T1B

Jay in Phoenix wrote:You seem to suggest you believe it to be at conception. But is it really? How do you know? Do cell clusters think? Does a cell have actual rights? Constitutional rights?

Well Jay, once again, I don't know. Here's what I do know.

1. The essence of the cluster of cells is human. If it was not human than the hunger for HUMAN stem cells wouldn't exist.
2. If left to NATURE, the cluster of cells, would follow a progression leading to several potential natural consequences:
a. Birth
b. Death

A human would either be born or NOT born, according to nature.

3. It is a decision based upon human rationale as to whether or not to conform to NATURE'S WAY. Human rationale has proven to be quite fallible, historically, especially when it comes to determining the value of human life.

If you dispute those three "facts", please feel free. I'm sure we can engage in a healthy, mature discussion about the matter.

Oh boy! An abortion debate!!!

Sorry Goobs, don't mean to bore you.

Tom, I don't dispute the points you bring up, not at all. Yes, the cells that have formed and are dividing are going to become a human being, if all goes as it's supposed to. You and I both know, life isn't perfect and this doesn't always happen. If a mother self-aborts during a pregnancy due to a medical condition she has no control over, has she just committed murder?

If those cells during the process of division don't develope as they should, if something goes wrong and the cells don't become a viable fetus, say they even become cancerous, is abortion of those poisoned cells murder? Of course these scenarios are in the minority, and thankfully don't have to be considered except in rare and extreme circumstances.

I don't know the answer to the question of where life begins any more than you do Tom. Nor does mvscal or anyone else, it's still to this point scientific and moral conjecture. I was just asking some important questions to help define the argument.

mvscal, you can't seriously mean that. How is life not beginning or not being defined irrelevant? If you don't have a life, you can't murder, can you sport. And yes, abortion is the termination of a human life, who's arguing against that point? The only distraction happening here is your refusal to own up to the basic fact behind the entire point you're trying to make.

When is life, life?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:If a mother self-aborts during a pregnancy due to a medical condition she has no control over, has she just committed murder?

No. Personally, I do not believe any abortion carried out is murder. The wiki definition of murder:

Murder as defined in Common Law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide

I do not believe a woman has an abortion with malice aforethought, usually, she's scared and all too often, alone.

Just as unlawful homicide is broken down into "degrees" and there exists the notion of lawful homicide, again, from wiki.

Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being.[1] It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. Homicide is not always an illegal act.

1. Abortion, today is legal, therefore it is not murder. It is a lawful killing. But it is a killing.

2. I reiterate there is typically no malice involved.

So, you use the word "murder", incorrectly IMHO.

Point taken Tom. Killing, or manslaughter is not the same as murder, so I may have used the word incorrectly. Semantics, eh? Yet, since we both agree that there is an abscence of malice under certain circumstances, does there need to be a question of legalities? Or judgement?

Again, just asking questions.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Yet, since we both agree that there is an abscence of malice under certain circumstances, does there need to be a question of legalities? Or judgement?

Again, just asking questions.

I don't understand your questions but I'll give it s shot. Abortion is legal, so questions of it's legality are moot. I'll throw in so was slavery at one time and throughout the history of mankind we have collectively deemed outrageous acts committed on human life as "legal" and justified based upon human definitions of when and what "human life" is. But as Marbury vs. Madison suggests, when the Supreme Court speaks, their say is the final say, and in Roe v. Wade they gave the nod to the homicide of unborn babies as being legal and constitutional.

Judgement ? I'm nobody to judge anyone or anything.

If people in this country value the ability to terminate the unborn that much, it's a Democracy, "the people have spoken". It doesn't mean I need to think it's a "cool thing to do" or "okay". It is what it is. And to that ends, I also don't need to "drink the kool-aid" and call it "excising a cluster of cells" to desensitize the nature of the act which is, in essence, the snuffing out of a human life.

Jay is going with the O.J. defense lawyer's tactic in this thread.

Toss a whole shit-load of "what if" scenarios around to try to distract attention away from what is blatantly OBVIOUS.

You want to know when life begins?

It begins at conception.
Because at conception it is UNDENIABLE that what is growing is LIVING and is destined to be a functioning human being.

If I am wrong that life begins at conception, then tell me when it DOES begin, and WHY you have assigned THAT time for it's beginning.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:Since when do individuals have the right to terminate somebody else's life without due process of law?

They don't. But it's a violation of the Penal Law, not a Constitutional violation.

Your post reminded me of this case.

Care to clarify, counselor?

Think of it this way Short Eyes: those sexy pre-schoolers you drool over will still be allowed to sue you when you're 90 years old- provided some public-minded parent doesn't off you in the interim