31. Marc, what is your reason for wanting to reform what is already well understood and clear under the law? It appears to me that you are looking for an excuse to control other people. Life in dioecious species has two biological beginnings and one legal beginning. Life itself began in this sector of the galaxy 3.5 billion years ago and has never extinguished.

Why on earth is someone else's pregnancy your business? On what authority do you demand this sort of control and why?

Clif Kuplen at 7:18PM on Jan 30th 2008

32. 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.
_______________________
A fetus is not defined as a person. It is also not defined as a human. That's why we call it a fetus.
Furthermore, if it is attached to MY body, the decision I am making still pertains to ME. Again, the fetus, at that point, is an extension of the mother, not a separately existing organism.

You are makin the same fallacious argument in this statement:
"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."

Again, you are now talking about a toddler, no longer attached to the mother's body. The harm principle now fully applies.
(BTW, you can indeed go to jail for not feeding your children properly, for giving them alcohol or knowingly exposing them to harm of any other kind)

emma at 7:20PM on Jan 30th 2008

33. (Ill poste this here also.) Why can we not look to nature for the answer to these moral questions? This stance even backs both ends of the philosophical spectrum since if it exists naturally it must be G/gods plan, or completely evolutionary based. Which ever side you’re on. Example: Abortion, many mammals will biological terminate or reabsorb their unborn young in times of stress or danger. Now if this set to happen in nature why would it be morally wrong for humans to do the same? Example 2: Also it has been strongly suggested by many sources of first hand example that all mammals display a naturally diverse sexual orientation. Goats, sheep, cows, dogs & yes even humans show dispositions toward BOTH ends of the sexual spectrum. This would than seem to be a NATURAL system which seems to be supported by G/god & science, otherwise G/god would not have made it this way. Why is this so hard to grasp? Science & G/god are completely compatible to me. Weather G/god exists as portrayed in theology or only exist as a psychological abstract in human consciousness.

Michael Harrod at 7:25PM on Jan 30th 2008

34. The christian right is aware of its political power, and meaning well does not always equate to good. Should we look at only the surface of the agenda of christian right, or should we look deeper into the agenda?

School prayer, segregation, creationism, intelligent design, anti-abortion, anti-science...etc. The people that back these ideas, use the argument of returning the U.S. to the great nation we once were under god. But if we return to the past, who will lose freedoms that have been gained?

JefFlyingV at 7:21PM on Jan 30th 2008

35. 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).
_________________
Umm, don't think IV drip is considered artificial life support. That's just medical care. I'm talking breathing tube or feeding tube in the absence of heart and brain function. Geez, sure hope the physicians know the difference... :)

Never said let's kill whatever due to lack of definition. Personally, I believe in prevention, like I said before.
The point is that the alternative to pro-choice legislation, is absolutely unacceptable and would be detrimental to our society (the autonomous one).

emma at 7:29PM on Jan 30th 2008

36. Clif @ 31 "Why on earth is someone else's pregnancy your business? On what authority do you demand this sort of control and why?"

For the most part, it's not. Other people's family affairs aren't my business either, but I would hope that someone would stand up for the rights of a child if he or she were being abused. Someone else's pregnancy doesn't just involve a mother. It involves a mother, a father and a child, one of whom cannot stand up for their own rights.

I have no authority to demand this sort of control. It is only my hope that someone that does have the authority would listen to a reasonable point of view and make a wise decision on the matter.

and why? because I care.

marc at 7:28PM on Jan 30th 2008

37. emma @ 32
"A fetus is not defined as a person. It is also not defined as a human. That's why we call it a fetus." Is it possible to be a fetus and a human? or a child and a human? or a senior citizen and a human?

marc at 7:31PM on Jan 30th 2008

38. emma @ 36 " ...absence of heart and brain function" a fetus has both of those at the time it is still legal to abort.

marc at 7:35PM on Jan 30th 2008

39. gotta go, see ya guys.

marc at 7:39PM on Jan 30th 2008

40. emma @ 36 " ...absence of heart and brain function" a fetus has both of those at the time it is still legal to abort.
___________________
Let me first clarify that I do not support abortion past the second half of the second trimester. Why? Because we know that the fetus' brain, at that point, has developed enough to properly interact with pain sensors via the CNS.
In other words, the possibility of sentience exists.(which is where I, personally, define when life is life)
Now to your argument. Before I have no brain function, heart beat or the ability to breathe independently, I had all of those to the fullest extent. The brain function of a fetus at the time of the abortion has only just begun to develop and would, in fact, be considered not functioning in an adult on artificial life support.
So let me put it this way, when my brain function has been reduced to the brain function of a first trimester fetus, I would like to be disconnected from artificial life support. And even better, I won't feel a thing!

emma at 7:51PM on Jan 30th 2008

41. "A fetus is not defined as a person. It is also not defined as a human. That's why we call it a fetus." Is it possible to be a fetus and a human?
______________________
It is possible to be a fetus of the human species, but formal definitions of "human" typically include traits like articulate speech, higher intelligence, abstract thought etc. This is probably why we make all the distinctions you mentioned.

emma at 7:52PM on Jan 30th 2008

42. 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.

-----------------------

Ask children if they wished that their mothers had had an abortion. What???

Of course you bypassed the core of my comment and made an irrational statement in a desperate attempt to make a point.

My point being, it is not your right to decide what is best for someone else.

Andrea Yates claims to have killed her children because of her religious beliefs, not because she didn't want them.

Andrea Yates told her psychotherapist,
"My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

HMMMM
Chalk one up for Christianity.

dani at 8:43PM on Jan 30th 2008

43. " What are you trying to escape from?"
---------------------------------------

marc, small b brian, Rita, Dena... religious insanity in general.

Just asking for a little courtesy since you guys have a whole section for posting faery tales and anti-choice rhetoric.

The issue was resolved to my satisfaction in 1972 when a much more intelligent U.S. Supreme Court decided that what a woman does with her body is a PRIVACY ISSUE and none of your business. Even this fascist Supreme Court, primarily made up of republican apointees, hasn't seen fit to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Don't get me wrong. "JetflyingV" offered us an excellent, *ON TOPIC* post about the political power of the, "religious right."

There are lots of issues to discuss regarding religious fundamentalism, but "abortion" is an on-going debate which will never end. You have a section devoted to nothing but that. Even political topics don't escape the abortion issue on a single D'Souza blog.

It's too late. Have at it.

Captain Negative at 9:12PM on Jan 30th 2008

44. Dani - Jim Jones and David Koresh thought they were Christians also. And like them, because this woman said some religious sounding things does not prove that she was an orthodox Christian. (There is no Christian "kill your kids" teaching that I know of.) She may or may not have been a Christian believer, but you simply assume she was because it allows you to make your point.

And what about the tens of millions that have been slaughtered, tortured and thrown into gulags by communistic atheist tyrants in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Cambodia?

Dave at 9:24PM on Jan 31st 2008

45. Dave

She was Christian according to an interview with her husband after the incident. I don't assume.
I didn't say she killed her kids because she was a Christian, I said it was because of her belief that they were "doomed to perish in the fires of hell". Not because she didn't want them. It was a response to another post.

The mention of Christianity was in support of a long standing argument on these blogs about the brainwashing of Christians. She was a classic example.

If you read my comment the way it was posted, you would realize that the point of it was not, "Christians kill". I am sorry, if in your ignorance, you took it that way.

dani at 10:48PM on Jan 31st 2008