Abortion

//I think you mean ever not never here bud.....//
Hmmm... you sure?
"less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs never make it to birth."
"less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs ever make it to birth."
"less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs make it to birth."I think I should just leave out both.
lolbrett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.

//But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception.//
Thats a hoot.
Where exaclty does a fertilized egg reside, Newark? //Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk).//
Sorry, Lee, but rights dont work like that.
This is why even Death Row inmates still have rights.
At best what you have is a complicated dance of who's rights take precedence during any given time.
Not unlike what exists now.Its not an "either/or" situation.//If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue.//
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Even assuming that the US government altered the Constitution in such a way, the rights of the woman are not suddenly rendered moot.//Please make an attempt to be intellectually honest as the beggining of a human life form is not a matter of "philosophy".//
Ah, but most certainly it is, Lee.
For several reasons.
There is not "point" of conception.
It is a process that takes many, many hours.
And the only thing "created" at conception that doesnt exist prior is a unique set of DNA.
DNA does not equal "life".
If it did, a removed kidney would suddenly become "a human being".//Certainly we can differ as to when we feel life begins but "life begins at 40", I hope, was done purely for humerous effect.//
Yes and no.
As I pointed out, any valid philosophical argument can be made for any point in time.
And from a philosophical perspective '40' is perfectly acceptable.//I'll concede that the allowance of the death penalty (although distinguishable from abortion) is contrary to the maxim that all life is sacred.//
You'd be amazed at those who dont see the contradiction.//I am personally against the death penalty but the allowance of the death penalty within the United States does not negate the fact that abortion is murder if one deems that life begins at the moment of conception (it's the old addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" to be overly simplistic)//
Absolutely correct... *if* ones deems it so.
However, let me point out, that to expand the definition of legal personhood back to conception will require a requsite expansion of juridisprudence.
Making such a change would, IMO, unduly burden out current legal system to no real benefit to anyone except lawyers.//Although your point is well taken it deviates from the issue at hand, namely when life begins?//
No, Lee, it deviated from your attempt to frame the issue as such.
I dont agree with that particular characterization and whenever I hear someone espouse this perspective what I inevitably encounter is a lack of forethought relevent to responsibility for the reality of the situation.
Namely, 80% of fertilized eggs do not reach birth.
Now who is responsible, how will that responsibility be determined and what punishment shall they receive?//The fact that a fertilized egg, or human in my humble opinion, has a low level of "survival", does not negate the fact that it is a human life.//
And I quite agree since that wasnt my point.
What I want to know, is who is responsible for all those deaths?
Again, if an 80% mortality rate for newborns existed, there would be little doubt that extreme action would be taken to determine the reason.
It isnt unreasonable to ask that they same action be taken for those newly endowed fertilized eggs.//Science is not my specialty so I do not know the fundamental reason(s) as to why fertilized eggs only have a 20% survival rate (assuming your information is correct) but it is a problem that should be researched.//
Its a variety of reasons... anything from fundamenal genetic incompatibility with life to inappropriate behaviour from the woman, ie., smoking, drinking, heavy exercise to disease.//Although you bring up a valid point regarding the "political aspect" of my position, the difficulty of Congress and / or society accepting my position does not enhance or detract from its validity.//
From a philosophical perspective, I quite agree.
However, since to be "effective" this would have to be implemented by law, I see no way to get around it.
Short of some form of dictatorship, that is.//It is more than compelling if you determine that a human life is within that mother.//
No, actually, not really.
Because in the end you are simply refusing to address the issue of the womans rights.
A pregnancy does not take place in a moral/ethical/physical vacuum.//You allude here to the standard of strict scrutiny (compelling), and the governemnt certainly has a compelling governemntal interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (again assuming you accept my position that at conception life begins) even against the interests of their own mother.//
The key phrase there is *citizens*, of course.
And I adamantly agree with that concept.As the Roe V Wade decision pointed out, the Justices were unwilling to set up a conflict between the intersts of the woman and that of her fetus... except after a point, late into a pregnancy, when it was moot.And as our elected representatives have demonstrated, none want to touch this with a 100 foot pole.//The Constitution does not mention the concept of "birth" in any way whatsoever, rather that is the Constitution as interpreted through the Supreme Court which, as we all know, is subject to change.//
Au contraire.
Amendment XIV: 1. All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.And as a side note, the construction of our government, with three branches, was such that changes to the Constitution and its interpretation are an intrinsic to it.//Certainly you cannot make the valid arguement that the Framers of our Constitution envisioned a society where a woman would be able to terminate her own pregnancy at her own discretion for any reason and were in support of same.//
Why not?
"Womens issues" were not exactly on the forefront of the minds of the menfolk of the time.
Laws governing abortion in the Colonies were haphazard at best and constituted no sweeping, generalized view.It wasnt until the advent of the nascent science of Medicine that competing Doctors, men, got laws passed to allow them to replace Midwives as the authority if choice for women.And regardless of what our Forefathers thought of the issue when the country was created, the fact of the matter is that right now, given the interpretation of the Constitution and its Ammendments that enables our current *liberal* individual liberties, such a notion is properly in line with such interpretation.//Any constitutional scholar who is intellectually honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is an extremely weak decision and the Court refused to answer the very question that began my post "when does life begin?", (read the case) the critical issue to this debate.//
I quite agree.
The Roe decision is a compromise at best.It should have simply determined that the state had no business in a womans reproductive decisions, at all, and left it at that.It isnt within the SCOTUS's pervue to decide when life begins.
This is explained the the Roe decision.That falls squarely into the lap of Congress... which is why it will never happen.
Congress is unwilling to actually tackle an issue until it becomes monsterously obvious that it is something the US people want.
Example: Congress finally addresses election funding reform after polls determine 75% of the US wants changes to occur.//Again this not a debate about "woman's rights" and I am not trying to negate them.//
Lee, this issue can *ONLY* be about womens rights.
Until inexpensive artificial wombs are the norm, a woman will always be needed as a recepticle for a zef.//But, once one determines that an individual human life exists at the time a fertilized egg is within that mother, her rights become subjected to that other human life.//
No.
As I explained above.And since there is no precedence for this you'll absolutely have to do a better job of making your argument more compelling.//Your point is well taken.//
Thank you for understanding that.
Some people get very defensive when the weaknesses of their argument are pointed out to them.//Of course Pro-Lifers are the moving force but that has no bearing upon the points I raise and the issues at hand.//
I quite agree... from a philosophical perspective, the religious affliation of the "Pro-Life" perspective isnt relevent.
However, there is absolutely no denying that the movement is dominated by those who justify it with their religious beliefs.//I have not once brought up religious principles in my discussion.//
And as with Mister Pampoli, I appreciate that.brett------------------
Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.