Tranquil Madness

All right, then. Since none of the T-shirt fans have taken the bait yet, I suppose I'll start things off.

Regarding abortion: "I do not know where to draw that line, and it can be taken to extremes on both sides."

I interpret this as being the reason you do not advocate government interference -- the beginning of life is not marked clearly enough, at least at this time. I sympathize with your desire to prevent overreach by the state, but I have a question about this particular application.

Correct me if I am wrong (this is much more your field than mine), but I believe it is possible to detect brain activity in a fetus for quite some time prior to birth. If the government can declare someone dead upon the cessation of brain activity, then why should not a person be considered legally alive upon the beginning of brain activity? This seems to me a much less arbitrary point than physical separation from the mother is, given the current state of medical science.

Preemies, after all, can now survive for weeks and even months before their normal date of arrival. In the womb, they are not protected by law; out of the womb, they are. They depend upon a form of life support either way, so the only difference I can see is one of physical location.

Here I come.
First, Wilson gave an excellent position on the abortion issue. I would add that if there is the possibility even that life does begin before...what, birth, third trimester? then we really ought not to allow this. Because then it would be murder, plain and simple.
Euthanasia...I'm still sorting my own views on this out, and so won't say anything more here.
Yes. Because Saddam hasn't killed tens of thousands of his people, sometimes just to test weapons. He didn't institute widespread rape, torture, and murder for no real reason. It was a happy shiny place before the evil USA invaded and killed everyone. (Sarcasm aside, while I realize we cannot actually do it, and ultimately, I don't like interventionist politics, we had plenty of humanitarian reason to invade this country, and plenty to invade many other countries.)
Gay "Marriage"....not gonna touch it for now.
Marijuana...can I get consistency points, and say I don't want it legal, and would love to outlaw tobacco and alcohol too?
U.N.....nah, nothing right now.

"Yes. Because Saddam hasn't killed tens of thousands of his people, sometimes just to test weapons. He didn't institute widespread rape, torture, and murder for no real reason. It was a happy shiny place before the evil USA invaded and killed everyone. (Sarcasm aside, while I realize we cannot actually do it, and ultimately, I don't like interventionist politics, we had plenty of humanitarian reason to invade this country, and plenty to invade many other countries.)" (emphasis mine)

Claiming that the US had a right (or a justification) for invasion of Iraq based on humanitarian reasons is insane. We have known what was happening in that country for years. You can not willfully ignore something for years and then later use it to justify an invasion. That is hypocrisy, and this administration is full of it.

Well, I don't know about that ... perhaps we should be able to change our foreign policy occasionally, as long as we do it thoroughly and for good reasons. Sometimes we have to admit that we were wrong and change course accordingly.

However, I see a different problem with Mr. Disciple's humanitarian reasoning.

It is true that Saddam killed many of his own people. Probably millions.

However, the USA has seen about 40 million abortions since the Supreme Court ordered their legalization. KD believes, as I understand it, that these were murders. This number is far greater than the number of murders achieved by any one country since the USSR under Stalin and the PRC under Mao.

So, if invasion should be used to end human-rights abuses, shouldn't the first nation to be invaded be the United States?

If not, then perhaps there should be other considerations besides just the ending of certain human rights abuses. Nobody's going to cry over Saddam's removal from power, but that by itself does not justify the war.

"Correct me if I am wrong (this is much more your field than mine), but I believe it is possible to detect brain activity in a fetus for quite some time prior to birth. If the government can declare someone dead upon the cessation of brain activity, then why should not a person be considered legally alive upon the beginning of brain activity?"

From what I could find, the brain of a fetus does not even begin to develop until the third week of pregnancy. In the fourth and fifth weeks, the brain develops into different areas and a few cranial nerves begin to form. During this time, I don't believe there is a valid claim that "brain activity" truly exists.

Now, I did not find any studies on this. There have been studies, I'm sure. This is information I found in a medical dictionary.

But that still leaves a whole 33 weeks in which a brain exists but abortion is legal. So far, my point stands. (I didn't even touch on whether abortion should be legal before brain function.)

It may very well leave 33 weeks for abortion to be legal. I don't know at what point "brain activity" truly begins. However, I did state that I believed abortion needs more regulation.

Interestingly, the vast majority of abortions (88% according to one site) in the US take place between 6 and 12 weeks of pregnancy. I have seen some argue that true brain activity does not begin until 20-23 weeks.

Anyway, back to what I think you point was:

The following may sound harsh, but I believe it to be true. A fetus of any species (for all practical purposes) is a parasite. It feeds and grows inside a host. If the host doesn't want it, why should she legally give birth to it?

Over half of abortions in the US are performed on women who have already have a child. Over half of women having an abortion claim to have used contraception at the time. These aren't irresponsible tramps seeking to avoid responsibility.

If a preemie can survive outside of a womb, that is fantastic. However, if the mother does not want it and does not want to go through a pregnancy, can we force her to go through with it?

can we force her to go through with it?

Yes we can, if the fetus has the status of a human being. I don't see that the mother's (or father's or anybody else's) opinion has anything to do with it if the fetus has the same rights the rest of us have. Sure, that may be hard on the mother, but inconvenience is not enough to justify killing in other circumstances, so why in this one?

The same goes for the "parasite" argument (which I find downright campy). It's not as if the fetus has any say in the matter. And it's not as if this particular brand of "parasitism" could be eradicated; it's how we all reproduce. By the same logic, all 10-year-old children would "for all practical purposes" be freeloaders. Why shouldn't parents be able to stop supporting them?

Therefore, I think this has to be decided first on the basis of the humanity of the fetus. All other arguments are beside the point as long as you leave that question open at all.

I fully plan to invade the USA and take it over one day...*Sarcasm off*
I suppose I see you point, wilson. And I was looking more at totalitarian dictatorships, that also gorssly violated human rights. Notice, I didn't say we should actually do this. I fully realize the other implications involved. I was merely trying to provide consistency in my statments.

Is stopping the creation process equivalent to killing? Can you give rights to something that doesn't even have consciousness? If yes, should those rights supercede the rights of the mother?

Why should a potential life carry more weight than the actual life of others? If this potential is so valued, why aren't sperm and eggs highly valued and defended? Their potential may be substantially lower, but the potential still exists.

That gets closer, but I still think it begs the question.

I've already indicated that I don't see an essential difference between the life of a prematurely-born infant and the life of a fetus in utero at the same stage of development. The preemie does not suddenly acquire brain function upon delivery, nor does it leave the womb as a potential or partially created human. It is a full infant human, only slightly less helpless than it was moments before (and perhaps even more burdensome to the mother).

Ok. I'm not a biology major or minor. It's been a while since I took biology at all. But to my understanding, there is a large difference between sperms or eggs, and a fetus. Sperms or eggs are partial DNA codes, correct? They contain "information" (if you will) from the respective parent. A fetus is a unique combination of the two. It's DNA is completely seperate from either of the parents. No other being before or since will have that DNA. (I don't know how twins, triplets, etc. figure in to this. But it still applies, to a degree.) Now, this whole "potential" versus "actual" life is shaky ground. How is the life of a fetus less "actual" than any other life? And should we not protect the weak and helpless more?