...Or possibly we think that some crimes are so serious that the right to life should be repealed.

I recently have read George Lakoff's(UC Berkely linguistic proffesor and progressive) book Whose Freedom? which talks about the very issues you speak about here. He has broken much of it down to strict father vs. nurturing parent upbringings. The basic premise being that most religious households are patriarchys that involved the father as an authoritarian with control over the majority if not all of the families decisions. This links up quite well with the view of an absolute moralist view of the world with God(the Christian God) being used as the template. Its really a fascinating read and I would suggest reading it. I can't reiterate all of his points here, but this Wiki paraphrasing helps:

"Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the "strict father model" and has a family structured around a strong, dominant "father" (government), and assumes that the "children" (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible "adults" (financially and morally responsible beings). Once the "children" are "adults", though, the "father" should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the "nurturant parent model", based on "nurturant values", where both "mothers" and "fathers" work to keep the essentially good "children" away from "corrupting influences" (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.^[4]

Lakoff further argues that one of the reasons liberals have had difficulty since the 1980s is that they have not been as aware of their own guiding metaphors, and have too often accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote the strict father metaphor. Lakoff insists that liberals must cease using terms like partial birth abortion and tax relief because they are manufactured specifically to allow the possibilities of only certain types of opinions. Tax relief for example, implies explicitly that taxes are an affliction, something someone would want "relief" from. To use the terms of another metaphoric worldview, Lakoff insists, is to unconsciously support it. Liberals must support linguistic think tanks in the same way that conservatives do if they are going to succeed in appealing to those in the country who share their metaphors."

Frames like unborn children and murder of the innocents create the idea that every single union of sperm and egg is a perfect creation of God that cannot be torn asunder by human means. I think the prescriptions for upholding life in the beginning and destroying life through the legal system are quite heavily influenced by the bible. Justice is an important theme in the book, and most times when someone has done something unjust they are killed for it. Ideas that state an ultimate punishment(death) is off the table, are not reflected in this ethical system, because the tit for tat judicial philosophy has created many of the foundations of their legal attitudes. The thinking goes that, if there is not an adequate punishment as to instill discipline and deter criminal/immoral acts then the system breaks down. It is circular reasoning that always needs to point back to an absolute moral code.

I would consider myself a progressive(pro-choice, for gay rights), but have mixed emotions regarding the death penalty. I think the two main arguments against it that leave me on the fence are:

1. We have put innocent men to death numerous times for crimes they did not commit. If there is a chance that we kill a small minority of innocent people while applying mortal justice to the guilty, does that justify their death?

2. (this one is the simple one)We show people that killing is wrong by killing them, kind of hypocritical.

This kind of talk just gets messier and messier and inserting God into it never solves it.

Start with:

And then who's right is it, to repeal someone's right to life?

Then you say either:

God's alone. And you're trapped because you just intimated that it was your right.

or you can say in order to cover your arse there:

It's the right of any person to kill another, provided circumstances.

And you've contradicted the Ten commandments being absolute Law, according to which, nobody has any right to kill.

So which is it going to be?

As you want it to be, I have seen this world, traveled to many parts of it (all except the Antarctica and I am planning to make that travel) and it all comes down to how much a human life is worth, and who's life your talking about, between religious and cultural hatred, well let me tell ya, your life might be important/sacred to you, but not necessarily to the next person. That's the thing, and with 7 billion people, I think a few less lives on this planet wouldn't be a bad thing, after all, we are ok, we are already struggling to feed the world, forget a billion more people. As much as we like to believe life is sacred, if it is so sacred, why aren't these people that believe life is so damn sacred go to places where life is being taken away from others? Darfur comes to mind, oh how about Somalia, Tibet, Kashmir, Zimbabwe, or any other country in which religious hatred or cultural hatred causes others to kill because they believe that a person of opposite religious beliefs or cultural birth is less sacred? Of course not because that would mean they would have to open their eyes to the ugly ugly world.

Because they care about their intellectual peers. A fetuses' brain is not fully developed and a brain dead person, well, he's a brain dead person (no offense to either, just to pro-lifers).

But all jokes aside, while I think that a lot of the pro-lifers actually believe in the so-called sanctity of life (despite the hypocritical contradictions you mentioned), It has become more of a political "non-issue" as Bill Maher would put it, a political correctness artifice in order to draw attention to yourself and your political stand by accusing your opponent of taking an immoral position.

Oh, and j_day*, while I don't work with kids, I have a considerable number of colleagues who do work with children, kids who have been through just entirely too much, and from what they tell me, I can corroborate that JillSwift is right, you would be the one who gets surprised by their answers.

But hey, god loves children, doesn't he?

There are four differences between a fetus and a newborn:

1. Size- ask yourself, is someone 4 feet tall less human than someone 7 feet tall?

2. Level of Development- ask yourself, is a girl who's 7 years old less human than a girl who is 15 years old? It's a scientific fact that 15 year olds are far more developed than 7 year olds. Does that make the more developed one more human?

3. Environment- ask yourself, are you less human at work vs. at your house, or at your house vs. at the store? Does your environment change who you are?

4. Dependency- ask yourself, is someone who is less independent less of a human than a person who is more dependent? Is a person who relies on medication, such as insulin for diabetes, less human than someone who can function without outside assistance?

If you answered no to all those questions, then it isn't right to kill a fetus because it is smaller than an infant, it is less developed than an infant, it is in a different environment than an infant, an it is more dependent than an infant. It's no more right to kill a person who is shorter, younger, in a different environment or more dependent than it is to kill a fetus.

As far as the "God loving children". Do you attribute all your good actions to God? If not, why do you attribute all bad people's actions to God? If you can act independent of God, so can someone else. I bet you don't praise God when something good happens, but you have no problem blaming Him (if He exists in your mind) if something bad happens.

The people who were killed in war were actually people, not just clusters of cells - often not even developed enough to have a brain or nervous system. I see no more of a moral dilemma in abortion than I do in swatting a fly.

Let's leave God out of the question altogether and simply ask Eloise's question, "Whose right is it to repeal someone's life?"

I would propose that the right to take life rests solely with the state, and even then only within very narrow parammeters.  Specifically, the state should only be permitted to take life in defense of its populace.  This is not only the right of the state, but its obligation.  Examples of this would be wars in defense of a nation, or the execution of a criminal.  Personally, I believe that capital punishment is becoming rapidly obsolete, if it is not so already.

I think it was J_day who already pointed out that the argument from complexity is a slippery slope.  The problem essentially is determining when life begins.  I we say that it begins at conception, well, problem solved, abortion is unjust.  Should we use fetal heartbeat?  The development of a brain?  The ability to sense pain?  How about delivery from the womb?  Maybe we should go "extra-utero".  Why not say life begins with the ability to walk?  Talk?  Feed oneself?  We could well extend the time period during whic we could kill our offspring well into the early 20's and save ourselves lotsa heartbreak.  Perhaps we could do our children a favor and start paring away at the age at which they can do in their parents.  Actually, it might be very convenient to do away with restrictions against individual killing whatsoever.  Indeed, following this line of thought should actually lead us towards a far more liberal application of the death penalty.

Beyond the argument from complexity though, I would further point out that abortion has a significant impact on demographics, and the potential for serious negative economic consequences.  Many European countries are on the brink of serious social and economic problems already due to the fact that their populations are not replacing themselves.  The failure of social security and retirement programs as the number of taxpayers contributing to them dwindles, the replacement of indigenous populations by migrants, shrinking economies, etc.

All of these pitfalls simply for the sake of our current comfort.  I'm not sure it's worth it. 

I would go with delivery. The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy by the way.

No, there's another difference: a fetus (in the early stages of it's development) is just a bunch of cells which latter on will develop into a human being. But by your standarts, if these cells are to be regarded as humans and treated as such, then where do we draw the boundaries between what's a human being, and what is just a bunch of cells? Semen and ovums are also to be regarded as humans? The atoms that constitute them are also to be regarded as human?

Ask yourself the following:

Did god created the universe?

Is god omniscient?

If your answer to both is yes, then god created all, knowing beforehand everything his creation was gonna suffer (including the shit he personally was gonna put us through). Now, If I put a glass just over the table, even if knowing there's a good chance it'll fall, that would make me guilty of braking the glass. With god things are worse, he knew for a fact this all was gonna happen, and still went ahead and rushed creation in 6 days. And don't give me that free will thing. There's no such thing as free will if the one who gives it to you already knows every move you're gonna make before you're even born, or in fact, if you're even gonna get a chance to be born, and abortions are just a fraction of that number, since before medical breakthroughs, infant mortality rate were much higher than today -in first world countries, at least-, so god knew which infants wouldn't even get the chance to live and accept geezus. But, let's be fair, if god is to be blamed for the shit of the world, he should also be praised for the good stuff, so here's a fun exercise for ya: count just how many "blessed" people are there in this world right now, this is, people who don't have to go hungry, or can get medical attention when needed, and have a decent roof over their heads, and then count how many people are there who can only dream about this blessings.

After considering all this, you still don't want me to pin the world's misfortune on god? Luckily for me, I don't go around blaming imaginary entities for real problems, but if the Abrahamic god does exists, he has a lot of explaining to do. And if he had any sense of decency at all, he would be so ashamed, he would kill himself (can he, or is it just another of those pesky omnipotence related contradictions?).

so at what point does someone become a person? 1yrs 2yrs?

So a baby is born and the mother just wants to kill it right out of the hospital, thats all right with you, survival of the fittest is your motto im guessing?

I don't think it is hard to come up with a point at all, Matt.

So your argument of when life begins seems to be based on mental development.  Why don't we simply extend the age at which one can be involuntarily euthanized to the mid 20's when brain develeopment is pretty much complete? 

And why particularly mental development?  Why is the development of the brain and the chemical processes it performs in support of life any different from, say, cell division,  nutrition, circulation, or respiration, or ...?  I mean they are all just biochemical processes.  Making one a criteria just because it's a more complex process just seems kinda...I dunno...what's the word....superstituous to me.  It's kinda like worshipping one rock over another because it's bigger, ya know.

Totus is using the slippery slope fallacy again. I think if someone is in such poor mental development that as an adult they are at cat/dog level they would be better off dead - I'd certainly rather be dead than live like that. Hopefully if it wasn't due to injury they would be aborted before than. Basically a retarded man who can talk and bags groceries has the same right to life as any of us - if someone can't even control their own bodily functions, no. Who would want to live that way? Interesting totus brings up worshipping rocks - rocks actually exist. Your god doesn't. I personally see life in and of itself as utterly worthless. It's the quality of life that counts. Before you bring up my life, I have 5 suicide attempts under my belt and think my life is shit. I definitely would never have kids and pass on my physical and mental problems. I do think it would be better had I been aborted - I'd have avoided a lifetime of pain. My mom had surgery that she didn't think she could ever have kids, but here I am anyway - hey, maybe I'm the equivalent of Jesus.

 Sigh.

Slippery slope is only a logical fallacy (I believe) if the argument is "don't do x because.......then z." This is not the same as using the slippery slope argument in order to suggest a difficulty in distinguishing between x and z.

I think toto (?) was using it in the latter sense.  He wasn't necessarily saying "don't have abortions," but point could have just easily have been "because there is no objective standard in which to distinguish x and y in terms of 'value of life,' then every position is merely a subjective one."  

The fact that he used the phrase "slippery slope" does not allow for a dismissal out of hand merely because the phrase also describes a logical fallacy--IMO.

As you have shown Matt.. the problem of distinction between life at point a and y is a difficult one.. and surely isn't one can say "this is where "life" begins"--because "life" is as nondescript as the word "god."

As for the argument that christians who are pro-life and pro-capitol punishment are hypocrits.. the point has already been made--but I'm pretty sure there is a clear distinction between the value of a "life" which has done nothing but "be" and one that has committed some crime, is a pretty reasonable position.

No religion necessary. 

Who has the "right" to takes someone life? Well.. unless we are arguing natural rights.. then it would be the state--from which all rights come (I believe)

 A more appropriate analogy would have been: why don't you ask kids in all circumstances whether they would want (a) for another person to determine whether they are or will be in a bad situation, (b) whether they would be fine in letting that other person also make the determination about whether or not that situation would be worse for them then not living at all, and (c) whether or not to kill or let the kid live based upon their determination.

I take a rather non-stance on the abortion issue for the very reasons mentioned by totu.. the difficulty in actually defining "life" and "value of life" and when that "value of life" supersedes any other rights a person might have.

That being said, the question about whether a kid should be able to decide whether he would rather not be alive then be in a situation is wholly different than the issue of abortion in my opinion.

I answered yes to all 4... what does that mean?

First, in order to clear up the whole "slippery slope" thing, allow me to say that I, like James Madison, believe that "since the general civilzation of mankind...there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by sudden and violent usurpations."

It's exactly the same as comparing a newborn, or a six month old, or a 12 year old to a 20 year old.  From blastocyst to 20 year old, the organism is the same thing, possessed of DNA distinctive from its parent, it is the same organism the whole time.  The classifications that human embryos go through, the stages in utero are artificial constructs imposed by science for the sake of convenience to facilitate study, the embryo remains the same thing, it never changes into something else.  Certainly, the actions it is able to perform differ greatly, as does the capabilities of an infant and an adult.  I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I'm comparing little apples to big apples, but they are all apples.

Quite simply, my argument is, since we are unable to establish a point at which life begins,  we are obligated, ethically, to err on the side of caution in order to avoid violating a fundamental human right.

Thanks for the assist in explaing the slippery slope thing, Rhad.

What I'm trying to say is that since the definition of when life begins is so elusive and subjective, we are obligated to err on the side of caution in order to avoid violating the basic rights of another human being.  It is the same as my agrgument against capital punishment, ie that if we inadvertently execute one innocent person, that is one person too many, therefore, we should not execute criminals.

To echo your sentiment on both issues, no God is required at all.

Asking that question never crossed my mind.  But at least you were given the cahnce to make that determination for yourself.

Agreed.  Brain function drives most of the other processes necessary to sustain life.

I agree that for a period of time, there is no brain, hence no activity.  Yet there is an important difference between an embryo and a corpse, that is the reproduction of cells is still occuring.  This process continues of its own volition, it is powered by processes within the embryo itself, not by the processes of the mother.  In fact, science can now begin the process, and maintain it for periods of time without using a human mother. 

We consider a bacteria to be alive despite that fact that it doesn't have a brain.  What exactly is the difference between a bacteria and a fertilized ovum, that one should be considered alive and the other not? 

It is not the same thing as a child that has been born. We can state the point in which a life can survive on it's own, outside with out the necessity of being inside it's mother or host. So yes we can quite simply make an argument of what constitutes that. You are comparing apples to oranges, and infant is fully formed and capable of surviving outside of the womb, as a 20 year old has already survived to it's 20th birthday outside of the womb, a blastocyst cannot live on it's own outside of the womb. It does not have a fully developed brain, it does not have internal organs per se, and it is not capable....and this is the important part of feeling anything, it is cells forming into a human, it is the DNA of humans (if DNA is a requirement then holy shit think of all the DNA wasted in sperm, and if you believe god created man, fuck he is an asshole for making us waste so much sperm and all that DNA in it) and it is going through a bunch of stages to get to the point of being a human infant....until that point is reached, it is not an infant, it is at best a fetus, and in the first trimester a blastocyst, which is just cells forming to the next stage, not an infant, not a child, but the a part of the process to become human. It changes from a sperm and an egg, to a cell, to multiple cells then eventually to a blastocyst, then a fetus and eventually what we call an infant. So you are incorrect, it is not the same organism....it becomes this organism that we call an infant....through a bunch of processes from a cell, and a cell is not a human being, which you are making the argument for.

But DNA is exactly one of the points I'm making here.  I can watch sperm all I want through I microscope (were I so inclined).  It will never change.  It's DNA remains the same, it stays sperm, it never goes through any changes until it dies.  The same goes for an egg.  Put them together, though, and an interesting thing happens.  The union of those cells develops DNA distinctly different from that of its parents.  Furthermore, it begins a series of cellular division and begins a progress that ultimately leads to birth.  If the embryo has human DNA, and that DNA is distinctive to that embryo, then that embryo is a human being.

There seems to be some (deliberate?) confusion and no small amount of equivocation going on here...

Yes, a fetus is alive.

So is a bacteria.

So is an earthworm.

The question SHOULD be; Is it a 'person'?

Person is a legal and ethical designation. A description of a life as a seperate viable entity. If we can not reasonably describe a life as a person, then there really is no issue.

LC >;-}>

Well that is deemed by society, for example in Ontario Canada, after 60 days the fetus has rights, unless of course for medical reasons, such as danger to the mothers health or that the fetus will not survive to term, but under that it has not rights, it's not a considered a human being, a person. As such, just like everything else that society deems ok or not ok,  it's is up to that particular society. Thankfully here we have the choice, not that it is always used appropriately.