Sylvain,

>>>I think it's much better for the unborn child to be killed before it's birth rather than beeing unable to care for him/her (accidents do happen) - or have a defective child that has no hope of ever doing anything userful.
>>
>>Yeouch!!
>>
>>Who get the right here to decide if another human being is "useful"???
>
>I was waiting for that one! :)

*chuckle*

Set me up, eh? <g>

> The way I see it, the father has 25% choice and the mother has 75% choice (it's her body). But the point is if I had a part in creating that child, then yes, I have a say as to weither or not it will be born.

Well, let's just say we disagree.

>
>Simple reality is that humans no longer have natural selection, so we're spreading like a virus, and defective humans create other defective humans. Oh, and in case you don't beleive in natural selection, I think it has been observed and documented a lot in the past centuries!

I have no trobles with the notion of natural selection. However, I do not see that as 'evolution'. IOW, one species may change and adapt within that species but it doesn't become another species - if that makes sense.

>
>>I understand that Holland just enacted euthanasia laws, making it now legal for "mercy killings". What if the "killee" doesn't want the treatment?
>
>Way to go, Holland! I just hope such laws make their ways in North America! I have long objected to artificial extention of life. Yeah, I'd really like to spend 5 to 10 years in an hospital bed looking at the ceiling!

I mis-spoke. APparently it was the Netherlands. Here's the link I couldn't find yesterday:http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,677005,00.html

>
>>Well, pro-lifers have had the pro-death ..er.. abortion stuff rammed down their throats for years.
>
>Really? When did they forced a pro-lifer to go for abortion? Just because we tell them to let us do it isn't "ramming it down their throats". The problem is simple: they want to outlaw it, so we have to fight back to keep our options open.

Try teaching abstinence in the public schools. I think that alone makes my point.

>
>>Look, the studies show that 90+% of all abortions are for convenience sake. It isn't the life of the child, nor some mysterious "quality of life" issue that's at stake here. It's wanting to live a lascivious lifestyle without consequences (ie. utter personal sexual selfishness) that is at issue here. Why not bring the child to term and place it for adoption (like I was)?? Well, it's too long to go without sex I suppose..
>
>Well, my point's exactly! The parents are obviously unable to use easily available contraception, so I'd see that as a lack of judgement, that would be passed upon their child.

At the child's expense? That seems entirely contrary to common sense. Why should the child be deprived of an opportunity for a whole life simply because that child's biological parents are idiots? Naturally I'd rather the parents be more responsible but I'm not so foolish as to think that they will be. Put the child up for adoption.

>
>Adoption doesn't solve the problem, IMO. And just what is the problem with having sex for fun? I think I once read that dolphins also have sex for fun. I'd just like to see one put on a condom! :)

Well, I was adopted. Given the choice I'd rather that have happened than not having a life at all. This one is personal. <s>

>
>>Also.. Take the $$ out and I'd bet the tune would change. It's an industry and there is a ton of $$ to be made.
>
>The $$-makers aren't forcing anyone. It's still a personal choice.
>
>>Animals have no notion of love, demonstrated by sacrificial self-giving, like the mother who gives up her rights for the needs of the baby.
>
>As Mike said, love is a chemical reaction. It is simple actually: other animals have an instinct for reproduction. Humans eventually lost that instinct. Those that developped love continued to reproduce, while those who didn't found no reason to. Yeah, I know, you don't beleive in evolution, but that's my take. To me it's infinitly more probable that some sort of god.

I disagree that it is only a chemical reaction. That point is concluded by those who have already decided there are no other alternatives and so are pre-concluded.

>
>>The problem Sylvain is the selfish heart of mankind, which has willfully reduced itself to the level of animals from a much higher level of thought.
>
>I once read a newspaper reader's comment on the cloning of animals that "it worked with a sheep because animals have a group soul, but it would never work on humans." I was amazed that someone could think up such a stupidity!
>
>There is no such thing as a soul.

Really? How do you prove that? Maybe a better question would be for you to provide your definition of 'soul'. I'm thinking we have different definitions...