quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: You brought up intelligence as part of your definition of what is and is not human. It is a fair question to ask exactly how you define what is human level intelligence or in other words what intelligence level qualifies as being human.

Actually, I think it was me who brought up the point about intelligence. I think it is often overlooked when discussing whether abortion is moral or immoral. We, as a society, have already concluded that all human life is NOT sacred. In my previous example, I noted that killing cancer cells is perfectly acceptable. It's a different story for human intelligent life, however. If you believe that human intelligent life begins at conception, I ask you this: show me the brain and nervous system in a blastocyst. Hint: it can't be done, because there isn't any.

quote Originally posted by newf: WTF? I told you it's NOT MY DECISION. If you feel it's yours, have at it. I have opinions on the matter like many others but please don't try to tell me my opinion is any more right or wrong than yours.

What is the point of having an opinion if you don't think it is right?

Why wouldn't one want to justify their opinion, or see its flaws in order to form a proper one. ( you or I)
I only asked questions.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Actually, I think it was me who brought up the point about intelligence. I think it is often overlooked when discussing whether abortion is moral or immoral. We, as a society, have already concluded that all human life is NOT sacred. In my previous example, I noted that killing cancer cells is perfectly acceptable. It's a different story for human intelligent life, however. If you believe that human intelligent life begins at conception, I ask you this: show me the brain and nervous system in a blastocyst. Hint: it can't be done, because there isn't any.

I apologize to Newsf for getting the two of your posts mixed up.

Please give an example where human life is not considered in your words "sacred"? I can think of many examples where human life is valued above any other life or inanimate object.

Also, your definition of human life based on intelligence is short sighted. Cancer cannot grow into a person. A blastocyst can.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Actually, I think it was me who brought up the point about intelligence. I think it is often overlooked when discussing whether abortion is moral or immoral. We, as a society, have already concluded that all human life is NOT sacred. In my previous example, I noted that killing cancer cells is perfectly acceptable. It's a different story for human intelligent life, however. If you believe that human intelligent life begins at conception, I ask you this: show me the brain and nervous system in a blastocyst. Hint: it can't be done, because there isn't any.

Yes you brought up intelligence, I fit it into my response which also included age in months and location of the offspring in regards to what we can see with our eyes..in the mother/out of the mother. As it seemed you and newf had the same outcome of opinion.

I'm trying to get my mind around how intelligence plays a part in human life being human life. So would you say a human would have to have knowledge of their death for someone to feel guilty about killing them? Or for someone to have killed human life?

"The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early embryogenesis of mammals, after the formation of the morula. It is a specifically mammalian example of a blastula.[citation needed] It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM), or embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast, which later forms the placenta. The trophoblast surrounds the inner cell mass and a fluid-filled blastocyst cavity known as the blastocoele or the blastocystic cavity. The human blastocyst comprises 70-100 cells.

Blastocyst formation begins at day 5 after fertilization in humans, when the blastocoele opens up in the morula" -wiki

If I listed the top five chemicals in my body ( Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Calcium) it might make me sound less human and more just a bunch of chemicals. But I'm still human. Though you also mentioned that we as a society no longer consider all human life sacred. I suppose evidence of this is abortion in general.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Murder? No. I assume that the mother was severely injured in the accident, and the drunk driver can be prosecuted for that.

Investigators said Bruce faces a list of charges, including one for the death of her unborn child.

An Orange County, California, man was convicted of murder in a drunk-driving crash that killed his girlfriend and their unborn child. Danny Calvin Ruiz, 36, of Laguna Hills was found guilty of two felony counts of murder in connection with the crash, which occurred in San Clemente in May 2008.

A 40 year old drunk driver, Joseph Anthony Venegas, killed Mrs. Elaina Lynn Luquis-Ortiz (21), an expectant mother and her unborn son, Romeo Francisco Ortiz (6 mo.) when he drove a black Chevrolet Tahoe into the back of her Mazda 3 sedan parked along side the highway. ...Mr. Venegas went to jail where he was held on suspicion of drunken driving plus two counts of first degree murder.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I apologize to Newsf for getting the two of your posts mixed up. Please give an example where human life is not considered in your words "sacred"? I can think of many examples where human life is valued above any other life or inanimate object. Also, your definition of human life based on intelligence is short sighted. Cancer cannot grow into a person. A blastocyst can.

Accepted, no worries.

quote Originally posted by newf: My opinion is right for me, I believe in free will so if your opinion works for you then it's right FOR YOU. You can justify why you believe something until you are blue in the face that doesn't make it any more true for me. You can ask questions all you like and I will answer if they are honest questions to hear and accept reasons for why I bleieve what I do but if you are just asking so that you can state your case or why you think I am wrong there is really no point.

Back to which opinion is right for the unborn then I guess. Looking at it objectively.
Regardless of what you see questions as, or if they are difficult to answer, answers to the questions posed to you would help others understand your view. Stating cases seems appropriate.
A justified point of view opposing ones own does not make one consider where they stand and why?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-02-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: My opinion is right for me, I believe in free will so if your opinion works for you then it's right FOR YOU. You can justify why you believe something until you are blue in the face that doesn't make it any more true for me.

Opinions Opinions just like assholes everybody's got one!! This thread is much like the current politicians in that they want to argue their own opinion when trying to legislate.

Why can’t the politicians be holding to the laws we have presently on the books when trying to legislate and leave their opinions only to guide by??
______________________________________________________
There is too much I in our government and not enough WE!

quote Originally posted by Butter: Opinions Opinions just like assholes everybody's got one!! This thread is much like the current politicians in that they want to argue their own opinion when trying to legislate. Why can’t the politicians be holding to the laws we have presently on the books when trying to legislate and leave their opinions only to guide by?? ______________________________________________________ There is too much I in our government and not enough WE!

Well then nothing would ever change I guess and you'd have the same laws as you did 200 years ago. Sounds great to some but not to most.

I think not newf. I think there can be a way to measure the opinion of WE as a whole in this internet age of socialization then apply it to our political systems. Look how internet socialization is effecting the Middle East today. I think it best we learn how to use this type of socialization wisely.

quote Originally posted by Butter: I think not newf. I think there can be a way to measure the opinion of WE as a whole in this internet age of socialization then apply it to our political systems. Look how internet socialization is effecting the Middle East today. I think it best we learn how to use this type of socialization wisely.

Your (or my) political system is not set up for a opinion poll on every issue, we elect politicians to represent us and they have to make decisions about what they think is best for the country, state, city, town and/or individual. You think the electorate wants or has the time to consider every issue completely? With the amount of voter apathy for elections I can only imagine what it would be like for individual issues.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-02-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Your (or my) political system is not set up for a opinion poll on every issue, we elect politicians to represent us and they have to make decisions about what they think is best for the country, state, city, town and/or individual. You think the electorate wants or has the time to consider every issue completely? With the amount of voter apathy for elections I can only imagine what it would be like for individual issues.

Yeah I agree the political systems are not set up for an opinion poll on every issue. But a general poll around major issues offered to the public which can be readily comprehended by our officials I think might be helpful in getting a better legislation on what the public needs. Wants and Needs should be separated to reflect respectfully.

quote Originally posted by Butter: Yeah I agree the political systems are not set up for an opinion poll on every issue. But a general poll around major issues offered to the public which can be readily comprehended by our officials I think might be helpful in getting a better legislation on what the public needs. Wants and Needs should be separated to reflect respectfully.

Yeah it's a tough call to know how much actual involvement on issues the public should have or are entitled to. In a perfect world all of them but we know it ain't perfect

quote Originally posted by newf: I see the question mark but is that supposed to be a question?

To you, yes.
It makes me think, I thought it would make most people, you seem to see it in a different light. Just basics of debating, or discussing.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: To you, yes. It makes me think, I thought it would make most people, you seem to see it in a different light. Just basics of debating, or discussing.

I must be missing something then, it looks like a statement not a question. Maybe you can rephrase it for me.

quote Originally posted by newf: I must be missing something then, it looks like a statement not a question. Maybe you can rephrase it for me.

Doesn't a justified point of view opposing your own make you consider where you stand and why?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Doesn't a justified point of view opposing your own make you consider where you stand and why?

OK now that's a question. Thanks

I would have to say a big maybe it depends if it is indeed justified as you put it however if there are facts that are brought to light that I wasn't aware of certainly it will make me consider my stance on an issue. I will admit I've changed my opinion at times on certain issues when I have looked into them further or been given new information and unless I am sure I know someting 100% (which I readily admit is rare) there is always room to learn more and change opinions.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I apologize to Newsf for getting the two of your posts mixed up. Please give an example where human life is not considered in your words "sacred"? I can think of many examples where human life is valued above any other life or inanimate object. Also, your definition of human life based on intelligence is short sighted. Cancer cannot grow into a person. A blastocyst can.

I think you are still confusing human life with human intelligent life. Skin cells are human life. Blood cells are human life. bone, muscle, fat, nerve cells are all human life. And yes, cancer cells are human life. As I said, killing cancer cells is not considered immoral.

A blastocyst can grow into a person, later, but at that moment a blastocyst is not intelligent. It is just a cluster of cells.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Murder? No. I assume that the mother was severely injured in the accident, and the drunk driver can be prosecuted for that. Keep in mind that some religions believe that a fetus is not considered alive until it is delivered. I don't necessarily agree with that view, but I don't proclaim to be the judge of its validity, either. That's their opinion, mine is different.

People have been charged and convicted of killing unborn children.

Regarding your posts on intelligence, that's really the wrong argument. A better question is, at what point does life begin? Does it begin at conception, sometime during pregnancy, at birth? When? This delves more into spirituality, and I'll admit I am not a religious person. But at what point does an embryo or fetus gain the status of a living being? Is it only when it looks like one? Your examples of skin cells, blood cells, etc are not examples of life since those cells will never develop into a person on their own. They are body parts, but they aren't life. There's a big difference between equating a blastocyst with a petri dish of skin cells.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Yes you brought up intelligence, I fit it into my response which also included age in months and location of the offspring in regards to what we can see with our eyes..in the mother/out of the mother. As it seemed you and newf had the same outcome of opinion. I'm trying to get my mind around how intelligence plays a part in human life being human life. So would you say a human would have to have knowledge of their death for someone to feel guilty about killing them? Or for someone to have killed human life?

My definition of intelligence would be the cognizence of the world around you, and your ability to interact with that world. That would require a brain and a nervous system. The brain to house the consciousness, and the nervous system to interact with outside stimuli.

quote "The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early embryogenesis of mammals, after the formation of the morula. It is a specifically mammalian example of a blastula.[citation needed] It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM), or embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast, which later forms the placenta. The trophoblast surrounds the inner cell mass and a fluid-filled blastocyst cavity known as the blastocoele or the blastocystic cavity. The human blastocyst comprises 70-100 cells. Blastocyst formation begins at day 5 after fertilization in humans, when the blastocoele opens up in the morula" -wiki If I listed the top five chemicals in my body ( Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Calcium) it might make me sound less human and more just a bunch of chemicals. But I'm still human. Though you also mentioned that we as a society no longer consider all human life sacred. I suppose evidence of this is abortion in general.

Sacred may be a poor choice of words, on my behalf. Perhaps "to be protected" or "to be upheld" might be better. Again, you seem to be (intentionally or unintentionally) confusing human life with human intelligent life. There is a distinct difference that we as a society have made.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Life? Or human intelligent life? There is a BIG difference. And yes, they are life. They can absorb nutrients, grow, and die. but they are not intelligent life. And there is not a big difference between a blastocyst and a petri dish of skin cells. Only in their future POTENTIAL.

Why are you drawing the line at what you term intelligent life? I see where it makes it easier to draw that line, but it's obscuring the real issue, which is at what point does a group of cells become a living being? Should we kill a baby born with severe brain defects, one that will never reach your definition of intelligence? Is it murder at that point?

I don't see how a blastocyst and a group of skin cells are the same. One will develop into your "intelligent life" if all goes well, the other will always remain a clump of cells. Skin cells are alive on their own, but will never develop beyond what they currently are.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Why are you drawing the line at what you term intelligent life? I see where it makes it easier to draw that line, but it's obscuring the real issue, which is at what point does a group of cells become a living being? Should we kill a baby born with severe brain defects, one that will never reach your definition of intelligence? Is it murder at that point? I don't see how a blastocyst and a group of skin cells are the same. One will develop into your "intelligent life" if all goes well, the other will always remain a clump of cells. Skin cells are alive on their own, but will never develop beyond what they currently are.

As I said, we, together as a society, have determined that there is a difference between human life (cells, tissues, organs) and human intelligent life. I didn't do it, we as a society did it.

If I am not mistaken, fetuses with those kinds of severe brain defects already have be aborted before. I don't know all the particulars, but I am pretty sure it has already happened. Personally, I would agree to such an abortion, not because the baby would not be considered intelligent, but because the baby's life would be grim and short, to say the least. A very difficult decision to have to make.

Edit to add: right now, no one can say with certainty when a group of cells becomes intelligent. No doctor can look at an ultrasound image and say,"yesterday the embryo was not intelligent, and today it is." Anyone who says different, is lying.

[This message has been edited by ktthecarguy (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: As I said, we, together as a society, have determined that there is a difference between human life (cells, tissues, organs) and human intelligent life. I didn't do it, we as a society did it. If I am not mistaken, fetuses with those kinds of severe brain defects already have be aborted before. I don't know all the particulars, but I am pretty sure it has already happened. Personally, I would agree to such an abortion, not because the baby would not be considered intelligent, but because the baby's life would be grim and short, to say the least. A very difficult decision to have to make. Edit to add: right now, no one can say with certainty when a group of cells becomes intelligent. No doctor can look at an ultrasound image and say,"yesterday the embryo was not intelligent, and today it is." Anyone who says different, is lying.

A grouping of cells or other body parts is not human life. I can cut my arm off, but the arm itself isn't human life.

And I wasn't talking about aborting a fetus with severe defects, but rather a baby that has been delievered. Is it murder at that point?

And regarding your edit, if we can't determine when that group of cells becomes intelligent, then even using your definition of intelligent life vs non-intelligent, how do we determine when life starts? If we can't make the distinction when intelligence starts, how do we make the distinction between killing a bunch of cells or killing a person?

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: A grouping of cells or other body parts is not human life. I can cut my arm off, but the arm itself isn't human life.

Okay, now you are flying in the face of all medical science. Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

quote And I wasn't talking about aborting a fetus with severe defects, but rather a baby that has been delievered. Is it murder at that point?

Yes, with a qualifier...is the baby on life support? If so, are the parents allowed to "pull the plug"?

quote And regarding your edit, if we can't determine when that group of cells becomes intelligent, then even using your definition of intelligent life vs non-intelligent, how do we determine when life starts?

*sigh* are you still obscuring the difference between life and intelligent life? Or are you referring to the clinical definition of when (non-intelligent) life begins?

quote If we can't make the distinction when intelligence starts, how do we make the distinction between killing a bunch of cells or killing a person?

Right now, we can't. Medical science has not advanced that far yet. I will clarify, however, that due to the {i]potential[/i] nature of the cells, in my opinion the decision to abort should be made very VERY carefully.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Okay, now you are flying in the face of all medical science. Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

So you equate human body parts with human life?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Yes, with a qualifier...is the baby on life support? If so, are the parents allowed to "pull the plug"?

Euthanasia is a different topic, and a tough one, but I generally support a person's right to die. Making that decision for others is an even tougher scenario.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: *sigh* are you still obscuring the difference between life and intelligent life? Or are you referring to the clinical definition of when (non-intelligent) life begins?

You're using "intelligent life" as the dividing line between murder or not murder. I don't think intelligent life is the dividing line, but rather life itself. I'm not talking about whether a cell lives or dies, but rather when does that group of cells become a person? Does an embryo have to have a brain before it has life? When does the bit of magic happen when a group of cells becomes more than that? Is it at conception, or somewhere farther along? I don't know, but I think the use of the whole intelligence angle is simply a way to draw a line, and the truth is we don't know where that line should be drawn or even if it should be drawn at all.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Right now, we can't. Medical science has not advanced that far yet. I will clarify, however, that due to the {i]potential[/i] nature of the cells, in my opinion the decision to abort should be made very VERY carefully.

You've made it clear that you don't view a grouping of cells as intelligent life, and therefore killing those cells isn't murder. Using that logic, if we can't determine when intelligence begins when is abortion murder and when is it not.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Intelligent life.

Well, you keep bringing up that we aren't making the distinction clear enough on where we stand with when intelligent life starts.

To you, we're missing the point. But do you understand that none of us think that way... at all?

I will never put a value on a human life. It's ridiculous to think that at a certain time, the being becomes intelligent enough to warrant not being killed. Like others have brought up--are people that are sitting in a vegetable state considered intelligent? Do they fit into your parameters? Human LIFE is sacred. There is no boundary between intelligences, in our reasoning.

Newf, I don't think anyone is attacking you for your beliefs. I believe abortion is murder. Not just for me... it's murder for all people. That's why we DO discuss it with those who think differently. That's why we don't just agree to disagree... because it's SUCH an important issue.

quote Originally posted by GT86: You've made it clear that you don't view a grouping of cells as intelligent life, and therefore killing those cells isn't murder. Using that logic, if we can't determine when intelligence begins when is abortion murder and when is it not.

Right now, today, the answer is, abortion is NEVER murder. Maybe someday, when science advances further, we may be able to make a finer distinction. But not now.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Right now, today, the answer is, abortion is NEVER murder. Maybe someday, when science advances further, we may be able to make a finer distinction. But not now.

Not by the legal definitions, that's true. But you've made a distinction over and over between intelligent life and non-intelligent. And you've admitted that we can't determine when intelligence, or life for that matter, starts.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Not by the legal definitions, that's true. But you've made a distinction over and over between intelligent life and non-intelligent. And you've admitted that we can't determine when intelligence, or life for that matter, starts.

So it appears we are stuck where we are today. Imperfect laws, to be sure, but these laws allow us to live within our own beliefs, and not to infringe on the beliefs of others.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Then you are going against society's established norms. One major difference... a person in a vegetative state, is already born. So, you consider ALL human life sacred? Including cancer?

What "norms" are you referring to? You've already agreed we don't know when intelligence starts.

And again, cancer is NOT human life. A cancer cell can be part of a human body, but it isn't life on it's own. You've said society has made the decision that it is, but you're the first person I've ever encountered who has tried to equate cancer with human life.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Extreme, I agree. But that's not what I said, nor what I beleive.

Okay, then where do you draw the distinction? I ask this, because I believe it is important to have that distinction. Without it, how do we determine what is medically permissable, and what is not?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: So it appears we are stuck where we are today. Imperfect laws, to be sure, but these laws allow us to live within our own beliefs, and not to infringe on the beliefs of others.

But where we are today allows us to infringe in the most final way possible on another's right to live.

quote Originally posted by GT86: What "norms" are you referring to? You've already agreed we don't know when intelligence starts. And again, cancer is NOT human life. A cancer cell can be part of a human body, but it isn't life on it's own. You've said society has made the decision that it is, but you're the first person I've ever encountered who has tried to equate cancer with human life.

Well, I am sorry to say but you just flunked Biology 101. Cancer is most assuredly human life. Cancer cells are mutations of human cells, whether muscle or blood or bone, or whatever. they started out as normal cells, then their DNA went wrong. But they still fall within the human genome. And cells are most assuredly alive. Since cancer is made up of cells, cancer is, ergo, alive.

And, yet again, you are blurring the distinction between human life and human INTELLIGENT life. Cancer is certainly not intelligent, but it is most definately human.