News The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[DM]

A patient with no brain function is indeed not a human being ! I wouldn't have the slightest difficulty in having it die (in fact, it IS dead): it is the very definition of death of a human being: brain dead.

In other words, you believe this person should not be entitled to his/hers rights.

1) Such a terminally "ill" patient doesn't limit much the liberties of others: it is just some money to keep the machine running and to pay the doctors and the nurses. THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL BURDEN PLACED UPON A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

In most cases, ill patients ACTUALLY limit the liberties of others. The money aspect is the predominant reason behind it. Relatives that do not possesses the requested money to leave the terminally ill patient in charge of nurses and doctors, are obliged to sustain the “patients”. In addition, it’s not all about “money” but also about the pain in which a relative feels when he or she sees the terminally ill patient dying. You make it seem as if relatives and loved ones are cold blooded.

My personal opinion is even, but that's only an opinion, that even when the brain is not totally damaged, and some activity remains, but it is clear that the person will be severely mentally damaged, that you better pull the plug. I would prefer that for myself.

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

 

[DM]

DM, I'm one of those people who is pro choice and anti-abortion...

I totally respect that.

Perhaps it would help if you tried the logic on something else, like smoking.

Meaning that you're an anti-smoking believer?

 

[Anttech]

No offence but if you want to get taken seriously when you say:

I don’t really appreciate your little ad hominem attacks, Vanesch. It's actually your problem of either accepting it or not. I will not be preached and converted by your arguments, I think it's time to realize that. In addition, I would also appreciate it if you could keep this discussion in a formal way. Insults will lead us no where.

You probably shouldn't be doing your own "ad hominem attacks":

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

Anyway you don't have to listen to me :-)

 

[DM]

You probably shouldn't be doing your own "ad hominem attacks"

On Vanesch? Actually it was him who started calling my views "outrageous" and "ridiculous". But I'm sure he'll appreciate your vote of support for him. Anyway I've decided to clear ad hominem attacks. I think you would agree on keeping discussions formal, right?

By the way:

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

I don't actually consider this as an "ad hominem" attack. I see it as humour, but you don't have to listen to me as well.

Anyway you don't have to listen to me :-)

No! I actually thank you for clearing this up.

 

[Art]

Returning to the OP for a moment The political scene in the US today is very reminiscent of the latter days of Thatchers gov't in Britain.

She too divided the country to the point where there was civil disorder spilling onto the streets, a particular point of focus being the poll tax demonstrations.

However even though her gov't became synonymous with greed, corruption and elitism the British public still voted in another Tory gov't under John Major.

This was because, as IMO is happening in the states today with the GOP, the Tory party persuaded the public that Thatcher was personally to blame and so by jettisoning her their dreadful public image went with her.
Another major factor which ensured Britain suffered another 4 years of Tory rule was the main opposition party - the Labour party - was in disarray, much like the democratic party is currently in the USA.

Eventually Labour realized that to win elections you need first and foremost to be a united party and secondly to hold the middle ground. By reinventing themselves and dropping their more socialist policies they finally made themselves electable and followed up with successive landslide victories at the polls.

Unpallatable as the Bush administration is, the only answer to it is to follow the democratic process and ensure that when the people next go to the polls they vote Democrat, not because of the bad things Bush and his GOP did - because as the Labour party in Britain found this will not win you an election - but because of the good things the Democrats will do when in office.

 

[russ_watters]

Meaning that you're an anti-smoking believer?

Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.

 

[Skyhunter]

Returning to the OP for a moment The political scene in the US today is very reminiscent of the latter days of Thatchers gov't in Britain.

She too divided the country to the point where there was civil disorder spilling onto the streets, a particular point of focus being the poll tax demonstrations.

However even though her gov't became synonymous with greed, corruption and elitism the British public still voted in another Tory gov't under John Major.

This was because, as IMO is happening in the states today with the GOP, the Tory party persuaded the public that Thatcher was personally to blame and so by jettisoning her their dreadful public image went with her.
Another major factor which ensured Britain suffered another 4 years of Tory rule was the main opposition party - the Labour party - was in disarray, much like the democratic party is currently in the USA.

Eventually Labour realized that to win elections you need first and foremost to be a united party and secondly to hold the middle ground. By reinventing themselves and dropping their more socialist policies they finally made themselves electable and followed up with successive landslide victories at the polls.

Unpallatable as the Bush administration is, the only answer to it is to follow the democratic process and ensure that when the people next go to the polls they vote Democrat, not because of the bad things Bush and his GOP did - because as the Labour party in Britain found this will not win you an election - but because of the good things the Democrats will do when in office.

I agree with your assessment, however Clinton was a moderate with good ideas, he streamlined government and presided over the longest economic expansion in our history. Look what happened to him.

Now there is even less cohesion among the left, the liberals don't trust the centrists because of what they see as a sellout to the corporate status quo. I fear that unless the fallout from the disastrous policies of the right do not get worse nothing will change. As long as they can say "we are turning the corner, the economy is improving, we are bringing freedom to an opressed people", etc they will continue to manipulate public opinion and remain in control. As long as the media promotes the corporate interests people will continue to vote against there own best interests.

 

[vanesch]

I believe it does not debunk my argument. You still have to admit that Human cloning is an illegal activity. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense, a man and a woman. Not a machine and a woman.

It is an illegal activity in certain countries because some people decided to make it illegal, based upon the same kinds of opinions that you are espousing. But you completely miss the point I am making. The point is not whether or not cloning is a "natural" thing to do, whether it is "legal", "right", "tastes like chocolate" etc... The point was: it is a physically possible thing to do, and from it can result a REAL HUMAN BEING, a guy like you or me. Whether this was done in an artificial way or not, with a machine and a woman, or with a machine, a chimp and a man or whatever.

In order to ARGUE whether something should have rights or not, you cannot come up with a catalogue of what should have these rights, you should come up with a reasonable argument of WHY that something should have those rights, based upon general principles, and I was asking you - without getting an answer, except the one I debunked, what are the general principles on which you base yourself to DERIVE why you believe a certain thing should have these rights.
You gave me your list of 3 consequent "grand principles":
- it must result in fusion of genetic material from the union of two parties (2 human beings)
- it must contain human chromosomes
- it must potentially devellop into a human being when given the chance

Although it is still not clear to me why you took these (I suspect you were trying to AIM at a zygote as result, and you were not citing big a priori principles like "avoid suffering" or something that could intuitively be understandable), for the sake of argument I took your 3 principles as the necessary and sufficient condition for something to have human rights, and then I looked around to what I could apply them to derive the consequences of these principles.

One of the consequences I found was that cloned human beings, which did of course not satisfy the first criterium, WOULD NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS ACCORDING TO YOUR GRAND PRINCIPLES, because they did not result from the fusion of genetic material from two parties. The point is not whether this is an illegal activity or not, the point is that this is possible, and that out of this would grow a human being, which would be denied every human right if we were to follow your grand principles.

So I took the liberty of tossing this out of your list of 3, because I take it that such an illegally grown person would not be denied its human rights by you, after it grew up ; and that including your first criterium would for ever do so.

Even you accepted that your famous "electric pulse" (don't know where it comes from except from Frankenstein, any reference ?) in cloning could replace this condition of mixing from two parties. I took act of your change, and called this a "changing of your definition of what was to have human rights".

Once this first condition eliminated, however, only these two remained:
- it must contain human chromosomes
- it must potentially devellop into a human being when given the chance

I then went on showing that a T-lymphocyte satisfies also these criteria, and that according to your reasoning, we must attach human rights to every white blood cell. Indeed, no-one will deny that the full set of human chromosomes are present in these cells, and that the core of these cells, when put into an egg cell (even a chimp's egg cell) can devellop into a clone of the person to which the white blood cell belonged.

So I came to a logical full circle: your grand principles also give human rights to white blood cells.

Assuming that cloning is LEGAL, in which I completely condemn, my definition of HUMAN CLONING would be based on the electric impulse that locks the chromosomes inside a cell. This is the point where the killing of an existing cell (in HUMAN CLONING) should not take place as it is under development.

Yes, and the above is exactly what I call: adapting your grand principles to the circumstances in order to be able to come to the desired conclusions. That says enough about the value of the great principles as great principles.

I don’t really appreciate your little ad hominem attacks, Vanesch. It's actually your problem of either accepting it or not. I will not be preached and converted by your arguments, I think it's time to realize that. In addition, I would also appreciate it if you could keep this discussion in a formal way. Insults will lead us no where.

Showing flaws in your argument is not an insult. I never attacked your person but only your ideas. I even didn't attack them, I just showed they led to absurdities, like NOT granting human rights to cloned humans, or GRANTING rights to white blood cells, together with correcting some misunderstandings concerning your writings about celllular biology.

The next step in the argument is that you just gave me a list of properties (like what kind of molecules, originating from what kinds of sources, are the basis for human rights) from which it is intuitively absolutely not evident why on Earth they should be the basis of granting human rights. It is as if I gave you the definition of the people that should be given absolute legislative rights:
- their name should start with a "v"
- their name should end with an "h"
- they should post on PF
- they should live in France.

Here is my opinion of what kinds of people should have absolute legislative rights. It is clear this way.

I would take it that you can ask WHY I gave these criteria, and it is obvious that I just set them up so that *I* am the one having absolute legislative rights. In the same way, I suspect you to set up your criteria, and to even CHANGE your criteria during the discussion, in order to arrive at "a zygote has human rights". So there must be a "hidden agenda" between fiddling around in such a way that you end up with "zygotes have human rights", in the same way as in my example there was a hidden agenda that "I wanted to be the master of the world".

I know that I cannot convert you, that's not the point. I wanted to show in this argument that there are no scientifically and ethically grand principles which are clearly acceptable by everybody, and from which you can deduce that zygotes should have human rights. Once this is clear, the only thing that remains you to justify your point ARE PURELY RELIGIOUS REASONS. That's your true "hidden agenda" but you will not say so, because if you did, it would be clear that you were going to use legislation to impose your religious view upon others. I wanted, in this discussion, to make this clear.

For once and for all, a zygote is constituted from two parties (again! the normal way). That is my argument! If you don't accept it, it’s plainly your problem, not mine.

That's not an argument, sorry. You say that a zygote is constituted from two parties, except when it isn't.

There are religious principles, yes.

Ah, we're home.

But when excluding religion and faith, I did say that it is the development of a zygote that makes it wrong for another human being to brutally kill it.

I want to see the argument for that. Apart from STATING that repeatedly, I have not seen any argument.

You have argued that the zygote is unable to sense or feel as it doesn't have a nervous system, thus it should not have any rights. The latter is your stance on this matter and I can respect that, however I will not accept your draconian scientific doctrine of killing zygotes because “they have no nervous system”.

So you respect my stance, but you cannot accept it. Visibly you cannot respect that stance in a woman who wants to get some cells out of her body, knowing that she will not cause any pain to any being, given that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.

The problem with your opinion is that 1) it is forced upon others not sharing that opinion through a legal system and 2) it is an opinion purely based upon a religious belief and has no generally acceptable scientific and ethical argumentation, independent of the belief system a person adheres to.

 

[DM]

Meaning I'm anti smoking, but I don't think it should be outlawed. It works almost exactly the same as for abortion.

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?

 

[vanesch]

In other words, you believe this person should not be entitled to his/hers rights.

A body with a dead brain ? Of course.

In most cases, ill patients ACTUALLY limit the liberties of others. The money aspect is the predominant reason behind it. Relatives that do not possesses the requested money to leave the terminally ill patient in charge of nurses and doctors, are obliged to sustain the “patients”. In addition, it’s not all about “money” but also about the pain in which a relative feels when he or she sees the terminally ill patient dying. You make it seem as if relatives and loved ones are cold blooded.

I will repeat my earlier remark: if my left leg got ripped off my body just before I got crushed under a truck, should one keep this leg alive with artificial irrigation of blood and so on ?

You were talking about a BRAIN DEAD PERSON. It's a CORPSE !

At last! You finally state that you have opinions! It’s good to know that there’s a HUMAN SOUL inside of you.

Of course I have opinions, and one of these opinions, probably shared with about 99.9% of all scientists, is that giving human rights to a single cell is ridiculous. However, when talking about what should be imposed upon others, I refrain from simply venting *opinions* and want to see *arguments*.
BTW, calling an idea "ridiculous" is not an ad hominem attack. Saying that I find the statement that we are invaded by little green men from Mars ridiculous is not an ad hominem attack, and honestly, both statements (about rights for a single cell and green men from Mars) are, in my OPINION, on exactly the same level.

 

[vanesch]

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?

The only reasons to outlaw something is when it is provoking harm to someone else, and that this harm is bigger than the suffering imposed by the outlawing.

 

[DM]

Visibly you cannot respect that stance in a woman who wants to get some cells out of her body, knowing that she will not cause any pain to any being, given that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.

I don't ACCEPT it. Not respect it. I may not like it; accept it, but ultimately I feel obliged to respect the stance of a woman that wishes to have an abortion. I will not disrespect a woman purely because she has different views on abortion, hence why I choose to respect it.

The problem with your opinion is that 1) it is forced upon others not sharing that opinion through a legal system

I'm not forcing my opinions upon others. This a major flaw in your point.

2) it is an opinion purely based upon a religious belief and has no generally acceptable scientific and ethical argumentation, independent of the belief system a person adheres to.

Again, not true. I have given you sufficient points to argue your views without the aid of religion.

 

[DM]

A body with a dead brain ? Of course.

Tell me, what should be done with this person.

BTW, calling an idea "ridiculous" is not an ad hominem attack. Saying that I find the statement that we are invaded by little green men from Mars ridiculous is not an ad hominem attack, and honestly, both statements (about rights for a single cell and green men from Mars) are, in my OPINION, on exactly the same level.

It creates an ad hominem environment. If you call somebody's views "ridiculous" and "outrageous", you are offending that person INDIRECTLY by attacking the subject. This is something I try to avoid as it preludes and feeds DIRECT insults; ad hominem attacks. All in all, I'm only preoccupied with the evolution of these indirect insults.

 

[DM]

The only reasons to outlaw something is when it is provoking harm to someone else

Smoking not only provokes but more importantly CAUSES immense harm to a smoker.

 

[vanesch]

ultimately I feel obliged to respect the stance of a woman that wishes to have an abortion. I will not disrespect a woman purely because she has different views on abortion, hence why I choose to respect it.

Ah, sorry then. As long as you don't want to impose any abortion laws, that's ok with me. (except that it escapes me then what it means to be anti-abortion ; hell, I will never have an abortion myself either !)

I'm not forcing my opinions upon others. This a major flaw in your point.

Sorry about that. It is strange to see someone who is against abortion but allows for it (?), but I can only encourage your point of view. But in the same way you argue against cloning, research on embryos etc... so there IS some legalese related to your opinion you are not trying to force upon someone else.

The problem I have with your point is then: why don't you simply say that it is your personal opinion, inspired by your faith, that a human soul is attached to a zygote and hence that in your religion it is wrong to kill something with a soul ? If it is nothing else but a personal opinion why not state it that way ?
Or do you really believe that there are reasons you can spell out for yourself that make that you think it is ethically and scientifically universally a valid point that it is wrong to kill a zygote ?

Again, not true. I have given you sufficient points to argue your views without the aid of religion.

No, you've STATED your opinions, and I think that the last version is:
"anything that can potentially devellop into a human being has human rights".
Apart from the problems that this grand principle will lead to when applying it to several situations, I would like to know why you take this point.

I mean, my point which is: "one should avoid human suffering" as a grand principle is - I would think - intuitively understandable. You don't want to suffer yourself (I presume), and because a general fairness principle (everybody equal for the law) it is understandable that nobody would like to suffer, so we should make laws that limit suffering.

But I don't see that point in "anything that can potentially evolve into a human being should have the right to do so". I find that starting point rather ad hoc or even up to a point self contradictory, because clearly you now use 2 DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of what is a human being: the first one is the one we agree upon, namely grown-up healthy human bodies with brain and all, and then 2) everything that can potentially devellop into this first kind of human being is also a human being.
So my question is: can we push that one step further: is everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being" then also a human being ? (like egg cells and sperm ?)
Or even one step further: can everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being also a human being ? (like the food that will turn into sperm)
Etc...

See, although there's no point arguing the FIRST step (a grown up healthy living human being), all the rest is open to argument. So it is not a grand principle that is intuitively acceptable that can be used as the STARTING POINT of an argument and thus needs a kind of justification.

THIS is the kind of reasoning that I wanted to see, and I'm pretty sure it cannot be provided without references to religion.

 

[vanesch]

Tell me, what should be done with this person.

Don't know, burried, or incinerated, or whatever...

 

[vanesch]

Smoking not only provokes but more importantly CAUSES immense harm to a smoker.

Yes, but it is his body, so he does with it what he wants. Although I can understand ONE reason to outlaw smoking on the basis of this, and that is if there is some social security including medical care for everybody. But even then I'd be against outlawing smoking. I'd rather opt for the person signing a declaration that he denies any right to social security, so that his risk behaviour isn't a burden for the rest of society.

 

[DM]

The problem I have with your point is then: why don't you simply say that it is your personal opinion, inspired by your faith, that a human soul is attached to a zygote and hence that in your religion it is wrong to kill something with a soul ?

The reason I have not stated what you are encouraging me to state, is purely because you wanted me to argue points WITHOUT the aid of religion. That is the one and ONLY reason, otherwise I can proudly say that the other half of my opinion is indeed inspired by my religion. Please note that "a human soul is attached to it" is not entirely true in my case. The whole process is condemned by me, not merely because it has a soul attached.

No, you've STATED your opinions, and I think that the last version is:
"anything that can potentially devellop into a human being has human rights".

Precisely but it doesn't mean it's inspired or based on religion.

So my question is: can we push that one step further: is everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being" then also a human being ? (like egg cells and sperm ?)

Egg cells and sperm cells FERTILISED. The development (independent of religious beliefs) of a fertilised cell is in my PERSONAL OPINION a human being already.

Don't know, burried, or incinerated, or whatever...

Before its death.

 

[DM]

Although I can understand ONE reason to outlaw smoking on the basis of this, and that is if there is some social security including medical care for everybody. But even then I'd be against outlawing smoking. I'd rather opt for the person signing a declaration that he denies any right to social security, so that his risk behaviour isn't a burden for the rest of society.

I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke? And doesn't smoking also contribute to global warming?

 

[russ_watters]

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?

Smoking or abortion?

 

[Anttech]

I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke? And doesn't smoking also contribute to global warming?

Car exahaust fumes are far worse for you than 2nd hand smoke.. So if Smoking should become illegal in public so should cars? :-)

 

[DM]

Smoking or abortion?

Yes, smoking.

 

[DM]

Car exahaust fumes are far worse for you than 2nd hand smoke.. So if Smoking should become illegal in public so should cars? :-)

Well ok, it's a good argument but what about passive smoking?

 

[vanesch]

I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke?

I'm totally with you here, and I'm indeed for prohibition of smoking in confined public places where other people come, like trains, restaurants, public buildings and all that (let's enjoy this moment of agreement ). I hate having to smoke passively. But when it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights (such as the right not to have to inhale your smoke), I'd be against prohibiting smoking just to protect yourself from it.

 

[DM]

(let's enjoy this moment of agreement )

I agree

I'd be against prohibiting smoking just to protect yourself from it.

Oh dear. Why? Your health is in dire question, why should you respire others' smoke?

 

[vanesch]

The reason I have not stated what you are encouraging me to state, is purely because you wanted me to argue points WITHOUT the aid of religion. That is the one and ONLY reason, otherwise I can proudly say that the other half of my opinion is indeed inspired by my religion. Please note that "a human soul is attached to it" is not entirely true in my case. The whole process is condemned by me, not merely because it has a soul attached.

The reason I wanted an argument WITHOUT the aid of religion was in the case you wanted to advocate making LAWS about abortion - as do most anti-abortion advocates. In fact, I have difficulties considering someone like you who is strongly anti-abortion but claims to respect the decision of a woman who wants to abort, because then it escapes me what exactly it means to be anti-abortion. But I take your word for it that you do not want to impose your views upon someone else and I didn't consider that possibility, so I'm sorry about that.

Egg cells and sperms FERTILISED. The development (independent of religious beliefs) of a fertilised cell is in my PERSONAL OPINION a human being already.

Ok, I can accept that perfectly, as your personal opinion. As long as this is not forced upon someone else by the means of laws, that's fine with me.

Before its death.

A brain-dead person is already dead. Whether or not it is artifically breathing or not.

 

[vanesch]

Oh dear. Why? Your health is in dire question, why should you respire others' smoke?

No, you misunderstood me. I think one should be allowed to smoke ON THE CONDITION THAT IT DOESN'T HINDER ANYBODY ELSE. So if you're outside in the wind, 10 meters from the nearest person, I don't mind that you smoke. In all other cases, I don't want anybody to smoke near me either !

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, smoking.

Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.

The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.

I don't see that changing, either, because of the scientific arguments others are putting forward. Scientifically, there really isn't any basis for granting rights to a 1st term fetus - as you seem to agree, that's mostly a religious belief (and iirc, one based on a misunderstanding of physiology by the Roman Catholic Church). Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses. And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).

 

[Smurf]

Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.

The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.

Which is hugely hypocritical as there are many drugs that are illegal and smoking is just as if not more harmfull than all of these, at least with shrooms there's no such thing as a second hand trip.

Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses.

As there already are, 3rd trimester abortions are not allowed sometimes even under threat of death for the mother (at least in Canada). No one wants to change that, if you havn't gotten an abortion in the first THREE MONTHS frankly you're too stupid to deserve one.

And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).

In Canada that's only allowed if there is possible danger to the mother.

 

[vanesch]

Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.

The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.

I don't see that changing, either, because of the scientific arguments others are putting forward. Scientifically, there really isn't any basis for granting rights to a 1st term fetus - as you seem to agree, that's mostly a religious belief (and iirc, one based on a misunderstanding of physiology by the Roman Catholic Church). Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses. And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).

Hey Russ, I've been reading your post again and again,... and I can't find a single thing I do not agree with