how many times must a fertilized egg split before it gains voting rights?

what if she's pregnant with twins? who will solve THAT tie breaker?

Is daffy a new carnation of mutt K? I see the same mindless, shallow, vapid boilerplate defenses of EVERYTHING liberal (and thus indefensible).

What a maroon.

RR - I'm pretty sure you're an alter-ego of one of the contributors around here - I see no other reason why so many scatological comments are allowed from one person.

scatological - big word! guess i'm just a liberal elists!

I agree with Selwyn, at least on the issue of the man's role in making decisions here. I've always had a big problem with this.

The question is, who has authority over what a woman does with her body? The civil and freedom movements of the 20th century tell us, "It's her body." Same as for men. If you set the precedent that women's bodies can be controlled by the state, that swings open the floodgates for control of men's bodies, too. Maybe we'll outlaw the wearing of tatoos in certain towns, instead of just tatoo parlors. Or we'll mandate that teenagers must be dosed with Ritalin when they receive poor marks.

Correction: The civil and freedom movements of the 20th century WANT you to BELIEVE it's her body. It's not. A developming fetus is NOT part of her body. It's a completely seperate entity.

The question if NOT, who has the authority over what a woman does with her body. The government has control of what ALL of us do with our bodies.. at least, in theory. You want to commit suicide? Well, the government says it's against the law. You want to snort cocaine? The government says that's also against the law. You want to walk naked down the freeway? No... against the law. You want to murder your neighbor because they're annoying? Well, it's against the law. You want your kids to go to public school? Well, they have to get vaccinations first. The government says so. Don't want them to get vaccinations? Then keep them home... but truancy is also against the law. The government gives you no option to not get the vaccinations. The government can tell you to do whatever they want to tell you to do with your body.

But that's not the question, is it? A developing fetus is NOT part of the mother's body.

Leaving aside the abortion question, what bothers me is that the woman has full control of whether or not to "opt in" or "opt out" of responsibility for a child. It would be silly for the man to be able to dictate that the woman should get an abortion or carry the child to term...that WOULD be infringing upon her person (assuming abortion is legal).

However, I think the man should be able to say that he doesn't want to take care of the kid, if they are not married. He should be able to say that the woman is free to abort or put up for adoption, but he will sign off on his parental rights if she carries to term. This is only fair. Perhaps he can be held responsible for at least half of the expenses involved, that would also be reasonable.

Feminists have tilted the whole issue towards the notion of the mother's privileged status with regards to the fetus. Selwyn is absolutely correct; in this situation, men have no authority but half the responsibility.

One of the problems (and it's a major one) with this case is the man left all "responsibility" to the woman and now he wants "authority". He thinks a lot like Selwyn or vise versa. Selwyn started his discussion by placing authority before responsibility. The privilege of authority is granted by acts of responsibility by the man. If what's been stated in the case to date is true, then he should have been wearing his socks. He sounds like another deadbeat dad.

"Correction: The civil and freedom movements of the 20th century WANT you to BELIEVE it's her body. It's not. A developming fetus is NOT part of her body. It's a completely seperate entity."

JNE, Try connecting the umbilical cord to the government (especially a GOP led government)and see how long the fetus survives. I think this is a kneejerk example on your part because your comments usually are more thought out. It's obvious you don't see the woman has a right here and I'm aware of your stand on abortion. I'm not promoting abortion, yet tying this case to reproductive rights and the abortion issue is harmful to both causes. I should state "all" causes, because whatever a persons stand on the issues may be, this case lacks merit.

"The problem with our laws governing abortion and parental rights is that they rob a man of all authority over the fate of his unborn child but assign him fifty-percent of the responsibility for that child should the woman, exercising her total authority in the matter, decide to bring the child to term."

This statement is totally false. Within the context of "rights" the man made a choice to "not" exersize his rights. It seems obvious to me he allowed someone to manipulate his ones and zeros. This particular apple debate has been going on for years.

Of course it seems obvious to you.

You seem obvlivious to reality to everyone else.

In bizzaro-world fashion, it makes perfect sense to me that the perfectly nonsensical makes sense to you.

In your world, you probably walk backwards, fall upwards, shove food in your butt and poop out your mouth too.

"Feminists have tilted the whole issue towards the notion of the mother's privileged status with regards to the fetus. Selwyn is absolutely correct; in this situation, men have no authority but half the responsibility."

SF, this isn't a feminist issue and in this case the woman wasn't a mother (she is now) when making choices regarding her rights. When you state "privileged status" it seems you are jealous.

Relationships aren't about 50% & 50%, they are about 100% and 100%, ie. they both give their all.

"We hear a lot about women’s “reproductive rights.” In fact, some leftist politicians – Barbara Boxer comes to mind – seem to be able to segue from any conceivable topic to a discussion of them with aplomb. But do men have reproductive rights too?"

When men excersize their rights, beginning with responsibility, then they too will be able to segue into this subject as Senator Boxer does, or they have a choice to remain constant in their thinking and respond with the brilliance of McJohnson.

Say something Markie or do something manly like warm up your TAs. That seems to always get a response from the women,,,,,,,,, ever wonder why they giggle?

SF, this isn't a feminist issue and in this case the woman wasn't a mother (she is now) when making choices regarding her rights.

I really don't know how you can say this isn't a feminist issue. We're talking about the legality of the situation, not just this particular case. The reason the law is this way is partly because of feminist politics. Feminists have hijacked the abortion issue, which sometimes boggles my mind. As for whether or not she was already a mother, this is a distracting technicality.

When you state "privileged status" it seems you are jealous.

It's just an expression. Not that it matters here, but I couldn't be more happy to never have to worry about getting pregnant or other female health issues. Thankfully, the male system is so much less complicated.

Relationships aren't about 50% & 50%, they are about 100% and 100%, ie. they both give their all.

First of all, your 100% figure is only true in the case of the most extreme co-dependent obsessives. Yikes. Second of all, we're not talking about emotional commitment, we're talking about a more narrow scope of fiscal responsibility and legal authority.

Within the context of "rights" the man made a choice to "not" exersize his rights.

It looks like you're trying to say that the man loses the ability to play a role in the decision because he took the risk of getting the woman pregnant. But if this is true, then doesn't the woman have that same onus? How come she still has the ability to opt-out of being a mother, but the man has no corresponding right? In fact, the woman can abort the child even if the man wants it and find abortion morally objectionable. I'm not saying that the man should be able to dictate what the woman does with the kid, but he should at least be able to opt-out. Can you explain why this should not be the case?

There do exist women who will use the laws to actually trap a man. Sometimes these are calculated gold-diggers, but more often they are just confused and distraught women who will do anything to keep their man from leaving. Some harbor the delusion that a child will bring them together and heal their rifts. In any case, this is a terrible thing to do, and the man shouldn't have to bear the responsibility.

The other side of the coin is men who abandon their women after getting them pregnant (obviously the man-trappers above can only catch ethical men). Yes, this is repugnant. However, the woman still has the choice for adoption, abortion, or raising it herself. Why can't she exercise some restraint? If she isn't married, maybe she should exhibit some caution in light of the consequences.

The feminists frequently pose the issue of abortion in terms of "my body my choice". Well, why is the man responsible for these choices? Yes, the man can decide not to put himself in that situation, but so can the woman. Moreover, the woman can jump ship all the way up until giving birth. However, the man is locked in once he gets up in there. I don't think this is fair.

Russ,

When men exercise their rights, beginning with responsibility...???

Are men suddenly not responsible enough to make parental decisions? Does believing that abortion is wrong make me any less responsible than the next guy? You've assigned a "right" where none exists. This is a classic case of disassociation. You disassociate the fetus with a living person to justify destroying it... irregardless of the facts. There is absolutely NO reason to believe a fetus part of the mother's body and every reason to believe it is not. The pro-choice debate is based on bullshit propoganda to further an agenda.

The ONLY reason the fetus remains is the mother's womb is for protection and nourishment. That's it. Would you argue that the egg lain by a chicken continues to be part of that chicken's body until it hatches? Mark my words, it won't be terribly long before fetuses can be grown in labs. The only thing science needs to do is provide the appropriate conditions and develop a means for delivering nourishment. That will end the whole bullshit debate about whether or not a fetus is nothing but cancerous tissue.

"Would you argue that the egg lain by a chicken continues to be part of that chicken's body until it hatches?"

That was my whole point in the abortion thread, about fetal development in different species. It's an egg, evolution stuck it in her uterus because it's safer in there.

Anyway, though no sane person can say an egg is a part of a chicken's body, I do not doubt many would claim an egg is not a living being but a bodily byproduct....an organic inanimate... And in fact, unfertalized it is, so that's a rather precarious analogy.

I agree though.

You're too optimistic.

"That will end the whole bullshit debate about whether or not a fetus is nothing but cancerous tissue."

No it won't, because by then, they'll be able to grow cancerous tissue in a lab too...

>>There is absolutely NO reason to believe a fetus part of the mother's body and every reason to believe it is not.

Well, except for this inconvenient fact - remove the fetus from the mother, it dies.

>>The pro-choice debate is based on bullshit propoganda to further an agenda.

Meanwhile, some segments of the pro-life movement would like to have us believe that "Every Sperm is Sacred" - no propoganda there, is there?

---

There is no right or wrong on this topic. One group wants to decide for themselves. The other group wants to decide for them.

This subject, article, or lawsuit as you may choose to call it, is first and foremost seen clearly by placing the responsibility on the person who has control. Without a lawful contract, the man deposited his sperm in the vagina of a woman. He gave up ownership, he was irresponsible and without commitment in this relationship. She was free to use the deposit in any manner she chose. An egg was fertilized, her egg, her body, her fetus.

There are many angles to this case/discussion but my focus is primarily on the man and his responsibility or lack thereof. He wanted something, but responsibility it wasn't.

I think the responses from the men here are sad, beginning with Selwyns'abortion twist. The man could have said no, he could have collected his sperm and disposed of it, he could have been "responsible".

JNE, I'm a little short on time, and I just want to be clear; I wasn't talking about chicken eggs.

SF, I know it is feminist in many ways, (based on a label/definition) yet mainly because womens rights were, and still are suppressed or denied.

If a man walks around without a shirt it's really OK, if a woman does the same she's naked in public. What is naked about that? What makes it so? Is it really against the law?

This is a case that has no merit.I will step in it by saying; nicknaming this as "Roe v Wade is at best a dumb blond joke.

"Well, except for this inconvenient fact - remove the fetus from the mother, it dies."

So?

You're saying if something is both phsyically attatched to and dependant upon another life form for life, it is an appendange? Is that it?

Seriously daftright, cut the bullshit. Put it in concise terms. I want a mathematical or scientific statement.

If - Removal of an organic system results in death of the system;

Then - The system is not a unique life-form but a subsystem of one.

Is that it? Is it? State your thesis.

"He gave up ownership"

If he gave up ownership he gave up responsibility you enormous jackass, and the person who accepted ownership accepted responsibility. Why do you insist on proving other people's point in contrary manner? Can you not even make up your mind whether you disagree or not, prefering instead to argue with everyone on all sides of all issues?

Her egg, her body, her fetus, her job to feed and cloth it.

And when does it stop being 'her' child anyway? Or do we still support slavery?

>>You're saying if something is both phsyically attatched to and dependant upon another life form for life, it is an appendange?

I'm not making a complete statement of what it is means to be alive in a human sense. If you want to go over that again, reread previous threads. I don't need to go through it again.

>>If - Removal of an organic system results in death of the system; Then - The system is not a unique life-form but a subsystem of one.

Whereas the organic systems are human flesh - i agree.

First you say you won't make a statement.

Then you say yes, what I cited was your statement.

Which is it?

I'm not asking you to define human life. I'm asking you what your point is. What is the relevance of seperation causing death in terms of what we define LIFE as, human or otherwise?

>>First you say you won't make a statement.

I said I wasn't making a COMPLETE statement. I'm sure there are complexities I'm glossing over. I don't want to get into them.

>>What is the relevance of seperation causing death

If a child is stillborn, we consider it to have never been alive. In light of this, a child must survive outside of the mother to be alive.

How do you come by the conclusion that a stillborn was never alive?

And how do you define 'survive' for that matter?

Markie don't be such a F...in' dumbass! Over on the other article (Dr. Coddlings') addressing this issue you supported the idea of this male providing support, what's it going to be, indecision, indifference or constant BS. When we discuss humans, is it possible (within the realm of your thought process) to maintain focus.

It's obvious he wasn't using any means of birth control. When he ejaculated (gave up ownership)he doesn't get to say; give em' back! He gave up decision making rights. If they were married he might stand a chance (with the court) as to the outcome of the pregnancy, but not in this case.

McJ, Your arguments are as weak as the case filed by the NCM.

"And when does it stop being 'her' child anyway? Or do we still support slavery?"

You think she doesn't have the right, yet you think you do? You slip another notch lower on the food chain?

True, if you remove a fetus from the mother, if will die. The fetus is dependent upon the mother for nutrients and protection. Take that away and it will die. Likewise, a three month old is entirely dependent on mom for nourishment, protection, etc. Remove mom and the three month old will die.

Ok… so I know there’s an argument coming. Mom is not essential to survival after childbirth. Well, that is only true today through technological advancements. We can “harvest” mom’s breast milk and store it in refrigerators for later use. We can purchase baby formula as an alternative to breast milk. Mothers couldn’t do that 100 years ago. These are technological advances that can alleviate some of that maternal dependence.

A newborn is as dependant on mom outside the womb as it is inside the womb. Technology aside, remove mom in either instance and the baby will die. Dependence is irrelevant to the “question” of whether or not a fetus is a separate living being. It is.

I am not one of those people who believes every sperm and every egg is sacred. By itself, a sperm has no potential for life. By itself, an egg has no potential for life. Only together will either develop into a living organism. I believe sex education in school is essential. I believe easy access to prophylaxis is essential I cannot, for the life of me, understand why pro-lifers oppose either of these because both of them will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Preventing pregnancy in the first place is the best way to reduce or eliminate abortions.

I know using the “chicken and the egg” example seems silly, but it isn’t A chicken fetus requires exactly the same conditions for development that a human fetus does. It needs protection. It needs nourishment. Both have developed different methods of satisfying those needs but the goal is one and the same. Nourishment and protection. Both are essential for continued life. There are not different requirements for defining life based on the species. Life is life whether it be avian life or human life. The same definition applies to all life. Of course, the smart pro-choicers have already conceded this discussion point and changed the issue to one of humanness. Having conceded that point though, it seems kind of silly to keep up the ruse that pro-choice is about a woman’s body because you’ve already said it isn’t. It’s about whether or not a FETUS can be considered a human being.

Anyway, I’d love to continue but I have lots of things going on right now. I’ll pick up this discussion later.

"If a child is stillborn, we consider it to have never been alive. In light of this, a child must survive outside of the mother to be alive."

Tell that to the women who have delivered a stillborn. For the purpose of government, the child isn't considered to have been alive. For the purpose of science though... the fetus and/or stillborn was a living organism right up until the point when it died.

The problem with discussing biology with you guys is that you just don't get it. Your arguments are not based on science but on politics. Most of the time I think you guys simply argue the side opposite of Republicans regardless of the topic or your knowledge of the subject.

Russ, I get this all the time. When I agree with somone, my position was well thought out and well said. When I disagree with someone, my position is a kneejerk response. Why is it that I agree with Libs on some issues and Cons on others? It's because I think for myself and I'm not driven by party politics.

>>Well, that is only true today through technological advancements.

Not at all. Look up "wet nurse".

>>Dependence is irrelevant to the “question” of whether or not a fetus is a separate living being. It is.

It depends upon how concerned you are with the phyiscal or mental life of the fetus. We're talking in phyiscal terms. I disagree but I also think this isn't so much about the phyiscal as the mental.

>>Life is life whether it be avian life or human life.

So? Not all life is given the same value.

>>Tell that to the women who have delivered a stillborn.

Okay. I'll talk to my mother.

>>For the purpose of science though

Science has nothing to say on this issue.

>>The problem with discussing biology with you guys is that you just don't get it.

No, YOU DON'T GET IT. Science doesn't care about this. It just doesn't. Keep talking until you're blue in the face but I'm not going to believe you any more. I understand what you're saying but chicken eggs have nothing to do with moral issues surrounding human life.

I think the conversation is really about humanness. For some reason, a lot of pro lifers think that anything with a bit of dna has value. Perhaps its because the combination of an egg and sperm has a soul. Whatever it is, it has no brain.

>>It’s about whether or not a FETUS can be considered a human being.

I haven't conceded that at all.

Wow. Yah I have better things to do.

Daftright, my profession is in research chemistry and I worked in the medical field for nearly a decade. I read several scientific journals regularly including Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). This stuff interests me and I eat it up. All you have to do is read National Geographics regularly to realize that scientists are constantly studying the science of life, it's origins, etc. Like I said, you just don't get it. That tagline about science not caring is pure BS. If you can imagine it, you can be pretty sure someone somewhere is studying it. Why, just today I was handed a project to study a material from DuPont called Surlyn. It’s a self-healing plastic. Who would have thought that plastic could “heal” itself. Shoot a block of this material with a bullet and it perforates and then reforms a continuous surface. It just goes to show you that scientists are studying everything imaginable.

How can you imbue life upon an otherwise inanimate object without first understanding what life is? There is a definite line that separates life from non-life. What is that line? Scientists would love to be able to prolong life indefinitely but they can’t do that without understanding what life is. I’ve said this before but there is a difference between what we understand or perceive to be real and what is real. For folks living in the 1400’s the world was flat and if you traveled too far you would fall of the edge. That was how they understood the world at the time… but believing it to be so does not make it so. The world has always been round.

We give differential value to life depending on the organism. That is true. I’m still going to eat my scrambled eggs for breakfast, but that doesn’t change what an egg is. I place more value on my life than on a chicken’s life. You’re trying to confuse the issue when you make statements like, “not all life is given the same value.” You’re right, but we’re not talking about the value of all life. We’re talking about the value of human life. The only reason why non-human life is relevant is because the process that imbues life is the same regardless of the species. The definition of life will not change whether you’re talking about a chicken, a maple tree or a human being but the value we place on each of those lives will.

You keep coming back to this belief that the definition of life is an ethical issue. Honestly, that’s just asinine. Science and biology are not determined by ethics. Life did not spring forth from the primordial muck because someone was pondering the ethics of life. The science of life predates your ethical dilemma by about 3.5 billion years. The only reason ethics are thrown into the mix is to justify destroying human life through abortion. A fetus is a human life. It doesn’t magically change species when it passes through the birth canal. It isn’t magically imbued with life at childbirth. It’s not some cancerous tissue or some lump of non-living tissue as some people have tried to imply. It has all the potential of developing into a full grown, independent, reproducing adult human being if allowed to survive to full term. Cancer and lumps of tissue do not have that potential. Any attempt to associate the two simply implies ignorance. Defining a human being as someone who has passed through the birth canal is as arbitrary as defining a human being only as one who has reached sexual maturity. It’s a process that starts with an embryo, progresses to a full grown adult and ends with death. That is the natural course of life in a human being. At every stage of that process the subject exhibits all the characteristics of life.

"Russ, I get this all the time. When I agree with somone, my position was well thought out and well said. When I disagree with someone, my position is a kneejerk response. Why is it that I agree with Libs on some issues and Cons on others? It's because I think for myself and I'm not driven by party politics."

JNE, Your chicken/egg analogy garnered my kneejerk comment. From the standpoint of a life cycle sure we may discuss it. Is a fertilized chicken egg the same as a human fetus at any level of this discussion? No it isn't, yet if you choose to compare the two then compare this man and the rooster. They both had the option of abstinence.

What's Selwyns point here? It seems he's making a lame attempt to tie this lawsuit to abortion and the right a man has in making a choice as to whether he want the responsibility of parenthood. The man involved in this case chose to relinquish his rights to another. He's just one more deadbeat dad. Yes, there are women who try to put the screws to men, yet the numbers pale in comparison to men who choose to be irresponsible.

"I am not one of those people who believes every sperm and every egg is sacred. By itself, a sperm has no potential for life. By itself, an egg has no potential for life. Only together will either develop into a living organism. I believe sex education in school is essential. I believe easy access to prophylaxis is essential I cannot, for the life of me, understand why pro-lifers oppose either of these because both of them will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Preventing pregnancy in the first place is the best way to reduce or eliminate abortions."

I agree with all of this comment and I have stated in the past; I believe abortion is wrong. I'm not pro-abortion and I don't appreciate this label given by pro-lifers to those who disagree with them. I will always stand by the womans right to choose although I may not agree with her decision.

This discussion is one of responsibility and the responsibility of being a parent. Given the nature of this mans occupation I would say he's intelligent, yet he's poorly educated in the parenting arena or chose to ignore what he was taught.

There are aspects of this case we are not privy to and the question as to the truthfulness of what this man heard or was told, we may never know. The truth remains that he left all responsibility of birth control to the woman and would like to accept no responsibility for his acts.

"JNE, Your chicken/egg analogy garnered my kneejerk comment. From the standpoint of a life cycle sure we may discuss it. Is a fertilized chicken egg the same as a human fetus at any level of this discussion? No it isn't, yet if you choose to compare the two then compare this man and the rooster. They both had the option of abstinence. "

I must ask. Has anyone else here ever seen the SNL sketches with Johnny Cochrain in them?

'You see this? This is a wookie. Why am I showing you a wookie? What does this have to do with my client's case? Absolutely nothing. That's why I'm showing it to you. If you don't understand the relevance of the wookie how can you possibly convict my client? Look: if Michael Jackson walked in right now wearing a miniskirt, would the building collapse? No. Did my client commmit this crime? No. If the wookie is not a skirt, you must acquit.'

>>my profession is in research chemistry and I worked in the medical field for nearly a decade.

I do appreciate and respect that.

>>How can you imbue life upon an otherwise inanimate object without first understanding what life is?

Sloppy thinking.

>>There is a definite line that separates life from non-life.

I disagree. I can list a number of situations that blur the line but I don't care to get into that here.

>>The only reason ethics are thrown into the mix is to justify destroying human life through abortion. A fetus is a human life.

You've just announced your beliefs without supporting them. Of all the scientific comparisons you go through, nothing is clarified here.

>>How can you imbue life upon an otherwise inanimate object without first understanding what life is?

Sloppy Thinking.

How can you create a cumbustion engine without first understanding the principles of combustion? How can you create a plane without understanding the principles of aerodynamics? Seems like pretty logical thinking to me.

I disagree. I can list a number of situations that blur the line but I don't care to get into that here.

You're either alive or you're dead. There is no in between. Flick a switch... the light goes on. Flick it again and it goes off. A pretty simplistic explanation I know, but there it is. A body is either alive or it's dead. I would love to hear the expanation behind your comment... I'm quite sure it's going to have something to do with Terry Shiavo... but go ahead anyway.

You want clarity? Check any 8th grade biology textbook.

http://www.answers.com/topic/biology-1

"Biology is the branch of science dealing with the study of life. It is concerned with the characteristics, classification, and behaviors of organisms, how species come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales, from biochemistry to ecology. Biology studies the variety of life (clockwise from top-left) E. coli, tree fern, gazelle, Goliath beetleAt the organism level, biology has explained phenomena such as birth, growth, ageing, death and decay of living organisms, similarities between the offsprings and parents (heredity) and flowering of plants have puzzled humanity ever since antiquity. Other phenomena, such as lactation, metamorphosis, egg-hatching, healing, and tropism have been addressed. On a wider scale of time and space, biologists have studied domestication of animals and plants, the wide variety of living organisms (biodiversity), changes in living organisms through ages (evolution), extinction, speciation, social behaviour among animals, etc."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520220218/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-7984563-3689758?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

Biology defines 'life' as that which demonstrates:

Organization.

Metabolism.

Growth.

Adaptation.

Response to stimuli.

Reproduction.

To be fair, ethics does not come into it when trying to justify abortion.

Ethics come into it when trying to stop abortion.

Murder is an ethical dillemna, not a physical one. The problem is not that we cannot figgure out HOW to kill other human beings, but whether or not we should. Ethics comes into any discussion of the 'should and should not'.

Science cannot tell us what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral. Science can tell us what is, and what isn't.

Science can tell us whether or not the fetus is a living thing, and how similar it is to a human baby.

Science can't tell us whether we should suck out it's brains with a turkey baster or not.

That, is the ethical dillemna. But as to whether or not it's alive, that's positively verifiable. You can't change it or argue with it, only choose to ignore it.

MJohnson, what you say is true... and I had thought about that when I was writing my responses. I think we can all say that killing a human being is unethical. The difference is that pro-lifers consider fetuses to be human beings at the very beginning stages of their lives. Pro-choicers try to deny any ethical dilemma by denying the existance of a human being until their childbirth. Science can tell us if a fetus is alive... and, in fact, does tell us that a fetus is alive. The rest is just somantics and word-play to skirt around the uneasy fact that pro-choicers cannot reasonably substantiate their claim that life begins at childbirth. That is why they tend to steer the discussion toward "humanness" and "personhood." The scientific method teaches us to observe the facts and then formulate a theory. Pro-choicers have formulated a theory, that life begins at childbirth, and then tried to manipulate the facts to fit that theory. When they fail at that, they obfuscate.

I did not bring ethics into this dicussion. Daftright did. I just assumed that IF you can prove the fetus is alive and human, then killing it would naturally seem unethical. What I don't get is Russ. He knows abortion is wrong but he won't step up and force the issue. If you know it's wrong, then giving others the choice do do something wrong is equally wrong.

"I saw someone commit murder and I know murder is wrong but I'm not going to say anything because it isn't my place to get involved." That is the message I'm getting from you Russ.

"I saw someone commit murder and I know murder is wrong but I'm not going to say anything because it isn't my place to get involved." That is the message I'm getting from you Russ."

You accuse others of word play yet try and smokescreen your way above it.

You believe in the power of almighty God then why doesn't God stop abortions, because the practice is thousands of years old. God didn't like it then and doesn't now, yet why didn't God stop it JNE?

It isn't against the law to have an abortion, it is against the law to murder a living breathing human being, so stop your bullshit word play while stanging on your hypocritical pedestal.

This discussion is still about a man who chose not to wear a condom. My position of right or wrong comes from my understanding, ethics, morals, values and commitment a man and woman enters into when when having sex that could result in her becoming pregnant. It involves alot of trust. ie honesty, which doesn't seem to be present in this case. The woman lied to the man...maybe, we're not sure? The man lied to himself, well we're sure of that, now he want's to walk away from his commitment or lack thereof.

If the issue of the fetus and the womans body it's attached to isn't her's to decide then who's decision is it? Is it yours or mine? Our constitution give the woman the right and I know you disagree.

My view of living and dying does not become part of this equation, and no amount of science will change that. When science can sustain the fetus until it can sustain itself, then at theat time we can have a chicken egg discussion. Until then it (your science argument)is of no value. Be honest and quit using science as a screen for your ethics and morals.

A hen (chicken), not a rooster, will set on eggs whether they are fertilized or not. The rooster just wants to rule and have sex..get laid, as with most male animals in the world. When the hen lays egss, you may pick of your choosing any of the eggs as long as at some point the rooster had his way, take a 100 watt bulb or any constant source heating device and tend for 21 calendar days and now you have yourself a chick. The hen doesn't care and the rooster definitely doesn't care...

That brings us back to the rooster in this case, where sex, rule/crow and keep walking the barnyard is his mantra.

"I did not bring ethics into this dicussion. Daftright did. I just assumed that IF you can prove the fetus is alive and human, then killing it would naturally seem unethical. What I don't get is Russ. He knows abortion is wrong but he won't step up and force the issue. If you know it's wrong, then giving others the choice do do something wrong is equally wrong."

Actually Selwyn presented ethics in distorted fashion.

What you say is your parents, you and family were equally wrong in your sisters abortions?

Stop for god sakes already!!

My willingness to allow another to commit a wrongful act in no way applies guilt to myself. If I aid or abiet, yes, and only then. I have no need to martyr and I'm not willing to allow you either.

I view starvation, the act of standing idily by while thousands of children die, more harshly than the manner in which I view abortion.

What you did was allow Selwyn to open the door for your abortion stump speech, which was his intent.

"You believe in the power of almighty God then why doesn't God stop abortions, because the practice is thousands of years old. God didn't like it then and doesn't now, yet why didn't God stop it JNE?"

Why doesn't god stop rape, you nitwit? Are you postulating that God approves of rape?

Not a damn thing you say holds up the slightest bit of scrutiny. It is indeed all obsfucation.

"It isn't against the law to have an abortion, it is against the law to murder a living breathing human being"

But it was against the law 50 years ago.

So, 15 years from now if the law changes, will you then oppose abortion? Do you merely support whatever the law says, whatever it is? This is the essence of circular logic:

It is not against the law because it is not wrong. It is not wrong because it is not against the law. It is not against the law because it is not wrong. It is not wrong because it is not against the law...

"This discussion is still about a man who chose not to wear a condom."

Why isn't this a discussion about a woman who chose not to use birth control?

Did you grow up with a bitter abandoned mother after your dad flew the coup? Why the hatred for your own sex?

Are you a woman trapped in a man's body Russ? They have operations now...they're legal, for the time being at least..

"Why isn't this a discussion about a woman who chose not to use birth control?"

Because you sad pathetic little man the focus has been on the responsibility of the woman for years. Does it scare you to have responsibility placed on you. What you see as authotity is your weakness. Women laugh when you leave the room, now go thump your chest some more.

Actually they laugh when you enter also!

"Why doesn't god stop rape, you nitwit? Are you postulating that God approves of rape?"

No Idiot, all the wrongs have been happening for thousands of years within the confines of self-will, who am I, or who is JNE to say I'm wrong for not stopping these acts?

Decent honorable people?

You see a rape taking place and do nothing to stop it and you think that's ok?

You're useless. You have no merit. Die please, stop wasting my air.

"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." —Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809

Approximately 45,000,000 prenatal children have been killed by surgical abortion since Roe v. Wade. Such much for government and the “the care of human life”.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that supports a "right" to abortion. The Constitution does however state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Russ, I never brought God into the discussion. I never brought religion into the dicussion. That's a pathetic attempt to derail my discussion and you know it.

"You're useless. You have no merit. Die please, stop wasting my air."

Then why are you in this long debate with him? As JNE followed up with "The Constitution does however state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness." Doesn't air fit in their somewhere, too, perhaps in the life part? Also, I don't think it is exactly YOUR air. You also don't have to worry about it being wasted. At least for now, they are making more. Of course with Bush's environmental record, it is entirely possible we will soon run out. I digress, my question is, how can someone pro-life tell someone else to just die? Life has value, until we see where it leads, and then we kill it if we don't like it and it's 'wasting' an unlimited resource, more or less? Nice...

"Russ, I never brought God into the discussion. I never brought religion into the dicussion. That's a pathetic attempt to derail my discussion and you know it."

JNE, I enjoy reading your posts and although we don't agree on all things we agree on many. If my reference to God derailed your discussion then I think it's a good thing. My reference to God was in the context of the power we don't have as humans; hell we do a poor job of self-control why do we wish to control others.

I understand what you're saying but you believe in God and the attempt to exclude God in the discussion (if you were) doesn't work. This isn't about religion and again my reference to God was about power and control. What motivates your thoughs, feelings, ethical positions, morals and value? I believe in nature/nuture and a power much greater than I. What you call this power is your choice. Science is the tool you use to present our case (and I haven't disagreed) but science isn't the source of your energy, devotion to life and preserving humanity.

Within the context of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," twist that 180 degrees and ask if you are responsible or have control of someones unhappiness? Our constution does cover abortion and when the fetus becomes a "person" we may then have a discussion about murder.

When science has advanced to a position where a fetus can be extracted and supported for nine months, and with the mothers permission, you then have a case. I think until then we would do well to look at alternatives to 45,000 abortions. You've already made a good case in this arena and education is a positive step, yet I'm sure many will disagree when I say parents need to step aside or get in-step. If it's the parents job then they best start doing it because to date it hasn't worked.

This brings us back to the case at hand and this man who would like no responsibility for his actions. What would be his words in regard to his parents teachings?