The chapter in exodus which deals with miscarriage in a fight also covers the penalty for accidental death between neighbors. It is death unless you make it to a sanctuary (not that the sanctuary saves you if you lay in wait and attacked your neighbor)
When arguing a definition, it is considered at least disingeneous to omit those senses which contradict your position.
If you wish to refute my point that the anti-abortion position is not rational, you merely have to provide a single counter-example of a rational, non-self-contradictory argument in its favor. As yet you have failed to do so; indeed (and yes, I have spent years examining this issue) I have not yet seen one from any source. I have heard only variants of the following assertions:
[ul][li]I think abortion is bad[/li][li]My religion thinks abortion is bad[/li][li]The fetus is arbitrarily defined as human[/ul]I don’t specifically compare the anti-abortion position to grotesque philosophies. I merely point out that using one’s individual preferences as the basis of a system of coercion applies equally well to any position, even the most vile. Racism is wrong because it’s irrational, not because it’s unpopular. Likewise, I disagree with your position on principle, because I have never seen a rational basis to enforce its provisions. Certainly, if someone (anyone!) were to post a rational derivation of the position (as I have done for the pro-choice position), we could then debate its hidden and explicit assumptions and the accuracy of the logic used to deduce its conclusions. But lacking such a derivation, or a rational refutation of my own argument, we can do no more than engage in shouting matches of greater or lesser subtlety and violence.[/li]
“Coercion” is not defamatory. We are discussing the issue of whether legal sanctions should be applied to those who either perform or receive abortions. Such sanctions are by definition coercive. I will be happy to post the complete definition of “coerce” upon request.
You have not called the the pro-choice position tyranny because it is not. To refrain from coercion may have positive or negative effects, but one cannot accurately term such restraint tyranny. I can oppress you only through a positive action; the worst I can do through inaction is neglect.
If you wish to rationally refute my or others’ posts, or post relevant points yourself, with attention to detail and intellecutal honesty, you will engage my respectful attention and response. I lack the motivation to debate the willfully ignorant and irrationally zealous.
As a matter of form, all of us have scroll bars on our browsers. It is not necessary to quote an entire message when attempting to refute its points.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
**
Well, actually, this applies whether she is pregnant or not. This is also consistent with Jewish law where a person convicted of a capital crime is punished, even if pregnant. That hardly sanctions abortion on demand.
Zev Steinhardt
Um, no, I’m afraid not. There is no mention in Ex. 22 of an * Ir Miklat * (city of refuge). You must be confusing this with another passage.
Zev Steinhardt
Well, I didn’t see a chapter listed in your quote, so I assumed you were using Exodus 21 which does mention the altar of YaHVeH as a place of refuge, although not certain if this grabbing of the horns of the altar equated on the same level, protection wise, to the cities of refuge designated in Deuteronomy 19. Certainly seems less useful (gotta hope your relatives bring you food, and what do you do for sanitary stuff?).
Sorta like Roman refuge at the temple of, hm, was it Apollo?
In any case, my point still stands. The penalty for killing your neighbor, even as a second-degree murder, (not manslaughter) was still death. That was not the case with the kid…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**
The point wasn’t whether it sanctioned abortion on demand. The point was directed towards a different value on the life of a fetus vs a fully developed human.
In this case, that does seem to be what is happening (although, true enough, God did have a tendency in the OT to punish the innocent with the guilty…)
Satan wrote:
Since when is a “normal” existence pain-free? I got beaten up by my classmates all the time at school. Not that I’m bitter. Noooooo…
Zev, I remember reading ( on more than one occasion) that not only does Jewish law allow abortion in this situation, it virtually mandates it. Is that true?
I take more of a pro-choice stance myself, but I won’t bore anyone with the reasons behind my choice since this isn’t what the OP is asking anyway.
It strikes me that the decision to be pro-choice/pro-life is neither about compassion for the unborn child nor punishment for the mother (I’m assuming you mean punishment as in: you did the deed so now you must live with the consequences of your action; next time consider your actions more carefully). Rather I believe it’s about whether the rights of the mother (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc…) outweigh the rights of of the unborn child. This then proceeds into debates over whether the fetus is a human being that has a right to life or just a collection of cells, abortion in the case or rape or if the mother’s health is in jeopary, and the like.
This has always been how I perceived the issue, in any case; can’t speak for anyone else.
There is a discussion of some of these issues here
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980313/politicssb1.html
First off, an apology for including more quoted text than needed in my reply. Reasons #1 and #2 are the same kinds of reasons (although substitute “ethics” or “philosophy” or “moral standards” for religion, at least for some folks) that have been used in a wide range of policy discussions ranging from the treatment of migrant farm workers, to civil rights efforts (mostly founded and led by religious leaders), to child work laws, to rights for gays. There is no scientific rationale to support or argue against voting rights for blacks…for example. My parents never used a “rational argument” to convince me that the neighbors down the block were bigots for their attitude towards blacks. Equality of peoples is not a self evident concept, either in the past, or for many people…the present.
Although many have disputed the “human” nature of the fetus, the same kind of thinking has been applied to other classes of individuals. Could you convince a slave owner to treat blacks as human beings? How would you do that convincing? And if you could not convince him to change his way of thinking, would that mean that your thinking was arbitrary, irrationale, and indeed coersive toward him (as you take away his means of earning a living)?
Beagledave, the difference is we can quite definitively say the fetus is lacking qualities existent in a human being - namely, a conscious mind.
I suppose arguments could be made of late term abortions in this case, but that is the stance I, and most pro-choice members of the board take, that a conscious mind is what makes us human.
I don’t really see a comparison with slavery being possible. In any case, this thread is rather unique in the whole pro-choice/anti-abortion debate. It argues that the anti-abortion crowd seem to place the fetus on a lower level of humanity then the mother when they make exceptions for rape, and further suggests that they are seeking to punish what they view as irresponsible behaviour.
Do you have an answer to that? 
In this case, the fact is that we see the fetus lacking a quality that is in humans, that we consider essential to being human.
While there are slave owners who might consider their slaves to be lacking essentially qualities of humanity, they cannot show that in any scientific fashion.
People who are pro-choice CAN show that at least at some stage, the fetus is definitely lacking a mind. A mind is something that all humans have, therefore, the fetus is lacking a quality (which we would consider essential) of humans.
I don’t think pro-slavery people could make that argument in any consistent, scientific fashion.
First…folks in our position prefer the term pro life. (see Satans argument earlier). Saying that a conscious mind is the definition of “a human being” is at least as arbitrary a definition as any that pro lifers are accused of…
You don’t say why a comparison with slavery is not possible…my point was about the so called "arbitrary "definition of a human life…Dred Scott and prevailing attitudes of the day said that blacks were not fully human.
Rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions are not universal tenets held in the pro life camp (although I suppose it is more convienent to group us all together). There are plenty of folks in the pro life camp who oppose ANY and all abortion. For reasons that seem outside the scope of this thread, that is not my personal position. Similarly, there are “pro choice” folks who have no problem aborting at ANY time in a pregnancy…while others would not wish to do so late term…There are plenty of “inconsistencies” to abound on both sides…if that is the point of the thread…
I can not answer the notion of “punishing” someone for behavior…that is not my viewpoint with regards to abortion. Perhaps those pro life folks who think that they are into “punishing women” could speak for themselves.
Says you. 
Joe, I found your definition interesting and I appreciate that you responded. Let’s assume that it’s unassailably rational and that sentience/consciousness are the criteria that define human life. How do you reconcile the fact that this boundary is indeterminate? Do you (as I do) assume then that life is present unless you can conclusively prove otherwise?
I make this assumption because (as I’ve stated in other threads) I believe that the right of an innocent not to be slaughtered is as close to an absolute right as exists. Since this line is crossed somewhere (but we’re not sure where), how can we err on the side or killing an innocent? Is this rational from your perspective?
Mind if I step in? I believe a newborn baby may have genuinely human mental processes, as it (assuming it is healthy) has a fully-developed and fully-functional human complex cerebral cortex. Before the fifth month of gestation the complex cerebral cortex has not yet begun to form, the presence of which seems to be absolutely mandatory for even the possibility of true human sentience or conciousness–remove the cerebral cortex from a person and you don’t seem to have a “person” left. “Death” is even medically defined as the lack of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex, even though the heart may still beat. My personal rule of thumb for “personhood” in humans is the presence of a functional complex cerebral cortex, which excludes from “personhood” approximately the first two trimesters of a fetus’ existence and an adult human suffering from brain-death. After the fifth month or so, the presence of a developed complex cerbral cortex would lead me to say that a fetus may be a person–we cannot determine if the presence of the cerebral cortex is all that is needed for conciousness, or whether the cortex is functional before it is fully developed (which happens sometime after the sixth month, although it continues to grow), just that it seems we can’t have consciousness without it–but if the birth would cause severe hardship or death for the mother (who we can be assured is a person if she is manifestly conscious and sentient, as opposed to the fetus’ “possible” person-hood), I believe abortion should still be an option. Prior to the deveopment of a complex cerebral cortex, the potential for the fetus to possibly develop into a person is there and is deserving of consideration, as all potentials are deserving of consideration; but I do not value potential persons above actual persons.
[Edited by Gaudere on 09-15-2000 at 07:48 PM]
Although we may disagree on this issue, the notion of “when does human life begin” is not an arbitrary one without scientific evidence…Of course the question of how much dignity to grant that human life has been, and probably will always be up for debate…much like the debate over other humans relegated to second class status
WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?
- In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
-
“Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”
-
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
-
Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
-
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”
-
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”
-
Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.” And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”
-
Professor Eugene Diamond: “…either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”
Since no one is arguing that the fetus is not alive, you are fighting with a straw man.
I am not arguing about whether a fetus is alive. I am (as are other posters) arguing about when human life begins…no straw man necessary here.