Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

It wasn't a rant, and it was the truth. Something doesn't become a strawman, just because youwrote it. Just like your "leagal definition of life" would be correct, just because you wrote it, or thought of it.The whole thing was utterly ridiculous, and you obviously missed all my points, even the one I agreed with you on. I don't feel I should waste my time explaining this to you, as this should have been done by your mother and father.But I will explain it to you under one condition. If we through inteliigent conversation prove that your "legal definition of life is in fact not the opposite of the "legal definition of death" then you must change your stance on abortion.Well?

If we put as much effort into our society teaching ourselves morals, as we do fighting over the abortion issue, that number could be reversed.

please start another topic to discuss rape eh?
take it to coffee house?thanks

I agree that the morning after pill should be as available as any night before treatment, but I disagree about how simply it works. There are sever cramps and discomfort could be an understatement for the period of action. This is why I say that anyone that uses one will be more cautious about using {before measures} to control the pregnancy issue.And that is a good thing too eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the argument, usually as some simplified caricature that can be easily knocked down, it is shown to be a strawman by showing that the real argument is more than the caricature of it used by the strawman argument.I did that. No, it is because it is based on the legal definition of death used for organ transplants while there is still life in the body organs, but the part that makes us human is definitely dead and beyond the help of medical science to revive.It is based on an agreed on moral standard use by our society for calling an end to the {life of a person} while a benefit can be derived to the lives of others through manipulation of living cell material (organs). These organs are not themselves dead (yet), so this definition of death is not a complete cessation of all life in the body.Morally the standard for calling a start to the {life of a person} cannot be different from it (the end), or it is a double standard.And when it is not easy to determine {life or death} by the legal definition standard then we have to agree on who gets to make the judgement call. Morally the standard for who makes decisions for a person on life support and unable to answer for themselves must fall to the same people at the {start to the {life of a person}} as is used at the {end to the {life of a person}} or it is a double standard, and thus it must be the appropriate surrogates, the family involved.Logically we must view the beginning and the end with the same level of definition and also respect and honor the wide variety in the beliefs of the people involved.That is the logic basis of the argument. Logic that you have not yet attempted to attack. If you can show a logical error then a modification of the postition would be logical to correct that error.You get back an argument based on the argument you make. If you want a more intelligent conversation, all you have to do is start on that basis.Enjoy. btw -- I have edited the original, adding text in pink (like this), to further clarify points that you appear to have missed in your first response.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-30-2005 10:49 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And how will you distinguish those cases from the rest? I'm not just talking about criminaly prosecuted acts of rape, here.

So get off the computer and do something about it. So too with abortion - if you pro-lifers spent as much time educating people about sexual responsibility and contraception as you did spouting inflammatory and scientifically dubious rhetoric, you could halve the number of abortions every year. Telling people to choose not to have sex has abolutely no effect.Oh, and a tip from "Dogbert's Guide to Conversational Geometry": "Reversing" that figure would mean one third of women would not be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, or that two thirds of women would. But I know what you meant.

Yes, I know exactly what a strawman is, and my reply was not. Let's start here. First off the definition of death assumes that you have had the chance to develop into a full grown organism.Do you agree?

There has to be a determination made by the medical society as to when a pregancy is life threatening. This would be made known to the mother, and then the decsion could be hers, and it would be legal.It's the same thing if you get an aputation to protect you from a desease in your foot or something.Obviously the life of the mother should come first.

*sigh*
I am on the computer doing it, and off.
It is my life now to spread the love of Jesus Christ.The church has pretty well screwd up a lot of minds. I was one of those victims. My pastor blames himself, even though I think he is not responsible.It's up to us, yes, your right.But remember, when you point the finger at me, there are 4 pointing back at yourself.peace.

All pregnancies are life-threatening. The degree of risk varies from case to case, but it is always present.Pregnancy always exposes the woman to risk.Doctors are not perfect. They make mistakes. Or a doctor may refuse to disclose a risky pregnancy because he's ideologically opposed to a woman having an abortion, for any reason. You're asking a woman to literally put her life in the hands of another person, without her choosing to do so. That's unacceptable.

Unless I point with an open hand, which I then use to bitch-slap your ass. 0wn3d!

no, the first definition assumes nothing but the existence of the brain and the lungs. it is a criteria. it is also used on still-borns and the like.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-30-2005 21:28 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

(pssst) can you make that 3? usually my thumb is pointing with the pointer finger (bang bang)
F

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Obviously you have trouble comprehending what I say. This makes it difficult to have intelligent conversation.You just ignored the fact that I said:

quote:

---

and then the decsion could be hers,

---

*edit for spelling*This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 01-30-2005 22:10 AM