Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/17/2006 1:40:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
Originally Posted By Dino:
all of our heated discussions of abortion led me to reexamining my own beliefs on the subject.

Arguments here tend to descend into statemens about God, Nazi's, Communists, etc.. rather quickly (depending on how long it takes Belloc to join the conversation

So answer a question that no one yet has even attempted.
Why is the fact that the Communists were the first to make abortion legal in Russia for the first time in that nations history, and the Nazis were the first to make abortion legal in Geman history, not relevant?



to answer your question

The Weimar Republic lowered the criminality on abortions from a felony to a misdemeanor for all people. Jews and Aryans.

Hitler returned it to felony status for Germans (Aryans) and later gave it the death penalty (which was harsher than the pre-Weimar penalty). At the same time he also made abortion freely available and in some cases forced it on those he saw as undesirable. They even continued Weimar era programs to sterilize or kill those who were not up to German standards (mostly the insane or retarded).


To imply that Hitler was either pro-life or pro-choice, you have to ignore half of his actions.

When it came to Aryan mothers, the Nazi party could be characterized as pro-life, but that ignores the treatment of non-Aryans.

When it comes to non-Aryans, the Nazi party could be characterized as pro-choice, but they didn't really give many people a choice (Aryan or non).

Its not as simple as you would make it out to be. I think you do yourself a disservice to use it as an argument because it marks you as an extremist willing to twist truth to further his agenda.

It would be more truthful to say that the Nazi's were racist bastards who murdered millions through non-consensual abortions, "euthenasia", massacres, and in the end the camps. Abortion for Hitler was a tool for his murders. To even imply that the doctors who perform abortions today wish to eradicate a people is quite simply insane imo. The only people I see using that as an argument for abortion are ACTUAL neo-nazis.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:18:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 2:21:31 PM EDT by Belloc]
But nothing in your post denies the fact that it was indeed the Nazis and Communists that made abortion legal in their respective countries. Any other historical fact does not in any way contradict this. It does not matter if Hitler was pro-choice or not, what matters is that he did not see the unborn as human beings with the right to life. Yes, Hitler saw the murder of the unborn as a tool, but he also saw the unborn of the "ayran race" simply as tools.
Also nothing your wrote denies the fact that it was the Nazis who invented the phrase "freedom of choice" in regards to abortion.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:26:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
Also nothing your wrote denies the fact that it was the Nazis who invented the phrase "freedom of choice" in regards to abortion.



really? I'd like to see a reference for that.

I'm more familiar with "Work makes you free"

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:43:49 PM EDT



When the Nazis entered Poland (a Roman Catholic country) in 1939 abortion for any reason was illegal. The use of contraceptives was also illegal in Poland (because the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to abortion and to contraception as well). The Nazis conquered half the country (the other half went to the Russians), and they immediately did away with the anti-abortion laws. Hitler wanted to limit and reduce all non-Aryan populations. In late 1939 a decree was issued encouraging Polish women to seek abortions. The campaign was called "Auswahlfeiheit" ("Freedom of Choice").

Martin Bormann, the Head of the Nazi Party and personal secretary to Adolf Hitler, wrote the following letter to Alfred Rosenberg; the Nazi Party ideologist:

"The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we don't need them they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and education are superfluous. The fertility of Slavs is undesirable." (NCA II. Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality. Nazi Conspiracy and Agression, Volume II. 1946)
Hitler himself said:

They may use contraceptives or practice abortion--the more the better. In view of the large families of the native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-Germanic population." (Harvest of Hate, 1954, pp. 273-4 emphasis added)
Bormann personally wrote:

"When girls and women in the Occupied Territories of the East have abortions, we can only be in favor of it; in any case we should not oppose it. The Fuhrer belives that we should authorize the development in a thriving trade in contraceptives. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply." (ibid, p.274)
On November 25 1939, the Reich Commission for the Strengthening of Germandom (RKFDV), an SS organization, issued this following decree in Poland:


"All measures which have the tendency to limit the births are to be tolerated or to be supported. Abortion in the remaining area of Poland must be declared free from punishment. the means for abortion and contraceptive means may be offered publicly without police restriction. Homosexuality [which was illegal under Polish law] is to be declared legal. The institutions and persons involved professionally in abortion practices are not to be interfered with by police." (Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe, 1961, p.171)
The same pro-abortion order was established in all the territories that the Nazis occupied except where the population was considered "Aryan" (Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Flemish Belguim). On 27 April 1943 Prof. Erhard Wetzel, Racial Administrator for the Reich's Eastern Territories Ministry, wrote this memorandum:

"Every propaganda means, especially the press, radio, and movies, as well as pamphlets, booklets, and lectures, must be used to instill in the Russian population the idea that it is harmful to have several children. We must emphazise the expenses that children cause, the good things that people could have had with the money spent on them. We could also hint at the dangerous effect of child-bearing on a woman's health. Paralleling such propaganda, a large-scale campaign would be launched in favor of contraceptive devices. A contraceptive industry must be established. Neither the circulation and sale of contraceptives nor abortions must be prosecuted. It will even be necessary to open special institutions for abortion, and to train midwives and nurses for this purpose. The population will practice abortion all the more willingly if these institutions are competently operated." (Harvest of Hate, pp.272-3)
The diary of a Polish Jew living in the Shavli Ghetto named E. Yerushalmi has this entry for 13 July 1942:

"In accordance with the Order of the Security Police, births are permitted in the ghetto upon up to August 15, 1942. After this date it is forbidden to give birth to Jewish children either in the hospitals or in the homes of the pregnant women. it is pointed out, at the same time, that it is permitted to interrupt pregnancies by means of abortions. A great responsibility rests on the pregnant women. If they do not comply with this order, thiere is a danger that they will be executed, together with their families." (Pinkas Shavli, 1958, p.88)
During the Nuremburg Trials, almost all the Nazi defendents were accused of "crimes against humanity", and part of those 'crimes' were promotion of abortion.

MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS

One wonders how German physicians during WWII could have justified their use of human subjects in horrible experiments that killed or permanently maimed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Before the Nazis came to power all German physicians had to take the Hippocratic Oath, which swore they would "do no harm" and not "give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion". Dr. Georg August Weltz, the Nazi physician who conducted the notorious "cold experiments" (Jews, Gypsies, criminals, and even children were thrown into pools of ice-water to see how fast they would die, or they were taken out in comas to see if they could be revived...all in the name of helping downed German fighter pilots who were saved from the cold sea), wrote:

"The Hippocratic Oath ... is an honorable historical document, which, however, does not altogether fit present times. *** Medicine based upon the principle of nil nocere ("do no harm") is a very impoverished medicine, and we are unfortunately not in a position to carry on medicine on that simple principle today." (Trials of the War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Washington D.C., 1946-1954, IV:1,081-4)
The term "Freedom of Choice" in regards to abortion was invented by a Nazi SS propandist as a means to intice Polish women to have abortions and use contraceptions.

DR. ERNST RUDIN

The most outspoken spokesman for "abortion rights" in pre-Nazi Germany was the psychitrist and head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute: Dr. Ernst Rudin. After the Nazis came to power, they made Dr. Rudin the head of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene In April 1933, Dr. Rudin wrote an article for The American Birth Control Review; the official publication of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (which changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942). Dr. Rudin's article was called "Eugenics Sterilization: An Urgent Need" (American Birth Control Review, April 1933).

One of Dr. Rudin's associates at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was Dr. Otmar Freiherr Von Versscheur, whose assistant at the Institute was Dr. Josef Mengele;who later became the director of medical experiments at Auschwitz death camp in Poland. He performed horrendous experiments; mostly on children. Many died or were scarred (emotionally and physically) for life."

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:19:47 AM EDT
Guys,
I have a lot of respect for both of you, and this thread is informative, BUT isn't the whole issue of who came up with the slogan "freedom of choice" kind of irrelevant. Even if the Nazi's invented abortion it would be irrelevant. It sounds to me like what my logic prof. called a source fallacy. IIRC the Nazi's also invented the modern interstate, does that mean it's bad?

The abortion question IMHO is "Is abortion murder?" If it is, it doesn't matter who invented it or named it. If it isn't, it doesn't matter who invented it or named it.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:05:59 AM EDT
I haven't responded yet because I still can't find any evidence to show that was the case. The only thing I can find is the document he cut and pasted from.

I'm mainly interested because its an interesting historical tidbit, plus I can use it to drive my feminist coworker crazy ;p

It doesn't matter as it pertains to the main point, the Nazi's were not pro-choice or pro-life. The article he cut and pasted from is supposedly a piece by feminist leader Gloria Steinem from Ms. magazine in 1980.

She makes the same point I do, Belloc just didn't cut and past those parts :P
www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/nazis.html

Once again, presenting half of the truth to support his argument. That is my problem with the entire argument.

You have to look at the whole picture, not just the parts of the picture that fit your prejudice.

I almost brought up the interestate system myself, but figured it would cause more problems :P

I'm still not sure if the "freedom of choice" is true, and I find it doubtful as the slogan is still used in Poland today. That'd be like using "Work makes free" on your plant in Germany.

Belloc has yet to post any information that shows anything I haven't already stated. The difference is I state all the facts, not just half of them.

I agree that the problem is "Is it murder", but the issue with that is someone who sees a fertilized egg as a human being with full rights will never agree with someone who sees a fertilized egg as just a fertilized egg with no rights at all.


Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:58:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 9:58:56 AM EDT by LadyLiberty]
.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:59:49 AM EDT
That icon is disturbing :(

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 10:16:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dino:
It doesn't matter as it pertains to the main point, the Nazi's were not pro-choice or pro-life.

Again, the point is that under the Nazis, abortion was legal for the first time in German history.
That some Aryan women were not allowed to have abortions does not in any way change this fact.

Once again, presenting half of the truth to support his argument.
Presenting the truth of the fact that the Nazis removed the laws that protected the unborn from being killed is not "half the truth".
Before the Nazis, no abortion, after the Nazis abortion. "Yeah, but, not for everyone" does not change the original fact.

That is my problem with the entire argument.
Which makes no sense.

You have to look at the whole picture, not just the parts of the picture that fit your prejudice.
prejudice, n. an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

I have examined the facts. It is you who seems to have a prejudice as you seem to be in the process of doing so.
In any event one can be no more prejudice against the killing of unborn children then they can against killing born children.
Some things are wrong in and of themselves.

I almost brought up the interestate system myself, but figured it would cause more problems.
I simply assumed that it was because you knew it to be stupid. Hitler also enjoyed a good meal, that does not mean anyone who enjoys a good meal is like Hitler. However anyone who regards the human person as the Nazis did is another matter altogether.

Belloc has yet to post any information that shows anything I haven't already stated. The difference is I state all the facts, not just half of them.
Actually you have a well developed penchant for presenting only those things that you agree with, don't even begin to pretend otherwise. And at least I address all the points made, you have yet to address many of my points, the argument of Peter Kreeft for example.

I agree that the problem is "Is it murder", but the issue with that is someone who sees a fertilized egg as a human being with full rights will never agree with someone who sees a fertilized egg as just a fertilized egg with no rights at all.
And, again, either it was YOU that was conceived or you were never conceived.


Link Posted: 3/20/2006 10:40:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
Originally Posted By Dino:
It doesn't matter as it pertains to the main point, the Nazi's were not pro-choice or pro-life.

Again, the point is that under the Nazis, abortion was legal for the first time in German history.
That some Aryan women were not allowed to have abortions does not in any way change this fact.



We are just going round and round here, so I'll address this one last time:

Hitler did 2 things

1) He TOUGHENED laws against abortion for Aryan women. He later gave the DEATH PENALTY for abortion. The Weimar Republic, in a compromise move, kept it illegal but moved it from felony status to misdemeanor. At the time, it was viewed in the same way as laws against abortion that contain exceptions for the health of the mother. The end result was abortion was readily available to all women in the Weimar republic. The law only served to prevent people from setting up clinics specifically to provide abortions. Hitler moved it back to felony status and later made it punishable by death.

2) at the same time he made abortion available to non-Aryans and forced abortions on many as part of his racial policies.

Those are the facts, they are indisputable.

Your interpretation of the facts is the problem (and that you only present half of the facts, instead of all of them)

Your statement is only half true, as abortion was NEVER universally legal to all women in Germany. It was available to all, but still technically illega,l in Weimar Germany. It was available to non-Aryans and "defectives" under Nazi rule, but Aryan women were not allowed abortions. You can argue all day, but those are the facts and they won't change.

The page I linked (where you pulled some of your quotes from btw) spells this out plainly.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 10:43:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 10:44:36 AM EDT by Dino]
Belloc,
lets take a different example:

There is a road near my house that has a posted limit of 65 at night 75 during the day.

If I asked you if it was legal to drive on the road at 75 mph would you answer

1) yes
2) no
3) it depends on the time of day


case 1 is only true during the day
case 2 is only true at night
case 3 recognized that fact and is the most truthful answer

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 10:55:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
We are just going round and round here, so I'll address this one last time:
Hitler did 2 things
1) He TOUGHENED laws against abortion for Aryan women. He later gave the DEATH PENALTY for abortion. The Weimar Republic, in a compromise move, kept it illegal but moved it from felony status to misdemeanor. At the time, it was viewed in the same way as laws against abortion that contain exceptions for the health of the mother. The end result was abortion was readily available to all women in the Weimar republic. The law only served to prevent people from setting up clinics specifically to provide abortions. Hitler moved it back to felony status and later made it punishable by death.
2) at the same time he made abortion available to non-Aryans and forced abortions on many as part of his racial policies.
Those are the facts, they are indisputable.
Your interpretation of the facts is the problem (and that you only present half of the facts, instead of all of them)
Your statement is only half true, as abortion was NEVER universally legal to all women in Germany. It was available to all, but still technically illega,l in Weimar Germany. It was available to non-Aryans and "defectives" under Nazi rule, but Aryan women were not allowed abortions. You can argue all day, but those are the facts and they won't change.
The page I linked (where you pulled some of your quotes from btw) spells this out plainly.



And again, does not change these facts,
1. Under the Nazis abortion was legal for the first time, if not for everyone.
2. In Russia, abortion was made legal by the Communists for the first time in that nation.
3. Hitler did not view the unborn child, aryan or not, as having the right to life.
4. It can be easily supported that our Founding Fathers did believe in the right to life as they never once tried to remove the laws that protected the unborn from being killed.
5. You have not yet responded to points,
a. Was it you that was conceived or was it not?
b. the refutation of skepticism (the basis for Roe v. Rade) made by Peter Kreeft.
6. Planned Parenthood was founded by a Nazi sympathizer.
7. At no time in the history of medicine has anything ever been said to be a human being that was not in fact a human being. And many in medical science do in fact regard the unborn child as a human being.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:30:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 2:14:08 PM EDT by Dino]
this is typical Belloc, you have nothing to help your case so you throw up a wall of shit and hope some of it sticks to your target.


Originally Posted By Belloc:
And again, does not change these facts,
1. Under the Nazis abortion was legal for those Hitler viewed a subhman, for everyone else it
was punishable by death
.
2. In Russia, abortion was made legal by the Communists for the first time in that nation. they also outlawed it in 1936. Iceland is the country with the longest history of continuous legal abortions, why not use them as your example? Oh thats right because we can't demonize Iceland...
3. Hitler did not view the unborn child, aryan or not, as having the right to life. Hitler didn't think anyone had a right to life unless he said so and he could change his mind in an instant
4. It can be easily supported that our Founding Fathers did believe in the right to life as they never once tried to remove the laws that protected the unborn from being killed. red herring. They viewed its signifigance based on "quickening" which isn't exactly a medical standard. I wonder how our FF's viewed the selling of human beings as property, oh wait....
5. You have not yet responded to points, post some points, and I might
a. Was it you that was conceived or was it not?answered below
b. the refutation of skepticism (the basis for Roe v. Rade) made by Peter Kreeft. all I can find on Kreeft is a lame ass bunch of apologetics, he even defends Pascal's Wager. Not exactly a bright shining star in the fimament. Also skepticism is not the basis for Roe v. Wade. Privacy and individual freedom are.
6. Planned Parenthood was founded by a Nazi sympathizer. actually she was a soviet sympathizer. The Nazi's incorporated the ideas of her Birth Control League into their 1933 sterilization law. She was a bigot and an elitist with weird views on sexuality, but she wasn't a Nazi. Abortion was illegal during Sanger's lifetime and Planned Parenthood did not then support the procedure or lobby for its legalisation. She was a socialist and favored the Soviet Union, not Nazi Germany. Another uncomfortable fact, Sanger was pushing for birth control reform before WWI. She founded the American Birth Control League (which eventually became planned parenthood) in 1921. The Nazi's were influenced by her, not the other way around. The Nazi's were fans of eugenics and took her ideas one step further. I am not a big fan of Sanger, primarily because of her elitism and support fore eugenics, but I don't need to repeat lies about her to dislike her for who she was. She did play a major part in getting birth control readily available and for that she deserves some credit. Like many people in history, she had good points and bad points. The same could be said of people like Thomas Jefferson though.
7. At no time in the history of medicine has anything ever been said to be a human being that was not in fact a human being. And many in medical science do in fact regard the unborn child as a human being. I don't know anyone who says a human being is not a human being. I know plenty who say a fertilized egg is not a human being. I happen to agree with them, more below




as far as is it me at the moment of conception, how do you mean the term me?

Me the physical entity or me as in what makes me a person (as opposed to just a body with no personality attached)

One is obvious, the other is a matter up for much debate.

If you go back to just before conception, its one egg and one sperm. Are those me? If not, why does the fact that they combine all of the sudden make it me?

Something has to happen to make a fertilized egg a human being. What is it?

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:37:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 1:40:39 PM EDT by Dino]
Belloc,
please take a look at this and let me know what you think. Its from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.


The Holocaust as a Comparitive Device: The Holocaust and Abortion

In a July 7, 1999 Press Release entitled "New European 'Black Death' Now Comes in Pill Form," Robert Sassone of the World Life League outrageously compared a newly available prescription medicine (RU486) with the Holocaust. In a press statement, Rabbi David Saperstein declared, "Comparing the difficult personal decision of a woman whether to terminate an individual pregnancy to the Nazi government's systematic extermination of six million Jews is an insult, both to the memory of those who perished and to the women who must wrestle with their conscience in making a deeply personal decision."

In order to truly understand this comparison, let's consider how abortion was treated in Nazi Germany. By some yard-sticks, Adolph Hitler might have been labeled as "pro-life". He was outspoken in his opposition to abortion for German women, seeing them simply as the breeders for the Aryan master race he envisioned. While abortion had been widespread in Germany prior to the rise of Nazism, Hitler issued a law which made the act of helping in an abortion a penal offense.

After promising in Mein Kampf to "to do away with the idea that what one does with one's own body is each individual's business," Hitler campaigned for an increased birth rate among German citizens, offering government loans to newlyweds, with abatements for each child produced. By also discrediting birth control and closing clinics which had dispensed contraceptives themselves, the Nazis succeeded in raising the German birth rate by 18% in 1934, with even greater gains in subsequent years.

However, Hitler's "pro-life" attitude did not extend to non-Aryan peoples, nor to Aryans deemed to be less useful in German society. He began his eugenics campaign by having the "imperfect" elements of German society-the mentally and physically handicapped-forcibly sterilized. As documented in the Nuremberg trials, high ranking officials of the RuSHA (a NAZI group of medical officials) initiated a program which required "racial extamination" of pregnant women and suspected fathers to determine the "racial characteristics" of the offspring. In cases where the offspring was not "racially valuable", an abortion was ordered by the SS high-command.

How could a government justify two divergent policies on abortion? How is it that abortion could be prohibited for some and mandated for others? The answer is, sadly, quite simple. The government was not required to explain: the citizens of Germany allowed themselves to become the tool of Hitler's will. The people abrogated their rights and responsibilities as individual moral decision-makers and allowed their own choices to be supplanted with those of the Fuhrer. With this information, can the freedom of choice over abortion in the United States be blindly compared with the Holocaust of World War II. The answer is simply no.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 2:27:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 2:29:07 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By Dino:
for those Hitler viewed a subhman, for everyone else it
was punishable by death
.

Hitler also viewed the unborn as not having the inalienable right to life.
they also outlawed it in 1936.
The made it legal because the communists do not view the unborn as human persons like the pro-abortionists. They made it illegal not because this view changed, but because they needed to raise an army. The sad part is that you know this.

Finland is the country with the longest history of continuous legal abortions, why not use them as your example? Oh thats right because we can't demonize Finland...
Wanna bet?

Hitler didn't think anyone had a right to life unless he said so and he could change his mind in an instant
So since you agree he was wrong about born children, it is a safe bet he was wrong about unborn children.

red herring.
There is something you really need to learn, saying something is a "red herring" does not make it so. In fact I don't think I have seen you use this accurately once.

They viewed its signifigance based on "quickening" which isn't exactly a medical standard.
Actually, it was the best medical standard that they had at the time. As medical standards for detecting life improved, the laws were moved back to cover the child then. But, again, you know this already. Perhaps this is just a red herring on your part.

I wonder how our FF's viewed the selling of human beings as property, oh wait....
You will find that they were against it, even Jefferson wrote about how evil it was, but being a flawed man, as we all are, he could not find the strength of his convictions, at least on this account.


all I can find on Kreeft is a lame ass bunch of apologetics, he even defends Pascal's Wager. Not exactly a bright shining star in the fimament. Also skepticism is not the basis for Roe v. Wade. Privacy and individual freedom are.
Are you saying that you did not read my pasting of his argument?
And, no, Rov v. Wade was based on skepticism, since we cannot know, let the individual person decide. But first the Justices had to become skeptics.


actually she was a soviet sympathizer.
Actually she was both.

I don't know anyone who says a human being is not a human being.
Yes, you do, yourself for example. In the same way people looked at blacks and jews and said, "not a human being with an inalienable right to life" you look at an unborn child and say the same thing. They were wrong then, you, the Nazis, the Communists, the Democrats and the entire barbaric, pro-abortion industry is wrong now.

as far as is it me at the moment of conception, how do you mean the term me?
It wasn't a trick question. Were you conceived or not?


If you go back to just before conception, its one egg and one sperm. Are those me?
Did they have a heartbeat? Did they have your own DNA? When your heart started beating, at about 19 days, was it your heart that was beating?


Something has to happen to make a fertilized egg a human being.
No, it is your conception that makes you a human being.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:17:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 5:21:19 AM EDT by Dino]
hmmm how do you view the freezing of fertilized eggs as part of en vitro fertilizatio treatments

according to you, each of those frozen fertilized eggs is a human being.

Standard procedure is to dispose of unused eggs after the treatment is successful They can be put up for use by other infertile couples, but its not required. You'd think it would be required if those were actual human beings.

To me, this is just duplication of the work nature does because I don't see the fertilized egg as a human being. How do you view it, since you say they are human beings.

If I were to alter my view, then this would be dangerous medical experimentation on a human being so that another human being (who nature determined should not have children) can be a mother. Seems kind of selfish to me to risk multiple deaths so you can give birth. Should we outlaw this horrible practice?

Perhaps its because a fertilized egg isn't a human being that we don't worry about that.

Its an interesting tidbit to note that the success of freezing the egg is best early in the development process, in the blatocyst stage. Its impossible with current technology to freeze and thaw a human being for an extended period (whether 6 mos old or 60 years old) reliably. I wonder what is different between a human being and a fertilized egg that could cause this. [/sarcasm off]

You mentioned heartbeat, but ignore other standards (such as brain wave patterning, viability, etc..) Why is the standard you choose more correct than the others?

Lets go with the heartbeat though. That still gives us 2 and half weeks when its not human, and abortion is not a problem. Why push it back to when the fertilized egg is simply a collection of cells?


Top Top