Republican Sharia Law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Beating hearts don't mean much to me; you can culture petri dishes full of pulsing heart muscle cells. It's all about brain activity and viability, IMO.

---

Of course the pulsing petri dishes aren't working to keep any other living tissue alive so are (purely IMO) not a valid comparison. Much more importantly this illustrates the reason I don't feel qualified attempting to set boundaries for others. I picked the heartbeat rather than brain function because, following birth and so likely pre-birth as well, it is entirely possible to be devoid of brain function but still alive with a functioning heart beat. It is not possible to do it the other way around. Additionally, it is just way to large a gray area to define brain activity. Is it the formation of brain cells that link together? The beginning of simple function (something is telling that heart to beat)? Conscious thought? And once you pick one how do you determine when that stage begins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Of course the pulsing petri dishes aren't working to keep any other living tissue alive so are (purely IMO) not a valid comparison. Much more importantly this illustrates the reason I don't feel qualified attempting to set boundaries for others. I picked the heartbeat rather than brain function because, following birth and so likely pre-birth as well, it is entirely possible to be devoid of brain function but still alive with a functioning heart beat. It is not possible to do it the other way around. Additionally, it is just way to large a gray area to define brain activity. Is it the formation of brain cells that link together? The beginning of simple function (something is telling that heart to beat)? Conscious thought? And once you pick one how do you determine when that stage begins?

---

I find Peter Singer to have very provocative thoughts on this. I may not agree with everything he says, but he has some good arguments:

Quote:

---

Singer, who is professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, postulates the notion in his article that being human, (being a member of the species Homo Sapiens) does not constitute the right to life and he argues that restricting access to legal abortion leads many poor women to seek abortion from unsafe providers. He concedes the weakness of arguments based on the so called ‘right to choose’.

Singer claimed: “The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the foetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the foetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being. Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”

According to Singer, in his book “Rethinking Life and Death” unborn babies, or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig.

In one of his most controversial statements Singer says that human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons he claims hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus. Writing specifically about Down syndrome babies Singer advocates trading a disabled or “defective child” (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has better prospects for happiness.”

---

Now there's a few ideas to argue about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Still, I didn't mourn it as a baby. I viewed it as just more time before I would have a baby.

---

I did. I very much looked forward to the next few months when I found that I was pregnant. I thought about my baby's birth, rejoiced in the life developing within me, planned for nourishing him, guiding and teaching him and I mourned my baby’s death through miscarriage. Still do.

Quote:

---

According to Singer, in his book “Rethinking Life and Death” unborn babies, or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig.

In one of his most controversial statements Singer says that human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons he claims hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus. Writing specifically about Down syndrome babies Singer advocates trading a disabled or “defective child” (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has better prospects for happiness.”

---

My oldest grandson is one of those children whom Singer believes is less worthy of life than a mature pig. Of course, he's never met my grandson, a boy who loves, is loved and brings joy to the lives of everyone he meets. I wouldn't submit Jacob to his company. Peter Singer can kiss my ass.

Personally, I want to be gone before my brain function is. I couldn't care less about my circulatory system at that point.

But what about the soul? When does that appear? Is a soul comprised of parts from sperm and egg (I doubt it, but who really knows)? Is it conferred at quickening? At birth? Can a soul exist without a mind (i.e. brain function)? If souls are indeed eternal, they won't be fazed by miscarriage or abortion--they'll just choose or be assigned another vessel, won't they?

To say Peter Singer is a lightning rod to much of the disabled community (as such) is a massive understatement. Although I tend to believe the only rights we have are those our community allows--that we must be constantly vigilant lest those be taken away (privacy, anyone?) I think he ranges far beyond what most of us would consider ethical--essentially prescribing a year's grace period or so wherein you can claim breeder's remorse and terminate a child's life. (You see true-life examples of that kind of thing nightly on the local news, carried out in crude and violent fashion...) Pretty godlike of him to determine whether another person's life is worth living, or whether they are really conscious or not--considering they generally have demonstrable brain function. Maybe he just likes a good argument.

I read the following article some time ago, written by disabled rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, and found it thought-provoking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/ma...pagewanted=all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldensmom

I did. I very much looked forward to the next few months when I found that I was pregnant. I thought about my baby's birth, rejoiced in the life developing within me, planned for nourishing him, guiding and teaching him and I mourned my baby’s death through miscarriage. Still do.

---

Of course it depends on how long you were pregnant. I wasn't 5 minutes pregnant, and what I mourned was the delay in actually having a baby. If I miscarried 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy, I too would have mourned the loss of the baby. I am sorry for your loss.

I did go on to have two healthy kids, (the miscarriage actually came between the two) who are adults now, and I so enjoyed being a parent, and considered it the best thing I ever did, that I celebrate everyday my kids opportunity to CHOOSE if they want to become a parent.

I don't know how old some supporters of this here are, but I can say, nothing freed women more than birth control, then the ability to end an unwanted pregnancy. So many young people don't realize how completely women were held prisoner to their biology before these two freedoms. They have so much choice and freedoms now days, they don't understand how just a few decades ago, we had no choice. Unless you chose to live a celibate, loveless life, you were a victim of your sex, and the babies came, one after the other, without consideration to your ability, income, or situation. Or even whether you wanted kids or not. How many people on this forum alone are childless by choice. Not really a choice before birth control and safe, legal abortion.
And now, this legislation in Wisconsin would take that private choice from them. And very bluntly implies that women are not smart enough to make this decision.
Birth control fails sometimes.

I can just picture IL having to answer to some legislature who says she is too stupid to know her own mind in this!
"Are you sure IL? Really really sure? Cause, let me just ram this probe up your lady parts and tell you what you're missing! It's gonna happen anyway so you might as well relax and enjoy it":0! **

**I pick IL here as example cause I can't think of anyone else here MORE sure of herself and her choices.;)
***this isn't all in answer to goldensmom, but just thoughts in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

... I celebrate everyday my kids opportunity to CHOOSE if they want to become a parent.
I don't know how old some supporters of this here are, but I can say, nothing freed women more than birth control, then the ability to end an unwanted pregnancy. So many young people don't realize how completely women were held prisoner to their biology before these two freedoms. They have so much choice and freedoms now days, they don't understand how just a few decades ago, we had no choice. Unless you chose to live a celibate, loveless life, you were a victim of your sex, and the babies came, one after the other, without consideration to your ability, income, or situation. Or even whether you wanted kids or not. How many people on this forum alone are childless by choice. Not really a choice before birth control and safe, legal abortion.
And now, this legislation in Wisconsin would take that private choice from them. And very bluntly implies that women are not smart enough to make this decision. ...

---

Emphasis mine. I'm sure that indisputable fact has stuck in the craw of certain men ever since. And they'll do whatever it takes to reassert their lost dominion over us. That said, I'm pretty sure I'm the product of at least one--and maybe two--women who would never have had children had they had any real choice in the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

I read the following article some time ago, written by disabled rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, and found it thought-provoking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/ma...pagewanted=all

---

Great article, Jane. Thanks for sharing it. I am one of the majority who came to know Peter Singer through Animal Liberation. I didn't know that much about his other more controversial views until I actually went to see him when he was speaking in Burlington VT and I happened to be visiting my son who live there (Funny I saw him there, because I actually live just up from the road from Princeton). Anyway, there were disability rights activists protesting there at the front door, and he did address questions inside on that topic.

But to the point about the article, yes, life cannot yet be broken down into lucid little rules where what makes sense messes with what's true, and I hope it never will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

I can just picture IL having to answer to some legislature who says she is too stupid to know her own mind in this!
"Are you sure IL? Really really sure? Cause, let me just ram this probe up your lady parts and tell you what you're missing! It's gonna happen anyway so you might as well relax and enjoy it":0! **

**I pick IL here as example cause I can't think of anyone else here MORE sure of herself and her choices.;)
***this isn't all in answer to goldensmom, but just thoughts in general.

---

Of course I won't let the eejit legislative losers dictate this to me. Won't be happening.

I just like to see SOME recognition in this tiresome arguement that there is another being involved in the abortion thing other than the adult human. That's all I want, just throw me that bone. Recognize in this argument that someone loses.

I can't see an embryo as "someone." Sorry. If we were talking about some late-term catastrophic situation, I could go there, but most abortions are very early term, long before there is consciousness or viability or even the most rudimentary function.

I don't know personally, but everything I've read, heard, seen leads me to believe that an overwhelming majority of women think the matter over thoroughly before terminating a pregnancy. Those who don't probably shouldn't be giving birth anyway.