Replies

Now there's a reasonable argument!

I don't think it's factually accurate. I think teaching abstinance is about as effective as teaching the dangers of smoking, drinking, and drugs is to stopping those abuses. It works well only when dealing with those least at risk (Those pre-disposed by background and temperament to accepting it).

None the less it should be part of every sex education program. Almost anything is better than abortion.

My preference is for ever better contraceptives, morning after pills, and the compromise I suggested earlier: early pregnancy testing, and legal, penalty-free abortions only in the third, fourth, or early fifth month, with severe penalties thereafter (with caveats for difficult and unusual situations).

Where liberals and conservatives - especially religious conservatives - differ is in the purpose of sex. The former regard it as an unalloyed pleasure (with some risk as is the case with most pleasures). The latter as a sacred gift intimately associated with procreation. Neither side will succeed in converting the other to its point of view.

As for what constitutes a human being. There too we differ. I do not find a fertilized egg to be one. My view is the transition is gradual, and does not complete itself until maturity. When one decides to call a mass of cells a living human being is somewhat arbitrary - but if one is going to terminate a pregnancy sooner is much, much better than later.

There's not many consequences for not abstaining. And allowing abortion removes one of the big consequences. Abortion, in effect, incourages non-abstinance.

This is a gross exageration - or sophistry. Only the most degraded women regard abortion with equanimity.

Let me finish the thought I begin in Post #351.

Modern contraceptives make, or will soon make, the debate about abortion moot. It is, or will soon be, a red herring.

The debate is really about sexual license. Remove unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases from the arena and resistance to license collapses - and with it the whole religious structure built on that resistance.

Where does that leave us? Where are we headed? Who knows? Sodom and Gommorah? Babel? Perhaps. But we only know those places through the eyes of the Israelites. I might have thought them to be delightfully civilized and the Israelites primitive, destructive savages.

But look what happened to them? Well, look what happened to the Israelites.

Almost anything is better than abortion.

I find your comments fascinating. Why do you say that almost anything is better than abortion? What's wrong with it?
You stated earlier that there's a real dispute on when a 'fertilized egg' becomes a person? This raises a couple of questions in my mind:
For what period of time do you think that the ontological designation, 'fertilized egg' appropriatly applies to a new human being?
Since you are apparently asserting the distinction, what's the difference between a human being and a person? When did this distinction first appear?
I always thought that human beings were personal beings. That's just the kind of beings humans are. What other kind of being could they be? Personhood is one of the properties of being human, just like volume is one of the properties of a cube. In the same way that there is no such thing as a cube without volume, there is no such thing as a human being who is not a person.

My preference is for ever better contraceptives, morning after pills, and the compromise I suggested earlier: early pregnancy testing, and legal, penalty-free abortions only in the third, fourth, or early fifth month, with severe penalties thereafter (with caveats for difficult and unusual situations).

Why the time period restrictions of third, fourth, or early fifth month for penalty-free killing of the 'fertilized egg'? What does 'early fifth' month mean? The tenth day of the month? The fifteenth? Presumably it can't mean anything later that 15 and 1/2, otherwise it couldn't properly be called the 'early' part of the month. So if it's say, the 10th, and the abortion is committed on the 11th, then by what legal or moral principle do you justify punishment or non-punishment over the difference of one day?

As for what constitutes a human being. There too we differ. I do not find a fertilized egg to be one. My view is the transition is gradual, and does not complete itself until maturity. When one decides to call a mass of cells a living human being is somewhat arbitrary - but if one is going to terminate a pregnancy sooner is much, much better than later.

Ontologically and scientifically speaking, it is the height of irrationality to try to describe a human fertilized egg as anything other than a living human being. Your functionalistic assignment of humanity to some ill-defined stage of 'maturity' is what is abritrary, and morally is no different than the assertion that any human being who has not reached the great-grandparent stage of development is not fully human.

But again, you say if one is going to 'terminate a pregnancy' sooner is much, much better than later. First, what do you mean by "terminate a pregnancy"? I don't know about you, but I terminated my mother's pregnancy by being born. But anyway, WHY is 'sooner' much better than 'later'? Why, if the 'fertilized egg' is not a person, or a human being, or if that designation can just be subjectively assigned by whomever, whenever, then why in the world is 'sooner' 'much better than later'? If there's nothing wrong with the killing, what difference does it make when it occurs?

Cordially,

I don't think it's factually accurate. I think teaching abstinance is about as effective as teaching the dangers of smoking, drinking, and drugs is to stopping those abuses. It works well only when dealing with those least at risk (Those pre-disposed by background and temperament to accepting it).

Possibly. But the real question is, does it affect enough people to be worthwhile? I'd have to say 'yes'. Studies done on this says 'yes' (but you don't have to take my word for it. I'm not sure where to find the studies off the top of my head, but if I run across one, I'll try to remember to ping you on it).

None the less it should be part of every sex education program. Almost anything is better than abortion.

Now that I'll agree with.

My preference is for ever better contraceptives, morning after pills, and the compromise I suggested earlier: early pregnancy testing, and legal, penalty-free abortions only in the third, fourth, or early fifth month, with severe penalties thereafter (with caveats for difficult and unusual situations).

Actually, by the start of the second trimester, the fetus' development is far enough along to observe all major life functions developed and operating. Even if a compromise were to be made, I would have to say anything past the first trimester would be considered too late.

As for what constitutes a human being. There too we differ. I do not find a fertilized egg to be one. My view is the transition is gradual, and does not complete itself until maturity. When one decides to call a mass of cells a living human being is somewhat arbitrary - but if one is going to terminate a pregnancy sooner is much, much better than later.

1) What do you mean when you say 'human being'? Is it in the biological or philosophical sense? If you mean the biological term, then there's no question that even a just-fertilized human cell is a human being, for anything that can fall under the classification of Homo Sapien can be considered a human being. Note that the classification is independent upon current development level, and dependent on the end state of the organism, if allowed to continue to it's final state (in humans that would probably be 'adult'). Otherwise children couldn't be considered Homo Sapien, and therefore couldn't being considered a human being. This is an absurd conclusion, so we need to, by necessity leave development level out of this particular definition. If you mean in the philosophical sense, then I would have to dissagree with you. Of course, this would require more conversing on this particular subject to see why.
2) What do you mean by 'life'? According to the general definition, life is that which has the ability to develops or sustain development, breaths, uses and intakes nutrients, and expels waste products. These don't have to be done continuously, but only when required. Otherwise if you held your breath for 30 seconds, one could claim you're not alive for those said seconds. This is an absurd argument, so by necessity we need to stick the ability being used when required. Some definitions add the ability to reproduce in with the definition of life, but technically the ability to reproduce is only required to continue life to the next organism, not to sustain or develop current life. So I degress on this point. A freshly fertilized cell, embryo, zygote or fetal stages all develop. They all take in or use good air (breathing. In this case, oxygen). The fertilized egg is oxygen saturated, so the zygote and embryo can use good air. They all intake nutrients, and expel wastes (when needed). The fertilized egg is also nutrient saturated, so again the zygote and embryo can use nutrients. When the embryo/fetus is attached to the womb, it can intake air (breath) and intake nutrients through the umbilical cord. Why would we consider taking oxygen through the umbilical cord 'breathing'? Because the definition needs to apply generally. We recognize that plants and fish breath, but they don't use lungs, and each uses a different mechanism for breathing (plants absorb air through it's leaves, fish filter out air from the water through their gills). If we required lungs to breath, then we couldn't say plants or fish breath, due to the necessity that we need to be able to apply a life function definition generally. This is an absurd argument, so we need to stick with the natural intake of good air as breathing.

The only conclusion I can come up with objectively is that even a freshly fertilized human cell (which starts developing immediately) is a living human being. However, if you take the philosophical stance with the term, then the question becomes when we consider the human being a 'person'.

The debate is really about sexual license. Remove unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases from the arena and resistance to license collapses - and with it the whole religious structure built on that resistance.

I've noticed, from personal experience, that a great deal of abortions are desided upon after-the-fact. Contraceptives may help (and those are even under debate), but it won't do a thing for those that deside later that they don't want to be burdend with the baby. It just pushes the same problem back a ways.

As for where we're headed, personal, imho, we need to recognize the value of human life, or we'll slide down the slippery slope into the boiling mud pit that awaits on the bottom (and if you've ever had the pleasure of smelling one, they stink worse then skunks).

-The Hajman-

"Where liberals and conservatives - especially religious conservatives - differ is in the purpose of sex. The former regard it as an unalloyed pleasure (with some risk as is the case with most pleasures). The latter as a sacred gift intimately associated with procreation. Neither side will succeed in converting the other to its point of view."

The problem with these statements is that sex is not an unalloyed pleasure, but that it can result in procreation, that is that the "risk" is procreation.

But see my posts 308 and 309.