When Does Life Begin?

The Indivisible Fight for Life
by Nat Hentoff. Presented at AUL Forum, 19 October 1986, Chicago. This article is part of no violence period.

I'll begin by indicating how I became aware, very belatedly, of the "indivisibility of life." I mention this fragment of autobiography only be cause I think it may be useful to those who are interested in bringing others like me - some people are not interested in making the ranks more heterogeneous, but others are, as I've been finding out - to a realization that the "slippery slope" is far more than a metaphor.

When I say "like me," I suppose in some respects I'm regarded as a "liberal," although I often stray from that category, and certainly a civil libertarian - though the ACLU and I are in profound disagreement on the matters of abortion, handicapped infants and euthanasia, because I think they have forsaken basic civil liberties in dealing with these issues. I'm considered a liberal except for that unaccountable heresy of recent years that has to do with pro-life matters.

It's all the more unaccountable to a lot of people because I remain an atheist, a Jewish atheist. (That's a special branch of the division.) I think the question I'm most often asked from both sides is, "How do you presume to have this kind of moral conception without a belief in God?" And the answer is, "It's harder." But it's not impossible......

BTW... speaking of unanswered questions. I asked baddog1 and bartikus if they have anyone in their family who has had an abortion, or any person in their close circle of friends.

Did you think I forgot?

T
K
O

Bartikus wrote:

Just in case you were'nt impressed with my last answer Diest........here's one.

"How often must something be repeated for you to understand? Those "what if's" you describe is out of my realm to influence or control Got that?"

Is this an example of an answer or an avoidance of the question Diest?

What am I thinking....you can't answer this! There's something in the air on Neptune I tell ya.

It's become obvious that those pro-lifers are all talk and no action; they don't like to make the tough decisions when faced with a real issue of saving embryos or a human. Hypocrites. A sorry bunch who claims to have morals, but won't commit to a "what if" scenario to prove once again that they are all hypocrites.

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Bump for Bart and Baddog1.

Diest TKO wrote:

If a life is most important independant of being a embryo or a full grown adult, I'll propose Clumly's old question to you.

A building is burning. Their are 10,000 embryos, and 1 child. You can either save the child of the freezer with the 10,000 embryos. Which do you do?

How would your choice affect other's?

Prove to me that they are equal.

T
K
O

thank you.

Oh wait....I know how to handle this question.

That's a dumb question! Where did you go to school? Pluto? Hypocrite?

Your flippin welcome (insert derogatory name here)!

How's that for an intelligent response? Let's see if you can answer the questions posed to CI......

Does a woman/young girl deserve to know the truth when asking questions regarding abortion at the clinic Diest?

Your current arguement has no relation your your duty to answer direct questions fielded to you.

To answer your question, I advocate for consultation prior to an abortion. I support a girl/woman having the truth about the proceedure etc.

T
K
O

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Just in case you were'nt impressed with my last answer Diest........here's one.

"How often must something be repeated for you to understand? Those "what if's" you describe is out of my realm to influence or control Got that?"

Is this an example of an answer or an avoidance of the question Diest?

What am I thinking....you can't answer this! There's something in the air on Neptune I tell ya.

It's become obvious that those pro-lifers are all talk and no action; they don't like to make the tough decisions when faced with a real issue of saving embryos or a human. Hypocrites. A sorry bunch who claims to have morals, but won't commit to a "what if" scenario to prove once again that they are all hypocrites.

In case you missed it....these were your words to me when asked about "what if" scenarios! oops

Bartikus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Just in case you were'nt impressed with my last answer Diest........here's one.

"How often must something be repeated for you to understand? Those "what if's" you describe is out of my realm to influence or control Got that?"

Is this an example of an answer or an avoidance of the question Diest?

What am I thinking....you can't answer this! There's something in the air on Neptune I tell ya.

It's become obvious that those pro-lifers are all talk and no action; they don't like to make the tough decisions when faced with a real issue of saving embryos or a human. Hypocrites. A sorry bunch who claims to have morals, but won't commit to a "what if" scenario to prove once again that they are all hypocrites.

In case you missed it....these were your words to me when asked about "what if" scenarios! oops

As an observer, you have failed the laugh test. When others ask a question, you ignore them if they're too tough and that places you in a catch-22 position to answer it. It doesn't matter how I respond as an individual; that you would act as if my repeating a question originated by others needs to parrot a response I have made is childish. Grow up!

I have a quick point about abortion.

As an atheist, I don't believe in a soul. So, once you remove that from the equation, the important, defining characteristic of a human being is the sophistication of a nervous system; the closest physical measure we have to sophistication of thought.

So, too me, the abortion debate comes down to, when does the nervous system have the sophistication to be considered human? Since I have no problem killing and eating a cow, I kind of feel that at least that threshold needs to be met. So, abortion is wrong when the fetuses nervous system is more developed than anything I would be willing to kill and eat under non-survivalist circumstances.

I need a demonstration of a nervous system more complicated than something I would be willing to eat. No, I wouldn't kill and eat a fetus under non-survivalist circumstances, but I wouldn't kill and eat a rat under non-survivalist circumstances either. This doesn't really have any effect on the argument at all. While I haven't killed and eaten a cow, I have killed my share of animals in the past. Finally, you make a valuable point about the butcher, but you do so in my favor. If you make an abortionist analagous to a butcher, it means that, to be ok with abortion, I don't even have to be ok with killing the animal, just ok with it being killed in general, which lowers the bar a little bit.

Might want to think through your questions and analogies before you submit them.

I don't know how sophisticated is sophisticated enough; I hadn't really considered it. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't eat a monkey.

Also, once the disorder is severe enough, it reachs a point were I would start to consider euthanization as an option.

fungo, Welcome to A2K. Your position I can accept; it's a rational opinion based on biology. As it also happens to agree with the laws of our country also helps.

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Bump for Bart and Baddog1.

Diest TKO wrote:

If a life is most important independant of being a embryo or a full grown adult, I'll propose Clumly's old question to you.

A building is burning. Their are 10,000 embryos, and 1 child. You can either save the child of the freezer with the 10,000 embryos. Which do you do?

How would your choice affect other's?

Prove to me that they are equal.

T
K
O

thank you.

Oh wait....I know how to handle this question.

That's a dumb question! Where did you go to school? Pluto? Hypocrite?

Your flippin welcome (insert derogatory name here)!

How's that for an intelligent response? Let's see if you can answer the questions posed to CI......

Does a woman/young girl deserve to know the truth when asking questions regarding abortion at the clinic Diest?

Your current arguement has no relation your your duty to answer direct questions fielded to you.

To answer your question, I advocate for consultation prior to an abortion. I support a girl/woman having the truth about the proceedure etc.

T
K
O

These were originally CI's responses to me when he was fielded a direct question. Your comments reveal much regarding CI. Thanks.

In relation to your answer which is appreciated.....Is it safe to assume that you would generally oppose an abortion clinic that was giving false info (regarding abortion, effects, etc.) in order to secure a customer (so to speak) for abortion?

Do you feel a woman/young girl can truly make a choice if the information she is given is outrightly....false?