Lolz. What a cute troll. Ya'll should come to the Utopia forums and learn how to troll from someone like Vines. He's great at it... "98-95 = +2 or -2" "1/.95 = 1.05", just to name a few...

Sic - You are mistaking respect of others rights with pacifism. We have made great strides, albeit with the occassional backslide (Iraq, Roe v Wade, capital punishment, etc.) towards a more respectful and protective society. Ownership of people has been outlawed. Vigilantism (possies as it were) is outlawed. And while we still have a long way to go on all sides of the equality issues (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), great strides have been made.

But at the root of it all, even our leaders are people with desires and motivations, flaws and failings. And, unfortunately, we had one in power who put others in position of authority for 8 years that was motiviated by daddy issues. Too bad he wasn't his father.

What is it, that gives you authority to tell other people what to do with their bodies? What makes you somehow better than anyone else?

@Persephone
Can you please explain how these two statements don't contradict each other?
1) "I never suggested that abortion is a solution for ANY reason at ANY time. Obviously it is only provided to women at a certain stage of pregnancy"

2)"A fetus becomes a human when it's umbilical cord is cut from its mother's body. Plain and simple. Until that point, it is attached to her, it is her body, and she chooses what to do with it."

And you are wrong. I am pro-choice and I have no problems staying in this argument. Frankly, people like you hurt your own cause more than you help it.

@Sicarius
"What is it, that gives you authority to tell other people what to do with their bodies? What makes you somehow better than anyone else?"

Again, and I'll repeat it slowly for you. (Actually, I'll just cut and paste my previous post)

Sigh....
Jmo,
Let me try it this way. If you were at home beating your kids, the state would step in and protect your children, because they are unable to protect themselves. Some/most pro-life people have no thoughts about interfering in the life of a mother, have no desire to tell her what to do; they think about it as protecting a child, stepping in to protect someone who cannot protect themselves.

The child a woman carries is an independent being attached to a biomechanical incubator. It is NOT part of her body. If it were it would be a genetic duplicate of her and not have it's own lungs, heart, and brain along with a DNA unique to it. I'm nto telling her wat she can or can't do to her body. I'm telling her what she can or cannot do to another human being. As a self professed anarchist, you must agree that no one should have the right to interfere with your own choice to live; a choice we all make every time we eat a meal or take a breath. I have a moral obligation to stand up and give a voice to those who cannot do so themselves.

you can cut the condescension. The fact that I havnt been here for the entire debate says nothing about my intelligence, a fact you are well aware of. cut the shit alright?

I dont really agree with state intervention EVER, so I dont think you're going to convince me of anything by using it allegorically.
Anyway, I've voiced my opinion, and I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind on such a hot topic as abortion, so bye.

@ draugnar

please dont bait me with my own politics. I don't like abortion, and dont agree with it. but its not my, or your decision to make.

@Sicarius
". The fact that I havnt been here for the entire debate says nothing about my intelligence, a fact you are well aware of. cut the shit alright?"

Well, first, I figured maybe you would read something before you posted. And what fact am I aware of? That you have intelligence? Frankly, that's debatable. You are well read, you have 'street smarts', but I think you are dumb as a post when you start talking about how the world works and should work.

How do you think the world should work?

That's kind of an open-ended question, no?

Wow, that question could well merge this debate with the one in "Glenn Beck" about communism and egalitarianism...

of course it's an open ended question. that gives you room to respond in any manner you see fit. I'm not trying to corner you, it's just that you expressed that my view on how the world should work shows that I am dumb as a post.
Thus I ask you, how do you think the world should work?

surely as someone who is apparently much smarter than I, you can construct some kind of answer?

I was referring to particular topics, as they come up. When particular topics come up, you respond with a world-view that I find simplistic and unrealistic. Case in point, you come into a thread on abortion, admit you didn't actually read the thread, and lay down the law. Not only can you not acknowledge that their may be another side to the debate, you seem offended that there might be.

No one claimed to be better than anyone else in this thread. For the most part, there were some very well thought out posts from both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between. Then there were others from people... well, like you.

nice dodge. you could be a politician you know.

My world view is ever-changing, based on things I learn, things I hear and how old I am. You want to ask me something in particular, be my guest. But giving me a stage and saying 'Go'. Nah, not my idea of a good time.

And it actually wasn't a dodge. It was an example of how I view you world-view. I made no comment in my post about how *I* think the world should work. I admit I don't have a solution for all the world problems, and made no claims to having the moral high ground on that.

@Drag: you said "Note that the first and highest right is the right to *life*. This right, above all else, cannot be superceeded by *any* other right, including your freedom (note, a freedom, not a right) of choice."

Please note, it said, among these rights, and then a list. It didn't say first in order of importance of the right is life.

If you can't read please don't bother posting. If you can't tell when you are interpreting something to mean more than is actually written please don't quote other things. If i'm not making any sense please tell me.

@Sicarius: you said "What is it, that gives you authority to tell other people what to do with their bodies? What makes you somehow better than anyone else?"

I think what we are discusing here is what authority (laws) should be placed in the hands of a government. With the support of a body of people i believe that any government has the authority to tell other people what to do, and by discussing what rights we think people (and embryos) should and should not have we are trying to come to a common 'acceptable to all' set of powers which we would all freely agree a government should exercise.

Who said anything about me being better than anyone else? Are you trying to start a rumour?

I know you don't believe that any humans should have governments. Thus you have no place in society, or deciding how society should run. (well your view is always society should not exist, unless i'm mistaken - i'm basing this on my limited memory of what you've said before - but since that is always your view, I feel you can go do whatever you want, and leave us people who DO choose to be part of society to decide how we should run it.)

@Thuc: you said "EVERY HUMAN HAS FULL RIGHTS!! I don't care, at ALL, WHO that human is. ANY attempt to remove define a group of humans who does NOT have full rights is equivalent to a crime against humanity."

i'm going to assume you meant, remove/redefine what humans count... is equivalent to a crime against humanity.

I would agree about the crime against humanity bit; though obviously if we choose to redefine humanity to only include those people who are not actively trying to kill me(say), then it's not a crime against that smaller set of humans to kill in self-defence.

Two things this raises:
1) is it ok to kill in self-defence?
2) regarding abortions, is it clear and simple to understand what is and isn't a human?

I'm no biologist, but I feel the answer to the second question is no, and while the mainstream opinion about when human life starts is that it should be based somehow on cognition, brain waves.

You agree that this should include some primates, (i think the Great apes, 5 of us, Humans, Chimps, bonobos, Gorillaz, and Oranguatans, would all qualify) I have no problem using this as a measure to see what we should include. I might even say that brain dead bodies shouldn't count as alive any more, but any other exclusion(of rights) based on brain wave activity seems unfair to those who just aren't that smart, are mentally impaired or limited in some way. I do think it would be a step back, and while we do not understand the brain-mind-conscisness system fully science is still rather up in the air on that matter. (which is why on the issue of abortion i consider dependancy a more solid, reliable measure)

You fetus, are not yet an independant entity, you may be killed, (but only by the woman you are dependant on). I think 'independant entity' is a much easier thing to gauge.

That doesn't mean the woman shouldn't consider the brain waves of the cells inside her, just that while it can't be extracted from her without killing it, she has the physical responcibility for keeping it alive, and shloud be allowed to give up this responcibility. (her choice, yeah, i'm sounding very pro-choice here.)

well jones, you call me stupid for my world view, and offer nothing in return?
if my views are so illogical and backwards that you are equating my intelligence with a stick, then it should be quite easy to offer up your own solutions.
Since my opinions are so bad, surely ANYTHING else could be better.

you dont have an "anything else?"

Sicarius, my views on abortion are contained within this thread. My views on gay marriage are contained within that thread. My views on the bailout were contained within that thread. My views on the Middle East were contained within that thread. Feel free to go look at any of them.

Like I said I am willing to re-asses the personhood of human flesh without any form of brain-waves or cognition, but would need very specific proof that no consciousness exists at the earlier stages to authorize an abortion of such an embryo. It still actually unsettles me to end a pregnancy, since all things being equal the baby would have been born... but again, I am a realist, and would compromise on the basis I mention above.

@ Thucydides:

>What is the difference between an embryo and a fetus (i.e. where is the line specifically drawn?)

Here are the stages and how they change from one to another:
* Ovum (unfertilised egg), which after fertilisation becomes …
* Zygote (fertilised egg), which after it begins to divide becomes …
* Blastocyst, which after it implants in (usually) the uterus becomes …
* Embryo, which after 8 weeks becomes …
* Fetus, which after birth becomes …
* Infant.

The 8-week division between embryo and fetus seems to be pretty arbitrary, but standard. It roughly corresponds to looking recognisably human (but still distorted) and the beginning of movement, so it would seem to match the common-law ‘quickening’ that I mentioned earlier, as well as the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22–23 (which is a law about feticide, not abortion, but it has meaning for some religious groups in the U.S. debate, so I mention it).

The other divisions seem clear cut to me, but the terminology varies. Some people count the zygote as still an ‘ovum’, some people count the blastocyst as still a ‘zygote’, some people count both the zygote and blastocyst as already an ‘embryo’. But that's to be expected, I guess, when the terminology began with anatomists' cutting up dead bodies and only later did people come in with microscopes and ultrasound. I'll try to be precise with terms like ‘implanted embryo’ instead of just ‘embryo’. Also, ‘blastocyst’ has other technical connotations, and some people might want to use other words to indicate that they're not including the stuff that becomes the placenta and things like that, but I don't think that any of that matters to us (unless an embryologist wants to come in and tell us otherwise!).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_human_development and pages linked from there

According the language promulgated by the AMA, a ‘pregnancy’ begins with implantation, the change from blastocyst to implanted embryo. Anything that kills an ovum, a zygote, or a blastocyst, like the morning-after pill, is only a ‘contraceptive’, while an ‘abortion’ has to kill an implanted embryo or a fetus (that is abort a pregnancy). The law in the U.S. mostly follows this language, despite the efforts of anti-abortion (or anti-contraception?) groups. Embryonic stem-cell research, throwing away unwanted byproducts of artificial insemination, and so forth, all happen to blastocysts, not to implanted embryos.

>I am willing to consider that an embryo may not be a person per se, given in part what you have said. But even then, unless there is incredibly compelling evidence that this embryo has no cognitive processes, I would still come down on the side of "we just don't know enough, so better to safe than sorry."

Well, a blastocyst certainly doesn't have a brain, or even nerve cells. A fetus does; it's hard to draw the line with an implanted embryo, since the brain forms gradually. As for pain, the mainstream view seems to be that a human fetus feels no pain before the third trimester, although some studies put the first ability to feel pain much earlier or instead later, even some time after birth. There is also some evidence that, whatever else, every fetus is asleep until birth.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain and the references linked there

But there is a larger philosphical difference between us here. I make a clear distinction between what is *moral* (behaviours that make for a good society) and what is *licit* (behaviours that society should accept). If I have doubts about what a fetus wants or can feel (although I don't think that is all that matters for you, it's what matters for me), then I should err on the side of caution and not participate in an abortion. But for me to interfere in what somebody else is doing —and I hold the state through its laws to this same standard—, then I need more than just doubt; I need good evidence. Again, I would err on the side of caution (a different kind of caution this time) and not try to prevent an abortion, and I think that the state should do the same.

>It's the same reason I oppose capital punishment, and more specifically, lethal injection. There is reason to believe that the inmate's death is not actually painless. So as long as we don't know, I oppose it. And again, even if it was painless, I would still oppose it on the grounds that we don't know where we're sending them when we kill them.

And I would oppose it on the grounds that they don't want to die. Even convicts have human rights, after all.

>You, or someone else, had said that opposing it on the basis of a lack of knowledge about an afterlife is flimsy. This person said that when people die, they're buried or cremated or something, and they generally don't seem to care about what happens to their body, etc etc. They are saying in effect that since dead people do not communicate with the living, that is evidence enough that there is no afterlife.

Yes, that was me. Again, I don't offer this as evidence that there is no afterlife; all I'm saying is that there is no evidence that there is an afterlife. And without such evidence, the state has no business intefering with other people's decisions about their own lives (and deaths).

>There could be any form of afterlife. […] And it is that basic assumption that causes people and animals and all life in general to fight for survival.

No, it isn't. Those animals that don't have any understanding of tomorrow, much less the afterlife, have an instinct to fight for survival. I don't believe in the afterlife any more than I believe in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, but I still want to live. Why? Nothing particularly rational (except when I think about how my mom would feel if I died); I just feel like it. Instinct, not fear of hell.

>Since you can't know if it will be better or worse, better to stick with where you are. It's like being in a dream, and trying to keep from waking up.

I really don't follow you here. I have sometimes tried to wake up from dreams, usually because I'm afraid of oversleeping but sometimes because they're nightmares. And better to stick with the status quo when you have no idea whether the alternative is better or worse? If that's what you feel like for yourself, OK, but I can't accept that as logical!

>It also assumes that the only place the consciousness resides is within the body. There is no reason to believe that either.

There is plenty of reason to believe that consciousness resides in the brain. It looks like http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html is the Time article that you wanted me to read. That's full of reasons why consciousness is in the brain; it even begins by testing someone for consciousness by measuring her brain! There is no evidence there, or anywhere else that I know, that my consciousness lies outside of my brain. Maybe it is also somewhere else, like in my gut (a lot of nerves there, but apparently all subconscious), my heart (traditional, but seems unlikely now), or on Comet Hale-Bopp (if only I'd joined Heaven's Gate!). If you think that there's a reasonable chance of this, then let it affect your moral judgement, by all means. But please don't interfere with my decisions about my life because you think that my consciousness might lie elsewhere.

That was an interesting article, by the way, and I did learn from it. But the more that I learn about the brain, the more that I'm convinced that the standard to go by is what people want for their own lives according to their own testimony, and not any outsider's judgement about what consciousness, or pain, or life may exist somewhere, or what the people in question really want but don't know. I'm worried that someday I will be told that I can't undergo major surgery because it's inhumane —to myself— since the anæsthetic doesn't really stop me from feeling pain, only from remembering it. Maybe I will be required to attach sensors to myself to wake me up if I have a nightmare. Already the state outlaws some dangerous medical procedures (even when patients understand and accept the risks) and requires me to wear seat belts (although I would anyway), all for my own good; I don't see by what legal theory those laws are OK but these hypothetical ones that I worry about are not. So I fight against them all on the grounds of personal freedom, and I support court decisions (usually based on the 4th and 9th Amendments in the U.S.) that sometimes help to fight them.

Since you've given me something to read, I'll give you something, although it probably won't change your mind about anything (and does not really argue for any point of view). Bu my opinions on death and consciousness have been shaped by Transition Dreams (or rather, by thinking for several weeks about why it disturbed me so much), a short story by my favourite science fiction author, Greg Egan. Unfortunately, it's not online, but here's bibliographic information if you want to read it: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/BIBLIOGRAPHY/Bibliography.html#p36

Also, Sicarius you mentioned that not many pro-lifers are against war. I am against war. War is atrocious and should be avoided at any cost. Just like abortion. The only reason i would support a standing army is to keep peace when war breaks out. This is why I support UN peacekeeping missions, but not military occupations like in Western Sahara.

"And I would oppose it on the grounds that they don't want to die. Even convicts have human rights, after all."

Yes, let me be clear, that is my basis for opposition as well. I am just saying, that is one more reason to be skeptical when an executioner type tries to bring you on board by saying its painless and therefore not cruel and unusual. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

"No, it isn't. Those animals that don't have any understanding of tomorrow, much less the afterlife, have an instinct to fight for survival. I don't believe in the afterlife any more than I believe in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, but I still want to live. Why? Nothing particularly rational (except when I think about how my mom would feel if I died); I just feel like it. Instinct, not fear of hell."

There again you may have misunderstood me. My claim is that life attempts to prolong itself not because it fears hell, but because it cannot know whether or not there is hell. It is not fear of hell, it is fear of the unknown. The unknown encompasses everything from hell to nothing at all to even an exact replay of the life you just lived. It could be literally anything.

This is personally why I could never even contemplate suicide. Once I do it, there's no coming back, and I have no idea what it will be like after it's done. Even if there was perfect proof (which there can never be) that there was no afterlife and that death was the end of existence, I would still fight death and protect the right to life because the end of existence means nothing more that is good can ever happen to me if I no longer exist, so I will continue to exist in order to attempt to do or experience good (which is obviously relative, which is one more reason to stay alive. Since what is positive is based on my attitude, even what most would call an awful life I would maintain since I could, by staying alive, perhaps come to see it as good. Nothing of this kind is possible once dead.)

To assume that the material world is self-contained may be correct, but one can never be certain of that. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I don't necessarily believe in a creator or a god, but do you not think it strange that all life has one goal in common, to stay alive? Where did that come from?

@orath - My interpretation matches that which the Supreme Court has used through out it's existence. The only reason Row v Wade passed muster was that the Court ruled Texas law was too broad and overreaching. It doesn't give carte blanche to anyone wanting an abortion or remove the states rights to regulate and set reasonable terms in prohibiting the abortion. Inother matters regarding rights, the court has consitently ruled that the right to life surpasses all other rights and is only surpassed in capital crime cases where the condemned has themselves violated another person or persons right to life.

I view Roe v. Wade as repugnant a decision as Dred Scott v. Sandford in that they are equally dehumanizing.

>My claim is that life attempts to prolong itself not because it fears hell, but because it cannot know whether or not there is hell. It is not fear of hell, it is fear of the unknown.

I'm using ‘hell’ as a catch-all for all of the unpleasant possibilities of the unknown. If the only possibilites were pleasant (‘heaven’), then there would be nothing to fear. But substitute ‘the unknown’ for ‘hell’ if you like.

>This is personally why I could never even contemplate suicide.

I'm tempted to say that it's too bad that you've never contemplated suicide. I don't really believe that; it wouldn't be worth it. But if you had contemplated suicide, then I think that you would have a different perspective on the idea that everything alive wants to live. I want to live, but having contemplated suicide, I understand that it is possible to want to die.

>do you not think it strange that all life has one goal in common, to stay alive? Where did that come from?

No, I don't find that strange at all. Those instincts are pretty direct results of our genetic programming, on all levels. (Normally I think that people tend to exaggerate how much of our basic ideas are genetically programmed. But this seems to be an exception; it is quite universal, across all human cultures and beyond.) Those individuals that lacked such genes did not survive as much to reproduce and pass on their genes to offspring. On the other hand, those individuals that had such genes did survive more often to reporduce and pass on their genes to offspring. This happens among all species whose organisms reproduce (which is all of them), which is why they all have the drive to survive.

However, many organisms lose the drive to survive after they have mated (if male) or laid their eggs (if female). This varies, of course, since many organisms will live for several mating seasons, and many of them will also help to raise their offspring (humans do both). In those cases, while it might theoretically be possible for organisms to lose their will to live after having reproduced and raised children as much as possible, that would be too complicated to program, and so they want to live forever. But other organisms simply die, or even (especially among males) allow themselves to be killed by their mates, after reproducing. Then there are some species, such as termites again, in which most individuals never reproduce; they normally still try to stay alive to work for the colony, but they gladly sacrifice themselves in a fight. In the extreme case, a worker bee will probably die right after she stings you!