tcp_ML500 - 9/24/2005 8:02 PM
Botnst - 9/23/2005 10:28 AM
tcp_ML500 - 9/23/2005 10:03 AM
GermanStar - 9/23/2005 8:35 AM
Botnst - 9/23/2005 4:44 AM
Abortion is killing a child not yet born.
Exactly. And contraception is killing a child not yet conceived.
Potential of life is not life. An unborn child is not potential life, it is life.
Botnst's and your statements are not equivalent thought processes.
The question goes back once more to, when does life begin:
Clearly, it cannot have begun before conception.
Has it begun when the eggs is fertilized? On this people of good will will never agree. I'm partial to say that it is no more alive than a kidney (then again, people don't sacrifice a kidney unless it is dysfuntional, but that is the personal issue others have described and to which I subscribe) until all higher brain functions are functional and functioning correctly.
This is where there is a possible dreakdown in Botnst's incremental approach of day n to day n+1. That could also make a limit such as "abortions allowed until the n'th week of pregnancy" pointless, although it could be a valid guildeline, within +/- a few days.
Egg cells and sperm cells are most definitely alive. Heck, epithelial cells of the skin and intestine are alive. I think we need to place a more emotional weight on the thing to make it worth arguing.
I think that most people, regardless of culture, object to killing human beings. But most people make exceptions to that general rule under certain grave (!) circumstances. Each of us has our own personal list of exceptions to the taboo of killing otehr folks.
Sperm and egg are alive and the zygote is alive. And the post-partum human is alive and the human, old and frail on the deathbed, is still alive. I think it was Haldane who said that a person is just sperms' way of making more sperm.
We cannot disagree when using the broader sense of "live", "life" or "alive"
I don't remember where you stood on the Schiavo deal, but I was of the op<u>o</u>nion that she was a vegetable ripe for the picking. Yet, she was alive, by the (accepted) definition you used.
In my post, I provided for my view of what constituted life. I may well be wrong, completely wrong, and most certainly wrong according to 50% of BW.org member's values). My view is nothing else than the filter I would apply if I had to make such decision, and a filter I would apply if I had to sit on Kervorkian's jury, amended for the fact that a terminal being, alive by my definition, has the authority to request his life to end, but that no-one can make that decision for him/her.
The other definition of Life I go by is:
Life, a lethal, sexually transmitted disease.