Finally, this barbaric practice can end!!!!

IMO, and in the opinions of many others, is that it's disingenuous to claim that life begins anywhere but the moment a fetus can sustain itself without help from the mother's body (in terms of circulation, heart beat, breathing on it's own, etc.).

So you're in favor of banning abortions after about 21 or 22 weeks (sooner as medical technology develops)? That's awesome!

So you're in favor of banning abortions after about 21 or 22 weeks (sooner as medical technology develops)? That's awesome!

No, I'm not. I am in favor of REGULATION of abortion after 21 or 22 weeks. I don't think that ELECTIVE 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed. I have the (usually unpopular) opinion that the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus.

to claim that life begins at any place other than conception is disingenuous.

Some people believe that life begins at conception. Some people do not. That does not imply disingenuity on behalf of either party.

Some people believe that life begins at conception. Some people do not.

Count back from birth, then, and tell me when it DOES begin. Not based on opinion or touchy-feely stuff, but on scientific facts, please.

Let's see. Metabolic science = a single moment marking human life doesn't exist. Modernist metabolic science = there isn't a single point because it's a continuous process, and even things quoted as the moment life begins (e.g. "conception" isn't an exact moment, it is a process that takes about 24 hours, during which a lot of different things happen, and another 24 hours before zygote is achieved). Genetic science = the moment that a genetic being exists that did not exist before (I believe this would be zygotal diploid, problem being that they often cite gentic uniqueness, but gentic uniqueness isn't a requirement of life). Embryological science: Life begins at gastrulation (about 3 - 4 weeks into the pregnancy). Neuroscience: When the fetus has a recognizable EEG. Modernist neuroscience: Expands that to say when the fetus has an EEG consistent with a mature brain. Ecological science: WHen the fetus can exist separately from the environment it depends on for development.

I'm getting that smiley face overload thing when I try to edit, so I'll just add - sorry for the partial post that was up for a bit. I mistyped, and ended up triggering the keyboard shortcuts to post a message when I was only one or two sentences into my response.

Let's see. Metabolic science view = there is no single set point, and trying to define a single point is irrelevant since it's a continuous process. (e.g. fertilization is not an instant process, so even "conception" isn't a single moment in time that you can pinpoint, it's a process that occurs over about

I guess I misspoke, then. If it's such an arbitrary, ambiguous thing, perhaps I shouldn't have said start at BIRTH and count backwards. After all, Dr. Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, said we shouldn't consider babies human until one month or so.

In his books, Singer has said that children less than one month old have no human consciousness and do not have the same rights as others.

"Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person," he wrote in one book. "Sometimes it is not wrong at all."

So basically it's all up to us to determine when a human being is a human being? That's great, because I wanted to go buy me a slave, and since I don't consider them human there's no problem there.

I can see his point.

So basically it's all up to us to determine when a human being is a human being? That's great, because I wanted to go buy me a slave, and since I don't consider them human there's no problem there.

I think you ODed on sarcasm pills tonight.

We don't have a standard definition for when life begins. You seemed to think that would reside in science, but it varies by science and undoubtedly within the individual practitioners. Like everything else.

Point remains - the two stances Laurend mentioned don't require the other to be disingenious.

I can see his point.

:omg::omg::omg:

Let me get this straight. You believe it is OK to kill a baby up until a month after birth?

If so, why not two months? Why not two years? Heck, that'd be more reasonable. After all, it's when the kids are going through the terrible twos that they're most difficult to deal with. This would be a great "out" for frustrated parents! Let's pass a law!

You believe it is OK to kill a baby up until a month after birth?

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said I can see his point, not that I agree with it.

I think you ODed on sarcasm pills tonight.

Actually, that's the argument that early Americans used for owning slaves -- they weren't fully human. So yes, it's sarcastic now, in 2007, but it certainly wasn't sarcastic 150 years ago.

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

I have to say, I don't necessarily disagree with him.

You're assuming I was referring to your comment on slavery. That is incorrect. I knew what parallel you were trying to draw. I've posted references to it myself. I was referring to things like "That's awesome!", and "There are even some <gasp> athiest pro-lifers."