And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

And you define the onset of sapience and personality how?

I'd look for evidence of differentiated areas of the brain associated with personality - the prefrontal cortex, for example.

No doubt with a portable MRI machine, a qualified Doctor, and a large computer to process and analyze the data, anyone could make the same determination. Yes, I can see the merit's of your system.

You just don't seem to get that the law defines SHARP lines in place of your fuzzy "feelings" based assumptions.

You just don't seem to get that vagueness in identifying a boundary is not a reason to reject the separation of entities with qualitative difference.

I see that there is no reason to put a boundary in a vague area unless that is precisely where you want it to be. This is not a case of following the scientific method, this is a case of forcing the scientific method to yield the results you want.

There is a CLEAR boundary, yet you insist on drawing a line through a vague one because it achieves your own personal preference. YOU HAVE NO OTHER REASON.



This reminds me of the time that I and my comrades were stopped by the Enid Police. We were told that we were being stopped because the sign we were towing violated an Enid city ordinance. (The sign was a derogatory representation of one of our Senatorial candidates and current congressman who just happened to be meeting with the city manager at that time.)

"What ordinance? " I asked. The officer replied that he didn't know, but his City Manager said we were violating a city sign ordinance, but he personally didn't know what it was.

He called an inspector from City Hall who arrived shortly thereafter to explain what ordinance we were violating. The man showed up and looked through his book and said he couldn't find any ordinance that we were violating.

I told the officer that "when this gets to a court room, it will be interesting watching you explain to the judge how you arrived at "probable cause" by subsequently looking through a book of ordinances, trying to find one we might have violated! You are supposed to KNOW why you stopped us, BEFORE you stopped us. "

He let us go because he knew he didn't have a legal leg to stand on.


As with the Enid Police officer, you are trying to place a boundary there after the fact of deciding that's where you want it!

[Diogenes]

And you define the onset of sapience and personality how?

I'd look for evidence of differentiated areas of the brain associated with personality - the prefrontal cortex, for example.

You just don't seem to get that the law defines SHARP lines in place of your fuzzy "feelings" based assumptions.

You just don't seem to get that vagueness in identifying a boundary is not a reason to reject the separation of entities with qualitative difference.

FWIW Jews set the boundary at 40 days. And even after that abortion is not considered a mortal offense. And it may even be sanctioned to preserve the mental health of the mother. I have read the case law. Blogged it even.

Simon, i've already told you that I don't put any stock in a non-orthodox interpretation of Jewish Law. Modern and Reform Judaism can hardly be regarded as sources of correct understanding of Jewish law because the premise for the modern branches are a rejection of inconvenient aspects of Jewish law.

The definitive source of Jewish Law is the Orthodox. To my knowledge, they regard abortion as a crime unless the child is a threat to it's mother.

Orthodox Jews follow what the Noachide Law actually says on the matter. The Beth-Din (House of Justice or House of Judgment) agreed, and ruled that the fetus was a "human within a human" and could only be maimed or killed if he became a "persuer" (i.e. threatens the actual physical life of the mother).

CONCLUSION

Ancient Judaism saw the fetus as "a man (human) within a man (human)" and considered abortion to be murder; to be punished by "a life for a life". Abortion was allowed in labor: only to save a mother's life. The ancient Septuagint (Greek Bible) made exceptions between a "formed" and "unformed" fetus. Only an abortion of a "formed" fetus was punished with death. Abortion of an "unformed" fetus was still a crime, but punished by heavy fine.

Now when you have conflicting traditions who decides? What about those who have no tradition?

But hell. I might like a job with the vagina police. The opportunities for corruption might prove very tasty. In some cases. Otherwise I could just take the money.

And there you go again with your "Vagina Police" smear. We didn't have "Vagina Police" during the nation's history when abortion was correctly held to be ILLEGAL by laws dully enacted by Legislators in accordance with the will of the people, so your accusation is entirely baseless.

Nevertheless, you will certainly keep repeating it anyways, I'm sure. Ordinary police would be just fine for locking up doctors who murder children.

[Diogenes]

That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception.

I might say the same to you about another subject. Fortunately for my perception the trends are in my favor.

Now explain again when an acorn becomes a tree.

Or are we going with acorns are trees?

I would say the socialist arguement applies. An acorn has potential to be a tree, therefore it should be nurtured and treasured so it has the opportunity to be a tree. We should do this for all acorns as a moral imperative.

Or not.

Acorns are not people.

[KitemanSA]

And there you go again with your "Vagina Police" smear. We didn't have "Vagina Police" during the nation's history when abortion was correctly held to be ILLEGAL by laws dully enacted by Legislators in accordance with the will of the people, so your accusation is entirely baseless.

D, you finally get it!

[KitemanSA]

Acorns are not people.

Neither are zygotes or embryos. Indeed, it can be argued that "people-hood" doesn't happen until late in gestation.

[Diogenes]

And there you go again with your "Vagina Police" smear. We didn't have "Vagina Police" during the nation's history when abortion was correctly held to be ILLEGAL by laws dully enacted by Legislators in accordance with the will of the people, so your accusation is entirely baseless.

D, you finally get it!

D@mn spell check!



As for those laws, they were pushed into existence by the same group of people who abolished slavery, and secured suffrage for women.

[Diogenes]

Acorns are not people.

Neither are zygotes or embryos. Indeed, it can be argued that "people-hood" doesn't happen until late in gestation.

It could be so argued if some of you supporters of this notion would offer some logical basis for your preferred conclusion.

To date, all I hear from your side is that the boundary is "vague" but it's a real boundary none the less!


Even Jewish law regards a fetus as a Human within a Human. Geez, this stuff ain't rocket science!

[Teahive]

You didn't explain, you dodged. That is all that any of you seem to do.

Either you are very forgetful or lacking in reading comprehension. Either way, I'm not going to state my position a third time. It's still there for anyone to read, in this thread and the other one I linked.

Your position is that you don't need to define a boundary even though you agree with a law which defines a boundary for you. I point out that you cannot (with intellectual honesty) have it both ways. Either defend your position or abandon it. You can admit that it is entirely a matter of personal preference and you don't have to have any logical reasons for believing as you do. That would actually be the truth, I think.

What the... I don't even...
Are you a clown by profession, by any chance? I think discussing with a squirrel might be a better use of my time, at least I'd be sure it's not making stuff up.

The same methods work for the billionth time as well as they do for the first.

Except for the 0.3% to 32% in which they fail..

So 0.3% of the time you might have a valid point. Yet for some reason, you want to use the very rare 0.3% of the occurrences to justify the 99.7% of the abuses?

0.3% is the failure rate of the best contraceptive method listed. It does not mean in any way that 0.3% of abortions were unwanted pregnancies because of contraceptives failing.

A Child is the consequence of the bullet hitting the target. If they don't want a bulls-eye, they should aim elsewhere. Someone that insists on engaging in a behavior while being fully aware of the risks do not deserve any sympathy for the consequences of their actions.

This is an Adult responsibility perspective, and I suspect you might not be familiar with it.

Oh, they should certainly take full responsibility for their actions, and live with the consequences. The consequence of an abortion usually being an aborted pregnancy, but as with any medical procedure there may be complications.

[Diogenes]

Teahive, I do not think we have sufficient common definitions or understanding between us to engage in any meaningful discussion. The words you say, the concepts you put forth, the aspects you emphasize, your reasoning, all seem trite to me, and I suspect you feel the same way.

One of us is a fool, and I am content to let you believe it is me.

[KitemanSA]

Acorns are not people.

Neither are zygotes or embryos. Indeed, it can be argued that "people-hood" doesn't happen until late in gestation.

It could be so argued if some of you supporters of this notion would offer some logical basis for your preferred conclusion.

To date, all I hear from your side is that the boundary is "vague" but it's a real boundary none the less!

Even Jewish law regards a fetus as a Human within a Human. Geez, this stuff ain't rocket science!

Right, but "fetus" is a stage later in gestation than "zygote" or "embryo". So fine, you seem to accept "fetus-hood" in lieu of zygocity. Now we are getting somewhere!

Please note that, at least to the data I have at hand, the Jews (and Christians for that matter) considered "fetus-hood" to start at "quickening", about 40 (?) days into gestation. It was the doctors of the 1800s that forced the change to "conception" over strenuous objection by the Christian leadership. My how things have turned around!