies out there, and there are many many stable families that are willing to take in unwanted children.

Your comments seem to be less concerned with the child as it is with the mother. If you seek compassion for the children, then sometimes the best thing for the child is not to enslave his mother to the beast Leviathan and instead to find him a better situation.

Adoption is a good solution. Bureaucratic inefficiencies make it so difficult to adopt American children that Americans go to other countries to find available children. CRAZY! But, irronically, the solution is govermental. Get rid of the inefficiencies and REQUIRE children to be placed with the first willing and able parents REGARDLESS OF RACE (that's one of the big stumbling blocks.)

But not all mothers will want to give their children away; should we force them to make "Sofie's Choice"?

sean s.

No... just stop having the government interfere... there's your government program. You clearly have a Clinton mindset- "if government's the problem, more government will clearly make it better."

Racism isn't the problem with adoptions in America. It's quite simply government.

and has been in the process for quite a while I can tell you the problem is that there are just no kids to adopt. Sure there are teenagers, and there are certainly children with serious mental and physical defects. Good bless those who are strong enough to give these kids a home. But if you want to actually raise a young child who is more or less normal, the are very hard to come by.

The government uses a foster system and is tied up in legal knots before all parental or relative rights are rescinded. by then years have gone by and that four year old is now a fourteen year old.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The Catholic Church is a great adoption provider. And guess what - the porblem with the system is GOVERNMENT. Government is not the solution. The Catholic Church stopped providing services in MAssachusetts because of government mandates.

And usually the reasons for not placing children is that governement has created the rule by which an otherwise good placement can't happen.

As far as I can tell it is governmental issues like affirmative action, and race politics and lobbying that create the rules against inter-racial placements. That or the agencies do it to avoid getting angry race-warriors attacking them (it is often liberal groups speaking for "the black community" that get huffy at placing black children with white couples).

Maybe if government stopped getting in the way, people would be able to do what needs to be done.

Your problem seems to be an inability to conceive that private action can and does occur without government mandates, regulations, or money. Everything you say involves an assumption that government should have a role.

You are wrong.

The only reason the Catholic Church was running an adoption agency in the first place was because the state government was paying them to.

The reason that the Catholic adoption agency shut down was because the government tied certain requirements (gay adoption) to the adoption funding, and the adoption agency refused to go along.

The only reason the Catholic Church was running an adoption agency in the first place was because the state government was paying them to.

The Church runs adoption services in a lot of places they're not paid to do so, and through diocesan sources, funds a host of others. They're not averse to taking Caesar's coin to do it, however.

You may draw whatever conclusions about your last paragraph, from this correction, that you wish.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'm sure there are some agencies that run without government support.

But in the particular case of the Mass adoption agency, the reason the agency threatened to shut down was because the government threated to stop paying them. The reason the government threatened to stop paying them was because the agency threatened to ignore the government's mandates.

The Catholic Church was running an adoption service, in accordance with Catholic principles, in the Commonwealth; it drew State funding; when that State funding became conditioned on acceptance of principles and performance of behaviors in contradiction to Church teaching, the adoption service stated that it could not licitly accept those principles and perform those behaviors; the State withdrew funding; and the adoption agency shuttered.

See? Rendered easily, with no anti-Catholic bias this time.

You may use this as a template in your future endeavors.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...was that government creates more problems then it solves. I don't see how your statement correcting my facts changes the truth of the underlying assertion.

I have no problem with government helping adoption agencies and potential adoptive parents defray the costs of ensuring that these kids find stable homes. But there are better ways then loading down that money with every feel-good social engineering regulation and requirement that has ever been thought of.

is by the government not "helping" at all, and instead leaving the tax dollars it would have redistributed according to political whims and reduced by bearucratic waste in the hands of the people, who can decide on their own which organizations and efforts are worthy of receiving their support.

Which I think is generally where you're aiming for too, but I like to be very clear about the ideal situation.

Okay, so you don't want that money loaded down with every feel-good social engineering regulation. Presumably, you just wanted it loaded down with the feel-good social engineering regulations that you want.

Should adoption agencies give preference based on religion? How about matching the race of the child to the race of the parents? How about the marital status of the parents (or parent, single, for that matter)? How about the sexual orientation of the parents? Or their wealth? Should mentally retarded couple be allowed to adopt?

Those are all value judgments. If you want want to take a squishy middle ground, go ahead and let government's foot in the door. But don't complain when liberals win elections and start imposing our value judgments on you.

You primary argument boils down to, "If we can provide a whole host of government funded programs, we should just kill the kids."

There are many reasons that social programs fail, but in the end they all fail to work as well as private solutions. That is a separate argument from the sanctity of life don't you think?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm with Fred!

today.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm with Fred!

Here is the flaw in your logic:

Abortion is not the alternative, but if the People are willing to throw the kid away after being born, why object if the mother wants to throw the kid away even earlier?

It's a matter of consistency.

There is no inconsistency at all. If the mother "throws the kid away" after birth, even if it is done "in consultation with her physician," there already IS legal punishment.

It's a matter of justice! The desire to bring justice is a key aspect and requirement of being pro-life.

It is the basis of your premise. As I read your comment, if someone supports the right to life for children, they MUST support socialism and socialist policies, or else they are a bad person.

That IS the thrust of your comment.

However, a conservative would rather not support socialism and socialist policies, so you we are automatically hypocrites and evil people in your eyes.

Universal health care is not compassionate, nor is socialism as a whole. It does not spread the wealth, instead it only spreads the poverty.

That is my opinion on this. There are far more compassionate ways of taking care of poor children using free market principles. Workfare is a good example of my idea of compassionate.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Correct me if I'm wrong but your concern seems to originate in the belief that anything done by the government is Socialism. I do not agree with that; nor would the Founders of this nation, I think.

Another concern seems to be that I believe that those who will not support Socialist programs are evil. Nope.

You misunderstand.

I am skeptical that some Gigantic Universal Health System will work well, but then I didn't advocate one.

What I advocate is that any system (even a "free-market" system requires government involvement to set the "rules of engagement". A government regulated "free-market" system could work just fine and I'm good with that. What I cannot support is the current laisse-faire approach. It's priced many people out, and most who can afford it must spend inefficient amounts of time and money to comply with its insane processes.

I agree there are compassionate, free-market solutions. But they will not be free of startup or operational costs.

sean s. (HM1/SS ex-USN)

Not everything the government does is socialism. But so far almost everything you've proposed the government do on these issues IS socialism.

And the Founders would be horrified that the federal government is doing ANY of this. Education? There was no such thing as public education in 1789. And I doubt that the Founders would have felt that the federal government should have anything to do with it.

Adoption? Probably also unheard of, but since it is so closely related to the family and domestic relations, the Founders would probably tell you that the federal government has no business in the field.

Day care, children's health? Nope and nope - not in the Constitution as something the central government was empowered to act on.

I agree, the Founders would not have equated government with Socialism (especially since the doctrines of socialism hadn't been expounded in 1789 - Marx and Engels came later). But neither are we equating all government with socialism.

...are not compassionate. Government is a machine, as capable of compassion as a hay bailer. If you have ever been in the grip of that machine you would know this.

----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us

In the first place, who is it that operates and funds crises pregnancy centers, child hospitals, orphanages etc. here and around the world, Mostly Christians and Christian groups, who are also overwhelmingly pro-life. So that little silly canard about not caring is intellectually bankrupt.

Furthermore, it is a sad and immature way to measure compassion by arguing for government programs. Considering how welfare destroyed the inner city family and placed millions into the low expectations of dependency and eternal government sponsored poverty.

Government might be able to help at the margins, but it is up to individuals and groups of citizens to step up. Each child has potential. That potential can be realized only with a strong education, and a moral education as well. Government can help, but it can also harm. As when socialists ruin the public school system in the name of diversity and indoctrination.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Tax increases are never necessary; if we cut stupid government programs like building rainforests in Iowathen your dilemma goes away, doesn't it?
Since we support cutting pork and waste in gov't, then I don't feel very morally responsible for anything.

If you can't afford to raise a child, don't get involved in situations that will create that child. Its pretty much that simple.

On the other hand, getting rid of the entitlement programs and a large reduction in taxes with laws that make it easier to earn money, and a lot of these problems go away. The last things in the world we need are more government programs.

5! by bs

I'm glad I read all the way to the bottom; I was tempted to post almost the same thing you did.

The best way to provide early childhood care is to allow the mother to stay home with the child. That can be enabled by couples waiting to have children until they are financially prepared to raise a child, and/or providing tax relief to help them afford it even more. Dumping dollars into yet another gubmint subsidy program isn't the way to go.

I'm with ya all the way, tc.


“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Nice to have doctor standing up for what is right in the House.

Guys, we've got to support him with our cash. Go to his website and give! www.paulbroun.com

Congressman,
Is it your intention for this bill to outlaw birth control methods that prevent or lessen the likelyhood of a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterius?

Make that 'likelihood'.

Man, What a day!
'uterus'.

Hmm. Interesting point. It's one of those issues that I don't think gets a sufficient amount of thought from people who push for a "life begins at fertilization" idea.

In theory, if life begins at conception then anything that is actively done with the intent of preventing that fertilized egg developing to birth and beyond could be defined as murder. Now that might not be the intent, but certainly there would have to be language to clarify that issue or it would be open to judicial interpretation.

People die. Most die naturally, and that's just the way things go. Intentionally attempting to prevent another innocent person from living, though, constitutes murder. It's gotten plenty of thought from some of us, and that's the response, at least mine.

www.republicansenate.org

So you would advocate murder charges for people who use birth control which wekanes the uterine lining allowing fertilized eggs to pass through? (assuming of course you could prove that it was a fertilized egg)

Sorry for the delay in responding. To answer your question, yes, I would. That said, as reldim points out below, enforcement of such a law would be nearly impossible. That said, I would support a ban on forms of birth control that are abortifacients, which would be a more practical way of enforcing this type of law.

www.republicansenate.org

I appreciae the answer and the consistency in view - definitely a tough sell though.

But I would bet that many people have not. It's a feel-good thing to say life begins at conception, but it is questions like this that are forgotten in that. Everybody sees the obvious - that such a definition would prohibit abortion. Not as many bother to even register the idea of the effect on birth control methods.

The other response to this comment does raise a good legal point though - it would be difficult, if not impossible to generate the legal proof necessary to show murder in the case of implantation-reducing drugs as the state would need to show that a fertilized egg (a person under the law's definition) in fact existed. AND to call it murder (rather than manslaughter) the state would likely have to show that the reason the egg did not implant was the drugs being taken (as opposed to a natural cause, which happens all the time without the woman even knowing that an embryo had formed).

So even if you do consider the letter to apply to such birth control methods, the enforcement would be impractical unless there were attendant legislation to ban the sale and use of the methods in question.

It's a feel-good thing to say life begins at conception, but it is questions like this that are forgotten in that. Everybody sees the obvious - that such a definition would prohibit abortion.

As explained later on this thread, this is not the case. Life has a definite scientific beginning, and that is not up for debate. Such a definition does not have the effect of prohibiting abortion.

Where contraception is concerned, it is irrelevant. The intent of most contraceptives is not to prevent implantation but to prevent a human life from forming. This is true even of emergency contraception. Preventing implantation is merely a side effect.

However, even if that were not the case, it would not matter. A person has a right to do something to their body that would bar someone else from using it, much less entering it, even if that someone else needed it to live. Therefore, any and all contraception could be easily justified.

Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning but I'm not sure what you mean here, Menlo.

Are you saying life begins at implantation?

Are you arguing for abortion? "A person has a right to do something to their body that would bar someone else from using it... even if that someone else needed it to live."

The definition of when life begins is EXACTLY what's up for debate. Throughout most of human history, life was said to begin at birth because that was the first point at which it was viable. Prior to birth, without life support (provided by the mother), the fetus would die naturally. Life began when the fetus could do all of those things associated with life...breath, eat, expel wastes, etc. Medical advances created ways of intervening, in premature births for example, to make life viable earlier than it might have otherwise been, in some cases.

So, when does life begin? When the process for creating it starts? At the end of the gestation process? Or at some point in the process when all of the fundamental processes of life are actually functioning to the point of supporting the organism?

A separate argument is at what point does an organism, fetus, child (attach the word you are most comfortable with) acquire rights and protections under the law (and the constitution). There are many complications here. It isn't a simple answer.

And to your last point... if life is defined as beginning at conception and case law awards the fetus all the rights of any other individual, then birth control that causes a fertilized egg not to implant will very likely be considered abortion. The logic flows pretty clearly.

You are wrong. I can't believe how many people lack basic middle school biology common knowledge. Science and biology define human life as beginning at fertilization. That cannot be debated or argued. Like it or not, it IS current scientific fact, and it has been for a very long time.

The unborn child meets the biologically and scientifically defined characteristics of life. "Breathing" is not one; they only need exchange gases. Likewise, "eating" is not needed; they need only take in nutrition and energy.

The viability argument is stupid and irrelevant. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with life as scientifically defined. It is a measure of available medical technology which is really determined by the baby's lung size and strength. That the unborn child needs to be in the woman's body to live has NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether the child is alive!

It is a basic, fundamental, and indisputable biological fact that human life begins at fertilization.

If schools are not teaching this, then they need to be sued. No one should be graduating high school without knowing when human life begins.

The argument does not follow for birth control or contraception for the two reasons I explained. Furthermore, no contraceptive is considered "abortion" by any medical or scientific defintion.

This thread is becoming a bit repetitive, but I'll give it another shot.

I don't think the question really being debates has to do with when life begins. Scientifically, "human life" begins at conception. Again, the question is, "When does a human life become a human person?"

Many liberals believe that a fetus (a form of "human life") is not a person deserving of protection under the Constitution until the fetus becomes sentient--when it can think and feel pain. Most scientists believe this happens at 26 weeks, which is also the point at which a fetus, with the help of modern technology, has a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb. Less than 1% of abortions happen after 26 weeks.

Unfortunately, this level of nuance is rarely invoked when polling Americans on their support for abortion rights. I guarantee, though, that very few liberals would support abortion after the point at which a fetus can think and feel pain.

The science is in dispute. Some say we don't know if they can feel pain at the beginning of the second trimester, the same time abortions begin to involve more easily discernable cruel, violent, and inhumane treatment of the child. Anyway, there is a general agreement they can't feel pain only in the first trimester. This will never be able to be determined with certainty.

However, we need not determine it because none of this should be relevant to whether one deserves to live or die. If it were, we could kill anyone born if we anesthetized him or her and/or he or she were temporarily unconscious.

You're right about not using pain as justification in the sense that, if a fetus is sentient and can feel pain, anesthetizing them would not be a sufficient remedy. I only mention pain because it accompanies higher brain function. In my view, the important question in determining whether a human life is a human person is whether the human life is sentient.

You seem to be inferring that you would protect any human life, whether or not that human life is a human person. Is that your position? Do you think any human life that has the potential to become a human person should be considered a human person by default?

*implying, not inferring. I hate that one.

Also, while there is some dispute (as there almost always is in any scientific debate), there is at least a consensus on when the fetus becomes sentient (26 weeks).

Sentient beings--meaning they have the capacity to be sentient. Not sentient as in awake.

Killing humans in their sleep would probably solve the climate crisis. Just in case that doesn't garner popular support, though, let's try to come up with another solution.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

As I said, we cannot kill those who are born who are not "sentient," especially when they are expected to become so. The same should apply to the unborn.

The concept of "personhood" is bizarre and makes no sense. It seems to come out of nowhere. Either a human life has enough value to be protected or it does not. There is no need to use
some special word to make that implication.

I don't care if one calls the unborn a person or not. That is irrelevant. All that matters is if the life is worth protecting. There is no logical or justifiable reason as to why it is not.

I disagree that there is even a consensus on what it means to be "sentient," much less that it can be measured. I'm not sure what is measurable beginning ONLY at 26 weeks and never earlier, and it shouldn't matter. I doubt any higher brain function suddenly "happens" in any one week.

In any case, it's all still a very sick and twisted excuse to chop off the head and limbs of a living child.

This is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Liberals do not think a collection of cells is a "person" deserving of protection under the constitution, even if that collection of cells has the potential to develop into a person. A potential person is not a person. If a zygote, embryo, or young fetus were a human person, killing it would be murder.

If the standard for protecting human life is whether the human life has potential to develop into a human person, then the skin cells on my arm should be granted the rights of a person under the Constitution.

If it's just about potential, then every form of birth control should be banned, we should be procreating as much as possible, and every sperm and egg should be protected at all costs...not to mention fertilized eggs that never implant in the womb.

The difference between a clump of cells in a petri dish and a human person is that a human person is sentient.

While I respect your opinion that every potential "life" should be protected so that its potential may be met, I disagree that it should be mandated by law.

The skin cells on your arm are part of a person. They are not in the process of developing into people. A fetus at a very early state possesses all the features of a human being and will in short order be able to survive on its own.

The analogy you are trying to make would be more apt if you were comparing a fetus to someone expected to emerge from a coma, rather than skin cells.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If you followed the link, you would see that science is reaching the point where a human skin cell can be implanted into an unfertilized egg to create an embryo.

My point was a bit snarky, but it's still valid. A clump of cells is not a person, even if it has the potential to develop into a person under the right circumstances. It is not the duty of a woman to ensure that those circumstances exist.

Moreover, a fetus does not have a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb (with the help of modern medicine) until 26 weeks. Less than 1% of all abortions happen after 26 weeks.

If you planted the cells into an unfertilized egg and created an embryo they would no longer be skin cells. They would be an embryo and all things being equal in short order an independent human being.

What percentage of survival is needed before taking away life sustaining tech is not considered murder ?

If you have diabetes and I deny you insulin is that murder ?

Asthma and you are deprived of an inhaler ?

You have to compare fundamentally similar things going through fundamentally similar process.

For example if I remove a leaf from a plant does it change the plant ? However if I shred a sprout have I killed a plant ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's not about percentage of survival. I was simply responding to the insinuation that aborted fetuses could survive on their own outside the womb. Your point actually highlights the problem of using potentiality as justification for your position.

Again, it's about whether the life being terminated is a person. I do not believe a fertilized egg is a person before it becomes sentient. You apparently do. I believe there is a difference between potential life and life. You apparently don't. We can agree to disagree.

As to the exact point in time when a fetus becomes sentient, I'll leave that to the scientists.

Courtesy dictionary.com

Sentient Adj
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

So by your definition someone who is heavily anesthetized is fair game.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

This has already been addressed. Please read the thread before asking me to repeat myself.

Please read what you wrote and what I wrote.

I repeat for your benefit. By your statements a cellular collection deprived of sentience is no longer eligible for the protections we grant people.

This includes
People in Coma's
People in very deep sleeps
People who have been hit on the head
And I suspect people who make very bad arguments for their liberal positions on conservative websites. (Not 100% on that one)

Your handle its something you aspire to ? Not something you actually are no ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

See "Re: One more thing" (below).

Yeah, but I can consent to them being destroyed if I so choose.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

cell clump you wouldn't be around to consent to skin cell destruction.

Happy with Mom's "choice"?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

You danced around my point I see.

You never said why you wouldn't kill a born human with the same level of "sentience" as an unborn who would be equally likely to regain it.

It doesn't matter if you use the word "person." That word does nothing! It may sound good to your ears, but it does not convey the value of human life. The definition of the word as it is normally used is not "worthy of life."

This is not about Constitutional protection either; that is beside the point.

Every human life is a clump of cells, including you and me. An unborn child is a WHOLE living human, not a part of one. In case you have never seen fetal development, there is a clearly recognizable whole human body very early in pregnancy.

Petri dish cells do not deal with unborn children at the point of development at which abortions are possible. Most abortions seek and destroy (violently) a clearly recognizable human body. It is not just "a lump." We're not talking about fertilization, implantation, contraception, and routine birth control methods; we are talking about abortion here. There is a big difference that anyone with half a brain can see.

Furthermore, the life is not potential; it is actual.

I do not "respect" your "opinion" that it's okay to hack that head off and yank off the limbs of a living child based on your own arbitrarily and randomly selected ideas.

Constitutional protection is not beside the point. It is the point. The Constitution grants protection to every person. If an embryo is not a person, then the rights of the person carrying the embryo would clearly outweight those of the embryo (which would be nonexistent).

Again, the difference between the clumps of cells that are you and me and the clump of cells that is an embryo is that you and I are sentient.

An embryo may have the appearence of a person (a head and limbs), but that is not what makes me or you a person.

As for the timing of abortions, 90% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. More than half happen in the first 8 weeks. This is long before higher brain functions develop.

Yes it is beside the point because no one has argued that the unborn are Constitutionally protected. The point is that they need to be. The same way slaves and blacks needed protection from injustices towards them.

Certainly one need not be a "person" under the Constitution to deserve any legal protection.

You and I are as much clumps of cells as the unborn. Sentience or "higher brain function" is subjective. There is no clear consensus on what it is, much less how to measure it, especially on a child in utero. It cannot be determined and will never be able to be determined. It is a TOTALLY invalid standard with NO clear meaning.

However, that misses my point STILL. A born person who became "brain dead" (and supposedly ceased being a person to you) would have little or no chance of recovery. If he or she did, then one would not be allowed to behead or stab that "brain dead" person. An unborn person does not fit the same "brain dead" criteria because the brain will likely not stay dead. A state that is permanent and one that is temporary are different. If you would okay killing a born living human in a temporary "brain dead" state (if such a thing were possible), then you make sense. If not, your argument fails again.

I find these as nothing but arbitrarily made-up excuses for an utter hatred and disrespect of human life.

"Certainly one need not be a "person" under the Constitution to deserve any legal protection."

Read the constitution - it specifically use the term 'person' or 'people' when delineating rights avaiable to individuals. The fifth amendmant being the most relevant when it says "nor should any PERSON... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

So yes, one does recieve legal protectionunder the constitution only by being a person.

First off, the text of the fourteenth amendment only prohibits the state from taking lives of "persons," not individuals. You misquoted.

Second, even if the amendment were written as you said, you didn't understand what I said. I was saying the law CAN and does give "non-persons" protection also.

Anyway, I am not arguing that they are Constitutionally protected. They don't seem to be, even if they are "persons." They are explicitly excluded from the equal protection clause as well. They need to be protected by law though.

I maintain that this whole argument about a "person" is nothing but an arbitrarily made up excuse to justify hatred, cruelty, and disrespect to human life.

Recall this same one was used to support slavery.

I quoted the fifth amendmant, even said so, but nice try.

Anyway, you are right if your implication is we can legally protect them even if the constitution does not; but of course they cannot enjoy the constitutional protection afforded 'persons'.

As for it being an arbtriray argument - well that is superficially true in that all legal arguments are about arbitrary definitions and line, but it not a 'made up excuse to justify hatred', it is the heart of the moral question of what makes humans special and if you want to understand it in detail you can read the discussion ont he issue of the Talmud, Aquias or Aristotle - and get over yourself in thinking this is all some modern creation of the U.S.

It IS an excuse to justify hatred. What makes humans "special" is not something that people should be allowed to say for themselves with their own beliefs. It just isn't. Only objective evidence and standards can be valid. That is human DNA and the biological characteristics of life. And there is nothing that objectively makes humans any more "special" than a lot of other animals until a couple years after birth.

I don't know whether these ancient thinkers addressed abortion. If not, it would be a modern creation. It doesn't matter much, since they thankfully do not make our laws or Constitution. They certainly lacked any of today's technology to see and understand the development of the unborn. They did not know the unborn to be distinct whole living human beings. The same could be said of those who wrote the Constitution.

This is not and should not be about current Constitutional protection, and I refuse to argue that point further. The point remains that biological defintions are the only justifiable ones to determine when to protect life (and life alone) by a law not based on religion or superstition.

"Only objective evidence and standards can be valid. That is human DNA and the biological characteristics of life."

It would be so sad if the only thing that made human beings deserving of different rights is its slghtly different DNA from chimps - sorry but that is a reduction to biology that I'm not willing to grant. Our specialness goes beyond our animal nature and is endowed by our creator - of course whether that can ever be 'objectively' determined is a whole different discussion.

"And there is nothing that objectively makes humans any more "special" than a lot of other animals until a couple years after birth."

I disagree wholeheartedly - our specialnesis not becuase we happen to talk or walk upright and it is not manifest in our biology but in our spirituality.

"I don't know whether these ancient thinkers addressed abortion"

They did - like I said erlier look at Aristotle, the Talmud and Aquinas for three different looks in different moral contexts.

"The point remains that biological defintions are the only justifiable ones to determine when to protect life (and life alone) by a law not based on religion or superstition."

You are 100% wrong on this - our entire reason for protecting life is rooted in religion, philosophy and 'superstition' and biology doesn't speak to it at all. If we reduce our humanity to biology we will inevitably lose it to all other creatures.

Even if there were just what appeared to be a "lump of cells," how does that justify killing the human life? That uses physical appearance as a basis for killing what is known to be a human life. I've already asked why the born who are not "sentient" (however you define that) but may gain "sentience" should be protected.

You've got to come up with a better justification.

I believe the functions of the brain are relevant, not the appearance of the fetus.

As to your question:

Is a human person with no brain function (i.e., a brain dead person) alive? Reply To ThisUser Info#88

Sorry to leave you hanging.

Answer: No. Brain dead means dead.

As I said above, the "brain dead" defintion applied to the born is different because it leaves no chance of recovery.

As an aside, I don't know if you use the same methods and metrics of measuring this brain function in the unborn and the born. It seems to me it would be awfully difficult to hook up an unborn child to all these machines to measure it. That alone might kill the child! It seems it would be even more difficult to meausre earlier in pregnancy when it supposedly fails to show the right kind of brain activity. However, assuming it can be done and the same thing measured, the brain is only "dead" in the instance in which recovery is impossible. Otherwise, "brain death" has not occurred.

If the born who were "brain dead" could have an equal chance of gaining brain function as the unborn who were supposedly brain dead" did, then we couldn't kill the born.

"This is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals"

This is not a disagreement between conservatives and liberals - it has nothing to do with those labels and that is why you can have a fierce debate a conservative blog and a pro-choice republican competing for the presidential nomination.

This question has deep roots and no obvious consensus answer.

There is a clear split between liberals and conservatives on this issue. I wasn't aware this was up for debate.

2006 Poll.

Money Quote:

As in the past, about two-thirds of conservative Republicans say that abortion should only be available in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is threatened (50%), or not permitted at all (18%). Three-quarters of liberal Democrats, by contrast, say abortion either should be generally available (60%) or available but with stricter limits (14%).

But you're right in that liberals and conservatives can have different views. Those views often differ because people dispute the fundamental premise for each argument (the point at which a fertilized egg become a human person).

Unless you can specify with great precision when a fetus becomes a human being you need to err on the side protecting life.

Some people feel its fine to play fast and loose with human life.

Others don't.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That is the same arguent used against the death penalty (never 100% sure) and the use of say bombs in war. I think everyone plays fast and loose with human life, they just choose different situation in which to do so.

If you want to convict a baby with a jury of his peers then they are comparable. If you hold that before an abortion could occur there should be trial and a conclusion that was beyond a reasonable doubt then they are comparable.

Killing a child because a teenager wants to go on a ski trip is not comparable to executing a criminal.

If you are going to use talking points from TV soundbytes you should think them through first.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So don't know from soundbites, and I never said they were the same situations, just the same argument. You say a jury of peers is enough certainty to put someone to eath and other will say that a group of people are prone to error and we souldn't be so cavalier with human life. You say we should err on the side of life when deciding whether a fetus is a person others will say that scientific assertion of when they feel pain, or have higehr brain function, or are breathing on their own is enough.

In both cases you are making the same argument - err on the side of caution when it comes to taking human life and in both cases you are asserting you have enough certainty in what that line is.

And if you are going to use trite ad hominem to dismiss argumetns maybe you should think it through first - certainly don't assume that the other party hasn't.

1. What you presented are not equivalent or even properly comparable.

2. A trial of an accused capitol criminal is not the same as walking into a doctors office and presenting a credit card.

3. A jury of peers is just the starting point. After that there is the judge, then there is a lengthy appeals process. Its very hard to put someone to death as a sentence for criminal activity. Killing a baby takes a whim.

4. It was not an ad hominem it was the observation that your argument was not your own and you had not thought it through. If you had you wouldn't of made the comparison.

5. A further observation: You still aren't thinking things through. If you were you would have come up with better reasoning.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"1. What you presented are not equivalent or even properly comparable."

Yes they are - in both cases one side argues that we have enough certainty to take life and in both cases the other side argues we do not. You might have trouble seeing that comparison even when spelled out for you but it is there.

"2. A trial of an accused capitol criminal is not the same as walking into a doctors office and presenting a credit card."

Your right, two completely different actions. So what?

"3. A jury of peers is just the starting point. After that there is the judge, then there is a lengthy appeals process. Its very hard to put someone to death as a sentence for criminal activity. Killing a baby takes a whim."

And you are performing an admirable job of arguing why you are certain that our death penalty system is a reliable way to take a human life. Someone else can say that all human decisions are prone to error and only god can know for certain if he did it; as such we should err on the side of life and not risk it. You can continue to assert your certainty, they will continue to assert it is not certain enough and we can do it till the cows come home - same thing you are doing with the abortion discussion.

"4. It was not an ad hominem it was the observation that your argument was not your own and you had not thought it through. If you had you wouldn't of made the comparison."

Okay, then it was a mistaken observation. Not only have I thought it through but I stand by it - and your arguments above about why the two situation are different just confirms for me that in both cases we are dealing with one side asserting they have enough certainty and one side asserting we don't and should err ont he side of caution. You see you can continue to argue why you think it is certain in the death penalty case but that does not serve to discredit the comparison - it only illustrates its manifestation in the death penalty case.

"5. A further observation: You still aren't thinking things through. If you were you would have come up with better reasoning."

Same to you and many more.

If your assertions were in any way correct we would execute people on the spot for jaywalking.

In Abortion there is no certainty, no deliberation, just desire. We grant mothers the right to kill their children at whim, up to the moment they are born. In the case of an execution there is a process in which the person who will be executed participates in his defense.

BY OUR LEGAL STANDARDS AN UNBORN BABY COULD NEVER BE EXECUTED BECAUSE IT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN ITS OWN DEFENSE

I know this is lost on you. You are reciting not reasoning. But keep at it whenever someone compares Abortion to Judicial execution I know they are bots. Whats more they usually do more damage to the baby killers than I ever could.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"If your assertions were in any way correct we would execute people on the spot for jaywalking. "

This has nothing to do with my assertion at all - clearly you just don't get it and I don't know you wel enough to tell if that is a frequent problem or just here.

My 'assertion' isthat both arguments in abortion and the death penalty amount to how certain we are in our justification that the life we are terminating is not deserving of the normal protection granted to human beings. If some vigilante were to conclude that jaywalking forfeits ones right to life, and he has the right to draw conclusion of guilt on the spot than I suppose he would be using the same line of argument. Don't know how many converts he would get behind that line of thinking, certainly not as many as either the pro-life or anti-deaht penalty crowds have.

"In Abortion there is no certainty, no deliberation, just desire."

I won't speak for all cases, but for many there is certainty that the fetus is not a person and thus has no right to life as do human beings - the analogous argument to someone ahving committed a crime that forfeits said right enabling us to execute him.

"We grant mothers the right to kill their children at whim,"

No, we gran them to right to abort fetuses - the argument is around whether they are 'children' or not. You are certain they are (or at least said above we should err on the side of life) others, including myself based on my own religions position, are certain they are not.

"In the case of an execution there is a process in which the person who will be executed participates in his defense."

Maybe by now you realize that the analogy is not in the two processes but in the assertion of certainty that we know the entity (Be it fetus or convicted murderer) has forfeited his right to life such that we can take it. It doesn't matter what the process is, so long as we can argue over whether hte process is 100% certain (and so long as humans are involved it never is) there will always be some degree of doubt for which other to procalim we need to err on the side of life.

"BY OUR LEGAL STANDARDS AN UNBORN BABY COULD NEVER BE EXECUTED BECAUSE IT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN ITS OWN DEFENSE "

Actually, by our legal standards an unborn baby couldn't be exected becase it is not a separate individal subject to laws - it cannot commit a crime.

"I know this is lost on you. You are reciting not reasoning. "
No, you are reciting your canned arguments to a line of discussion you think I'm making which I am not. In this discussion, everything has been lost on you and you have ceased to reason.

"But keep at it whenever someone compares Abortion to Judicial execution I know they are bots"

Which I guess is why you jumped to your line of argument rather than see any of the details in my post - which I suppose makes you a bot.

I'll give it one more go before letting you live in your own sense of smugness despite being dense:

I am not comparing abortion and judicial execution, nor in this discussion am I asserting whether either is right or wrong. What I am comparing is the nature of the arguments that are being used in both cases (can you differentiate between nature of arguments and the specifics themselves, not so sure). In both cases, one side asserts that they are certain the entity in question - the convicted man or the fetus - is not deserving of the right to life associated with human beings (sitll with me or can you point out why that is wrong?) and in both cases the other side asserts that they ahve enough certainty to know that is not the case - either because of the nature of a fetus or because of the system used to determine guilt in our court system. In neither case is one line of argument definitively logically right or wrong and that is why we can go on with them forever. In both cases, if we were to truly always err on the side of life we would not have either - but like I said we all choose when we are willing to err on the side of life and when we are not on a case by case basis.

Okay, with that either you get it or you don't but I'm done - it's way to difficult to follow these threads once they get pushed to vertical boxes on the right side of the sceen.

The standard for conviction is Beyond a reasonable doubt

Is the status of a fetus beyond a reasonable doubt ?

I think you have done enough damage to your cause for one day.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Uhg by lapert

Great, beyond a reasonable doubt still leaves doubt, doe it not? The staus for a fetus is in fact that we have no doubt it it not a person who has a right to life, at least that it the current law in this country -so I guess thats a more stringent standard.

I don't have any cause - and any rational person who read this thread would see that you did more damage to yourself by you continued inability to grasp when someone is not making the argument you thinkhe is and continue to argue against it. All you have done is continue to illustrate my point that we are aguing over lines of certainty in both cases and we have large segments of the populace falling on either side of the argument in each case. Congratulations.

And this time I mean it, can't waste my life on this nonsense anymore - I have rational people I can engage in these debates.

Demonstrates that there is not only doubt but considerable disagreement.

Rational, You use that word but I don't think it means what your think it does.

It seems you think it means agreeing with you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You can be rational and not agree with me - it is rational to think that a fetus is a person even if I disagree. However, it is irrational to continually insist that erring on the side of life can be applied both to the question of when one first attains the rights associated with people and when one has forfeited siad rights - even if you can rationally have different lines in either case.

And doubt between us is not the same thing as doubt in our legal system - currently the legal system leaves no doubt.

The legal system leaves no doubt. Very good you make a valid point that no one on this thread ever questioned. What was in question was not the current legal definition but what it should be.

Appeal to authority on a irrelevant point. You should form a law firm with litigator.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Great point - and the same argument is exists with the death penalty; the current law is reasonable doubt and some would argue that the line should be no doubt at all. But really, I got to break this habit.

You can argue about them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"The concept of "personhood" is bizarre and makes no sense. It seems to come out of nowhere."

It only comes out of nowhere if you count thousands of years of philosophical and hteological discussion on the matter nowhere - going back at least to the greeks. The question of when a human being gains the qualities that makes humanity special, i.e. a person, and when it ceases to have those qualities, is not a new discussion and is cetainly not a simple one that is solved by trite references to biology. It is a philosophical, moral and legal conversation.

As one representation of that distinction you could cite our constitution and its use of the term 'person' as the entity and 'life' as one attribute of that entity.

"I don't care if one calls the unborn a person or not. That is irrelevant. All that matters is if the life is worth protecting."

From the legal and philosophical perspective your second point contradicts the first - a life worthy of the special protection afforded to human being is a 'person' - so yes it matter what you call them. Of course things tha are not 'persons' are worthy of protection to some extent as well; we have alws against certain treatment of animals afterall.

One cannot measure when human beings gain qualities that make them "special." People could not even agree on what those qualities are or put them into words. We must protect all human life discounting any personal beliefs.

I don't define "person" as "a life worthy of the special protection afforded to human being." Even the dead can be "persons," which is why a reference to a "dead person" is not a contradiction. I am sure there are other valid definitions as well, but they are not commonly used in such a way.

The whole "person" argument is a justification made-up out of the desire to kill and torture other human beings. Recall it was once the justification used to enslave them.

"One cannot measure when human beings gain qualities that make them "special."

Not onyl can we, but we do all the time. Now you are right that we might not always agree on this, but we make the definition nonetheless and maintain legal and moral systems based on that.

"We must protect all human life discounting any personal beliefs"
That itslef is a personal belief.

"Even the dead can be "persons," which is why a reference to a "dead person" is not a contradiction."

Actaully, a dead body is not, in any legal or moral sense, a person - it is a corpse. Don't confuse the use of the word in vernacular with the us of it in the legal and moral realm.

"The whole "person" argument is a justification made-up out of the desire to kill and torture other human beings. Recall it was once the justification used to enslave them."

The whole don't murder argument is a made-up justification for preventing killing and torturing. Sure, all of this is in some way 'made up' but it is a real system of logic and law. The argument of when someone is a 'person' is central to our understnading of humanity and the basis for our natural rights - I'm sorry you don't want to engage in that disucssion but dismiss it. Luckily, philosophers and theologeans have been more generous in engaging in this discussion so that we can have a basis for societal structure.

In our legal system and can both be the perpetrator and victim of crimes.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Cause that is the only case I can think of and they are a specific legal structure consisting of actual persons (they cannot consist of dead persons for example).

One cannot measure things like "sentience" or "higher brain function" in the unborn. Certainly no court has declared it as a standard for their protection or for their inclusion as a "person." Sadly, the federal judges we have have only opined birth as warranting such inclusion.

Fortunately, philosophers and theologians do not make our laws except to the extent that citizens and their elected officials find their arguments appealing. Any of their arguments that have not made it into stuate or Constitutional provision should remain nonbinding.

The term "person" should be universally adopted as that in the "vernacular." No one should have to be a lawyer or college graduate to be able to read and understand it. Certainly it cannot be central to "our" understanding of anything if it is not even understood, much less accepted, by "us." No one should need a "person" standard when he or she can use common sense, assuming he or she has any.

The term 'person' should be universally as someone who has been born - I think non-lawyers can understand that too. I assume anyone using common sense would agree with this or else they must not have any. Glad we settled that thousands year old question.

Seeing as the romans and the greeks and many other civilizations didn't consider a baby to be a person until a considerable period after birth. In the case of the Romans the second year.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I never suggested that this is has always been the view - you are correct that their have been times when even born babies were not yet afforded the protections as citizens. This is normally associted with the high infant mortality rate - in Judaism you don't mourn for an infant who dies before 30 days as an example.

I appreciate symbolic gestures that bring attention to important issues, but, at some point, Congress should really start focusing on things that matter.

An act of Congress redefining "persons" under the Constitution, even if it were to pass, is meaningless. The only way to overturn Supreme Court precedent on the issue of whether an unborn child qualifies as a "person" under the Constitution--other than creating new precedent, of course--is to amend the Constitution.

I assume this law is simply intended to provide an avenue for the Court to reevaluate its precedent, but I'm not sure it would even do that. Congress simply doesn't have the power to amend the Constitution via federa law or declare what the Constitution says via federal law. Could the current debate in the Supreme Court about the meaning of the Second Amendment have been arrived at simply by having Congress declare that the Second Amendment confers a personal right to bear arms? What purpose would that serve? Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to pass such a law?

I suppose in this instance a person could bring a 1983 action on behalf of an endangered fetus, but there's nothing stopping a person from doing that right now. The effort would be evaluated on its merits under the Constitution. This law would in fact be irrelevant in that determination.

Moreover, if this act could withstand challenge in the Court (in which case it would simply be deemed consistent with what the Constituion already says), it would do a lot more than outlaw abortion. It would outlaw artificial insemination, since that procedure inevitably leads to the destruction of some embryos (not every egg implanted results in a pregnancy, and even naturally-fertilized eggs do not always take hold in the womb).

It would also raise other questions. As "persons," would every currently fertilized egg in a clinic have the right to be implanted in a woman's womb? Would clinics simply be required to keep the eggs frozen for eternity?

Disclaimer: I would not support this legislation because I do not believe a cluster of cells qualifies as a "person" deserving of protection under the Constitution.

I note you don't want Congress to redefine what a "person" is...

I wonder, how do you feel about them changing the definition of marriage is?

Or how about how they define "patriotism" to mean p*ssing on our institutions like the military?

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. If it were, any federal law declaring how that term should be defined for the purpose of interpreting it in the Constitutional provision in which it is mentioned would simply be outside the scope of Congress's authority.

I'm not aware of any federal laws defining patriotism. Could you please provide a link or citation of some kind?

You are a Clintonista. I guess it depends on the definition of is is huh?

Well here's a hint, EVERYONE knows what those words mean... except Democrats when they are in fear of losing try to change them.

Congress and Legislatures define words all the time. Words have meanings when involved in legislation. We know what abortion means as it is codified. We know what murder is as it's codified.

It's interesting how LiberalGators are interested in keeping the courts involved in areas of policy they know they'll lose in the court of public opinion.

I do not respond to personal attacks or statements which impute the motives of others. I assume you love this country as much as I do and only want what is best for it. I hope you will take another look at my comments above and perhaps do some research about the difference between federal laws and constitutional amendments. Maybe then we can have a real, intellectually-honest discussion.

Look at the tax code. Look at statutes involving survivorship...

They are very clearly defined. It's why your side of the aisle wants a court to change the definition, because a clear majority (a rather large one) is quite happy with the definition the way it is.

If you want to talk about civil unions or other provisions to grant same sex couples the rights (oh, and the responsibilities, that's a word the Left hates btw) of same-sex couples, than that's a discussion for a different thread.

I have already said that is a discussion for another thread. Moreover, the tax code is a federal law. It is quite within the authority of Congress to amend that law however it chooses. It is also within the authority of state legislatures to amend laws relating to survivorship. I fail to see how that is relevant to the discussion here.

That could pose problems down the road if the only reason for redefining a "person" is to prohibit abortions. Then you would have to deal with rights in addition to that of life that could lead to unintended future consequences.

It's best to keep individual laws specific and narrow. I've always been of the mind that if a single law to be voted on in Congress cannot be thoroughly written in one or two pages, it shouldn't be written, much less passed. I would imagine there would need to be some exceptions, but that should be the rule.

Congressman

With respect, where are the exemptions for Rape, Incest and the Life of the mother in your resolution?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Does the fact that a person is the offspring of a mother who was raped, or who married her cousin, give you the right to murder him? If not (hint: the answer is "No."), then a pregnant woman would not have the right to murder her unborn child, a "person," simply because that child is the product of rape or incest.

As for the life of the mother exception, it presents the age-old question about when a person has the right to kill someone in order to save his own life. Anyone who's gone to law school will recall the case of the stranded sailors who killed and ate their young comrade and were later rescued.

A related question often posed by liberals who oppose the definition proposed by this act is: If you were in a burning building and could save either ONE 2-year-old child or a box of TEN embryos, which would you save?

No! In this case, it is NOT a RonPaul™ supporter.

If you would like to explain your disagreement, rather than simply attack my intelligence, I will gladly respond.

He also mentions the unusual argument that the HLA is actually the RRA (Rapist's Rights Amendment) because it gives rapists the right to choose the mothers of their children.

I haven't actually heard a Democrat use this argument yet.

Marvin'08!

Sure - you say "sanctity of human life" now. Next year it'll be the sanctity of human pets, then the sanctity of seamonkeys and chick-peas. Maybe even the sanctity of terrorists' lives. Pretty soon, "sanctity" will lose the traditional meaning that's been an institution for thousands of years. This resolution is an assault on sanctity.

Marvin'08!

Litigator

I think you will find only limited support for your postion, although very committed to your cause, for any sort of legislation that does not have as a minimum the above exemptions.

The absolute position on abortion that you seem to promote is not well supported in the general population in general and I wonder aloud how much real support there is in the Republican party for a hard stance on abortion that you are promoting. Stand back and look at ALL the Republican candidates for President still in the race.

Sam Brownback was the only one who supports your position, ignoring the Allan Keys sham candidacy, and Brownback could not garner enough support to stay in the race.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

That is not my position. I am against this proposed legislation (please see above comments). I was simply answering the poster's question. Under this act, any fertilized egg is a "person." If one accepts that reasoning, then rape and incest are not sufficient justification for destroying a fertilized egg because every fertilized egg would have the same rights we have.

I agree with you. If the Congressman is trying to outlaw abortion, then this is not the way to go. Giving equal rights to every fertilized egg at the moment of conception would attract very little support. As a symbolic gesture with no chance of passing or withstanding a challenge in Court, though, I imagine it could receive a number of protest votes.

The States' Right arugment was used back in the Civil War: Let the states decide what to do with slaves. Of course, we needed the 14th Amendment to "free the slaves."

The same is true for life. Pro-life does not just mean anti-abortion. It means that every single human life as value-- whether that life be unborn or 95 (which is what the HLA would say).

If abortion is not "wrong," then why should the states be able to take that "right" away? (A reason must be given or the Democrats will tear the Republican apart saying, "You just want to take a woman's right to choose away.") If abortion is the taking of a life, then how can one NOT fight for an amendment? (By the way, of course, it starts with overtuning Roe, but it does not end there.)

Lastly, the whole debate over the HLA is the very reason we need a candidate that can look at the democratic candidate and say this, ""I believe there will come a time when we hopefully will mature enough as a nation that we will decide that every human life – whether it's white, black, male, female or in the gestation stage, or whether it's 80 years old and unable to speak – is a life that is deserving of respect and dignity.?" Mike Huckabee"

If one believes that a zygote or an embryo is a human person, even at the moment of conception, then he or she would certainly be required to support such an amendment to the Constitution.

Most "pro-choicers," however, point to scientific consensus about when higher brain functions begin--i.e., when the fetus becomes sentient and is able to think and feel pain. Most scientists believe this happens at 26 weeks, which is also, incidentally, the point at which a prematurely born child has a 50% chance of survival. At this point, I believe aborting a child (instead of, for instance, inducing premature labor) would be murder and could only be justified to save the life of the mother. Less than 1% of abortions happen after 26 weeks.

I say "consensus," but I recognize that there are some pro-life physicians who believe a fetus can feel pain earlier. I think a lot of the hysteria surrounding this issue can be avoided by debating when a human life becomes a human person, a debate which rarely occurs.

Forgive me if someone has already raised this potential:

To solve the problem of abortion and the emotional garbage it is supported by, there needs to be only a single act. 'Define Life'. There is absolutely, NO definition of life.

When 'life' is defined, it can then be determined when it is not defined, scientifically. That will end all discussion of any abortion right, period, but not by addressing abortion.

If someone doesn't beat me to it, I plan to spearhead a scientific effort to define life, in the near future. (It would have been done already, had I not had to wait on a slow court process.)

Anyone with the resources to start such a quest, would not require a great deal of money to do it. It would require knowing where to look, and that alone is a matter of question, but I do believe current scientific progress permits reasonably knowledgeable criteria from which to start.

Once life is defined, the question of when life begins is an empirical issue, as is the question of when life is no longer present in the body, thereby defining death, which would preclude the argument of 'quality of life'. Life is a binary condition. 'On' is quality.

Should someone take on the challenge before I can, I wish them well.

In the meantime, Constitutional amendments, and laws that will be struck down as the academic exercise they are by courts who need precedent higher than the perceived right to privacy, will be introduced, argued and dismissed through partisan political gain.

The solution to life, is to define it, once and for all, where scientific, empirical evidence cannot be disputed. Then the whole issue of precedent is overshadowed by the safely ensconced 'right to retain life' through the prohibition of murder.

Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com

Life has a scientific and legal definition - not an intersting area of inquiry nor does it remotely address the issue of abortion.

The term you need to define is 'person' and this is not a scientific but legal/moral exercise.

So I missed responding to one important issue raised:

"...not an intersting area of inquiry nor does it remotely address the issue of abortion"

So... If we had a problem with cars stopping on the freeway, the issue of whether or not they were running out of gas would not be important?

What gas is would not be important?

Now I understand why abortionists have gotten away with the lie for so long.

The definition of what life is, eliminates the taking of it, regardless of when it may be. Either life is, or it is not. If it is, then killing it is homocide. If it is not, then it is not. One cannot kill a pile of dirt, whether it is crushed underground or above the garden's wall.

One cannot change the emotional reaction of desperate people, but one can stand in the way of their causing harm to another. Unless life itself is defined as to 'what' it is, the question will not be solved.

Sorry I missed this one earlier.

Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com

Well that is a silly non sequiter. Anyway to the relevant part -

"The definition of what life is, eliminates the taking of it, regardless of when it may be."
This is babbling nonesense - and that is me trying to be generous.

"Either life is, or it is not."
A=A, so what? Either the unicron is or is not.

"If it is, then killing it is homocide"
And here is where your babble turns to faslehood. Homocide requires the killing of a person, not the cessation of life per se. The entire argument around abortion is when do we regard it as a person - not whether the fetus is a living organism; nobody disputes that. Put another way, a deer shows the attributres generally associated with life - when I kill the deer I have no committed homocide.

"One cannot change the emotional reaction of desperate people"
I doubt this is true - I've seen good speakers redirect the emotion of a crowd towards conclusions they want. But this is a discussion for another time I guess.

Hello. Life has LONG been defined scientifically and biologically as beginning at fertilization. There is no disagreement, and no person who has finished middle school could reasonably disagree.

I've tried saying this a million times, and I'll say it again. People do not "believe" when life begins. It is a definite scientific fact. Even the abortionists will tell you it begins at fertilization.

It's as much a scientific fact as the sun's being a star.

People can only debate the value of human life, not what it is or when it begins.

Allow me to respond to both postings in this one:

The arguments you both present are inductive in nature. I did not say to define when life is present "beginning at fertilization" . The assertion that life has a 'scientific and legal definition' is false. Inductively false. A legal definition is based on when, not what and that is susceptible to the whim of the prevailing consensus.

And there is literally NO scientific definition of what life is, let alone when it exists or does not exist, there is only theory of when, without a single attribute paid to what. Inducing from my statement that life is 'when' is not possible, when the topic was 'what' life is.

The topic was not the definition of 'person'. And that topic could never be a 'legal/moral exercise' unless the result is an inductive assertion that cause and effect are not relevant to anything but observation. (Which would lump that person in with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, and require the disregard of reality unless a person is able to observe it, which would mean nothing can exist until it is seen to exist, so it must only exist once it is observed, which means it cannot exist to be observed.)

To decry life as being defined as 'when' it happens (beginning at fertilization) is to ignore 'what' it is, or is not. To assert that 'no person who has finished middle school could reasonably disagree' is absurd and I surely hope the writer will bother to parse logic in depth before asserting an absurdity of the lack of it.

Deduction requires fact. Induction requires nothing but comfort.

So I am to presume, that the topic of 'what' life is does not matter to the writers, both of which are sufficiently absorbed by when it is.

To think that life has a value, that relates to anything that is not life, or relates to any other life, is to place that value on when, and not on what. If the topic is to be 'what' then the argument still holds: Life either is, or is not. A plant is either alive or is not alive. A rock cannot be dead as it has never had life. There is no scientific theory, study or remotely even a guess as to what life is. When there is, perhaps those who induce will be forced to deduce and the argument of what constitutes life, will overcome when it is life.

To think that life is 'when' is to support the argument of abortion, as life is not life to pro-abortionists until the body that is alive is delivered into physical view and severed from it's host food source. You are arguing for abortion when you ignore what, in order to assume 'when' has any meaning whatsoever.

But I respect your doing so.

Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com

You are wrong. Life is a biological and scientific term and thus has a biological and scientific defintion. It's usually part of the middle or high school cirriculum. They teach the characteristics that are sufficient to define life. It is the very foundation of biology. Without the definition, there could be no such thing as biology.

It's like defining the sun as a star. One would have to be a nut to say that people could disagree.

People may argue on when life has value (and how much) instead of whether it does. The argument is about value, not a defintion which is and has long been scientifically established.

Life is a scientific term, so it has to have a scientific defintion. It does. By that defintion, and by the agreement of all biologists, human life begins at fertilization. There is no question, and "disagreeing" is not one bit different from disagreeing on whether the sun is a star.

life by kyle8

is a delicious golden cake twinkie.

that's my philosophy

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Your argument is just the latest confirmation that all arguments for abortion can also be made as arguments to justify the killing of humans, especially the severely disabled, outside the womb.

ALL arguments.

Yours requires "physical view" and "severed from a food source".

try again or can the blind kill every patient hooked to an IV for food?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Wouldn't an argument based on the idea that a fetus is not a human being be an exception to that?

Marvin'08!

That is not an argument because it is blatantly false.

human being can also apply to such beings outside the womb.

Beleive me, I 've tried all this. I was a pro-choicer in college in the 80s and thru the late 90s. Of course, I always knew what was being done. I wanted consequenceless sex like everyone else that argues for the "right." Makes making the bmw payments easier.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

...because I don't really support that sort of position.

But couldn't one also reasonably say something like, "All arguments against abortion can also be used as arguments that killing plants is wrong?"

Marvin'08!

No because plants are not human. It's called DNA. Of course, we also have the fact that the child looks undeniably human by the 8th week at most, but that is not relevant.

DNA identifies the species (human), and the biological criteria (intake of nutrients, exchange of gases, etc.) identifies life.

The simple answer seems to be no.
The reason - also seemingly simple - there is a clear distinction between human life and life in general (plant life, animal life). I don't think even abortion proponents would claim that a tree is the scientific/moral/legal equivalent of a human being. So I don't see how it could requisitely follow that a pro-life position would also require that we not kill plants.

I'm not making an argument about being human. Like gamecock, I'm positing something about the sorts of arguments you can make about abortion being unjustifiable. So you'd have to actually make an argument that's an exception to what I'm positing to see if it holds for that argument.

Marvin'08!

I don't understand. If you aren't arguing about being human, what are you arguing for.

"All arguments for abortion can also be made as arguments to justify the killing of humans, especially the severely disabled, outside the womb"

I speculated that an argument based on a fetus not being human might be an exception to that. He said that I'd run into trouble when I tried to say how the fetus not being human made abortion justifiable (I paraphrase - feel free to correct me, Mike).

So I posited something like the reverse of his argument:

"All arguments against abortion can also be used as arguments that killing plants is wrong?"

The idea being that you'd run into trouble when you tried to say how the fetus/embryo being human made abortion unjustifiable.

Marvin'08!

I would say it makes it unjustifiable for the same reason it is unjustifiable to kill a born human.

...the same reason why it's not justifiable to kill a stalk of wheat?

The question is: what's the reason?

Marvin'08!

I would ask someone who asked such a question why he or she opposed killing born humans (but not wheat), and then I would give the same reason as being the one that killing unborn humans is unjust.

...if my supposition is correct, that their reason was also applicable to the wheat.

But if you did come up with a reason that broke my supposition, Mike would probably be interested to hear it, because you could likely reverse it to break his supposition.

Marvin'08!

I guess I just don't understand the question then. Someone who can't see the difference between killing a living human and killing a plant needs to be institutionalized.

...your comments further above, I'd say that you do understand. It's about what we value. Mike may be right, but it doesn't mean much if we value disabled people more than human embryos. By the same token, my point may be right, but it doesn't mean much if we value human embryos more than stalks of wheat.

Marvin'08!

..."wanting consequenceless sex" doesn't begin to cover people's reasons for wanting an abortion.

Marvin'08!

That humans have any natural rights, we have the rights we defend and take for ourselves. Now I see abortion as strictly a state issue, that should be left to the states. Imposing a one shoe fit all policy has left the country spending years fighting each other over an issue that could be solved by letting states decide their position on it.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

is the basis for our constitution, our jurisprudence, and our entire raison d'etra. Without natural rights you have only mob rule and ultimately big brother.

suggestive reading: John Locke, Russel Kirk, Thomas Jefferson, Leo Strauss

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

ment. You just put humans on the level with animals, the born of which we regularly kill to eat or just get rid of.

What makes human life special from conception to natural death is that we are made in the image of a God who loves us.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I'd think that even non-religious people would value human life over animal life. I guess that was a bad assumption on my part.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party ! Pastafarianism anyone?

they had CAT FOOD on the shelves. Now, why would ANYONE want to feed cats? If you feed them, they will just hang around!

Sometimes it is hard to understand humans. Now Chinese food -- that's different!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

I don't buy the stuff -- but my human makes me eat it!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Let me clarify. One would have to accept the killing of humans until a couple of years after birth to be consistent with the idea that "higher brain function" should make humans unique as "persons." Or, one would have to concede that no animal could be killed that had measurable brain function comparable to a human at a particular stage. And by the latter argument, animals would have to qualify as "persons." Neither is the case, and almost no one but a few tiny fringe groups would accept either.

I'm merely trying to point out the inconsistent, illogical, and unworkable notion that "higher brain function" or "sentience" counts for anything. It does not, even for those who say it does.

let me point out that THIS conservative dog has a higher brain function than most human liberals. Perhaps there should be some type of test that could be administered to determine relative status.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Humans are sentient, and self aware, therefore making them different than animals. IF a human is not sentient, due to being mentally deficient, or whatever, it makes no difference. They are accorded the same rights and respect by virtue of being human, even it they are currently unable to perform as well as most humans. They are still fundamentally different than animals.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You just made the argument for protecting the unborn. If they are "currently" unable to perform as well, then they should be accorded rights by the virtue of being human. The unborn are humans who are "unable to perform as well as most humans," so the need to protect them still holds.

Second, as far as we know, some animals have about the same "sentience" or "self awareness" that newborn humans do. Who knows how much one is "self aware" without the physical ability to communicate it?

it does not matter one bit if a clever animal is smarter than some human.

Humans have self awareness, animals do not. Therefore ALL humans are treated like humans and animals are treated in a manner appropriate to that animal. No need for convoluted reasoning, or legalisms, or measuring any individual capacity.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

That's exactly what I understood you to say, and it must include the protection of unborn humans, since they are humans too.

your original post was hard to understand

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service