Thank you for the thoughtful response.
It is some say, born with a "Tabula Rasa" in essence, a blank slate, my archnemisis Lestat and I have had great discussions on this about circumcision and pain.
But, what is knowing nothing. Is that the ultimate innocent that should be protected> isnt it true, the more one learns, the less innocent they become. The ultimate act of justice would be to protect not harm the innocent more than protecting a jaded childmolestor.
To think of a baby in the womb as nothing means a dereliction of duty some could argue. It is the most delicate and fragile of life. But, it is alive. Some argue their is a soul, when does that become valid?? When does the Constitution of the United States kick in and give them rights, human rights? These are the questions I raise. Note, there is no right or wrong answer to this.
This is a question of human rights, not a question of choice in this discussion. Framing it as a choice question> Well the man on the street hears more choices then, well who cant be in favor of that??
The moral and ethical discussion is but what I am trying to draw out. If I was to say to a woman, Hey, your baby looks just like Brad Pitt and then dollar signs form in her eyes and decides not to have an abortion but to raise a child actor. How is that appropriate??? If I was Pro-life and hated seeing lives taken for reasons viewed as more important, wouldnt that practitioner always say "Hey, looks like Brad Pitt". Seems ridiculous argument and I dont work in obstretics except for occassionally with heart malformations but BF Skinner would say that behaviorism. Rewarding statements influences the person who utters the statements as well.
A classic example was a professor who discounted behaviorism, well Skinner got together with students of his class and every time he walked into a certain spot, his students were(by experiment design) to reward him with smiles and open eyes and questions. By the end of the semester. He spoke 95% of the time from that spot.
See,, the point is ZEN