I don't know that I would describe my faith as blind. I've referred to these transpirations as "ugly" and other less colorful images. I don't think pragmatism is blind.
But pragmatism does go both ways. You think it pragmatic to allow the government some leeway in this instance. I disagree - the people have been pragmatic enough with the current FISA rules. For example, the oft referenced retroactive warrants are certainly a pragmatic solution to the needs of government officials. The point is that you seem to think that I am being completely unrealistic, and that pragmatism is required. I think that a pragmatic middle-ground between civil rights and government agnecy action was acheived - and now it is being thrown out. Just throwing out regulations one finds cumbersome is not pragmatism - it's tyranny.
People seem to have a difficult time actually articulating how to seperate a soul as distinct from a mind. Just as most people who are in favor conceptually of abortion have a difficult time articulating where the fetus metamorphosises into a baby, I would suggest that you would have a difficult time locating the exact momenent when this difficult to define soul is endowed to the flesh. Everything I have learned about the miracle of consciousness tells me that you are making a fundamental mistake in overestimating the continuity of the mind or soul from sperm and ova to corpse. I would also suggest that arguing that something should be valued on the basis of what it most likely will become has it's limits. If you accept the idea of married couples using condoms, as it is blocking sperm which ...if you would just leave it alone except to nourish it, you would see born a bright child who laughs just as sweetly as your own. Unless you are a Lutheran, don't think you would argue for predestination. DNA is no more than an patern for making a person, not a person. In the final analysis, I don't really necessarily have a problem with the position that you have taken. It's perfectly reasonable. What makes me want to not listen to you is the degree to which you are sure that you are right. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who looked at this issue with any real understanding and insight would before anything else be humbled at their own lack of understanding. Physicists get approached somewhat regularly by nuts. They walk up and begin espousing a theory built on reasonable-sounding terminology is a thoroughly rational and thoughtful tone. There is, however, a litmus test. The moment any of these people begin to claim that their theory has all the answers or solves everything they are immediately understood for what they are. I'm not saying you are a nut, but I am sure that you "know" things which you really only believe.
I would guess that the writers of the 14th Ammendment never intended it to be used to interfere with a state mandated vote count and thus decide a presidency but in 2000 the majority ruling in Bush V Gore was based on the 14th Ammendment. The point is you can't parse out the Constitution to the point of deliberately ignoring the very textual, and in this case unambigious langauge. There's no convoluted leap of logic since that is clearly what the Constitution says. It doesn't say "All persons conceived" it says "born." What this means is that embryos or fetus aren't citizens. Now nothing about that says that government couldn't extend legal protections to embryos or fetuses but that's another issue. Anyway considering how many people complain about the birthright to citizenship can you imagine the problems if it was a conception right to citizenship? You could have a couple having a fling have sex on US soil get pregnant and then declare that the embryo is a US citizen.
The reason to use quotes is to quote someone. Your quotations around the word "thing" imply that I used that word to describe a fetus or embryo. I also never questioned whether the fetus was human. It is decidedly a human fetus or embryo, but does not become a "child" until birth. It is a crude analogy, but a tapeworm has unique DNA. It doesn't really matter that the DNA is human since to the mother it is an organism that is analagous to a parasite. If the mother does not want to use her womb to bring the fetus to term, NOBODY has the right to force her to any more than they have the right to tell her that the tapeworm in her intestines must stay. If God wants her to bring the fetus to term, I am quite certain that He can make this desire clear to the mother. Humans do not have the right to make that choice for her. It is an issue that needs to be left between her, her doctor, and God. Your assumption. Theologians seem split as to when the fetus acquires a "soul." There are plenty who believes that this happens at birth. Now you are entering the realm of blasphemy! There is NO child on God's green Earth that laughs anywhere near as sweetly as mine do! But the decision as to whether the fetus should be "left alone" should be left between the mother, her doctor, and God. There was only one "in my mind" qualifier, and you are correct that it puts me in the "probably" neighborhood, same as you. It is my opinion that we should not attempt an ineffectual ban on a medical procedure based on "probably," "maybe," or "if." The negative consequences of such a ban would be dramatic and would far outweigh the minor reduction in abortions that would follow. If you want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, there are far more effective, proven ways to do it. If you and people like you would concentrate on what works rather than trying to push legislation that would be unproductive, we could reduce abortions dramatically, but I guess you would rather have a "solution" that is in name only and does nothing to address the root causes.
Hey, it's life or death. I'm sure that I'm doing the cautioius thing and the respectful thing by not killing that which might be/probably/is a human being.
