"Sorry sword, but this is not the main question.

You have two groups of people:
- those who have their beliefs but are willing to leave the rest of mankind make their own choice
- those who think their beliefs are more important than freedom of choice

From what I know I've heard the main argument is that life may start at conception. Well, maybe, but maybe not. Until this is somehow proven or considered common knowledge I'm not so sure. Especially as this is coming from the same people who have a problem with theevolution and use a 2000-year old book as the main source of scientific knowledge :)"

To disagree once more Ivo, I think you are mistaken. To a certain extent, those two groups of people do exist. I am not attempting to refute that.

But I think you are wrong in posing the issue that way. There is this certain thing we call the 'Harm Principle'. Essentially (as a subscriber of this dominant school of western thought would say), anyone in a just society is free to do whatever they want as long as it does not pose serious harms to others.

For sure, I think it is ludicrous to interfere in religious beliefs, in the gender identification, in marriage, etc. etc. etc. of others. But do you think that in EVERY situation group 1 is superior? Not when it comes to harms.

For instance, I have my beliefs about murder. I think it is incompatible with a functioning to violate the lives of others. Will I therefore interfere with the choice of others to commit murder? Hellz yes.

And this is the justification for limiting a womans right to kill what arguable may be a human. I am not saying it is, but merely that there is an argument to be made that it is.


Secondly, perhaps you have only met religious people who believe that a fetus is human, but I assure that this is not uniform. ;)

FS, the same logic was used when contraception was illegal in most of the world about a century ago.

We may have a scientific or theological argument forever (what is happening in the US), but from what I know about history, at the end it's always free will that ends up being the better option, the only question is how long it will take to get there and how many people will suffer along the way.

And why are we arguing actually? :)

If I understood correctly you also have mixed feelings about the issue, more inclined to the pro-choice camp, and you don't think abortion should be criminalized, right?

I'm totally ok with this.

No spyman I'm not a theist.

I agree DinglleberryJones,

Our names for and understanding of do change with time.We have come so far in our understanding, which I find inspiring. It is only in the last, to be generous, 100 years that we have truly gained full understanding of the bio-mechanic processes in our bodies.

There was a time when it was thought that only men, through their seed, gave life and that women's body's were merely the container for that life to be born. 100 years ago, the percentage of mother's dying due to childbirth and dying due to giving birth to too many children in too short a time for her body to recover (though some did it just fine, I'd say it takes one hell of a body to give birth to 10 children even in 20 years). This is our history, it reminds us the the mother's body is indeed ,finite, as are all of ours, with limited physical abilitites; she must be able to assess her resources (psychological, material and physical) and make the choice of if/when she will give birth it is sad but true that she must make this decision alone (hopefully with support, either way)

I have been very specific in using the facts (in so far a human science knows of this system, which is quite a lot) that marks fetal development as one of the in utero stages. And what differentiates a fetus from a living baby is the baby's major organ systems, lungs being the most important, to keep it alive between feedings. A healthy 40 week old has fully formed lungs and is in this way ready to use them.

While I would have to consider the consequence to my child's life should it be born premature and whose systems cannot yet sustain it's life, I would never deny any parents right to choose between life support (which would likey leave the child disabled for life) or to allow the inevitable death should life support not be chosen just as I would never decide for a woman to give birth or to have an abortion, and just as I would never decide for a man that he should be a father.


Please explain to me how we can equate life support with life? They are not the same thing by any means. One enables life so far as an individual has access to the mechanical aide; without these aids for breathing, or when the lungs can no longer function even with them, those who cannot breath on their own will surely die.

How could you possibly know that the question " frequently ends up being is it ‘convenient’, not is it ‘safe’." In a world where the primacy of male strength is still dominant and woman's obvious vulnerabilities in her child bearing years are not regarded as servival issues , should she choose to become pregnant (the "pro-lifer" will deny a woman her choice, and then leave her to her own devices -- hence the challenge on my first post), reinforces the perception of woman being the "weaker" sex. How can a man know what women experience as the conditions of safety, given that we can hit a corner to find a man pushing us to the ground so he can force himself and invade our bodies and when society won't even equate the work done by a female the same value in terms of dollars and common sense to that of a male?

I never said that "pro-lifers" can't be contradictory in their view, that there are some who believe in "pro-life" and "pro-war," makes me disbelieve their pro-life position, but that's my reaction.

I said I wondered about the "pro-life" position that considers life as sacred, then ALL life must be treated as such and why on earth would we not start with protecting those who already alive instead of choosing to focus on the potential of life, which may or may not survive through birth for other reasons as well as the choice to abort. To me that's like apologizing for something you didn't do, so that you dont' have to apologize for something that you did do.

Pointing out Jacob's disrespect, beyond his general tone (admittedly my tone has not always been as respectful as I would have liked, but I have apologized and changed my tone to one that is more respectful) he wrote in an early post: "Women do not have some kind of special sixth sense that let's them have more insight into the abortion issue."

I find this disrespectful as it attacks the woman's unique role of childbearing, through dismissive language (which reflects an ingorant attitude), and it diminishes the autonomy of a woman, her reason, her female experiences of the word she inhabits and it's history, and the fact that she is ultimately responsible for her own life AND for the life(s) she gives birth to. While both men and women can make the choice to give birth and then walk away, men never have to live through the pain of birth -- a tearing physical separation -- before walking away.

What I have stated is that the woman's experience can only fully understood by women. I cannot understand the experience of racism on a black man's ability to choose for himself, as I am not a black man. I am not saying we cannot understand through empathy and compassion, but empathetic understanding is not the same as knowledge from personal and a whole culture of experience. I am saying that no one can say they have a good enough understanding of other's choices to decide for others


I really do realize they that "pro-lifers" are trying to protect life. I just wonder why they are attempting to do so for lives that have yet to come into existence, by effecting a woman's right to choose for herself and the unborn ( As much on her own as with the man whose actions helped to create the pregnancy) while there are so many living lives that need real protection now. Is it they don't think women can make this decision? I think maybe it is, which is disrespectful at the least.


I do accept the fact that people differ from me in many many ways, as much as we are the same in many ways. In one way we are all the same, and that is how we come to be born: through a woman's body. I would rather a woman choose to abort than be forced to bring a baby into this world that she does not want. And let's keep in mind, the reason that there are so many single mothers in the world is because many men choose not to take on the responsibility of fatherhood and we recognize that no one can force them to.

To me, I realize that "pro-choie" results in children who are chosen.

* "pro-choice"

So, she doesn't want to be a mom, let her give it up for adoption. you keep writing this possibility off. Do you think it's easier to kill a baby than it is to give it to someone who will love it and take care of it?

Adoption is also a choice, being pro choice does not mean only choose abortion and I have stated, I don't think you can kill something that is already dead once outside the womb.

Ok, how about "pro-choices"

No one has to to explain to me how life support is the same as life... Anybody?

True Ivo, I'm a die-hard liberal on most issues, though I find abortion particularly thorny.

Personally I feel that a fetus (especially an early one) is not a meaningful human, and combined with the fact that this is something *inside* and intricately tied to the life of a woman I have come to the conclusion that a women's right to choose is something I support.

I do feel however, that there are valid concerns with killing a fetus, and I did not wish to see you or anyone else dismiss all pro-lifers as bible-thumpers. :)

There is indeed something weird about saying that an infant is human once it is born, but not five minutes prior when it is a 'fetus'. There is a large grey area when defining humanity, and this is not something based in scripture. This is an issue far more substantial.

I'm glad we... (dis)... or agree? ;)

Friendly Sword,
That's why I consider the difference between fetus and the baby, according to the scientific knowledge we have, based on obvious observable facts, that the breath is key.

Thanks to human invention more fetus' survive birth, not all without damage. But there is a limit to what these inventions can do. And I would hazard to say that more mothers survive child birth now than even 50 years ago (as do babies) because of their ability to choose (using birth control is also a choice) and in so doing, more children are born to those who want them.

"Friendly Sword,
That's why I consider the difference between fetus and the baby, according to the scientific knowledge we have, based on obvious observable facts, that the breath is key."

I assume you mean 'breath' as in self-directed inhalation and exhalation of oxygen from the lungs? If so, I disagree.

Once again this is a case where your standard does not fit for all cases. For example;

I, personally, was unable to breath by myself for the first several hours subsequent to my birth. Was I therefore categorically identical to fetus in terms of breathing? Yes. Would it have been legally and morally problematic to kill me as an hour-old newborn child? I certainly hope so.

Yes, the autonmic nervous system's control of the lungs, which we can override when we consciouly hold our breath, although after a few minutes of doing if we don't allow the lungs to breath we will most certainly die.

If there had not been the technology to help you breath, say you'd been born in the 1920's you would have died. You live for the same reason I live, because modern medicine saved our lives.

Again life support is not life.

Giapeep, do you see a contradiction in your belief that only breath determines life, so that a fully formed 40 week old fetus with fully formed lungs can be killed, as long as its still on the inside? Do you see no difference between a 2 week old fetus and a 40 week old one? You seem to have ignored that.

Giapeep" I never said that "pro-lifers" can't be contradictory in their view, that there are some who believe in "pro-life" and "pro-war," makes me disbelieve their pro-life position, but that's my reaction."

You are getting hung up on definitions again. The term Pro-life ONLY refers to the abortion issue. Deal with it. Don't try to ascribe meanings to it that don't exist.

"How could you possibly know that the question " frequently ends up being is it ‘convenient’, not is it ‘safe’.""

Really? You really believe abortions are performed for the mother's safety? I'm sure some are - do you have any numbers? You brought up the safety issue - show me that is the issue.

And frankly I don't understand the 'experience' issue, that since men can't experience childbirth, they should have no say in it. For all first time pregnant women, the same holds true.

Stop it.

I've not even stated that let alone ignored that killing a new born is infanticide.

You know that's not what I mean, and I've repeated it.

A 24 week old fetus is not a baby, it is life potential.

I do not agree with aborting a fetus over the proscribed 24 weeks unless it would save the mother's life and the fetus would be dead anyway.

What prescribed 24 weeks? That's not the law in many states. There is a direct contradiction between "I do not agree with aborting a fetus over the proscribed 24 weeks" and saying it isn't a life until it breaths.

24 weeks is nothing but an arbitrary number that was determined by science - it doesn't get revisited often as medical advances occur.

(arbitrary was probably the wrong choice of words above - please remove it)

Ah DJ, did I say you can go very first page. You are not hear to contribute, it seems that you are here to argue for the sake of it. Please stop.

The scientific agreement in Canada, where abortion is legal, is to err on the side of caution for the sake of the mother as much as the fetus. It is certain that a 24 week fetus cannot breath, though it's heart pumps, outside the womb.

Up until birth or only slightly before it, the lungs, which are one of last processing systems to develop to efficacy in utero, are ill prepared to breath. Without life support an 7 month old, (roughly) would die outside the womb. A full term fetus has fully developed lungs and heart, without both, the baby dies.

An ethical question for the pro-lifers: The woman's body often spontaneously aborts the foetus due to natural causes: Imagine there existed a (hypothetical) "wonder" drug that could guarantee that the foetus would not spontaneously abort, and then would develop normally and healthily to full-term. The woman's doctor tells the woman than unless she take this drug she will lose the foetus, but if she takes the drug, nine months down the track she will give birth to a healthy child. The woman has no issues with medical science. She has taken drugs before to help with medical conditions and will most likely do so again in the future. The drug has no adverse side effects. What should the woman do? Is it ethical for her to allow the baby to spontaneously abort, or should she take the drug and save the foetus?

I just recently saw the film "Lake of Fire."

Let me just say this, without getting back into other issues.

The abortion doctor who was murdered is a murderer. So is the man who killed him. And so is the judge that sentenced him to death. Three murderers in that tragic situation. Or fifteen if you want to count the twelve jury members.

No one seemed to understand that. Everyone involved was being a hypocrite.

Ah, I've been dismissed by Giapeep. Whatever am I to do? You can't claim on one hand that a woman's body is her own to do with what she wants until a fetus takes a breath and then on the other hand claim a 24 week cutoff.

Hmm.... The earliest surviving premie - 21 weeks, in Canada no less.

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=db8f33ab-33e9-429f-bedc-b6ca80f61bdc

So maybe that 24 week cutoff is indeed arbitrary.

Sword, I don't care what religion/ideology they follow. I just have a huge problem with people who turn everything into a freedom vs. life/God/Nature debate.
Abortion
Assisted Suicide
Gays
Sexual education
etc.

Spy, you write "An ethical question for the pro-lifers: The woman's body often spontaneously aborts the foetus due to natural causes: Imagine there existed a (hypothetical) "wonder" drug that could guarantee that the foetus would not spontaneously abort,

This part is interesting...

"and then would develop normally and healthily to full-term."

And that's where you loose me, humanity in it's infinite fallibility, is a long way off from this level of perfection. Modern medical technology is a study in side effects, and I just simply can't suspend my disbelief. Looking forward to the responses though. Kudos!

You can't comprehend context, DJ.

The question is purely hypothetical. It is not intended to represent a real world situation.
The key element in this scenario is the question of choice. In the scenario the woman has the choice to either allow a foetus to develop into a baby or to abort.

Thycudides:

The abortion doctor who was murdered is a murderer.
So is the man who killed him.
And so is the judge that sentenced him to death.
Three murderers in that tragic situation. Or fifteen if you want to count the twelve jury members.

The Doctor is the doctor who helped the patient in front of him. This is what a doctor is trained to do. Do no harm is an ideal and another continuum. But the rule that is practiced day to day is treat the patient in front of you. This too is an ideal, but this one is moderated by years of training. so the same doctor who performed the abortion would tend to the murderer should he have been shot.

The man who shot the doctor is a murder, his father abandoned him and his mother beat him.

The judge is an elected/appointed official who decides by taking a sample of 12 people from the immediate community, what the social assessment for punishment is going to be.

60 years ago, spousal assault was thrown out of court, assuming it was even reported, more often than decided.