On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

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.

If there's no sure fire way to know if the fetus posseses a conciousness
and a soul, you must assume it does not. The alternative would mean
you'd have to a conciousness and a "soul" for just about everything,
from animals and plants to furniture.

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.

But you have not. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word
ONLY when you say "only God can decide life and death." Do you agree
that the word ONLY in that sentence effectively prohibits man from
making ANY life and death decisions for any reason under any condition?

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

Wait a second, you have that backwards. YOU are the one who said "ONLY
God can decide life or death." That is an "all or nothing" statement.
Do you now want to retract it? It seems like you do.

Your problem is that you are making "all or nothing" "black and white"
statements that contradict eachother and don't allow you the room you
need to make the points you're trying to make.

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.

If there are ANY conditions that are justifiably decided by man, i.e., a
jury decides to put a murderer to death, then you must have been wrong
when you said "only God can decide life and death." It really is just
that simple. At least some things surrounding this issue are simple.

Steve