16. emma @ 15 First, that wasn't "my" definition. It is defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Also I think a bacterial cell and a human cell are vastly different genetically. Your question of "When is a life a life?" has to be defined by man. To say that it is unanswerable is a cop out. Are you a human? are you alive? If so, by who's definition?

marc at 5:55PM on Jan 30th 2008

17. # 14 I'm still trying to figure out how a pointless post with an insult included helps you to "escape the fundies". What are you trying to escape from?

marc at 5:58PM on Jan 30th 2008

18. @ 16 I have to reiterate a statement. When I say that human life HAS to be defined by man, I mean to say it is the responsibility to define what life is. I also mean to say that it is our responsibility to give it a reasonable definition, not one to suit what we want it to be. No matter how much I want to define regular bacon as "fat free" doesn't make it so.

marc at 6:03PM on Jan 30th 2008

19. Marc,

There you go, casting your opinions onto everyone else. Why should I have to wait until marriage or until I decide to "become a parent" to have sex? Because you say so? Or I could just have an expensive, emotionally and phsyically tolling surgery that may result in having to take hormone pills the rest of my life. Are you even aware that it is next to impossible to find someone to perform those kinds of procedures if you're younger than 25?

As to your point #11, why don't we just provide the education on how to properly use birth control? Seems like if we would do that, that would cut down unwanted pregnancies a whole lot, huh?

K at 6:04PM on Jan 30th 2008

20. go to http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fetal-development/PR00113 and tell me that what you see isn't a human being. It is currently legal to abort (kill) one of these at the mother's will without reason.

marc at 6:09PM on Jan 30th 2008

21. emma @ 15 First, that wasn't "my" definition. It is defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Also I think a bacterial cell and a human cell are vastly different genetically. Your question of "When is a life a life?" has to be defined by man. To say that it is unanswerable is a cop out. Are you a human? are you alive? If so, by who's definition?
_____________________________
Marc, it is the definition you chose to present out of dozens of possible definitions.
The bacterial cell fits the definition you posted perfectly. Also consider that the human body contains about ten times as many bacterial cells as it does human cells. Without bacteria, we wouldn't exist, yet you have no issue killing off bacteria.
There is no UNIVERSAL definition of when a life is a life. To call my statement a cop-out shows your utter disrespect for the brilliant minds of philosophers who have tried to answer that question for centuries.
It is ridiculous to compare the life of an autonomous, independent human being to that of a parasitic fetus. But if you must resort to such an argument, I breathe independently, all my vital organs are fully developed and independently functioning, and most importantly, I am a sentient being. These are some definitions for starters.

The questions DOES NOT have to be answered by men. It has to be answered by women and believe me, the answers will differ, just like they always have and that is EXACTLY why we have pro-choice legislation in place.

Your attempt to simplify the question of life is both unproductive and arrogant.

emma at 6:15PM on Jan 30th 2008

22. K @ 19 I think you misunderstood my point. My point is that there are too many excuse as to why it should be legal to have an abortion. I'm offering alternatives to the situation.

you ask "Why should I have to wait until marriage or until I decide to "become a parent" to have sex?" I never said that there should be a law against either one. I just said that if you happen to become pregnant while doing so, shouldn't instantly give you the right to an abortion. Where is the medical necessity of ending a life as a result of a procreational act used as recreational activity? Trust me, I enjoy the recreational aspects, but am also willing to take responsibility of the outcome thereof.

You also ask, "why don't we just provide the education on how to properly use birth control?" sure, but how is that an argument against abortion?

marc at 6:21PM on Jan 30th 2008

23. emma @ 21 the definition of "life" is pretty universally recognized by that definition. Also I'm pretty sure that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is a respectfully accurate source. Even if I quoted thousands of respected scientist, I somehow doubt that would sway your "definition".

Also you failed to recognize the fact that I differentiated bacterial cells from human cells based on genetic make up. It's a tiny set of instructions called DNA that scientist can use to determine if a certain cell is bacterial or human.

You seem to be attempting to turn the issue into weather or not something has a soul. That I agree is up for debate. This issue, however has no legal bearing when it comes to determining if something is "alive".

To try to describe an unborn baby as un-human based on the fact that it is "parasitical" is both amusing and disturbing at the same time. A new born baby is "parasitical" in the sense that it cannot feed itself.

Furthermore, I resulted to comparing an "autonomous" human being such as yourself to that of a "parasitical" human being for lack of a better definition of what a human is. You seem to be attempting to define yourself as human based on the fact that you are autonomous. So, for whatever reason that you are hospitalized and require machinery to support your life, would it be reasonable for someone other than you to decide that you are a burden should be aborted?

marc at 6:40PM on Jan 30th 2008

24. My point is that there are too many excuse as to why it should be legal to have an abortion. I'm offering alternatives to the situation.
______________________
Marc, you are approaching the issue from the wrong perspective. You see an anti-abortion and a pro-abortion stance, but there is no movement that says it's okay to throw caution in the wind, have unprotected sex and get pregnant, because, hey, we can just have an abortion!
Pro-choice proponents are not in favor of abortions, but realize that the alternative, making decisions regarding the body of another person, is a violation of selfhood and human rights.
Where would such legislation end? Would we then have laws forbidding pregnant women to drink, smoke or even take prescription drugs, because they may harm the fetus? Would there be fines for eating badly and not taking your prenatal supplements? Using toxic household products? How far would the protection go?

emma at 6:43PM on Jan 30th 2008

25. Marc

I realize that abortion would not be an option for you and your wife. It would not be for me either, but my husband and I have a happy marriage and a stable home. I'm sure you do too.

Think about the children that would be born to women that didn't want them, but had them anyway, because abortion was illegal.
Is it better that they are born into a home where they are unwanted, possibly neglected or even abused? Are they better off in foster care or an orphanage? The foster system would be overburdened with unwanted children, and unfortunately, that system doesn't always protect the children in their charge.
That is why it has to be a choice. You and I can choose to bring a child into our lives and make sure they are loved and cared for, but we have no control over what happens to the others. My conscience would be heavier for all of the children that had to endure a life of sadness, than for the ones that never had to know the sadness of this world.

dani at 6:43PM on Jan 30th 2008

26. By the way the reason why I called it a cop-out isn't because you have dificulty defining what is human life, it is because people are using that as an excuse to rationalize abortion. It is iresponsible to play dumb at the expense of human life.

marc at 6:45PM on Jan 30th 2008

27. Marc, first of all, no one would have to assume anything. My living will clearly states that I do not want to be kept alive by artificial life support.
I have given you more definitions than just autonomy. (functioning vital organs, independent breathing, and VERY importantly IMHO, sentience)
The term parasite is not at all laughable, as it describes an organism feeding directly off another, which is exactly what a fetus does. After birth, anyone can feed the child, so it is no longer a parasite by definition.

I am not making an argument regarding the soul, as I don't believe that there is such a thing.
The reason I keep going back to definition is that the one you refer to is NOT a definition for human life, but life in general from a purely scientific perspective. Again, if you refer to that definition and you want to protect life based on that definition, you must protect all cells, human or other.
Genetic make-up is merely potential. In itself, it certainly does not constitute life. Your sperm carries DNA. Please be sure to protect every last one of those little soldiers!

emma at 6:57PM on Jan 30th 2008

28. emma @ 24 you said, "but there is no movement that says it's okay to throw caution in the wind, have unprotected sex and get pregnant, because, hey, we can just have an abortion!" Maybe that's not your objective, but I beg to differ. What is the movement then?

you said, "making decisions regarding the body of another person, is a violation of selfhood and human rights." Thank you for that statement. I totally agree with that. So based one that statement what right do you have to make decisions regarding the body of another person (an unborn child). It is once again irresponsible to change the definition of "human" to support your "human rights" objective.

You ask, "Where would such legislation end?" Another good question. It goes in both directions. Let me begin by saying that it would be silly to fear making murdering, say a toddler, illegal because you are afraid that someone might take it too far and make giving a toddler alcohol a crime. Oh wait it is, because, they are reasonable laws. It's called being a responsible adult. Do you disagree with those laws as well? Are you now in fear that you are going to go to jail for not feeding you children properly? That is another cop-out.

marc at 7:01PM on Jan 30th 2008

29. Dani. I challenge you to go to an orphanage and ask the children there if they wished their mothers had an abortion.

How is it OK to kill children because their mother's didn't want them? Do you remember hearing about a mother who drowned her childern in the bath tub? Should that have been legal just because she didn't want them anymore?

It seems to me that in stead of being accountable for our actions we are trying to find ways to justify them.

marc at 7:05PM on Jan 30th 2008

30. emma @ 27 "My living will clearly states that I do not want to be kept alive by artificial life support." cool, so if you go to the hospital and have to have an IV drip installed I hope the hospital makes sure to carry out your wishes (no I don't I'm kidding). OK, instead of you and I arguing over the definition of human life, let's argue over weather or not it is responsible for people to sit back and throw hands up in the air and say, "well sense we cannot define human life, all bets are off and we can kill whatever we want."

marc at 7:14PM on Jan 30th 2008