I debate a college Democrat.

[Ben Kenobi]

My analogy is that they both need favorable conditions to develop. That does hold.

The difference is that the zygote can form without a womb, but not without sperm.

Ergo, there is a difference between the two, one of the substance of the zygote, and not one of the accidents, found in the favourable conditions.

No, you don't understand how the development of life works in the womb then. The chemical differentials are critically important for telling the zygote-embryo-fetus how to develop.

These instructions are found in the DNA, are they not? That the combination provides the instructions to the proteins in order to initiate growth and devleopment?

The food and nurishment provided by the mother is critically important to the development. Beyond that it is shelter-like, but that still is an issue of favorable conditions.

Think about this for a minute. Is your current shelter a part of you? Is the food that you eat, part of you? No. The same is true for the zygote. The favourable conditions, even if they are a requirement for growth and development, are not an indissoluable part of that life.

This is not true in the case of the sperm and the egg. The contribution of both gametes, forms the zygote. You can no longer separate the part that came from the sperm, without destroying the zygote.

Again, in the case of food and shelter, it is conceivable, that such nourishment could be provided through alternative sources, and not from the womb of the mother.

You said "capacity to attain", that's the same thing as potential, I direct you to definition number 5:

That is not the same. And I say why. The bucket has a capacity, and this capacity is not a potential, but an actuality. You cannot form the bucket, without giving the bucket capacity to hold things.

Think about my analogy, and you will understand the point I am trying to make here. It's a very important point, which is why I am spending so much time here.

So don't play semantic word games.

I'm not. The capacity of the bucket, is just as real, as the walls of the bucket.

They are closer to acheiving the potential of being a human being. DNA doesn't not make a human, though it is a requirement. You need a lot more than just the right DNA.

Then what do you need? I agree that DNA by itself is not enough, the capacity should also be there.

Yes it is. Just like the womb is a require condition for life to properly develop, so too is sperm.

Again, you go back to my argument about the substance of the zygote, and the accidents surrounding the zygote.

The womb is an accident, while the sperm contribution to the zygote is part of the substance of the zygote.

Without either one the life cannot develop into a human. Without the right chemical balance, life cannot develop into a human. Otherwise you get no development or a mass of formless tissue. None of that is human.

That's like saying if the environment to form life is bad, life will not form.

Granted. But we are not talking about here, whether life will form or not.

Given, the conception of the child, do you agree that this marks the point in which human life begins?

Secondly, do you also agree, that whether this person actually manages to grow and develop beyond this point is irrelevant to whether she is a person?

Sure, but so does the contribution the mother gives in the womb-environment. Without the mother and the right chemical balance, there is no development. The mother is much more than mere shelter.

A very special shelter, but still a shelter noneless.

Nothing the mother provides alters the substance of the unborn child, any more so than any other environment.

Every organism has an environment that the organism requires in order to grow and develop. The womb is the environment of the unborn child.

The Egg is less than half of what is needed. It is only half of the genetic requirement, but genetics can't make a human by themselves.

So then, if you require this point, I need you to tell me what else must be there.

The idea that human life begins at conception is a silly one, that has no good basis.

Saying this doesn't make it so. I have given you a coherent argument, to work with that I believe has a good basis for why conception ought to be the point in which we base the personhood of the unborn child.

All you have at that point is one cell and later many cells, but it takes a while for form to develop, and more time for significant internal structure, then more time for that internal structure to even begin to have the requirements of a living human.

Again, you are falling into the same problem. Why should we consider one cell to be less valuable than many? Why should an organism with a more complicated structure be considered more valuable than one with a simpler structure?

As organisms grow, and develop, they tend to become more complicated. So it is unsurprising that the youngest human people are going to be much more simpler than we. Yet, this does this mean that the single cell is any less valuable than any one of us?

What, if I may ask are the requirements for a living human?

The unborn child, from conception onwards, is a living entity, because living things can only come from other living things. Sperm lives, so does the infant. Ergo, the unborn child, the zygote must also be living.

Secondly, a species, of human, comes from the parents. If the parents are human, than so will the offspring. So, if an unborn child has human parents, then the child will also be human, from conception onwards.

Yes, there is a grey area during this time where humanity can be hard to judge, and I have no problem with limiting when abortions can normally be done

What gray area?

You have a very weak definition, that is inferior to mine. Mine is very clear, the understanding of the nature of the unborn child clearly put forth, and a date established for personhood.

So, please, if you have a better argument, I will be holding your definition to the same requirements as my own.

If we are going to kill people over this difference, then it needs to be better understood than a gray area.

(exceptions made in extreme cases, such as the life of the mother),

I will agree with you on this one, but for only one medical condition, as an ectopic pregnancy. This is the only one where we have a conflict between the life of the mother, and the life of the child.

but before this grey area is a significant amount of time during which it is ludicrous to say that you have a human life.

Again, saying that it is ludicrious is very different than making it so.

All that is there is the potential for one, but not an actual human life.

Tell me how you can have a bucket without a real capacity.

You can have abortions during this time without any risk of degrading the value of life to society. There is no danger in allowing the practice then, and there are benefits, so it should be allowed.

There is a real risk. You have not provided a suitable definition of personhood, but have instead deviated as you have seen fit to justify your prior position.

If you are going to be killing millions of children based on a gray area, than you are going to be held accountable, for your position, for not standing up for other people when you had a chance.

What are people going to say 50 years from now? Are they not going to be bewildered how people could justify killing children over a gray area?

[Ben Kenobi]

Try to recall that I *have* read what you have to say on this, and we have talked about it. I strongly disagree with you. I agree though, that reason doesn't encompass faith, but that is because faith is fundamentally irrational in nature.

Why?

Just because you do not agree with someone, does not make their points irrational.

What you have said here, is quite different from what you said before. You presume, that I could not see what you do because I have not thought about these points before. I suggest you refrain from such presumptions, because frankly, you don't know what I have considered, and rejected in the past.

Almost anything can be used as a tool to shun others, including faith. Neither is inherently about shunning though, or even requires it.

And I've read Kant, and he isn't the last word in reason, nor is he right about everything.

You can't live according to Kant's philosophy. If Kant, is the embodiment of reason, then reason has severe limitations that need to be understood.

Now, you make a good point. What if Kant is not the be all and end all of reason? On what basis do you make this claim? Have you seen others who have offered a better understanding of reason than Kant?

And of those who disagree with Kant, do they appeal to reason as much as he?

I have seen, and read others, and I admired Kant for his philosophy moreso than most. Yet still, the problems seemed to be inherent to reason, and any such devotion to reason, fraught with the same problems.

[Nubclear]

Marriage is for love and procreation, and gays are only for love,and thus cannot get married. If a straight couple is only for love or only for procreation,its ok, because they are a wonderfully rare exception to the norm. It is also okay because you do not need both love AND procreation to create a marriage. Thus, per this definition, gays cannot marry.

[Whaleboy]

How does a woman know she is pregnant? Her body changes in response to the child inside of her womb, and these changes can be regarded as a form of interaction between the child and the environment of the child.

So your definiton really doesn't bar the unborn child from participation.

Well there's communication as the result of a given specific or conscious (the implication of) action (again allowing for individual subjectivity in each pregnancy) and communication merely by presense. I'd take the former. There is no logical barrier to replicating those symptoms in a false pregnancy.

Secondly, what about hermits? Hermits have the ability, but they decline to communicate with others, yet they still remain persons. Clearly who we are, is not limited to our ability to communicate.

Well clearly you can put them into the same context as an embryo by their lifeform, however a hermit will still perform conscious actions unless he is in a vegetative or unconcious state. But that example falls down when you consider that the hermit is not necessarily dependent for his life upon another, as is a foetus.

You know your words.

contraceptive = To prevent conception. An abortion cannot be a form of contraception. It can be a form of birth control.

Indeed but I use the term in the familial sense.... or at least practical, to have an abortion immediately or soon after sex in order to stop pregnancy. I see no problem where that is done with a very new embryo.

But like I've said, all arguments here seem to rely upon three definitions which vary between us... your argument fits them differently to mine etc....

Human lifeform... human DNA... safe to say this happens the moment sperm enters egg.

Human being.... human as perceived by others (that's the key point, and reliant upon different premises. You might say potential for human person, I might say ability to actively communicate or be seen to do so... I trust that's an accurate description of your position?).

Human person.... Cogito ergo sum. The statement "I have a soul"... I take it as existentially subjective but others may disagree. May not seem so relevant but useful to some definitions of objective (human) "being".

That's not my own position, that's a commonly used structure in medical ethics discussions here... you're position fits consistently in there, as does mine, but it's a good way of looking at where our premises differ, hence, what we need to discuss.

Why should arguments have gender? There are women who make the same points I do, in fact, probably more women then men?

Even if only men made the point, why should their gender render their arguments invalid?

Well in my experience it tends to be men that are anti-abortion and women that are pro-choice, but then I surround myself with sexually and philosophically liberal people, indeed the UK is a better environment for that I should think so there are going to be differences... I can't speak for your hareem... It doesn't render the points invalid any more than any ad hominem does, but it's a matter of trust and credibility. When discussing women's issues, I'd take the views of a woman with more credibility than the views of a man, even if they are the same.

We can debate the philosophical intricacies or the theological rights and wrongs of this until we're blue in the face, but it's academic to the woman who's faced with the harshest choice.... carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption because she cannot look after it, or terminate the child and live with the consequences. There's no win scenario there, and it would be a hell of a lot easier if there was an obvious lesser-evil but none is obvious to me without resorting to faith.

My earlier point was about faith and reason... the famous extract from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy...

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Now I'm not getting into the teleological argument here because that's irrelevant to what I'm saying. Faith and reason to me are inversely proportional. You can split it into love vs. logic when it comes to a communicative debate (as opposed to an artistic debate whereby expression merges the two into true "philosophy" in my opinion), but for the purposes of debate, you cannot use your faith to justify a prescriptive point.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Y'all need to polish up your technique.

I debate with liberals all the time. The key is to wind them up, so that they start attacking you and your family rather than debating the issue at hand.

So you win a discussion, but no progress is made on the topic that is being discussed...

[Ben Kenobi]

Well there's communication as the result of a given specific or conscious (the implication of) action (again allowing for individual subjectivity in each pregnancy) and communication merely by presense. I'd take the former. There is no logical barrier to replicating those symptoms in a false pregnancy.

If you take the higher form of communication, then you have some problems. Do infants qualify for conscious action?

Well clearly you can put them into the same context as an embryo by their lifeform, however a hermit will still perform conscious actions unless he is in a vegetative or unconcious state. But that example falls down when you consider that the hermit is not necessarily dependent for his life upon another, as is a foetus.

Now, you are shifting definitions. Rather than communication, you are saying that it is consciousness and dependency which matter.

I don't mind arguing these, but do be aware of your shift.

Starting with consciousness, you then have the problem of someone who is reverseably comatose. Are they still considered a person even though they currently lack the capacity for conscious actions?

Then, moving onto dependency, you are saying that because the hermit does not rely upon other people, that this makes him a person. Why should it matter who you rely upon? None of us are hermits, yet we are considered persons.

Indeed but I use the term in the familial sense.... or at least practical, to have an abortion immediately or soon after sex in order to stop pregnancy. I see no problem where that is done with a very new embryo.

I do. I'm making the point to clarify that you are not preventing conception, but inducing abortion, just at an earlier stage of pregnancy, then you would in a curettage abortion.

Human lifeform... human DNA... safe to say this happens the moment sperm enters egg.

Human being.... human as perceived by others (that's the key point, and reliant upon different premises. You might say potential for human person, I might say ability to actively communicate or be seen to do so... I trust that's an accurate description of your position?).

Is this supposed to be a summary of my position?

No, that's not right. I do not accept the distinction you draw between a 'lifeform' and a 'being'.

For me, I see the human lifeform and being together at conception, where the DNA forms with the capacity for further growth and development. You cannot separate the two in any meaningful fashion at conception.

Human person.... Cogito ergo sum. The statement "I have a soul"... I take it as existentially subjective but others may disagree. May not seem so relevant but useful to some definitions of objective (human) "being".

Again, personhood, I take as a legal definition, as pertaining to the rights accorded to all beings considered to be persons.

Now, there's several schools of thought on this, but I like the one that says all human beings ought also to be considered persons, because all the divisions are inconsistent.

So, while you seem to divide all three, I bind them together, because I cannot justify saying that there is a living human being that should not be considered a person.

I also appeal to the historical record as to what happens when one society classes some human beings as persons, and others as non-persons.

Well in my experience it tends to be men that are anti-abortion and women that are pro-choice, but then I surround myself with sexually and philosophically liberal people, indeed the UK is a better environment for that I should think so there are going to be differences...

Still doesn't answer my point. Why should my argument be rendered invalid just because I am a man? It's the same argument other women give.

but it's a matter of trust and credibility. When discussing women's issues, I'd take the views of a woman with more credibility than the views of a man, even if they are the same.

Is this a woman's issue, or a human rights issue? If it is the former, than you are begging the question. If the latter, then I have just as much right to speak up for that second person as anyone else.

Indeed, your own position hamstrings you. If this is a woman's issue, why should your opinion have any force? Why should I listen to you?

academic to the woman who's faced with the harshest choice.... carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption because she cannot look after it, or terminate the child and live with the consequences. There's no win scenario there, and it would be a hell of a lot easier if there was an obvious lesser-evil but none is obvious to me without resorting to faith.

Why have we told the men that the issue does not involve them? The woman did not get pregnant on her own, she needed the help of a man. Why shouldn't a man, if he has the will, and the means to do so, take care of the child for the mother, in the case that she is unable to do so?

I daresay, that the majority of abortions would not be done, if the men took responsibility for their actions, and supported the women that they got pregnant. If the woman did not have to worry about whether or not her partner would stay with her, then I'm sure more women would keep their children.

In either case, you have a better result, a home for the child.

Granted, the woman has to carry the child to term in either scenario. The risk is not equitably shared. Perhaps, if the men are so concerned about the women getting pregnant, and having to abort their child, then they should not sleep with these women until they are ready.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now I'm not getting into the teleological argument here because that's irrelevant to what I'm saying. Faith and reason to me are inversely proportional. You can split it into love vs. logic when it comes to a communicative debate (as opposed to an artistic debate whereby expression merges the two into true "philosophy" in my opinion), but for the purposes of debate, you cannot use your faith to justify a prescriptive point.

I don't think I'm trying to. I was asked whether I would support Asher's suggestion to switch hit, and then I said why I would not.

I did not try to defend a position for others, but merely for myself, to which, I can give an argument from scripture.

In any case, my argument is not that faith and reason are inversely proportional, that where faith increases, reason must decrease. Rather, faith supplements reason. The more reasonable you are, the more you will see the limitations of your own reason.

[Whaleboy]

If you take the higher form of communication, then you have some problems. Do infants qualify for conscious action?

I said specific or conscious. Conscious is obvious for adults, with infants, specific holds as you can attribute that action directly to them. You cannot do the same with a one day old embryo more so than with any other set of cells in your body. Hence the debate is to where that transition occurs, which I'll come on to in a bit.

Now, you are shifting definitions. Rather than communication, you are saying that it is consciousness and dependency which matter.

No, you misunderstood my previous points. Consciousness as it is perceived by others includes as a subset specific actions.

Then, moving onto dependency, you are saying that because the hermit does not rely upon other people, that this makes him a person. Why should it matter who you rely upon? None of us are hermits, yet we are considered persons.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. The fact that dependency is different between the two affects the example did not imply a difference in the status of person, rather instead the consequences if you accept being. Namely, the question of responsibility differs... if you take aborting a foetus in your own body as given, is that the same as aborting another persons foetus without their consent? Of course not. It is essentially the difference between abortion and murder... the argument can be made that a woman has the right to withdraw her services.

I do. I'm making the point to clarify that you are not preventing conception, but inducing abortion, just at an earlier stage of pregnancy, then you would in a curettage abortion.

Then you should take your statement "I do" and clarify the differences... that is the question I ask of you now.

No, that's not right. I do not accept the distinction you draw between a 'lifeform' and a 'being'.

Then that is an accurate representation of your position. Whereas I differentiate between lifeform and being, you hold them to be the same thing, presumably because of the potential to be a human person (soul et al)?

For me, I see the human lifeform and being together at conception, where the DNA forms with the capacity for further growth and development. You cannot separate the two in any meaningful fashion at conception.

I resent that, all you have said there is that "you" (bk) cannot separate the two. I can, because I operate on different premises, which are to be explored. By your premises, undoubtably your reasoning is consistent leading to your conclusion, by mine, my reasoning is consistent which means that we must see whether or not our premises are consistent. The specific term for this is "debate".

So, while you seem to divide all three, I bind them together, because I cannot justify saying that there is a living human being that should not be considered a person.

Again Descartes. You can never be sure that another human being is a person... others being is an essential consequence of a given condition (and thus debatable), a person is existentially subjective, so while I don't doubt my own existence, you can doubt it just as you can doubt the existence of any object, unless you love me of course . But then, the love aspect is a key feature, not that it can be universally applied and said "you love the foetus therefore that lifeform/being is a person therefore it is murder unto you" because the very personhood definition is dependent!

I also appeal to the historical record as to what happens when one society classes some human beings as persons, and others as non-persons.

As a consequence of my position, I do not subdivide adult humans.... it recognises as beings (by any reasonable measure) all post-natal humans, foetuses up to a given and questionable point, and animals who (and this is where we can concur) have that potential for being. That allows us to say that a foetus that has developed no brain is not a being.

Still doesn't answer my point. Why should my argument be rendered invalid just because I am a man? It's the same argument other women give.

I said...

It doesn't render the points invalid any more than any ad hominem does, but it's a matter of trust and credibility. When discussing women's issues, I'd take the views of a woman with more credibility than the views of a man, even if they are the same.

I am not talking about validity, I'm talking about critical credibility

Is this a woman's issue, or a human rights issue? If it is the former, than you are begging the question. If the latter, then I have just as much right to speak up for that second person as anyone else.

It is a woman's issue, and it does not beg the question because it is specific to women. It is rather like saying that testicular cancer is a human issue, rather than a male issue. You have just as much right to speak up, no-one is questioning that, but if I am placed into a position to decide, as evidence a womans view would automatically carry more weight than yours or mine.

Indeed, your own position hamstrings you. If this is a woman's issue, why should your opinion have any force? Why should I listen to you?

See above.

Why have we told the men that the issue does not involve them? The woman did not get pregnant on her own, she needed the help of a man. Why shouldn't a man, if he has the will, and the means to do so, take care of the child for the mother, in the case that she is unable to do so?

Adoption; she would still be giving away the child, though if it is an accidental pregnancy the biological father is no better than any random alternative, genetics feels empty in such situations. This was the experience of two women I know directly and a few more that my family know, I'm not theorising here. It is a very painful choice and there is no easy "lesser of two evils" answer to it.

I daresay, that the majority of abortions would not be done, if the men took responsibility for their actions, and supported the women that they got pregnant. If the woman did not have to worry about whether or not her partner would stay with her, then I'm sure more women would keep their children.

Now I do believe you are talking out of your arse... you seem to be demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about women in these situations. If that's not the case, perhaps you need to open your eyes a bit more and see things as they are, not as part of some grand effort to vindicate yourself... that's not a good basis for getting to know someone. Some abortions undoubtably in relationships are motivated by that, but most abortions are carried out on accidental pregnancies in casual relationships, and it is not for the man's sake.

Granted, the woman has to carry the child to term in either scenario. The risk is not equitably shared. Perhaps, if the men are so concerned about the women getting pregnant, and having to abort their child, then they should not sleep with these women until they are ready.

Or wear a condom (or time it with the woman's cycle, use a combination of anal sex and pulling out, sleep with women that are on the pill, female contraception... etc etc). I must say I find it rather cringe-inducing to see how painfully out of touch you are. You seek to tell women how to run their lives and use their bodies, while demonstrating little or no understanding of them!

I don't think I'm trying to. I was asked whether I would support Asher's suggestion to switch hit, and then I said why I would not.

Understood, and fair enough. However I often use that attack against arguments that seek to propagate a position using their faith in God or a text as a premise.

In any case, my argument is not that faith and reason are inversely proportional, that where faith increases, reason must decrease. Rather, faith supplements reason. The more reasonable you are, the more you will see the limitations of your own reason.

You imply that I think they cannot exist in the same person, of course they can. But given a position, they are inversely proportional. To be able to reason something brings it into the realm of human understanding... the leap of faith has turned into a stairwell with a red carpet, waiters handing out glasses of champagne and miniture dictionaries and me on a piano singing about the joys of atheism .

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
But fine, feel free to take up to challenge I gave him. Show me evidence that Bush's support of the FMA increased support of it.

No, I agree with you, Shi. Bush is completely ineffective as a leader.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ben doesn't oppose abortion where the mother's health is at risk.

OK- he won't actually admit to that fact, but I'll say it for him.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


No, I agree with you, Shi. Bush is completely ineffective as a leader.

I did provide a reply for Shi, but I guess he's all talk and no substance.

[Odin]

This thread reminds me why I hate religion, it prevents you from thinking objectively.

BK and Wiglaf, just because you believe that religious BS, doesn't mean you can force you views on others. the pope and protestant wackos shouldn't be able to tell me and other secularists what we can and can't do.

Theocrats:

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why?

Just because you do not agree with someone, does not make their points irrational.

What you have said here, is quite different from what you said before. You presume, that I could not see what you do because I have not thought about these points before. I suggest you refrain from such presumptions, because frankly, you don't know what I have considered, and rejected in the past.

Faith is fundamentally irrational in nature because it doesn't follow the rules of reason.

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Religious fath always includes 2, the very belief in god is irrational. When it is 1, it *can* be rational, but that is only when you have rational reasons to trust something.

Faith, however, cannot be used to judge the truthfulness of something, as it has been consistently shown in the past that faith is quite insufficent in determining truth. Reason isn't just a tool in the toolbox; it's the whole box.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You can't live according to Kant's philosophy. If Kant, is the embodiment of reason, then reason has severe limitations that need to be understood.

You are making a Straw Man, Kant isn't the embodiment of reason. Rationality doesn't have "gods", and so your attempt to make Kant some weird source of all that is reasonable is bizarre. You seem to be doing it only because one can refute Kant's views on things.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, you make a good point. What if Kant is not the be all and end all of reason? On what basis do you make this claim? Have you seen others who have offered a better understanding of reason than Kant?

For one, some claim as extraordinary as Kant being the "be all and end all of reason" is so bizarre you should be providing proof of this. You would find no consensus among logicians or philosophers of science or reason on this.

As for a refutation, the mere fact that his numerous versions of the Categorical Imperitive are not equivilent when he says they are is proof enough he isn't some embodiment of reason.

Reason isn't about taking some guy's opinion at face value and following that person's beliefs unwaveringly. Reason is about analyzing what beliefs you will accept and what you will not, based on evidence and logic and deciding what beliefs to follow. Like science, mistakes will be made by people practicing reason, but they will also be found and fixed as time goes on. Mistaken beliefs that lack evidence will be found and refuted. Reason is a system of examining the world and deciding what is true, it is not a religion that forces you to follow one person's set of beliefs. There are many scholars that have dealt with reason throughout the centuries, and it is an ongoing process.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And of those who disagree with Kant, do they appeal to reason as much as he?

You can easily point out flaws in Kant's reasoning here and there (though in other cases he reasoning is sound, and in other cases his logic is sound but his assumptions are not).

Why are you so fixated on Kant?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have seen, and read others, and I admired Kant for his philosophy moreso than most. Yet still, the problems seemed to be inherent to reason, and any such devotion to reason, fraught with the same problems.

Alright, if you say there are inherent problems with reason, it is time for you to back up those claims.

What are these supposed problems that you think are inherent to reason itself?

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Anyhow, I think the fundamental arguement we are having over abortion is about when you consider the basic rights of citizens to apply to the growing zygote-embryo-fetus.

Many think the test should be one regarding mental functioning. Since the mind is what truly makes one human. A human body without the mind is not something anyone would consider a human that has the full rights and priviledges of someone with a mind. Most, on the other hand, would consider the mind, absent a body, something that deserves the rights and priviledges of a full member of humanity.

As such the mind seems like the logical thing to work with, and if anyone disagrees, I'd like them to share reasons why. There is a grey area, of course, when it is a bit hard to tell wether the mind is working "well enough" or not, but there is clearly a time when there is no functioning mind. In this time, I propose, abortion is just fine.

On the other hand, there is a difference between this and a member of society that falls ill and has a mind that isn't working. There *is* a difference between a thing that was never part of soceity and a person that has been part of society, integrated themselves in society, and has fallen ill. At a certain point, of course, euthanasia becomes a very good idea, but there are times when it isn't. Again, there is a grey area, but the situation does have some fundamental differences. There is a difference between the mind being ill and not working and the a brain that hasn't developed enough to even begin to work.

-Drachasor

[Wiglaf]

BK and Wiglaf, just because you believe that religious BS, doesn't mean you can force you views on others. the pope and protestant wackos shouldn't be able to tell me and other secularists what we can and can't do.

Why not legalize murder then?

Believe it or not, you started out in someone's womb, developing to the little bull****ter you are today. You're going to argue that, no, you weren't a six week old human then, you were merely plumbing that could rightfully be destroyed?

That's not even necessarily a matter of religion. It's also a matter of ethics and, ironically enough, some secular science and common sense.