Something missing form "When does life begin?"

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
61

Sorry Brother Woody. Your argument is a non - starter. Each and every so called support you claim can be turnmed around and used by others. You simply choose to reject their support just as they choose to reject yours.

I have not ignored the observation . I am fully aware and acknowledge the position of anti abortion proponents that life which they believe equals human life begins at conception. I choose to reject it.

You claim historical support yet I know few if any cultures that name a fertilized egg or mourn for early stage miscarriages.

You use the seem to use the term “Life” and “Human Life” interchangeably because it suits your purpose.

Further, the unborn does not have all the rights of the living. It has been granted a special in between legal status depending on the circumstances. Perhaps it has been granted legal status different than the a living human being … because it has never been a living hiuman being?

Or do you choose to ignore this based on nothing more than your personal preference?

62

[QUOTE=Brother Woody; Your insistence that we’re not dealing with human life in the womb is a house of cards where all other arguments collapse including the abortion question, the petri dish question, the clonning question, the rape question, the handicap question, the euthenasia question, the suicide question. Is your position really the one that you want to adopt and stick with?[/QUOTE]

Uh, no. Your insistance that Human life begins at conception is the house of cards. One that tumbled long ago.

We are not dealing with human life in the womb. It is not a position I want to adopt, it is one I adopted long ago as the only logical fit, and one that the laws in the USA have adopted as well. providing the organism in the womb a special status, seperate and apart from that which is provided to living humans or even those that have been alive but no longer are.

You disagree with what the law provides and would have the laws changed to fit your world view. I for one hop it never happens.

63

Earl,
Though I know we disagree, I hope you wouldn’t be offended if I challenged your statement and asked you a question. I do so with all due respect.

On 9/13/1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation at a seminar in Dallas, TX on how to perform a procedure known as “D&X,” sometimes called “intact D&E,” but most commonly referred to as “partial birth abortion.” The procedure is performed when the fetus is at a gestational age that makes other forms of abortion dangerous or impossible,including the third trimester. So we know what we’re talking about, here is some of his instruction from that seminar.

"The surgical method described in this paper differs from classic D&E in that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus…

"The surgeon… pulls the (lower) extremity into the vagina. …(T)he surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges…

"While… applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand… the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull… he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

“The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.”

Dr. Haskell’s nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N., testifiedbefore the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary at the Hearing on The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) on 3/21/96.

“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

Why go through the logistical hassle of sucking the brain out first, then delivering the head instead of the other way around? Because then you would have a live birth on your hands.

Earl, to reiterate: If I may, I’d like to ask you respectfully and directly. In the case the nurse testified about, did Dr. Haskell end a human life?

64

First I need to ask you a question. In the very first paragraph you asked a question and also provided an answer. Where did the answer come from?

My answer to your second question is: No.

For those who think I don’t understand the “Life begins … at conception” argument, or at some other point prior to Birth and breath, I understand and acknowledge that they will vehemently disagree with me.

65

Earl said: “Your insistance (sic) that Human life begins at conception is the house of cards. One that tumbled long ago.”

Really? How? When? Where? Why?

Earl then said: “We are not dealing with human life in the womb. It is not a position I want to adopt”

Okay, Earl, I finally get it. I believed that we were in a philosophical debate about “when does life begin?” but you’re in a political debate hammering your position on the putative “right” to unregulated abortion. It’s no wonder that you can’t offer either sufficient reason or empirical evidence for your position but only unsubstantiated personal relativism. I also realize that you’ve not been educated or trained extensively in philosophy and that we’re engaged in different games. Sure, you may choose to differentiate “life” and “human life” but you’re out of the realm of philosophy and into your own idiosyncratic linguistic mumbo-jumbo that merely rationalizes (to yourself) your political choice. Sure, you may choose to say that life begins when the baby takes its first breath or when its 21 and working but then your argument devolves into the false dichotomy of visibility vs. viability.

BTW, for the sake of full disclosure, I identify myself politically as an Independent and a Constitutionalist, a retired law professor, one who is at the least, more than willing to take these “social” questions to the people for a vote. Do you believe in democracy to that degree?
If so, we don’t even have a political argument about the matter.

My original syllogism about “murdering innocent human life” was intended for all the folks like yourself who have gone off on their own tangents and tropes about abortion. If you want to argue politics, then let’s do so. If you want to argue conflicting rights, then let’s do so. If you want to just argue. . .then, I’m finished with you and this thread as far as the philosophical question of “when does life begin?” You may believe and “adopt” any position that you choose but in my opinion, you’ve strayed far beyond the realm of philosophical inquiry with an invincible intellectual obstinacy that’s most often recognized in political fanatics of the “liberal” persuasion. At this juncture, we must simply agree to disagree. Pax.

                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M. Anthony said: “. . .did Dr. Haskell end a human life?”

Yes, M. Anthony, he did. Earl probably won’t think so as he obviously doesn’t recognize the philosophical categories of visibility and viability or actuality and potentiality for that matter, which, of course, you do.

66

Well, the intentional termination of the human life of another who has not expressed an unequivacol expression of their desire to either be allowed to die (seperate right to die issues) is considered not simply murder, but in the case of abortion it would have to be pre meditated murder thru a conspiracy of the pregnant woman and all medical personnel involved. There is no such crime or prosecution.

So, society does not recognize the sanctity of human life as such for the in utero organism. Instead, a whole seerate body of laws governs these unique circumstances.

67

I see, the person who says “Right” does not mean “Correct” and “Wrong” does not mean “Incorrect” says I am involved in linguistic mumbo jumbo.

To the contrary, your equating conception with human life and the concept of some living cells with Human life is what you use to rationalize your philosophical choice and is based upon your personnel relativism. Your so called “Sufficient reason” or “empirical evidence”, is based upon your beliefs, nothing more.

This is not so much about politics as philosophy since the political Choice I would make is based upon the philosophy, just as I believe yours would be.