Because of space limitations, this response is is divided into two parts. I hope they appear consecutively.
Fantasea stated> "There are those who would equate this with the belief, in 1930s Germany, that it was a role of government to decide, on the basis of percieved 'quality of life', who was fit to live. For the record, no 'thalidomide baby', who is now an adult, has come forward to express regrets at having been born."
It is absurd for you to state that no thalidomide or otherwise effected individual could ever regret being born. Do you have a direct line or database to the afflicted? Have you checked with the suicide hot lines to see that it was only the otherwise mentally ill who chose to pull the plug? Au contrair mon ami, unfortunately, there could very well be MANY people who wish they were never born.
Perhaps I was overly impressed by seeing a recent performance by Thomas Quasthoff, who, according to CBS, is considered by music critics to be one of the finest baritones of his generation. Mr. Questhoff had this to say, “"I don't want to be judged as a disabled person. I want to be judged as a singer, and I think my level is high enough that I have the right to be judged like this." I have come across heartening stories about other ‘thalidomide babies’ who, in spite of their disability, have also become productive persons and have managed to have families of their own.
They understand that while we have no choice in the cards we are dealt, the key is in how we play the hand.
You ignored the first sentence in my comment. Why is that?
Fantasea stated> "The same research of geneticists whose work has resulted in freeing death row inmates has shown that at the moment egg is pierced by sperm, 23 chromosomes from each parent unite to form a new human being with its own unique identity. This newly created person is entirely separate and distinct from the person in whose womb it resides.."
It is also true that every cell in any individuals body carries 46 chromosomes ALL of which have the capability, if properly manipulated and placed within a womb would result in an individual. Being seperate and distinct in character is dependant upon their environment and learned behavior, inspite of being genetically identical to the spawning cells. Because cells contain a full compliment of chromosomes does not make them viable, living entities. Ask that steak on your plate how many chromosomes reside in its cells.
Your comment displays either the innocent unawareness or the deliberate ignoring of the findings of renowned scientists, obstetricians, and geneticists, including a Nobel laureate, who also discovered the gene responsible for ‘Downs Syndrome’, whose research results in the area of DNA leave no doubt that a unique, individual, human life begins at conception. Which is it? In the case of the former, I can furnish information. In the case of the latter, I am helpless.
Doubters talk in not in scientific or medical terms, but in terms of ‘belief’ of when human life begins. Their beliefs vary from the moment of actual birth all the way back to, ‘I don’t know exactly when, but I know that it’s not at conception.’ Are you willing to accept that?
On the other hand, I have never seen any scientific or medical fact that justifies the nearly fifty million US abortions that have occurred since Roe v. Wade. If you are able to furnish some factual information, I would be eager to see it.
Fantasea stated> "Many have offered the observation that if the Supreme Court Justices who concurred on Roe v. Wade had the opportunity to be present at an ultra-sound viewing of a grandchild wriggling and cavorting in their daughters' wombs, the decision would have been unanimous in the other direction."
Since you like to site science, you should know that various cell structures are responsive to stimuli yet do not represent viable organisms. MKL815, most intelligently recognized that there are developmental benchmarks that transform a clump of amorphous transitional cells into a person. The question is when? No one can deny your observation and the emotional tie that one could feel seeing a sonogram,(yes I've seen quite a few) but that doesn't reflect the scientific reality. Perhaps that is the question to be answered (see below). Even a corpse can respond to stimuli after being pronounced dead.
Whether outside the womb, or inside the womb, continued viability depends on the shelter, protection, and nourishment that a mother provides for her child. The point of viability outside the womb continues to become earlier and earlier. ‘Preemies’ weighing less than a can of Coke at birth are now attending school.
Have you met a little fellow by the name of Samuel Armas? If not, you can do so by visiting this website. I think you’ll find his story quite interesting.
http://www.pagerealm.com/handhope/bighand.gif
Fantasea stated> "Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
It is quite hypocritical (as I've stated many times) that Texas, of all states can take a position in favor of "life" when it out guns all the state in executions. Of the 57 executions in the US ('04), 28 were in the Lone Star State. Many of which have undoubtly been innocent people. Please. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a brain. It's like taking human rights advice from Red China or North Korea.
First, let me reiterate that because of the fallibility of the system, and the possibility that an innocent person might be put to death, my preference in capital cases is a sentence of life, without parole.
I believe that in this instance, you are confusing an apple with an orange.
The simple fact, however, is that Texas recognizes the difference between an adult, duly convicted of a capital crime, and an innocent child living peacefully in the womb, whose only offense is choosing an inopportune time to make its presence known.
Is Texas wrong to recognize this difference?
Second, you do not comment on the words of the justices who chose to leave the question of when life begins to a later point “in the development of man’s knowledge.” Given the advances in technology, medicine, obstetrics, and genetics, and the state of man’s knowledge here in the twenty-first century, why, if you are the reasonable person you appear to be, would you not want to see the question decided on the basis of certitude rather than emotion?
With respect to determination of when life "begins", I'm stickin with the scientists. Viability is the benchmark.
May I know the names of some of these scientists with whom you are stickin’? Are you able to supply references to their statements?
In the matter of viability, what is the point at which you consider viability to be present? Before you answer, you might consider little Samuel Armas shaking hands from within the womb.
Fantasea stated> "Can it be called a matter of personal freedom to give one the power to abort a child simply because it made its appearance at an inopportune time?"
While I have wrestled with this question, I have a real problem accepting the nonsense that every woman seeking an abortion is a sex crazed harlot who couldn't keep her libido in check. Many women have had serious problems from rape to incest, to abusive spouses etc. If you do not walk in that persons shoes you have no right to make their decisions for them...
For the moment, for the purpose of discussing your statement, let us agree that we will set aside those victims you describe and add to those the instances of a woman who is in danger of death in childbirth.
Statistics are readily available on-line from many worthy sources that will show that the instances you cite account for far less than a hundred thousand abortions each year. That leaves nearly a million and a half abortions each year which can only be for reasons of convenience and to avoid embarrassment. Do you disagree? If so, let’s see your math.
While most of them are now dead, I believe that well-intentioned people who sought legalized abortion as a safe alternative to back-alley butchers who, they argued were the only source available to rape and incest victims, would be filled with horror to see how the result of their efforts has erupted into unimaginable carnage.
How many people realize that more infants die in abortion clinics every year than the total number of battle deaths suffered in every war from the Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
