Slavery still exists in America.

[jdl22]

Adults seem to have trouble knowing what life is as well. It's one big poker game for crying out loud!

[Boris]

The Navajo or the Hopi (I can't remember which) seemed to share your view. In that culture you didn't become "human" until you had the ability to speak. This was several hundred years ago when infant mortality was very high so the belief made practical sense. Both cultures have since evolved so I'm not sure about the modern belief of when one becomes human.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets face it, an unborn baby is human (check the DNA), has a future as a self-reliant individual (unlike a brain-dead coma patient), and is innocent of any crime. Yet that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner", while we will preserve the life of the coma patient (who has no future), and the criminal, and cherish the life of the six month old. Does this make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a problem. Having human DNA does not imply that you're human. All of the following have human DNA and aren't human: hair in your shower drain, urine, human corpses.

As for the issue you raise, people that think that abortion is murder just as me killing a human would be believe that future potential life is equal to present life (note that I said think, I'm excluding people against abortion simply because their religious leaders say so). The same goes for neglecting a fetus via lack of nutrition doctor visits etc. At some point it boils down to axioms. If one of your axioms is that potential and kinetic energy are the same so to speak then you are surely of the opinion you describe. That seems to be the case given the language you used in your post (citizen etc.). I personally am not of this opinion.

The problem with abortion is that it is such a highly polemic issue that people on both sides are hypocritical or at least make contradictory arguments. Let me give you an example on both sides:

anti-abortion people are against abortion "except in cases of rape or incest." If you think abortion is murder, how is one person's rape justifaction for anothers murder. We have the death penalty in this country but the children of criminals don't pay the price. Bush has said that he is prolife but doesn't think abortion has high priority. If doctors are murdering hundreds or thousands of babies every year what should have higher priority?

Pro choice people oversimplify the argument by saying "it's my body I can do with it what I please" just as I think you have oversimplified the argument by saying a fetus is a human. This seems ludicrous, it's not just your body nor is it a full bodied human. Furthermore many pro choice people say that someone that murders a pregnant woman should be charged with two murders. Seems strange.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically to this quote, an unborn baby is not a citizen. In the US (and virtually all other countries I think) you recieve citizenship at birth not at conception.

[ChristinaB]

Do you have something against Mothers?

Last week you say Mothers have condemned us to die.
This week you say Mothers are slave owners.

What do the "evil" Mothers have in store for us next week?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow that was so easy.

What's all the fighting about?

[MaxPower]

I agree. Let's ban dog ownership.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does human life begin at conception?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is self-evident to any logical person. Human life must be 1) alive, 2) human. And to to be aware it must 3) have a functional brain. Human tissue obviously doesn't qualify - that was just a jdl22 red herring.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
It's quite simple:

An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic.

Human life begins at birth, not conception.

The obvious counter argument would question the respect of animals despite non-self-awareness.

Animals are different, because they sustain the world that provides life for humans.

Thus, we must respect animals/plants/etc, because without them, humans would not continue to survive - it only follows that while animals may not be sentient and self-aware, they nonetheless require human respect for their roles in the ecosphere.

Ultimately, this argument only proves that humans are nothing more than self-aware animals. It's the same reason sex feels good, we find babies cute, and we care for our elderly:

It's all biological imperative. Sex is good because we need incentive to pro-create. Babies are cute because we're hard-wired to perpetuate the species, and it's easier to care for cute things than ugly things. We care for our elderly for what they can provide and what they have already provided: wisdom and experience that makes our own lives easier. And babies who are unborn are not yet babies, and since they aren't cute, only the Christian religious camp, which has never really let logic define itself, has any reason to demand their life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor, I was disappointed by this post.

You start with a series of assertions supported by no underlying facts or logic ("I say, therefore it is so").

Further, you may have noticed the thrust of this thread has had nothing to do with imposing religious beliefs - so why are you making this about the "Christian religious camp" pro or con?

What does your logic and your understanding of the science behind this issue make you believe? Thats what I would like to know.

Lets stay on topic - I know you can do better.

Respectfully,
El