Would President Kerry defang the DMCA?
October 25, 2004, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

John Kerry finally has hinted at a position that would mark one of the first real differences from his Republican rival. In a barely noticed remark on Thursday, the Democratic senator said he might support defanging the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)--the unpopular law that has prompted take-to-the-street protests from the geek community.

If Kerry is serious, that would be a remarkable metamorphosis on a law that the Senate approved without one dissenting vote. It would also be remarkable because, contrary to what Kerry and President Bush tell you, few differences exist between the two White House hopefuls on nearly any topic imaginable.

On technology topics, there tend to be distinctions without differences. Both supported the invasion of Iraq, both applauded the Patriot Act, and both agreed with sweeping expansions of federal spending on education. Neither politician has the moxie to say in public that he agrees with gay marriage, neither will end the war on drugs, and neither would countenance full privatization of Social Security.

Poor Jim Lehrer of PBS, who moderated the first presidential debate, was left scratching his head about what actually differentiated the two men who
would be president. Was it Kerry's pledge to undertake two-party talks with North Korea versus Bush's preference for six-party talks?

On technology topics as well, as I wrote in a column in June, there tend to be distinctions without differences. The Democratic and Republican candidates have been singing in two-party harmony about technological innovation, broadband, Wi-Fi, spectrum auctions, and their mutual love for the research and development tax credit.

Still, a few divergences became clear last week with the release of a set of answers that the Bush and Kerry campaigns provided to a dozen questions posed by the nonpartisan Computing Technology Industry Association.

Inalienable right to make backups Kerry's campaign said the senator might support rewriting U.S. copyright law to let Americans make backup copies of digital media they've purchased.

Pay attention, folks: In the tech world, this maybe-or-maybe-not pusillanimity counts as headline-grabbing news. Right now, under the DMCA,
it's unlawful to make a backup copy of copy-protected DVDs or computer programs. The 1998 DMCA broadly bans "circumventing" anticopying schemes, and selling software that can do so is a criminal offense.

Kerry's survey response said he is "open to examining" whether to change current law "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes" or transfer it to another device. CompTIA's open-ended question had merely asked "What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet?"--without mentioning backup copies.

If the senator had time last year to announce two bills dealing with tariffs on imported "pouch tuna" from Indonesia, he surely had time to help defang the DMCA. This is no theoretical debate. 321 Studios was forced to shut its doors in August, after a federal judge blocked the small company from selling its DVD backup software. 321 Studios' utility, the judge said, ran afoul of the DMCA's anticircumvention restrictions.

Kerry's answer appears to be a tentative attempt to side with consumers and electronics makers over the entertainment industry--a rare display of political independence by a prominent Democrat. (Hollywood firms hand money to Democrats over Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin.)

How serious are these guys? It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is. Reps. Rick Boucher and John Doolittle introduced their bill to defang the DMCA more than two years ago and have been searching in vain for a Senate sponsor. Kerry, a member of the committee overseeing e-commerce, could have lent a hand but never did. If the senator had time last year to announce two bills dealing with tariffs on imported "pouch tuna" from Indonesia, he surely had time to help Boucher and Doolittle.

The Bush administration's stand, on the other hand, is entirely clear: defend the DMCA at any cost. Bush's reply to CompTIA said: "I strongly support efforts to protect intellectual property and will continue to work with Congress to ensure all intellectual property is properly protected."

Buttressing this stand is a report released this month by Bush's Department of Justice. It insists that the DMCA remain intact, saying U.S. law must prohibit "deliberate and unauthorized circumvention." Meanwhile, Bush's trade negotiators have been busy exporting the DMCA to Australia, Chile and Singapore, and Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the DMCA when trying to imprison Russian programmer Dmitri Sklyarov.

Two other modest differences arose in the candidates' responses to CompTIA's questions about voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and spam. In both cases, Bush was far more explicit about what he would do if Americans pick him on Election Day.

On VoIP, Bush praised the technology and suggested that regulators treat it like e-mail--that is, take a laissez-faire approach--instead of weighing it down with the raft of rules that apply to the telephone network. On unsolicited bulk e-mail, Bush predictably touted the Can-Spam Act, which he signed into law last December.

Oddly, Kerry ducked both questions. In both cases, he said only that he's "open" to considering any approach.

That might work for a small-town lawyer running for election as a state legislator. But it's unseemly when coming from a guy who's been in the Senate for two decades and is a senior member on the only two subcommittees that oversee, well, VoIP and spam. It's also important because the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines in February to exempt "pure" VoIP companies from traditional telecommunications regulations. The two Democratic commissioners opposed that move. What side would a President Kerry take?

Unfortunately, both major-party candidates are savvy enough to realize that Americans don't pick presidents based on their telecommunications policies.
The problem is that there are so few substantial distinctions in other areas. Just ask Jim Lehrer.

I don't know, all of this sounds kind of iffy, I'm still not sure which candidate has a firm stance on this yet.

I agree carla. the race is so tight both are trying to go after every independent they can.

don't pin any hopes on Kerry doing away with the DCMA. He's just as beholden to the big money the RIAA/MPAA terrorists are throwing around just as Bush is.

Kerry voted for the thing in 1998. Nothing wil change unless we stop voting for Republicans and Democrats.

Voting for Kerry based on something from this site is like voting for Bush based on all of your FoxNews knowledge.

.. aren't we all united in bringing down the RIAA, aren't we all united in electing a CONGRESS that, at least, considers our views?? VOTE 'EM IN.. NOW!! All this divisive, cynical post-blathering don't amount to a hill 'o beans if you don't vote. go to www.vote-smart.org to see voting records of your reps, folks, and vote accordingly..

VOTE.

Dubya wants to protect intellectual property at any cost....that's pretty funny if you think about it. And I'm quite happy with the little differences; it seems that Kerry will at least be open to discussion--unless everyone's already in jail by then. Jazzmary2U--just filled out my absentee ballot (paper trail, paper trail, paper trail!!) and it's ready to go in the mail!!! Pat me on the back, please!!!

Both sides are saying whatever they think consituents want to hear, to garner a few votes from any special interest group they think might be susceptible. As BrandonH said, Kerry voted for it. If he cared, he wouldn't have voted for it.

Or is this another thing where he voted for it before he was against it? I just can't keep track of where Kerry is on any given day. I know he has never wavered on abortion, though he personally believes it is a real live human being. Everything else seems to be subject to modification and/or reversal, based on the political winds.

I voted already. God bless the absentee, as Paul Simon sez.

If you mean a woman's right to choose, I say hurrah for him for not wanting to impose his personal beliefs on everyone.

I wonder if the following perspective prevails in the light of logic or not:
The pregnant mother has a right to choose whether a human life form will have its right to life preempted?

Fascinating to contemplate.

Hi guys,
Been awhile since I'd been here how is everyone doing gearing up for the big holidays? now on the subject if kerry is as serious as he sounds here then he'd get my vote otherwise neither one really sounds like my candidate of choice.
Remember boycott buy independent and help the less fortunate this holiday.

Why not? The president has a right to choose whether a human life form will have its right to life preempted.

Been working late nights since got a new job been very busy pretty much had time to take sneak peeks to try an keep up with the boycott news.

Welcome back...

"Why not? The president has a right to choose whether a human life form will have its right to life preempted."

Wow, you've scored a powerful point with that one!

(FYI: I'm serious; no sarcasm attending my remark.)

Thanks shadowmom

DemandRelevance--On a personal note, I have not nor do I think I ever could have an abortion. I had my second baby when I was 37 years old--and it was kind of scary. But there are many cases where I think the woman/girl needs to be able to make her own personal decision on this--and no one should be able to tell her what is right for her. I support choice, first last and always.

Me, too, ShadowMom. (all of the above)

Playing my favorite role as devil's advocate, I could anticipate the opposition as noting how the pregnant mother has a choice while the baby who's most affected does not.
(I presume that's what the right-to-lifers mean by their bumper stickers which say it's not a choice, it's a baby!)

Obviously, I don't make a lot of friends on this website....but at least I'm impartial (i.e., not reluctant to take on ANYbody who posts on the forums) if I think that my providing an alternative view serves a purpose of having balance in a 'debate' (using the term loosely).

(Anticipating a critic who might find an inconsistency)
Okay, alright, I admit to not pursuing balance ALL the time. That makes room for improvement.

The "baby" isn't a baby--yet. And thus, has no say. If anyone has a right to choose, shouldn't it be the mother, not someone who doesn't even know her?

Debate is a good thing, you know this. If people never disagreed we would have very little to discuss, don't you think?

"The "baby" isn't a baby--yet. And thus, has no say. If anyone has a right to choose, shouldn't it be the mother, not someone who doesn't even know her?"

Absolutely right.
I don't think I , or my wife could do it,
but thats us. It's not up to me or anyone
else to decide hoe someone else should
act, under their own unique circumstances.

That goes for being homosexual,
for wanting to own any type of weapon,
for wanted to server any "god" in any form, etc ...

Choices all, freedom of choices of ALL
types. Not to be decided by Christians,
Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or any single
Faith, or supporter of any single "Moral Code".

Welcome back nitedreamerxp.

Folks you gotta remember these are politicans. They gonna say what they think gets them in the door. It is the afterwards that tells the tail and there is a many a president in the past that has not lived up to the campaign promises, for whatever reason.

As poor as it sounds there is one thing you can go by as a for sure. What the incumbent has done in the past term will be basically the general direction he will continue in with the same sort of mind set.

Here's another Texas town for Kerry. This is now part of my hometown it took mine away so sad. I loved that little town.
This is Longview Texas. It starts off on bush then goes to kerry and then gives Kerry as their recommendation.

http://www.news-journal.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/10/23/1098582400.18121.4403.5917.html

ShadowMom said: "Debate is a good thing; you know this. If people never disagreed we would have very little to discuss, don't you think?"

Absolutely right! And we still can have mutual respect for each other, even if we parlay over perspectives.

"The 'baby' isn't a baby--yet. And thus, has no say."
("Woman trumps fetus.")

Possible dissenting viewpoint (from a respected friend of mine who previously posted at an altogether different type of website):

Hmm. Woman trumps right to life too?

Even a baby that's newborn isn't able to speak for itself, yet we still protect its right to life.
Insofar as it not being a 'baby' until birth, there's a number of issues that should be addressed:

The right of a person to decide what to do with their body should end where the Constitutional right to life of another body is at stake.

There's no 'Constitutional right' to abortion per se -- merely a 'judicial right' which is AT ODDS with the Constitutional "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The right to life trumps the right to happiness (in this instance, a choice of convenience at the expense of a life) every time.

The original majority opinion written in 1973 is flawed. It says, in part, that it is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to determine when life begins. That's illogical, not to mention potentially immoral.
If the court could not or would not determine when life begins -- and, admittedly there was not the scientific evidence available at that time as there is now -- then it still had no business granting a choice for eclipsing the known potential for this lifeform (fetus) to continue existing in accordance with the pre-imminent Constitutional provision of right to life.
Anyway, 1973: Supreme Court in effect DECIDED (unethically if not unscientifically) there is no right to life before birth, giving power to women over not only their own bodies but also over the life they're carrying inside.

Truly, a choice exists . . . to snuff out a life, or not to snuff out a life . . . but, which one is protected at the highest level in the Constitution, choices or lives?
The original majority opinion of the High Court already knew the answer but skirted the salient issue as it 'legislated' from the bench.
The 'right to life' should take precedence over the 'pursuit of happiness' or convenience; i.e., a developed baby awaiting birth has the inherent right to its life!

This developing baby approaching physical separation from the mother (but even from the latter stages of the first trimester) is already biologically 'alive' in accordance with...
a) having measurable brainwaves;
b) having a heartbeat with warm blood flowing to developed or developing vital organs;
c) having the propensity to feel pressure or pain;
d) having the ability to take in and utilize nourishment;
e) having the ability to make movements.

A so-called 'independent' argument -- pertaining to this unborn baby not being tissue-independent of another organism (the mother) -- is irrelevant de facto and does not negate this baby's right to continue living. A newborn baby is not independent of another organism either. A newborn baby, likewise as a pre-born baby, cannot survive without the constant (direct or indirect) sustaining, nourishment, and nurturing protection from another person.

By way of additonal support for the above:
Rulings by some judges have affirmed the simultaneous homocide of both a pregnant mother and her unborn baby. (In the case of the unborn baby, how can there be a homocide if there is no life to be taken? Plausible answer: Because there IS a life present.)
Also, there are some laws denying the 'choice' of terminating the life of an unborn eagle still within its egg. In other words, the unborn life of an eagle has to be protected.
A germinating seed is alive.
A developing fetus is alive.
Both are vulnerable.

The preceding rationale is not to be considered a complete compendium of biological science, but there's enough for a just decision by way of 'preponderance of evidence', nonetheless.
Those in opposition must somehow detach any urgency to defend their position based on political or personal viewpoints and focus on the biological facts and the Constitutional facts.
Elsewhere (present website excepted), sometimes debates on the issues deteriorate into distractive parlances, or even ad hominem attacks on the 'bringer of bad news'. Neither strategy is a friend of logic. I respectfully implore anyone to keep that in mind before assailing these positions.

Yes, I'm a type of libertarian -- one who believes in the liberties of every living person, born or pre-born.
And, yes, the liberty of life takes pre-imminence.

I wasn't even arguing a position. I was merely pointing out the irony that Kerry seems flexible on almost every issue except abortion. Make of that what you will.

He's against gay marriage, you know. At least that is what he said once upon a time. What the latest position is, I haven't a clue.

Again, to try to be germaine to this website, I can't see how Kerry's stated position on DMCA has any significance. Once his Hollywood buddies cozy up to him again (with big donations, no doubt) he'll start to have "doubts" about changing DMCA.

autodidact said: "Again, to try to be germaine to this website, I can't see how Kerry's stated position on DMCA has any significance. Once his Hollywood buddies cozy up to him again (with big donations, no doubt) he'll start to have "doubts" about changing DMCA."

You're right on target, auto.

technology being on drug.

whoa, abortion is one topic I'll not even discuss my views. back to politics

pre-born. snicker.

Quote me the Constitution again, the part where we have a right to life, liberty, etc. then ask the young kids who come home from Iraq in a casket why they didn't get those same rights.

autodidact wrote: "I wasn't even arguing a position. I was merely pointing out the irony that Kerry seems flexible on almost every issue except abortion.
Again, to try to be germaine to this website . . ."

1) You are truly to be applauded for trying to be germaine to this website! (It isn't easy, with so many distractions; a person only has to go to the article "She's out there" for evidence of that. And I admit being suckered in, too, sometimes.)

2) You are correct; you weren't arguing a position at all.
For the record, let's examine the sequence of events. If we check back, my response was to others' comments that followed you (after you mentioned abortion at 12:01 p.m.)
At 12:19, someone expanded upon what you said about Kerry's position with: "If you mean a woman's right to choose . . ." (which is a way of re-stating abortion in a less negative way).
After that, I played the devil's advocate with a brief statement.
Then, at 2:07 p.m. came this statement: "The "baby" isn't a baby--yet."
That's when I let loose with the long posting containing a barrage of points to consider as the opposing position.

shadowmom, that's how we get the right to life and liberty. there's always someone willing to take it away. most every war we've ever fought, (except a couple) were fought on foriegn soil. given that a great case can be made against nearly every war we've fought. including WWII

I saw a documentary about the occupation of Germany during WWII. we were more brutal toward the civilians and the nazi resistance was going strong for a few years after. The Allies would kill a number of men in a town if a shoilder was killed from a Nazi (insurgency) attack. I don't remember history talking about blaming the allies for the poor Nazi insurgency (which was no threat to the US at the time we got into the war).

"pre-born . . . (snicker)."

Well, terminology aside, it's not a disposable mass of protoplasm. It's alive. It's a baby that hasn't been born yet.

What about a pregnant mother eight months along who, together with her physican, because of medical reasons, is contemplating having labor induced prematurely... or perhaps having Cesaerian section?
Is it any less of an infantile human being deserving of a right to live at eight months? (Even though its condition is fragile, it could still be expected to have a good chance of survival in a protected 'incubator' atmosphere.) As an aside, try to tell a mother that her precious baby she's carrying isn't REALLY alive and thus has no right to life!
But, for the sake of argument, suppose that same mother eight months along, somehow were to choose abortion. That's ethically okay?
Of course, that's okay, because it's not really alive before being physically separated from the mother. (snicker)
I get it. If it has a good chance to survive by being necessarily medically 'extracted' prematurely at eight months, we'll call the fetus 'alive' or 'living'.
Or, maybe we don't. Maybe we have to call it 'potentially living'.
Or, hey, how about let's give it the attribute 'alive' only at the magical moment of 'extraction', prior to it getting oxygen and nutrients apart from the mother? (Oops, even after it's born, it STILL needs special protection and STILL doesn't get nutrients independently on its own. Oh, well; let's ignore those facts.)
Ahem! What was/is conveniently 'needed' is to somehow not refer to the baby as being 'alive' before birth; that way, if we choose to dispose of it while still inside the mother, we don't have to face the fact that we're actually snuffing out a life (a life that would have a right to live). Yes, that's the key!

Unceremoniously disregarding the all-important issue of when life exists is what the Chief Justice and those supporting him did back over thirty years ago.
Yes, I did call him illogical, and the reasoning behind that is:
If you are in a position to make a ruling that allows for the pre-empting of the continuance of life, it IS necessary to learn when life begins. IF there isn't (yet) enough information to determine that point (as it may not have been back in 1973), THEN:
Because of the guarantee of right to life, you must ethically WAIT until enough information is available.
And that's where the Court went wrong and stepped out of bounds. The majority opinion stated that it wasn't in the prerogative of the High Court to try to determine when life begins. (But they sure made it their prerogative to determine when it could end!)
Technically, especially with the compelling scientific information known today, the Supreme Court's ruling, being allowed to continue standing, is in breach of denying one of the most basic self-evident rights in existence for any nation, let alone ours which should know better.
And it likely can be safely asserted that the reason there is no correction of this grevious judicial error is purely political in nature. Politics and convenience are trumping the right to life, making a contrived right to choose to terminate life more important than life itself.

Since the main political parties probably will do the same thing, how about come election day, let's do something different. For everyone in a state that's already decided, instead of voting for the losing candidate, just vote for Nader. That would at least send some message, the end result would still be the same since only the swing states are going to elect the next president anyways.

Anyway, that's basically the case for 'right to life'.
(It's not a choice; it's a baby. The mother may have the POWER to decide to terminate the baby's existence, but the baby herself/himself is pre-empted from having a choice to continue existing, and the baby has scientific hallmarks of being a living entity prior to physical separation from the mother.)

One has to admit that it is compelling, and a worthy adversary against 'right to choose'.

Doesn't Capt-n-Jack have a valid point?
I plan to vote for a third party for his reason (I do live in a state that's already in the convincingly decided status), and because I just feel that more people should snub the major parties to emphasize just how disappointed we are with what has been served up for us.

"The "baby" isn't a baby--yet. And thus, has no say. If anyone has a right to choose, shouldn't it be the mother, not someone who doesn't even know her?"

DemandRelevance made the same point I was going to make. That logic doesn't follow. You can't choose to kill a 6 month old baby because it can't choose for itself. That's more along the lines of just getting away with something because your opponent is weak than it is any kind of "right to choose."

The only pro-choice argument I've heard that I think has any credibility is that the fetus isn't a human until it's born. But that's not true either. Oh well. Should we do what's right or do what's good? Because less humans = good, imo.

"Dubya wants to protect intellectual property at any cost...."
Someone has to tell him what it is, first.


"If you mean a woman's right to choose, "
Right to choose?? Why doesn't anyone ever think about the fact that the woman made the choice BEFORE she got pregnant? Ever heard of birth control? I know this doesn't mean anything for a victim of rape or a serious medical problem, but I don't think we should allow abortion for birth control. If you think the law should defend a woman's choice, then let's make the law defend the woman's true choice!

And let's not get into "the man" thing, after all, we say a woman has a right to control her body, but then we blame the man for "knocking her up". C'mon, get real, can't have it both ways.

It's not about the right to choose, it's about the right to be able to undo your mistakes even if it means killing babies.

"just vote for Nader."
I'll vote for Bush for I vote for Nader. Nader doesn't know what the hell he stands for anymore. He sure as hell doesn't stand for the "little guy" or "small business" like he used to.

"It's not about the right to choose, it's about the right to be able to undo your mistakes even if it means killing babies"
Then let them get their tubes tied so they won't keep making these "mistakes". I wouldn't mind my tax dollars going for that. But I do mind my tax dollars paying for tramp to get her third abortion this year. And that's no joke.

In a perfect world, there would not be a need for abortion. There would also not be children who are neglected, beaten, abused and killed. They would not be hungry, cold, or frightened. But it isn't a perfect world. And given the choice between bringing another life into the world that is not loved and cared for, and abortion, I think abortion is the best solution. There are other solutions, but that again is a choice--for the mother to make, not the legislature, not the church, and certainly not independent observers with no stake in the outcome.

I do not accept that, at conception, it is a "baby." It is not.

'Right to life' is rather misleading, too. Not everyone has a right to life. Euthanasia is becoming more accepted in this country, and I believe we still execute people (especially in Texas, right?). Therefore, 'right to life' is not etched in concrete here, is it? What makes euthanasia, or 'right to die' more acceptable is the quality of life being lost. The same is true for babies. Every baby should have a 'right to a good life,' not a 'right to a lousy life.'

If the world were perfect, all children would have not just a life, but a good life. Too bad 'right-to-lifers' can't see that.

Regarding Sherminator's posts of 7:12 & 7:23:
All those things you said are interesting.
And, in regard to the quandary you mentioned: "Should we do what's right or do what's good?"-- that's a dilemma societies struggle with, don't they. It's sort of like, ethics vs. expediency or principle vs. practicality, I suppose. (And I bet there are plenty of applications.)

Shadowmom wonders:
Quote me the Constitution again, the part where we have a right to life, liberty, etc. then ask the young kids who come home from Iraq in a casket why they didn't get those same rights.

In a democratic society, the needs of the many often outweigh the needs of the few. Every soldier that went to any war knew that they may not come home. Every soldier in Iraq right now freely joined the United States armed forces, and when their country called, they went, and some gave the ultimate sacrifice to defend the United States, and to accomplish the mission that was given to them, right or worng.

Why did we get involved in Europe in WW1? Germany wasn't a threat to us at the time. Why did we get involved in WW2 in Europe? Again, Germany was no threat to us. Korea? Again, no immenant threat. Vietnam? No threat there. Except for the war for independance, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, there have been no direct threats to this country. Were all of these wars wrong? According to history, we were correct in our joining these wars to help promote freedom around the world.

Under the UN's own resolutions, as a member of the UN, we had every right to attack Iraq, to enforce the resolutions that were passed. All Sadam Hussin had to do to stop the invasion was to let the inspectors in, with no restrictions, and show the world that he didn't have any banned weapons. He never did. In 1991, the first resolution was passed ordering his to disarm within 2 weeks. He never did. What he did do is let inspectors in, and only allow them to go where he wanted them to, and only on his schedule. Why? I firmly believe that it was to move any WMD from those locations prior to the inspector's visit.

After the invasion of Iraq, a squadran of Mig-23's were found that had been hidden under 6 inches of sand, from prior to the first Gulf war. The amount of anthrax that was reported that Iraq had will fit into a briefcase. It took us 12 years to find a squadran of Mig's, in a country the size of Texas. How long will it take for us to find a briefcase?

Skippy must be a man. Want to end all abortions? Require all men to get vasectomies. They're reversible, and much less invasive than what you propose for the "tramps." Btw, it still takes two.

My point, guys, is birth control is preferable by far, and education helps, too. But accidents happen, no form of birth control is perfect; and outlawing something that prevents unwanted births is not a bad thing in an overcrowded world.

Last time I checked I had ovaries, breasts and no pecker.

Okay, you say it takes two. Then why is it the man's choice to use birth control, the man's responsibilty to provide child support if the child is allowed to live, but he has no right in the decision of abortion? Again, we cannot have it both ways.

As for the word "euthanasia", please don't use that to describe abortion. Euthanasia is a quiet painless shot that puts you to sleep and then stops your heart, abortion involves a knife and a vacuum. And if you've seen the films of doctors doing this procedure then you would see that it doesn't look painless.

"If the world were perfect, all children would have not just a life, but a good life. Too bad 'right-to-lifers' can't see that."

What if some of them were to say they do see that, and they'd like for an unwanted baby to have a chance to be placed in a good home for adoption?
Now, "if the world were perfect" is an idealistic dream (too bad good dreams don't always come true); but at least, practically speaking, we could try to give the otherwise-aborted baby a chance by doing our very best to search for loving, caring, capable foster parents to provide a well-nurtured environment . . . perhaps leading to a reasonable chance for "not just a life, but a good life", as you say.

BTW, I have respect or appreciation for ALL of you in each of the forums; just thought I'd acknowledge that.

Thank you ShadowMom. I can only snicker and mock.
And quote the old joke, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Amen.

100 virtual quatloos for anyone who can guess who I am voting for

It's a secret...shhhhhhhhh...no one knows.....

lol...compmore is excluded from guessing....

Code, we all know you're voting for Gumby.

damn...and I thought I hid it so well...ok...
100 VIRTUAL quatloos on the way to Skippy

"I'm Gumby Damnit"- Eddie Murphy

Skippy, apologies for the mistake--but your post sounded like a male chauvinist's anthem. "Then let them get their tubes tied so they won't keep making these "mistakes". I wouldn't mind my tax dollars going for that. But I do mind my tax dollars paying for tramp to get her third abortion this year." What is that supposed to mean?

Glad to help, Carla. And hi, Code. Don't do that to compmore, you'll hurt his feelings.

Lothar2 that's an excellent point. exactly what I was trying to say but not as well. If the US congress acted like the UN this would be the scenerio.

Congress passes a law to arrest someone who has illegal firearms....
Citizen aquires illegal firearms....
ATF finds out about it and threatens to use swat teams to go in and confiscate the illegal arms...
When threat of force reaches the Congress, congressional members suddenly want the ATF to back off and give the citizen more time to volenterily surrender their arms....
In the meantime the citizen kills a few innocent people with the guns...
The ATF surround the citizens property....
Congress calls on the ATF to pull back so diplomats can go in and ease the situation...
part of the deal is for the diplomats to monitor the citizens home while the citizen contiues to go on with their daily life...
The citizen has time to hide the illegal arms in a location on the property that the ATF cannot find...
The ATF goes in anyway, against the will of congress (never mind they passed the law to begin with) and people are killed including ATF agents....
No illegal weapons were found, just papers and sales recipts showing weapons once existed and a few empty shell casings...
The ATF is condemed for enforcing the laws of the country and called evil, barbaric etc....
public opinion calls the citizen a hero (never mind the people he killed) and votes to remove the man from office who made the decision to enforce the law.....

thus the wishy washy hypocracy of the UN.

Code I have no idea who you're for.
but be careful when you vote that you follow the right arrow or you may end up punching a hole in the wrong spot. Hopefully you'll have electronic, computerized voting machines where you are so it'll be much easier and less confusing than punching a hole in a piece of paper.

Shadowmom I think Skippys point is that if it is both couples responsibility for birth control and the father (rightfully so) needs to take responsibility for raising and paying for the child then both parents should be involved in the decision to abort. If it's only the mothers right to decide the abortion then the mother should also take full responsibility for birth control. can't have it both ways. it sounds like more of a logical argument rather than his opinion. doesn't sound sexist (uggg another label) to me. this ISN"T necessarily my view, it's how I saw what he was saying.

"Skippy, apologies for the mistake--but your post sounded like a male chauvinist's anthem."
No apology needed, but I do take acception that you feel that only men are so hard core against abortion, and that men who are must be male chauvinists. I know more chauvinists in favor of abortion than against.


"What is that supposed to mean?"
It means that some abortions are done via medicare, etc. Taxpayers dollars should not cover these types of procedures, but unfortunately, they do.


Hey Code, check your server... I haven't gotten my quatloos!!!!

comp, he is a she. That's why I asked the question. And just to clear up another point, euthanasia was not meant to apply to abortion, but rather to the right to die.

Damn....I forgot I stored all my quatloos in what I thought was a secure place in Iraq...there was around 380 tons of explosives with them...so I thought the quatloos were safe, and now, to my horrors....apparently someone robbed the store!

"...it's how I saw what he was saying."

Thanks, Comp, but... um... 'she'.

Yeah, I know, Skippy sounds masculine, but Skippy is the evil twin. Thus Skippy is the one who likes to take part in internet conversations and state her mind.


Any mispellings or mis-used words in any of my posts are because my acid reflux is acting up today.

County Responds to Voting Machine Problems

BY LEE NICHOLS
Travis County election officials have responded to complaints that voters casting straight-party Democratic ballots are discovering, when performing a final check of their ballots, that their votes for president have been changed from Kerry/Edwards to Bush/Cheney.

They said they have fixed the problem. But how many people had already voted and had their vote changed. And this happen in Texas. Does this make you wonder how many more of these electronic machines are like these. Need to check and make sure when you vote.

the rest of story here.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-10-22/pols_feature18.html

Damn you Code! I almost wet 'em!!

See what happens when you let Dubya protect your quatloos stockpile??

BTW - what the hell was 380 tons of explosives doing over there anyway? Christ! Isn't that like the equivalent of two nukes??? WTF??

my bad. now I feel ashamed. can't even tell the difference. no wonder my wife gets mad at me.

*pats Comp on the back*
It's okay.

"Something [example, abortion] that prevents unwanted births is not a bad thing in an overcrowded world."

It's that 'right vs. good' quandary, isn't it; i.e., a worthy goal might justify the means needed to achieve it.
Is there a goal worthy enough to justify dishonoring life?

". . . some abortions are done via medicare, etc. Taxpayers dollars should not cover these types of procedures, but unfortunately, they do."

Yes, 'unfortunately' (or 'unfairly') can easily come to mind.

Electronic voting machines that do not print out a paper reciept for use in a recount should be illegal. Under the America Votes rules, there must be a paper trail for ballots.

Has anyone looked into how easy it is to gain access to a serial port on the Dibold system? It's simply behind a locked panel, with an easy to defeat lock. All you need is a laptop, with a serial port, and a few minutes. Change 2 characters in the code, and any vote for Bugs Bunny could be tallied for Daffy Duck.

These systems have had no independant verification as to what the code actually does, as well as no verification of the security measures in place, both physical and software.

On the abortion topic, how can anyone look at the facts abotu partial birth abortion, and say that it is legal under Roe v Wade?

This is simply the killing of a child. There is no medical reason that this child couldn't be delivered via C-section ( in the case of a medial emergancy dealing with the life of the mother), and the child placed for adoption.

In some cases, "Taxpayers dollars" are used to cover these abortions. Either now or later, when the mother and child are on welfare. It's very easy to moralize when you are not the person who is affected by it, for instance the single mother who has no "significant other," no insurance, a low-paying job, and no way to pay for the birth and upbringing of a child. Now, I know none of you would ever EVER let that sort of thing happen to you, but it still happens every day. And talk adoption to me when every single orphanage in this country is closed. Not till then.
And please don't give me the abstinence crap. It's insulting.

Btw, Lothar ever had a Caesarian? I have. Don't talk about it like it's a piece of cake. It's not.

Kerry has said a few things trying to get some pro-life votes without alienating the pro-choice votes he is counting on.

While I believe the intentional killing of an innocent person is wrong, the one point I do have to give to the liberals (anyone want to go back to the definition of liberal & conservative thread?) is that many conservatives say how evil abortion is, but have no concern for the child once it is born. While having this conversation with someone who is pro-choice, he suggested conservatives start adopting children. While I am unaware of any statistics, 10 years ago there was a 2 year wait on child adoption. While it may have changed, since then, it seems there are people who are willing to care for those children.

Another thing is if someone wants to be Pro-Choice, they should have as much information as possible in order to make the best choice possible, but some pro-abortion groups don't want all the facts available because it is bad for business. Examples: Fetal Pain, Increased risk of cancer & sterility.

For your info (as if there are people who have not decided on who they are voting for yet)
Bush: Mostly Pro-Life
Kerry: Completely Pro-Choice
Nader: Completely Pro-Choice
Peroutka: Completely Pro-Life
Badnarik: Mostly Pro-Choice
Cobb: Completely Pro-Choice

(Getting back to the topic of boycotting the RIAA) Most artists associated with the RIAA are also Pro-Choice, hate Bush, and love Kerry.

KERRY FINDS WMDs

Waffles Made Daily...

Which is worse, someone who may change their mind ... or someone who may consider themselves to be a right-wing nut job.

CAUTION TO ANY NEW VISITORS OF THIS WEBSITE:

You have just crossed the threshhold of an inner sanctum in the Land of Contentiousness; abandon all hope, ye who dare to enter within.

I would rather be a right wing nutjob, than a liberal weiner.

Which is worse, someone who might change their mind in the light of NEW facts ... or someone who might refuse to admit they made a mistake in the light of OLD facts?

Hmm, a choice between a weiner or a nut ... not good.
All the more reason I'll remain an independent.

Yeah the choice is real clear. Vote Kerry. The guy who will say anything to get a vote. Great choice.

Okay, the choice is very clear. Vote Bush. The guy who has already demonstrated that he will do anything he pleases after winning the election. Great choice.

i've seen comments such as "iffy" and "few distinctions"

there are two things i want to point out.

1: iffy doom is better than certain doom

2: the difference between bush and kerry is fundamentally thus:

- kerry will pursue his agendas through thought, consideration of reality, and at least some consideration of the people's will, or what he thinks the people wish

- bush has demonstrated that he wishes to "make his own" reality and people's opinion than listen to the nation, the world, the constitution, and the laws of capitalism.

I have in the past been hard on kerry.. but finally seeing some policy clarifications gives me that marginally greater respect that differentiates a vote for him from a vote for nader or some third party.

I also find it interesting that people who are against the "pro RIAA" position could argue pro life.

Just as the RIAA has no proof that filesharing is hurting them, lifers have no proof that abortion is actually killing someone whose life has begun, rather than just a protrusion from the original mother's uteral wall.

That is the beauty of being pro choice.. pro choice people let people do what they as individuals think is right. It has less to do with dishonoring "life" as it does to do with honoring sentience and individuality.

awehr: "Pro-lifers have no proof that abortion is actually killing someone whose life has begun."

Life is already in existence prior to the birthing process.
Read points a), b), c), d), and e) of my post of 3:14 p.m., October 26, on this very webpage... and tell me which of these scientific criteria you want to dispute.

ShadowMom: "And talk adoption to me when every single orphanage in this country is closed. Not 'till then."

Persistently contentious, aren't you?
What are you implying? Recommending the disposal of unwanted babies, rather than have them carried to term for adoption (with the admitted caveat that some may not be adopted)?
IN REGARDS TO WORST-CASE SCENARIOS -- ORPHANS:
Let's see; historically, if no orphan had been given a chance for life, what important people would never have been able to contribute to society? Do you want to see a list compiled?
Even that aside, how many orphans commit suicide? If many were to do so, perhaps that would validate the idea that such a life isn't worth living, and they needn't have been allowed to be born.
But is that what statistics show?
Even for the disadvantaged or the orphan, we could ask them if they truly wish they were dead or had never been born. That would at least provide some anecdotal evidence worth pursuing. In lieu of that, perhaps we'd do well to risk erring on the side of caution.

No getting around this, ShadowMom: To one degree or another, life is relatively precious (or, at least, worth clinging to). And who are we to play a capricious type of god-role in deciding, pre-emptively, who should be granted birth and who should not?

Here's some information: "Ten years ago there was a 2-year wait on child adoption. While it has decreased somewhat since then, in many cases there are people who are willing to care for rejected children."

So, ShadowMom . . .
As long as there are potential 'parents' waiting -- then, yes, pro-lifers SHOULD talk adoption to you (or to anybody else) as a viable (living) alternative to abortion.

"In some cases, 'Taxpayer dollars' are used to cover these abortions."

In theory, a line is crossed when making those who have objections by conscience to pay for others to do something the former perceive as grossly immoral. To be consistent, pro-lifers should probably also disapprove of making taxpayers with moral objections foot the bill for capital punishment, for example.
(Oh, I know, there are instances where circumstances almost require taxpayers to subsidize various things they don't agree with, but at the moment we're talking about issues of life and death here, so I hope we don't digress too far. Anyway, this whole taxpayer topic is likely quite complex to codify, modify, or enforce. I'm willing to forego contending for it; there are bigger fish to fry.)

"It's very easy to moralize when you are not the person who is affected . . ."

There are no easy answers, just as there are no comfortable answers.
Obviously, pregnancy itself isn't comfortable, and it doesn't conclude without trauma of some sort. So, in a sense, "the person who is affected" (the mother) can't escape some kind of pain, physical or otherwise. . . and most people have sympathy with that. How much more we should have sympathy for the little one she's carrying inside who may have to face a surgeon's instrument of death!
If the question were to be asked, "Who is most affected during an abortion procedure?" -- the answer shouldn't be too difficult to come by.
IN GENERAL:
a) If someone can discount the role of moral absolutes in the lives of most people;
b) If someone can discount the ethical concept of personally avoiding having lethal force used against another life that they're responsible for;
c) If someone can discount the issue of the unborn deserving a chance to have their existence continue outside the womb;
d) If someone can discount the impact of a reasonable alternative to aborting a baby;
THEN:
These attitudes do not impede qualifying for membership in the Pathetic Club.
(Members of the Pathetic Club are not required to hold ethics in high regard.)

P. S. Everybody, including myself, are members of the Pathetic Club now and then -- and when this happens, we deserve pity if not criticism for neglecting responsibility or for failing to live ethically in one way or another.
It's obvious that there are some basic standards of conduct, and each of us knows rather inherently about the value, or lack thereof, of most of the various choices in life.
If positive knowledge can translate to action, then positive change can occur.

"Okay, the choice is very clear. Vote Bush. The guy who has already demonstrated that he will do anything he pleases after winning the election. Great choice."


I'd rather have someone in power that knew what the fuck he was doing. I mean hell when the man sets out to do something he does it. When Kerry sets out to do something he changes his mind 6 times and may never execute his original idea.

"Just as the RIAA has no proof that filesharing is hurting them, lifers have no proof that abortion is actually killing someone whose life has begun, rather than just a protrusion from the original mother's uteral wall."

It's in the DNA. The "extension of the mother" argument fails miserably because it only has half of her DNA. It's not the mother. It's a another biological entity.

And justifying baby killing because "they wouldn't have had a good life" is sick.

So many people think pro-lifers are religious. I'm not at all. It just doesn't make sense to say a mother can kill her baby, but only up to a certain age. And it doesn't make sense to say it's not a human. It's not a personal thing. It's just that the other side doesn't make any sense. Their logic is based on speculation like "they wouldn't have had it good" or on things that aren't even true like "it's not human." Well that's not a whale's DNA in there.. and it's only half yours.

(and that half is half your grandmothers.. maybe she should be able to kill your baby too)

I am so sick of this Bush vs. Kerry shit on this website. No offence but I really want this website to return to normal. You have the right to speak your mind and so do I. Good day.

"I'd rather have someone in power that knew what the fuck he was doing."

Me, too. Too bad your criterion right there might just eliminate both major candidates, and perhaps even some of the third party ones as well.

"I mean, hell, when the man [Bush] sets out to do something he does it."

Caveat # 1: Can his "something" be counted on to be the appropriate thing to do? (Example: In 2002, or even earlier, he made up his mind on flimsy facts that he wanted to attack Iraq.)

Caveat # 2: When "he does it", can he be counted on to do it well?
(Example: In May 2003, he set out to declare an end to hostilities in Iraq.
And now, a year and a half after that, how about those ended hostilities?)

Strong generalities will get you into trouble every time.
Solution: Speak in more subtle generalities, or choose better generalities. . .
....or even better yet, avoid generalities altogether. . . like me and everyone else here always does.

Max, it's all about stirring controversy, because controversy brings in more eyeballs. At least I think that's why they keep trying to push people's buttons around here. It's all very calculating.

If they only posted news relating to RIAA, or shut down these political arguments that have virtually nothing to do with IP, probably people won't visit the site as often. Because as much as we say we don't like it, we are still attracted to it.

I am guilty as charged.

Exactly; I couldn't agree more.

It should be a woman's choice to continue the parasitic existence (INSIDE HER BODY i.e, she can't just hand it off to someone else) of a fetus.
It's so creepy when self-righteous men who will never experience it blather on about carrying a baby to term, as if it were a minor inconvenience rather than an all-consuming physical event.
Fuck you.

Thank you, Carla.

Oh, my goodness! Thank you for your astute remarks.

Let's examine some things here for a few minutes:

Saying "she can't just hand it off" (no, but, in a responsible manner, there is a choice to save that LIFE for HIS or HER own value and right). . .
Saying "parasitic existence" (no one is refuting the five criteria for living organisms; see my post of 3:22 a.m.; additionally, your phrase "parasitic existence" is inherently a tacit acknowledgment of the existence of life). . .
Saying "blather on" (phrase that provokes, unless able to successfully challenge the points, relative wordiness of the points notwithstanding). . .
Saying "self-righteous men" (strident labelling)
Saying "Fuck you" (ultimate offensive language, especially when used WITHOUT equivalent provocation of someone else having first used similar hostile words; common hallmark of those who have limited debating skills OR those who realize the other side has made too many valid points to logically defend against). . .

Hmm. By descending to this level, you surely have revealed an unfavorable side of yourself, Carla. . . perhaps a side that neither gives nor deserves respect?

Insisting on playing hardball leads to outbursts which detracts from the issues in a way that hopes to level the playing field in better form for an otherwise losing side.
A similar ploy is to cast aspersions on your opponent, if you feel at a loss to defend against most of his/her positions.

Okay; you prefer to lower the level of our verbal parlay; acknowledged!

ShadowMom wrote: "Thank you, Carla."

For what? Mounting a successful defense against the points made by TheSherminator and myself?? (Cough, cough!)

. . . OR for doing such a great job of going to the gutter in a way that presumably puts us in our place?? (I'll just defer to let the record speak for itself on that one.)

(I have outside commitments for the rest of the day.
Go ahead and take the time to regroup.)

I believe she thanked me for descending to that level and cutting to the chase: Your rambling verbiage misses the big picture -- a real woman's life.
We can agree to not respect each other on this issue. I don't mind.

"the big picture -- a real woman's life"

No one is devaluing a real woman's life.
YOU, on the other hand, are devaluing a real baby's life (with little or no substance to back you up.)

I get it; it's all about you (and only you).
it's like TheSherminator said previously.
Re-read his posts!


Later.

I disagree -- not a real baby, but a parasitic fetus.

Yes, it is all about me, a woman.
Not you, or your theories.
My body, my choice.

Correct, Carla--and he will never understand.

carla, just tell some woman who's had a miscarriage, "It was only a parasitic fetus, not a baby." I'm sure she'll be much comforted.

I know what a parasite is. I'm not aware of many parasites that have brainwaves. For sure none of them have human DNA *and* an EEG.

You can call it a parasite. You can call it a blob of tissue. Doesn't make it so. The EEG is not a theory. It is objective fact.

ok demandrelevance.. a deconstruction of the points.

This developing baby approaching physical separation from the mother (but even from the latter stages of the first trimester) is already biologically 'alive' in accordance with...
a) having measurable brainwaves;
- actually its more like first measurable brainwaves.
- i know from education about my colitis that the digestive tract has a separate primitive neural system for dealing with automatic functions. Does it count as a separate life too?
- a lobster has many separate brains along its segments.. does it make the lobster a collaboration of organisms instead of one organism
* neural activity does not necessarily mean consciousness. multidecade coma patients have plenty of neural activity but are nonetheless dead to the world.

maybe i should be teaching my intestines to write so i can get writs of release to allow treatment?

b) having a heartbeat with warm blood flowing to developed or developing vital organs;
* a car has an engine.. if you send signals to the car it starts and idles.. tell me how this is different.
*if the organs were developed the baby would be born, and would survive at least under ICU conditions, in the first trimester this is not the case.
*if they are developing then the fetus is still not independent of the mother, because detachment would result in its expiration.. much like an appendage.

c) having the propensity to feel pressure or pain;
*i have cholitis/crohns.. my colon is able to feel and react independently to: pressure, shock, extreme cold, highly acidic food on its own with no central neural control.. in fact the nature of the disorder is that the digestive tract's central nervous system, which does many things independently.. malfunctions.
*better... an insect's leg cannot live long separated from its body.. but if you do so for the brief time it is still living it will react to stimuli on its own
oh please.. please make it illegal to squish bug's legs because the legs have a right to life.
d) having the ability to take in and utilize nourishment;
yes.. through a fancy version of the blood brain barrier. connection to mother's veins does not count as taking in and utilizing nourishment.. it is still either a blood vessel or at best a feeding tube
e) having the ability to make movements.
i refer you back to the insect leg, but also
many parts of the body have a tendency to spasm.. i once again refer to my cholitis as an example of a part of the body with a more or less independent primitive central nervous system.

ALL points you have laid out in the case of a fetus are conditional on the continued connection to the mother's body, and every single one may possibly be just an automated bodily development process which PRECEDES the actual "booting up" of the actual life processes.

I believe the formal definition of life involves all those characteristics WITHOUT continuous connection to an enabling factor such as a placenta or uteral wall.

"It's so creepy when self-righteous men who will never experience it blather on about carrying a baby to term, as if it were a minor inconvenience rather than an all-consuming physical event.
Fuck you."

Someone's been moody lately...

(you're wrong)

yeah sherm, I need to get laid. Thanks for your concern.

It's up to a woman to define the fetus -- future life or unwanted parasitic existence.
Men have no say about it as far as I'm concerned.

How can you say that a man has no right in the birth of his child. No matter what you SELFISH, MURDERING pro abortionist think, that is also the man's child as well. If you don't want children, keep your legs closed. Because there is a true reality that you can become pregnant. You know it will bw funny when you stand before the Lord on Judgement Day and you have to give an account for the MUREDR of these innocent children.

"It's up to a woman to define the fetus -- future life or unwanted parasitic existence."

Now aren't you glad your mother decided your own fate ? Or no ?

How is it up to the woman to define the fetus? If you want to define things, work for Merriam-Webster.

The fetus isn't a future life. It's a current one. We know it's up to the woman to choose. We just say it shouldn't be. If the issue can be made to be so one-sided in this case... then I say if a man tells a woman to get an abortion and she refuses, then he shouldn't have to pay child support.

In deciding if it lives or dies, you're also deciding the financial future of the father. Bullshit. You can't have such power over everyone's lives because it's simply "up to the woman" because it is physically attached to the woman.

John, that's the worst pro-life argument I've ever heard. What "lord"? I've never met a "lord."

"You know it will bw funny when you stand before the Lord on Judgement Day"

Taking joy in her pain is a sin. See you in hell!

"O.K., DemandRelevance... a deconstruction of the points."

Deconstruction or disassembly. . . hmm.
What you've mostly done was dissect each point and offer what you consider to be a separate exception to each criterion, but my five points are not meant to be independent of one other like that. If most or all are present, only then is it adequate to safely surmise that life is also present.
When a biology text lists the characteristics for living things, or for animals, for example, it doesn't necessarily include the connective 'and' between the items, but neither does it include the conjunctive 'or' -- perhaps it's to be assumed that the list is to be taken in totality as opposed to an alternative?

So, then, in response to the points you made:
[criterion a]:
Regarding what you wrote about the lobster or even your GI tract: They may have multiple, separate neural systems, but there's only one [criterion b] heart, so how many organisms are those neural appendages you mentioned a part of? Answer: one.
You also said "neural activity does not prove consciousness" in the case of comatose organisms. I didn't assert how neural activity demonstrated consciousness. That could be a separate issue, but even so, a normally developing baby that has neural activity with a heartbeat and other features such as [criterion e] locomotion will eventually have the mother convincingly reminded that she's carrying something inside that moves (and even kicks) on his/her own.

When you mention the automobile, it doesn't have a constantly locomoting heart, and it doesn't have unique DNA, and it's not going to grow be an adult mammal one day. The car, as you said, has signals sent to it for it to begin moving. The heart of a developing baby is able to make pumping motions on its own without assistance (with the caveat that some cardiac hormones are periodically released to the heart through the bloodstream from the brain). But the heart still moves independently (involuntary muscle). Also, name a machine that is warm-blooded, has unique DNA, has unique sexual characteristics, and can GROW in size.

"If the organs were developed, the baby would be born, and would survive at least under ICU conditions; in the first trimester, this is not the case."

(Pardon my rhetorical questions which follow, in the sense that I do not intend any disrespect)
Where did I say that a developing baby's organs were already complete enough in the first trimester? Where did I say that the concept of a baby's having life can be validated by whether it could survive under ICU conditions if removed from the mother at any continuum from first to third trimester?
Obviously, we both agree that it is not ready to be born, but how does that preclude qualitatively discerning whether it contains the spark of life or not at a given phase of the pregnancy? (And, if it does have life, it can have death.)

As I once said, a fair test for life does not hinge on whether the baby can physically survive independently from another organism; tell me what physically-separated-from-the-mother baby can.
To simplify the debate, I'll offer to focus the discussion on life existing without considering this additional prerequisite of yours. Or, we can narrow the discussion to as pertaining to only the eighth month... at time in which the baby could be aborted (killed) but could also be removed to exist in the care of an ICU.

"If they are still developing, then the fetus is still not independent of the mother, because detachment would result in its expulsion... much like an appendage."

Response: Independence at any given stage of an organism isn't a sole determining factor for the existence of a life force. I can't recall the phylum, but biological science recognizes a certain type of parasite that can never be apart from its host for even a brief time without dying. But, during all this dependent time, it's still considered to be living anyway.
The following is almost a 'duh!' truism: When a baby is physically separated from the mother, it still (very dependently) continues needing constant protection, warmth and nutrients, or it would not survive on its own for more than mere days, if that long.

"My colon is able to feel and react independently to: pressure, shock, extreme cold, highly acidic food on its own with no central neural control."
Oh, but there is central neural control.
Have you studied how the eye, and all other organs, depend upon instaneous interaction with the brain to be able to interpret and respond to any and all changes in the environment? When your hand accidentally touches a hot stove-top, you and your hand have to wait for the brain to give the hand the signal to pull away. (Granted, the time is very fast, but that interaction still occurs.) The brain is the central processing control. The rest of a compluter doesn't work well without the CPU; neither does a body without the brain.
If your GI tract malfunctions, that's an irregularity, an anomaly which deviates from the norm -- maybe there are confusions of signals or whatever, but the brain is still involved, even though its involvement may not be effective in that case.
Note: Even if someone finds a flaw in my descriptions -- even aside from this presssure/sensory argument -- remember that this criterion is not to be used an isolated manner, but in combination with several others. Heck, to put things in the strictist sense, I may be tempted to call life to be present only if all five criteria are being met at any given stage of development. Let's see how that would work!

"Please make it illegal to squish bug's legs, because the legs have a right to life."

This is not valid; yes, the legs are/were a part of the insect's body, BUT . . . (I'm going defer to TheSherminator now):
"[The main difference] is in the DNA. The "extension of the mother" argument fails miserably because it only has half of her DNA. It's not just part of the mother. It's another biological entity."
The human baby is another biological entity than the mother. The bug's legs are not another biological organism.

[d] having the ability to take in and utilize nourishment;
"Yes.. through a fancy version of the blood-brain barrier.
Connection to mother's veins does not count as taking in and utilizing nourishment..."

Your first sentence is fact. The second is opinion.
Which parasite is it -- a tapeworm -- even as an adult doesn't have a stomach of its own, just absorbs nutrients from its host. It's considered living, though.

[e] ability to make movements -- "I once again refer to my cholitis as an example of a part of the body with a more or less independent primitive central nervous system."

And I once again refer to what I previously wrote in response to that former point.
The brain is the CPU; you don't work independently from it or sneak something past it.

"ALL points you have laid out in the case of a fetus are conditional on the continued connection to the mother's body, and every single one may possibly be just an automated bodily development process which PRECEDES the actual "booting up" of the actual life processes."

Okay, things keep falling in place until all the parts are matured enough for natural birth to occur (separation from the mother), and, then, magically, poof! the fetus is officially christened to be alive, right? Er, is that after that auspicious moment when the head is pulled through the birth canal (but before the cord is severed)? I'm confused.
Bottom line: The spark of life has been existing from long before this time (scientifically speaking).
BTW, "conditional on the continued connection to the mother's body" doesn't apply in the eighth month, because the baby can be forcibly removed, put in an ICU and likely survive. So, how about us confining our arguing to that stage or beyond? If you abort it in the eighth month (or even worst of all, the perverted practice known as 'partial birth abortion') there is no question that you have eclipsed life.
Let's see, at the mystic moment accompanying several more inches when the baby's head begins protruding up through the birth canal, suddenly, abracadabra, the not-yet-living becomes living? Oh, wait! The umbilical cord is still attached. We must sever that first, right? Oh, oh, but before that happens, the doctor spanks the baby, and it gasps its first air independendently; oops, I thought it's not technically alive yet until it's physically separated from the mother . . . oh, dear.
Okay, then, is the baby alive at this point before the cord is cut, separating this 'fetus' from its mother?
(You can see how ludicrous some can view the partial birth abortion as a despicable procedure.)
How can we keep from calling a spade a spade?
abortion = killing (A rose by another name is still a rose.)

"I believe the formal definition of life involves all those characteristics WITHOUT continuous connection to an enabling factor such as a placenta or uteral wall."

So, you would say if there's no continuous connection to an enabling factor, then there's no life? (My rationale for putting words in your mouth: If p, then q. If not p, then not q.)
Whoops, then change the biology books to say that parasities are non-living.
(Really, there's no dispute that a developing baby is tantamount to a parasite -- does it have any choice in the matter? Too bad we can't re-design human procreation our own way.

On the other hand, you or anyone is free to believe whatever they wish. . . and in a very real sense, that's what this issue really boils down to: Do we accept the scientific facts and the plausible conclusions attending to same, or do we not? If not, then at least it should be recognized that there is likely an ulterior motive involved in denying both science and common sense!
A wise sage once advised: "To thine own self, be true."

(What I just finished posting was for the attention of awehr and any other analytical reader. But, just in case your name is Carla or ShadowMom, don't give up wondering if I'll respond to the most recent things you wrote while I was away. Tomorrow, check back again.)

Regarding the right to "choose," does anyone really have rights over what they can and can't do?? I mean, I can't legally take drugs, what about my rights?? I knew a girl, she used abortion as her birth control method of choice. At the time I knew her, she had 7 or 8. I asked her why she didn't use some protection, but she never gave me an answer.

DemandRelevance, great post. You have a lot more patience than me.

Capt-n-Jack, I for one think you should be able to take whatever drug you want.

Your friend is cruising for HIV.

Some hold to a 'might makes right' position, as if it's okay for a strong nation to dominate a weaker one. That's an expanded version of a street bully picking on a smaller kid just because he has the power and the inclination to do so.

Of course, then there are legal rights, which, by force of law you can't get into trouble by exercising those.
But here's the hitch: Legal isn't always moral.
Old example: Jim-Crow laws made it legal to discriminate against blacks, but we agree about those being unethical.
New example: The RIAA managed to influence legislators to get DMCA-type laws passed, which circumvent a consumer's rights of use. Most of us on this website have no difficulty seeing this as an unfair law.
But isn't it amazing, when someone points out how other laws exist too which likewise are unfair to a certain party, the reaction often depends upon how the issue affects them personally more than whether it is INTRINSICALLY right or wrong.
Prime example: the taking of the life of a baby.
"Yes, it is all about me, a woman.
My body, my choice."

It's only (?) about the woman . . . her body, her choice?
Nothing to do about another's right to life that's being snuffed out in the process?
That's what I meant about some attitudes reflecting only how the issue affects them rather than whether they could prevail ethically or not in examining an act which likely violates someone else's rights in the process.

(There, I've tried to address Capt-n-Jack's post while still relating back to the abortion issue. . . AND I even mentioned something about the DMCA and the RIAA! Hey, I'm almost germaine again!)

P.S. Thanks, Brandon.

That's what I meant by self-righteous -- you're judging and deciding who should sacrifice.
Just mind your own sacrfices.
My body, my choice. My decision.

"I for one think you should be able to take whatever drug you want."

Granted, people often have POWER available to choose to do certain things. In the larger context, it matters most in instances when the rights of another person might be greviously violated in the process of making a particular choice.

There are degrees of impact.
In the case of deciding to smoke marijuana, for example, it's illegal, of course, but probably there won't be much serious violating of someone else's rights in the process.

On a wider scale, a mindset with a general approach being "Each individual should be able to decide what's fair or if something is right for them or not, regardless of potential consequences to another person" would be patently unethical as well as a threat to the best interests of organized society.
Libertarianism has its limits.

"That's what I meant by self-righteous -- you're judging and deciding who should sacrifice.
Just mind your own sacrfices.
My body, my choice. My decision."

See what I meant by what I had just posted?
I rest my case.
(Not just my case alone . . . BTW, check back to what TheSherminator had written during the past day or so. Who has successfully refuted his points?
Nobody.)

Career duties are calling; must go; check back tonight . . .

I don't read sherm.
I skim yours.
I'm not interested in refuting your nonsense.
You miss the big picture.

And I don't actually mean my'case or TheSherminator's case per se; I mean THE case for what is INTRINSICALLY proper or not in instances where another person's rights are likely to be greviously pre-empted.
Does that type of quest make someone 'self-righteous'??
I'll leave with that thought that the members can pursue.

You see, that's the sticking point. You say another PERSON's rights. A fetus is not a person.
Although apparently in your imagination a fetus is the same thing as a real live woman.

I wouldn't expect you to read. You're full of shit, and you're not going to let anything stop you.

Maybe we should settle this once and for all and see what your favorite celeberty thinks, since that's where intelligent people like you get their information.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one. But what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else? Nothing. In this case, not even the law.

god you're such a twerp

"If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one."

Sounds almost like the phrase "If you don't want an abortion, don't get on."
If you don't want to be pregnant, don't get pregnant.
A pregnancy requires a certain action which is different from catching a cold (which is a parasite). With that actions comes taking responsibility for the possible result of that action.

Of course everyone can argue about this over the next 100 years and no one will change anyone's mind.

It also seems that anyone who considers abortion a minor political issue has stopped reading this thread a long time ago.

"I disagree -- not a real baby, but a parasitic fetus."
Last time I heard it referred to as this was by a crack addict.


"Yes, it is all about me, a woman.
Not you, or your theories.
My body, my choice."
Stop acting like only the men on this site are anti-abortion.
And as for your choice... try a condom, try the pill. As I've said before, 'your' choice was made when you chose unprotected sex. As with everyone else who refuses to face responsiblity, you want the law and others to be responsible for your actions.
You complain about the pain of birth, but have you seen a woman after she's had an abortion?? Not too damn pretty. And pain, discomfort. I know a woman who choose abortion over having a second baby since her first was such a traumatic pregnancy and delivery. She said it was worse than the delivery of her first.
And as for the controlling your body, try saying that to a 17 year old who wanted to keep her baby but was dragged into the clinic by her parents.


"god you're such a twerp"
Okay, I give, was it Sherm or Demand that stood you up at the prom? Because your words reflect those of a man hating teeny bopper who can't get a date.

I'm just giving her shit for being a bitch the last couple weeks. Don't ever rip on celeberties.

"But what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else?"

I'm just telling it how it is. Personally, I don't care what anyone does, unless you're talking to somebody else.

And drugs that severely impair your ability to control yourself should be illegal, because you just hurt others. Alcohol or pcp .. both have no business being legal. At least pcp isn't. There's no reason for marijuana to not be legal.

"Okay, I give, was it Sherm or Demand that stood you up at the prom?"

She did mention needing to get laid. She's still bitter I guess

If you are a woman who is against abortion -- don't have one. But do not presume to make the decision regarding my body for me.
I find your moralistic rantings insulting. Rape? incest? Life of the mother?
If you allow it in some cases, why not all.

Sherm -- does phone sex count? LOL

but if the fetus isn't human, then what is it? It has human DNA. But it's no more than a fraction of the mother's DNA, so it can't be just "part of the mother." It is parisitic in nature, but it is also human. If you don't like humans growing on you, then you shouldn't "make babies."

If it's "your body" and all of that, then why go through abortion anyway? Why not just get the shot? It's more convenient. That way there's no invasion of your body by an evil baby parasite, and there's no killing babies either.

Look, everyone's goal is to reduce the need for abortions. There is risk and unpleasantness with any medical procedure. But sometimes things happen, and aborion should always be an option and a woman's choice, because pregnancy affects a woman's life like nothing else -- and certainly nothing a man could ever experience.

Sherminator,

For one you will never see me in hell, because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my savior. Trust me when you die you will stand before the King of Kings and be judged for all that you have done on this earth. I do not take pleasure in her pain. Obviously you did not read what I said correctly. Also, I am not for Murdering innocent children. I do believe that we all choices to make in our lives. God has given us free will to make choices, right or wrong.

Carla,

Abortion affects a man's life as well. Whether you want to believe it or not, that child is part of the father as well.

yes, but the fetus isn't living parasitically inside him. big difference
Hands off my organs!
Later!

"Hands off my organs!"

But it's okay for a surgeon to have HIS hands on tools that would be used to terminate a living being inside you?

Hmm. Do tell.

Ok, I'll bite. Taking your "my body, my decision" argument to the next level, what about legalizing all drugs. By your statement, it's my body, therefor, it's my right to do what I want with it, right? how about smoking in public? It's my body, I can do with it what I want, right?

How dare anyone tell me that I can't use drugs, drink and drive, and smoke in a public place.

Hands off my organs unless i consent. You knew I meant that didn't you? Why draw ridiculous distinctions.

Yeah, I think drugs should be legalized. Being in public (and driving under the influence) is another matter.

And while it's not advisable I also think you cannot arrest a pregant woman for behavior that endangers her fetus (including drinking and drugs). I would certainly counsel her against it, but it's her body.

Suicide should be legal too.

"If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one. But what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else?"
"You say another PERSON's rights. A fetus is not a person."

"A fetus is not human."
Well, that's not a whale's DNA in there.. and it's only half yours.
-- The Sherminator

Rationale:

First, let's try to draw a fair distinction between 'impose' and persuade. There is a discernible difference. Impose and compel connote a forcible approach, but convince and persuade do not. (Source: Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.) I say this to dispute the contention that I have been trying to compel anyone.
Now, a convincing case can be persuasive in and of itself, assuming someone takes the time to read it; *cough*. (And the case under question IS objectively convincing.)
Notwithstanding, some people perceive any attempt to convince or persuade as being cogently imposing. (Perhaps that depends on one's personality? Who knows. Anyhow, word-study class dismissed!)

I will confess to being an idealistic visionary endeavoring to elevate ethics and to prioritize basic rights. First priority: life Second priority: individual liberties Third priority: personal preferences
Guiding protocol: integrity

In instances where the law can be reasonably demonstrated to be on the wrong side of morality, it's fair game to bring the issue to the public's attention -- especially when human lives are potentially at stake. But, in order to make the case, the evidence for life before birth has to be preponderant.
(And, yes, a study of biology and genetics both validate it.)
Once that is established and presented, the reaction may still not be favorable, but at least the important information is available which then leads to the conclusion of it being scientifically inaccurate to state that life isn't existing inside a pregnant mother.

It's not just a mass of protoplasm; it's not just an appendage; it's not just a protrusion from the uterine wall; it's not just a parasitic intrusion worthy of disposal. Enter the realm of science.
It's a separate, unique DNA-embodied biological entity which (from the beginning of the second trimester) already exhibits these authorative characteristics of a mammalian chordate possessing a bonafide life-force:
a) active brain waves;
b) measurable heartbeat with circulating warm blood;
c) growth processes together with occasional locomotion;
d) responses to pain or pressure;
e) cellular attributes indicative of mammals;
f) unique DNA as contrasted to the mother's;
g) differentiated gender characteristics.

BTW: "Pregnant" -- Definition #1: ". . . with child" (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, latest edition)

Many people may not consider the abortion issue to be important politically -- but that does not detract from it being a matter of life or death. Hopefully, time will bring change favorable to preserving the existence of the unborn.

Even in the face of facts, some people may not WANT to change their mind for any number of reasons:
1) they have a personal stake in maintaining their position regardless of new evidence presented; or,
2) they pragmatically decide to utilize the most convenient solution to a problem pregnancy; or,
3) they may choose to focus on minimizing the significance by speculatively comparing abortion to worst-case alternatives. Example: abortion should ostensibly remain feasible so as to prevent the possibility of an unwanted child not being adopted.
"Justifying baby killing because 'they might not get a good life' is sick." (TheSherminator)

Sometimes an attitude is similar to this: "My mind is already made up; don't clutter this (emotionally-charged) issue with facts!"
Or perhaps equivalent to: "I want to do what best suits myself, regardless.... especially if it isn't against the law."
Or possibly pulling rank: "You're not a woman." (implication being that men should have no significant input regarding what is to be done with the child being carried inside the woman)
"If the issue can be made to be so one-sided in this case... then I say if a man tells a woman to get an abortion and she refuses, then he shouldn't have to pay child support.
In deciding if it lives or dies, you're also deciding the financial future of the father. Bullshit. You can't have such power over everyone's lives by having it be all 'up to the woman' simply because it is physically attached to the woman." (TheSherminator)

It's the 'regardless' arrogance that is the most disturbing. . . being determined to justify neglecting the right of a defenseless baby and dooming it to death.
I'm at a loss for an adjective that could aptly describe that type of perspective.

Choose . . . not to follow conventional mores which take a cavalier approach to snuffing out the life of an unborn infant.

"The beauty of being pro choice.. is letting people do what they as individuals think is right."

No, rather, the tragedy of tolerating abortion is letting a baby die unnecessarily without honoring his/her individual right to life.

"You miss the big picture (a real woman's life.)"

No, YOU miss the big picture. The big picture involves more than a real-live woman; it includes a real-live infant inside, growing and waiting to continue existing outside of you.

"You're judging, by deciding the woman should sacrifice."

Exactly. Sacrificing convenience can avoid sacrificing the baby's life.

"Mind your own business."

Preserving innocent human life should be everybody's business.

"If you don't like humans growing in you, then you shouldn't make babies". (TheSherminator)
Okay, it can be granted that accidents can happen, or carelessness can occur, but either way, nature can be harsh; we all know that unprotected sex can lead to serious consequences... and if one of those happens to be an uwanted pregnancy, then try to make the best of things for that other life as well as for yourself. At least be responsible after the fact!
Don't just look to "the law and others to be responsible for your actions".
(that last phrase credited to SkippyQSB)

"For one you will never see me in hell, because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my savior."

Congratulations?

"I do not take pleasure in her pain. Obviously you did not read what I said correctly."

You said it'd be "funny" for her to stand before the King of Kings of All Things Great and Holy Who Gives Us Free Will Just So He Can Punish Us When We Die For Using It Because He Has Nothing Better To Do With His Power. How is that not taking pleasure in her pain?

"First, let's try to draw a fair distinction between 'impose' and persuade."

Thank you.

DemandR, your "objective" evidence has persuaded you. You think it's "objective" enough to persuade others. Awher has presented alternative facts more persuadable in my opinion.

Keep talking, you may convince a woman who is undecided about abortion and I say good for you, I want her to feel right about her decision.

Your "objective" evidence is semantics. You call a fetus a real live infant; that's your own twisted opinion. To me, it is objective and obvious that a fetus is not a real live infant.

I will NEVER, NEVER permit your opinions to become the law again. We will fight you forever.

I sure hope you're saving all your sperm. Wouldn't want to waste all that precious DNA.

Carla, just out of curiosity, did you read my rebuttals what Awehr had written -- and, if so, which of those points are in error? ONLY if those points are in error can you properly say that it is "twisted" of me (and also of science) to maintain that those characteristics (of a living mammal) do not demonstrate life existing within the placenta of a pregnant mother! Logic will not allow a valid denial for any other reason; either those criteria are incorrect (and if so, go do battle with biology), or you are incorrect.
And also, it's not just MY 'semantics' -- go ahead and rewrite Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, then, because part of its first definition of "pregnant" includes the words "with child". Check it out.

"To me, it is objective and obvious that a fetus is not a real live infant. "

Hmm, I get it; even with common sense aside, this actually becomes Carla vs. science and Webster.
What a match-up.

Evidence aside, "to me, it is objective and obvious" that the earth does not revolve about the sun.

[buzzer sounding!]
semantic misuse of the word 'objective' in the phrase "to me, it is objective"; i.e., "to me" denotes subjectivity

Actually that is the distinction right there.

A sperm has 23 chromosomes and is not a person. An egg has 23 chromosomes and is not a person. Conception is when the two come together to create a person with 46 chromosomes. And that is the point when life begins.

It's impossible to argue with a crazy person. I'll give you the defintion later.

"my rebuttals what Awehr had written" should have been
"my rebuttals to what Awehr had written"

You know what, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this. We will never agree. My common sense is better than your common sense. I'm following my own conscience. toodles

"It's impossible to argue with a crazy person. I'll give you the defintion later."

I don't need it; and what Einstein said about it can't apply to you?

How about a trade-off: I'm crazy, and you're ignorant.

That's fair; it's one master-degree-toting person calling another master-degree-toting person street names?
(Remember, you started it with the "crazy" label. Wait, you actually the started the ugly stuff quite awhile ago when you said "Fuck you".)

[Exhaunt.]

Carla, forgive me for not getting into this "debate". Abortion is a very personal decision. Although I never had to make such a decision, I would fight for every woman's right to do so.

Lachatte;
Abortion is "a woman's right" in a legal sense, but it is not a constitutional "right", nor does a legal right necessarily make it an ethical right.
(Example: past Jim-Crow laws)
Many choices involve the use of power. We have the power to do wrong things. If a certain act denies a right for an innocent human to continue existing, then that's wrong.
Science and Webster agree that a baby awaiting birth is alive.

"agree" should have been "are in accord"

It's only your opinion that abortion is not "ethical".

"It's only your opinion that abortion is not 'ethical'."

How can abortion be 'ethical' when there is an innocent living being involved?

I know Lachatte, I want to stay out of it. His arguments are circular. His opinions are "facts" and he has his own "scientific facts." His definitions are "facts." He has his own pseudo-logical world concocted (the way paranoid schizophrenics do).
I'm taking a deep breath and moving on.
What's going on with this board anyway? Are we under attack?

"It's only your opinion that abortion is not "ethical"."

No shit? And it's only your opinion that it is.

It's pretty hard to get away from the DNA argument. It's a human. People dehumanize the fetus to rationalize their decision.

I guess it's better than killing them when they're 14 for being little brats. Whatever works. see ya.

"My common sense is better than your common sense."

Facts (science and Webster) speak loudly enough, they don't need your common sense or mine to add to it -- only common sense to either accept them or try to refute them. But, if you think YOU know better than science and Webster about what's true or not (without presenting a shred of substance to the contrary)...oh, wow.

"I'm following my own conscience."

A conscience that dismisses the right to life of an infant?
(God help you.)
But, it must be granted, you DO have that kind of power in your control (to follow your own way in opposition to the reality of truth).

"His arguments are circular."

I had no choice but to keep returning back to the established facts because of how you continued to ignore them or say they were merely 'opinions'. I have stayed on course with what science says. You haven't wavered, either, in YOUR stance, BUT biology and Webster are not on your side. If you disagree with THEM, then come up with some tangible evidence to contradict them!!
Otherwise, your position is untenable if not ludicrous.

"His opinions are 'facts', and he has his own 'scientific facts'. His definitions are 'facts'."

Okay, if you had a pet dog that brought you the morning paper, I guess the headlines are his doing. He brought you the news, so he's got to be responsible, and therefore you can cast disdain at will! (And if you disagree with the news, go ahead and blame the dog.)
Well, you know what they say about the bringer of truthful bad news. . .
[taking an exasperated breath] Look, the facts that I presented can speak for themselves without my opinions (or yours) to add or detract from them, dear lady! Where have you refuted any of them? At least Awehr gave it a good try with his challenges, and I admire him for that.
But you, my friend, have chosen to intentionally IGNORE objective, demonstrable scientific facts as well as dictionary definitions! That HAS to qualify you for some kind of label (guess which one).

"What's going on with this board anyway? Are we under attack?"

Oh, my. Did you have to take leave of a misguided comfort zone for awhile? Poor thing!

TheSherminator wrote: "It's pretty hard to get away from the DNA argument. It's a human. People dehumanize the fetus to rationalize their decision."

I wish I had the ability to be as concise as him. We're both on track with the truth, but he presents it better, I must admit.

Your "facts" have been refuted. You are boring.

Webster definitions are not facts.

Fetus does not equal a live infant.
Yes, sperm plus eggs is potential human, but it is NOT the same reality as a live woman (FACT!). A woman is infinitely more worthy of consideration than a fetus. That's my ethics. You don't like my ethics, too bad.


And there is no god.

"Your 'facts' have been refuted."

IN YOUR DREAMS!

In all sincerity, I'd like to ask: What facts have been refuted? Name some.
Did you read my rebuttals to Awehr's challenges? YOU NEED TO. (See the posting of Date: October 28, 2004 @ 1:27 AM)
No one has discredited those rebuttals to his challenges.

"He has his own pseudo-logical world concocted (the way paranoid schizophrenics do)".

Inside or outside 'my world', I admit to being 'crazy' . . . about insisting on logic and facts.
Now, what would we have to say about you and your world?

How about the condescending image of an ostrich burying her head under some sand?

I recall reading about the two cranial hemispheres thing.
Some people choose to remain right-brain oriented even when they know deep inside they should periodically venture into the left area to use logical reasoning or to objectively examine evidence ....'should', meaning if they cared about USING all of their intelligence.

"Fetus does not equal a live infant."

The fetus is not yet born BUT IS STILL LIVING. So what if it's a 'parasite' for awhile; it's still living and you know it.
Who are you, mother or not, to pass judgements on the comparative value of life? (That a baby living within you is unworthy of being kept alive to be brought forth for existing outside of you? How arrogant.)

Of course, you can never admit that the pregnant mother is carrying a live child inside -- because of what "Sherm" and others (including BrandonH) have said several times. You know what they're talking about.
It is NOT just a "potential" human. Your reasoning is predicated on discrediting the applicable scientific body of knowledge that demonstrates how a fetus IS alive.
At any cost, to maintain your flimsy facade, the rationale to justify the abortion action must be maintained somehow.
"TheSherminator" wrote about the ploy of dehumanizing the fetus to rationalize your decision.

"Webster definitions are not facts."

No? Okay, then, let's see you refute Mr. Webster's definition from some OTHER established realm of academics...
Evidence from biology is overwhelming, so above all, don't go looking there!

Next, for an encore, are you going to say that scientific facts are not facts? It would be hard for you to top that!
(You may as WELL do so, for all the sense you've been making so far.)

"A woman is infinitely more worthy of consideration than a fetus. That's my ethics."

It doesn't HAVE to be just one of you getting considered. BOTH of you are important, and deserve the right to life.
The human fetus is alive and worthy of an alternative to the prospect of just being arbitrarily disposed of.
Again, for you, your decision must be rationalized by dehumanizing the fetus...even though that's something that science won't let you get away with!

A professor once told his class that there aren't any moral absolutes. A student asked if the professor was "absolute-ly sure." The professor, somewhat annoyed, managed to evade the question.

For him, that was a way to keep from having to be accountable.

And then there is the technique of evading established facts.
Some people seem to become skilled at doing THAT.
(Not a noble distinction, but not nearly as ignoble as terminating the life of a baby unnecessarily.)

"A woman is infinitely more worthy of consideration than a fetus. That's my ethics."

Your response: It doesn't HAVE to be just one of you getting considered. BOTH of you are important, and deserve the right to life.
The human fetus is alive and worthy of an alternative to the prospect of just being arbitrarily disposed of.
_______________
According to my beliefs, a woman and her life is the most important consideration and while she is pregnant, the ONLY consideration. End of story.

The scientific fact: A fetus is not a sentient being in the SAME WAY a BORN baby is, or a real woman is. A fetus is alive in the same way as any other protoplasm is alive (ask codewarrior, MD). A cockroach, a dog, a cute chimpanzee. Heart, lungs, primitive digestive system. Sounds like a frog to me. Potential is not the same as acutal. Them's my facts. Science supports me and YOU are the one who ignores the difference. You cling to a fantasy about a fetus being a baby. That's not a fact, it's your opinion. Look up the definitions of fetus and baby.

To summarize: the fact which I have refuted is that a fetus is the same as a baby.

Arrogant and selfish? Yes and proud of it.

DR: My mother-in-law died this morning in a nursing home. The hospital moved her there on Thursday because the insurance companies would not continue to pay for her stay (due to the diagnosis/prognosis). Following all the red tape, my husband was able to secure a bed, qualified nursing care, etc. yesterday in order to have her transported via ambulance to her home today.
DR: If you haven't done so lately, visit a metropolitan hospital, a couple of nursing homes, and then come back and argue about life and dignity, and the sanctity of life.

George Ziemann posted this story about Preserve A Life on his site: http://www.azoz.com/

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2004-10-28/news/feature_1.html

"And there is no god."

haha, oooh. Take that John 316.

("Arrogant and selfish? Yes and proud of it." Me too!)

My deepest sympathy, Lachatte, to you and your family.

What's it all about, Shermie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Shermie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
or are we meant to be kind?

Sorry, feeling silly. Too much chocolate.

My condolences as well, Lachatte.

carla, I don't know what it's about. That's why I'm just arguing the side that makes the most logical sense to me, and why I said I really don't care one way or the other about it.

To be consistent with other laws, it should be illegal. A man who punches a woman kills the fetus is guilty of murder. The laws don't make sense and I hate crap like that.

I think we're meant to be natural. If you want to take more than you give, then do it. Nature takes care of the rest, right? The defective people will stop reproducing. So they say anyway.

You are to be commended for addressing specific issues.
So, let's deal with your most recent quotes.

"A fetus is alive in the same way as any other protoplasm is alive....
Heart, lungs, primitive digestive system. Sounds like a frog to me.
Potential is not the same as actual.
You cling to the fantasy about a fetus being a baby."

YOU cling to the fantasy about an unborn baby not deserving the right to continue existing. (But, as others on this forum have mentioned previously, you know that rationalizing is necessary to try to justify abortion.)

First, we agree that a fetus is alive.
(Alright, it's alive, you say, but so is a frog.)

"It's pretty hard to get away from the DNA argument. That's not a whale's DNA in there [or a frog's]. It's a human. If the fetus isn't human, then what is it? It has human DNA.
The fetus isn't a future life. It's a current one.
How is it up to the woman to define the fetus?
If you want to define things, work for Merriam-Webster.
[How is it that] a man who punches a pregnant woman and kills the fetus is guilty of murder.”
(TheSherminator)

It's alive (not potentially alive).
And, it's human 'aliveness', (not potential human aliveness, not frog or whale aliveness).

Carla said: "In summary, the fact which I have refuted is that a fetus is the same as a baby."

Checking Webster’s authority (which may be at slight variance with yours):
“fetus”: the unborn young of an animal
“baby”: the born young of an animal
“pregnancy”: condition of being “with child”

In pursuing to find differences, you’ve facilitated a distinction (born vs. unborn), but:
Regardless, all other basic facts still apply (aliveness; DNA human-ness; and so forth).
Also, you once snickered at the thought of the word ‘pre-born’; but, you know what? According to those three definitions above, that term should logically be permitted. All living humans are either born or are awaiting birth! (Not that certain ones awaiting birth won’t receive death instead.)

With a developing baby, there’s an on-going maturation process that continues onward throughout adult life. Comparing different levels?
A fourteen year old and a thirty-year old aren't the same either -- but how does that detract from the ESSENTIAL fact that they are both humans? (They're both alive and both have human DNA, and no one denies their right to life by assessing comparative 'value' judgements.)
OTHERWISE, with an air of finality, I could simply say: "Attention: I have refuted the notion that a teenager is the same as an adult." That would be a stroke of brilliance on my part.
Or, why bother with financial planning of a future college education for a toddler? His/Her body, mind, and social level currently only have a 'potential' for reaching that stage of sophistication; but potential is not ‘current reality"...so, is it only the current reality that determines what is done in, or FOR, life? What kind of convoluted thinking would that be?

All humans possessing a spark of life, BORN or UNBORN, are alive . . . no matter WHERE that living human is residing. Think about that.

Living mammals must develop from some point on after conception, but they’re not inanimate during this development process.
Oh, we could resort to some musing:
What a waste of time for a chicken to lay an egg and then have to sit on it for three weeks. Too bad she can't just 'lay' a matured chick.
Or, too bad a woman has to be pregant for so long (actually, no sarcasm intended on that one).
IF only she could just wave a magic wand (assuming she really wanted a baby), and wake up the next morning bulging at full term!

Regarding potential vs. actual reality, as your quote implied:
Consider the eighth month of human pregnancy.
At that time, there is a 'potential' for either full term, OR for pre-maturely taking the baby out to be independently existing apart from the mother, though then perhaps still connected to some support (in this case, in the special ICU instead of remaining connected to the mother).
Carla, at the eighth month, the unborn baby inside the mother is alive, but would you imply that this eighth-month waiting-to-be-born baby has merely the ‘potential’ for human-being aliveness (a potential that isn’t realized until the act of birthing)? Is that the hair you wish to split, or the value judgement you prefer?

You can't have things both ways. Either the eighth-month baby is a living human or it isn't a living human. To maintain it doesn’t yet possess a sort of higher level of human-aliveness until the birthing process... and then acting to summarily preclude the attainment of that level, would be tantamount to deciding who deserves the right to live or die... and ethics (not to mention individual liberties of a living human) just went out the window.

Summary:
We have the power to terminate the infant’s life; we have the power to make him/her suddenly be separated from the mother and connected to an artifical means of support in the ICU; or we may have the power to allow it to finish naturally to full term.
In none of those instances are we reasonably able to say that there is no human life at stake that isn’t worthy to be allowed to advance to birthing status!
And, rhetoric aside, that summary is a primary tenet that takes the wraps off the abortion rationale.

"The scientific fact: A fetus is not a sentient being in the SAME WAY a BORN baby is."

Hmm, you hope you’ve found another distinction there somewhere to grasp at! (Yes, I know your cause is obligated to focus on any argument that can try to avoid a certain semblance of responsibility for the the act of taking an innocent life.)
Have you seen (probably not) the graphic video of a how a baby child tries to fight and struggle while grimacing as the surgeon's lethal tool begins to do its work?
I have, and I'll never forget that pathetic image.
If you HAVE seen it, then try to say how that was more of a stimulus-reponse reaction than "sentient" activity involved!
Both unborn young and born young feel pain or presssure and can respond to stimuli. Both are alive and have sensory organs.

During the moment when the infant is removed from the birth canal, or extracted by C-section, there is no dramatic transformation from one degree of human-aliveness to another higher level that would justify a rationale for killing him/her before birth.

Both born and waiting-to-be-born humans are living -- but, are you trying to make a distinction of (gasp!) worthiness in regards to one degree of human aliveness vs. another . . . so that one level of aliveness is quite comparatively inferior to the other . . . but then, IN THE SAME STROKE, DENY HIS/HER OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE to the ‘preferred’ level? IF so, then that perspective smacks of an ultimate form of discrimination against humankind!

BTW, if it's a common-sense FORM of MURDER -- manslaughter, whatever -- for a person to kill a woman's fetus against her will, isn't there something to be reasonably inferred from that? (i.e., relative preciousness and RIGHTS OF HUMAN LIVES at any stage)

Summation:
According to at least seven established criteria from biology, both born and unborn (DNA-verifiable) humans possessing those special characteristics are ALIVE.
ALL living humans are either born or are awaiting birth.
ALL living humans have an inherent right to life. *
How can common sense, let alone science and Webster, be dismissed in regard to these crucial issues?

Concerning: “...dignity and the sanctity of life”:
I AM appalled at negligence and mistreatment-- and worst of all, the unnecessary causing of death by abuse, capriciousness, or even convenience -- of any innocent human being. All of that is terrible.
Life at ANY level should be treated with respect.


Thank you for reading all of this!

* [Members: Please don’t bring up capital punishment or euthanesia; we’ve got enough on our hands without going there.]

I had written:
"Have you seen (probably not) the graphic video of a how a baby child tries to fight and struggle while grimacing as the surgeon's lethal tool begins to do its work?"

Sorry; some words got left out. The sentence should have been:
"Have you seen (probably not) the graphic video of a how a baby child inside the mother tries to fight and struggle while grimacing as the surgeon's lethal tool begins to do its work?"

Ever see a cockroach run? Yep, I feel sorry for it before it's squashed. Even more with a mouse.
But it's me or it.
I win.

“I feel sorry for it . . . but it’s me or it. I win.”

As I granted you previously, you do have the power of life or death in this issue. But does might make right?

BTW, isn’t there an option for having the baby born and allowed to live...under someone else’s care?
Or don’t you think a human life is worth saving...by taking the baby to term....and giving him or her a chance to make a life of its own?

I wrote: "As I granted you previously, you do have the power of life or death in this issue."

The proper meaning would have been better conveyed if I had written:
"Indeed, you do have the power of life or death in this issue."

Taking a baby to term?
Being pregnant is not some picnic.

Common Discomforts

Backache
Mood Changes
Breast Changes
Muscle Cramps
Flat or Inverted Nipples
Nausea and Vomiting
Constipation
Nosebleeds and Bleeding Gums
Hemorrhoids
Pelvic Discomfort or Sciatica
Frequent Urination
Shortness of Breath
Difficulty Sleeping
Skin Changes
Fatique
Stretch Marks
Headache
Stuffy Nose/Food or Chemical Allergies
Heart Pounding
Swelling (Feet, Legs and Hands)
Heartburn or Intestinal Gas Vaginal Discharge/Yeast Infections
Light-Headedness/Dizziness
Varicose Veins

If you have a chronic health condition, such as diabetes or asthma, it is very important that you see your health care provider throughout your pregnancy.

Too bad men can't have any of this fun.

"Taking a baby to term?
Being pregnant is not some picnic."

True. That's quite a list of discomforts; being pregnant to term is undoubtedly a sacrifice.


Does that mean you choose to end the baby's life rather than have him/her be born...to be cared for by someone else?

It means women should have the choice.
And as I said a fetus is not a baby.

"Too bad men can't have any of this fun."

With all due respect, we do have to listen to you bitch about it. And we're just not wired for that shit

(joke, don't kill me)

"Taking a baby to term?
Being pregnant is not some picnic:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (etc.)"

True. That's quite a list of discomforts; being pregnant to term undoubtedly is a sacrifice and deserves to be recognized as such.

Would you choose to end his/her life rather than have it be born and cared for by someone else?

“It means women should have the choice.
And a fetus is not a baby.”

Fact: A woman has the legal choice to terminate the existence of the living, developing human that she's carrying inside.
Fact: The Jim-Crow laws were LEGAL without being FAIR . . . they trampled on the rights of others by discrimination.
Conclusion: Legal choices are not necessarily ethical choices.

Fact: A human 'fetus' is a developing offspring awaiting birth.
Fact: Different people may have different priorities.
(Nomenclature may be more important to some people than the substantive issue of whether it is moral to capriciously terminate the life of the not-yet-born.)

“....women should have the choice.”

. . . to end the life of the little human they’re carrying inside, if they so desire, simply because the law is on their side.

Does might make right?

Ethical issue: What you’re carrying inside is a human life. It’s not born yet, but it’s still a living human. You’re a living body that’s nurturing a living body inside you. Is it right or wrong to kill an innocent human life?
Legally, we know about the judicial ruling that allows it...

“And a fetus is not a baby.”

A human fetus is a living offspring that HASN’T been born yet; a human baby is a living offspring that HAS been born. For below, Webster was used:

offspring: child; progeny
human fetus: an unborn offspring
human baby: a born offspring; infant
human pregnancy: condition of being “with child”

Rationale: If the term ‘fetus’ is used to imply that the little (developing) human life being carried inside is of relatively minor value because of its not-yet-born condition, then why is it considered to be murder or manslaughter if a person assaults a pregnant woman so that the ‘fetus’ dies? [TheSherminator’s exact idea, rephrased]
The offender may opine in protest by saying, “A fetus is not a baby.”
That doesn’t change the fact that the little human is now dead!
The DIFFERENCE IS NOT JUST NOMENCLATURE -- it is that the offender has a vested interest in diminishing the effect of the action (termination of life) that has occurred!

Discounting a fact is an individual choice, but the fact remains unaltered.

How can anyone logically say that a waiting-to-be-born human offspring isn’t alive (fact) and doesn’t have a right to be allowed to keep living? Only if they don’t believe in the value of the life of the child being carried inside. (pregnant = condition of “with child”)
Fact: Both the born and the unborn are living beings.

Fact: The Jim-Crow laws were legal without being fair; i.e., they were discriminatory.
Fact: Not all laws are ethical; i.e., some laws violate the rights of others.
Fact: A human “fetus” is a living, developing offspring.
Ethical conclusion: Those who diminish the value of waiting-to-be-born human offspring in comparison to those who are already born -- but at the same time choosing to capriciously deny the opportunity for that waiting-to-be-born human to continue existing and have a chance to achieve the next level (birth) -- are discriminating.
Doesn’t a human offspring have a right to life, to keep living inside and outside the mother?
Isn't the right to life a greater priority than the right to convenience or comfort?

Some pregnant women feel that they should have the right to terminate the life that's maturing within them.
(Ethics aside, that opinion IS supported by judicial decision, notwithstanding it being at variance with our nation’s founding documents.)

Fact: According to at least seven established criteria from biology, both born and pre-born (DNA-verifiable) humans possessing those seven special characteristics are ALIVE.
(BTW, that’s a fact that cannot be dismissed by the use of the word ‘fetus’.)
It’s alive in its own right, though not independently alive. (Being alive is not the same thing as ‘potentially alive’).
And, it's DNA-human aliveness, (not ‘potential human aliveness’, not frog or whale aliveness).

Fact: Therefore, by logic, it follows that ALL LIVING HUMANS are either born or are awaiting birth.
Fact: A human fetus is a living organism, developing toward the birthing event.
Ethical issue: A human fetus has a right to continue existing and be born.
Living humans -- born or not-yet born -- have an inherent right to life.
Fact: Despite this, a pregnant mother is permitted to terminate the life of the child that she’s carrying.
Fact: Not all laws are necessarily moral or fair. (Some laws govern human behavior in a way that may violate ethical principles of right and wrong.)
Ethical issue: Some people opine that a not-yet-born human’s LIFE is of LESS importance than a pregnant woman’s right to terminate it.
This speaks to ‘choice’ on moral grounds.

How about bringing a famous set of truths into the picture:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unaliable rights...among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
(Note the priority of the listing of the rights.)

---------------------------------------X [snip!]

One last issue:
“There is no god.”

You hope.
Remember the incident about the professor who stated, “There are no moral absolutes”? (Someone asked him if he was ‘absolute-ly’ sure.)

Fact: The existence of a spiritually powerful being (to whom people may ultimately be accountable) cannot be proven or disproven.

Fact: Some people choose to err on the side of caution; some don’t.


Adieu!