[More Cowbell]

In pointing out that you appealed to the "legal" aspect to serve your purposes in one area, then discounted "legal" and held to the ground of some "higher" moral/universal standard in another, I did not err. You did it. While a victim lives, a judgment is made as to the value of a "life support only" existence as opposed to a "those who will benefit from the organs" person. The point is this: we (human beings) value and devalue and rank and prioritize other human lives all the time. When it comes to a fertilized egg, though, the tears flow, the Bibles wave, shouts of "innocent" abound (something not capable of guilt is not capable of innocence). I believe that the value of the mother's life exceeds that of the fertilized egg as a matter of perspective and of reason. You disagree. I will now leave it there.

No, I did not err. You did, when you stated that a judgment is made as to the value of someone on life support, as compared to the people who would receive the transplanted organs. The truth is that someone who has been declared dead is just that, dead. No matter how many machines the body is hooked up to in order to make the heart beat, there is still no "life" there. And only then will organs be harvested. So it's not a case of judging the organ recipient's lives as being more valuable than someone on life support. It's a matter of taking organs from the body of a dead person, since they probably don't need them anymore.

The point is this: a human life should take precedence over eliminating what someone considers to be an "inconvenience". I would think that would be a matter of reason.

If you wish to leave it at that, fine. I will too.

[thecavemaster]

No, I did not err. You did, when you stated that a judgment is made as to the value of someone on life support, as compared to the people who would receive the transplanted organs. The truth is that someone who has been declared dead is just that, dead. No matter how many machines the body is hooked up to in order to make the heart beat, there is still no "life" there. And only then will organs be harvested. So it's not a case of judging the organ recipient's lives as being more valuable than someone on life support. It's a matter of taking organs from the body of a dead person, since they probably don't need them anymore.

The point is this: a human life should take precedence over eliminating what someone considers to be an "inconvenience". I would think that would be a matter of reason.

If you wish to leave it at that, fine. I will too.

I've seen this personally: a person languishes near death: medical personnel go the next of kin and say the "nothing we can do" stuff and ask for organ donation. True or false: That person could often survive on life support, though perhaps be considered medically "dead." What constitutes life in that situation? By whose definition? Is a life on a machine, a life with no brain activity, worth less than the kid needing a kidney? Who makes the rules? Whether or not the "someone" is a sexually responsible person is not the issue, as I see it. What I think we have to agree to disagree on is this: fertilized egg/human life/associative value.

[More Cowbell]

I've seen this personally: a person languishes near death: medical personnel go the next of kin and say the "nothing we can do" stuff and ask for organ donation. True or false: That person could often survive on life support, though perhaps be considered medically "dead." What constitutes life in that situation? By whose definition? Is a life on a machine, a life with no brain activity, worth less than the kid needing a kidney? Who makes the rules? Whether or not the "someone" is a sexually responsible person is not the issue, as I see it. What I think we have to agree to disagree on is this: fertilized egg/human life/associative value.

If some medical person actually did do that, then they were in the wrong. I have spoken with representatives of KODA (KY Organ Donor Affiliates) in the past and their policy is to not approach any family about organ donation until the patient has already been declared dead. Even then, the family is supposed to have a "cooling off" period afterward in order to collect their thoughts before deciding on organ donation.

I will agree that a body can be hooked up to "life support" and their heart kept beating indefinitely. Such is the wonder of modern medicine. But if the person is dead, it doesn't matter if their heart is still beating, they're still dead. Elvis has left the building, so to speak.

I know that you don't value an unborn child's life as much as an everyday person. Like you said, we don't agree there. But I don't see how even if you don't attribute the same value to the unborn baby's life, that a teenage mom's "convenience" takes precedence over that life.

[thecavemaster]

If some medical person actually did do that, then they were in the wrong. I have spoken with representatives of KODA (KY Organ Donor Affiliates) in the past and their policy is to not approach any family about organ donation until the patient has already been declared dead. Even then, the family is supposed to have a "cooling off" period afterward in order to collect their thoughts before deciding on organ donation.

I will agree that a body can be hooked up to "life support" and their heart kept beating indefinitely. Such is the wonder of modern medicine. But if the person is dead, it doesn't matter if their heart is still beating, they're still dead. Elvis has left the building, so to speak.

I know that you don't value an unborn child's life as much as an everyday person. Like you said, we don't agree there. But I don't see how even if you don't attribute the same value to the unborn baby's life, that a teenage mom's "convenience" takes precedence over that life.

They cannot be dead dead. They can be declared "medically" dead. The minute, the second we die die the organs begin to lose efficacy. "Convenience" has certainly not been the dominant concern of the frightened teens I have dealth with who have experienced missing a cycle and the sensation of a positive PT. Every person I have ever met ascribes value and lesser value to human life WITHIN THEIR VERY VALUE SYSTEM. For instance, the victim of murder = let's say a "10" on that value scale, while the murderer might get a .05, if that, before the needle is inserted.

[Beetle01]

My opinion on the subject, as long as their is brain activity, every action should be taken to keep that person alive. Because there have been multiple cases of people coming back, after years of nothing but some slight brain waves. If the mind is dead, the body is dead, and that is when a doctor should approch the family and say, there is nothing we can do, but the decision is up to the family ultimately. There are cases even when there was no brain wave activity of people coming back, and this needs to be left up to the family.

Of course doctors are going to ask about organ donation, because there are steps that have to be taken if the family is going to let the person go, to properly get the organs out, its not like they pull the plug, and the doctor starts hacking away. Specialists have to come in from across the country for different types of organs.

[More Cowbell]

They cannot be dead dead. They can be declared "medically" dead. The minute, the second we die die the organs begin to lose efficacy. "Convenience" has certainly not been the dominant concern of the frightened teens I have dealth with who have experienced missing a cycle and the sensation of a positive PT. Every person I have ever met ascribes value and lesser value to human life WITHIN THEIR VERY VALUE SYSTEM. For instance, the victim of murder = let's say a "10" on that value scale, while the murderer might get a .05, if that, before the needle is inserted.

Dead dead? If they're dead, they're dead. Nobody's home. An empty shell. The heart may be kept pumping by a machine, but that's only to keep the organs viable for harvesting. The person is still dead.

If it's not convenience, then what is the reason for the abortion? Missing a prom? Parents will be devastated? Don't like morning sickness? Whatever the reason, it doesn't justify taking another life just because the mother is frightened.

Oh, and the murderer you mentioned doesn't deserve to die, either. He/she should not be getting a needle in the arm, their life is still valuable and should be treated as such. So are you for the death penalty too?

[thecavemaster]

Dead dead? If they're dead, they're dead. Nobody's home. An empty shell. The heart may be kept pumping by a machine, but that's only to keep the organs viable for harvesting. The person is still dead.

If it's not convenience, then what is the reason for the abortion? Missing a prom? Parents will be devastated? Don't like morning sickness? Whatever the reason, it doesn't justify taking another life just because the mother is frightened.

Oh, and the murderer you mentioned doesn't deserve to die, either. He/she should not be getting a needle in the arm, their life is still valuable and should be treated as such. So are you for the death penalty too?

I do not favor the death penalty. I believe in "life for a life" carried out in a "life without possiblity of parole" sentence. I believe that prisoners should work and that most of their pay should go to victims or victim's rights groups, some sort of restitution. In my experience, fear, anxiety, despair, shock...these follow the positive EPT in teens. I have never heard one say (at least in my earshot), "Gee, now I don't get to go to prom; well, call the clinic, I've ordered my dress already." Human life and the way we value it exists on a continuum. I've seen it, heard it, watched it over and over again. Maybe we disagree on this point. But, I know what I know.

[*Central_Cheer_Chick]

"A person is a person no matter how small." - Dr. Seuss

[thecavemaster]

"A person is a person no matter how small." - Dr. Seuss

Is it your belief that Dr. Seuss was addressing in his comment the status of the fertilized egg as opposed to the full term, outside the womb infant? Or, because he was a writer of small children's books, was he addressing that children should be treated with the dignity of a "person"?

[*Central_Cheer_Chick]

I'm sure he wasn't on the same topic as us, but it is my belief that it still applies

[thecavemaster]

I'm sure he wasn't on the same topic as us, but it is my belief that it still applies

Human beings, human society...we place greater or lesser value on life all the time. I believe the woman who exists outside the womb, independent of an umbilical cord (life support) has more value than the fertilized egg. I would imagine you strongly disagree. The only problem, for me, would be if you were now sure I was "bound for Hades" and some sort of horrible "sinner." As if the voice of god could be owned or known by any mortal soul.

[*Central_Cheer_Chick]

Well no, I never said you were 'bound for Hades' and I'm not claiming that I know everything. I was just voicing my opnion. Every person has their own, and I enjoy reading everyone else's. I learn things everyday. I in no way will disrespect anyone or think I have the authority to tell them what to do with their life.

[thecavemaster]

Well no, I never said you were 'bound for Hades' and I'm not claiming that I know everything. I was just voicing my opnion. Every person has their own, and I enjoy reading everyone else's. I learn things everyday. I in no way will disrespect anyone or think I have the authority to tell them what to do with their life.

Good deal. We just agree to disagree then.

[More Cowbell]

I do not favor the death penalty. I believe in "life for a life" carried out in a "life without possiblity of parole" sentence. I believe that prisoners should work and that most of their pay should go to victims or victim's rights groups, some sort of restitution. In my experience, fear, anxiety, despair, shock...these follow the positive EPT in teens. I have never heard one say (at least in my earshot), "Gee, now I don't get to go to prom; well, call the clinic, I've ordered my dress already." Human life and the way we value it exists on a continuum. I've seen it, heard it, watched it over and over again. Maybe we disagree on this point. But, I know what I know.

I was using the prom example to illustrate the silliness of some of the reasons that might be used to justify an abortion. Maybe they don't say it in those terms, but I bet a lot do say "Oh no. This will ruin my life." And when they say ruin their life, they mean the pregnancy will be an inconvenience to them.

You mention fear, anxiety, despair, and shock as emotions felt by teens who have just found out they were pregnant. I don't doubt that one bit, and I would also bet that those emotions are not just limited to teens. But, none of those feelings is reason enough to justify taking a life. I don't care how upset they are, it still doesn't equal a human life. Even if you say the unborn child isn't as valuable as someone already here, it still has to have enough value to not just flippantly discard it for the sake of convenience.

[thecavemaster]

I was using the prom example to illustrate the silliness of some of the reasons that might be used to justify an abortion. Maybe they don't say it in those terms, but I bet a lot do say "Oh no. This will ruin my life." And when they say ruin their life, they mean the pregnancy will be an inconvenience to them.

You mention fear, anxiety, despair, and shock as emotions felt by teens who have just found out they were pregnant. I don't doubt that one bit, and I would also bet that those emotions are not just limited to teens. But, none of those feelings is reason enough to justify taking a life. I don't care how upset they are, it still doesn't equal a human life. Even if you say the unborn child isn't as valuable as someone already here, it still has to have enough value to not just flippantly discard it for the sake of convenience.

We cannot pre-suppose convenience as motive, willy nilly. Time magazine has a special edition out right not about human anatomy and the like. Toward the back, a human gestation imaging is included. My overall view is that ten weeks should be the, granted arbitrary, cut off point. In my view, nearly all human willed miscarriages should take place with the first four weeks of pregnancy.

[More Cowbell]

We cannot pre-suppose convenience as motive, willy nilly. Time magazine has a special edition out right not about human anatomy and the like. Toward the back, a human gestation imaging is included. My overall view is that ten weeks should be the, granted arbitrary, cut off point. In my view, nearly all human willed miscarriages should take place with the first four weeks of pregnancy.

If it's not convenience, then what is it? You may not like that term, but most of the time it boils down to a matter of convenience. The woman doesn't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, so the solution is to end the pregnancy and take a life. Simple as that.

It just doesn't wash, human life has to be given more value than that.

[thecavemaster]

If it's not convenience, then what is it? You may not like that term, but most of the time it boils down to a matter of convenience. The woman doesn't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, so the solution is to end the pregnancy and take a life. Simple as that.

It just doesn't wash, human life has to be given more value than that.

I can think of ten scenarios, without thinking about it, where "convenience" is not the word that would apply to the situation. Now, in your worldview, you might use the word "convenience" regardless. I don't share that worldview. You seem a sort of either/or, black/white type. Maybe that's encoded in our genetics...who knows. We disagree on this subject.

[More Cowbell]

I can think of ten scenarios, without thinking about it, where "convenience" is not the word that would apply to the situation. Now, in your worldview, you might use the word "convenience" regardless. I don't share that worldview. You seem a sort of either/or, black/white type. Maybe that's encoded in our genetics...who knows. We disagree on this subject.

The question is, do the situations in those ten scenarios justify the taking of human life? You can say convenience or whatever term you want, but the bottom line is does the situation justify ending the life of the unborn baby?

[thecavemaster]

The question is, do the situations in those ten scenarios justify the taking of human life? You can say convenience or whatever term you want, but the bottom line is does the situation justify ending the life of the unborn baby?

I have given this answer: A bottom line man? OK... the life of an existing woman has more relative value than a fertilized egg. Thus, I do believe that "justifies" the human willed miscarriage. Bottom line: does god's need to show control or power or whatever justify his or her right to kill an unborn baby? Perhaps god chooses it for convenience sake?

[Brittany0121]

I am very much pro-choice, which does not mean I am telling every person on my left and right to go and get an abortion. How about some of you men put yourselves in a womans position and imagine if you got pregnant. I guarantee many people would change their opinions then. Also, everyone acts like it is always the woman who "want" to get the abortion because it's an easy way out, when in reality many women are pressured into it by the man. Everyone says "the women should know what she is getting herself into".. well so should the man involved.

I do not however, agree in using abortions as birth control. But, can you imagine if you had a 13 or 14 year old daughter who was raped and became pregnant. If she kept the baby, she would have to live the rest of her life knowing that that child was a mistake and was unwanted. Others may not feel the same as I, but if that was me I would feel hatred towards that child every day of my life; and that may sound horrible, but everyone has their own opinions.

Regardless if abortion is kept legal or not, women are still going to do it, and you can guarantee many more women will die from it. Just as someone posted before, it is her body, her choices, her salvations she has to answer for. God will deal with her how he pleases when it is time for her to meet him, so why should you be the ones to judge?

I absolutely agree with you. I'm sure many people do not know many 14 year olds that have been raped and gotten pregnant by the assailant, but I do. A rape is a traumatic, awful thing to happen to anyone, much less to get pregnant during the process. Can you imagine your 14 year old child starting their first year of high school pregnant, and having to explain to people the reason why? It's hard enough to tell parents/police/doctors, and it's sort've hard to hide. Everyone will judge, especially in high school. And there are always those who scream 'put it up for adoption.' Well that's great, but why should a 14 year old child, who has already gone through a horrendous amount of trauma, go through nine months more? And taking a morning after pill? Right, like thats the first thing on someone's mind after being raped. And, if I read everyone's opinion correctly, that is abortion.

Like you said, it is not my choice to make. How many people want the government piping in on life changing events? Not many, I'm sure. I will not have to live with the decision, she will. I do not believe in abortion as birth control, only in certain circumstances, (rape, mother's health), but the fact of the matter is, it would be difficult to define that in a law. By outlawing it completely, you are preventing the women who SHOULD have the right to an abortion to do so. I'm all about human rights and babies and children. I'm going to be a teacher. But it's more about minding your own business, and worrying about your own problems.
Everyone speaks of people trying to 'play God' to end lives, but what about those who are 'playing God' by judging others and making decisions for them?

[More Cowbell]

I have given this answer: A bottom line man? OK... the life of an existing woman has more relative value than a fertilized egg. Thus, I do believe that "justifies" the human willed miscarriage. Bottom line: does god's need to show control or power or whatever justify his or her right to kill an unborn baby? Perhaps god chooses it for convenience sake?

I realize that you don't value the life of the unborn as much, but you're not answering my question. What situation justifies taking the baby's life? If the baby's life does have value, how can you say it's okay to end it just because someone doesn't want to be pregnant?

Once again you're bringing God into the discussion, so here goes... You are saying that since God "causes" miscarriages, then it must be okay for people to cause one as well, as in an abortion. By your same logic, since God "causes" people to die of cancer and the like, it must be okay for other people to cause someone else's death as well, such as with a gunshot. We should thus make it legal to commit murder in this country. Sound silly? It's your reasoning, not mine.

[thecavemaster]

I realize that you don't value the life of the unborn as much, but you're not answering my question. What situation justifies taking the baby's life? If the baby's life does have value, how can you say it's okay to end it just because someone doesn't want to be pregnant?

Once again you're bringing God into the discussion, so here goes... You are saying that since God "causes" miscarriages, then it must be okay for people to cause one as well, as in an abortion. By your same logic, since God "causes" people to die of cancer and the like, it must be okay for other people to cause someone else's death as well, such as with a gunshot. We should thus make it legal to commit murder in this country. Sound silly? It's your reasoning, not mine.

In my opinion, withint the first ten weeks, a woman's discretion is all that is required. We place relative value on life, human and otherwise, all the day, every day, all day long. If "god" allows miscarriages, why can't human beings make that decision? Human beings struggle to cause earthquakes, though atomic explosions are within their range. The trouble is this: the killing of a person who exists outside the womb is not the same for me as the fertilized egg. With that distinction, your "sound silly" argument breaks down.

[*Central_Cheer_Chick]

I'm sorry, but no matter how small or what week the fetus is in, THIS IS A BABY!

[thecavemaster]

The image you post, CCC, appears to be at a ten week or so gestational stage. I do not, in my view, think this picture stops the debate. It appears to stop it for you...and maybe many others.

[*Central_Cheer_Chick]

Yeah, it is around 8 weeks. But that is a baby in my opinion. I know people will dis-agree. But for some people, they really don't know or want to know what exactly is being aborted. They just think its a clump until it is out of the womb. This is exactly what is taken out when you have an abortion. That is a life. Yes, it is dependent on the mother for food and oxygen but just until it can eat and breathe on its own. We all started out in this very same stage of life. Why stop that?

[thecavemaster]

Yeah, it is around 8 weeks. But that is a baby in my opinion. I know people will dis-agree. But for some people, they really don't know or want to know what exactly is being aborted. They just think its a clump until it is out of the womb. This is exactly what is taken out when you have an abortion. That is a life. Yes, it is dependent on the mother for food and oxygen but just until it can eat and breathe on its own. We all started out in this very same stage of life. Why stop that?

The chrysalis (pupal stage in the development of a moth or butterfly), enclosed in a firm case or cocoon... stages of development in which the organism moves from one "entity" to another: We are, each one of us, a clump of cells organzied into a specific human being: I don't deny what the fertilzed egg will become. I do suggest that we value life, human and plant and animal, all the time, every day, all day long. I do suggest that the relative value of the "butterfly" exceeds that of the larva.

[More Cowbell]

In my opinion, withint the first ten weeks, a woman's discretion is all that is required. We place relative value on life, human and otherwise, all the day, every day, all day long. If "god" allows miscarriages, why can't human beings make that decision? Human beings struggle to cause earthquakes, though atomic explosions are within their range. The trouble is this: the killing of a person who exists outside the womb is not the same for me as the fertilized egg. With that distinction, your "sound silly" argument breaks down.

It only makes sense to allow abortions, based solely on the woman's discretion, if the unborn child is given no value at all. If the life does indeed have value, then that trumps the mother just not wanting to be pregnant.

As for the God comparison, I have responded to that question with one of my own multiple times. Here's my most recent illustration...

Once again you're bringing God into the discussion, so here goes... You are saying that since God "causes" miscarriages, then it must be okay for people to cause one as well, as in an abortion. By your same logic, since God "causes" people to die of cancer and the like, it must be okay for other people to cause someone else's death as well, such as with a gunshot. We should thus make it legal to commit murder in this country. Sound silly? It's your reasoning, not mine.

The distinction you make between "in-the-womb" and "out-of-the-womb" does not cause my argument to break down. My illustration only compares apples to apples and oranges to oranges. As in, comparing the death of a child "in-the-womb", either by natural reasons or caused by man, versus the natural or man-caused death of someone out-of-the-womb. The comparison is valid.

[thecavemaster]

It only makes sense to allow abortions, based solely on the woman's discretion, if the unborn child is given no value at all. If the life does indeed have value, then that trumps the mother just not wanting to be pregnant.

As for the God comparison, I have responded to that question with one of my own multiple times. Here's my most recent illustration...



The distinction you make between "in-the-womb" and "out-of-the-womb" does not cause my argument to break down. My illustration only compares apples to apples and oranges to oranges. As in, comparing the death of a child "in-the-womb", either by natural reasons or caused by man, versus the natural or man-caused death of someone out-of-the-womb. The comparison is valid.

If one operates from my premise, your argument does not work. If one operates from your premise, it does work. As we have suggested, the fundamental difference at the root of our "disagreement" bears on the rest of our arguments. If the fertilized egg is equal in "value" to the mother, if the fertilized egg has a relative less value than the mother, upon these hinge our arguments. Would you agree?

[More Cowbell]

If one operates from my premise, your argument does not work. If one operates from your premise, it does work. As we have suggested, the fundamental difference at the root of our "disagreement" bears on the rest of our arguments. If the fertilized egg is equal in "value" to the mother, if the fertilized egg has a relative less value than the mother, upon these hinge our arguments. Would you agree?

My point still can operate under your premise. Even if you say that the fertilized egg has less value than the mother's life, you still admit that there is value. And if there is some value to that life, how does said value not trump the mother's desire to just not be pregnant? You could look at it like on a continuum:

mother's life > unborn baby's life > mother's convenience/preference

[thecavemaster]

My point still can operate under your premise. Even if you say that the fertilized egg has less value than the mother's life, you still admit that there is value. And if there is some value to that life, how does said value not trump the mother's desire to just not be pregnant? You could look at it like on a continuum:

mother's life > unborn baby's life > mother's convenience/preference

I don't see it that way: if the premise is the fertilized egg is not of equal value to the mother's life, who exists outside the womb, then the higher organism gets the choice, as happens on a daily, minute by minute basis. The conclusion follows the premise: your foisting of your conclusion on that premise changes the basic argument to a different one...one that I am not making.