[Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!

[C. G. Estabrook]

Whereas those who hold that ending the life of a newborn is murder, but doing
the same thing a month or so earlier is morally neutral, are just being 
illogical.  (And perhaps politically driven, to minimize undesirables.)

The question is, Where in the life-cycle does ending human life becomes no 
longer acceptable.  Birth?  A month earlier? Three months?  Six?

Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> Those who even believe that a sperm having entered a human egg is equivalent
> to a developed human (in human rights, etc.), is theologically driven,
> ludicrous, and beyond ethics or reason.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:08 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> Mort, as usual, seems particularly interested in theology.  We're talking
>> about ethics, which doesn't depend on theology.  That's why we all agree
>> that our ending human lives in Afghanistan is wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> Jennifer, you are dealing with theologically frozen minds on this issue.
>>> The issue should have no place on the peace-discuss website, but fanatics
>>> will not be restrained. --mkb On Dec 7, 2009, at 8:55 PM, C. G. Estabrook
>>> wrote:
>>>> It's a medical procedure that results in the death of a majority of
>>>> those who undergo it.  That after all is the point of the procedure.
>>>> --CGE Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>>>> There is only ONE pro-choice argument, so far as I'm concerned: ALL
>>>>> women should be able to choose whether to continue or terminate a
>>>>> pregnancy, and because it's a medical procedure, ALL women should
>>>>> have health insurance that covers termination, should they choose
>>>>> that...
> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss