snark said he believes abortion should be illegal and women should pay a “hefty” fine for having one.
Well, if abortion were illegal, most women might end Up in a hefty (bag).
Also, nowadays, pastors do preach that they believe abortion is wrong, but they don’t say their word is law as the LDS folks do. My pastor speaks on getting closer to God, not how I should vote. You did say awhile back that you would vote a certain way, even though you didn’t agree with it simply cause the LDS “prophet” said that was the way to do it.
Thats not idependant thinking.
[hijack]Okay, I just have to respond to this from ZooMom:
here’s the first four (taken from the Anglican BCP; not sure what translation is the source), the ones that outline one’s duties to God:
These four commandments are specifically part of a monotheistic religion, with certain conditions of respect for God. If a person is atheist or agnostic, or believes in a different religion altogether, such as Wicca or Hinduism, I fail to see how these commandments would have any relevance at all to that person’s faith. (Open to comment on this point from anyone from one of those belief structures.) The situation may be different for the next 6 commandents, which speak to one’s relationship to others. A person from another belief system may accept the ethical values set out in those 6 commandments.
ZooMom, I appreciate that you are basing your argument on your beliefs, and you have every right to do so. But, I think you have to be cautious about assuming that others will share your beliefs, as part of your argument. Relying on the 10 Commandments in your argument is just as faith-centred as referring to Jeremiah - neither one will be relevant to those who don’t share your faith.[/hijack]
To comment on some of the issues raised by the OP, I think the assumption of some of the debaters is that if you oppose abortion, then you have to support criminalizing it in exactly the same way as murder: a life is a life. That certainly is a defensible position, but not all legal systems take that view with respect to newly born children.
For example, Canada has two offences that involve the intentional death of a child, but does not treat them as murder, which is consistent with the approach formerly taken to unauthorised abortions, in the section I posted earlier (which, by the way, is no longer in force).
These sections seem to be based on the assumption that in these circumstances, there is less moral culpability, and therefore the law will not treat the deaths as murder.
Thanks for the info…
at a first quick glance, I’m not sure if i would agree with all of the language in the canadian law…but it is (I think,anyway) a useful contribution to the thread
Since I am the OP, let me clarify. One of the questions I asked was “I often hear pro-lifers say that abortion is equivalent to murder. Do you support the same punishment for abortion as you do for murder?” As stated by myself and several others in this thread, the logical inconsistency arises if someone says abortion is the moral equivalent of murder and wants it to be illegal but doesn’t support equivalent punishment. If someone is against abortion and thinks it should be illegal, but doesn’t believe that it is the moral equivalent of murder, then suppoerting a lesser punishment than the one for murder is certainly not logically inconsistent.
Thank you jti. When I posted my comment I was only thinking of the commandments that pertain to a moral or ethical code, not to the worship of God. I should have been more clear. 
Gaudere, the point I was trying to make with the site I posted was that the brain and nervous system are the first organs to develop in a newly conceived child. It is there. Which was the question, after all. Not how developed it was. I even highlighted in my post that the brain undergoes an incredible growth rate from 20 weeks gestation until the child is 5 years old. Does that mean that anyone under five years should not be considered a ‘complete’ person, since their brain isn’t through developing?
I do not believe that there is any point in a pregnancy where it would be “more” ok to abort. Absolutely not.
Asianmajik said:
Abortion is not God given. It is government given. Is it selfish to want to save a baby’s life? Or is the real selfishness found in not being “ready” for a baby to disrupt your life?
absoul, no-one is saying that the souls of aborted babies are going to hell. I don’t know where you got that from. 
Whether they go to heaven or not, we still don’t have the right to kill them in the first place.
No, it isn’t the question; the brain has various parts, and I don’t believe I should still be given the rights of a person if I am missing the parts of the brain that make me capable of thought, yet still have the parts of the brain that control my breathing and heartbeat. I would be considered “brain-dead”, and could not be murdered, only unplugged. The consciousness, the thought, the “me” would be long gone. Before a fetus reaches a certain stage of development, there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. This is a condition universally considered to be “death” in adults.
No. What those of us who do not consider, say, a fertilized egg as a person are saying is that if the fetus does not have the capability for thought, sentience, or self-awareness, it is not a person. Neither is an adult without capability for thought, sentience or self-awareness a person: they are “brain-dead”. Both our knowledge of the construction, development and purpose of the parts of the brain and EKG reading support the belief that before a certain point in fetal development, the fetus cannot be self-aware and cannot think. After that point–five-six months or so–the fetus may be self-aware and capable of thought, although we cannot be absolutely certain, which is why I would support abortion even then if the mother’s life is endangered (we know she can think). You may not like my position that a brain developed enough to support thought and consciousness is required for “personhood”, but it is consistent and reinforced by our definition of “brain-dead” in adults, and my estimation of when consciouness is possible is supported by scientific evidence. The fact that a few brain cells exist do not make a person conscious, and the fact that the brain is still growing does not make a four-year-old incapable of thought. The establishing of the complex cerebral cortex (which is accepted to be neccessary for consciousness) and the formation of EKG readings indicative of “thought” is decent evidence to me as to when consciouness and thought is possible.
That makes your argument about brain development rather strange then, since to you a fertilized egg should never be aborted even if the brain is not anywhere near developed.
[Edited by Gaudere on 10-11-2000 at 11:52 AM]
Actually, jab1 asked if there was a brain, and that is what I was addressing.
That is your opinion. If there was any hope that you would recover, then yes, it would be murder. And that analogy cannot be applied to unborn babies, because their ‘non-thinking’ condition is in no way considered permanent.
Science can’t be certain when a child is capable of thinking, but can be certain when it isn’t. Sounds funny to me. Seems like the same test that determines they aren’t could tell if they are.
But you are equating a developing brain with a damaged one. It isn’t that I don’t like your position, I just don’t understand it. I don’t understand why you rely on science to tell you who is and isn’t worthy to live. We’re coming from opposite ends of the ball field.
How do you know that salmon you had for dinner isn’t conscious?
Its brain isn’t big enough, is it?
Same principle.
And there’s no reason not to use science to examine these issues.
So, you agree then that if a human is not capable of consciouness, s/he/it is not a “person” and it is not possible to murder them?
If my complex cerbral cortex is non-existence, “I” am no longer. There is no “I” there anymore. If a fetus has no complex cerebral cortex, there is no “I” there yet and there never was; therefore it is not murder, by my definition–no “person” has ever existed. Once the “I” is established, it exists until there is no longer a chance of “I” existing anymore–brain-death. Abortion is preventing a potential person from developing, but hell, I do that every day I choose not to get knocked up. A potential person does not have the same rights as an actual person, and by my definition of person, the fetus has yet to become a person and is only potential.
I’m giving the fetus the benefit of the doubt here and allowing that the possibility of consciousness once the hardware is in place affords it some degree of protection even if the EKG readings don’t neccessarily indicate patterns signifying “thought”, so you might not want to get snippy at me for not taking a hard-line stance. 
Asking if a person might still be conscious without a functioning complex cerebral cortex is akin to asking if a person might still be able to see without any eyes. Quite simply, a brain without a complex cerebral cortex is assumed to be utterly incapable of consciouness, since all our best and most recent studies show that that is where consciousness and thought reside. EKG readings are used to determine if a person is “brain-dead” or not. We use these things every day to determine if an adult is “brain-dead”, i.e. no longer capable of consciousness. If they are insufficient for determining whether a person is capable of consciousness, perhaps you should start trying grieving family members for murder when they unplug Uncle Lou, whose brain shows no signs of activity beyond those required to make his heart beat.
how can anybody bring the government into this debate? it’s already been voted in that abortions are legal. get over it. as for religion, maybe i don’t believe in mormanism or gung-ho catholisism. if i did, i would be hating anyone who did not simply because they were not catholic. even protestant catholics are hated and are threatened to be flushed off this excuse for a life. i can’t believe that protestant and roman catholics are willing to KILL each other in other countries because they believe diferently. where is the difference. catholics don’t condone abortion but they are fine with killing each other after pregnancy. duh! i’m not going to listen to anyone who has the gaul to bring up their interpretation of the bible in the attempt to overpower mine which may not be the same. “thou shalt not kill”, but we can capitally punish abortionists. OKAY!
Bonus points for the person who can interpret the above post. Hell, I’ll limit it to this sentence:
C’mon. I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya! (What the heck are “protestant catholics?”)
Go away, asianmagik and don’t come back until you can form a coherent thought.
there was no personal attacks to you divemaster. my confusion is based upon the fact that i don’t give a shit about mojor religions. if you believe differently fine say it but don’t attack others and shun them away. these debates don’t need people like you. i have my opinions and you can’t deal with them. i as well will not go away for now. if that’s the only statement you can think of in order to discredit me, your comment only shows what a narrow minded and intolerant jerk off you are. just stick to your own opinions “DIVEMASTER” and leave others alone. this debate is about abortion and not personal attacks on debaters. sure our opinions differ but we all have one. you might think about going away “DIVEMASTER”. bug off!
I didn’t say that. Refraining from excessive measures to prolong a failing life and deliberately killing a flourishing life are two totally different things.
No, that’s called contraception. Abortion is killing a person who is already developing.
Sorry. Didn’t mean to get snippy.
Stated above. Refraining from excessive measures to prolong a failing life when there is little to no hope of recovery is not killing someone. They are already dying. You, as a loving family member, can choose to let them. Decisions like that are almost always made with the patient’s welfare in mind. Abortions are not made with the baby’s welfare in mind. The decision to abort is made out of 1)selfishness (I’m not ‘ready’), 2)fear(I’m only 16! How can I take care of a baby?! Mom and Dad will kill me!), 3)revulsion (rape or incest victim), and 4)medical necessity (the mother is in mortal danger of losing her life). I don’t know of any other reasons.
Salmon aren’t human. No matter how big their brain gets they will never be human.
(BTW, I love salmon. Grilled. )
I never said to discount science completely. I just don’t believe that science should be relied upon to declare a person worthy or unworthy of life. From my position, all human life is sacred, and deserves dignity and respect. Especially innocent life.
asianmagik, I didn’t want to pick apart your post, because it is, by far, the most incoherent post on this thread. If you would like to check the first page or two, you will see my contribution to this debate. You may not agree with it, but al least it made some sense.
Other posters, too, are able to come in with their opinions and debate/discuss them. I may disagree vehemently with some of them, but at least I give credit for effort, presentation, and the ability to provoke thought.
Then you come along. I doubt you have even read the whole thread. You post seems like a stream-of-consciouness rant with no basis in fact. But since you feel you are making a valuable contribution, here goes:
Our country is one of laws. The whole point of the OP was how to (theoretically) punish abortion. If the debate is over punishment, government has to be involved. Of course, if you think there should be no punishment, as is a common view, you necessarily would want the government left out. But you silence the opposing view if we can’t “bring the government into the debate.”
I don’t remember voting for or against abortions. Perhaps you are confusing “vote” with “Supreme Court Decision.” I’ll ‘get over it’ on my own time, thank you.
I can’t even begin to decipher or address this, other than to understand that you are neither a mormon or a gung-ho catholic.
Welcome to the real world. People kill each other in other countries. Protestant, catholic, muslim, animist, athiest, you name it. What this has to do with abortion or the current thred, I have no idea.
**I’d be willing to bet you know of no Catholics “willing to kill each other after pregnancy.” I sure don’t. The Catholics I know would be horrified at your characterization. Most today don’t even condone the death penalty.
**
“Help, help, I’m being oppressed!” If someone has the gall to present an opinion on theis board based on a religious belief, I suggest that you deal with it
There may have been a post where someone suggested capital punishment of an abortionist, but I don’t recall one. If you find one, be sure and quote it, and aim a reasoned response to the person holding that opinion.
Have I left anything out? I think not. That covers your entire post. Until you learn not to spew non-sequitors, straw men, and a misrepresentation of another’s opinion, I stand by my belief that you should refrain from posting drivel like the above.
Ah, heck. I’m feeling refreshed now. I’ll go on. This is what you posted on another thread, asianmagik.
**
This just goes to show that you have absolutely no concept of what RU-486 actually is. How can you enter an abortion debate and not understand that RU-486 is an abortificant? I actually agree that this pill is a “contraceptive device.” That is, to my dismay, abortion is too often used as a birth-control measure. But I’m sure that’s not how you meant it. You actually think RU-486 is like “the pill?” You can either educate yourself, or let people like me do it for you. Given your opinion of me, I would think you might want to start reading the newspaper or paying more attention to the world around you.
How dare you equate a pro-life position with those crazies who bomb abortion clinics! I happen to think they should suffer the same consequences as anybody who commits murder or terrorism. How many abortion clinics were bombed last year? How does approval of RU-486 stop terrorists from bombing clinics? Are you of the opinion that the clinics will go away? Newsflash. They will still be there and will still be performing abortions.
BTW, I care if people start “popping them like candy.”
But I’m not talking about euthinasia, or mercy-killing of a person who is conscious and wishes to die, or even aware enough to feel pain. Do you believe that a person whose complex cerebral cortex is non-existent, whose EKG readings show no signs indicative of thought, yet whose lower brain continues to allow breathing and heartbeart, can still be consdered to have all the rights and attributes of a person? The life could still continue indefinitely, perhaps many many years, with tube-feeding…but would it be murder to end this life? I would say no; consciouness and thought no longer exist and that person is already dead. Yet if a person was still conscious (and did not express a desire to die), yet could not feed or clean up after themselves, I think ending their life by withholding food would most defintitely be murder. It is the “personhood”, defined as capability of consciousness, that makes all the difference in those two instances.
There are in fact anencephalic infants, born without the parts of the brain that allow capability for conciousness or higher brain functions or even feeling pain, yet they can still breathe and some even suckle. Are these infants persons, and are we morally obligated to preserve their lives for seventy years until their organs fail? We would almost certainly do so for a sickly child who required the same sort of care, as long as the infant had a functioning brain, yet anencephalic infants are generally considered legally dead.
The question I consider is: Is that fetus a person right now? Was it ever a person? If there is not yet the existence of a person, then I will not accord it the rights of a person. “Personhood” begins when consciousness actually begins. It ends when consciousness is irrevocably gone. A fetus very well may become a person at some later date, but “potential person” is not the same as an actual person. There are all sort of persons who could be, or who likely will be, if you take actions A or don’t take action B…but I don’t think these potentials have the rights of actual conscious beings.
It is an act that prevents a potential person from becoming an actual person. Like abortion–which prevents the “natural” development of the fetus; or the Pill–which prevents the “natural” ovulation, or prevents the “natural” implantation of the egg; or a condom–which prevents the “natural” joining of sperm and egg; or abstinence–which prevents the “natural” procreation of the species.
It is preventing a potential person from becoming an actual person. I take it seriously, but unless a person is killed I do not see it as murder.
divemaster…D-u-u-u-d-e…I was gonna reply to AsianMagik again (damn… I know, it’s like a car wreck, addictive in a sad way), but you layed the smack down better than I could hope to…I’ll back out of the room slowly… 
I do. I don’t believe a soul departs from a body until that body is truly dead. The same way I believe a soul enters the body at the moment of conception. I believe that all human life is worthy of dignity and respect. If a person is able to take in simple nourishment, regardless of their conscious state, then they are not dead. “Brain-dead” does not equal “as good as dead”. And wouldn’t the politically correct term be “consciously challenged”? The bottom line for me is that no human life is mine to take. It does not belong to me. My belief is that we are only stewards of our bodies, not owners. I am accountable to my God for the way I use it, and am certainly accountable for the way I treat others. However, I do not have a “live and let live” philosophy. I believe that willful abortion is wrong for everyone, not just ppl of my faith. I realize that my beliefs will carry little to no weight with those who don’t agree with me, and that they are free to do as they will under the law. I don’t comdemn anyone for the choices they make. That’s not my place. But I do believe that there will be an accounting.
Then I suggest, that in addition to protesting abortion, you also demand that anencephalic infants be fed thought a tube until the expire naturally in 70 years or so. Then explain to the parents why they had to suffer through seventy years of constant care for the body of their child that cannot think or be self-aware.
Legally, yes it does. Perhaps you can also fight for a law that requires us to keep alive adults without any consciousness or higher brain functions until they expire naturally.