"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vipnqlffrv96f@news.supernews.com...

"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:95piv0932ah24nm9tho2k6umuli6ahura7@4ax.com...

<...>

One can certainly argue that brain activity does not mean "human", but the
opposite argument is not "faith" based.

*sigh*

Belief without supporting data is faith.

Jim

In a sense, Jim is correct. For example, Jim's belief that his biological
father is the guy whom his mother CLAIMED is his father is a mere faith belief
on Jim's part. Jim *could* have attempted to obtain scientific evidence
concerning whoever it was who sired him, but Jim has chosen NOT to. Thus Jim
operates strictly on faith when it comes to whoever it may be is his father.

However, brain-activity CAN be selected as THE criteria for "human", just as
Jim COULD select "DNA match" as THE criteria for "the guy who sired Jim".
Since Jim judges that selecting brain activity as the marker for human life
constitutes "faith", we are forced to conclude that, were Jim to select DNA
matching as the marker for the guy who sired Jim, Jim feels THAT choice (DNA
matching constituting "proof of fatherhood") would also constitute "faith".

I don't AGREE with that position which Jim has staked out, but that
nevertheless appears to BE Jim's definition of "faith".

However, brain-activity CAN be selected as THE criteria for "human"

"Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35sjaaF4pp1luU1@individual.net...

"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hX7Kd.1409$Q_4.1307@trnddc02...

"Stochi" <astic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35rf76F4q0jbqU1@individual.net...

"Proud sponsor of the 2004 conservative mandate."
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1106804969.933747.4590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Bob wrote:

"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg8ufccngpgb9@news.supernews.com...

"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0bVJd.10678$ud3.4054@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg3riel1efq38@news.supernews.com...

"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:POTJd.10639$ud3.2806@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:10vg1i5f5a7he7a@news.supernews.com...

"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Y5SJd.97278$zy6.90649@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

<...>

I have no religious axe to grind and I believe
abortion after 5 weeks should be considered
murder.

Why?

If your answer begins with "I believe," you have a religious

axe to grind.

What pure *****.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I notice you didn't answer the

question.

I personally consider it wrong to terminate
the life of an innocent human being. Since
brain activity begins at approximately 6 weeks,
I use 5 weeks as my line of demarcation when
a human life is worthy of protection in law.

So it *is* a faith-based opinion. Surprise, surprise.

What pure *****. I see a pattern developing.

At what point do you believe human life
deserves protection in law?

The question presupposes the existence of "human life."

Agreed. Now answer it.

He won't answer.

Not until the question is made answerable.

I actually believe it is impossible for him to do so.

But the reason he believes this is not the reason it's impossible to do
so.

For us, the question is whether we are murdering innocent lives.

And this is why the question as put is unanswerable, because the
supposition is incorrect.

It's a
superior argument to whether women should be able to make their own
decisions about a medical procedure.

No, it's not. It's an arrogant supposition that has no basis in medical
fact.

politics is always about tradeoffs

here is the issue. there is a thing growing inside women. at the
moment of birth, we can all agree it's a human and is autonomous and
deserves full protection

prior to that, it's a matter of - at what point(s) do the right of the
mother to terminate a (for lack of a better term) parasite/dependant
creature/whatever trump the right of the creature/fetus/whatever to
continue to live, to an extent at her expense

pro-choice people are full of shite (and i am pro-choice) when they
claim it's about a WOMAN's body. sorry. the fetus is NOT the woman's
body. different blood type, different genetic code, etc. but it IS a
dependant organism

You may be pro-choice, but this argument is specious, fallacious, what
have you.
To say that "it's not about the woman's body because the fetus is
separate" is conflating 2 separate issues. Or ignoring the fact that

fetus is directly tied *into* the woman's body, and may damage or even
kill her.

except it doesn't ignore it

the fetus is NOT the woman's body

it is a dependant organism

Yes, dependent ON HER BODY with direct consequences.
I don't see how I can make it any plainer.

there IS a difference

There is no difference because it directly affects her body.

people who are pro-choice and who say it's about a woman's body are

RHETORIC. pure and simple.

You're the one dealing in rhetoric.
I'm dealing with reality.

it's about a woman's body AND a fetus (which is not the woman's body.).

but is directly affecting it.

the fetus is "other".

and fwiw, we do not allow people to do whatever they want with their own
body ANYWAY

So?
Because other laws are wrong, more laws should be wrong??

see: drugs, prostitution, snuff films,

This is about murder. HELLO!

suicide, etc.

These are separate issues, but I will take the wind out of your sails by
saying that we shouldn't be telling people what to do when it comes to

things either, only regulating their effect on others.

To

say that "abortion is not about a woman's body"

it is not SOLELY about a woman's body

Now you are changing the subject slightly, but it doesn;t matter.

it is about TWO bodies. the woman. the fetus

that is an honest appraisal

It's just not a quite correct one.

is to say that "removing a

cancerous tumor is not about the body it inhabits"

i have heard this argument ad infinitum, including from NARAL people.

Then you should be familiar with how correct an argument it is.

sorry, a cancerous tumour is not in any way analoguous to a fetus.

I believe I mention below that it's not exact - nothing's going to be as
exact.

But it is a separate organism that feeds off the host in a detrimental

it is

not a dependant independant

You *do* realize you just contradicted yourself?

lifeform with a human genetic code, developing every day into a closer
version of humanity

Which is just a scientific poetical way of saying "not a human being like
the woman."

cancer never has rights. fetus' do.

How do you define "fetus"?
At any rate, they have no rights that supercede a woman's - or, in a fair

sane society, they shouldn't.

that's why we regulate, for instance, partial birth abortion

No, we regulate dialation & extraction because anti-choice legislators are
driving the thin edge of the wedge into overturning Roe v Wade.\

if you REALLY want to start analogizing between cancerous growths and
fetus' go right ahead. it just HARMS the pro-life cause

Which only shows that you're not paying attention.

, and i reject the analogy

You are free to d so.
& you are free to be incorrect.However, I find

furthermore, one could even accept that a cancer is a different body.

even so, it is unhealthy (a fetus is not)

I can see that you've not only never been pregnant, or really known a

and has an intent (if we can

anthropomorphize a bit) to hurt/kill the woman.

So now you;re going to try to outlaw abortion on the basius of intent??

Cancer doesn't have an "intent" either - it just *is*.
Same as the baby, actually.

the fetus does (generally)

not. AND in cases where the fetus DOES place the woman's life in

only a small group of pro-lifers believe abortion in THAT circumstance

unjustified.

More so than you think.

All Catholics (for example) are supposed to believe this (tho' most

but if you want to concede that removal of a cancer is about both a
woman's body, and an "other" ie a cancer, i don't have a problem with
that.

I do have a problem with giving cancer an equal say in whether I get to
live/be healthy, same as with a fetus.

I want to see you get *any* dctor to say that removing cancer is also

the cancer.

or "removing a robber is

not about the house he invades". (Yes, as any analogy goes, it's
inexact).

see above

Yes, you are still wrong.

I think you *didn't* think this through enough before you said this.

no, i have thought it through often, and it is one of the things that,

a pro-choicer, disgusts me about many people in the movement

You are hardly pro-choice.

an abortion is NOT solely about a woman's body. it is about TWO bodies.
compltely eliminating the philosophical existence of the seperate entity
to a state of non-existence and irrelevance does our cause HARM, and is
also factually incorrect

No it does neither.

BIRTH control, wearing a condom, taking the pill, etc. is solely about

person's body

abortion is NOT

And you are quite wrong.

it is incredibly dismissive, callous, factually incorrect, and

to claim "it's about a woman's body" implying there is no OTHER body
there.

No one's implying it.

We're just denying that any collection of tissues, whatever the
"potentiality" is of any consideration when it comes to a full-grown human
being deciding what to do with her own body.

[snip further specious repition]>

so, like all political decisions, it's about tradeoffs and like many,
it's about competing rights

Only if you think that whatever is inside a woman's body is the equal

her.

absolutely false. i didn't say the fetus had the SAME status as the

Yes, you have been saying such.

you are drawing false conclusion

It is the conclusion your words engender.

however, it has *a* status.

That of being expendable at the will of the host body.

that's why it's about COMPETING rights

And this is where you blow any claim you have to being pro-choice.

and this is consistent with other political decisions. competing

it can be seen in property rights cases, zoning laws, firearms cases,

And you blow it futher, since all these are between EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS.

etc. etc.and how one comes down in various political decisions

comes down to how one weighs competing rights (and/or duties)

take an issue, any issue, and think about what rights (and in some

duties) are competing. see how you weigh their relative strength. that
will often explain why you take the side you do.

the reason i am pro-choice is that i believe the woman's right to
terminate at, for example, 2 months

Two months???

OUTWEIGHS any right of a fetus to continue

existence at 2 months, being that it is dependant on the woman.

thus, it's about COMPETING rights

Never mind.
You are fooling yourself.
You aren;t fooling me.