So let me ask you something. What's the difference between killing an unborn baby without a brain and killing a plant? One is a human? So what?

Let me ask you something else. When a man dives off a cliff and instead of landing into the water below he hits his head on rock hidden under the water. He goes into a coma. He remains in a vegetative state for 4 years and the parents decide it's time to pull the plug. Why did they pull the plug? Because it made absolutely no sence keeping him alive if we were to remain in that state forever. Was there a reason to not pull the plug? Is a person who can't move, breathe, think, or feel any better than a plant? They are nothing and they deserve neither life nor death. Are they any use in the world? No, they bring nothing to no one.

You could argue that they atleast got a chance to live and a dead fetus never got that chancce, but how about the many other eggs never fertilized? Did they ever get a chance to live? No, they were either flushed down a toilet or stopped by birth control pills.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

While I think that the notion of legislating/outlawing abortion is foolhardy, I think you're treading on the edge of a very slippery slope with this line of argumentation. Exterminating people on the subjective basis of "use to society" never seems to go very well.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

While I agree with you, I was trying to make a point. What's the point of keeping a brain dead person alive? A fetus is entirely dependent on its mother just like a brain dead patient is entirely dependent on the machines that keep him alive. It isn't a life worth living. On the surface it appears they are humans, but inside they have no self. They have no thoughts or feelings.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Thanks! However this area is infested with the stuff, so I can get it at the local grocery, unfortunately.

I had the stuff for my first time in 2003. I had a breakfast meeting with a local on the Eastern Shore. He ordered it for me. I took one bite, and kinda/sorta just let the rest sit on my plate and concentrated on the eggs and toast. He was quite enthusiastic about me trying a food that he grew up with. I don't like it so much that I couldn't even force it down to be polite at the meeting. I needed one of my dogs under the table for a quick handoff of the offending substance.

No offense.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

What are you talking about? I was right on the money.

Your logic does indeed necessitate that you defend zygotes, which IMO is an untenable position that should be easy to poke holes in. How? Well, if it was me, I'd simply place before the judge or justices a zygote, on the one hand, and a grown adult on the other, and ask if it could really be said that there are no significant differences between these two "human beings".

When you claim that a zygote is every bit the human being that a child or adult is, I think you've reduced the significance of that distinction to such an extent that it becomes almost worthless, which IMO is a sound enough reason to reject such a narrow scientific classification from forming the basis of law re abortion.

What you fail to acknowledge is that this narrow, scientific interpretation is irrelevant outside of the field of science. There is no reason to expect that those who are not scientists should have such a perspective.

Now, if you want to say that a zygote is human, rather than a human being, I'd say that that is a much more honest classification that should have some relevance in civil society, but to say that it's a human being, outside of the scientific context that finds utility for such a classification, is really quite absurd, and demonstrably so.

Frankly, I'll be very interested to see which scientists testify that such a scientific interpretation should form the basis of civil law.



And just as we concluded our last go-round on this issue, it comes down to whom the framers considered to be entitled to the rights espoused in the constitution, and we know for a fact that neither blacks nor women were considered to be the equal of the white, male framers, which doesn't bode well for your position, I'm afraid -- unless the conservative justices decide to become the judicial activists they so frequently bemoan, which won't surprise me at all.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

If by "ridiculous", you mean "bullet proof", I agree.

The fact that it is illegal to kill eagles is central to the argument, as it is also illegal to kill human beings.

Yeah, yeah, present mitigating circumstances...they exist on both sides. Justifiable/accidental homicide RE: humans...just as if you crashed your hang-glider into an eagle, I doubt you'd be in trouble.

So, you declare my argument invalid by changing the reality upon which it is based. That is irresponsible and just flat-out sloppy arguing, on your part.

Address the argument, as I presented it, or slink away in defeat. You choose.

Scrapple is definitely not for everyone. My only advice is to try it a second time at a different place - preferably in the midst of Amish country - before you commence to hatin' it. . A little ketchup is helpful, if you like it on your sausage, etc...

First time I had grits, I hated them. But, I found out:

A) The grits I tried were "instant" grits
B) I added milk to them (ala Cream of Wheat)
C) I added sugar to them

Based on that, I was tempted to write them off. Then, one day, I got 'em in North Carolina. Spread over a plate, a little butter/salt...eggs-over-easy placed right on top. Delicious.

No offense taken...people like what they like. Worst pizza I ever had in my entire life was in Italy (even worse than Little Caesar's and elementary school pizza, which actually might be synonymous!!!!). I'm sure they'd take offense to that, but the hell with 'em.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Impugn, it's ridiculous because of reasons behind arresting someone for killing a bald eagle. What's the difference between shooting a duck and shooting a bald eagle?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Actually, his argument is not ridiculous. In fact, it's a rather good argument to counter the viability argument. Because of that, I would be against any laws concerning bald eagle (or any endangered or protected species) eggs. We should be consistent in our laws.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Maybe I'm really confusing his argument. What again were you trying to prove impugn? I'm a bit confused now.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

I see very little point spelling out what I've cleared stated at least twice just a few clicks away for you.

But in the spirit of "No question is a dumb question" (which is a lie...don't believe it for a moment)...

A case for keeping abortion legal was made stating that since the fetus (at earlier stages) is not "viable" (i.e. you can't chuck a bottle of government subsidized formula at it and go back to watching Oprah) it is not [yet] a "human". Using the oldest trick in the book for any conflict, the attempt is made to - quite literally, in this case - dehumanize the subject in an attempt to promote a more cavalier and callous attitude towards it.

I reject the premise, outright. However, if it is reality, then, one should be able to reasonably and indiscriminately destroy American bald eagle eggs without fear of prosecution. After all, it should follow that the eggs are not eagles.

Why did I choose eagles? It's more cut-and-dried - they are "protected" just as humans are. It is illegal to kill one. Using "viability" standards, however, it should not be illegal to destroy one's eggs. The eggs are not eagles, or so they say.

That is it.

Now, you can use your [curiously] pro-abortion stance to keep arguing against this and look foolish along the way...just for the sake of it.

Or you can, as Si Modo did, recognize the absurdity of the "viability" argument RE: abortion - and stay pro-abortion, but for different, ostensibly logical reasons. Or join Si Modo on the campaign to legalize the smashing of eagle eggs...that would be an odd petition to circulate.

For example, I am quite obviously pro-gun. However, you won't see me attempting to use "hunting" as a means by which to justify my position. I think people that rely upon that small part of the overall picture actually do more harm than good to the pro-gun argument. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Preserving hunting does nothing to preserve firearms rights RE: guns that aren't used/needed for hunting (i.e. opens door to ridiculous, "You don't need an AK-47 to shoot deer" anti-gun argument). It is entirely possible for me to set aside my partisan feelings RE: the subject and recognize an argument supposedly in my overall favor isn't very convincing.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

I'll forward my petition to you under separate cover, Impugn.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Cool. We can set up a table next to my anti-women's-domestic-abuse petition table: "End Women's Suffrage Now!"



Betcha I get more signatures.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

OMG! Funny! And, sadly, I bet you would get more signatures.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition