No More Bin Laden

[kandrathe]

Splitting hairs? I am not sure. If you choose to take this discussion to 'when can you call and embryo a child' it doesn't become anymore scientific.

Yup, without tangible criteria for defining "living human", we get tangled in semantics. Is it alive? Does it contain human cells with the appropriate configurations of chromosomes? Is it corporeal rather than an appendage? Between 10 weeks (late embryonic stage) and 14 weeks (early fetal stage) the transformation occurs that makes the mass of tissue appear human, and its been this human-like appearance which has been the criteria for thousands of years. But, victims of horrible disfiguring disease or accidents often don't look human either. It's not clear to me when killing it is not a murder. Science is very good at telling what is and what is not, except for the bounds of our own ethics and morality. Maybe I'm weird, or different, but for me, I grieve for the needless deaths of all living things, including trees. Having studied a variety of world philosophies, I'm very attracted to Buddhist philosophies on life and living.

According to the teachings of Buddha, five conditions must be present to constitute an act of killing.

• the thing killed must be alive
  
• you, the killer, must know or be aware that it is alive
  
• you must have the intention to kill it
  
• there must be an effort to kill
  
• the life must be killed as the result

Does it mean that whenever doctors were able to save the life of a very prematurely born child and set a 'new record' of minimal time in the womb and still alive we have to change the laws here?

No, it just means that we need a clearer definition of when, and how you determine when a lump of dividing cells can be called a human being worthy of constitutional rights.

Also in Africa most children that are born only a little bit prematurely will die during or just after birth while here in the west survival rates are a lot higher. Does that mean the date until when you can have an abortion should be different in Africa? Shouldn't the extreme pro-lifers better move to Africa and save children there?

Children die from malnutrition, disease, neglect and are murdered by their parents all over the world. There is nothing notable about Africa, other than its renown for poverty.

I think we'd all be better off if we cleaned up the issues resulting in the need for abortions in our own families first. Socially, I'd be in favor of better prevention, better education, better family support, better parenting, better planning, and better access to pregnancy prevention methods and I feel it would make a very big dent into making abortions a non-issue.

I think we all agree that often abortion is the best thing to do.

Often? No, I wouldn't agree. It is an extreme procedure done after prevention was ignored, or after a crime has been committed and covered up. We'd reduce about 95% of abortion, just through ensuring that those engaging in sexual activities used multiple forms of pregnancy prevention when they didn't want a pregnancy. Culturally, we need to take the *shame* out of being attracted to the opposite sex, and then acting on and fulfilling that desire. If I had a daughter in this day and age, I would just plan on introducing her to pregnancy prevention at puberty. I intend to impress on my two boys (within a few years) with their responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well.

We'd reduce another 2-3% by making pregnancy prevention a standard and normal part of rape examinations. And incest... well, that's just messed up and I don't know how to fix it.

We all agree that abortion should not be done because the mother wants to continue partying. I think that both in countries where abortion is legal and in countries where it is illegal personal drama's happen. I as pro-choicer want to be sure that abortions because of gender will not happen (at least not in my country) and I also realize that this might be difficult to check. But just banning abortion will not be the right thing to do. But most of all I think that it is the mother and fathers business. No government should tell a mother what to do with her body. And the most important thing to realize for both sides in this discussion is that having an abortion is a terrible thing for the mother and a choice that is not taken lightly. The exceptions on this should not be why we shape our law a certain way.

The problem in the US is that abortion is very often used as a form of birth control, and is most often performed due to a deficiency of responsible pregnancy prevention. So... let me figure out what your saying; selectively aborting a girl fetus is reprehensible, but aborting an unwanted fetus is acceptable. You say that no government should tell a person what they can do with the fetus in their womb, but I expect you have an opinion that requires the government to also intervene to protect the child after it is born. What about crack babies? Should they be protected from their negligent mothers while in the womb?

Some traditionalists believe that the way we rise above the beasts is by controlling our animal instincts and impulsivity. I believe they are misguided in feeling the need to separate ourselves from our nature, and that we differentiate ourselves from beasts by using our brains to take the danger out of our impulsiveness. We have an etiquette with our other normal bodily functions, such as eating, passing gas, going to the bathroom, cleanliness, etc. With the emancipation of women in the 60's, our etiquette regarding sexual relations is changing. It can't be limited to embarrassed whispers and rumors between confidants anymore. We can no longer assume that people will just figure out how to have sex responsibly.