Further to Bill Muehlenberg's comments taking capital punishment seriously -

" .. No one argues that those warranting the death penalty have somehow become non-persons. It is exactly because they are persons, and have committed heinous crimes against other persons (such as murder), that the state takes these issues so seriously."

Which 'state' are you referring to, Bill?

Sounds like An "Authorization of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life" (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens).

"The fact that embryos are now being destroyed does not mean it is morally licit."

Doesn't mean their use to produce children is morally licit, either. Or, that the destruction of surplus embryos, or their use for medical research, is morally illicit.

The discussion, outlined by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minervais, is Not "a great abuse of medical ethics and the academic community", nor is it "a sign of barbarism and regress".

' Perhaps the person who was to cure cancer has been aborted? How about your family....if one of your parents had been aborted, then you wouldn't be here. Perhaps one of their parents? Then a whole branch of your family tree wouldn't be here. People seem to forget that abortion does not simply affect that one baby, and that one mother. It affects the father, the current and future siblings, the future children and grandchildren. It affects generations, and can have a significant effect on how the world 'could' have been.'

LMFAO!

The exact same thing can be said for the use of contraception. If your Aunty had balls she'd be your Uncle. That's about the level of relevance of that little spiel.

The exact same thing can be said for the reformed rapist. If he decided to continue on his merry way, he may have raped a woman who decided out of some misguided religious belief (Or a love of surfing) that she wanted to have the baby. We have been robbed by that reformed rapist of the cure for cancer!

Hell, even the woman who had a headache in Iran last night has robbed us of the next Ali Javan!

And that woman in America who remmebered to take her pill last night has saved the world from the next Bette Midler!

As I said before, there should be no barriers to more 'souls', even consent! Denying natural urges to procreate with unconsenting strangers is the first point when a potential human is aborted. If you see a man or woman you fancy, it is your ethical duty to rape them as if you don't you are robbing the world of a soul who could be the next Roy Slaven.

*How about when a heart is present?*

So Krist-f, if we give you a heart transplant from a chimp, a pig
or an artificial one, will you no longer be a person without your
heart? That should answer your question.

*I guess we can just ignore that brainwaves are measurable at about 7 weeks, can't we*

Err yes Stephan, we have the developing brain stem. So do crocodiles.
But no neortex, which happens at around week 23. No neocortex equals
no person, its the only bit of the brain that is different to other
species and is what makes us human.

As to you going pro life, do what you like. But we all here can see
that you clearly value your computer more then you value another
starving baby in Africa, so its reasonable to point out that you
are simply pontificating, which is a human foible, I know.

Leaving foetuses to one side for one side for the moment: is it ethical to kill Vulcans? You know, the guys off Star Trek with the pointy ears and the excellent poker faces. T'Pol from Star Trek: Enterprise and Tuvok from Star Trek: Voyager are both Vulcan; Spock from the original series is half Vulcan/half human.

Yes, I realise they don't actually exist: this is what is called a 'thought experiment'. So just pretend that there really is a race of wise, peaceful and scholarly aliens called the Vulcans. Despite their humanoid appearance they have pointy ears, green blood, greater physical strength and endurance than humans, significantly longer lifespans and markedly different brain physiology. They definitely aren't human: is it okay murder them in cold blood? What about Spock - he's half human/half not human. What is his moral status?

I think most of you would agree that no, it isn't okay to murder Vulcans. Why is not okay to murder them? Because they are people too. People with green blood, pointy ears etc. Which shows that personhood is a concept that transcends mere biology: the fact that we can even imagine a race like the Vulcans demonstrates that humanity and personhood are not identical ideas. So what makes a person a person? I'll leave that one as an exercise for philosophers.

Cheers,

Tony

Hilarious!

Daffy Duck avoids the subject by writing about the war in Iraq when the topic is about advocating killing newborn children.

McReal avoids the subject by writing about capital punishment when the topic is about advocating killing newborn children.

Houellebecq is a lost cause who can't even determine the difference between a real human and the potential to make one.

and Yabby is convinced that his completely arbitrary determination of when life begins is valid, and is laughably still arguing that using laptops is mutually exclusive with being pro-life!

And NONE of them seem to realise that their only point of agreement with each other is that they would do ANYTHING other than align with the straightforward science that life begins at conception, something almost as obvious as rain coming from clouds. Which would mean chaos in practical terms if you applied that range of ideas into life.

But it really isn't so funny I guess. These people are intellectual children and moral reprobates equivalent to the most evil murderers. If you cannot stand the defence of innocent life, you equally deserve the strongest form of denunciation possible. You have crossed the line into a zone where no-one is safe.