Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:07:25 -0400, Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

Oops, forget I said that. The thread was getting so long I was
responding to a different part. Ideally, you'd draw the line where the
fetus could survive on it's own without physical dependence on the
mother. That's what most of the drawn lines are trying to achieve.

But there's no sure fire way of know when the fetus possesses a
conciouness, and a "soul", and therefore is considered an individual,
and not just the product of the mother's genetics.


Anyway, just to end this in some way, my only point to you is that you
need to base your opinions on some sort of solid moral foundation.

I believe that I have.


I can respect your opinions more if they were consistent.

The problem is that there is no consistency when it comes to the taking
of life. Even the Bible provided certain cases where killing is
justified (Such as in the case of war). In those cases, these
"justified" killings, were in response to "bad" people, who, as long as
they are alive, pose a threat to society. An unborn fetus, cannot be
judged by the same criteria, so it is not justified.


For instance,
someone who believes that it's only God who can make a life or death
decisions and base their opinions on that belief consistently, I can
respect. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their opinions.

On the other hand, if someone believes that man can rightfully make a
life or death decision and doesn't reserve that strictly for God, and
bases their opinions on that belief consistently, I can respect that as
well. Again, I might not agree with them, but I can respect their
opinions.

But you are basing this on a philosophy of "all or nothing". There is
very little in life, which falls into that catergory



But, if someone believes that man has a right to make the life or death
decisions in some cases but only God can make life or death decisions in
other cases, and the cases just happen to arbitrarily line up to
support a haphazard set of opinions, then I can't respect those
opinions. I'm sure that doesn't bother you though.

What you call "haphazard", I call "conditions". Life is full of
conditions. There is no universal truth. "Evil" people truly deserve to
be put to death. Innocent children (Born or unborn) do not.


Dave