I think it’s interesting that after I made a scientific and philosophic case for the humanity of the unborn at, “Basmati” has ignored my evidence and replied with a story: "You are in a burning building. You have a choice: you can either save a dozen embryos or a crying two year old?"
Hello Josh, welcome to the Citizen's blogs. Before I begin, I'd like to point out a few things.
1. This is a blog, not a courtroom. I am not on trial, you are not a district attorney. I can choose to answer..or not answer...any questions that are posed to me.
2. I am somewhat of the "house liberal" on this board. As such, Some folks more or less continually bombard me with questions wanting me to justify the liberal position of so-and-so. I'm not here to play defense all the time. There are only a certain number of hours in a day. I choose to spend my time here discussing what *I* want to discuss.

The appeal of the story is emotional. Its goal is to make you look inconsistent by placing you on the horns of a dilemma: Will you save the toddler or live out your pro-life belief that embryos are human beings? It may look like a dilemma, but it's a false one. Its force is psychological, not moral. Here's why.
Your opinion is that the appeal of my argument (or as you call it, "story") is emotional. I readily admit that. To call it a "false dilemma" is a value judgment on your part. Read down further in this thread and you will see that our board professor (Muddle) who has a PhD in philosophy (and has been my sparring partner in the past) has called my scenario a "standard fare in moral philosophy". If you have an argument that disagrees with his conclusion I'd like to hear it. I'm not willing to discard my scenario just because it negatively impacts your argument.

Notice that the hypothetical advanced by your critics is totally irrelevant to the argument you made for the humanity of the unborn. Suppose I was forced to choose (at gunpoint) between having someone kill my 10-month baby daughter or 13 children in a third-world country. Assume that I choose to spare my own daughter, which means the third-world kids die. Would my decision prove that these 13 victims were not fully human? Would it in anyway refute the scientific and philosophic evidence that they are members of the human family?
Now we're getting somewhere. You are attempting to recast MY argument on terms more favorable to you to advance your own argument. I'm talking about cells in a petri dish, which are human which have not yet been born with your daughter, who HAS been born and is in an altogether different state. Essentially you've fundamentally recast my argument from "True or false: 1 times "A" (2 year old kid) is greater than 12 times "B" (petri dishes)" to something altogether different: "True or false: 1 times "A" (10 month old kid who I know) is greater than 12 times "A" (other kids who I don't know)" This is an altogether different moral argument.

In the case of the frozen embryos, even if I choose to save the newborn, it would not prove that the embryos are less than fully human. (What if I chose the embryos: Would that prove the newborn was not human?) At best, saving the newborn would only prove that I did not live out my pro-life convictions, that I am inconsistent in the way I apply my ethic.
No one is arguing that an embryo is not human. You have a tendency to use words like "human" "humanity" "fully human", "baby" and "fetus", interchangeably. The crux of my argument is that a clump of cells, while human, is in an altogether different state (i.e. unborn, not yet capable of independent living) with what we generally consider a "human being" (specifically, a human that has been born). To take your argument to it's illogical conclusion, I'd ask you: Why aren't dead people permitted to vote? (Chicago in 1960 notwithstanding ). By your logic, dead people are exactly the same as living people, they share the same DNA, etc, etc...they are just in a different terminal state. In my mind there are three terminal states: Conception, birth and death. Once you have achieved one of those states, there is no going back. All three states are "human" by your definition. I submit that they are for the large part separate and independent of each other. Your argument appears to me to want to blur the distinction between the first two states

That might be an interesting fact about my psychology, but it tells us nothing about the argument I am making. It would in no way refute my evidence that the unborn are human. Could embryos still be human beings even if I am inconsistent? The answer is easy: of course they could.
I disagree. My scenario boils your argument down to its essence. You can use all the flowery rhetoric you like, and present a phenomenal mathematically sound science-based argument that 1 plus 1 actually equals three. You can justify it from a theoretical standpoint that if Albert Einstein were still alive, he'd nod his head in approval.

But you haven't passed the "common sense" test. In my mind, and I believe in the minds of most people, putting people in a situation where they had to make a moral judgement between the two choices above, they'd go with the "human being" as opposed to the "potential human being" every time.

A century and a half ago, a white racist could have just as easily put the same hypothetical question to a northern abolitionist: "Your barn is burning. You have a choice of saving thirteen Negro slaves or a white schoolboy. Which would you choose? Of course you'd save the schoolboy, right? See that proves my point. You are inconsistent. You don't really believe that slaves are human beings. Therefore, they are not!"
again, you're attempting to re-cast my argument so that it is more favorable to you. Negro slaves have been born, as has the white schoolboy.

Question: If I were the abolitionist, could slaves still be human beings even if I inconsistently apply my beliefs? Perhaps I save the boy instead of the slaves. Does that suddenly change what the slaves are ontologically? How would my alleged inconsistency refute the scientific and philosophic evidence that slaves are human beings, like the rest of us?
To answer your question, they'd still be human beings despite whatever "beliefs" you held. That's irrelevant. Not sure what you mean about your alleged "inconsitency", other than to say "do as I say, not as I do/did" is a hallmark trait of a weak moral constitution

We can take this a step further. Suppose I am an abortionist who kills 75 human fetuses each week. On weekends, however, I give lectures on why abortion is morally wrong, presenting scientific and philosophic evidence for the humanity of the unborn. Even though my behavior does not match my rhetoric, could my arguments against abortion still be sound? Would my evidence prove any less compelling?
The fact that your actions do not match your rhetoric does not detract from your argument. It does point out a certain level of hypocrisy, in my opinion.

John Polkinghorne, spokesperson for The Church of England, (snip)
That's just peachy. I'm not here to defend your strawman.

In short Basmati, you are not advancing an argument. You are appealing to moral intuition, though it's misinformed in this case for the reasons noted above.
Way back up there in paragraph one, I indicated that you were not a district attorney and this is not a trial. I'd like to amend my statement to say that you are not the "judge" either. We obviously have two diametrically opposed positions. We'll both present our cases and let the teeming masses here pass judgment.

Remember: Either way I might answer your hypothetical, it does nothing to refute my case. To refute my, you must present scientific and philosophic reasons to prove that the unborn are not human beings. Psychology will not do. Neither will stories.
I'll answer anything in any manner that I like, thank you very much. I submit that you have utterly failed to advance your argument to the point where I am convinced...again, that's my opinion.

Thus, I will go ahead and bite the bullet: I would save the toddler, not the embryos. What does that prove? Have you proven that the embryos were not human or merely that I am inconsistent? Until you can prove the former, the latter is irrelevant. My case stands.
What does it prove? It proves that your "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" conjecture doesn't pass muster in the "real world". I'm encouraged that you still have enough humanity in you to admit that you'd do the right thing and save the kid.
______________________________________________
Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

"This is a blog, not a courtroom. I am not on trial, you are not a district attorney. I can choose to answer..or not answer...any questions that are posed to me."

Naturally. My questions or arguments are simply meant to move the discussion/debate forward. I will attempt to refute your arguments as you naturally attempt to answer mine. In an ideal world we'll both learn more about each others position and maybe even change our minds on one or more aspects of your case. As you know I haven't spent much time on this blog, so perhaps I come across as too forward. (judging by your statement that you're not on trial here.) So I apologize if I came across that way - that is not my intention. I simply want to have good, intelligent discussion.

"I choose to spend my time here discussing what *I* want to discuss."

Then you were probably happy with my post since I spent all my time replying to the Burning Building scenario, which is what *you* wanted to discuss. I am happy to do so.

“I'm not willing to discard my scenario just because it negatively impacts your argument.”

I never asked nor implied that you should. I don’t think it negatively impacts my argument for the unborn at all. My argument is that all human beings should be protected, and you get to that argument later, which is great and I think we can continue moving on in the discussion.

“No one is arguing that an embryo is not human.”

That’s wonderful. That means that you are brighter then some scientifically ignorant people that actually do argue that embryos and/or fetuses are not human. Being so new to the blog I didn’t want to assume that you agreed that these embryos are human. In fact, from my little experience here I assumed that you DIDN’T think they were human because you kept calling these embryos “potential humans.” You mention that term again later so I’ll address that argument further down.

“The crux of my argument is that a clump of cells, while human, is in an altogether different state (i.e. unborn, not yet capable of independent living) with what we generally consider a "human being" (specifically, a human that has been born).”

What is “generally considered” to be a human being is irrelevant to me. I’m concerned with what actually is human and what is not. However, you make a good point that the human embryo in question is not capable of independent living, and you are 100% correct. The embryo/fetus is 100% dependent on the mother’s body.
My question to you is why is someone’s degree of dependency important to determining their right to life? Many people make the assertion (that you seem to imply) that the reason the unborn don’t necessarily have the right to life that other people have by law right now, is their degree of dependency.

Here’s the problem with that argument: newborn infants are not capable of “independent living.” Why is that important? Because I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would agree with me that infanticide (killing an infant) is morally wrong. A human being’s value as a “person” should not be at all connected with their degree of dependency, because that would disqualify a lot of people that we both believe have the right to life. Infants are one example. Adults dependant on hospital equipment would be another. The elderly that are living in assisted-living facilities because they cannot live independently would be another.

Conversely, I believe that your right to life is completely independent of your degree of dependency. I believe this makes more logical sense. Otherwise, you gradually became a more valuable person as you grew up and became less and less dependant on your parents. That just doesn’t make very much sense to me.

“To take your argument to it's illogical conclusion, I'd ask you: Why aren't dead people permitted to vote? (Chicago in 1960 notwithstanding ). By your logic, dead people are exactly the same as living people, they share the same DNA, etc, etc...they are just in a different terminal state.”

Interesting argument, but I think you’re taking my argument way beyond it’s logical conclusion. I don’t know of anyone that thinks dead people should have the right to life. That would obviously be silly. I only think living human beings have the fundamental right to life. While dead people do share the same DNA as they did when they were alive, there are other much more important differences, namely, they aren’t alive. That different terminal state you speak of is very much different from what I was talking about, specifically various levels of development of a human being. (that continuum stops at death, and I simply am not arguing that dead people have the right to life, and that’s not the logical conclusion of my argument.) I hope that clarifies my argument a bit, and I’m glad you brought it up because I don’t want to miscommunicate my actual arguments into looking like something silly.

“In my mind there are three terminal states: Conception, birth and death. Once you have achieved one of those states, there is no going back. All three states are "human" by your definition. I submit that they are for the large part separate and independent of each other. Your argument appears to me to want to blur the distinction between the first two states.”

I guess for the most part you are assuming correctly about me. I don’t think that the second state you mentioned, birth, is an important state in determining someone’s value. Pro-abortion philosophers like Dr. Peter Singer agree with me on this. What is it that happens in that 6-inch trip down a birth canal that makes you a person. What meta-physical change happens that suddenly makes you valuable? There must be a very significant one if abortion is acceptable and infanticide is not. Please clarify this for me in detail.

“You can use all the flowery rhetoric you like, and present a phenomenal mathematically sound science-based argument that 1 plus 1 actually equals three.”

I don’t understand your point here. I don’t think that I’m presenting a dishonest scientific argument. I think I’m arguing something very simple here: that the entire abortion debate revolves around whether the unborn is a living human being like you and me. You make a distinction between human beings just before birth and just after birth. I think we would both agree with that would have to be a very important distinction if abortion is permissible.

“But you haven't passed the "common sense" test. In my mind, and I believe in the minds of most people, putting people in a situation where they had to make a moral judgment between the two choices above, they'd go with the "human being" as opposed to the "potential human being" every time.”

Now we’re really getting somewhere. First of all, the category of “potential human” doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as a potential something. There are only actual things. A potential X must be an actual Y. If the unborn are not human, what are they? What are they actually? A fish? A frog? Something else? The facts of science leave us only one alternative. The unborn come from human parents, and hence, they are members of the human family.

I want to respond to your comment about what you think “most people” think, but I want to avoid committing a straw man here. Can you be more specific with what your point is? I’m not sure if you are implying that most people simply think that newborns are more valuable then the unborn, or something else. Please clarify, so that I don’t accidentally mischaracterize your argument or oversimplify it. I want to give it as much credit as it is do. Thanks!

“Not sure what you mean about your alleged "inconsistency", other than to say "do as I say, not as I do/did" is a hallmark trait of a weak moral constitution.”

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. My point wasn’t to do as I say, not as I do, but I can understand the confusion. My point was simply that inconsistency doesn’t prove a thing. In the burning building scenario, I believe that all your prove is that people are more emotionally attached to toddlers then embryos. I don’t know of anyone who would argue with that. I’ve made the comment in speeches before that “if the building was on fire and I had the choice to save my wife or all of you, sorry, you’re toast! But that doesn’t say anything about your value as people, nor does someone going with the toddler in the Burning Building scenario say anything about what the embryos are, and I’ve made a case that the embryos are valuable human beings that simply need to be given the right food and environment to grow to their next level of development.”

“The fact that your actions do not match your rhetoric does not detract from your argument. It does point out a certain level of hypocrisy, in my opinion.”

Exactly! That is exactly my point. I could be a total hypocrite, but that does not in itself refute my scientific case for the unborn. Let me offer an example. Sometimes pro-choice people will hear my case for the unborn, and then reply, “Well how many children have YOU adopted?” Now, I could tell them that my wife actually knew she wanted to adopt children since she was 9 years old, and ever since we even talked about getting married, we had always agreed that we both wanted to adopt one day. However, that is the WRONG ANSWER. The right answer is, “so what?” Even if I was a cruel person that hated kids and never wanted to adopt any, that doesn’t refute my case for the unborn. Neither does the burning building scenario. I hope that clarifies my position for you.

(I originally sad..) “Remember: Either way I might answer your hypothetical, it does nothing to refute my case. To refute me, you must present scientific and philosophic reasons to prove that the unborn are not human beings. Psychology will not do. Neither will stories.”
(You said…) “I'll answer anything in any manner that I like, thank you very much. I submit that you have utterly failed to advance your argument to the point where I am convinced...again, that's my opinion.”

I’m sorry that you’re not convinced, but I think you’re taking this a little personally. All I said was that TO REFUTE ME, you needed to present scientific and/or philosophic evidence, not stories. Obviously you are free to do whatever you like – it’s a free country. However, I don’t stories are going to convince very many people when compared with the case that I have presented.

Here’s a thought experiment for you, if you’re willing to answer: Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six and a half months later, woman ‘A’ delivers a premature yet healthy baby. Woman ‘B,’ meanwhile, is still pregnant. One week later, each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman ‘B’ be allowed to kill her baby but not woman ‘A’?

Thank you for a well thought out reply, Josh!

Naturally. My questions or arguments are simply meant to move the discussion/debate forward. I will attempt to refute your arguments as you naturally attempt to answer mine. In an ideal world we'll both learn more about each others position and maybe even change our minds on one or more aspects of your case. As you know I haven't spent much time on this blog, so perhaps I come across as too forward. (judging by your statement that you're not on trial here.) So I apologize if I came across that way - that is not my intention. I simply want to have good, intelligent discussion.

Fair enough. I apologize if I appeared too sensitive. I spend quite a bit of time here refuting mischaracterizations of my positions, and have adopted somewhat of a "hardline" approach to challenges.

“No one is arguing that an embryo is not human.”

That’s wonderful. That means that you are brighter then some scientifically ignorant people that actually do argue that embryos and/or fetuses are not human. Being so new to the blog I didn’t want to assume that you agreed that these embryos are human. In fact, from my little experience here I assumed that you DIDN’T think they were human because you kept calling these embryos “potential humans.” You mention that term again later so I’ll address that argument further down.
The main point of my argument is that a potential person (fetus) is not a person. Something that is a "potential" thing is by definition NOT a thing. An acorn by definition is not a tree. I think we are bandying around the same concept from two distinctly different aspects: you're positing "When does human life begin?" and my take is "When does personhood begin?"
(side note: should you ever feel that I am mis-characterizing your position please let me know...it's certainly not my intention)

“The crux of my argument is that a clump of cells, while human, is in an altogether different state (i.e. unborn, not yet capable of independent living) with what we generally consider a "human being" (specifically, a human that has been born).”

What is “generally considered” to be a human being is irrelevant to me. I’m concerned with what actually is human and what is not. However, you make a good point that the human embryo in question is not capable of independent living, and you are 100% correct. The embryo/fetus is 100% dependent on the mother’s body.
My question to you is why is someone’s degree of dependency important to determining their right to life? Many people make the assertion (that you seem to imply) that the reason the unborn don’t necessarily have the right to life that other people have by law right now, is their degree of dependency.
I certainly do make that assertation. Something that is "human" is not necessarily a "person". Building on my previous statement, while a "person" and a "fetus" can both be "human", I am of the opinion that a human fetus is not a human person.

Here’s the problem with that argument: newborn infants are not capable of “independent living.” Why is that important? Because I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would agree with me that infanticide (killing an infant) is morally wrong. A human being’s value as a “person” should not be at all connected with their degree of dependency, because that would disqualify a lot of people that we both believe have the right to life. Infants are one example. Adults dependant on hospital equipment would be another. The elderly that are living in assisted-living facilities because they cannot live independently would be another.
*groan* I saw this one coming when I wrote my initial post...I should have clarified "independent living". Newborns are dependent to an enormous degree upon their parents, yet they are capable of "independence" in the form of breathing, eating and other basic skills from birth and get more independent with each day.

(snip)

“In my mind there are three terminal states: Conception, birth and death. Once you have achieved one of those states, there is no going back. All three states are "human" by your definition. I submit that they are for the large part separate and independent of each other. Your argument appears to me to want to blur the distinction between the first two states.”

I guess for the most part you are assuming correctly about me. I don’t think that the second state you mentioned, birth, is an important state in determining someone’s value. Pro-abortion philosophers like Dr. Peter Singer agree with me on this. What is it that happens in that 6-inch trip down a birth canal that makes you a person. What meta-physical change happens that suddenly makes you valuable? There must be a very significant one if abortion is acceptable and infanticide is not. Please clarify this for me in detail.
I believe that it's a combination of factors in addition to the actual birth process itself. Factors that include fetal viability and sentinence, among other things. I'm not a biologist but from what I've read, I'm of the opinion that up to five months a fetus is simply not viable. As an aside, this is usually the point in the debate where pro-lifers generally start linking lots of cute little pictures of fetuses showing rudimentary but non-functioning organs. (I'm not saying you will, btw). Ditto the "feeling pain" arguments and also the "million to one baby who survived at four months". My "line in the sand" is five months. Want to ban abortion after five months? Fine by me. Months 6,7, 8 and 9 are moral grey areas to me.

(snip)

Now we’re really getting somewhere. First of all, the category of “potential human” doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as a potential something. There are only actual things. A potential X must be an actual Y. If the unborn are not human, what are they? What are they actually? A fish? A frog? Something else? The facts of science leave us only one alternative. The unborn come from human parents, and hence, they are members of the human family.

I want to respond to your comment about what you think “most people” think, but I want to avoid committing a straw man here. Can you be more specific with what your point is? I’m not sure if you are implying that most people simply think that newborns are more valuable then the unborn, or something else. Please clarify, so that I don’t accidentally mischaracterize your argument or oversimplify it. I want to give it as much credit as it is do. Thanks!

I could not disagree with you more. Not to belabor my point, but a fetus (potential person) is to a person as an acorn (potential tree) is to an oak.

(snip)

“The fact that your actions do not match your rhetoric does not detract from your argument. It does point out a certain level of hypocrisy, in my opinion.”

Exactly! That is exactly my point. I could be a total hypocrite, but that does not in itself refute my scientific case for the unborn. Let me offer an example. Sometimes pro-choice people will hear my case for the unborn, and then reply, “Well how many children have YOU adopted?” Now, I could tell them that my wife actually knew she wanted to adopt children since she was 9 years old, and ever since we even talked about getting married, we had always agreed that we both wanted to adopt one day. However, that is the WRONG ANSWER. The right answer is, “so what?” Even if I was a cruel person that hated kids and never wanted to adopt any, that doesn’t refute my case for the unborn. Neither does the burning building scenario. I hope that clarifies my position for you.
Well if you're not fond of non-sequiturs then the Citizen blog is probably not the place for you! (only partly kidding). I imagine that the "how many have YOU adopted" non-sequitur you hear is as annoying as the "what if YOUR mother had aborted YOU" non-sequitur annoys me

(snip)

I’m sorry that you’re not convinced, but I think you’re taking this a little personally. All I said was that TO REFUTE ME, you needed to present scientific and/or philosophic evidence, not stories. Obviously you are free to do whatever you like – it’s a free country. However, I don’t stories are going to convince very many people when compared with the case that I have presented.
You may be right. But I'll stick with my position nonetheless.

Here’s a thought experiment for you, if you’re willing to answer: Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six and a half months later, woman ‘A’ delivers a premature yet healthy baby. Woman ‘B,’ meanwhile, is still pregnant. One week later, each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman ‘B’ be allowed to kill her baby but not woman ‘A’?
Can't help ya there, my friend. I don't (as a rule) support abortion post-five months, as I indicated above for the viability reasons you state. But I'd like to point out that your supposition that a baby is "healthy" at 6 1/2 months is something of an anomaly. From the literature I've read, premature births that early almost always suffer from developmental-related issues.
______________________________________________
Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

“Fair enough. I apologize if I appeared too sensitive. I spend quite a bit of time here refuting mischaracterizations of my positions, and have adopted somewhat of a ‘hardline’ approach to challenges.”

I understand. This blog certainly seems a bit combative. I guess you guys have a lot of history together!

“The main point of my argument is that a potential person (fetus) is not a person. Something that is a "potential" thing is by definition NOT a thing. An acorn by definition is not a tree.”

Actually, the “acorn is not a tree” argument works for my side, not yours. An acorn is at a different level of development from the tree, but it’s still an oak! It’s not a different species of tree altogether; they’re simply different levels of development. Thus, you could call an acorn a “potential tree,” but you wouldn’t call it a “potential oak,” because it’s already an oak. You can call a fetus a “potential adult” but calling it a “potential person” begs the question: what’s the difference between a human being and a person. Luckily, you answer that question later on, so I’ll wait until then…just wanted to clear up the very common confusion with the acorn analogy.

“I think we are bandying around the same concept from two distinctly different aspects: you're positing "When does human life begin?" and my take is "When does personhood begin?"

I think you’re right, so I’ll change direction. I was expecting we’d get here eventually, but I didn’t want to jump into the personhood debate prematurely.

”(side note: should you ever feel that I am mis-characterizing your position please let me know...it's certainly not my intention)”

Understood. You’re doing great so far, Basmati.

“Something that is "human" is not necessarily a "person". Building on my previous statement, while a "person" and a "fetus" can both be "human", I am of the opinion that a human fetus is not a human person.”

If you are correct, then I think we would agree that what makes a human being a person is a very important thing to define. After all, we’re talking about what should give you the right to life. I know that you define at least two things later on that attempt to do this, so my point is simply this: if you’re right, we need to be very sure that sentience or any other popular example is what really makes you valuable.

I originally said… “Here’s the problem with that argument: newborn infants are not capable of “independent living…”

You said… “*groan* I saw this one coming when I wrote my initial post...I should have clarified "independent living". Newborns are dependent to an enormous degree upon their parents, yet they are capable of "independence" in the form of breathing, eating and other basic skills from birth and get more independent with each day.”

Let’s start by talking about breathing. It is true that newborns can breathe on their own, although I could make the argument that fetuses do breathe on their own, simply in a different way. (the umbilical cord.) I could also ask you to give evidence for your assertion that breathing makes you valuable. It’s easy to say breathing makes you a person, but proving why that should be considered important to your right to life is another thing.

I’d rather go in a different direction though. After a baby is first born, he or she often goes through several minutes before they begin to breathe on their own. If breathing is part of what makes you a person, then the newborn isn’t a person with the right not to be killed until it’s breathing on it’s own, minutes after birth.
After bringing up breathing, you mention eating and other basic skills. Let’s be careful not to give newborns to much credit here… Once again, newborns don’t possess any of these skills that they didn’t have in the womb. They may do these things differently, but it’s going to be a long time before they do them independently. I mean, it’s a long time before a baby can feed itself! Is he or she more valuable on the day he or she can feed him/herself? By your logic, (unless I’m mischaracterizing your argument) a baby continues to become more and more valuable as he/she becomes more and more independent.

“I believe that it's a combination of factors in addition to the actual birth process itself.”

What is it about the birth process that makes someone valuable? The baby has simply changed location by a matter of 6 inches.

“Factors that include fetal viability and sentinence, among other things.”

First, if fetal viability is important, then premature babies that are born fully-functioning are more valuable then the ones that take several days of medical care to keep them alive. My position is that viability has nothing to do with your inherent value.

Secondly, sentience is probably the most common, and most intellectual argument that the unborn are disqualified as persons. This is Dr. Peter Singer’s view. I hate to sound like a broken record, but allow me to clarify what your position logically follows to if you stay consistent. Newborns are absolutely not self-aware. (have sentience.) There is current disagreement on when sentience begins, but it’s not at birth. At best, it’s a month after birth. That is precisely why Peter Singer teaches in bioethics class at Princeton University every year that you should be able to kill babies until they are one month old. He also teaches that if you give birth to a baby that has a mental or physical defect, you should be able to kill her on the spot. While even most pro-choicers would disagree with Singer, you have to give him this: at least he’s consistent. Because what I think is inconsistent is when we say we can kill fetuses and not infants when there is no good difference between the two. (Assuming I’m correct that sentience and viability do not actually make you valuable, nor does the birth process itself.)
“I'm not a biologist but from what I've read, I'm of the opinion that up to five months a fetus is simply not viable.”

At this point, I believe you are correct. Luckily, as medical technology advances we’re able to save the unborn at younger ages. I just heard we’re only 10-20 years away from developing an artificial womb. Perhaps this would be of use in saving younger premies.
“As an aside, this is usually the point in the debate where pro-lifers generally start linking lots of cute little pictures of fetuses showing rudimentary but non-functioning organs. (I'm not saying you will, btw).”

The Penguin already responded to this. I think it’s important not to use pictures of the unborn as an attempt to trade sound reasoning for pure emotion. I do think it’s a good thing for people to see pictures of the unborn to help them realize that the unborn are not simply “clumps of cells,” “blobs of tissue,” “tumor masses” or whatever else Planned Parenthood wants to call them.

Ditto the "feeling pain" arguments and also the "million to one baby who survived at four months".

I think pro-lifers need to extremely careful about bringing up fetal pain. I’m saying this not to advance my view, but in the desire for intellectual honesty. It is possible that fetuses feel pain as early as 16 weeks; for sure by 20 weeks. However, this is a very poor argument for pro-life. First, it assumes that the ability to feel pain makes you a person. That’s as bad as assuming some other arbitrary thing like sentience makes you a person. What do we do with all of the adults out there that for one reason or another cannot feel pain? Apparently they are non-persons. Secondly, once again, proving that I’m more committed to truth then pro-life ideology, I’ll admit that 99% of babies that go through abortion DO NOT FEEL PAIN. If 20 weeks is when the ability to feel pain begins, then that makes me happy, because most abortions occur before 20 weeks. (Many pro-lifers don’t want to look at evidence like this, because it’s easier to convince people that abortion is cruel by making them think that every baby that goes through abortion feels pain. This is simply ignorant, if not dishonest.) On the other side, evidence also shows that 20+ week babies not only feel pain, but they feel 3 times the amount of pain you and I do! (this is because their nervous system is so raw and they’ve never been exposed to pain killers.) Thus, late-term abortion procedures like the D&E, which literally rips a baby into pieces and then decapitating the baby is a pretty horrific thing for the baby.

All that to say, I think the ability to feel pain has NOTHING to do with your value.

“My "line in the sand" is five months. Want to ban abortion after five months? Fine by me. Months 6,7, 8 and 9 are moral grey areas to me.”

I appreciate your candor, and actually, many pro-choicers agree with you that abortions shouldn’t be done after 5 months. Here’s what doesn’t make sense to me, Basmati. If the birth process, viability and sentience are what gives you the right to life, as you’ve declared, then why shouldn’t we allow abortions for late-term babies? If they haven’t been born, if they’re not self-aware and if they’re still dependant, why should we not kill them? That seems very inconsistent to me.

“I imagine that the "how many have YOU adopted" non-sequitur you hear is as annoying as the "what if YOUR mother had aborted YOU" non-sequitur annoys me.”

Yes, I’m not fond of the “what if YOUR mother had aborted YOU” argument. It’s purely subjective, with no actual reasoning whatsoever.

New exit question: ABC news recently ran a story about a woman whose father suffered from Parkinson’s disease. Having heard that brain cells from aborted babies could be used to treat the disease, she sought to conceive a baby for the express purpose of aborting it four months later and using its body parts to treat her father. Do you see anything wrong with this?

Good evening basmati.

1. This is a blog, not a courtroom. I am not on trial, you are not a district attorney. I can choose to answer..or not answer...any questions that are posed to me. [snip] I'm not here to play defense all the time. There are only a certain number of hours in a day. I choose to spend my time here discussing what *I* want to discuss.
Of course you aren't on trial, but since you ask us questions, I think it's only fair that we can ask you questions as well. After all, you got quite touchy when I didn't answer your question!

[I] wanted to see if I could generate some intelligent discussion about the burning building scenario..you know, the scenario you refuse to answer.
[emphasis mine]

Be consistent!

To call it a "false dilemma" is a value judgment on your part.
Uhh...well, actually no, it's not. I'm not trying to speak for Mr. Brahm, but I think that he thinks that your "Burning Building Scenario" is a False Dilemma logical fallacy, and I agree. (Of course that doesn't take away from the fact that it's also an Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy.) A False Dilemma logical fallacy is when you present an argument that has two and only two options when actually there may be a third (or more) option. As your example is a philosophical question, there could be a third option in real life like firefighters grab the toddler while you grab the petri dishes.

I'm talking about cells in a petri dish, which are human which have not yet been born with your daughter, who HAS been born and is in an altogether different state.
What state is that? The cells and his daughter are both alive and have all the qualifications of life such as using energy, requiring food, responding to their environment, growing, etc. Scientifically there is no difference.

I'd ask you: Why aren't dead people permitted to vote? (Chicago in 1960 notwithstanding).
That really is a straw man argument because dead people are well, dead. They do not require energy, they cannot respond to their environment, they do not grow, they don't eat, nor do they possess any other characteristic that defines them as alive. That's a very illogical question as there is a very noticeable and provable difference between alive and dead people.

In my mind there are three terminal states: Conception, birth and death.
No, scientifically you are once again incorrect because once fertilization occurs, the cell goes from one cell to hundreds of cells within days. Cell growth and the use of energy to grow are irrefutable evidence that an organism is alive. Therefore, there is no scientific distinction between a fertilized egg and a fetus and a newborn baby.

Once you have achieved one of those states, there is no going back.
Yup, you're either alive or dead. There is no in between stage.

I submit that they are for the large part separate and independent of each other. Your argument appears to me to want to blur the distinction between the first two states
It's not "blurring the distinction" because science makes no distinction. Embryos, fetuses, and babies are all alive by the scientific definition. You can try arguing some pie-in-the-sky metaphysical distinction, but scientifically, the evidence is irrefutable.

You can use all the flowery rhetoric you like, and present a phenomenal mathematically sound science-based argument that 1 plus 1 actually equals three. You can justify it from a theoretical standpoint that if Albert Einstein were still alive, he'd nod his head in approval.
Three logical fallacies right there -- straw man argument (1+1=3 -- That fact is not in question by anybody!), Appeal to Ridicule (1+1=3??? Huh?!?! What's next? You'll call us flat-earthers?), and an ad hominem attack ("flowery rhetoric"). (Also, let's not forget that you called Mr. Brahm a "propagandist" but neglected to back that up.) That "flowery rhetoric" is actually logic which you still can't refute or show how we are being illogical.

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

But you haven't passed the "common sense" test.
"Common Sense" is not always right and that is a form of an Appeal to Tradition logical fallacy. "Common sense" told the Nazis to eliminate "undesirables" so the "Master Aryan Race" would be the fittest human "race." "Common sense" would tell firefighters to run OUT of a building instead of INTO it! "Common sense" would tell you to lie to protect a buddy of yours. "Common sense" told people thousands of years ago that the world was flat. "Common sense" told us that going to the moon was foolish. While common sense may be useful at times (even most of the time), it's not infallible and is a very poor support in a logical argument.

putting people in a situation where they had to make a moral judgement between the two choices above
Ahh, but see, instead of debating the issue logically and scientifically, you force people to take either Side A or Side B in a philosophical question. Again there's the Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy. You shouldn't force people to answer a question that's grounded in an illogical premise.

again, you're attempting to re-cast my argument so that it is more favorable to you.
You must not have read Mr. Brahm's scenario/example of choosing between the black and white kids. His scenario/example is historically accurate because many people back then refused to acknowledge the blacks' humanity and/or personhood. Two hundred years ago, blacks weren't considered people under the law in many areas. Today, embryos and fetuses aren't considered people under the law in many areas. Therefore his scenario/example is perfectly logical and acceptable in this debate.

It proves that your "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" conjecture doesn't pass muster in the "real world".
Seriously basmati, can you PLEASE stop with the straw man fallacies? Please? Pretty please? Reasonable people would agree that the angels argument is ridiculous and has NOTHING to do with this debate. This is the second time you've mentioned this. In addition to being a straw man fallacy, this is most certainly an Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy because you are attempting to cast our reasonable, logical, scientific, and historical arguments against ESCR in the same category as a STUPID metaphysical/religious argument that went out of fashion ages ago!!! That is very intellectually dishonest.

I'm encouraged that you still have enough humanity in you to admit that you'd do the right thing and save the kid.
Another one of your ad hominem attacks against the "propagandist" Mr. Brahm.

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

Part 2 -- grab some coffee if you want or stretch your legs.

I spend quite a bit of time here refuting mischaracterizations of my positions
Not to get off subject or make an ad hominem attack myself, but just remember you have deliberately and frequently (and I can prove it) "mischaracterized" Denise Conner's and my positions. Try to remember that we don't like deliberate "mischaracterizations" of our positions as well, okay? Don't be hypocritical.

The main point of my argument is that a potential person (fetus) is not a person.
You're twisting words around and redefining them to mean what you want them to mean. Person or human -- whatever word you choose doesn't change the fact that the embryo or fetus is an alive, genetically unique creature.

Something that is a "potential" thing is by definition NOT a thing.
You use the word "potential" a lot, but you never say exactly what...a potential tree? House? Dog? Fish? No, an embryo/fetus is a member of the human family and can ONLY be human -- nothing else.

Something that is "human" is not necessarily a "person".
And that's EXACTLY the same arguments slave owners used. Who are you to define what a "person" is in comparison to a "human"? You're playing God again!

*groan* I saw this one coming when I wrote my initial post...I should have clarified "independent living". Newborns are dependent to an enormous degree upon their parents, yet they are capable of "independence" in the form of breathing, eating and other basic skills from birth and get more independent with each day.
Your inconsistency again is showing. By your OWN definition, a person in a coma and on life support after a car accident is not "independent." He or she can't breathe, eat, or have "other basic skills." By your definition, he or she is less alive than even a newborn! So let's kill him or her! No problems, right?

pro-lifers generally start linking lots of cute little pictures of fetuses showing rudimentary but non-functioning organs
"Cute"? That's another one of your logical fallacies -- it's a form of Appeal to Ridicule. Calling someone's ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH "cute" belittles their position. Also, it just means you don't like looking hard evidence in the face. Yell all you want about Godwin's Argument, but that's the same thing Nazi Holocaust deniers (and I'm not lumping you in there BTW) do -- it's hear no "evil" and SEE no "evil." Until you are open minded enough to look at "cute" pictures and facts, you will never acknowledge the validity of our evidence.

But as for your argument that they are "non-functioning organs," well, again you're wrong! You certainly are "not a biologist"! Now, I'm going to provide a link to a PDF booklet that will disprove all of your claims. Now who is this booklet from? National Right to Life? Nope. Georgia Right to Life? Naw. "ProlifersRUs"? No. Fayette County Pregnancy Resource Center? Nah. It's a booklet produced by the Georgia Department of Human Resources -- a government agency that is not affiliated with either side. I hope everyone interested in this debate will download it and read it: Download it here.

I'll prove how inaccurate your statement is that they are "non-functioning organs."

6 Weeks: A blood vessel forms and begins to pump blood. This will develop into the heart and circulatory system. At this time, a ridge of tissue forms down the back of the embryo. That tissue will develop into the brain and spinal cord.

8 Weeks: The heart now has four chambers. Fingers and toes begin to form. Reflex activities begin as the brain and nervous develop. [Nervous system functioning? Not bad for a "non-functioning organ."] Cells begin to form the eyes, ears, jaws, lungs, stomach, intestines and liver.

10 Weeks: The beginnings of all key body parts are present, but they are not completed. [Well, that's obvious and is not in question.] Structures that will form eyes, ears, arms and legs can be seen. Muscles and skeleton are developing and the nervous system becomes more responsive.

12 Weeks: Fingers and toes are distinct and have nails. Hair begins to develop, but won't be seen until later in the pregnancy. The fetus begins small, random movements, too slight to be felt. The fetal heartbeat can be detected with a heart monitor. [Wow! That's pretty amazing for a "non-functioning organ" wouldn't you say?!?] All major external body features have appeared. Muscles continue to develop.

14 Weeks: The fetus begins to swallow, the kidneys make urine, and blood begins to form in the bone marrow. [Swallowing - digestive system, urine - excretory system, and blood - circulatory system -- three groups of "non-functioning organs" functioning!] There are eyelids and the nose is developing a bridge. External genitals are developing. [Reproductive organs?]

16 Weeks: The head is erect and the arms and legs are developed.

18 Weeks: All the body and facial features are now recognizable. The fetus can grasp and move its mouth. Nails begin to grow. The fetus has begun to kick. [Muscular system developed. Another "non-functioning organ" bites the dust!] Some women feel this movement.

20 Weeks: All organs and structures have been formed, and a period of growth begins. Respiratory movements occur, but the lungs have not fully developed enough to permit survival outside the uterus. [Still, the lungs have developed beyond the "non-functioning organ" status.]

22 Weeks: The fetus has fingerprints and perhaps some head and body hair. The fetus may suck its thumb and is more active. The brain is growing very rapidly. [Brain growing? Amazing!] The fetal heartbeat can be easily heard. The kidneys start to work. [Well there you go...those stubborn little "non-functioning organs" just won't stay "non-functioning"!!!]

Oh, I could go on, but I think this is a good stopping place. Let's review, shall we? The baby has its own DNA separate from the mother, its own blood, its own working respiratory system (albeit not fully developed), its own working heart, its own working kidneys, and more. Care to change your opinion that the baby has "non-functioning organs"?

(Here's a bonus question: a person on dialysis or who has an artificial heart has "non-functioning organs" so should we kill him or her? Tell me, what's the difference logically!)

Ditto the "feeling pain" arguments
Again, you're 100% wrong! From the booklet:

By 20 weeks gestation, the unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is evidence that by 20 weeks gestation unborn children evade certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted to be a response to pain. Anesthesia is routinely administered to unborn children who are 20 weeks gestational age or older who undergo prenatal surgery.

Don't you just love how scientific facts and actual photographs can rebut your argument so effortlessly?

My "line in the sand" is five months.
Why five months? How about 1 day less than five months? How about 1 minute less than five months? I realize this sounds like a facetious question, but I'm serious. Would YOU be willing to stake your life on somebody's whimsical and non-scientific definition of when life beings or ends?

Want to ban abortion after five months? Fine by me.
I'll remember that. Thank you for that concession.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

Josh, I certainly do not intend on trivializing this discussion, and I hope it didn't sound like I was. My main point, which I think was a little different from Basmati's, is that it's one thing to feel that abortion is morally wrong, but it's a different thing to pass laws that prohibit abortion absolutely. To say that an embryo is human is not the same thing as saying that the embryo has the same legal rights as an adult human being.

As I said to Denise, this is an extremely thorny issue, especially because it involves a slippery slope. I must disagree with you on one point in particular. This is all about moral intuition. It's a philosophy question, and there is simply not an easy answer. Not for me, anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

Greetings, Gump. We definitely agree that this is not a trivial issue, and I didn't think you were trying to trivialize the discussion. The "Burning Building" scenario is a popular thought experiment to use against pro-lifers - and I was merely attempting to refute it as a good argument for abortion or ESCR.

Let me say that I truly appreciate your gracious and thoughtful response to my post. I agree with you that abortion is a very thorny issue, albeit an important one to discuss in the arena of ideas.

"My main point, which I think was a little different from Basmati's, is that it's one thing to feel that abortion is morally wrong, but it's a different thing to pass laws that prohibit abortion absolutely."

Let me focus this particular post with a few thoughts about that statement:

First, once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. Some argue that humanity doesn’t matter, but how can one’s humanity be irrelevant to the question of whether someone has the right to kill him? Wasn’t the black person’s humanity relevant to the issue of slavery, or the Jew’s humanity relevant to the ethics of the Holocaust? Not only is the unborn’s humanity relevant, it is the single most relevant issue in the whole abortion debate.

The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults. In their argument for letting handicapped infants die, two scientists and ethicists say this: “Prolife groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such a crucial difference… The solution, however, is not to accept the prolife view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite: to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth.” (Source: Peter Singer and Helen Kuhse, “On Letting Handicapped Infants Die,” in The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy, ed. James Rachels. New York: Random House, 1989, 146)

Question: Can we accept a logic that ties human worth and rights to physiological development? Why are we so outraged when we read of child abductions and murders? Why do they seem even worse to us than when the same thing is done to an adult? Isn’t it because children are small, vulnerable, and innocent? The idea of an older, stronger person using them, considering them expendable, is horrid and despicable. The right to live – the right not to be cut to pieces – is a basic right of every person. Surely it is no less right for a child, whether born or unborn, than an adult.

The moral fabric of our society is woven around a premise stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Our forefathers did not say, “After a certain level of physiological development human beings gradually become equal, but until they do it’s okay to take from them life, liberty, and the opportunity to pursue happiness.” The concept that all are created equal stands in stark contrast to the notion that human rights evolve with age, size, or social status.

Before you argue that mother's should have more rights then her baby, consider this crucial point: the comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life. In nearly all abortions, the woman’s right to live is not an issue, because her life is not in danger. The mother does have the right to the preferred lifestyle of her choice – as long as that choice does not rob other people of even more fundamental rights, the most basic of which is the right to live. The right to a certain lifestyle is never absolute and unconditional. It is always governed by its effects on others.

Planned Parenthood states, “The desire to complete school or to continue working are common reasons women give for choosing to abort an unplanned pregnancy.” Completing school and working are desirable things in many cases, and pregnancy can make them difficult. But a woman normally can continue school and work during pregnancy. If she gives up a child for adoption, she need not give up school or work. If she chooses to raise the child herself, there are childcare options available if she must work outside the home. Regardless of the challenges, one person’s right to a preferred lifestyle is not greater than another person’s right to a life.

Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose. The slave owners in this country a century and a half ago were pro-choice. They said, “You don’t have to own slaves if you don’t want to, but don’t tell us we can’t choose to. It’s our right.” Those who wanted slaveholding to be illegal were accused of being anti-choice and of imposing their morality on others. Nearly every movement of oppression and exploitation – from slavery, to the KKK, to prostitution, to pornography, to drug dealing, to abortion – has labeled itself pro-choice. At least with prostitution, pornography and drugs, the victim usually has some choice. In the case of abortion, the victim has no choice.

The pro-choice position always overlooks the victim’s right to choose. The women don’t choose rape. The blacks didn’t choose slavery. The Jews didn’t choose the ovens. And the babies don’t choose abortion.

An exit question for you: If it is not wrong for big, strong people to kill little, weak people just because they do not want them to live, then what could possibly be wrong?

Josh, you make a very persuasive case. I think you successfully refuted the burning-building argument. As you said, if I absolutely HAD to choose between my granddaughter and some other child, I would reluctantly choose my own granddaughter, but that would not lower the value of the other child. So much for the burning-building scenario.

Where I differ from you is that you equate a baby with an embryo. I don't, but I admit that there is no clear line of division between them to base a "right to life" decision on. Thankfully, I never had to make a decision like that, since both of the pregnancies I caused were intentional.

Thanks for the inputs!

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

Thank you for your kind words and sound reasoning. It is rare for peoples minds to be open on issues like this, you know? I hope that I stay as open minded as you. My desire is to be more committed to truth then pro-life ideology.

I don't really "equate" a baby with an embryo, in that I recognize that there are several differences. I just don't think either of those differences changes someone's value. For example, just b3ecasue the embryo is smaller then a newborn shouldn't change its value because size has nothing to do with our value. (Or else we'd be less valuable then the first person we met that was bigger then us!) Thus I think both embryos and babies (and all other human beings) have the fundamental right to life, even though they are different stages of development. Thank you for your inputs, and let me know if you have any other questions! It's been a pleasure.

Isn't it enough that you folks know what YOU would do in these circumstances, and let others not be bothered and irritated by your rambling on about things you have no idea whether they are true or not?
Cramming, cramming, cramming, simply runs more and more off from organized religion.

Sorry I'm coming into the discussion a little late, but I've been a bit distracted lately.

Denise, I had a similar discussion with Muddle a few months ago, and you agree (I think) with Muddle's position more than mine, which is more similar to Basmati's position.

I find the burning-building scenario is an excellent tool for parsing what we value the most from what we value almost as much, but not quite.

Denise, you said, "Obviously, one would grab the crying toddler because he needs air to breathe and will be overcome by the noxious fumes very quickly. The toddler can feel pain, but the embryos (qualified as in the first week of development) cannot. Therefore, a compassionate person would seek to prevent pain and alleviate terror."

So you admit that a two-year-old child has more value than a dozen embryos. I think that the vast majority of us would agree. I'm not saying that an embryo is not human life, but in my opinion, that's not quite the same as a baby that has already been born and is aware of its own existence. The problem is that there is no clear dividing line between the embryo and the baby. So therefore, there is no clear dividing line between when it would be ethically okay to abort a pregnancy and when it's not. You say never. I respect that position, but I'm not willing to say that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a newborn.

I certainly agree with you about the evils of infanticide as practiced in ancient Rome and current-day China, but you are muddying up the water by lumping infanticide in with early-term abortion. You have admitted that there IS an ethical difference between the 2-yo and the embryo. The problem now is where to draw that line.

The real solution to about 99% of this problem would be to change our culture to where people were not mating like dogs whenever they felt like it, and only had sex when they wanted to bring a child into the world. However, that is probably unrealistic. In the meanwhile, I would prefer to use social programs and adoption options to discourage abortion, rather than legislating anti-abortion laws.

Going back to the burning-building scenario, what if the choice was between saving a crying baby and saving a dozen unconscious babies? The unconscious babies would feel no pain if they suffocated in the smoke, but I would still lean towards saving the dozen babies over the one. (God forbid I should ever face anything like this!!) If all the babies were equally at risk, I would use the strategy that saved the most lives. Wouldn't you? That's different from the answer when it involved 12 embryos. That difference is crucial to this discussion.

"So you admit that a two-year-old child has more value than a dozen embryos."

No, I give them equal value; I would never willingly take the life of either. There is a difference in having to choose which one to rescue and choosing to end someone's life. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter also.

There is another difference between the embryos and the toddler besides level of development. There is the possibility that none of those embryos will implant and continue development (or they may be dead already). Deliberately leaving the toddler to suffer pain is not a choice that I would make. The difference is that I would try to save all of them; I wouldn't consider the embryos as disposable or having no right to life.

I was at the scene of a terrible wreck and had to make the choice of which person to help first. My choice in no way reflected on the value of any of the victims, unless, of course, I chose to help the "Caucasian" person over someone else.

At an emergency room and on the battlefield, patients are triaged and treated accordingly. These choices in no way reflect on the value of the persons or on their right to life.

"The problem is that there is no clear dividing line."

We all could have differing "dividing lines": yours is at 5 months pre-birth perhaps; Sue's is at 4 months pre-birth; Bob's is up until birth; Peter's is 6 months post-birth. How do you choose? What makes your choice more legitimate than Peter's?

I have no right to arbitrarily make a "dividing line" since I have no right to end the life of another individual, even if I believe that he's inconvenient, imperfect, or "needed" for another's survival.

I have no "right" to take your liver because I "need" it. Your size, level of development, or level of dependency in no way negates your right to life. I acknowledge the equal right to life of pre-birth humans.

"I'm not saying that an embryo is not human life."

Then, are you saying that an embryo is human life? If so, think what you are really saying.

"That's not quite the same as a baby that has already been born and is aware of its own existence."

There are those more educated than either of us (assumption) who would disagree.

Humanist and atheist Peter Singer, a Jewish-Australian philosopher and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, advocates for "a period of 28 days after birth [minimum -- actually he believes that it should be much longer] might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others."

Singer believes, "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

The New England Journal of Medicine said that Singer has had "more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell. The New Yorker called him the "most influential" philosopher alive. You will find similar attitudes prevalent at almost every university.

Once you start down the "slippery slope," where do you stop? If you do not believe in absolute truth, then, if my stopping point differs from yours, I have as much right as you do to choose for myself. If I conceive a child to provide a cure for another child, what right do you have to tell me that I'm wrong?

Being aware of one's existence is also a "slippery slope." How much more aware is a day-old infant from one that 24 hours previously existed in another environment (the womb)? Yet, that same pre-born child can be murdered and his body parts sold (quite a profitable business) because of Roe v. Wade. Children who have been born alive after abortion attempts have been left to die, and children in China (especially females) are routinely aborted and/or left to die because of government policy.

That grandchild that you're holding has the same genetic material (which determines uniqueness) that he had at the moment of conception. His level of awareness will increase over the years, but that does not make him more valuable, i.e., having more right to life, than you or I.

Remember that in Nazi Germany Jews and others were not given the same rights as others. Slaves were not given the same rights as others. Australian aborigines were not considered on the same level of development as the "Caucasian" scientists; therefore, it was OK to turn them into taxidermal exhibits for museums to show as the "missing link."

Why is infanticide "evil"? There were no "safe" abortion procedures; therefore, this was the abortion method of those times. Also, aborting a pregnancy could mean the death of a desired male child. Why is it "evil" to deliver the child and then dispose of the undesirable female child? Who are you to call them "evil"?

I can have a selective sex abortion today. Would you call me "evil"? Why?

The problem with "us[ing] social programs and adoption options to discourage abortion, rather than legislating anti-abortion laws" is that they don't work.

(I could use the same logic for murder: we need more social programs to discourage it. But we do have more social programs than 50 years ago and also more murder.)

"From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million [an average of 1.5 million per year] legal abortions occurred." (Remember birth control was available, and abortion was touted as a "last resort.")

(These figures are just estimates because state reports to the CDC "vary in completeness, with some lacking information on as many as 40-50% of the abortions that occur in the state. In addition, California and New Hampshire have no abortion reporting systems and are not included in the CDC totals.")

Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001-2003 [PDF] (August 2006)

There are approximately 3500 or more abortions every day -- 150 every hour -- 3 every minute of every day. How can abortion proponents call that "rare"?

"On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals [i.e., pressure from the father and/or family]; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child [but they could allow the baby to be adopted]; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents [again, adoption is preferable to death]; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner [again, adoption is preferable to death]."

Do you think that it's ethical for a parent (or boyfriend) to be able to force (or exert so much pressure on her so that she feels that she has no other option) a daughter to have an abortion? That happens frequently.

A recent example: A teen who had managed to hide her pregnancy from her mom for over 4 months was brought to Georgia because NC has fetal-age limits on abortions. The girl wanted her child and had felt her child grow, and the grandparents were willing to raise the child until she could take over. The end result: the child died at an Atlanta abortionist's hand because of the fear that the girl felt. Her mom and the "counselor" exerted psychological pressure on her to "terminate."

What are the effects of abortion? Women are more at risk for developing depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems.

"The low rate of deaths from external causes suggests the protective effect of childbirth, but the elevated risk [of injury deaths, suicides and homicides] after a terminated pregnancy [induced abortion] needs to be recognized in the provision of health care and social services."

Who are you to say whether or not another person has the same right to life as you do? Are you God? That's what it sounds like if you really listen to what you're saying. All I ask is for you to think about it and to read material from the "other side." I've seen the heartbreak and regret. Have you?

But even if there were no regret, would that make it right? Mengele and others had no regret either.

"The real solution to about 99% of this problem would be to change our culture."

I definitely agree and that's why I'm involved in many efforts to do just that.

"Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy."

"The Bitter Price of Choice" -- "It has been a slow process, my path from a pro-choice to a pro-life position . . . . We have let in a Trojan Horse whose hidden betrayal we've just begun to see."

Nat Hentoff (Jewish atheist and civil libertarian writer at The Village Voice) has written some excellent thought-provoking articles articles that can be found here. His analysis of the "slippery slope" will, at least, cause most people to stop and THINK.

"The Devaluing of Human Life"

"Beyond the 'Rehearsed Response'" -- "Fetus Fetish"

"Pro-Choice Bigots"

"Nat Hentoff, The Last Honest Liberal"

I get to check in on you arguing with the mega moron while he puts words in your mouth. Hard to find the time to properly defend an argument when you are spending more time correcting flawed logic, false accusations and lies. That's his M.O. Denise.

I would have thought you would have picked up on that earlier. Regardless, have a good time with the lederhosen-less liar in the tight white pants and chew the garbage he (metaphorically) puts in to your mouth slowly so you can digest it all. You can always wash it down with the 'Gump knows all snake oil' that he includes free with every moronic tonic.

I won't bother to address how he transforms 'rumor' into 'accusation', I will just allow you to watch and learn how 'you admit' erroneously creeps in to all of his discussions. Indeed Denise, you are dealing with a pretzel logic pervert.

I did notice that the hyperactive hypocrite attacked a well written and properly signed letter of opinion to the editor while 'hiding behind his anonymous moniker'.

Ah, Denise, you are so young and naive. Soon you will realize that Mixer and I were indeed, as usual, correct and your gutless grandpa is indeed a moron of major proportions.

Meanwhile, the non-drinking duo is out here burning up the tables:

I am up $400 - Mixer is down about $200 - (David is up about $200).

Mixer was up until he hit the one-armed bandits, David and I are hotter than the Las Vegas sidewalks.

Life is good. Hey Git- you on??

________________________________________________________________________
Ground Zero - What Radical Islam Wants for You and Your Family

In the end I have a feeling that my fishing trip will be more profitable than your "jacking" on the handle of a one armed bandit.

That really didn't sound right did it?

Hey Denise. I enjoyed your posting and discussion with Gump this morning on abortion and life. That was very well done. Gump may be a self proclaimed liberal but he sure is a decent sort to have a conversation with. I just regret that he and Mixer got off on the wrong foot. Now we know how those brawls between the different branches of service are so intense.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Thanks for the advice

I don't try to offend anyone, unless I'm attacked. Then, watch out! I had to learn the hard way about bullies.

I'll read blogs from those with whom I don't agree -- good mental exercise because it makes me re-assess what I really know and believe. I guess that, if I listen to someone, then someone's likely to listen to me. (Exception -- Basmati -- He even attacks Tug.)

"I am up $400 - Mixer is down about $200" -- He's losing? (I'm not a gambler.)

Have a good vacation -- but I think your diving trip to Fla. had to have been better!

Just kidding!! Thanks, Denise, for the detailed post! I'm not going to answer all your points, but a couple or three. First, let me say that I'm against abortion, for exactly the slippery-slope problem that you mention. However, I'm also against legislating morality in areas where there is room for honest disagreement about what's morally right. I seem to recall that you are a lawyer--correct me if I'm wrong--but wouldn't you agree that the purpose of laws is to protect the rights of all, while also preserving the freedoms of all to the maximum degree possible? In other words, protect my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while not unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of others. A good example from current events is where we have watering days, due to the water shortage. People should have the freedom to water their lawns however they please, but during a water shortage, the rights of other people to have drinking water (a basic need for survival) outweighs the freedom of an individual to water their lawn as much as they want.

Where this applies to abortion is that I may disapprove of abortion (I do), but before I'm willing to pass a law prohibiting abortion, I have to show that the rights of the embryo outweigh the freedom of a woman to choose whether she wants to give birth or not. It's a very thorny issue. I've seen the wonderful images of the fetus developing inside the mother, and it seems clear to me that the fetus is a sentient being after about the third month or so. (Yes, that line is certainly UN-certain!) So I personally could support laws that prohibit abortion after the first trimester. You mentioned Peter Singer--I can't imagine killing a baby 28 days after it is born, or even as it is being born. Sorry, but I don't care how many degrees he has. I do believe there are moral absolutes, but not that everything is a moral absolute. Digressing for a moment, I believe there IS absolute truth, but we are human, so we are limited in our ability to comprehend that truth. Our job is to do our best at understanding the truth and living accordingly. It's a journey we will never finish. (but I digress!)

One last point for this post--I said that the solution to this whole issue would be if people only had sex when they wanted to have a baby. That's a little too dreary. What I meant to say is that the solution would be when people only start a pregnancy when they intend to raise a child. I'd hate for married couples to only have sex when it's time for a baby. On the other hand, I stand by my comment that we need to move beyond the culture of randomly mating like dogs, pregnancy or no pregnancy. The results of that culture are all too clear, if you watch the daily headlines from Clayton county.

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

PS- the system logged me off while I was composing this. I discovered that I could open a second instance of Internet Explorer, and log on, then switch back to the first instance and post my message without having to re-type it. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has lost a long post by getting timed out, so I hope this tip helps!

One last point for this post--I said that the solution to this whole issue would be if people only had sex when they wanted to have a baby.

With that said Gump, There's no way, ever and ever that I'm going to become a Democrat now.

Count me out buddy....You're killing me. That's all my lovely bride needs is another excuse.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

I hear you loud and clear! It was a mis-statement, but I corrected it. Trust me--the Democrats as a whole are not Puritans at all. Neither was I, but then I've been married 30 years now. (You can read between the lines here.)

Speaking of long-term marriage, here's a few tongue-in-cheek quotes:

*By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. --Socrates

*After marriage, husband and wife become two sides of a coin; they can't face each other, but still they manage to stay together.

*I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me. (this would be me)

*Marriage is the only war where one sleeps with the enemy. (occasionally, right Git Real?)

All in jest of course; I'm sure the ladies have even better ones about their husbands.

---------------------------------------------------------
Ridicule is the last resort for a bankrupt point of view.

These are really funny!

*I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me.

That one doesn't apply at all to me!

I'll stand with you in regards to your comments regarding the ladies we love.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Not one of your better replies, Denise. Very little organization and cohesive thoughts.
Let's see what you've given us:
1. Lookee! Lookee! A picture!
2. Given a choice between A and B, I choose B. No! Wait! I want C to be a choice!
3. Lookee! Lookee! Another picture!
4. Specious counter-example. Bas said "clump vs. kid?" I'll say...umm..Bas vs. Kid! Yay me!
5. I'll make it seem like Bas wants to push his "morality" on everyone! How DARE he have his own opinion! He must be like....HITLER!
6 Link-o-rama! Who needs orginal thought when you can have LINKS! Wheee!
7. Time for cut and paste! Let's see, how about...umm..ANCIENT GREECE! A clump of cells is almost a baby, and 1+1 equals three if you pray hard enough, so, voila! I made a connection!
8. Hmmm, already used Hitler, need another Nazi....I know! MENGELE!
9. Hmmm, who else to smear Bas with? Used up my Nazi quota...Greenpeace? nah. Pedophiles? hmmm no. Ooh! Ooh! Animal rights activists! Bas is just like an Animal Rights activist! Snicker, oh this is FUN!
10. 3 more linkees.
11. State some science now: 2+cells is a BABY! REALLY AND TRULY! I can even see the smile in Bas' avatar!
12. Obligatory unrelated Declaration of Independence quote to show I am more patrioty than Bas!
13. Specious unrelated slap at evolution and
14. We're OUT!

______________________________________________
Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

"Very little organization and cohesive thoughts." -- I didn't submit my doctoral dissertation with this post, but my English skills are excellent nevertheless! However, I will always strive to improve.

Your post is rather confusing since your numbered responses do not correspond to my post. But, I'll try to respond.

"Lookee! Lookee! A picture!" -- The enthusiastic responses of eager learners thrill my heart.

[Does Bas look human in his avatar picture? Yes, as all humans look at that stage of development.] The pink tutu in your former picture was kind of cute, though.

"Specious" -- "'Specially funny," remember?

For the learning impaired -- Each one of us, including the children who were once frozen embryos, starts out as the joining of a male reproductive cell (sperm) and a female reproductive cell (egg). [End of elementary school presentation]

These cells are called gametes and contain the haploid number of chromosomes needed to produce a fertilized egg. [Gamete is from the Greek gametē, wife, and gametēs, husband, from gamein, to marry, from gamos, marriage -- Those intolerant Greeks!]

The single diploid cell formed by the union of two gametes is called a zygote (from the Greek zugōtos, yoked). A series of mitotic cell divisions occurs that are the basis of the multi-cellularity of complex organisms (i.e., as opposed to amoebae).

By approximately four days after fertilization, the zygote has about 100 cells and is called a blastocyst. (For comparison, frog embryos divide to produce 37,000 cells in a little over 40 hours.) During pregnancy the zygote undergoes 40 to 44 rounds of mitosis, producing an infant containing trillions of specialized cells organized into tissues and organs.

Human Reproduction and Development, Dept. of Biology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

"I'll make it seem like Bas wants to push his 'morality' on everyone!" -- In order to do that you'd have to have some, morality, that is!

After the Nuremberg trials (Hitler, Nazis, Mengele) the need for ethical guidelines governing medical research was widely recognized. Do you see the connection now?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

"How DARE he have his own opinion!" -- I never said that. Everyone here realizes that you have very out-spoken opinions. However, I will fight your attempts to force me to support, via my tax dollars, the destruction of embryos for medical research. And, I will question the ethics of such research.

Back to your same-old trite "original thought" and "cut and paste" criticisms -- Ummm ......

For the learning impaired -- You don't have to read my posts or read the links. They're for the advanced students!

"A clump of cells is almost a baby." -- You didn't do very well in biology, did you?

"1+1 equals three." -- Your math skills are lacking also.

"if you pray hard enough" -- Your religious training was insufficient, or perhaps it was your inattentiveness, but this is not correct theology.

"voilà" -- From the Old French: voyeur -- Need I say more?

"Bas is just like an Animal Rights activist!" -- Are you?
I never would have guessed! Does that mean that you don't wear leather?

"I can even see the smile in Bas' [sic] avatar!" -- You're smiling? How pleasant!

"I am more patrioty [sic] than Bas!" -- Well, if you say so!

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” ~ George Washington

"Specious" (You do like that word!) -- "'Specially funny," remember? Are you calling me deceptively attractive?

It was interesting following your thought processes.

You mention Singer. here's a piece on the lengths to which Singer's worldview has taken him.

Salvo Magazine on Singer

Not that I wish to argue on behalf of rice.

”And during this discussion, every time I use the word "embryo" I mean a genetically unique, complete, living human being.”

Since your definition of “embryo” is flawed, so is your entire argument.

An “embryo” is not “complete" nor can it exist outside the womb nor can it develop, on its own, in to a complete, fully functioning human being.

If you want to get right down to the basics, an “embryo” is more akin to a parasite.

Hi there bad_ptc.

An “embryo” is not “complete" nor can it exist outside the womb nor can it develop, on its own, in to a complete, fully functioning human being.
No you didn't read what I actually wrote. I chose my words very carefully. It is "complete" because it contains all the genetic information needed to become a mature human being. I didn't say it was independent -- it is indeed very dependent on the mother for 9 months.

But there again, what does dependency have to do with life? A car wreck victim on advanced life support is dependent on those computers and machines to keep her alive. Does that make her less human?

If you want to get right down to the basics, an “embryo” is more akin to a parasite.
Well true enough since both an embryo and a parasite are both living creatures, but an embryo is a "parasite"?!? Surely you could have come up with a better comparison?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

You wrote, "And during this discussion, every time I use the word "embryo" I mean a genetically unique, complete, living human being."

Your choice of the words, "complete, living human being" are inaccurate.

A zygocyte is neither a complete nor a living human being. It does have the potential for becoming such, but it is not yet there. Please reference "stem cell research". All the necessary parts aren’t there or haven't been developed yet.

Its analogous to calling a box of car parts a Ford. Until it’s fully assembled and functioning, you don't know if you have a Mustang or a lawn-mower.

Having the potential of becoming President of the United States is a far cry from becoming the President of the United States.

At conception, chemically, a mouse stands an equal chance.

"And it is not a loss of inert, amorphous tissue, but of a growing being unique in history. There are no generic zygotes. The one-cell fertilized ovum is a new individual, the present form of a tall blue-eyed girl, for example, with Granddad's red hair and Great-Aunt Ida's singing voice. Look at any family; see how the traits and characteristics run down the generations in a stream. Did we really think our own children would be different?"

"The Bitter Price of Choice"

"Every point in time is part of a continuum. Therefore, every point in development derives its significance from the previous point. Scientific 'spin doctors' have invented and promoted such bogus biology as 'pre-embryo' and 'stages of individuality,' and have duped many physicians who know little about human embryology. Many of them are now using this pseudo-science to justify human embryo experimentation. The Nuremberg trials settled this question conclusively." - Dr. C. Ward Kischer, a professor in the department of anatomy at the University of Arizona College of Medicine

"Its analogous to calling a box of car parts a Ford. Until it’s fully assembled and functioning, you don't know if you have a Mustang or a lawn-mower."

A car is not living; a zygote and an embryo meet all of the qualifications for life, including order ("assembled") and metabolism ("functioning") (see any biology book). Any zygote is just as complete genetically as you are; in fact, you were once a zygote. A zygote does not need you to assemble it; it's already programmed for self-assembly.

"In summary, life is organized, 'works,' grows, reproduces, responds to stimuli and adapts. These characteristics form the basis of the study of biology."

"This new human being -- the single-cell human zygote -- is biologically an individual, a living organism -- an individual member of the human species." - Professor Dianne Irving, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy (1999)

"Having the potential of becoming President of the United States is a far cry from becoming the President of the United States." -- You're not president and probably don't have the "potential," but I don't have the right to take your life because of it.

An embryo is not a "parasite" (again, see any biology text).

"A parasite lives in a close relationship with another organism, its host, and causes it harm." In fact, the embryo is part of the reproductive process, one of the characteristics of life (i.e., that which distinguishes you from a rock). An infant is also dependent on someone for nourishment; dependency does not disqualify humans from an "inalienable" right to life, "endowed by their Creator."

If you'd really like something to think about, read Nat Hentoff's columns. He's a Jewish atheist and civil libertarian writer at The Village Voice.

Ah banmati, I see you've diverted from the main article here. I wonder why that is? Maybe because you were getting your tail end kicked?
Nope, wanted to see if I could generate some intelligent discussion about the burning building scenario..you know, the scenario you refuse to answer. But since I see you are posting now in this thread, I can see intelligent discussion will go by the wayside

First, before we do anything else, banmati you need to answer a VERY simple question: is an embryo a human being or not? Yes or no? It's such a simple question that I know even you can answer it. Eye-wink Don't dodge my question. Answer it -- all it takes is one word.

No, I don't think you WILL answer my question because you know that you will lose the debate as soon as you answer. If you answer "no" I can come back with the irrefutable evidence that the embryo is a genetically unique, complete, living human being, and you will lose the debate. If you answer "yes" then you will be admitting that you are wrong on this issue and will have lost the debate. If the embryo is human, then it's morally and legally wrong to kill it.
My answer is NO. An embryo is a DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE of a POTENTIAL human being, in much the same way a single raindrop...or even a handful of raindrops...is a "potential river"

And during this discussion, every time I use the word "embryo" I mean a genetically unique, complete, living human being.
Good for you. Please identify the lungs, heart, eyes and brain in my avatar...for "complete"-ness sake!

I'm quite aware that the above argument comes perilously close to the logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion". [sic]
I see that you tacitly admit that I was right! No, it's not "close" -- it is a logical fallacy because that's an emotionally charged example. How could someone ignore a crying baby to save a few petri dishes of human cells? It sounds so cruel! Leave the Appeals to Emotion out of this debate and stick with facts, logic, and science. Or would that be asking too much?
Golly, Muddle PHD says my argument is a valid philosophical construct. Pentaghoul with his GED says its not. Who to believe?

Nonetheless, I still have trouble equating a clump of "human" cells (or embryos, if you will) as having the same standing in society as a "human" being.
Again, is an embryo a genetically unique, complete, living human being? Yes or no? It's irrelevant what you or I feel or believe -- what matters is if that statement is true or not. If it is true that an embryo is human, then it should legally be protected like you or me. And what does size have to do with it? Is a newborn less human than a tall basket ball player? Is a person of diminished height (hey don't say I'm not PC! Sticking out tongue ) less human?
You're attempting to conflate a born human being with a developmental human embryo. Let's try and stay on topic, little man!

Also what does the developmental stage have to do with it? A toddler is less developed than a child who is less developed than a teenager who is less developed than a mature (physiologically not necessarily mentally Eye-wink ) adult. So is a toddler less human than an adult? Think of "birth" as the basically the point of no return (with some exceptions). Again, you want to muddy the issue between newborns and clumps of cells.

Particularly troubling are test-tube fertilizations, embryos that have never been in a womb and will never be in a womb.
So? Location does not define a human being. I can be at the bottom of the ocean or in space and still be human. Now that you have been born, you're a human being (not much of one, I admit). You keep pounding the same point over and over, as if repetition makes your argument stronger.

Why not recycle these clumps of cells for stem cell research processing?
But they are much more than "clumps of cells"! They a human being in development. By that argument, you're just a clump of cells too. Why can't we just give you up for "recycling"? Don't you even know Biology 101? Cells are the building blocks of ALL living things even you. Ah...now we're getting somewhere! You agree with me that they are "in development!" Why don't these clumps have any say in where they go or what they do?

stem cells that have the potential to benefit the greater humanity
The ends don't justify the means. If embryos are human, then it's morally wrong to kill them for the greater good.
clumps of cells are Potential human beings...not human beings. This is my opinion.

I'm forming something of a conclusion that there is a certain subset of people who have no moral qualms whatsoever about inflicting great amounts of pain and suffering upon large segments of the human race (those with diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc) as long as their own morality standards are upheld and assuaged.
I see you made another one of your Ad Hominem attacks since you're losing the argument. Again, if embryos are human, what right do you have to kill them to help yourself?
If I said a certain subset of human beings vote Republican, is THAT an ad hominem attack? No because I have data to back it up. Same thing here with people who have no qualms about others suffering for their religous beliefs

Also that's a stupid straw man argument because no pro-lifer wants people to suffer from disease. We're VERY pro-stem cell research! (Just not the kind that kills an embryo.) Straw man? Nonsense. Many Christianists readily admit that there is promise in embryonic stem cells. They also feel that a clump of cells has a higher moral standing than anyone suffering from diabetes and Parkinsons.

In a nutshell, my feeling is that their argument is "I believe this, you should too, and too bad for those that might suffer".
Pro-lifers do not believe that. (You are putting words in our mouths.) We believe since that embryos are human that they deserve protection under the law.
YOU are a "pro-lifer"? A man who mocks kids getting slaughtered on college campuses? HAW comma HAW comma HAW

And I think this is wrong.
LOL! YOU of all people think something as wrong? I thought only evil "Christianists" made moral judgments?!? You frequently take the most liberal, controversial positions but then you pass judgment on others and call them "wrong"? You hypocrite!
I have OPINIONS. I disagree with people with people who have opinions other than my own, despite the efforts of low life America-hating pondscum like you who views free speech with revulsion.

I remain convinced that using embryonic stem cells to treat human suffering is a far higher calling morality-wise
Again, you are using the ends to justify the means. Isn't that what the Nazi doctors did on their "experiments"?
Godwin argument. You and Denise continually bringing up Nazis.

potential [emphasis mine] life-improving treatments
What little word did you use there? "Potential"? That's right -- they are not proven so is it morally acceptable to kill human embryos to find a "potential" cure? Thank you for admitting that embryonic stem cell research only can give "potential" cures.
Anti-science as well. Good little Christianist! *pats Pentaghoul on his greasy little head*

I'll concede philosophical arguments here. My opponents have vastly superior philosophical arguments than mine.
Why don't you just admit you can't win the scientific arguments as well? This is primarily a scientific debate -- is an embryo human or not? Because "spiritual" arguments are not the same as "scientific" arguments, your "faith based science" attempts notwithstanding

because certain segments of our population equate an undeveloped mass of cells with a human being
What an ignorant, stupid statement from somebody that knows nothing about biology. Why don't you read a biology textbook and learn about all the wonderful characteristics of that little "undeveloped" human cell?
I have read extensively, and that's why I hold the opinion I do. You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?
That's just an ignorant question. Looks have NOTHING to do with the argument if embryos are human or not. Is the most ugly person on the face of this earth human? They may not look like it! Was someone who had been blown up by a bomb human? They may not look like it now! Were the little bits of remains found in the Twin Towers debris human? They may not look like it now! who's appealing to emotion now? Hmmm?

Exit question: since you were once just a "clump of cells," would you mind having been killed for a "potential" cure? Hmm? Again, I once WAS a developmental clump of cells but that status no longer applies. You have to come up with a stronger comeback than that!
______________________________________________
Look at my avatar. Does that look like a "human being" to you?

Basmati's Burning Building Fallacy

I'd like to settle this specious argument once and for all.
you know, the scenario you refuse to answer.

You wrote:
I'm quite aware that the above argument comes perilously close to the logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion". I prefer to think of it as an "appeal to common sense".

I replied:
No, it's not "close" -- it is a logical fallacy because that's an emotionally charged example.

You didn't refute my argument in your reply, so you once again tacitly concede I was correct. It IS a logical fallacy.

Here's a made up example to demonstrate how ridiculous this argument is.

me:
Tell me basmati, who is the more moral man: Hitler or Stalin?

basmati:
Well based on statistics, Hitler was the more moral man because he killed millions less than Stalin.

Or you could say:
Stalin was the more moral man because he didn't specifically target groups of people to kill. He just killed anybody.

me:
See! See! Look here! I told you! Basmati is a Hitler (Stalin) supporter!

Which of course is not true, but that's a conclusion based on a faulty argument. It's the same way with your illogical "Burning Building Scenario." No matter which way you answer, I could come back and claim you are a supporter of an evil man. It's the "gotcha game," and it's a game I refuse to play because no matter which way I answer you can come back and accuse me of something bad. If I take the "logical" choice to save the embryos, then you will rightly criticize me for being a callous and cruel person for ignoring the toddler. If I answer the toddler, then you will claim I don't believe that the embryos are fully human. It's a no-win situation. Therefore, I refuse to answer your philosophical question because it's just that (philosophical) and because it's based in a logical fallacy. I won't dignify an illogical question with a response.

But since I see you are posting now in this thread, I can see intelligent discussion will go by the wayside
Well then if I can't give any intelligent discussion why did you reply to this? Logically you would be wasting your great intellect on an "amoral gutterslug." Oh right, that great intellect of yours is busily looking up the correct definition of "amoral."

My answer is NO. An embryo is a DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE of a POTENTIAL human being
Ever heard the expression "put up or shut up"? Now please either "put up or shut up" and give me a reference from a medical textbook that says that a human embryo is anything less that 100% pure genuine human.

Please identify the lungs, heart, eyes and brain in my avatar...for "complete"-ness sake!
It looks just like you did at that stage though I think I can see the letters "F" and "P" in there...maybe for Ms. Fredi Phelps?

Golly, Muddle PHD says my argument is a valid philosophical construct. Pentaghoul with his GED says its not. Who to believe?
Heh...you still aren't refuting my argument because you still just can't. As for the ad hominem attack, well, I'll just quote you:

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

You're attempting to conflate a born human being with a developmental human embryo.
Yes I am because science says that that a "human embryo" (nice choice of words there) is 100% human and alive.

Let's try and stay on topic, little man!
Another ad hominem attack!

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

Think of "birth" as the basically the point of no return (with some exceptions).
What exactly are your "exceptions"? Be specific! Is a baby human 1 minute before birth? 5 minutes? 10 hours? 10 days? 10 weeks? Exactly where is the cut off date for the great transition between a "clump of cells" and a human, O Master of All Knowledge?

you're a human being (not much of one, I admit)

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati
I just love you for a source of great quotes! Thanks!

You keep pounding the same point over and over, as if repetition makes your argument stronger.
LOL! For such a weak point, you sure never can logically refute it! It's because you can't! But there you go again being a hypocrite! You posted not one, not two, but three (count 'em!) blogs either directly or indirectly ranting against abstinence, evil "Christianists," and other nonsense. You wrote the book on "pounding the same point over and over, as if repetition makes your argument stronger." HYPOCRITE alert!

Ah...now we're getting somewhere! You agree with me that they are "in development!"
Huh? Of course they aren't mature and fully grown yet. I never claimed that they were. Straw man fallacy alert!

Why don't these clumps have any say in where they go or what they do?

basmati's "clump of cells" kid:
Noooooo! I wanna go to McDonald's for a hamburger tonight!

basmati:
No, you're going to eat where we tell you to!

Your "clump of cells" kid doesn't "have any say in where they go or what they do." Does that make him or her less human? Hmm?

clumps of cells are Potential human beings...not human beings. This is my opinion.
Your opinion? Frankly I could care less about your opinion. Ditto for mine. What matters is does science say that embryos are human or not? And the answer is most assuredly yes.

If I said a certain subset of human beings vote Republican, is THAT an ad hominem attack? No because I have data to back it up.
Nope, of course it's not. What I objected to was your use of inflammatory language like "who have no moral qualms" and "[they want to] inflict great amounts of pain and suffering" which are ad hominem attacks. That's also an Appeal to Ridicule. How can you listen to someone that wants to "inflict great amounts of pain and suffering upon large segments of the human race"? Two logical fallacies right there.

Straw man? Nonsense. Many Christianists readily admit that there is promise in embryonic stem cells.
You really can't stop using those straw man logical fallacies, can you? Nobody argues that. Mr. Brahm said there are likely to be some. I agree. Just because you can do something doesn't automatically make it right. To paraphrase Uncle Ben from the awesome Spider-Man movie, "With great medical power comes great ethical responsibility!"

They also feel that a clump of cells has a higher moral standing than anyone suffering from diabetes and Parkinsons.
You are twisting words. The "clump of cells" you are referring to is an embryo. Please learn some scientific terminology. And yes, we do believe it has the same right to life as anybody else. What you want to do is play God and decide who lives or dies. Maybe you need to seek psychological help for your delusions of grandeur.

YOU are a "pro-lifer"? A man who mocks kids getting slaughtered on college campuses? HAW comma HAW comma HAW
That's such a libelous slur it deserves its own dedicated post right here.

I have OPINIONS.
NOBODY minds that you have opinions. It's your right. It's just ironic that you tell the pro-life crowd that we are "wrong" which is a moral judgment usually invoked by the evil "Christanists."

low life America-hating pondscum like you

I'll just quote you on this one:

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

who views free speech with revulsion
With all due respect, you're a liar. I've said before that I'm MUCH more tolerant than you. I've never wished for a political opponent's death like you have. I'll go so far as to say I'm GLAD you are here online! You make me work hard to defend my positions, and I appreciate that. No really, I do! An opinion that can't be vigorously logically, ethically, or historically defended is an opinion not worth having. Now, I'll ask you: would you say the same about us conservatives (Git Real, Mixer, Enigma, Denise Conner, me, etc.)?

But yet again, another ad hominem attack from you.

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

Godwin argument. You and Denise continually bringing up Nazis.
You better believe I do because IMHYVAO it's VERY relevant to the discussion. The Nazis showed an almost unbelievable disrespect towards human life and IMO we are heading in the same directions in certain areas. The Germans today realize the slippery slope that ESCR, cloning, etc. present and have passed strong laws against them. I would encourage you to read President Johannes Rau's speech. Here's one thing particularly interesting he said:

Here in Germany it is not permitted to use embryos for research purposes. The members of the German Bundestag decided this in 1990 out of a wide variety of convictions. They determined that the fertilized egg cell was the point from which human life should be protected.

Those who do not share the view that human life begins at this point must answer the question: from what other point should human life enjoy full protection? And why exactly not until this later point in time?

President Rau makes an excellent point!

[You're] Anti-science as well.
Not at all. I'm just against science that deliberately hurts, maims, or kills humans. You really didn't pay attention in history class, did you? Another ad hominem attack.

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

Good little Christianist! *pats Pentaghoul on his greasy little head*
You put it so much better so I'll just quote you:

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. -- Basmati

I'm afraid I've lost count of how many ad hominem attacks you made in just one comment!

Because "spiritual" arguments are not the same as "scientific" arguments, your "faith based science" attempts notwithstanding
You're not telling the truth, but what else is new? I'm not bringing the Bible into this -- just science.

I have read extensively, and that's why I hold the opinion I do.
So have I. I just happen to have the scientific, historical, and ethical high ground.

You don't agree with my opinion, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.
Mind if I quote you on that?

who's appealing to emotion now? Hmmm?
That wasn't an Appeal to Emotion -- it was simply a real life example. But you still didn't refute my point that looks has NOTHING to do with humanity or not.

Me:
Exit question: since you were once just a "clump of cells," would you mind having been killed for a "potential" cure? Hmm?

Basmati:
Again, I once WAS a developmental clump of cells but that status no longer applies.
Of course you were once a "clump of cells" and you're a big "clump of cells" now. Nobody disputes that! But nice dodge on my question. Yes or no is all it takes -- when you were in the "clump of cells" stage would you have minded having been killed for a "potential" cure?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

You have become worse than denise with these long, drawn out, meaningless, confusing, ill-conceived onslaughts of temerity.
I know lawyers get paid by the page, but we aren't paying or reading!

Dollar, lawyers have to argue logically (okay well...most of the time ), or they won't have a job. Guess we know what profession you are not in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell Senior El Presidente no to amnesty!

(for those of us with ADHD)...is the mother of attention" (TF)

"The memories of a man in his old age, are the deeds of a man in his prime.You shuffle in the gloom of the sick room,and talk to yourself as you die."
(R. Waters)

I personally have no qualms with stem cell research. What many don't understand is that George Bush is not against it either, he is against gov. funding of it and so am I. Don't think just because the gov. isn't funding it, it isn't getting done, millions upon millions of dollars in research is being done right now with no gov. money. Bush has limited the research to working with existing lines; As far as I know, that doesn't limit research, I could be wrong.
I do have one thing to add about when something becomes human. Let's say someone sets the time at three months. Now, please explain to me how, if a fetus is human at three months it is not one minute before that. And, if it is, how is not one minute before that. How do we say that a fetus is human one second, but not the second before? I do not know the answer and do not want to be the one to answer it and held accountable to God.