Let us cut the crap.

[Ben Kenobi]

Like not getting on a space ship in the first place, without knowing I'll have some method of support.

To continue Elok's analogy further, abortion is like someone shoving you out the airlock. Of course, you would want to have the choice to prepare, but that's exactly what we deny the unborn child.

[Ben Kenobi]

A fetus is not a person. A person is sentient, a fetus, embryo, or zygote is not.

So lets stick to facts, 'k?

UR:

So an infant is not a person? How can an infant possibly be sentient?

[Ben Kenobi]

And I'd rather have these things decided by a democratic process than by a ruling minority (or singularity), since the few can make sweeping and irresponsible alterations to society.

Theben:

I agree, however that is exactly what happened during Roe v. Wade, in that a small majority of judges decided the policy for the entire country.

So if you are in favour of democratic process, than we ought to put this matter to a referendum, rather than allowing the courts to oppose the will of the people.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ethics, on the other hand, aren't about conformity, but about reason. And if you think that morality is fluid, etc. why do you think slavery should've been abolished? why you think that segregation should've been abolished? most people supported it.

Slavery came under attack after the ratification of the U.S. constitution (in the U.S.) and the spread of French concepts of personal liberty and rights of men from the elite to the common people. Now while most whites didn't think of blacks (or any non-whites) as true equals, they were beginning to think that they should have self-determination. By the time of the civil war, a majority of people in fact thought slavery should be abolished.

As for morality be fluid, you answered your own question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rogan Josh:

Now I don't think a newly fertilised egg is any more 'life' than the guy on life support,

What is a fertilised egg? There is no such thing. Sperm and egg cease to be at conception, so the union of the two form a zygote.

Now we define the guy on life support as 'alive' if he has significant brain activity. I don't see anything wrong with this definition - if the fetus has no significant brain activity then it is not aware and not conscious.

Actually, the biomedical definition of brain death is not the current lack of brain function, but the irreverseable cessation of brain activity. For if we were to gage the current lack of brain function, a person during open heart surgery would not be considered a person.

The key is in that one word, as to where we define personhood, at the end of life, 'irreverseable' cessation of brain activity.

So my opinion is that abortion is OK (but should not be encouraged) until the fetus has significant brain activity. Does anyone know when this is? (Pretty early I would think.)

Okay, Rogan, why should we not encourage a woman to have an early abortion if there is nothing wrong with abortion at that period in time?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

After that period of time, the viable human has rights that cannot be removed, but must be "balanced" against the rights of the mother to life and health. If the pregnancy has no hope but would only kill the mother, it should be terminated. If the mother could potentially die or suffer some serious health risks, she has the superior right.

There are some problems with your definition. 'If the mother could potentially die' is very poorly worded, since all pregnancies carry a marginal risk. Therefore your ban would allow abortions throughout all nine months of any pregnancy.

Then there is the issue of deformity, genetic disease and the like. Terminating a pregnancy under these circumstances should also be permitted if not required.

What is wrong with genetic deformity? If we allow people to kill these children before they are born, why can the not do so afterwards? The same for genetic disease. Why should anyone be permitted to kill someone just because they are considered to be 'genetically defective?'

Such a birth can catastrophically affect families or society in addition to the pain and suffering to the infant

Catastrophically affect? Again, see my previous answer. If these children are so expensive, and such a burden on their parents and society, why should we kill them before birth and not after?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben


Slavery came under attack after the ratification of the U.S. constitution (in the U.S.) and the spread of French concepts of personal liberty and rights of men from the elite to the common people. Now while most whites didn't think of blacks (or any non-whites) as true equals, they were beginning to think that they should have self-determination. By the time of the civil war, a majority of people in fact thought slavery should be abolished.

As for morality be fluid, you answered your own question.

Slavery came under attack during the Roman Empire with the dawn of Christianity and never subsided. It grew in force in England and America not by any kowtowing to "French" ideas but at the behest of the so-called religious right who now lead the fight against abortion.

More revisionist history.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
There is no such thing as a right to life. Every day we define people in different groups, and a fetus is not defined as a person, so this notion that this is about taking a human life to me can only be backed by religious conviction mostly.

I agree with Freako, the either or arguement is absurd: abortion is a legislative issue, not a constitutional one, or an either or one.

I presume from this that you would agree that the current legislation banning partial birth abortion is constitutional?

[Theben]

BenK:

I agree, however that is exactly what happened during Roe v. Wade, in that a small majority of judges decided the policy for the entire country.

So if you are in favour of democratic process, than we ought to put this matter to a referendum, rather than allowing the courts to oppose the will of the people.

Sure why not. I'm positive that the majority will ask for what I believe in: no interference with 1st trimester abortions, 2nd trimester abortions requriing some oversight, and no 3rd, unless the life of the mother is in danger, or in case of rape. Would you and all other Christians be satisfied with that result?

Ned:

Slavery came under attack during the Roman Empire with the dawn of Christianity and never subsided.

Okay, Ned. I meant slavery in America, which I'm sure you could've figured out had you tried. But even you're wrong, since the Bible tells of the slaves fleeing the Pharoh in Egypt. Well before Christ.

It grew in force in England and America not by any kowtowing to "French" ideas but at the behest of the so-called religious right who now lead the fight against abortion.

Does your hatred of the French extend to denying history? Why do you think England and America started attacking slavery as an institution? And yes, religious groups did attack slavery, but bear in mind 1)the church was the main focal point of the community back then, and the best way to meet others and spread ideas, 2) those people weren't the "religious right". They came from all points on the spectrum, although most were what you would've called, had you been alive then, "leftists".

More revisionist history.

Next time you should put that at the start of your tirade so everyone knows that's what you'll post. Not that we don't already.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Slavery came under attack during the Roman Empire with the dawn of Christianity and never subsided. It grew in force in England and America not by any kowtowing to "French" ideas but at the behest of the so-called religious right who now lead the fight against abortion.

Read "The Autobiography of Frederick Douglass" if you want evidence that by no means did all members of the religious right oppose slavery. (Link is to a free online version of the book.)

Here a key quote

In August, 1832, my master attended a Methodist camp-meeting held in the Bay-side, Talbot county, and there experienced religion. I indulged a faint hope that his conversion would lead him to emancipate his slaves, and that, if he did not do this, it would, at any rate, make him more kind and humane. I was disappointed in both these respects. It neither made him to be humane to his slaves, nor to emancipate them. If it had any effect on his character, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways; for I believe him to have been a much worse man after his conversion than before. Prior to his conversion, he relied upon his own depravity to shield and sustain him in his savage barbarity; but after his conversion, he found religious sanction and support for his slaveholding cruelty.

http://www.galileolibrary.com/ebooks/am05/douglass_page_12.htm

[Japher]

my views on abortion change on a case by case basis. yet, I think if abortion is legal it should be made legal at every stage until the child is fully independent... you know, like 18 or so...

[st_swithin]

There are always ethical arguments against abortion, from the perspective that the fetus is a potentially thinking, living, air-breathing human being. Personally, I would argue all of these things, but I believe only women (at least at this point, we are physiologically limited) should have the right to say what can live in her body and what can't.

If it were solely the man's decision, he would be forcing a woman to endure 9 months of physical suffering and encumberment for his benefit only, especially if the woman bearing the child has expressed the desire to terminate the pregnancy. This is like a mandatory jail sentence for the mistake of letting some a55hole shoot off inside, and is completely unfair to the woman. Why should the man get a say in how that woman's life will progress for the next 9 months? Women don't necessarily have a say in the man's life, and he bears none of the responsibility or burden.

From a woman's point of view, abortion should be a non-issue. If women started letting other people dictate what goes into her body, what stays, and what leaves, she might as well go get that lobotomy, work for Heidi Fleiss and then hire herself out as a human incubator, because that's all she'd have left.

I think when men decide that it is their right to determine the fate of abortion, it is a case of how much of a control freak that man is trying to be.

Furthermore, there are almost never any proponents for the children's welfare when they are born. The US education system is a farce, adoption is not nearly as accessible nor publicised as it should be to compensate for the number of unwanted children in the world, not to mention the social stigma for having given a child up in the first place. But that's neither here nor there - the world's already as f'd up as it's going to get.

[Ned]

I am not sure why Methodists would sanction slavery. But the beginning of the end of slavery as an institution began in the Roman Empire when Christians adhered to the concept that all men were created equal before God. I presume that the Christians in the South had to define the black man has "subhuman" to maintain their belief that slaves had no rights as human beings. One can see echoes of this depraved concept in today's abortion advocates who to declare the fetus as something other than a human being. Indeed there is much in common with some abortion advocates and Confederate slaveowners.

[Ned]

Also, Theban et al., I will concede to the idea that America freed it slaves based on ideas flowing from French humanists if you can cite one speech by Lincoln that made any reference to them.

[Japher]

I think abortion, in general, denies ones right to LIFE, and that is immorally(which are subjective by the way) wrong.

My analogy? You are standing at the edge of a cliff. You grab a child and a rope and you tell the child to hold on to the rope and then throw that child of the cliff. You are now standing on the side of the cliff holding onto that rope. All you have to do is hold on until that child climbs up, letting go would be abortion.