Except the article when on to discuss at considerable length why that claim is suspect. Interestingly, the article even said that pro-lifers like you have distorted Anand's findings for their own purposes.

You just can't handle the honesty.

Whether or not abortion is 'murder' is just semantics. Pro lifers love the word for the negative connotation, pro choicers prefer "termination" or something clinical sounding. Obvious reasons for both, but it's detracting from the real issue, which is this:

Most everybody feels there are certain circumstances under which it is justifiable or even necessary to kill another human. The only thing we disagree with are what those circumstances are.

"Can we agree that mid-second semester, a fetus can feel pain and that by giving women a choice up through the 26th week, we are giving them carte blanche to commit murder (or order a doctor to commit murder) for 6-7 weeks?"

Absolutely not for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that there is a medical consensus on consciousness of pain not being possible until 26 weeks. But more importantly calling women and doctors who give them treatment murderers does you no favors for your supposed 'cause'.

Now that, YJ, I actually agree with. It's all semantics and the real issue is, when is it OK to take a life.

"SY's argument that a 9 week old fetus isn't human"

Lol at this fucking thread. I never mentioned 9 weeks, I mentioned three times that I did not want to discuss timescales. I mentioned fertilised eggs a few times though.

And fertilized eggs contain human DNA, which is well before 9 weeks, therefore my first stamen stands. You specified a time frame the moment you said "fertilized eggs". I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't say "9 seconds old"

Doesn't matter the timescale, imo, SYnapse.

I really believe it's a weakness of the typical Pro-choicer argument to try to define the little wretch as not not human or something like that. Most of use are simply not comfortable admitting what it is we are proposing, but this pusillanimity adds strength the opposition, leaving them free to screech, "ABORTION IS MURDER!" over and over again while we look stupid hemming and hawing and inventing terrible excuses why it is not.

So basically YJ, you are endorsing murder? Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is what it sounds like. If not, can you please make things a little clearer?

Well it's pretty fucking stupid to say that killing an unfertilised egg is murder.

So I think it's also stupid to say that an egg fertilised 5 minutes ago is murder if you take the morning after pill.

That's the basis of where I'm coming from.

"
Most everybody feels there are certain circumstances under which it is justifiable or even necessary to kill another human."

Let me make my stance clear - the ONLY time I think it is justifiable to kill another human is when you have no choice in a matter of your own immediate defense.

@KingCyrus: not really, I'm refusing to allow the deflection. As Draug and I discussed, whether not abortion is murder is semantics - it just depends on how you define murder. If you define murder as merely, "the taking of human life," then yes, I'm pro-murder* from your definition.

* - your definition is fucking stupid.

Then we go back to defining what a human is...

But we are just going to keep arguing in circles. You're going to say it is more than DNA and that once human, always human where as I'm gong to argue it is DNA plus a couple more items (brain waves and pulse) and that the random measure of consciousness is a slippery slope as a person in a vegetative state is no longer conscious. Then I also argue that humans can give up their humanity through their own actions and, in doing so, relinquish their right to life.

we will wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. So why are we bothering?

"So I think it's also stupid to say that an egg fertilised 5 minutes ago is murder if you take the morning after pill."

I see that, and am inclined to agree. But it does beg the question of where is the magical "turning point" where a fertilized egg becomes "human."

Personally, I think it's a stupid question and I refuse to engage. Acknowledging it's humanity from the onset is the only solution that isn't entirely open to arbitrariness.

Or perhaps it's human BEFORE fertilization? Well, let me put it like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=kp

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the rest!

" it does beg the question of where is the magical "turning point" where a fertilized egg becomes "human.""

Agreed. So let's narrow it down a little bit to defend myself. I am sure that within the first week of conception, aborting a fertilised egg is not morally akin to murdering an living human being. Are we agreed? Moreoever, aborting a 8 month baby is quite akin to murdering a living human being?

This, gentlemen, is what we call making progress. So it's just up to Draug and the others to spend a lifetime arguing about 4-30 weeks.

"Let me make my stance clear - the ONLY time I think it is justifiable to kill another human is when you have no choice in a matter of your own immediate defense."

How delightfully simple for you :)

" aborting a fertilised egg is not morally akin to [...] aborting a 8 month baby"

I don't understand the difference. Really I don't. They seem to be the exact same thing to me, regardless of gestation period. The only difference is that one of them looks a lot like us, and I do suspect that that is the only thing that differentiates the two in people's mind (though they do make up a million different reasons for whatever "turning point" they choose)

So here's my question, Synapse...

If you say both:

1) it's never morally justifiable to kill a human being outside of self defense

and

2) there are circumstances where an abortion is morally justifiable

Doesn't that force you by definition to define an the fetus as nonhuman up to a point in order to maintain your sense of self as a moral person? What other choice do you have?

"Moreoever, aborting a 8 month baby is quite akin to murdering a living human being? "

No, it is not "akin", since anyway such terminations occur for 'self-defense' reasons. You're falling for the pro-life traps. Your moral judgment (and anyone else's for that matter) has no place in the application of medical procedures. Are we also going to say that access to healthcare is contingent on whether we morally approve of people's lifestyles? Say goodbye to acute care for drug abusers then, or diabetic care for most people with diabetes, and virtually everything else.

Personally, I prefer 8 or 9 weeks (heartbeat and brain waves) but have no qualms with 20 (26, whatever) as a point where it feels pain. I do have a problem with "viability outside the womb" as viability is becoming earlier and earlier and earlier with scientific advancement. Does that mean a fetus aborted in the 1980s that would now be viable was less human than one now of the exact same age? No, viability outside the womb is not a good standard on which to judge "life". So we need to decide on measurable vital statistics to determine life. Does it have a heart beat, can I read brainwaves, and does it exhibit stress/pain like symptoms when put in minor distress seem like reasonable guidelines to me.

Anyway should we deprive Draugnar of diabetic treatment because we don't approve of his very dangerous smoking habits? Of course not. Our moral judgment is irrelevant.

"can I read brainwaves"

There goes half of webdip.

LOL! +1 2WL (although now you're biting the hands that feed your trolling modishness). :-)

"Personally, I prefer 8 or 9 weeks (heartbeat and brain waves) but have no qualms with 20"

Fantastic, let us know when you get pregnant at which time your 'preference' becomes remotely relevant.

" I do have a problem with "viability outside the womb" as viability is becoming earlier and earlier and earlier with scientific advancement."

No, it really isn't. Another myth. In 25 years viability time has been shortened precisely one week, and any earlier is impossible because of the lack of...lungs.

"Falling into the pro-life traps"

No I'm forming an opinion. There aren't two opposing camps, this is drivel perpetuated to sell newspapers.

"There aren't two opposing camps"

Pretty sure there are two opposing camps.

"Fantastic, let us know when you get pregnant at which time your 'preference' becomes remotely relevant."

Well played.

Not outrageous at all though. I've often felt like my opinion is only relevant on a secondary level. This is a woman's issue.

Is it? The fetus has no say? It is society's issue because we are deciding what is and isn't human life. The liberals want to say it's a woman's issue, but then we are leaving potential life and death decisions up to a hormonally imbalanced individual (that's right, pregnancy affects hormonal balance).