Originally Posted by will2power

The question is a moot one.

Rather than arguing what cannot be agreed upon by the scientific community, you should instead focus your attention towards something that might actually be effective in satisfying both parties.

Right to lifers are mad because they believe that the embryo has no protections under the law, essentially.

Pro Choice is mad because no woman wants to be forced by the state to carry a child to term. They feel what is being asked of them is invasive and Orwellian.

You have to look for an answer that is going to satisfy both groups, instead of pointless debate on who is right. Set aside the argument for a moment and think about it. What would actually make both sides happy?

Step with me into the what if machine for a moment... What if we expended our efforts into devising a way to nurture an embryo artificially to term? Or in other instances, a means to take that living embryo and implant it into a mother that cannot produce a fertile egg, or a mother who wants to have a child without a husband, or a volunteer? The rights of the embryo are protected, and at the same time the mother is absolved of her parental obligaition as well as the physical discomforts of pregnancy? Take it a step further and make a system where the genetic heritage of the child is kept on file devoid of any parenting information so that the child can have accurate medical care without exposing the parentage.

Streamline the process by allowing parents to fasttrack in the adoption process, instead of making the process take years to complete. Candidates medically cleared, could accept the fetus based on their genetic qualities before the baby is born.

How much further along would we be in this, if we stopped trying to win an argument, and concentrated more on solving the problem? You're not going to get anywhere in trying to force your views--whatever they are, on someone who doesn't share them. It doesn't have to be either or... Devote your effort to the solution and not the continuing argument....

Originally Posted by NotAmused

Okamifujutsu.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact that different people have differing opinions on the matter of when life begins, is a recipe for healthy debate in my personal opinion.

Holding and stating differing opinions on when one believes 'life actually begins' does not, to my mind, necessarily mean that Hitler is 'lurking' anywhere.

Only when such personal opinions become an all encompassing ideology, an unmovable quest, that uses sophisticated chicanery to impose such an ideology on the majority, using intimidation and aggression as a means to an end, could ones opinions be construed as dangerous, or 'Hitleresque'.

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

People disagreeing is the basis for every arguement, good and bad. Arguements that boil down to feelings are different than arguements centering around facts. If one person knows it in their heart that this microscopic fleck is a human life, and another knows just as well that it's not, nothing they say to each other is going to really advance any understanding, because it's become a matter of what each person feels on the matter. That's very different from an arguement about, say, whether smoking should be allowed somewhere, because then you can bring in evidence for or against. What convincing evidence can you possibly bring into the question of when life begins?

And you seem to be confused by what I meant about Hitler. It's in reference to Godwin's Law, not that someone is actually like Hitler. What I meant by Hitler lurking is that when an arguement turns into a battle of the feelings, one of the few arguementative tools you have is hyperbole, with the idea that if you can convey stronger emotions, regardless of relevence, you can win the arguement. And of course, the ultimate hyperbole for all things evil is Hitler, who was obviously pro-abortion and ate babies.

Originally Posted by NotAmused

I do beg your pardon. I completely misunderstood your reference.

In my defense of another poster, I have naively been found to be every bit as guilty of using an invalid comparison. (*)(*)(*)(*) this Godwin fellow!

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

It's good to see two people overcome thier differences about Hitler.

Originally Posted by NotAmused

Some very interesting suggestions.

Unfortunately,(hate to be a party pooper) if one looks at the statistics, the termination numbers, year on year suggest to myself, that such a move would be wholly impracticable, unless of course you have an answer to this predicament also?.

Originally Posted by Koga

I don't need to compromise anything with these butchers. We owe them nothing, they are evil vermin who should be thrown in camps and marked with a button or tatoo of some kind with a skeleton fetus to illustrate the point of who they are.

Originally Posted by Koga

No, I thought American policey is "we do not negotiate with terrorists".

And that's what prochoicers are. Terrorists. Thier hostage is the fetus, and their demands are welfare, socialism, complete submission, and a decline in our moral and common sense...

Originally Posted by Chesby05

Ohhhhhh, so what do you call those lovely persons who bomb abortion clinics and **gasp** murder people?

Originally Posted by will2power

Koga makes my point so clear. If you are a pro-choicer, then how are you going to come to any kind of meaningful solution when people talk about you like that?

Originally Posted by will2power

It's the exact same thing on the other side of the argument. Neither side is willing to admit they may not be right