When does life begin?

I believe there's only one reason to take the life of another, and that's to defend your own life. (And by extension, this would include soldiers on the battlefield, a nation defending its citizens, and abortion when the life of the mother is at risk.) No lives were defended, for example, by killing Timothy McVeigh, although the heinous nature of his crime makes it easy to justify. The possibility of facing the death penalty for that crime obviously wasn't a deterrent, or else he wouldn't have done it. Moreover, I believe that giving someone like that the death penalty gave him the easier way out.

However, I'm not crazy about the alternative either, at least as the system exists today. If a person faced the possibility of breaking rocks for the remainder of his life in the most miserable environment possible, that would not only be a more effective deterrent, but it would be a more fitting punishment as well. Personally speaking, if I was faced with one or the other, I'd take the death penalty over the loss of freedom and a life of hard labor.

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone thinks cancer cells are sentient. If they think that then surely they must be able to survive on air, because plant cells are surely as sentient as cancer cells.

I know you have to deal with family - can't choose them for sure.

One of the amazing contradictions in my family is a cousin who is a strict vegetarian, who runs a health food store for dogs (organic dog food), but she smokes.

She thinks commerical pet food preservatives and additives are dangerous and downright cruel, but she doesn't have a problem inhaling known carcinogins, and thinks second hand smoke studies are a bunch of hooey.

Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is physically addictive and difficult to quit, and I have sympathy for those trying. But she is totally unrepentent. It is her life, and as long as she doesn't smoke in my presense (or near my kids), I have no say in the matter.

James

The emotional response, is vengence. I will admit that I've felt that too, and on some occasions I will feel it again. It is especially true with murderers of children, even moreso if you are a parent. But thats not the example I want to set for my kids. I

The rational debate, should focus on whether or not the death penalty works as a deterrent. There may be cases when people are deterred, but studies that I read once upon a time suggest that most criminals don't exepect to get caught. Studies I saw where states recinded the death penalty did not show any marked rise in murders in a before and after

I too have a problem with false conviction, though thats less of a problem now with DNA testing.

James

Had to take her out of Contacts- HS replies to EVERYTHING took up the page and I was missing posts from people that I wanted to read. I get limited time during the day so want to concentrate on more significant content.

You are significant content. Generally, you have something to say that leaves me with a giggle or a new thought. I like that about you.

NeverBusted is another that I watch for, and Max, and Mae and Neil and GG and...

Sending you a hug. Watch out- electronic trans leaves much to be desired...

Once more into the fray!

I argued this during a debate in college. It is an interesting question and one which ironically medical science (according to my investigation at least) is a bit vague on. I was taking a class called ?Technology in Society? which was badly misnamed as the class used bio-medical ethics to teach apologetics.

In any case my religious beliefs lead me to believe that human life begins with conception. I could not argue this point however as this was not a class on religion and I could not form a cogent argument if I could not gain agreement from my opponents.

So, I decided to do some research and find out what the medical definition of life is. Unfortunately, there is no clear medical definition of life so I took the two medical definitions of death and logically determined the definition of life. Medically, death is determined in two stages: The first stage is biological death which is a state where the heart lacks electrical stimuli or is in asystole. The second stage is clinical death which occurs when there is no measurable brain activity.

The reverse of death is life therefore it can be said that human life ?is? when the heart beats or receives electrical activity and or when the brain demonstrates measurable activity. Since the heart receives its electrical stimulation from the brain, the brain must function before the heart can. So, human life begins the moment brain activity is present.

here you go....

have [teletubbies]BIG HUG [/teletubbies]

:x

GG

My understanding is that the most likely cause of a cancer is a virus damages the Transfer RNA. and locally makes the area more acidic.

That makes the Adenine-Thiamine bond in the cells relatively weaker, and less likely to reproduce accurately. (Some of this is speculation, but the local acidity and Adenine-thiamine bond is accurate) the Cause is somewhat speculative.

HPV in know recognised to cause cervical cancer ni this manner.

Emotion versus reason? How many times have I said that? I'm faced with debating emotion with reason all the time. Perhaps you should apply that sentiment to all issues and in all cases.

Almost all transfer of wealth programs, for example, are based on emotion, not reason. Of course, there are those who work backwards from a desired conclusion (which was based on emotion) searching for the justification for that position, and they might call that "reason", but it's not.

There are many case where DNA is not available. In which case there is still a marked possibility of executing an innocent person.

Another thing to think about, The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, put in place a restriction on presenting evidence of innocence. In effect, federal courts can only act if the evidence of actual innocence was not available during the original trial. (This has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the ruling Herrera v. Collins)

Further, studies have shown (I have to look up the links, it has been a long time since I have been involved with Anti DP work) that show it is more expensive to execute an individual even after the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 than to house them for life. (We are paying for both sides.) Any shorting of the process or removal of funds will only increase the likelihood of executing an innocent person.

I KEPT some of the shots so I would have PROOF that even if I don't USE my brain, I still HAVE one! :p

Glad to see your still holding together. They never did find out what my issue was either. Cripling Headache from the time I open my eyes in the morning till I close them at night (with the help of lots of meds) for six months, I would have though something was wrong. Silly me.

[b]Having Human DNA and being Sentient!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/b]

One is nothing more than meat and should be treated as such the other is what makes a Human, Human well most anyway though Personally I draw the line at Politician's of any kind they belong to a different species. :)

From personal experience that chunk of meat that I had cut out of my arm was Human but was not Sentient but it was Cancer. :0

The same applies to all the other bits that I've had cut out so other than a less than desirable way of loosing some weight it's nothing more than that. ?:|

But you honestly don't know just how easy you get it. I have a [b]Mad Surgeon[/b] stand over me make a cut and then say something along the lines of he's terribly worried about his computers and he hopes that he doesn't slip with that sharp scalpel and cut off more than he intended. You just [b]Can Not[/b] say no when you are placed in that position. Good thing that I know the SOD so well as when the Police come around for him I tell the officer about all the grass that he's growing up at his new property [b]Naturally It's for Medicinal Purposes Only.[/b] :^0

It's good to see the look on his face when confronted with this but I now know that I should never have handed him that Pathology Report and ask his opinion. I've known the guy for well over 10 years now and now he has me exactly where he wants me and can get whatever he wants. It's unfair and I really get worried when he rings me late at night telling me that I have an appointment tomorrow for a Check Up. His way of getting [b]Free Work[/b] done. What's even worse is that I see him regularly at home and an under Medical Supervision when I drink anything. He's there and I'm drinking his Booze but he has a nasty habit of pointing to something on a bit of exposed skin and saying [b]I don't like the look of that you had better come in Monday and I'll cut it out[/b] that when he's incapable of seeing the label on the bottle and then I know that he stuffed up something at work that he wants fixed. :_|

You can never trust a surgeon ever they always hide behind masks so they can not be recognised and if they have the slightest worry they give you a general and knock you out so you can not see what they are doing. This guy is [b]Totally Insane[/b] but I like him and I always know that if ever anything serious happens he'll be there to fix the mess up or brow bash someone else into doing it. :D

Being EX Army he's always called in to any shootings as he's the [b]Police Expert[/b] here and I can never help myself when I'm there in getting back at him for some of the things that he's done to me over the years. I also constantly point out that he's a Foreign Trained Doctor as he did the bulk of his surgical training at Edinburgh in Scotland so he doesn't even qualify to be called an Aussie Surgeon even though he did spend 20 years in the army in places like the Gulf and Rwanda. I take great pleasure in constantly telling him that he was only practising in the Army and when he wasn't considered too much of a threat to the general population he was allowed into Private Practise. ;)

If you an keep him away from work he's a lot of fun to be with but he has this way of getting exactly what he wants when he wants it with everyone. But on the other side when I dropped that car on myself I was told in no uncertain terms that the Doctor who was in charge had been given a good dressing down to make sure that I was treated perfectly and I had to be cured ASAP because he needed me to repair his home computer. In that case he had put a DVD in upside down and couldn't understand why it wouldn't work. In fairness to him it didn't have any difference on either side and it was a simple mistake that any one could have made but he just had to push his nose in and even to this day he brings out a copy of the medical journal that I was written up in along with pictures and tells me what an [b]IDIOT[/b] this guy is. I just reach into one of the draws in his office and hand him a sample pack of Viagra and tell him to take two and enjoy himself. :D

But getting back to what got you started a fertilised Ovum only has the potential for life and by itself is not life at all it's not even Human but could become human if given the right conditions to grow in. But even at the 16 cell stage it's all stem cells that can change into whatever is required to make it Human most of the material that is produced while being Human isn't [b]Sentient.[/b] If it was every time that some person had to have something removed that would be called murder so it's possible to Murder the same person several times over anyone with half a brain will refuse to accept that as anything but Nonsense. B-)

But if you want to accept that premise I've now been murdered 25 times but I only lost a slight amount of weight at best only several grams. So does that put things into prospective for you? ;)

Col ]:)

And perhaps I am one of the inconsistent ones he mentions.

On Abortion. If life begins right at conception, then people who take the pill are murders. People who undergo In Vitro are murderers since they create more embryos than they use, and store them - the ones they dont use are eventually destroyed. But nature also works this way - not all embryos develop or are properly emplanted etc. For me life must begin sometime after.

I don't know when life starts. Maybe its after implantation, maybe its weeks later, maybe its when cells start specializing. If I had a magic answer I would say that there should be no abortions after that point unless the life of the mother is in danger (which in turn endangers the foetus).

Since I don't have an answer, I can't dictate to others, I can only suggest they follow their conscience. I would agree that after 20 something weeks, the fetus is viable and should not be terminated. But I don't have the data to argue whether its 16, 20 or 24 weeks. I was born two months early, so I know that that point is too late.

I certainly think that abortion should be a last option decision. I support the morning after pill's wide availability.

James

Thats my short and sweet perspective.

James

But while it's still [b]In Utero[/b] it's only a drain on one entity where as after it's left that state anyone is capable of caring for the being not necessarily the Biological or even Female caring the Foetus as it's possible that that Foetus isn't even Biologically related to the female caring it.

Col

My take on abortion.

Safe, legal, rare.

It should be ALLOWED by law, or you just get kids with coat hangers.

It should NEVER be allowed to become casual.
It should NEVER be allowed in society to become "Just one of those things".

The person that came up with the idea to print up shirts that say "I had an abortion" is a disgusting individual, that needs a good slap daily.

Cut-off dates. My boys were very early too, and each spent the first month of their lives in a plastic box. 2.5 lbs, and dropped under 2 overnight.

During the last election, the topic of abortion was brought up to get the mindless masses going (as if Bush decides abortion). I was watching the news with Thing Two and he asked me "Dad, what is an abortion?" I told him clinically what it was, without any bias. He looked at me and said "Thanks for not getting an abortion".

"Your welcome" doesn't seem to cover it, ya know?

Stupid? Absolutely. But the equasion has been developed- coming to a town near you, I'm sure.

The defense was centred in the concept that "cancer is an independent life".

I don't care if it is or isn't. I care if it has exited the theatre.

But Max's question has to include this as well- a subject I generally stay clear of. What is life and when is destroying it okay? If that life is a by-product of my cells, I reserve the right to kill it- regardless of what it hypothetically may be.

Edited because I am redundant sometimes...

That there are those who attack cancer patients about "killing" post chemo treatment- at least that was when I found them. (or more accurately, they found me...)

Stupid people abound. Wish they didn't.

The pain left behind is real and lasting. I can only assume that a woman having an abortion is as haunted as I am- not saying they are the same, only saying that the words and sentiments, while not changing the actions, are the pain that you deal with.

Wish I didn't have to...

"The rational debate, should focus on whether or not the death penalty works as a deterrent."

I think it works as a deterrent to repeat offenders :)

It's not all emotion. Abuse begets abuse... The victims of these perverts often turn into abusers themselves, so logically, nipping it in the bud will improve society.

"I too have a problem with false conviction, though thats less of a problem now with DNA testing."

Despite the hype on TV and in the news, there is no DNA evidence in over 90% of voilent crimes. Human error (both witness recollection and clerical) is the biggest cause of false convictions by far.

That's because the role of appeals courts is not to try facts, it is solely to determine if the lower court erred.

"The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" sounds like redundant law to me, because I thought it was always like that.

Probably should be another thread, but it's like the situation in the Middle-East. Israel has been compromising for their entire existence and what has it gotten them?

Compromise is not going to bring peace to the area, one side beating the other into total submission will.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day:

"I bitch-slapped my peer mediator... Problem solved".

:)

Kings and Queens have used the very emotions, apart from other motivational techniques, of their subjects to their advantages.

So are the Islamic Clerics these days, and probably every influential religious leader.

DeBeers: Oh... I don't even want to get into the Diamond, Gold and other precious stones mining related horrors and atrocities.

The world with only logic and reasoning would be [b]cold[/b] and [b]lifeless[/b]. You asked what was life, did'nt you :-)? And, afterall is'nt reasoning means to the end - benefit of humans.

How is it even possible to remove the factor of emotions, in the making of public policy, when the goal of public policy is again to benefit the very the same human beings?

can you pass yourself off as a cultured European sort, drinking tea with your pinkie raised (which [b]we[/b] don't do). :D

Anyway, I'm OK. Same old job, nice and easy work and well paid. Overlooking the Thames and St Pauls Cathedral. Life's a bugger, sometimes.

Neil :D

okay, I know in order to appease some people, you must define a specific stage/time in human development that is the beginning of life. Once this time is defined then it is easy to then regulate abortion, stem cell research etc.

The fact most of these people don't realize is that our definition of when life begins is constantly changing. Faith, religion, social change and many other conditions are responsible for what we deem the beginning of life. As these condistions are never a constant, neither is the defining moment at which humans are considered 'alive'.

So in a nutshell, the question cannot be answered, whether scientifically or any other method.

What we need to do is STOP trying to hold 'the moment that we are actually alive', as being the reason to not progress as a species.

We either have to move on for the betterment of mankind, or accept defeat and let some other future generation pull the stick out of their a$$ and get on with it.

The age old question Max has asked is no different than asking how was the world created. We weren't there, we didn't see anything, we can only speculate and then choose to get on with it.

You asked me where emotions had a place, and I answered. I never said that there was no place in the world for emotions, thereby causing, using your words, a cold and lifeless world. How in the heck did you make that leap? I said that emotions should not guide public policy. Perhaps you think public policy drives the rest of your life, but I don't, or at least I don't think it should. The personal part of me is anything but "cold and lifeless. The political part of me is rational and reasonable.

Personally, contrary to what you suggested, I don't believe that public policy should benefit me (or anyone else, for that matter), at least not in the specific sense of the word. I believe that public policy should ensure that I have the liberty to benefit myself. It's the pursuit of happiness that our government should guarantee, not the happiness itself. There's a HUGE difference.

when the evidence was not available during trial. The federal court can then either throw out the conviction and either release or remand with an order for a new trial.

But if the evidence was available and overlooked (A pretty big mistake) the courts cannot consider it. In effect, the supreme court ruled that it was constitutional to execute an innocent individual if the proof of innocence was available but not presented during trial. (In haste, my first post I did leave out not presented.)

you mean by "available but overlooked". Was it in the discovery packet? If so, did the prosecuter fail to investigate it?

Or is it something that existed outside of court, unknown to either attorney until after the trial?

.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=198308&messageID=2066770

Sorry Max,
This is a trick question. Every school child knows as an imperical fact that both the chicken and the egg are decendant from the monkey. :o)

It did not differentiate as to whether or not the evidence was available during trial.

However, Herrera v Collins did state that evidence of innocence does not qualify for relief under the constitution. I am pretty sure that being dead puts a kink in my pursuit of happiness.

There is another ruling that speaks directly to availability during trial. It may have been used in conjunction with other issues. (Probably ineffectual counsel) I will have to look that one up again.

and I assume others, are carefully crafted to avoid this seeming contradiction. Ohio says that homicide is defined as the [b]unlawful[/b] killing of a human being, born or unborn. Since abortion is a medical procedure, only a doctor can perform one legally, so any other death is a homicide. Depending on circumstances, that death can be classed as either manslaughter or murder, both of which have sub-categories.

He had one case where a woman spontaneously miscarried in a bank lobby during a robbery, and the suspect was charged with aggrivated murder (a death occurring during, or as a proximate result of, the commission of a felony). It was pled out.

There was a case here recently where someone was charged with a Serious Assault Causing Bodily Harm. The person was beat up quite severely and the DNA evidence was tight as a drum on the surface at least.

The only problem that came out on appeal it was discovered that the DNA that was used to obtain the conviction also included someones else DNA as well. What had apparently happened is that the victim required a Blood transfusion and it was after this blood transfusion that his blood was taken as a sample. Now apparently the same DNA showed up on the accused's cloths in Blood Spatters which where tested and came back as identical. Under Cross Examination it was revealed at the Appeal Court that there where actually 2 sets of DNA Present the victims and that of the Blood Donor so the blood spatters that was the sole prof of the assault and reason for the conviction where somehow got after the blood transfusion was given and while the accused was in custody awaiting an interview.

At best it's a poor investigation and storage of samples and at worst it is at least one Police Officer Manufacturing Evidence because they lacked any other real evidence.

The Government Labs here use the cheapest testing methods as well which may not always be correct and the more expensive testing may revel different results but the courts don't get to see the results of unperformed tests.

In another incident here recently a man was charged with Rape of a 16 year old girl on the strength of the Victims Eye Witness Identification and when the DNA eventually proved this identification wrong the case was dropped because the DPP could not reasonable expect to get a conviction biased on the testimony of the victim who was telling everyone that it was a different person [b]Who Done It![/b] But it didn't end there the Lab Tech gave a verbal listing of the actual culprit to the Investigating Officers and gave them the wrong name which wasn't picked up till much latter as no one bothered to read the report from the Pathologists as they had already been given a name of someone who's DNA they had on file. The real purp was someone completely different and the one accused was in fact one of the people Ruled Out of that attack. [b]Simple Human Error there.[/b]

But to this day both of the accused are now unemployable because the community has judged them both guilty of the same crime as they where both charged with the offence. The one who was actually responsible is not affected at all and this is what can happen when DNA Testing goes wrong.

Col

To anyone that I know even remotely would be wishing for you as you would be far less cruel that I ever could be.

Once I worked in a Palliative Care Unit and then just to add insult to injury I had to go back there many years latter to watch my uncle die of Skin Cancer that had Metastasised [i] not sure if that is spelt right and I can't be bothered either[/i] internally and finally got to the brain. I just had to love the Medical Staff as they insisted that they could give him [b]No More Morphine[/b] as he would become addicted to it. It didn't matter how much pain he suffered the irregular injections where only ever applied when someone from the family was present. I got sick & tired of hearing the rubbish like he had one 3.45 hours ago and isn't due for another for another 15 minutes. That meant that in 15 minutes time they would start to think about organising an addition to the IV which generally took about 30 minutes to finally arrive. I nearly Murdered a Doctor there one day and it only got worse from that point on.

I hated the place when I worked there and liked it even less when my uncle was in there and what was worse is that most of the staff still knew me so they never expected my reaction. But they where way to afraid of me to do anything about it.

Believe me whatever you could come up with I'm much worse.

Tig you should never have been subjected to that it is so far beyond [b]Appalling[/b] that I do not know any words that describe that comment.

Col

As I don't live in the US I'm not familiar with that case but I would say this:- the closer that a foetus is to term the more likely that in the case of Murder of the host [Mother] the greater the chance of a second charge being successful.

If the Foetus was at 2 weeks I would say [b]No Chance[/b] if it was at 30 + Weeks [b]Yes that's Correct 2 Murder Charges should be laid.[/b]

The Grey area starts in the 20 + week mark where a foetus can be surgically removed and with Severe Medical Intervention kept alive and allowed to grow. At this stage there is a great chance of some form of Brain Damage occurring but the further that you go the more likely that Foetus is to survive and the less intrusive Medical Procedures required. So the closer to term the better the chances of a successful prosecution occurring is.

But this is also where a problem arises in this time if the Woman has a Miscarriage how do you decide what you call this incident? If the foetus is miscarried because of some external influence then you have a chance of mounting a successful prosecution but if there are no obvious outside actions occurring and you have to keep in mind that the foetus decides when it gets born not the mother under normal circumstances without any medical intervention it could be argued that the Foetus committed Suicide. And then how do you treat accidents that do occur?

This is from a strictly Legal Sense nothing else and personally [b]Is Not[/b] something that I ever want to see tested in a Court.

There are way too many variables involved here as a early birth can result in a living breathing baby or a dead baby depending on the availability of medical assistance and the necessary medical tools that would maybe allow this foetus to remain alive under your definition.

Nor do I want to see [b]Coronal Inquests[/b] to decide on what happened in these cases the Draconian days of parents being charged with murder because of [b]SIDS[/b] are now long behind us and I never want to see this brought back under a different name.

Personally I think that the [b]Legal People[/b] should be kept out of these discussions and left to the Medical People directly involved as they have a better understanding of what the people involved are going through. So they are the better ones to make the decisions here. But even then there are cases where it would be better to let things lie and not proceed as the emotional damage done to the mother/Father may well outweigh any benefits gained.

It's a bad enough time for those involved without the need for some Ham Handed Cop walking in and accusing people of Murder which did happen in the [b]Good Old Days[/b] when SIDS wasn't understood.

But here I think that you have got close to defining [b]Life[/b] though through a strict technical sense I can not agree that Life is the Opposite of Death both of these concepts are still too fluid and not understood well enough you also can not use what one is not as a definition of what the other is.

By the way the answer is [b]42[/b] now what was the [b]Question Again?[/b]

You did not say there was no place for emotions in this world. Neither did I imply that you said. How could I when your posts makes it clear that emotions play some part in life? If at all it was a leap, it was mine. On a side note: I have seen people making such leaps when talking about taxes (atleast I think so).

My local radio show host (a conservative) was against the government aiding the mass transist system (Light Rail), but was totally for the government aiding a sports stadium. In the second case after listening to him and the listneres that called in, it was evident that having a major sports team in the city meant a lot to the people, apart from the economics of it.

Even in this debate about life (and abortion discussions) is'nt the issue partly emotional? How much of it is really medical or legal? How much of it is religious?

When the society (say the majority) wants to shape its present and future the way it wants, can emotions of the people be just put aside? Our emotional response to events influence public policies. Unless we humans stop feeling emotional, it will be darn tough to weed out this influential factor.

I wasn't very clear. I was trying to say that some lifeforms/tissue that are harmful to a persons well being should not be considered as anything more than just meat, as Hal so aptly put it, no matter what kind of guilt trip misinformed people may try to lay on a person.

I got caught up in a confusing post that I frankly wish I had never posted. I was simply trying to help a friend deal with an issue that I thought was troubling her but as it turns out she's a big grown up now, should've known, and I bared my soul for nothing.

Shlt happens. Not a problem with me. No apology is needed because it was a simple misunderstanding on my part.

Please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Thank you.

Your laws, whether worthehil or ludicrous are also based on what feels right, not scientific proof.

In the case of legalizing abortion, or allowing stem cell research, the religious zealots always cry baby killer, scientists always cry it's not killing as there is no definition of when life begins. SO no matter what wee believe today, it will change tomorrow. The problem is, while religious zealots have religiously biased opinions that will thwart any attempt for society to learn or move ahead, we will never get ahead.

Once that attention is reduced, with fewer people following/practicing a religion for example, then we may have room to move ahead.

Your examples cited are merely state aloowances that even the state and most Americans are still not clear or sure of, they have just come up with a bunch of laws in an attempt to try and keep everyone happy. Good luck with that.

You cannot deem a person guilty of manslaughter unless you can legally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life begins at a specific time. Nice laws solely based on religious faith, gotta love that stuff.

MAYBE one day, someone in outside of America will actually understand the simple mentality of teh American citizen. Until then you wil always be seen as the most anal and confused society on Earth.

You are now tryiong to equate a burglar in your home, or attacker on the street to an old person with a life threatening disease????

What completely f'ed up stroke of imagination created that mental fart? A poor confused mind. If you guys could actually create analogies and similarities that actually WERE similar, you'd have a point. Until you learn to compare apples and apples, you will just seem teribly confused or as many people deem you, poorly educated.

There are plenty of lawyers why not use them for stem cell research?

Sorry, bro' (he's a corporate a$$hole/lawyer).

Wow! The angst is deafening.

Now, try not to get emotional over my response.

The original link to the thread was the question of when life began. We kind of migrated from there to addressing the abortion issue and I stated that my point was since death is defined as when the heart and brain cease to function then life conversely is when brain and heart function begins. My next statement was that the American judiciary is filled with inconsistency when the try and convict persons who kill the unborn through a criminal act or through neglect and allow physicians to do the same thing with impunity. I think it would be naive at this point for me to call for an end to all abortion in the United States but is it wrong of me to call for some kind of judicial consistency?

Sorry,yes I did 'lose it' and needn't have.

What I read was your inability to understand why we allow doctors to terminate a pregnancy or even a human life (by removing life support, but nothing too Kevorkian here); and we don'tconsider it murder because they are 'trainedphysicians'.

Now such a comment still just seems absurd to me. I see no possible comparisson at all between the two.

We enrust doctors to know when a happy life is not in the cards and to tell us. We then base our life or death decisions basedon that information, that's quite a lot of trust and why we should always seek a second opinion. I would still take that opinion over what a beer buddy thought though.

Forgive me if I read something into your message that wasn't there. And oh yeah, welcome back, I'm glad to see you safe and happenin' still!

The Israeli soldiers that the UN FILMED getting abducted that blew the lid off of this whole mess?

World wide, I hear about how the death penalty is barbaric, and there is always that CHANCE of a false conviction. Even when we know without a DOUBT that the person is guilty, the execution is protested. Yet the destruction of a baby that we know without a doubt has never broken a law is somehow "enlightened" by the exact same people. I don't understand it.

I do not support the Rwandan slaughter, and am disgusted by the handling by the UN of how they pulled out and just let it happen. (please don't tell me they pulled out at the orders of the US, because only a complete moron would believe that the UN does ANYTHING the US tells it to do.)

The Lebanese should not have voted to place in their government a terrorist group that has stated their mission is to destroy Israel. They should not allow Hezballah to hid like the worms they are among the Lebanese citizens, while firing their own rockets into neighborhoods. Oh yeah, that kid should have read the flier dropped that warned of the air raid? Israel is not and has not INTENTIONALLY fired on civilians. civilians are the main target for Hezballah. You allow that kind of group in your neighborhood, you know what to expect, and sympathy is not on the list.

I refuse to support or take part in it. I would kill in defense of my country. I was a Marine. I am pretty good in combat.(The biggest test is are you still alive and the enemy not. It is pass - fail with only many testings.)

Wasn't one of the war crimes the Allies charged Dr. Joseph Mengele with performing abortions?

He is laughing in his grave that the people who wanted him executed for this "hideous crime against nature" when he was tried in absentia, is paid for by the US government.

That would be a way of solving the homeless problem in the world.

All the starving people in the world?

The Crack addicts that will never contribute to anything but crime?

The repeat child molester. (I mean this one)

All we have to do is make sure our interests are higher than the value of their lives, and it fits right in with the "enlightened" views of the new world order.

Can't let old religious values stand in the way of progress, dontchaknow? ;\