mugaliens said:
When are your earliest memories? I'm not against your stance, mind you. Just for it. My earliest memories are before I was born. Most people decry that. They don't get that, but that doesn't change the fact that I recall, quite well, being born. Yeah, I know, icky, yuck! Actually, somewhat constricting (what part of it should I choose to forget? Lol! In hindsight, it's somewhat interesting, from a medical point of view) Sigh. There it is, however, and my point is somewhat along yours, in that I too believe we should all have the right to life, regardless of from whatever age our life begins.
For those pshawing in disbelief, years ago I sketched the diaper room from which we moved, less than three months after I was born, along with my doctor's face, so...
(shrugs). Life is. Most won't get this, but it doesn't really matter. They are my memories, and the fact that they match pics taken around the time I was born are good enough for me
That's unusual, but infantile amnesia is NOT absolute, nor are concepts of where memories begin, and where the details we add from hearing recollections begins to mix with real memories. If your memory is highly detailed, then you can rest assured that it has at least been modified greatly over time. If it's mostly a blind memory of sense impressions... then yeah, it could be real.
If you saw a face... well... research DOES seem to indicate that babies can recognize basic facial features... probably. They definitely focus on the face, but how much they can see? Certainly on the way out of the birthing canal, you're in no position, figuratively or literally, to be observing your doctor. In fact, as a baby it would just be pitch black until... uh... the end... and I mean your head is OUT. Now, you could be mixing memories of the SAME event, and grafting details together centered around the vivid memory of actually being born.
So... who knows? The point is that you believe, at least partly based on a strong personal experience, that at least as of 9 months a child is thinking, observing, and forming memories. Does it matter that it's based on what may or may not be a memory of an actual event? The point is that you're sufficiently moved by the notion that you're willing to generalize your experience to a fetus that is at least 3 months less developed.
I guess the big question there would be: Rick Santorum is dialing that reasoning back to the a blastocyst... which does NOT think or feel. If they do, then we are all MONSTERS for what we do to the microbiological world... and so be it. To me, positing that blastocysts, embryos, and the early-term fetus are all equal or even similar... isn't reasonable. That to me, requires religion, or a belief in something like "primary perception"... or so much emotional 'stuff', that the issue isn't clear.
The irony, is that Al68 (conservative), myself (I don't know, but more liberal), you (truly independent AFAIK) probably all agree that given the evolution of medicine... late-term abortions present a troubling dilemma. The standard, "That is viable," has changed since the laws were made! The irony then, is that the issue has become so polarized, and a group that is "anti-abortion" within the larger "pro-life" group has become VERY influential. Now, the battle is just to kill the relevant statutes, and on the other side, to leave them be so they're not lost.
We need a way to re-work our laws to account for evolving medicine without re-opening the whole debate each time. That's my belief at least, because we're never going to get ANYWHERE the way we're going. (not we in this forum, "we the people")