"I don't understand your case. The moral framework defines the hierarchy. In my moral framework, protecting the quality of a well established life and a woman's right to choose is more desirable than the right to life. "

No it's not. As I already pointed out, for example, you wouldn't allow killing a three year old in order to protect the quality of a well established life. It's that difference that is arbitrary. In one case, you say that's more important than life. In another case, you say it's not. The dividing line is arbitrary.

A three year old is a well established life - human-as-end-product as opposed to human-in-process. Stop with the mendacity. There is nothing arbitrary about the distinction. What is arbitrary is the supposed pro-life concern for human embyros fetuses and total disregard for actual living human beings.

I already explained, putin, that I'm having this whole argument in the context of somebody who does not recognize the distinction you're purporting to draw.

I think that it would be very useful for us all if Putin defined where, from his perspective, the human "in process" life cycle ended and that of the human "end product" began. Thanks in advance.

It's a get-out clause, asking for someone to draw the line so that you can pull up a bunch of facts that disagree with it. Its a fundamental adhoc disguised as relevant. Like Putin, I feel there's a *definitely not human area*, the first 2 weeks or so of fertilisation, and a *definitely human area*, 8-9 months. I don't know why we (who are in favour or against abortion) webdippers need to draw the line. Isnt' that the job of scientists?

In an effort to help would a line drawn at the current scientific/medical level of extra-utero viability help? I believe that this may be as low as 21 weeks. Moreover, in response to your excellent call for a scientific approach to this subject, should we consider what we might use for a calibrant? Maybe when we reach a workable consensus on foetal response to stimuli seems a good enough point to me. I think if the foetus responds to, for example, sound then it is reasonable to assume it perceives pain too. Maybe you prefer sentience as a measure (Ref. Peter Singer), in that case we get into the territory of infanticide. Anyway, I am open to any suggestion that you might propose.
.

"I don't know why we (who are in favour or against abortion) webdippers need to draw the line. Isnt' that the job of scientists? "

Scientists can only possibly address such a thing once others -- philosophers, politicians, or just citizens like us -- decide what the criteria are that define wrongness of killing. These are moral questions, which scientists are not especially well suited to answer.

Scientists are surely better at telling us what is a human and what isn't, or in other words what the different "categories" of life are to allow us to make those decisions. Ie. a plant is not the same as a beetle is not the same as an elephant is not the same as a human being.

Sure, once one defines the categories, SYnapse, scientists can be of great help.

For example, suppose one decides that a person is entitled to protection from murder once the person is able to feel pain. Well, a scientist is the person you'd go to to find out when a fetus can start feeling pain.

But deciding whether that is or isn't a good criterion of personhood or moral protection is not a scientific question, and a scientist wouldn't be better than anybody else for addressing it.

I don't think I'm qualified to decide whether pain, sounds, a heartbeat or a single neuron classifies one as human - a neuroscientist would be better able to tell me what "composes" a human being...

Not at all, synapse. "Human" is a word. Neuroscientists have to come up with definitions just like everybody else, and they're good at coming up with definitions that facilitate neuroscience, not those that facilitate philosophy.

A neuroscientist can tell you whether a particular physical organism has particular neurological properties. He can't tell you the moral relevance of those properties in the least, though.

What experiment could you run to decide whether it was wrong to kill a creature that could feel pain?

@ful - The problem with viability is that it keeps getting earlier and earlier. Would a 21 week old I'm the 80s be les worthy of protection than a 21 week old today? Because viability in the 80s was much later, closer to 30 weeks I believe.

Abortion is needed in the same way as population control, as a species we already consume more resources than the planet can reproduce, and we just as Americans @ >5% of the worlds population consume more than 25% of its resources. If babies are not wanted why bring them into the world, so they can go through some charity system and be a statistic for their life.

It's called adoption ssorenn. Lot's of couple swould love to have a baby but can't and they have the capability financially and emotionally to car for and raise a child. What if your parents had decided to abort you? Would yo still feel the same way about abortion? Oh wait, you wouldn't feel anything because the uniqueness that is ssorenn would never have been brought into this world and the world would be different because of it.

And what s this "we as Americans" bullshit. You're not an American.

if they decided to abort me, i would not have been here to have this conversation. ding dong. i am here and i know,and have see all to much how unwanted babies made there way into DCFS because people can't or won't take care of their kids. those kids end up on the streets and in gangs looking for any type of love they think they can find.

i am sure there are families that want to adopt that have the best of intentions,but there are 10x more that don't give up the children and they become a statistic of society, and my tax dollars are used to support them.

i'm sorry that you have your issues DRAUG, nobody wishes that for anybody,and i know its hard to take your personal feeling out of the equation, but the facts remain the same

But ssorenn, those same number of kids would still be there because abortion is legal and they still didn't bother to abort them. It's quite simple, really. You tell someone when they come in that they only have the option until week whatever but after that, they should consider adoption. Of course, I've already said I accept there is a time period (I'd say 20 weeks is safe) in which the mother should have a choice. Now, beyond 20 weeks is acceptable if the life of the mother is at risk. But other reasons (the rape/incest thing for instance) still need to be decided before the middle of the 5th month. If you can figure out in 20 weeks whether you want the kid or not, then you have a serious problem beyond being pregnant.

i am not insinuating to destroy a sentient child, at that point the child should be born, but in the early stages of pregnancy at embrio level, i am all for aborton if that is whats best

and your not american.........bitch...........lol

Actually, ssorenn, I am 1/16th native American. I have a great great grandma who was Chickasaw.

1/16th really, your heritage is your heritage,but do you still do the rain dance

i'm a mutt, married to a pure bread italian,who still calls herself european,but she's as american as anybody

Focaccia or ciabatta ??

Well, considering I am mostly German (1/2 from my mom) with heavy Scottish (1/4 from my dad's dad) with the other 3/16 English (dad's mom had an English father and English/native American Mother). My last name is from John Balliol. It's just been Anglicized and twisted when my paternal family came to American in the late 19th Century.

so.......is that yes or no, on the rain dance

and focaccia all the way

No, but I do love to make fresh pretzels and Spätzle.

If you had said your make your own beer ,well I would have given you +1. But I do love me some spatzle

I don't drink much at all and I rarely if ever drink beer. My drink of choice comes from my dad's side: single malt scotch. Highland, lowland, speyside, I don't care (although speyside is probably my favorite - Glenfiddich being the absolute best scotch ever).

I like Johnny blue, but not a huge scotch guy, my poison is red wine

@semck I think I understand now, but I think to make that argument you must focus too much on the first of the items on the list, and ignore the others. At the age of 3, a child can be given up for adoption with no health risk to the parent. Therefore killing it is not a valid option.

Prenatal this is not the case. There is nothing arbitrary about that.