What party am I?

[Jon Miller]

you said that the people didn't really have a choice, because their material goods were being threatened..

and I said well yes, they do have a choice, they dont' have to choose the material goods (I dont' think they are required..)

and if they choose to stay, then they are choosing to fight, if required (in the US at least)

the draft is just an enforcement of that choice, already made...

where does the baby make a choice?

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your definition of 'choice' is incredibly strange. If someone pointed a gun to your head and said do X or your die, is that a valid choice? You could say that you could choose to die, but then that doesn't really make a choice a valid one, now does it. A true choice is something that you make without coercion.

And frankly I don't care if, when, or how the baby makes a choice. It's trespassing in the woman's womb if the woman doesn't want the child. I think you can throw the homeless man out into the freeze (as do most people) and that principle applies here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


where does the baby make a choice?

Jon Miller

"The baby" has little if any legal recognition. IT has no choice, because IT has been granted to choice.

So who cares?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are prolife democrats, but they are a long-suffering group without much support from their party.

Right, it's not as if the Democrats would let a anti-abortionist hold a top position, like Senate Minority Leader or anything like that.

There are 40 anti-abortion Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. That's a pretty significant number. Bob Casey, of PA, is enjoying no lack of support in his effort to oust Santorum, and Casey is anti-abortion. Several Democratic state governors are also anti-abortion. You once again show you know very little of U.S. politics.

So, Lancer, there are plenty of anti-abortion Democrats, and I'd say they enjoy more respect in the Democratic party than their pro-choice counterparts get in the Republican party.

The GOP isn't interested in doing anything really meaningful to end abortion, because doing so would rob them of a key issue that gets out their base. They'll throw little bones, like the cited partial-birth ban, but don't expect them to ever go to the mat for it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Your definition of 'choice' is incredibly strange. If someone pointed a gun to your head and said do X or your die, is that a valid choice? You could say that you could choose to die, but then that doesn't really make a choice a valid one, now does it. A true choice is something that you make without coercion.

And frankly I don't care if, when, or how the baby makes a choice. It's trespassing in the woman's womb if the woman doesn't want the child. I think you can throw the homeless man out into the freeze (as do most people) and that principle applies here.

no

it is not strange, it is that I care little for property..

you equate taking your property to no choice...

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


"The baby" has little if any legal recognition. IT has no choice, because IT has been granted to choice.

So who cares?

because it should..

it has brainwaves, so it is human, scientifically

and you should care.. because it matters about whether murder is being allowed whole sale or not..

note that I do understand that you and che are claiming that the baby isn't human..

I am pointing out that your statement, that the child isn't human because it isn't human in the law books, is a tautology

if afircans were not given legal recognition, then they wouldn't be human?

if women aren't given legal recognition, then they aren't human?

that is what many cultures have said in the past

but they are wrong, women are human, as are people of all races

Jon Miller
(Che's statement is harder to argue with, because his is the position that human is not defined by physicality... I have arguments against it, but it is harder so I won't ge tinto them now)

(in fact, I need to work, so will quit arguing for now)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, the critical question is when does human life becomes a human being. That leads to the more fundimental question of what defines a human being, what is the nature of a human being.

The pro-life stance is that living human tissue is human, from stem cells, to fetuses, to the brain dead.

So the pro-lifers wont let someone dispose of say, a kidney, thats being held for transplant? Pardon but i think their view of human life is more limited - their only opposed to use of Embryonic stem cells.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But you want to force people to die for their 'country' when it may be attacked.

Is it time for a Patton quote?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, the critical question is when does human life becomes a human being. That leads to the more fundimental question of what defines a human being, what is the nature of a human being.

The pro-life stance is that living human tissue is human, from stem cells, to fetuses, to the brain dead.

My position is that what makes us human is our awareness of self and our relationships with others. Self-awareness is something that doesn't occur for several months after birth, but the other key factor is our interrelationships.

An infant has relationships, even if it isn't consciously aware of them yet. A fetus in the mother's womb has only one relationship, and since that relationship is defined by the mother, whether or not a fetus is a human being is entirely up to her. Once the infant is born into the world, it has joined a complex web of relationships.

Yes, it's inconsistent from one standpoint, since a fetus may or may not be human depending on the opinion of one person. There's no hard and fast rule, it's a decision made ad hoc. And yet, it works, and is very human.

You think its incorrect to ban third trimester abortions that arent required for the health of the mother?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


because it should..

it has brainwaves, so it is human, scientifically

and you should care.. because it matters about whether murder is being allowed whole sale or not..

note that I do understand that you and che are claiming that the baby isn't human..

I am pointing out that your statement, that the child isn't human because it isn't human in the law books, is a tautology

if afircans were not given legal recognition, then they wouldn't be human?

if women aren't given legal recognition, then they aren't human?

that is what many cultures have said in the past

but they are wrong, women are human, as are people of all races

Jon Miller
(Che's statement is harder to argue with, because his is the position that human is not defined by physicality... I have arguments against it, but it is harder so I won't ge tinto them now)

(in fact, I need to work, so will quit arguing for now)

The tired comparison to slavery.

How anyone could even consider a fetus a human being before it becomes naturally viable is beyond me.

And yes, you are right, mine was a rigid legalistic arguement- sadly, it is all about definitions in the end. You definition simply makes little sense outside of the religious orbit. And I don't give a **** about the religious orbit.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The pro-life stance is that living human tissue is human, from stem cells, to fetuses, to the brain dead.

so where do I fit?

human life begins when brainwaves start existance, and end when they stop existence..

(nice, clear, and scientific)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap




The tired comparison to slavery.

How anyone could even consider a fetus a human being before it becomes naturally viable is beyond me.

And yes, you are right, mine was a rigid legalistic arguement- sadly, it is all about definitions in the end. You definition simply makes little sense outside of the religious orbit. And I don't give a **** about the religious orbit.

how have any of my arguments been religious in nature?

in fact, the only area where my religion comes into it, is that it says that it is wrong to murder people

which I think is not a stance held only by Christians (but apparently is not a stance held by Imran)

JM

[DaShi]

It becomes human when God breathes a soul into it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap

How anyone could even consider a fetus a human being before it becomes naturally viable is beyond me.

you know that there are abortions done in this country where they cut up the baby in the womb

because if they just disconnected it from the mother, it would live...

JM

[lord of the mark]

lets see = weve got relationships, viability, and conception.

Isnt it clear that there IS no single criterion for becoming a human being?

Conception establishes important aspects.

Further development does.

Viability is an important step.

Relationships are important.

There are numerous steps to becoming a human being.

Law, by its nature must have a bright shining line, no matter that its artificial. Thus viability.

But social mores recognize the more subtle aspects - by our sense that a second trimester termination is more morally problematic than a first trimester one, and that even a first trimester one should not be done lightly.