Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> writes:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:31:48 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

"Jon Young" <jdyoung1@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:25e1e54f.0405291727.6c091e02@posting.google.com...

Life begins at conception.The anti-life establishment has gone to
great lenghts to dehumanize what is from the very beginning a human
being.Tissues,cells,ect.. Somehow they feel this type of terminology
will ease the guilt of exterminating this life.Developemental stage is
not a determining factor.Life should be recognized and respected from
the very start.

Agreed

"Slurp, slurp."

Why do you think I've designated Heishman as the official Anti-Abort ***** of
Usenet? ;-)

"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8yfa7kh7.fsf@fnord.io.com...

jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:

Life begins at conception.The anti-life establishment has gone to
great lenghts to dehumanize what is from the very beginning a human
being.Tissues,cells,ect.. Somehow they feel this type of terminology
will ease the guilt of exterminating this life.Developemental stage is
not a determining factor.Life should be recognized and respected from
the very start.

How do you explain identical twins?

Easy

Monozygotes

So, liar, what makes two zygotes out of one?

"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8yfa7kh7.fsf@fnord.io.com...

jdyoung1@volcanomail.com (Jon Young) writes:

Life begins at conception.The anti-life establishment has gone to
great lenghts to dehumanize what is from the very beginning a human
being.Tissues,cells,ect.. Somehow they feel this type of terminology
will ease the guilt of exterminating this life.Developemental stage is
not a determining factor.Life should be recognized and respected from
the very start.

How do you explain identical twins?

Easy

Monozygotes

So, liar, what makes two zygotes out of one?

In talk.abortion, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 30 May 2004 19:30:34 -0400
<_rqdna0TgYTb8yfdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:povpo1-q3v.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

In talk.abortion, Jon Young
<jdyoung1@volcanomail.com>
wrote
on 29 May 2004 18:27:45 -0700
<25e1e54f.0405291727.6c091e02@posting.google.com>:

Life begins at conception.

[1] Sperm and egg are alive before joining. Dead eggs get no tails.

Alone they do not make up a human being.

True, but they are alive.

[2] Life has been around for hundreds of millions, if not billions,
of years, in some form. (The exact details are a matter of
some debate, as cells don't fossilize well.)

Can we keep this in perspective please?
We are talking about human life, the beginning of a new human being.

the creation of human "beings"

Thank you for that qualification. As it is, the creation of a human
being takes decades, from the formation in the womb to the
instruction during its formative years to the slow grind through
the wheels of life or the frenetic frenzy of life on the fast lane,
and finally, if one's lucky enough to avoid everything thrown
at him or her and socked away a little money, retirement.

[3] It is far from clear regarding consciousness/sentience when
precisely it begins, though at 10 weeks -- *after* birth --
the babe might be able to stop his eyes from following an
arbitrary movement.
[4] Gee, look at all the dead people. If a woman is sexually active,
she might be losing a child a month. Oh, the horror.

Neither 3 or 4 are relevant

No?

What is the objective here? To save lives. [4] indicates lives
are lost through accidental means; presumably we can try to
reduce said losses. [3] throws out the sentience argument;
it is not useful.

Think of air bags, for example.

The anti-life establishment has gone to great lenghts to dehumanize
what is from the very beginning a human being.

The anti-abortion establishment has gone to great lengths to try
to politicize/polarize an issue that really should be between her
and her doctor. What gains to society are there from the banning
of abortions?

I can be willing to compramise and agree that if a woman wants to abort,
let her have that choice in the 1st term.

That's the status quo.

Although, I will still argue that the choice to abort is morally wrong.
In later stages though, choosing to abort for convienance matters is

wrong.

And the number of abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester
for convenience is precisely how many?

If a woman's life is truly in danger and there
is absolutely no possible way of saving her and child, then I would

that abortion would be the only choice left. But for convienance

absolutely not.
Although there are some people who think a woman should have the right

choose to abort for any reason, even convienance, at late stages when
clearly the fetus is very far along in development.

Just this morning I seen where David Barnes endorsed such an opinion.

The question then is: who evaluates the reason/opinion of the woman?

Some might suggest, for example, that the woman's foetus go on
trial prior to the abortion, treating the case as a criminal case.
The notion would be that the foetus is committing a crime (by its
very existence) but has the right to defend itself (or, failing
that, the right to have someone else intercede on its behalf
without its authorization). Since this is also a death penalty case
(if the woman wins the foetus is executed), there's also an appeals
process.

I posit this hypothetical as a possible result should foetii be
granted full human being status within the US Constitution, as
no individual shall be denied due process.

(Including the woman -- but that's another issue.)

Near as I can figure, if we were to ban all abortions tomorrow,
and require every pregnant woman who is physically capable of a
pregnancy to continue that pregnancy (or die trying), the first-order
gains to the economy would not be realized until well into the
next century -- if at all.

Second-order effects of course are slightly unpredictable -- for
starters, there is the possibility that the increase in income
to such as diaper services might be of some assistance in fueling
a recovery.

Tissues,cells,ect.. Somehow they feel this type of terminology
will ease the guilt of exterminating this life.

A guilt which is only an issue because the anti-choicers
have made it so.

And you base that on what?

Observation, mostly. Of course, if you want to make everyone feel
guilty, that's your business. :-)

While one should ponder regarding an

abortion (after all, it *is* minor surgery, with some
risks),

"minor" surgery?
You are talking about a woman choosing to do something that is actually
unnatural for a mother.
Most mothers will fight to defend their unborn as well as their born.

From a procedural standpoint, it's minor surgery; less surgical
intervention would be required therefor than for, say, the
removal of both kidneys.

From a moral standpoint, other qualifications ensue. I do not know
how to evaluate morals for others.

The fact that you want to label others for something that
is clearly out of their control, only shows that you will
resort to very deceitful measures

I'm not sure what "natural" means here, but it's clear
that this is not an easy decision; nevertheless, it is
practiced 0.9M - 1.6M times a year in the United States,
and possibly as high as 50M times a year worldwide.

it's far from clear that banning abortion solves

anything, and will simply worsen an already fragile right
enjoyed by many -- namely, the right to privacy without
governmental intrusion.

But never mind that -- save the children! We need more
cannon fodder for the war on Iraq, after all. (Well, OK,
that's an old term. How about "designated self-painting
concentric circle specialist"?)

Developemental stage is not a determining factor.
Life should be recognized and respected from
the very start.

I'd be interested in the details. Did you want:

[1] a near-total abortion ban, with exceptions only for medical
necessity as determined by an independent government-hired
advisory board, and maybe a judge and jury thrown in for
good measure with additional judges if she successfully
gets a "death penalty verdict"? (One could treat the foetus
as threatening death to a citizen -- the woman -- and
theft or acquisition without authorization of bodily fluids.)

[2] a total abortion ban, even if the woman faces death?

[3] a near-total abortion ban, with exceptions only for medical
necessity as determined by her doctor/clinic/hospital?

[4] a partial ban, allowing for rape and incest, which
basically penalizes the woman who went out to a bar and had
sex, but rewards the woman who went out to a bar and
got raped?

[5] a ban only on procedures which involve rather disgusting
things such as sucking Junior's brains out?

[6] the status quo?

Hello?

I'll assume [5], since that appears to be your espoused position above.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,