--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's something else to being human, and > it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
>Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you > avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, > but it's not science fiction. Conjoined twins are simply a special case of identical twins. > I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that > it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the "pro- > choice" position showed. I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was more polarized on this issue than I. >> > First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is "well before the time > > it can > > feel pain." It seems like there is at least some evidence that > > pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu > > Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later. > I'll dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding > in just over 5 weeks). The point remains, I don't think you can say with confidence that 12- 16 weeks is before it can feel pain. > > You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because it > > is "long enough that the mother has time to act." Out of > > curiosity, why is this a consideration? > > Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because > the law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without > prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no > good answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult > we already have. The law once allowed slavery too, and once not everyone believed the same things that you do. This logic does not appear to be consistent to me. > a newborn baby > is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough > that it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a > blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy. > There's no line. Just a grey area. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat..... Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future.... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
