#42 by BakerStreet Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Myrrander has yet to be convinced that I have a soul.

that's because he has no soul. none at all.

Baker, can you prove to me that it is an unborn child, and not a mass of cells? If I take it out of its environment will it not just die? Was it even alive in the first place?

I can.

Science tells us that if an organism has DNA and a metabolism, it is alive. A fetus has both DNA and a metabolism so, according to science, it is alive.

The DNA of a species seperates it from all other species. A fetus created by the sperm and ovum of a male and female Homo Sapien has DNA consistent with Homo Sapiens. Not only does it have DNA consistent with Homo Sapiens, but the fetal DNA does not match any other Homo Sapien, which means it is a living individual organism that is Homo Sapien.

The whole myth of "viability" is shot down by modern science since we know that whether the individual is inside the womb or outside, it is completely dependent on someone other than itself for nutrients, waste removal and providing a suitable environment. The only difference is a fetus depends on one mother but anyone around a neonate can provide those needs. Whether fetus or neonate, the individual's own system regulates it's own metabolism.

Now, with the above all being true, prove to ME that the fetus is neither Homo Sapien nor Alive.

shades? question, if somehow the feds took the right of abortion away how would that change how you think and vote?

Since the majority of the candidates that I support are already pro-choice, it wouldn't change how I vote. I would continue to support pro-choice candidates--but I would step up my donations and volunteer hours for organizations that try to ensure reproductive rights.

You see, abortion is simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to reproductive rights and there is a great fear in the pro-choice camp that any whittling away of the rights will mean the gradual elimination of all rights-- and that includes access to birth control (how many insurance companies cover perscriptions of viagra but not the pill?)

Because I do not believe that the fetus is a life starting at conception--I view any attempts to limit first trimester abortions as the federal government legislating sexual morality. If you, or the President, want to be pro-life, that's great. I'm not going to stop you--but stay out of mine--don't push your morality on me (or any other woman).

A fetus has both DNA and a metabolism so, according to science, it is alive.

This is why I used the word "soul" because just because something is alive does not make it human. Are viruses and flu-bugs not "alive"? Aren't parasitical infections "alive"? But we do not think twice about "killing" them.

Hate to bow out of this conversation, all, but I have to meet a deadline...sorry!

You see, abortion is simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to reproductive rights and there is a great fear in the pro-choice camp that any whittling away of the rights will mean the gradual elimination of all rights-- and that includes access to birth control

I believe you're absolutely right on this point, shades, and that is the primary reason why I support the right to choose, even while I consider abortion for the most part to be a detestable practice. Thanks for stating it so eloquently.

. If you, or the President, want to be pro-life, that's great. I'm not going to stop you--but stay out of mine--don't push your morality on me (or any other woman).

great response shades, but I guess you did not see where I said I support a womans right to choose.

52 by little_whip Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Christ on a pony, not ANOTHER abortion thread. Just for the record, shades, I'm female and I'm pro life. A womans right to do as she pleases stops when there is another human being involved. I believe life begins at conception, therefore, so does her "right" to murder.

really I ment this to be about the left grilling roberts on abortion while so much more important stuff is kicked to the curb.

"You believe that a fetus is alive--but there is no "of course" about it. For as elementary as it seems to you that it is a living being, it is just as elementary to me that it is not."

Hate to break it to ya, but a fetus meets the textbook definition of life. There's nothing subjective about it. It feeds, it grows, it reacts to stimuli. It is solidly "of course".

Given you accept that there is no "of course" to the circumstance, then you'd agree that it is up for debate, and in a democratic society, the people should be left to make up their minds, right? You are the one trying to pawn off some kind of certainty.

If the people of the US were left to decide, either at the state or federal level, I could be satisfied. It is people who believe this is a forgone conclusion who say we should have no right to decide the matter.

"This is why I used the word "soul" because just because something is alive does not make it human. Are viruses and flu-bugs not "alive"? Aren't parasitical infections "alive"? But we do not think twice about "killing" them."

There's no legal standing for "soul". As I said, I can go to jail for drowning a puppy whose eyes haven't opened yet. It is no more sentient or alive than a fetus. We respect the life of puppies and not humans?

And don't start with "humanity". The discussion itself proves that humans often have little of that. According to your standards there'd be no problem with killing a newborn. They haven't developed sentience, they aren't self sufficient.

Actually Shadesofgrey, I was responding to Demosthenes Locke, not your "soul" question. However the answer works either way.

If you read my explanation again you'll see that I demonstrate that the fetus not only has metabolism, and DNA, but that consistent with Homo Sapien DNA, so it can't be a virus or an "infection", it is a living homo sapien.

As far as being a parasite, the uterus and the supporting organs, hormones and functions are centered around supporting a gestating fetus. The entire menstruation cycle runs its course with the expectation that firtilization occured. Therefore the fetus isn't a "parasite".

Using scientific method the only conclusion we can logically come to is that the fetus gestating inside a woman's uterus can only be a living Homo Sapien. The only excuses that can be used to the contrary are political posturing.

Now, if you want to discuss whether killing living humans is ok, merely because they are in the womb, that is a different discussion. First though, you have to admit that you believe killing babies is a good thing.

really I ment this to be about the left grilling roberts on abortion while so much more important stuff is kicked to the curb.

Sorry MM, your blog, your rules. I'll end discussing abortion if you wish.

Point taken, and well made para. By the way I wasn't taking a position in my statement, just opposing for the sake of discussion.

Sorry to have started the hijack Mod.

To many of us "base, abominable, etc. etc." people over here in lefty-land, the right to choose is representative of the larger right to privacy. We don't want the government in our bedrooms, in our living rooms, or even in our body cavities.

Just for the record, shades, I'm female and I'm pro life.

lots of women are--I assume that you were talking about my first comment. I was just making an observation.

great response shades, but I guess you did not see where I said I support a womans right to choose

apologies, that was a rhetorical "you."

Given you accept that there is no "of course" to the circumstance, then you'd agree that it is up for debate, and in a democratic society, the people should be left to make up their minds, right? You are the one trying to pawn off some kind of certainty.

Where did I pawn off certainty, Baker. In the comment where I clearly stated that I was talking about my opinion? Give me a break.

then you'd agree that it is up for debate,

Clearly I agree it is up to debate--I'm debating with you at the moment, aren't I?

There's no legal standing for "soul"

Baker--did you read my earlier post where I said that there was no scientific way to determine the existance of a soul? Because here's the deal--if it were as cut and dry as you say it is, there wouldn't be a debate on it. But it is not, and so there is. There is something that many people in the pro-choice camp believe that the fetus is missing that means it's not human yet. I've called it a soul, because I think it relates to St. Augustine's early teaching of delayed ensoulment and the difference between "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus." The idea was that a soul could not live in an unformed body and thus the fetus (until a certain point) does not have a soul.

According to your standards there'd be no problem with killing a newborn.

No, because a new born has a soul.

If you read my explanation again you'll see that I demonstrate that the fetus not only has metabolism, and DNA, but that consistent with Homo Sapien DNA, so it can't be a virus or an "infection", it is a living homo sapien

Instead of repeating myself, I am going to refer you to the comment I just made to Bakerstreet. As I said to him, if it were as easy as you say (and you say you've proved) there would be no debate.

Using scientific method the only conclusion we can logically come to is that the fetus gestating inside a woman's uterus can only be a living Homo Sapien. The only excuses that can be used to the contrary are political posturing. Now, if you want to discuss whether killing living humans is ok, merely because they are in the womb, that is a different discussion. First though, you have to admit that you believe killing babies is a good thing.

Parated, clearly we disagree on this, and so I think I am going to end my conversation here (well, and I have a load of work to do). My belief is no more political posturing than yours is, nor do I believe that killing babies is a good thing. If you hold either of these opinions of me, than there is no real need to continue, is there, as there will be no benefit to anyone.

shadesofgrey: If it is that subjective, then there is no moral certainty for the Supreme Court to use as a gauge. It shouldn't be in their court. When it is, they are just legislating moral mandates from an untouchable seat.

That's why this is all a farce to begin with. Who cares if Roe v. Wade is in "danger"? It's a judgement of moral ethics, not some natural law. As something so subjective and morally uncertain, it should always be open for revision.

The only way they can prevent it is by making people of a particular ethos off-limits for supreme court positions. If they can stomach that, then they have no sense of "rights", and have no business holding any US office.