Abortion

Hey holmes,I finally found time to get back to this. It turned into a pretty long post--so long that I"m unwilling to re-read it. I'd strongly suggest you go to the bottom, and start with the last section (starting at the last quoted box). That should summarize things and make it unnecessary to really examine all sections of this post.Sorry about that. And thanks for the kind words as well.---- Because a large part of our population finds it to be killing. Whether you want to call it imposing "morals" or not is irrelevant--different groups of people find different things "moral" or not. It's imposing a limitation on behavior without reason. Again, it's not what's behind the request for limitation that matters, it's the request itself. Just like it doesn't matter why your (generic) girlfriend gets upset. Whether she's right or wrong, taking a good perspective or not, she's upset. And that needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure. I would suggest (as a compromise) that a rate of incidence of abortion be established. If the rate is exceeded, penalties need to be increased. If it's not exceeded, then penalties can be reduced. Assuming in general that a penalty causes people to avoid the behavior more. ...I think this is a good idea, but it just depends what alternatives are being brought to the table. If they have to do with facilitation of extramarital sex, I have a feeling they're not going to fly well with the population you're negotiating with. I'm cool with this description, but ... I just don't see that it's the practice. To use an example that you've brought up yourself, adults aren't free to have sexual relationships with minors. I'm not allowed to walk around naked. Heck, without shoes and shirt, I get no service. Racism... religious oppression... blah blah blah.Again, I feel like you're proposing we start from scratch. But if we don't start from scratch... we're working off of a base that is not so pure. There are lots of LLP-infringing written laws and unwritten practices. The Bill of Rights is a nice ideal to work towards. And it's a nice anchor to get idealists (both religious and not) to be able to get together and force a compromise which meets neither of their ideals. But when ideals are in conflict, when both groups approach it at the level of emotion of killing... a compromise has to be reached. Even when it infringes upon the Bill of Rights. I'm suddenly interested to know more. I don't need goodies man. But by the same logic, killing anybody that's within your own family should be OK too. But... that's just an unrelated thought.I agree with you, it's not a common issue and need not be dealt with by government. But we've already done it. We've already made the abstraction in government that all killing is punishable. Overstepping that boundary has already happened. You'd have to work to allow some types of killing (such as infanticide, or maybe killing older members of your family as well) in order to remove that abstraction.Once that boundary has been crossed, then I think you can't make this argument any more. It just becomes another "yeah... shouldn't... but does." Just as a note (not sure if it's too related), but I disagree with this. Seeing or hearing something directly isn't necessarily less invasive than hearing about it later. If it can bother somebody to see it, it can also bother them to simply know that it ever happened. A lot depends on the prior experience of the individual as to what effects news may have on them. But I think it's dangerous to discount what is not "immediate." Violation of morals or triggering recall of past events are both very strong emotional forces... as far as I can tell. I totally disagree. I think it has everythign to do with the power of the group, which is probably significantly correlated with population size. Think of rats. Rats are the cockroaches of yesteryear, are they not? Squirrels too. Yet shooting them for fun, or even using them for research somehow became controversial and emotionally intense. Now there's all sorts of legal hoops to jump through to do research, and animal protection laws for rats, etc... You're simply talking from a different perspective. It all depends on how you define "person." Maybe that's exactly where the compromise needs to happen. Once "person" is defined, maybe many of these laws and regulation issues fall right into place. But as it stands now, I think the definition of person is not agreed upon.Although maybe those who are against abortion can start getting more upset about fertilized eggs that don't implant? I would expect them to be more upset about that issue. But whatever... their definition of person doesn't have to be logical. Oops. I guess that's the problem with responding as you read... you write something... then find it already written by the original poster. That's definitely the first question in my eyes as well. And my answer is, you ignore the reasons behind what is "offensive", and you address the difference via compromise. I learned this through dealing with my girlfriend. When somemthing is based on emotion, no amount of reason is going to change their mind. The emotion must be accepted for its simple existence, and a solution must be made with that as the starting point.What is "offensive" is exactly this--a level of trigger of emotion. So it operates by the same mechanism. In time, what is considered "offensive" can change, but it doesn't change via reason. It changes via experience, only through time.So I think acceptance and moving towards compromise is the right way to handle the situation you posed. I'm not sure if this came through above or in my previous posts, but I do agree with this. What I'm trying to show is that the point at which you choose to stand up and refuse to compromise is ... hard to justify.
- You can't justify it by the Bill of Rights, because... it's already been violated in exactly the way you're trying to use it to hold steady.
- You can't justify it based on your own definition of "what is a person" because there's been no agreement on that (and definitions need not be reasoned, another group's definition of person is as valid. Not scientifically valid, but valid for the purpose of establishing lifestyle choices and policy).
- You can't justify it by saying such a policy allows law to be established on basically any random item considered offensive, because our law does.You can choose to stand up at any time and refuse to compromise... but that just means the conflict remains unresolved, and the regular ways of dealing with it (violence, political strongarming, corruption, underground operations, etc) continue. In the worst case, standing up leads to civil war.I'd rather compromise my ideals than work with these practical consequences. And just for the same reason, I'm all for legalizing drugs. But.. I should take that back to the drug thread.Ben

Just a quick note: The problem is that you are only punishing 1/2 of the people responsible.What about DNA testing to determine paternity and doing a surgical procedure to reduce the worlds number of {sperm bags} by one for every abortion?That will get some people's attention eh?Enjoy.

---

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

Excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for the note; somehow it's always easy to forget about the guy.

I have to disagree with this. Just because one party is upset about a situation does not mean the other party must compromise. For example, a 4 year old can be upset that they can't eat candy all day, the parents don't have to (and shouldn't) compromise their possition.My problem with the strict anti-abortion crowd is that their argument is disingenuous. The majority of the pro-life moment argue that abortion should be illegal in all cases except rape and incest. A few argue it should be illegal in all cases - Alan Keyes for example, and I have less of a problem with this argument.If abortion is murder, then why are we murdering children because their father's are rapists? We don't jail the children of thieves.Even looking at it as a balance, a murder is certainly worse than a rape, and you aren't going to "correct" the rape by murdering the innocent child.This double standard indicates to me that the issue is not so much the life of the unborn child, but the method of which the woman got pregnant. If she was "forced" into it, then it wasn't her fault. But if she is a slut, she should have to deal with the consequences. That's legislating morality.Additionally, I can't help but noticing that the "Illegal except in the case of rape..." crowd seems to be predominantly white and Southern. Could it be that "rape" here still carries with it, however subliminal, the image of a black man and a white woman. Are they really saying, "My daughter would never get an abortion, but if it's gonna be a black baby, that's a different matter."No one is coming out and saying this, but that undercurrent is alive and well in the American South.Lastely, still on the disingenuous point, I hear tales all the time of women protesting abortion clinics for months on end, then walking inside to have one. It seems that one's possition on the matter is very dependant on their personal circumstances.How many pro-life families have forced their pregnant 13 year old daughters to go through with it, versus how many have opted out. I wonder

Hey Nuggin,Thanks for the reply. I'll try to get right to the point. Sorry if I start sounding repetetive... I said explicitly at the end that you can always choose not to compromise. I was trying to make 2 points: 1. Refusing compromise, in this case, can't be justified, and 2. that not compromising leads to violence, underground activity, etc. Well yes, but this example is not related. I'm talking about how peers need to deal with each other. Parent-child relationship is a lot different than two neighbors who have to live next to each other. I agree completely with what you say about rape vs. non-rape produced babies. It doesn't make any sense, and it should be questioned.But why does this matter for making policy? I tried to emphasize in my post that the reasoning, or lack of it, is no grounds to refuse to compromise with your neighbor. Your neighbor can have the most illogical position possible. One person's preferred lifestyle is their own choice, they can base it on logic or illogic.When it comes to trying to make things work, it's too late to fight and argue about the premises each person is using to get to their preferred lifestyle. Both lifestyles are valid choices, both are "protected" (caveats from previous included) under the Bill of Rights etc. So the choices are, compromise with the person with their current position, or refuse to compromise and fight the battle in the aforementioned other ways.What I really want to emphasize is that abortion is not a problem of philosphy. It's not about who's "right" and who's wrong. When you allow all people to choose their own lifestyles, then philosophy goes right out the door. It all comes down to policy, of working together to find compromises so that you can live next to your neighbor.Maybe your own philosophy and ideals don't allow you to find the compromise... but the point is, discussing the philosophy of abortion is completely missing the point. That's an endless, pointless debate. It's trying to use logic to tell somebody that their religion is wrong. Religion isn't right or wrong; it's outside of the domain of logic. Emotion isn't right or wrong; it's outside of the domain of logic. The sooner people accept these simple facts, the sooner we can stop the silly talk and really get down to the important stuff.Hope that helps clarify, and I hope you can understand why assessing beliefs of others is not relevant here. Law isn't set to what's "right" or "wrong", only to what is necessary for us to live together. There's no "rehabilitating others" using law, because there's no right way or wrong way to live. We all happen to live in the same country, some of us in the same states, and that means we need to work together... or suffer the consequences of that failure.Ben

Just so you know, I read your whole post so it wasn't wasted effort on your part. I think the major difference between our positions can be addressed in the last argument in your post. I find that an interesting position, given that what is specifically being discussed here is a group of people that is refusing to let othere lead their own lives, based on personal religious belief. It appears that they are the ones refusing to compromise on the most basic aspect of society: letting others live their own lives as they see fit.Indeed these are people refusing to agree to the compromise already worked out in the Bill of Rights... Well that's not exactly fair is it? The Bill of Rights was the compromise made by society to form the US, and since some people have violated that compromise over the years, more people can expect to treat the original compromise as nothing and expect a new compromise?If a person can appeal to the fact that the BoR no longer counts for what it originally did, then what is the point of making any new compromise as it can again be violated.You were right in pointing out that we cannot do things from scratch at this point, but we certainly can reject deviations from our original promises to each other (as a society).People fought and died for that initial set of compromises, and as I agree with those compromises, I am willing to go to war to defend them. As it stands the founding fathers predicted the original agreements would eventually be violated, by the natural process of encroachments that all govts adhere to, and they advocated fighting that. Thus I do feel justified in my position. You are cotrrect that a refusal to compromise can lead to violent conflict, but it doesn't have to. That depends on how both parties feel regarding an issue. I am a staunch supporter of the rights within the BoR being protected, and being viewed as the rights we take and secure for ourselves, beyond the reach of others.You say you'd be willing to compromise your ideals, but I do wonder how true that is. Is everything really up for grabs for you, or is there a limit.And more interestingly, what antiabortion advocate would agree with the level of compromise that you are espousing?Let's say I agree with your position. Okay, I have a problem with monotheistic religion. I despise all Abrahamic religions. They are abominations of intellect and lead to persecutions and horrors in practice. I think their practice should be ended or at least greatly curtailed. No children should be exposed to them, and decisions on whether to practice them (which must be done outside public view) can only come after age of majority has been reached.Now according to your argument, they now have to compromise with me on the practice of their religion. Does that sound right? Do you think they'll agree or will they resort to appealing to the original compromise... the original meaning of the BoR?What if some group arose condemning internet or for that matter any telegraphic communication, because they fear its use will lead to many crimes? Or that some specific books should be burned because they will lead to the downfall of society? Or how about a group of people that feel science should be redefined as seeking truth, rather than rigorous methodology to obtain empirical conclusions/models?Would you feel that any of the above should be compromised, just because someone else feels strongly about that position?Again, nice post, still on my toes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

OK... I'm feel like I'm going to repeat an argument, so ... sorry if it was just a bad argument and you are arguing against it. Your reply KIND of addresses it, but I think what I'm saying is a bit more... subtle than just "BoR--we ignored it once for one thing, so we should ignore it for everything."I was trying to say that life and death / killing is a special case that we've made with the BoR. According to the BoR (as we seem to be interpreting it together), as long as you are not affecting other people, do whatever you want.But I gave examples of instances of life and death / killing which don't fit that view--it's a crime to kill your own family members (even if they're your dependents). It's a crime to even kill or molest various animals. So for this one point, I think we've gone beyond the BoR and made an abstraction; killing isn't right.BECAUSE of that, I think we have to be sensitive to any issue that involves killing. And that includes the cases where only one group of people find it to be killing--since every perspective, philosophy, religion is allowed and valid.So I don't mean BoR is just bunk now. Just that once you compromise it in a very specific way, you're either obligated to remove the specific compromise, or to continue compromising it in that very specific way.Does that clarify things at all? Absolutely. I absolutely understand, and I think that's a totally valid thing. And I hope that's been clear throughout these posts.For me, abortion is not that level of fighting for me. I've been lucky enough to have the education and means available such that I can deal with abortion issues on my own. I understand that's not the case for everybody. But it is for me, so I'm completely unwilling to go to war for either side. I just want to get something worked out so all the noise quiets down. I don't need to hear philosophical shouting and justification on this point. I'd rather think about RAZD's stuff about personhood (still unsure how to deal with that stuff). I used to have ideals... now ideals come few and far between. When it comes to abortion... it's a tough question, and a lot depends on the situation. In my current situation, even though the situation probably dictates having an abortion is best, I'd probably push to try and go full-term, and have a kid (of course I'm only part of the decision-making team). Part of it is the way I was brought up; that gut feeling is hard to drop. But part of it is, due to what I value and where I see meaning in life, I can really see myself regretting not having that baby, but I don't see myself really regretting having a kid.What I AM against is irresponsibility and failure to take on the consequences of your own actions. So I'll usually look for a way to make that part of any policy I suggest. That is a bias / ideal I definitely have... man I get so pissed off even thinking about it... Given all the philosophical discussion that goes on... I don't think either side's too willing to compromise. I find both sides making the same exact mistakes--discussing who's "right" rather than, how can we make things work TOGETHER.Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I think what I'm saying is a definition of separation of church and state. Instead of "church," which doesn't apply to everybody, I'm substituting a more general word--"philosophy". Come to the table with what you say you "need", and we'll take those things at face value and make a policy. There are some basic things which can't be touched (note the caveat I presented above though), but everything else is open to negotiation. Separation of church and state. No. I hope my clarification above irons this out. Not everything is fair game. But we already opened up the whole killing / death thing. I would say, no no no no no. Too bad. Bill of Rights. Then again, these kinds of things DO happen. So... it's a lot sketchier than it should be. Like I said, I still think drugs should be legal. I think access to cars should be more restricted. I'm undecided about issues with child sexuality. But I do think the Bill of Rights is awesome, and that it shouldn't be violated.But when it comes to killing / death, I think it has been. We gotta work with that.Ben

In this case, I think the 4-year analogy is spot on. One group has made up it's mind regardless of facts or logical consistancy, they want it "their way" and want everyone else to play by their rules.No one in the pro-choice side is even suggesting that the pro-life people be forced into having abortions. No one is curtailing their rights to believe in their religeon, or jump up and down and yell about their dislike of abortion.When two groups can't agree, we must ALWAYS side against the group which wishes to curtail rights. We can not let a minority of the public dictate the lives of the majority. Once a group gets a taste of taking away people's rights, it's not a slippery slope, it's a dead drop cliff. Well, two responses here. Of course we must judge the logic of their argument! There have been plenty of collections of wackos out there who want things their way, and if they don't have logic and facts on their side, allowing them to trample the majority would be total disaster.On the second part of your quote - "One person's preferred lifestyle is their own choice". This is exactly right. This is why we must not compromise with people willing to rob people of their rights. This is correct, when you use the terms "right" and "wrong" to mean moral judgements. But, if you mean "right" and "wrong" as true and false, or correct and incorrect, I can't agree with you.I'm not saying that people can't believe what they want, I'm say they can't make others live by those beliefs. The Catholic Church (for example) is not more "right" or "wrong" than the Heaven's Gate cult. However, I don't think people would take kindly to manditory castration and cyanide capsules every time a comet passes. Exactly, that's why we mustn't let this fringe group rob another group of it's rights. They are protected in their beliefs, no one is suggesting that they stop believing what the want. However, they're right to believe what they want ends at their ears. One person's beliefs can not be forced onto another group.If they don't want abortions. Don't have them. Don't work at an abortion clinic. Petition to have funding cut. Picket across the street. Print of t-shirts. Create websites that express your point.Don't blow up buildings, don't shoot people, don't try to stop people from exercising their constitutional rights. I agree with this, we should allow all people to choose their lifestyle.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 08-28-2005 11:21 PM

Yes, this not only clarifies, it should streamline everything.To my mind we did not compromise the BoR with regards to killing. The BoR represents the rights each individual takes for themselves when agreeing to go into society. Clearly being killed by someone is the act of having all of one's rights violated by another person or group of persons. Okay well now we have the case of euthanasia as well as cannibals and the people who like to be eaten by them, but let's ignore that for now.The involuntary killing of another is a proscribed action, firmly within the reach of the BoR, because it protects all of that other person's rights. There may be instances of where this is not true (self-defence, war, police action...), but that is because of conflicting rights. For example the intruder in your home may be coming to kill you, in which case you have the right to self-preservation.Conflicts of rights opens the door for negotiation/compromise.In this particular case, abortion, the question of whether there is a conflict at all is itself under question. The typical view is that it is the right to live (all rights) of one individual, against the right of reproductive choice of another. But both positions are not so much fact as they are very much religious faith or philosophy. This brings into play even more rights.Does the state have to admit the existence of posited entities and their demise, based on religious convictions, such that others must agree that a conflict of rights exists?Those against abortion often have the line of personhood drawn at conception. This is not realistic, even if one brings into the conversation for argument's sake things like spirits having entered the body.Can I then say that I personally believe the "humunculus" theory of reproduction, such that every male masturbatory act is murder? That despite evidence this isn't true, my faith says that the truth simply hasn't been seen yet?Again, according to your current argument, my antimasturbation position, should be something the community has to accept and compromise with.And of course this is not to mention reincarnationists, where animals become elevated to "person" status for rights. I should mention that this is not a joke. I actually know of an incident where this occured.Is any conceivable entity posited based on religious conviction, especially if somehow tied to human personhood, available for equal protection or compromise on this?It seems this is the point not to compromise at all, but rather to point out that they get to practice their beliefs within their home while others get to practice their own beliefs within their homes (or in this case, bodies).The best (IMO) we can do is to come up with practical criteria for identifying "personhood" for the state, and then using that to apply rights to "persons". Being practical it must rely on physical characteristics we can measure in an objective fashion. This moves directly toward RAZDs discussion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Right. Sorry it took so long to get to this point. The BoR doesn't care about the "typical" view. It cares about all views. What is "typical" only means... that the "typical" people can strongarm others. Exactly. Both people who want to base their beliefs of what is life, what is personhood on the assumptions inherent in science (naturalist approach, no spooky stuff) are different than those who believe in spooky stuff, who are different than those who believe there's spooky stuff in us. This is one of the major points I've been working hard on. The state doesn't have to admit anything. It's not the state's job to judge the "validity" of any religion. It's the state's job to accommodate it.The problem, as you said above, is that there's a conflict between one group of people and the other. It's not the state's job to judge the "validity" of the basis of that conflict. It's the state's job to judge that the conflict is real, that it's causing strife, and that there's no way to convince one group or the other to accept the other's "needs."So that's when the state comes in and makes things work in a practical compromise. You're saying you can judge the validity of religion using science. Science doesn't have such power. Science is not about epistemological "truth", it is about describing, in an incremental way, how the natural world works. Science can say nothing about whether there's a soul in a sperm or what.So the answer is YES, that needs to be compromised.Now, compromise of course is a practical thing. how many people believe this? One? OK... then we can stand still and say... well, we're not going to budge. We're willing to go to war over this one. And if you still insist, holmes, we're gonna fuck you up.I don't have any doubts that this is the way things work. The majority have the ability to strongarm the minority. The reason the majority should want to compromise is to avoid war, avoid weakinging our country via internal strife. Even if it's not a physical war, our country is weaker divided than working together.The number of people who find abortion to be murder is sizeable. Taking a view of America, I don't think it's wise for either side to continue to bicker about "right" or "wrong". Neither can address the other. It's time to try and work a compromise. If that doesn't work, then maybe we can break the policy down to the state level. That way, there are places people can live with a diversity of choices. I hope you can see my answer now. Yes, absolutely. But we have the ability to strongarm groups any time we want. It's what's been going on. That's why abortion policy changes based on the current administration. It's a policy of strongarming. It's getting us nowhere except a weaker nation. Why should personhood be based on physical characteristics? Where did your determiniation of that come from? Why is naturalism a more valid way of determining personhood than any other method?------By the way I still disagree about your assessment of killing and the BoR. I think you're not addressing a lot of cases, and avoided the animal cases. But I think we got to a point that's beyond that point, so I'm dropping it. Just wanted to mention this in case it pops back up later.And by the way #2, I'm enjoying talking about this with you. It's good to feel that you're being listened to and that points you make are being answered directly.By the way #3... Nuggin, I tried replying to your post, but ... I feel I'll be addressing the same things I'm addressing to holmes. And I also feel a strong wall for some reason from the way you write. So... I couldn't find a way to respond. I'll try again as things move forward with holmes.Ben

---

I don't want a large Farva, I want a goddamn liter-a-cola.

Me I'm anti-abortion on rational as well as Christian grounds. If a baby is born it has all the rights of any other human. If, whilst it is being born, it is damaged by medical incompetance, it has all the rights of a born human at the point it was being born and can sue. If at 1 minute before being born, the foetus is killed deliberately, it's killing may or may not be considered murder (depending under which juristiction it happens).If a 1 minute pre-delivery killing is considered murder then you get into an infinite regression back to fertilisation and trying to draw a line between murder/abortion becomes an exercise in the ridiculous. Wherever you draw the line, week 21,22,23,24 etc, you are always drawing a line between a foetus without rights in this second and a foetus with rights in that second.Given that nobody can tell when a person becomes a person and given that we value persons so highly, the safest bet is to have the humility to know when we're beat and err on the side of caution - even if the cosmetics industry throws a wobbler.I understand that in the UK, folk are thinking about winding back the permitted latest week for abortion because premature babies delivered before the current cut-off date, are, due to advances in medicine, surviving more often than not.Which begs the question: is killing a premature baby who has yet to reach the age of the legal cut-off point for abortion, murder? It isn't anymore self-sufficient than a baby in the womb at the same age after all. Dial L(ocation) for Murder?edited for typos and to clarify possessiom of human rights whilst being bornThis message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 08:26 PM

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

You seem to be saying that since it is not clear where to draw the line, then no line should be drawn and we must have an either all or none situation. I disagree with that; even if there is no clear division between state A and state B, even if a completely state A gradually becomes completely state B, one can nonetheless draw a line so that either more-or-less state A is on one side of the line or more-or-less state B is on the other side. Which one chooses depends on what are the choices of state A and state B that are relevant to the decision to be made.To me, the relevant criteria are those that make a entity an actual person, a human being. To me, a person is someone who is conscious, aware of herself as a person distinct from other people, recognize others as people, and, importantly, are capapble of being conscious of fears and hopes, of feeling disappointment or emotional pain and feeling joy and happiness.To me, it is clear, to pick a definite example, a five year old child meets these criteria for being a person. Just as clear to me is that a single cell zygote is simply not a person in any essential way. So, the question is where to draw the line between a conscious, self-aware person and a non-conscious biological entity.The goal is to draw the line in such a way that all people are protected. As you point out, the line between definite person and definite non-person is not clear; however there are obvious lines where all people are definitely on one side, and all of those on the other side are definitely non-people for whom I feel very little concern.Definitely, the end of the first trimester is one candidate for the dividing line. No embryo less than three months old is a person in any significant sense. That a four-month old embryo may not be a person does not concern me as much; I am willing for a few non-people to be protected in the interests of making sure that no definite-person is killed. Allowing complete freedom for abortion during the first trimester while completely outlawing it afterwards would have the desired effect; no person will be killed, while it allows a woman the freedom to terminate her pregnancy, at least during a portion of it.My personal view, though, is that this first trimester dividing line is too strict. I believe (and I am willing to be corrected if necessary) that interactive experience with the world is necessary to develop the type of consciousness that is necessary to be designated a person. So, I believe that birth itself is probably a good enough dividing line. I do not believe that any fetus before birth has the consciousness that would lead me to view it as a person with rights to protection; on the other hand, I do not know how long it takes after birth to develop this consciousness, so I accept birth as a safe dividing line, even though, as I suspect, some non-persons may be given unnecessary protection. Better than some non-persons are protected than actual people are unnecessarily killed.

Forgive the partial response CP - I'm heading off homeThese attributes are the very things which science can't find a reason for in anybody. If it doesn't know what their source is or whether the instruments it uses to observe these attributes are grossly or finely tuned It is not in a position to declare on cut -off points. This is life we are talking about not astonomy.Using your definition above, we could safely dispose of a new born baby who displays none of the above characteristics and gives no measurable reason to think that in wriggling it's little arms and bawling it is acting on anything other than instinct.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

The central nervous system is not complete or functioning until in the second trimester. Consciousness and all its attributes are definitely functions of the brain -- without a functioning brain it is a very safe bet that there is no consciousness. Therefore, a first trimester abortion does not kill anything that is human in any significant way. That is why I chose this dividing line as one of my examples -- I meant to include this information and inadvertently left it out -- sorry about that. This has nothing to do with the limitations of instrumentation -- it is a fact from developmental biology that the brain of a first trimester embryo does not have a brain sufficient for the existence of anything we would recognize as consciousness -- at least not unless you believe that consciousness is somehow independent of the physical brain. But I don't see how such a belief can be justified, knowing a little something about neurobiology, heuropsychology, and neuropharmacology.Now I do admit that things may become a little more uncertain as the brain develops and becomes fully functional. However, I am content with the belief before birth the fetus does not have a human consciousness. I may be wrong; it may very well be that during the last trimester, say, consciousness is fully developed and the fetus becomes a person, and if so I will reconsider my opinions as to the ethics of abortion during the last trimester.It shouldn't be too hard to determine roughly when consciousness arises. We have a good indication what areas of the brain are important to various higher mental activities, and how the activity of these areas appear, and this sort of knowledge will get better as our intruments get better, and our knowledge of this science increases. It shouldn't be too difficult to obtain enough knowledge as the the development of a fully functioning person to determine a point before which there is definitely no person, and so no entity whose rights can be violated.

I've read your post and find it well reasoned.It looks like Chiro is already engaging you in a "where can we draw the line" debate, so I want to focus my attention elsewhereIt sounds as though you are in the "No abortions at all camp". Does this include cases of rape and incest?