How accurate is this email?

Not that I don't agree with you... scratch that I really don't agree with you. But you better be careful with what you are saying. After all, it's really up for debate whether a 5 day old newborn is sentient or not. My dogs are smarter... or rather act smarter than my 5 months old nephew.

Not just for birth control. In fact, I am reminded of one of the most famous and influencial civilizations of ancient greece, Sparta... but that's another story. Personally, I don't know what your viewpoint is on this. This is a very grey area. In fact, it's so grey that if we define infants to be nonsentient beings, then we face the problem of when do we decide they are sentient. Is my 1 year old nephew sentient yet? Is my 2 year old niece sentient yet?Like I said, if we take this route then it is up for debate.But to answer your question, the harm is our society will be divided more than ever before. On one hand, we'd have people that would try to argue that killing someone else's infant is like killing someone else's dog. Sure, there are still legal consequences, but it wouldn't be the same. On the other hand, we'd have people that... well, you get the idea.Now, remember that I'm on your side on the issue of abortion. I just think that the arguments being used are just as important as the positions themselves. I really don't think it would help our position if we begin to proclaim that infants are non-sentient beings.

The "gray" comes in when we take this issue just a little beyond the obvious. I don't think anyone would argue that a 3 day old newborn acts nothing like a sentient being. If we decide to take away its status as a sentient being, we run into the problem of deciding when we're going to give it full sentience status. Is my 1 year old nephew sentient yet? What about my 2 year old niece? For the record, if I'm hungry and there's no food around, I'd ask your permission to eat you first before I do, ok?

You are responding too quickly to me to give you time to read my messages carefully. Read it again. I did not say there'd be a rash of people killing other people's infants. I said there'd be people arguing to make it less of a crime than it already is. Well... I'll talk to you later about that. [qs]And I don't think it helps our position to compromise with the position that will brook no compromise. Fetuses don't have a soul, and abortion doesn't destroy a mind. [qs] Speaking as a pro-choice supporter, I don't agree with these statements. Speaking as an atheist, I can't say I'd put much weight on the "soul". About the mind thing, how is a two minutes old baby's mind different than that of a negative two minutes old baby's mind? Now, remember that I'm on your side. You don't need to justify it to me. And I've only explained on this board a few dozen times...I spent years trying to think of how to approach this in a practical way. Long story short, I came to the conclusion that there is no way for me to know when a blob of cells become a person, so I just take the safest route and assume that the time of fertilization defines a person (again, just to be on the safe side). I know you'll have objections to this, so I'll repeat it. Between the point of fertilization and birth I honestly can't tell when a human life begins, so I just assumed the earliest time possible to be safe.I also make a distinction between active killing and inactive killing. Am I morally required to make some kind of sacrifice to save another person's life? If I see someone drowning, am I morally required to jump in and save that person's life? Am I morally required to share my organs for a limited amount of time with another person whose organs have recently failed? Suppose I caused that person's organs to fail, am I morally required to share my organs? Should I be legally forced to share my organs with this person?The answer to all of these questions is a simple no. Sure, it would be nice to jump in and try to save someone else, but I am not so sure it's a moral requirement.So, even if the fetus is considered a living person with a "soul", there is really no reason why the mother (a seperate entity whose organs are being used by the parasitic fetus) should be forced to continue to share her organs. This is a strictly human rights issue. Specifically, this is a human rights issue where a person has the right not to help another person.I did not come to this conclusion lightly. I tried to make every excuse (logically) to make myself come to a conclusion that is against abortion rights. But in the end, even if the fetus is given a full human status, there is no escape from the fact that the mother's rights are violated if she is forced to continue to share her organs with the fetus.

Whatever works for you, I guess. I should have mentioned the fact that I was a pro-lifer. Someone asked me (without relating to the abortion issue) whether people should be forced to help other people. I thought long and hard and concluded that it's nice to help other people but we should never be forced to do so. One thing led to another and I was forced to question my pro-life position. No, it's not up in the air. People should never be forced, legally or morally, to do something against their will, especially something as specific as jumping into a lake to save someone else. I know I'd do it for a second (and indeed I have done so), but that doesn't mean we can give out legal penalties for those who refuse to do so... unless they're lifeguards. It's simple for you, perhaps, but it's not so simple for me. Having spent a significant part of my life "on the other side" and then switched over to this side have given me views that, admittedly, are not too common. Um, no. You've assumed all this time that I started on your side and started giving up grounds, but in fact I started on the other side and was later forced (by my own conscience) to step across the line. So? If there's one thing that should prevail in a democracy is that we should be allowed to choose to be selfish. I'm a realist. I don't try to decorate something that is, in my opinion, an ugly thing. If I ever see a kid being taken away by strong current again, I will without a second thought jump in again just like last time. And just like last time, I would pick up another hitchhiker just to make his life a little easier. At the same time, I also would argue against any legislation that seeks to penalize people for not jumping into a river to save someone else. You of all people should understand this. It's not that I don't want to come to a conclusion about what constitute a person. It's that right now I simply don't know enough about life, philosophy, and a myriad other things for me to make a decision on it. So, I decided, with my ignorance, to play it safe. That's fine by me. I don't think I've ever met another person that actually agrees with my view. People are either pro-lifers all the way or like you. I'm simply a biproduct of a combination of fundamentalism, atheism, skepticism, and perhaps some brain damage. Unfortunately, I agree with you. Like I said, I've never actually find another person that agrees with me. They either see the fetus as a person and therefore constitutes forcing the woman to keep the parasitic being inside her or see the fetus as nothing more than a blob of cells that are at the mercy of the woman.

First of all, how fast do you type? Man, that was a quick response... Actually, there are plenty of laws that require you to report a crime. These laws are called the good samaritan laws. I am not aware of any law that actually requires you to intervene, risking yourself or not. For the record, I agree with this quote completely, which is why I often go out of my way to intervene and help people.But I can't help but notice a similarity between this and voting. Allow me to reword that quote just a little bit. All that is necessary for a democracy to fail is for people not to vote. My polical science professor told me a kazillion times that he believed if our democracy ever fails it will fail from within by people not participating in it. However, I'd hate to see legislations that actually force people to go vote. Inaction is often neither right nor wrong. I have no doubt. But be honest, how likely are you going to be able to convince NJ that fetuses and infants aren't people?My approach, on the other hand, accepts all their presuppositions. I'm trying to make the case that even if fetuses are people, and even if a zygote is to be considered a person, a woman still has every right to choose to eject it from her body.

Actually, I knew someone was going to bring this up. If it's a racist lifeguard working for a racist organization, then no there shouldn't be any penalty for not saving a black person as long as they make it known to people that they don't save black people at their beach.If you had read my other argument about doctors, you would have known that I don't just support blindly a racist doctor's right to refuse treatment. My whole argument in the other thread was about public versus private institutions.

My college roommate was the same way. I never figured out how he was able to write his papers so fast with his 2 finger peck method. Yes, actually. Other countries, like some northern european countries, give you rewards for voting, tax deductions and stuff. It's what my political science professor referred to as the "vote card in, fruitloops out" method. It's rewarding for people who vote. Perhaps we could proceed in this way by rewarding people for saving someone else? Good enough for me. And that's the point. I've found that it's a lot easier to convince people of your position if you assume their presuppostions first and show them that even then they're still wrong about their conclusion. Take the bible for example. I could just easily say that I believe all the stories in there are myths and I needn't worry about them. But that simply won't fly when trying to convince a fundy that his great flood story just doesn't make any sense. It's much more effective to point out the absurdities within the story itself, and sometimes their excuses like the floating matts of vegetation when the bible clearly said that everything that was not in the ark died.Trying to convince them of your presuppositions often lead to "he says, she says" situation, which leads to nowhere productive.

And I only said it a few dozen times that we can and should penalize them. How? By not hiring them or by giving them an ultimatum of "either conform with the standards or go find a racist private institution to work in because you ain't ever going to work in a public or any private institution that knows you're a racist." What if we allow them to practice medicine but also have a law that requires them to put a big sign on their foreheads that say "no blacks allowed" or "no latinos allowed"? Like I said, there are other ways to make it safe for the rest of us and respect their rights to their beliefs without brute force. I have no objection to them forming their own version of the AMA. But again, we could make it a law for them to wear a big fat sign on their foreheads (or somewhere bleedingly obvious) that they're not really doctors by our public standards. But this is a little bit of a slippery slope, don't you think? Now, you're just pointing out nonsensical examples. Our fire departments are mostly publically owned. I think that if we start getting privately owned fire brigades that only put out fires in certain areas or homes, I think it's safe to assume they'll be put out of bussiness by the rest of us pretty soon. Just like racist doctors and whatnot. Once we know they won't treat some of us, we'll just ignore them and let them rot in their own racist circle. In such a case, neither their rights nor mine will be violated. Yes, I agree, but only in public institutions. Look, we allow private owners to do things we don't allow in public institutions all the time. In a lot of places, privately owned companies still have the right not to hire you if they know you're gay. I simply don't see why we make it an exception for some professions. Disqualified from the job, yes, and I've been saying this same thing all this time. If we find out they won't treat some of us, we'll put pressure on the hospital or whatnot and get them fired, that is assuming the hospital hasn't already fired them outright. They can then go to some redneck town and open an office with a big fat sign that says "will only treat white people" (by law of course) and see how long the office will stay open.Look, I'm not saying what you think I am saying. I'm simply saying we should still allow them to work and keep their beliefs. What we can do is regulate how it will work. We could, for example, force them to put up disclaimer signs. We could forbid them to work in any public hospital. We could even put pressure on the private hospitals. We could do a lot of things to make the rest of us safe AND allow them to keep their beliefs without brute force. If they want to be a doctor who only treats white people, fine. The rest of us will just put them out of bussiness through boycott and whatnot. (Perhaps intimidation? Haha, just kidding.)