Great! But why appeal to mere science when you can point to the Creator Himself?

"appeal to science" because that is the standard the liberals have decided upon as the standard for what is real and true. So Mr. Rubio has pointed out that their standard, the standard of biological science, has proven a new human life begins at conception. Biology, Zoology, embryology, all teach this reality. Anyone that says, "well we really don't know this" is being willfully ignorant for the sake of their beliefs in the inferioruty of the fetus.

You can say, "I don't see the fetus has having equal value with a born human", but you can't say a new human life doesn't exist after conception. It does.

Pro-choicers have a prejudice against human life before conception, but then again white supremecists have a bias and prejudice against those without white skin. Their beliefs are based on prejudice and willful ignorance, but so the same with pro-choicers and Democrats that tow the pro-choice line.

"you can't say a new human life doesn't exist after conception"

Actually, I can. It may be alive, but it doesn't have a human mind...yet. Until it does, it's just a potential human; value dependent on parental desires.

So it's OK to 'abort' Progressives then? They appear to lack a human mind as well.

So parents can kill a child if they don't want it? No wonder you're so sick and evil.

So how old are you when you have a human mind? How do you determine when someone has a human mind? Brainwaves? communication?

I'm not even a Roman Catholic but I'm waiting with bated breath to hear whether the Pope will keep his word about THIS.

It's gonna get interesting.

And Pelosi and others that mouth the words. But in their hearts they worship Baal(Obama) and his new religion with him as "god"

We don't really know when life begins, but a lot of people sure are willing to kill a baby in the name of convenience or economics. That is pure evil.

Aggie, it is false to say "we do not know when life begins". If that is the case then we cannot say that you are alive or any pro-choicers are alive. Science, biological science, zoology, embryology all have concluded that a new human life begins after conception. There is no argument of that issue.

What Aggie is confusing is the question of "when is human life valuable" with "when does physical life begins". To say "we really don't know" is to be delibarately ignorant of physical science. To say "I don't know when human life begins" is as ignorant as refusing the scientific conclusion of biological evolution. It is a fact and the beginning of a new life is a fact, not a belief.

Whether any born human believes an pre-born human has value is a matter of belief, but then so is the belief of a white supremecist that non-whites are humanly inferior a matter of belief. It is not backed by science.

The question is when does the zygote develop into a person with rights that must be respected. A zygote is not a human being; it is a fertilized egg that will eventually develop into a human being. You are overstating the case in regard to "science's" conclusion about life: a zygote is a human being in the same sense that a caterpillar is a butterfly or a tadpole is a frog: that is to say, it isn't - but, barring death, will become one at some point.

When will YOU develop into a person with rights which must be respected? Oh, you already have? When exactly?

I couldn't tell you when *exactly.* I've heard a few reasonable positions and arguments. One is when the fetus if viable outside the womb. Another is when the fetus can feel pain. I'm still mulling it over, myself.

Let's apply this not to some hypothetical fetus but to YOU. There are many ways you could be totally dependent on others right now, just as you were dependent on your parents until you were five, or seven, or nineteen. Would it be a good idea to strip you of personhood? Don't you see how arbitrary your standard is? How totally unjust to a helpless unborn child?

You didn't ask if I believed there were circumstances that would strip me of my 'personhood;' you asked when I *became* a person, and my post was directly responsive to that: I don't know when I became a person.

In the unlikely event that I somehow began devolving a la Benjamin Button, and at some point slipped back into a womb and shrank back to a zygote, then your question about when I would lose personhood would make sense in the context of this discussion. But as stated, you're fighting a straw man, attacking arguments I haven't made. I haven't offered you a standard to declare arbitrary. I've mentioned a couple of points of view that I thought worth considering, and told you that I'm still considering them.
For the sake of the conversation, I'll point out that we DO in effect strip people of their personhood when they reach a condition sufficiently abject. For example, we regularly take bodies that are unquestionably alive in the biological sense and declare them 'brain dead' and take them off life support. If the absence of higher brain function is sufficient reason to end an adult's life, one might well argue that a fetus that has yet to develop higher brain function has not yet achieved 'personhood.' I'd have to think about that one before adopting it as a position, though.

As a final comment, a rule can be arbitrary and still be good and necessary. Our rules dictating that traffic drive on the right side of the roadway are absolutely arbitrary - there's no standard by which driving on the right is superior to driving on the left - yet clearly we need some rule or there'd be carnage on the streets. Punishing someone for failing to follow that arbitrary rule would not be unjust. Perhaps you could flesh out that last argument a bit more.

Fair enough.

Two points.

First, if you don't know something, you should err on the side of not doing harm. If you don't know if a fetus is a human being you don't kill it, just as you don't shoot into a bush in which you hear a rustling because you think it might be a deer (when in fact it could be Elmer Fudd).

Second, traffic laws are reasonable conventions, like an inch is the length of the Kings pinky toe. By arbitrary I mean without reason. There is no rational basis for assigning personhood based on the fetus's or outside-the-womb person's condition. Assigning person based on viability (a totally vague criterion) is as irrational as assigning it based on skin color or ethnicity (even though this has been done many times).

Okay, now this is actually starting to look like a rational conversation.
1. I agree with your basic point - first do no harm. The problem here is that there are two sets of rights being balanced - that of the fetus, and that of the mother - so in this case, simply choosing to err on the side of caution for one side or the other is to err on the extreme for the other party. That's why I personally tend to look for the middle ground while we sort this out, and look for solutions that preserve the woman's health, freedom, and ownership of her body, while not inflicting unnecessary suffering on the fetus. One of the reasons I long found the viability standard to be reasonable was that anything short of that was, in effect, forcing a woman to endure the effects of pregnancy; however, as research indicates that the fetus might feel pain and have some sense of awareness prior to that point, I think that must also be taken into consideration.

I think there is a rational basis for assigning personhood based on certain conditions. I'm not asserting that it is the only or even right thing to do, but there's a logical and rational argument to be made for it. Viability isn't really vague, though it may involve judgment: there is clearly a point at which a fetus, removed from a womb, cannot continue to develop or survive; equally clearly, there is a point at which a fetus removed from the womb can reasonably be expected to survive; and there is a grey area, in which such a fetus, with herculean efforts, might just have a chance. You might find such a basis for making the decision cold-hearted or unethical, but it would not be arbitrary, nor would it be wrong for the same reasons as making a determination on the basis of ethnicity - I don't agree that the two yardsticks are analagous. (Note that I'm not arguing for the viability argument - I'm just noting that I don't think it's arbitrary, nor wrong for the same reasons as a 'racial' or ethnic determination.)

That said, your point about arbitrariness is fair - it can be a fault if morality is involved, and it plainly is here. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

H, I think you'd really like a short book called TEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES - A brief philosophy of the life issues by Robert J. Sptizer, S.J.

He resolves the conflict of rights issue in this way. Three fundamental rights of persons are life, liberty, and property. When property and liberty rights collide, liberty trumps property (where the Dred Scott decision was dead wrong). When liberty and life rights collide, life trumps liberty (as in life of the unborn child vs. the freedom to choose of the mother). So the life of the child is more important than the liberty of the mother and the freedom of the runaway slave is more important than the property rights of the slaveholder.

Thanks. I'm familiar with that formulation, but I don't find it entirely compelling for two reasons. First, in this particular case, the right of liberty is not the only right in question when it comes to the mother. Pregnancy is a risky proposition, and in the best of cases involves potential danger to health and life. When one insists that a woman carry to term, one is not merely asking her to put up with discomfort and inconvenience, but one is demanding that she take physical risk.

Second, I'm not sure I'd accept a general formulation so sweeping. Certainly, anyone who's ever said he'd be willing to fight to the death to avoid being made a slave would contend that life does not always trump liberty.

And finally, of course, when one formulates the comparison as liberty of the mother against "life of the child," one is already taking it as a given that the fetus in question is already considered a child. That is clearly reasonable in the case of a viable fetus, it is reasonably arguable in the case of a fetus that is far-enough developed to feel pain or show some other reasonable sign of awareness, but it's not a given at the early stages of development. In other words, to apply your formulation, you still need to settle the difficult question underlying the controversy to begin with.

That said, if I run across Spitzer's book, I'll be happy to take a look at his arguments.

Ran across this quote this morning:

The moral problem of abortion is of a pre-religious nature because the genetic code is written in a person at the moment of conception. A human
being is there. I separate the topic of abortion from any specifically religious notions. It is a scientific problem. Not to allow the further development of a being which already has all the genetic code of a human being is not ethical. The right to life is the first among human rights. To abort a child is to kill someone who cannot defend himself.
- Pope Francis

So you support killing off people who are on life support? And babies can't take care of themselves in case you missed it. Only a messed up psychopath supports legalized abortion.

Without speaking to what I do or do not support, people are taken off life support with some regularity. As for babies not being able to take care of themselves, yes, I think we all understand that. As I noted in an earlier post, one argument I've heard made is that one should confer the right to life on a fetus that could survive outside the womb. I don't think anyone suggested that this means being able to forage for itself.

As for "only a psychopath would disagree with me," well, I think we both understand that's emotional filler, not an actual argument. Demonizing the opposition in such a manner is, ironically, a dehumanizing tactic, and generally serves as a justification as to why the usual rules - of debate, of logic, of humanity, of law - don't apply. No doubt Eric Rudolph thought the same.

So a caterpillar and tadpole are not alive until they become the butterfly and frog?

That would be a curious reading of my post.

That is just semantics.

But you're ok with using semantics to benefit your side, hypocrite.

I think we know when life begins. Rubio is however wrong on when citizenship begins.

He is a flaming pro-Amnesty liberal trying to fool Republicans, after all.

Local_Ale
It's the Democrats and Obama that want to make illegals immediate citizens after "Immigration reform" is passed. THAT is Amnesty.
Right now Obama is allowing criminals, known criminals that crossed the border illegally to stay for fear of angering many left-wing hispanice voting blocks.

Mr. Rubio would separate out the criminals and deport them. How does that make him a flaming pro-amnesty Liberal? Mr. Rubio wants to create a special class of legal resident without access to social services or government provided services. The democrats firmly reject this as creating a "2nd class citizen" status for illegals. So how does that make him a flaming, pro-Amnesty liberal?

Mr. Rubio makes illegals jump through many many hoops and wait for a decade or two or 3 to apply for citizenship. How is that flaming, pro-amnesty Liberal?

If you compare Mr. Rubio's position to that of the Democratic Party there is a world of difference. If you can't see that then please get an eye exam.

Rubio is an anchorbaby. If you imbibe on the illusion that there is a difference between Rubio's amnesty and Obama's amnesty, you are hopeless. The, as CS Lewis called them, Conditioners, know you better then you know yourself.

But I get it--you are pro-Amnesty.

No one wants to kill babies. A fetus is a fetus. An embryo is an embryo.

Typical liar who denies that the unborn are humans. But that's b/c the unborn get in the way of you Marxists getting to have "fun."

What about supercarp's post implied that he was a "Marxist?" Do you have unusual powers of intuition, or do you apply the term "Marxist" to anyone you disagree with, as a sort of verbal tic or manifestation of Tourette's?

Quote---Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told thousands of conservatives gathered for the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., on Thursday “science has proven that life begins at conception.”---
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is absolutely correct. But there are those in America who are teaching 300 year old pagan and heathen barbarism and calling it science. Planned De-Parenthood for one.

According to them, no one knows when life begins. In fact, life is now not a fact but a philosophical speculation. Does life really exist at all? Is life part of reality? If no one knows when life begins then no one knows if life has begun in anyone. When did life begin in Our Obama? No one knows when life begins so no one knows if life has begun in Obama and therefore no one knows if he is alive.

Our Obama begam as a 9 month long disease in a woman. The woman became infested with non-baby. If the woman had sought the Healing Arts, why she could have gone to a planned De-Parenthood "clinic" and received "the procedure" which is the cure for her infestion of non-baby. Educated assassins with MD degrees deliver womens health in the Planned De-Parenthood "clinic" through the healing art of abortion. Is any human being killed in the process? No, because no one knows when life begins and therefore no one knows if a life has been taken, assuming life actually exists in reality and is not a mental construct only of the human mind. The philosphical debate on that speculation has been going on for 40 years and not concluded yet. Full emergence of the disease tissue of non-baby causes the transmutation of the disease into a human being. All human beings begin as a 9 month diesease of women. This is the New Science now taught in the public schools, supported by the media against right wing violent American extremists and Terrorists.

Perhaps Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) can be certified as mentally ill for this speech, it being in contradiction to New Science, and incarcerated and while they seek to cure him of his irrational mania.

So if I give you an egg, some butter, a bag of sugar, and some flour, you have a cake?

no, but a fetus or embryo already has the ingredients mixed together and baking. In that sense, YES, you have a cake, but a human life is not analogous to a cake. If someone steals a cake and destroys it, no murder(the ending of the life of a member of the species homo sapien) has taken place. After an abortion, a life that has already begun, since conception has already taken place, is a homocide, the killing of one's own kind. Under that definition, a fetus is a victim of a homocide. That may mean nothing to pro-choicers, but the death of those of the Hebrew race meant nothing to the Aryans in WWII Germany either.

The human life of someone should never be determined by the beliefs of another or others. Justice Blackmun had no jurisdiction to declare a fetus a non-person and even many Liberal legal scholars, such as Lawrance Tribe, agree with that notion, but they like the outcome of Roe V. Wade so they sit quiet.

Pro-choicers may not see fetuses as victims, but white supremecists don't see their victims as equally human either and thus, not victims of homocide. The same with pro-choicers.

Compare a cake to a fetus if you wish. Compare it to a rape if you wish or anything else horrible. It doesn't make your point.

Try a different tactic please.

Charles Grandmaison III - Don't worry about old hiernonymous. He is one of my stalkers. He tracks me from posting to posting and periodically goes berserk and tries to sound "intellectual" with a rpely of sorts. He's getting better too. Practice. An intellectual is one who trys to live off of selling ideas. Good ideas, bad ideas, mad ideas,
hiernonymous is a good pitchman. It keeps him from doing an honest days work like shoeing a horse. Before he was just a ordinary buffoon. Now he is an intellectual buffoon. It's his lazy nature coupled with persistent repugnance exuded verbally.Sit back, enjoy, watch the clowns, and don't reply.

hiernonymous is a good pitchman. It keeps him from doing an honest days work like shoeing a horse. Before he was just a ordinary buffoon. Now he is an intellectual buffoon. It's his lazy nature coupled with persistent repugnance exuded verbally.Sit back, enjoy, watch the clowns, and don't reply.

There just aren't as many horses needing shoes these days.

Emoting doesn't make for sound logic. I won't try a different "tactic" when the current one adequately makes the point. You have asserted that a zygote is a live human being - but, to use the cake analogy, there are several months of 'baking' before we have a viable person, and the point at which the transition from fertilized egg to individual human being with rights that can and should be respected does not become clear or obvious by insisting that it is clear and obvious. If I mix the cake ingredients together and tell you I have a cake, I may believe it wholeheartedly, but my belief does not make it so.

I'm not sure that there is a "Hebrew race," but the Germans murdered living, breathing, human beings. Playing the Nazi card whenever one is convinced of the rectitude of one's own position isn't sound logic, either. The human beings despised by Nazis or white supremacists are demonstrably human; they live, they breathe, they act, they are aware of themselves. The question in abortion is quite different, and you can't wish away that difference: a zygote is quite obviously not a human being; a baby quite obviously is; and determining the point in between at which the fetus makes the transition is a tough call. You take refuge in oversimplification, which is comforting and no doubt allows you to express yourself with unwarranted certainty, but, again, that doesn't make your position logical or correct.

Typical liar who's trying to deny that the unborn are humans so that you can kill them.

I'm not sure what you think I've lied about.

When does life begin if NOT at conception??? Did the male deposit DEAD sperm? Was the fertilized egg DOA? Dead stuff cannot produce anything that resembles life. When the egg accepts the sperm, the development process begins. AND the cells that start mutating are very much alive,,,, or else the DEAD stuff would be sloughed off in her next cycle.! What's so hard to understand about that??

When Rubio says "life" he means a human life. Obviously sperm and ova are alive but they are not a living human being, which a human zygote is.

Abortion barbarism is afoot Dr. Watson.
Heres a good book. Published in 1824.
John Gordon Smith MD 1824 - Principles of forensic medicine; systematically arranged
---
http://books.google.com/boo... ---
This book was published i n Londo, England. It has a nice section on Prolicide.
Dictionary definition - PROLICIDE = the killing of one's child.
This starts on page 310 and covers abortion as well as other acts of prolicide on larger children. The book explains the current ignorance by many that a foetus is not a human being. The common law was outdated, which required the death penalty for a "quickened child."
Our good Doctor, an MD explains that in 1824 the educated knew well that the infant in utero from conception was a living human being. Modern America has gone back into barbarism of pre-1824 London to support abortion at all stages. The baby murderers will even use the arguements of pre-1824 England to support abortion.
Nothing new under the sun folks. Same old murders with a new technological twist claims tacked on to increasing ignorance.

Did Rubio wow the "C"PAC crowds with his calls for Amnesty?

ding ding ding.. we have a winner.

sadly, he probably has. I don't get why so many like him.
was he better choice than crist in 2010?
yeah but only slightly.

Poor little Marco--just like Mittsy, he's trying to straddle all issues! Rushing to the right while talking to the wing nuts at CPAC, and then he'll rush back to Congress and push for immigration reform.

And you Marxists don't try to straddle all the issues? LOL

No wonder you hate this country and want to turn into into a Marxist dictatorship.

Mentioning "science" will cost little Marco votes with the wing nuts!

Since when have you Marxists ever believed in science? LOL

No wonder you're so retarded.