*opens up a can of worms*

[FrankChodorov]

we should assume that a person wishes the needs of life, unless he or she specifically declines our assistance.

in the case of irreversible incapicitation it is assumed that the person who is most intimately involved in that person's life (the spouse) would "know" what the wishes of that person would be if they were able to communicate themselves.

[FrankChodorov]

How much brain function is "enough"

we know it is somewhere between conception and birth...

[intergraph19]

we should assume that a person wishes the needs of life, unless he or she specifically declines our assistance.

in the case of irreversible incapicitation ...

Medicine isn't advanced enough to really know what is irreversible.  There are many cases of people who were told they could never walk again, or run and many cases of people who were never supposed to wake up.  I know of many cases of people who were told their children whould not live very6 long, or ever talk or function normaly due to birth problems and are fine now, or living far beyond the abilities deemed possible by doctors.  It is the height of arrogance for us to think we know enough to make these decisions.

[FrankChodorov]

Medicine isn't advanced enough to really know what is irreversible.

except they were right in this case...the brain had atrophied 50% upon autopsy.

There are many cases of people who were told they could never walk again, or run and many cases of people who were never supposed to wake up.  I know of many cases of people who were told their children whould not live very6 long, or ever talk or function normaly due to birth problems and are fine now, or living far beyond the abilities deemed possible by doctors.  It is the height of arrogance for us to think we know enough to make these decisions.

if all of these examples include sentient human beings with higher brain function (conscious and feeling pleasure/pain) then this is all irrelevant...

[tracysaboe]

A right to privacy doesn't mean I have a right to kill by 2 year old baby in my own home.

a blastula without any higher brain function is not a "2 yr. old baby"...

OK. WOW. This is just WAY to glaring to be left unanswered.

Bill. Go take logic 101.

The two have nothing to do with each other. 

If it's not murder -- then a "right to privacy" is completely irrelevent and unneeded. If it IS murder (which you haven't sufficiently demonstrated that it's not.) then a right to privacy gives you no more right to kill an unborn then it does a 2 year old.

But this is the only way you know how to debate.  It's the same thing you do with your Land commie arguments. You can't answer one objection, so you dance around it and and bring out another reason to support yourself -- when that other reason is still in debate. 

Some pro-abortion people have been making sensible arguments in this thread.

You're not one of them.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

The two have nothing to do with each other.

correct - we are talking about a right of privacy to terminate a potential human being in the blastula stage with no higher brain function without the state deeming it as murder.