Not necessarily. I will never have an abortion, and if people asked me for advice, I would advise against it. I don't think abortion is good, I would love to see a day with no abortions.

However, I am very very very distrustful of giving the government power over any person's body. Exactly where to stand on the issue is a difficult question. I have made my personal decision (as moot as that point may be, since I'm a man) but I'm not sure enough of myself to impose that decision on other people. I do, however, act in accordance with my conscience, and privately would be considered Pro-Life. What I am not prepared to do is extend my private moral judgments on this difficult issue to society a...

Not necessarily. I will never have an abortion, and if people asked me for advice, I would advise against it. I don't think abortion is good, I would love to see a day with no abortions.

However, I am very very very distrustful of giving the government power over any person's body. Exactly where to stand on the issue is a difficult question. I have made my personal decision (as moot as that point may be, since I'm a man) but I'm not sure enough of myself to impose that decision on other people. I do, however, act in accordance with my conscience, and privately would be considered Pro-Life. What I am not prepared to do is extend my private moral judgments on this difficult issue to society as a whole, or condemn people who come to a different conclusion from me.

I am also wary of the fact that although they trot out token atheists, the "Pro-Life" movement is overwhelmingly fueled as a political issue by Christian Fundamentalists. The issue has become a referendum for the role Christian values (and normally Protestant Fundamentalist ones at that) should play in the US government. That is not a precedent I would like to establish, because I fear eventually, when we begin legislating religious morality, more and more of us will find ourselves on the harsh receiving end of this logic.

If we legislate our own religious beliefs today, there is nothing to stop someone else from legislating their religious beliefs against us tomorrow.

Still, I have very low expectations for constructive dialog on this issue. I pop because from the way the clip was typed, it sounds like he is a food-eating Chinese Jew.

It is rare to see a Pro-Life argument which is not religiously based._Bane_

This author and his platform spews conservative BS, don't fall for it. They are not satisfied by controlling just the US airwaves, now they want the virtual world as well.

As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features Salem’s News/Talk radio hosts, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, and Dennis Prager, who are heard on over 300 stations nationwide. Of our five hosts, three are among the top 10 radio talk shows in the nation!.

Salem Communications is the leading US radio broadcaster targeting the large and growing audience interested in programming[b]...

It is rare to see a Pro-Life argument which is not religiously based._Bane_

This author and his platform spews conservative BS, don't fall for it. They are not satisfied by controlling just the US airwaves, now they want the virtual world as well.

As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features Salem’s News/Talk radio hosts, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, and Dennis Prager, who are heard on over 300 stations nationwide. Of our five hosts, three are among the top 10 radio talk shows in the nation!.

Salem Communications is the leading US radio broadcaster targeting the large and growing audience interested in programming related to religion, family and culture and owns and operates 105 radio stations, with 66 stations in 24 of the nation’s top 25 metropolitan areas. As the 2006 and 2008 elections approach, Townhall.com and Salem are building a strong, active conservative community by combining the power of the internet with the influence of talk radio.

Not necessarily. I will never have an abortion, and if people asked me
for advice, I would advise against it.....However, I am very very very distrustful of giving the government power over any person's body.

What I am not prepared to do is extend my private moral judgments on
this difficult issue to society as a whole, or condemn people who come
to a different conclusion from me.

If we legislate our own religious beliefs today, there is nothing to
stop someone else from legislating their religious beliefs against us
tomorrow.

None of these arguments reconcile the two attitudes. They are only relevant if you decide to argue against life. Just as t...

Not necessarily. I will never have an abortion, and if people asked me
for advice, I would advise against it.....However, I am very very very distrustful of giving the government power over any person's body.

What I am not prepared to do is extend my private moral judgments on
this difficult issue to society as a whole, or condemn people who come
to a different conclusion from me.

If we legislate our own religious beliefs today, there is nothing to
stop someone else from legislating their religious beliefs against us
tomorrow.

None of these arguments reconcile the two attitudes. They are only relevant if you decide to argue against life. Just as the moral judgment against the murder of a "born" man is enshrined in law, the protection of an unborn man would not be an unjust imposition if life was considered to exist. One does not have the right to "decide" to end a life.

That said, there is legitimate argument as to when life begins. Yet, it is only by drawing a line against life at some point that a decision becomes available.

The problem with the abortion argument is people trying to base life on their own beliefs. Somehow the pro abortion side thinks their beliefs should trump those of the pro life side because many of those on the pro life side base their belief in their religion.

But this is the USA, and I don't think the abortion argument should be based on beliefs at all. It should, in fact, be based on science. I think the only way we can fairly answer the question of when life begins is to separate the beliefs out of the debate and turn to science to settle the 'when does life begin' question and let that be the deciding factor.

That said, I don't care when life begins, abortion should still be available...

The problem with the abortion argument is people trying to base life on their own beliefs. Somehow the pro abortion side thinks their beliefs should trump those of the pro life side because many of those on the pro life side base their belief in their religion.

But this is the USA, and I don't think the abortion argument should be based on beliefs at all. It should, in fact, be based on science. I think the only way we can fairly answer the question of when life begins is to separate the beliefs out of the debate and turn to science to settle the 'when does life begin' question and let that be the deciding factor.

That said, I don't care when life begins, abortion should still be available as any other medical procedure when it comes to saving lives.

If we lose a choice through Law we rarely get it back as a matter of routine. There is the prospect of regimes that seem benevolent now, and can apply the law with relative fairness, can be replaced under due process, by an authority that uses the provisions of the law to the disadvantage of the public. There is the truth that a view drafted from from public opinion, does not have to directly consider the responsibility that is imposed upon a woman who is obliged to provide for the upbringing and education until adulthood, and beyond, of another human. The definition of life is becoming more scattered, as our technology allows us to investigate innumerable phenomena beyond our understanding...

If we lose a choice through Law we rarely get it back as a matter of routine. There is the prospect of regimes that seem benevolent now, and can apply the law with relative fairness, can be replaced under due process, by an authority that uses the provisions of the law to the disadvantage of the public. There is the truth that a view drafted from from public opinion, does not have to directly consider the responsibility that is imposed upon a woman who is obliged to provide for the upbringing and education until adulthood, and beyond, of another human. The definition of life is becoming more scattered, as our technology allows us to investigate innumerable phenomena beyond our understanding. The line may be unclear, but there is very little trouble confirming many things are alive.
Abolition is not the answer.
Rather than condemn those who, already condemn themselves the most severely with their own grief and regret, or will not be moved by condemnation, we should emphasize the value of. the responsibility that is earned by the raising of a child. There will be medical and social reasons for termination, where the provisions of the law cannot apply. There are the people who are so determined to remain childless, that the quality of live of such offspring could be questionable. The law does not stop abortions, it only makes them dirty.Might a future Shakespeare be aborted?
Life is what happens. not what might happen. The principles of individuality, and the adaptability of our minds to changing situations, will make 'quantum leap psychoevolution ' a critical part of our social development. We may advance intellectually, we may refine our objectivity, and put subjectivity into complete perspective, but if we ever lose that intrinsic faith in life, and it's value.we are lost. It is a faith that manifests itself in many ways and is entirely personal

I don't reall care about the answer to that question. Its the woman's body so its her decision. It's really none of my business and nobody else's either.

The problem with your argument is that once life begins, we aren't talking about the woman's body, but the body and life of another human individual. That is why the 'when does life begin' is so important.

Well if we were to use a scientific definition, for when the little thing growing in the womb becomes a person, then my personal opinion is that once there is high level brain activity then it is a person and thus should not be able to be aborted.

I could definitely see that as a requirement. The only prob...

I don't reall care about the answer to that question. Its the woman's body so its her decision. It's really none of my business and nobody else's either.

The problem with your argument is that once life begins, we aren't talking about the woman's body, but the body and life of another human individual. That is why the 'when does life begin' is so important.

Well if we were to use a scientific definition, for when the little thing growing in the womb becomes a person, then my personal opinion is that once there is high level brain activity then it is a person and thus should not be able to be aborted.

I could definitely see that as a requirement. The only problem I see with that definition is equating the removal of life support with an abortion. When we remove life support, we just remove external devices keeping someone alive. If they continue to live, we don't smother them or inject them with poison to make them die. In an abortion, the life of the fetus is terminated. Plus, when we terminate life support, we only do so when doctors determine there is no chance at recovery. In the case of the fetus, we know it will develop brain waves unless some other problem arises.

Of course, I'm not helping much. I don't have any good answers, just lots of questions.

But actually, I think this kind of genuinely asking questions is good!

We aren't imposing our dogmas on each other, but instead seriously pondering a difficult issue. If we keep doing this there is the possibility that someday we will even come to a solution that we can all agree on.

It seems to me that this discussion thread has made more progress on the issue than years of protests, activism and government deliberation.

Seriously, Seriously, Seriously! Clipdudes! Listen up! We need to be able to Pop for comments! I've already popped this clip, but the dialog here is worthy of much much more attention than it is getting!

An amazing standing ovation for Bane and n2sooners (and Cniq-Cniq...

But actually, I think this kind of genuinely asking questions is good!

We aren't imposing our dogmas on each other, but instead seriously pondering a difficult issue. If we keep doing this there is the possibility that someday we will even come to a solution that we can all agree on.

It seems to me that this discussion thread has made more progress on the issue than years of protests, activism and government deliberation.

Seriously, Seriously, Seriously! Clipdudes! Listen up! We need to be able to Pop for comments! I've already popped this clip, but the dialog here is worthy of much much more attention than it is getting!

An amazing standing ovation for Bane and n2sooners (and Cniq-Cniq for giving us this clip) for the kind dialog that reminds me our society still has hope!

This author and his platform spews conservative BS, don't fall for it.
They are not satisfied by controlling just the US airwaves, now they
want the virtual world as well.

On the one hand, there are folk so intellectually lazy that the best rebuttal they can formulate is to attack media outlets that may some of the author's columns rather than tackling his argument. On the other, ouyangwulong rightly points out that there are others to whom considered thought is not an alien concept. I join him in applauding the latter group.

One of the errors I find in the current debate stems from an underappreciation of language in current culture. Life is always spoken of but is ...

This author and his platform spews conservative BS, don't fall for it.
They are not satisfied by controlling just the US airwaves, now they
want the virtual world as well.

On the one hand, there are folk so intellectually lazy that the best rebuttal they can formulate is to attack media outlets that may some of the author's columns rather than tackling his argument. On the other, ouyangwulong rightly points out that there are others to whom considered thought is not an alien concept. I join him in applauding the latter group.

One of the errors I find in the current debate stems from an underappreciation of language in current culture. Life is always spoken of but is often confused with personhood. The fusion of the two states leads to some simple logical mistakes -- primarily among those on the pro-life side of the debate -- that are then seized on by the opposition and set up as straw men. (Heck, I do it myself at times.) The result is that neither side contributes to a rigorous exploration of the issue. While life is easily proven to begin at conception, personhood (ensoulment for the benefit of my religious friends) is difficult to determine.

I agree that in light of the problem of determining this point, an appeal to science is a proper step. Where I differ is that I would argue that it is those on the pro-abortion side of the debate that constitute the greater obstacle to this approach. Those on the pro-life side are stereotyped the dogmatists, but more often it is those on the pro-abortion side who opt for the all-or-nothing attitude.

Scientifically, is viability an unreasonable standard? Yet, run that idea up the flagpole, and I'll wager that you find more opposition in the pro-abortion camp than in the pro-life camp. In this respect, which group is rejecting the appeal to science?

From ouyangwulong

Seriously, Seriously, Seriously! Clipdudes! Listen up! We need to be able to Pop for comments! I've already popped this clip, but the dialog here is worthy of much much more attention than it is getting!

Sorry if I am not on topic again. Obviously this is my destiny…
Well, right now ouyangwulong gave me an idea about perhaps very exciting possibility on clipmarks: second, third, fort… etc “stage pop”.
Basic idea is: after x numbers (maybe 6) of comments from different clippers the same clip becomes pop-able again for everybody; and after another 6 comments again, and so on. Every new stage of pops gets its own “stage pop number” together with overall pop numb...

From ouyangwulong

Seriously, Seriously, Seriously! Clipdudes! Listen up! We need to be able to Pop for comments! I've already popped this clip, but the dialog here is worthy of much much more attention than it is getting!

Sorry if I am not on topic again. Obviously this is my destiny…
Well, right now ouyangwulong gave me an idea about perhaps very exciting possibility on clipmarks: second, third, fort… etc “stage pop”.
Basic idea is: after x numbers (maybe 6) of comments from different clippers the same clip becomes pop-able again for everybody; and after another 6 comments again, and so on. Every new stage of pops gets its own “stage pop number” together with overall pop number.

On this way we get additional hierarchy of important clips (made by clippers decisions through their comments).
Aditionall possibility should exist than to select clips filtered by “stage pop number”.
This way some most important clips/topics would survive much longer and new filter would give us entirely new view into most commented clips.
What you think guys? Some addition ideas…?
Is it worth to pass this to Eric, the boss?

Cniq_cniq, sorry again for this interruption. You opened an important topic and I think it worth to live longer; this is what my idea is about.

Cniq_cniq, sorry again for this interruption.

No need to apologize, duvelic. That was an excellent idea.

Sorry, I'm not going to lace my argument in nice words just to look intellectually active.

arifsali, you confuse civility with laziness. Civility aside and at the risk of being trite, I'm sure your mother -- like 99% of all American moms -- at some point when you made a similar excuse as a child asked, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you follow?" It would be easier to consider your argument if you were not dodging yourself.

If no one were there to care for that newborn, then it would have no more chance of survival than the unborn fet...

read more»

Cniq_cniq, sorry again for this interruption.

No need to apologize, duvelic. That was an excellent idea.

Sorry, I'm not going to lace my argument in nice words just to look intellectually active.

arifsali, you confuse civility with laziness. Civility aside and at the risk of being trite, I'm sure your mother -- like 99% of all American moms -- at some point when you made a similar excuse as a child asked, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you follow?" It would be easier to consider your argument if you were not dodging yourself.

If no one were there to care for that newborn, then it would have no more chance of survival than the unborn fetus.

Or a one-year old, or a two-year old, possibily even a five-year old, to say nothing of adults with physical impairments. Probably what you meant, skwirlinator, is that birth is a requirement of personhood, correct? Suppose you are correct and birth is a requirement, would it then be okay for health insurance carriers to refuse coverage of expensive life-saving procedures taken when the child is in the womb?

I'm guessing you would have other requirements as well. Birth seems a low standard for personhood. I would be interested in reading the others.

It could also be said that someone is not a person until they can reproduce. That would imply that puberty is when a human being becomes truly functional.
That would also imply that anyone not capable of reproducing is not truly part of the gene pool. This could be from high mortality rates of our ancestors. Our organism must be able to survive on its own before it can develop the ability to create new life.
Strains that are not feasible to advance the gene sequence may have the reproductive functions turned off to stop that branch from gaining favor in the gene pool.
I know this is out there pretty far telling you that someone is not a person until puberty but if you want to get technical t...

It could also be said that someone is not a person until they can reproduce. That would imply that puberty is when a human being becomes truly functional.
That would also imply that anyone not capable of reproducing is not truly part of the gene pool. This could be from high mortality rates of our ancestors. Our organism must be able to survive on its own before it can develop the ability to create new life.
Strains that are not feasible to advance the gene sequence may have the reproductive functions turned off to stop that branch from gaining favor in the gene pool.
I know this is out there pretty far telling you that someone is not a person until puberty but if you want to get technical thats what I see. I don't agree with it socially but it makes sense physically.