Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness

[DeclinetoState]

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor<hr>Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.

This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion.

MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions “for social reasons” from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, a move not backed by the government.More (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece)

I'm sure the pro-infanticide left will trot out stats (or at least stories) of women who either (a) didn't have an abortion and went nuts; or (b) had one but didn't go off the deep end.

[PrezLeefun]

The left always has done that....

[edgeworth]

Its an interesting study. However, I still think that a woman who is raped and has to live with the child that is a product of that goes through MORE trauma and problems everyday. But, that is just my opinion.

[edgeworth]

Its an interesting study. However, I still think that a woman who is raped and has to live with the child that is a product of that goes through MORE trauma and mental problems everyday. But, that is just my opinion.

[PrezLeefun]

Its an interesting study. However, I still think that a woman who is raped and has to live with the child that is a product of that goes through MORE trauma and problems everyday. But, that is just my opinion.

That is really sweet of you... also ignorant.

For the record around 1% of all rapes victims receive abortions because of a rape in this country. And if a woman doesnt want a child that is a product of rape she can give it up for adoption, and aborting said child wont change that a rape happened. Wake up dude.

[DesertFox]

My position, rape or not, is that if you gonna abort, do it in the first 30 days. By day 31 you must bear the child or face criminal charges of homicide.

[Neil Peart]

My position, rape or not, is that if you gonna abort, do it in the first 30 days. By day 31 you must bear the child or face criminal charges of homicide.So what makes a baby any less human on Day 30 than on Day 31?

[DesertFox]

That final second before day 31 begins.

[Neil Peart]

That final second before day 31 begins.How does that make the baby any less human?

[DesertFox]

I give up. You tell me.

This is a political question with moral overtones.

This is a moral question with political overtones.

There is no answer that will satisfy everyone. The right answer is to let each state decide its own policy, but the Supreme Court hasn't wanted that to happen over the last 35 years. So my backup is, 30 days or none.

Why do you ask?

[PrezLeefun]

Yeah DF you better get to explaining that one. DF your 30 days business is same basic junk the left uses to excuse murder.

[DesertFox]

No, I don't "better explain" anything. That's my position. It's as reasonable a position as one can come up with.

I say that, already knowing that Doc Doom will now trot out his gory abortion photos, as he always does. They have no bearing on my position since a fetus at one month doesn't look like any of those horrible photos.

The fetus becomes human, in my mind, when it is unarguably human to the human eye. A mass of cells is not a human. Were that the case, none of us had better ever cough up sputum or cut ourselves, because our sputum and our blood contain the entire DNA sequence that led to us. The fetus at one month is in a similar stage, not human yet.

If imaging proves me wrong, I'll back up to whatever date is normally prior to the fetus being obviously human.

Political questions require compromise solutions. This is mine. You don't like it, sorry about that.

[DeclinetoState]

DF's merely using the same logic that courts and politicians have used in permitting first- and/or second-trimester abortions but banning those during the third (or, in some cases, permitting abortions at any time during pregnancy, but not after the kid is born).

The distinction is, and must be, largely artificial.

[edgeworth]

That is really sweet of you... also ignorant.

For the record around 1% of all rapes victims receive abortions because of a rape in this country. And if a woman doesnt want a child that is a product of rape she can give it up for adoption, and aborting said child wont change that a rape happened. Wake up dude.

Your right, however, if the woman lives with the child that is a product of her being raped then think about what that mother goes through when she sees her child. It would be like reliving the rape everyday.

[edgeworth]

I give up. You tell me.

This is a political question with moral overtones.

This is a moral question with political overtones.

There is no answer that will satisfy everyone. The right answer is to let each state decide its own policy, but the Supreme Court hasn't wanted that to happen over the last 35 years. So my backup is, 30 days or none.

Why do you ask?

Thats exactly the position that I have with this issue. I say we should let the individual states decide what they want to do concerning abortion instead of the federal government.

[PrezLeefun]

Your right, however, if the woman lives with the child that is a product of her being raped then think about what that mother goes through when she sees her child. It would be like reliving the rape everyday.

That is not true for all women, and adoption is still an option. And there are all different kinds of adoption options.

[DesertFox]

The distinction is, and must be, largely artificial.No, it isn't. Form is fundamental to what you are. If you don't believe me, imagine a sheep claiming it's human. No one will believe it because it looks like a sheep.

Looking human is fundamental to being human. I recognize that there must be limits to that formulation, but in the main it's accurate. Look like a frog, you a frog, dude. Ergo, a mass of cells that does not look human isn't there yet.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^If you have HUMAN DNA then you are human dude. This is not the stone age DF, get better reasoning.

[edgeworth]

That is not true for all women, and adoption is still an option. And there are all different kinds of adoption options.

I never said that this happens to all woman who were raped, but it does happen in some cases. And yes I think that adoption is a great option and a much better one in my opinon. However, I still think with the current system that it should ultimately be the womans choice what she wants to do with the baby.

[PrezLeefun]

I never said that this happens to all woman who were raped, but it does happen in some cases. And yes I think that adoption is a great option and a much better one in my opinon. However, I still think with the current system that it should ultimately be the womans choice what she wants to do with the baby.

There are choices that dont involve murder, and most of them need to be made BEFORE sex.

[DesertFox]

If you have HUMAN DNA then you are human dude. This is not the stoneage DF, get better reasoning.Oh, I get it. So when we dig up somebody who died 25,000 years ago, that person is a human. I mean, after all, it has human DNA. Or when we smack a mosquito that has just sucked up your blood, Prez, then we have just killed a human because there it is -- that red stuff all over the wall, human DNA.

You're gonna have to do better than that, Prez.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^What a load of crap. That has no relevence to this topic and you damn well know it.

[edgeworth]

There are choices that dont involve murder, and most of them need to be made BEFORE sex.

Again, I agree, but thats THEIR choice to make NOT mine.

[PrezLeefun]

Again, I agree, but thats THEIR choice to make NOT mine.

Then you are completely weak of mind and lacking in conviction and don't care about innocent human beings.

[DesertFox]

Ultimately somebody makes an arbitrary decision about when that fetus becomes a person. Nobody knows when it actually does happen.

For decades the Catholic Church talked about ensoulment -- at what point does a soul enter the body of the fetus? That was said to be the point at which humanity began. Evidently a human body with no soul wasn't human, but then nobody seriously thought that a human body could be without a soul.

I, contrarily, think there are any number of soulless bastards wandering the earth. They have human DNA, they look human, they act and sound human. But then one of them gets power and we have a Stalin. A Hitler. A Mao. A Ceausescu. A Hoxha. A Pol Pot. An Idi Amin.

Talking about human DNA gets you nowhere with me.

[DesertFox]

What a load of crap. That has no relevence to this topic and you damn well know it.Bullhockey. It has everything to do with it. You want to define "human" as "human DNA," you don't get to draw lines and say where and when that human DNA counts as a person and when it doesn't.

Prez, ANY choice of "where does humanity begin" is arbitrary when you're discussing those early days of pregnancy.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^Then I guess common sense gets nowhere with you.

[DesertFox]

You said human DNA a human makes. I showed that that doesn't make sense, but you say I don't make sense? Real sensible.

[PrezLeefun]

I used logic to show you where you were wrong, and the best you could do was say, "What a load of crap." Real sensible.

It wasn't logic. Comparing a fetus with an insect that sucks blood is hateful at best.

[edgeworth]

Then you are completely weak of mind and lacking in conviction and don't care about innocent human beings.

No, it means that its not my place to make moral choices for them. Its THEIR life not MINE and they should have to make the ultimate decesion NOT me.

[Neil Peart]

No, it means that its not my place to make moral choices for them. Its THEIR life not MINE and they should have to make the ultimate decesion NOT me.So a woman shouldn't be prosecuted if she kills her husband?

[Gato es Verde]

Oh you mean women mature a little after their abortions and realize that they actually murdered their own child and then have trouble dealing with that realization?

Who knew?

[edgeworth]

So a woman shouldn't be prosecuted if she kills her husband?

How does THAT relate to anything I've said at all.

[PrezLeefun]

So a woman shouldn't be prosecuted if she kills her husband?

Only if we can prove he was human, which according to DF and his superior brilliance tonight, we can't. So its a murder free for all.

[DesertFox]

It wasn't logic. Comparing a fetus with an insect that sucks blood is hateful at best.I see. You're going to ignore the first part of what I said -- about the 25,000 year old human DNA -- and just march on as if it were never mentioned.

Prez, if this is the way you choose to argue, you need to stick with people who can't keep up.

[DesertFox]

Originally Posted by Neil Peart
So a woman shouldn't be prosecuted if she kills her husband?
Originally Posted by PrezLeefun
Only if we can prove he was human, which according to DF and his superior brilliance tonight, we can't. So its a murder free for all. This is simply dishonest. You are ignoring everything else I said about being human, such as looking human.

Prez, if you're going to continue in this vein, I will simply ignore you.

[PrezLeefun]

This is simply dishonest. You are ignoring everything else I said about being human, such as looking human.

Prez, if you're going to continue in this vein, I will simply ignore you.

I guess people with deformities but who are otherwise alive get less human points in your book.

[DesertFox]

Instead of acting like a liberal, why don't you try rational argument? All you're doing now is besmirching your former good reputation with silliness.

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I see you're just going to ignore my last couple of posts and not respond to my remarks, so I guess I'll just ignore you.

[edgeworth]

I'm waiting NEIL PEART, are you going to tell me how my statements relate to yours or not?

[Neil Peart]

I'm waiting NEIL PEART, are you going to tell me how my statements relate to yours or not?Because you're saying that it's a woman's right to choose to kill a human being.

[edgeworth]

Because you're saying that it's a woman's right to choose to kill a human being.

Whether its a human being or not is debateable.

[Neil Peart]

Whether its a human being or not is debateable.OK, what do you think the magical point is where a fetus "becomes human?"

[edgeworth]

OK, what do you think the magical point is where a fetus "becomes human?"

Its not just what I think its what many Americans think too. Personally, however I think that it is when it ceases to become more than a clump of cells. I'm not exactly sure when that is at the momement , I will have to research it and get back to you.

[Neil Peart]

Its not just what I think its what many Americans think too. Personally, however I think that it is when it ceases to become more than a clump of cells. I'm not exactly sure when that is at the momement , I will have to research it and get back to you.The problem is, there IS no such magical moment. Development of both a born human and a fetal human does not come in neat little intervals. A fetal human, like a born human, is always developing. Therefore, the only logical moment that we can decide on from here is conception, the point when two cells from two human beings combine to form one cell with a brand new DNA sequence, a sequence that has never occurred before, and will never occur again. That, my friend, is an individual human being, and it is just as wrong to kill it as it is to kill a born human.

And you say that your opinion is the opinion of many Americans. Well, it was once a fact that the opinion of many Americans was that blacks were subhuman and it was therefore justified to enslave them, just as it is now the opinion of many Americans that unborn children are subhuman and it is therefore justified to kill them.

[PrezLeefun]

The problem is, there IS no such magical moment. Development of both a born human and a fetal human does not come in neat little intervals. A fetal human, like a born human, is always developing. Therefore, the only logical moment that we can decide on from here is conception, the point when two cells from two human beings combine to form one cell with a brand new DNA sequence, a sequence that has never occurred before, and will never occur again. That, my friend, is an individual human being, and it is just as wrong to kill it as it is to kill a born human.

And you say that your opinion is the opinion of many Americans. Well, it was once a fact that the opinion of many Americans was that blacks were subhuman and it was therefore justified to enslave them, just as it is now the opinion of many Americans that unborn children are subhuman and it is therefore justified to kill them.


Bravo!!!!! Thank God for a man with some sense.

[DesertFox]

the only logical moment that we can decide on from here is conception, the point when two cells from two human beings combine to form one cell with a brand new DNA sequence, a sequence that has never occurred before, and will never occur again. That, my friend, is an individual human being, and it is just as wrong to kill it as it is to kill a born human.Says you. That's your opinion. You can no more prove it than anyone else can prove their point about when humanity begins.

[PrezLeefun]

^^^^Well we can prove where life begins.

[Neil Peart]

^^^^Well we can prove where life begins.Prez, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were propositioning me. :thumb:

[PrezLeefun]

Prez, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were propositioning me. :thumb:

:biggrin:

[edgeworth]

The problem is, there IS no such magical moment. Development of both a born human and a fetal human does not come in neat little intervals. A fetal human, like a born human, is always developing. Therefore, the only logical moment that we can decide on from here is conception, the point when two cells from two human beings combine to form one cell with a brand new DNA sequence, a sequence that has never occurred before, and will never occur again. That, my friend, is an individual human being, and it is just as wrong to kill it as it is to kill a born human.

And you say that your opinion is the opinion of many Americans. Well, it was once a fact that the opinion of many Americans was that blacks were subhuman and it was therefore justified to enslave them, just as it is now the opinion of many Americans that unborn children are subhuman and it is therefore justified to kill them.

I was just saying that I'm not alone in my beliefs and that their are other people who feel the same way. However, I never used them to justify my beliefs as I would believe what I think is right regardless of whether or not ANYONE agrees with me. Addresing your second point, I think that science would beg to differ with you on that assumption. A clump of cells is NOT a human being if it was then it would be called such but its not. A clump of cells has no emotions or feelings and it can't reason or even think at all. Ergo, if it doesn't have the most basic human traits that we ascribe to living humans then technically its not alive and therfore has no rights under the constitution.

[DeclinetoState]

A "clump of cells" with HUMAN (not sheep or chimpanzee or frog or anything else) DNA becomes a human being exactly when? Thirty days after conception? Three months? Six months?

What if the woman had sex every night for a week? On which night did conception occur? If she conceived on Tuesday but decides that she conceived on Thursday, then decides she wants to have an abortion one or three months after Tuesday (when it's still legal, depending on what cut-off standard is being applied), is she guilty of infanticide (i.e., murder)?

Allowing abortion up to an arbitrarily defined point inevitably creates a line between what is a person and what is not. I'm not comfortable with that. Neither are a lot of pro-life people. In fact, I don't think any pro-life person can honestly be comfortable with it.

[DesertFox]

Show me how an egg is a chicken, then. Yes, a fertilized egg.

A pro-life person can be perfectly comfortable with my position. He need only recognize that eggs are not chickens.

[edgeworth]

OK, what do you think the magical point is where a fetus "becomes human?"

I would say that anywhere before the fourth week is not considered human. However, that is just my opinon.

[DeclinetoState]

A pro-life person can be perfectly comfortable with my position. He need only recognize that eggs are not chickens.A human, even a fetus, is not an "egg." Once a mammal's egg is fertilized, it's no longer an egg.

I would say that anywhere before the fourth week is not considered human. However, that is just my opinon.Then what is it?

[DesertFox]

A human, even a fetus, is not an "egg." Once a mammal's egg is fertilized, it's no longer an egg.So now we're down to semantics. Not a bad thing, though, because what we call something matters a great deal in how we think of it.

However, DtS, you don't get to change what it's called on your own shtick. Doctors speak of the fertilized human egg regularly. Even if they didn't, in that first month it's not called a "baby" but first a "zygote" that becomes a "fetus" which becomes a "baby." Somewhere in there, prolly between zygotehood and fetusdom, it's also an "embryo;" but I don't recollect for certain.

[DeclinetoState]

The getting "down to semantics" tactic comes from the pro-"choice" crowd, such as their saying, "It's not a baby; it's a fetus." (Not to mention the frequent use of the word choice rather than abortion—or even the more insidious use of the phrase reproductive freedom.)

[edgeworth]

A human, even a fetus, is not an "egg." Once a mammal's egg is fertilized, it's no longer an egg.

Then what is it?

In exact terms I don't know, as I'm not familiar with medical terminology. From what I've read it is cells that don't have a heartbeat, feelings,reason, or any thoughts whatsoever or anything else that is required for basic survival.

[edgeworth]

The getting "down to semantics" tactic comes from the pro-"choice" crowd, such as their saying, "It's not a baby; it's a fetus." (Not to mention the frequent use of the word choice rather than abortion—or even the more insidious use of the phrase reproductive freedom.)

Being Pro choice and Pro abortion are two TOTALLY different things.

[DeclinetoState]

Being Pro choice and Pro abortion are two TOTALLY different things.Being in favor of the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child makes you "pro-abortion," no matter what you may call it.

[edgeworth]

Being in favor of the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child makes you "pro-abortion," no matter what you may call it.

No it doesn't, as the definitions of pro abortion and pro choice are completely different.

[PrezLeefun]

No it doesn't, as the definitions of pro abortion and pro choice are completely different.

If you are in favor of a woman choosing to kill her fetus than you are pro-abortion.

At any rate I am pro-choice. There is the choice to keep the baby or give it away.

[edgeworth]

If you are in favor of a woman choosing to kill her fetus than you are pro-abortion.

At any rate I am pro-choice. There is the choice to keep the baby or give it away.

I'm not in favor of the woman choosing to abort her fetus. I'm in favor for her RIGHT to chose. I don't personally agree that abortion is the best way, nor the more ethical one. But I regconize that it's not MY choice, its not up to ME its up to HER and I'm not going to make moral choices for her.

[PrezLeefun]

I'm not in favor of the woman choosing to abort her fetus. I'm in favor for her RIGHT to chose. I don't personally agree that abortion is the best way, nor the more ethical one. But I regconize that it's not MY choice, its not up to ME its up to HER and I'm not going to make moral choices for her.

Then I guess you shouldnt say anything about the government making moral choices for anyone. Child abusers, rapist, robbers, they are all making choices that directly affect their morality. But we shouldn't say anything about it or do anything to stop it right?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Its not just 'the fetus' that isn't viable outside the mother, its also the elderly which in many cases isn't viable without machines or other people or in some cases, drugs.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/01/00/23120001.jpg

Abort them.

This kid isn't viable either, as happy as the little bugger is.

http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com/attachment/20040316172716_handicapped.jpg

Without the proper help he is no different than a developing child in the womb, and it could be argued that the developing child in the womb is more viable , as it is the very same argument that is made from the results of amnio's to abort genetic defects outright.

This isn't addressing any poster here. I don't think anyone's even mentioned the buzz word 'viability' yet. However, it has to be mentioned in the argument that the elederly, the diseased and the physically and mentally handicapped - the most vulnerable among our society - if we are to retain our pro-abortion scripts, must also allow for the wholesale euthanization of those 'lesser' developed beings among us. They are, in fact, the same arguments.

And, no, I don't believe in this argument myself. But abortion champions of today are using the Reich's belief system and arguments and no one is calling that 'odd' in today's media.

[DeclinetoState]

I'm not in favor of the woman choosing to abort her fetus. I'm in favor for her RIGHT to chose. "I'm not in favor of white slavery. I'm in favor of the RIGHT of others to choose (to engage in white slavery)."

[edgeworth]

"I'm not in favor of white slavery. I'm in favor of the RIGHT of others to choose (to engage in white slavery)."

Slavery is illegal. Abortion is not.

[edgeworth]

Then I guess you shouldnt say anything about the government making moral choices for anyone. Child abusers, rapist, robbers, they are all making choices that directly affect their morality. But we shouldn't say anything about it or do anything to stop it right?

The government, in order to protect society has to. I do not.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Slavery is illegal. Abortion is not.


Slavery wasn't always 'illegal'. And if illegalities alone are your only moral compass, then why not go to Africa (http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/main/09/index.shtml) where you still can own a slave?

After Michael Jackson got heat here for pedophilia, he simply moved to Bahrain. Does that make it 'right'?

[DeclinetoState]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by DeclinetoState http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/../images/patriot/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=657376#post657376)
"I'm not in favor of white slavery. I'm in favor of the RIGHT of others to choose (to engage in white slavery)."
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Slavery is illegal. Abortion is not.Circular reasoning. Edgeworth is saying that abortion should be legal because it's legal.

[edgeworth]

Slavery wasn't always 'illegal'. And if illegalities alone are your only moral compass, then why not go to Africa (http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/main/09/index.shtml) where you still can own a slave?

After Michael Jackson got heat here for pedophilia, he simply moved to Bahrain. Does that make it 'right'?

No, illegalities are not my only moral guide. I was only saying that their is a debate over whether abortion is immoral or not in this country. And since it hasn't been moraly determined as either right or wrong yet, and probably won't be, its still up to the individual to decide. Slavery, on the other hand has been determined to be immoral here in America and happens to also be against the law.

[edgeworth]

Circular reasoning. Edgeworth is saying that abortion should be legal because it's legal.

No, I believe that CERTAIN forms of abortion,like partial birh, should be ILLEGAL. However, I personally feel that there's a certain time in which the "baby" is nothing but a clump of cells and therefore not human. Then is the only time that I would be okay with an abortion taking place. And it is that time and that time only that I believe that the mother has the right to abort.

[DeclinetoState]

Many people believed (black) slavery was immoral long before it ever became illegal (at least in the South). Even after the Civil War, I'm sure there were many who would have liked to have seen it brought back.

Legal status doesn't always correspond to moral status. And there will always be disagreement about the moral status of any controversial issue.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

We cannot (yet -- and I doubt if we will ever be able to) determine when a human life "becomes" human life. The argument for "ensoulment" makes the most sense -- when does the product of human reproduction become ensouled as an individual life? If we are relying solely on science (discounting the religious/moral aspect), we still don't know when the product of human reproduction becomes an individual human life. At the moment of conception, the product of that act has all the basic ingredients of an individual life. All it requires is a location within to grow, nutrients and nourishment to provide energy for growth, and time.

Most sources I have researched approximate that the heart begins to beat anywhere from day 18 to 25. And by the 6th week of life, electrical activity begins in the brain.

Fetal Development (http://www.pregnancyquestions.org/cl/pregnant/fetal.php)
The heart, now in a tubular form, begins to beat by the 25th day.

Electrical activity begins in the developing brain and nervous system.


As someone who is intimately familiar with this issue, I realize I come across as somewhat biased -- but this also puts me in the unique position of knowing from experience. I will boil down my argument to this: If we don't know when an individual human life begins, shouldn't we always err on the side of life instead of embracing death when we just don't know?

As has been pointed out, this issue will always be an arbitrary one -- I don't foresee science ever being able to answer the question of when the product of human reproduction becomes a "human life." If we must have a demarcation line, then it should be prior to a beating heart and electrical activity in the brain. Those are the most reasonable indicators of human life. DF's proposed point of 30 days is past that, so if we were to move it to prior to the 25th day, that would at least fall within his line of reasoning. HOWEVER, most women don't even know they are pregnant prior to the 25th day. Most abortions occur between the 8th-12th weeks. (Abortion Surveillance - 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm))

Therefore, most abortions are already being performed after both my proposed and DF's proposed points.

I personally believe this to be a right to life issue, not a scientific one. The Constitution was predicated on the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among them are the right to life (which comes first, and can ONLY mean the right to existence), liberty and the pursuit of happiness (those manners in which we are allowed to live the existence, the life if you will, we are guaranteed. This should make it a Federal, not a states rights issue in my opinion.

[DesertFox]

The getting "down to semantics" tactic comes from the pro-"choice" crowd, such as their saying, "It's not a baby; it's a fetus."Non sequitur, having nothing to do with anything. If it's true -- and it is -- then whoever else says it doesn't make it untrue. What you call something matters, as I indicated earlier.

[DeclinetoState]

"Killing an unwanted child" sounds so much harsher and crueler than "aborting an unwanted fetus" or (better still) "asserting reproductive freedom." Changing a few words makes an act of murder (or homicide, or infanticide) sound like a basic human right.

[DesertFox]

Agreed. Which is why it matters to call the zygote/embryo/fetus by its right name. We need to agree on when it becomes a baby and call it a baby right then. But until that point it's a zygote or an embryo or a fetus.

[DeclinetoState]

We can debate rights, a woman’s right to chose, a mans right to chose by default, you can point to all the evidence, you can march in the streets but you cannot tell a pregnant mother who has lost her baby in the first or second trimester that it is OK because they were never alive to begin with.

[Emphasis added]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57387

If it's a baby (not just a glob of tissue, an embryo, or fetus) for the woman who aborts unintentionally (i.e., miscarries), then it must be a baby (not just a glob of tissue, an embryo, or fetus) for the woman who aborts intentionally.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Calling it something different doesn't MAKE it different. It's the very same entity, only in different stages of it's existence. It still exists, from the moment of conception. It is not a different species, it's still homo sapien. The debate is when does it become a individual human life. And taken to the further extreme, one must then actually define what an individual human life is.

My argument is, because human life is by it's nature completely different than every other lifeform on earth, AND since we don't know the exact moment when the product of conception becomes an individual human life, we should err on the side of life and not embrace any demarcation, because to do so is to allow the possibility for murder to be committed.

If we are endowed by our Creator with the right to existence, who are any of us to negate it?

[DesertFox]

On the contrary, calling it something different underscores that it IS different. An egg is not a chicken. A zygote is not a person. Nor is an embryo a person. Nor is a fetus a person. At some point the fetus does become a person.

On your same premise of err on the side of human life, I set the limit at a month. If our machinery gets good enough that we can prove humanity at an earlier stage, or on a one-by-one basis, then go with that. But I do not accept that a zygote is a human being. It isn't.

If we are endowed by our Creator with the right to existence, who are any of us to negate it?This is an argument against the death penalty, too, and also war of any kind, and self-defense that results in killing the bad guy. If we can't negate existence then we can't live. I agree that that doesn't mean we have to negate the innocent, but I'm pointing out the logical error in the sentence as you stated it.

[DeclinetoState]

The innocent have the right to existence. The right can be forfeited, either by killing another, innocent, person or by giving another, innocent, person reason to believe that his (or her) right to live is about to be lost.

Where the issue gets tricky is when the lives and rights of innocents are placed in opposition to each other, as in time of war. In some cases, we have to weigh the cost to innocent life of doing nothing (such as allowing violations of the rights of innocent people to live) against that of doing something (such as dropping bombs that may kill innocent people as "collateral damage").

But we're getting far afield of the question of abortion early in pregnancy, where there's rarely a case of weighing one innocent person's life against that of another.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

On the contrary, calling it something different underscores that it IS different. An egg is not a chicken. A zygote is not a person. Nor is an embryo a person. Nor is a fetus a person. At some point the fetus does become a person.

So, what makes a person, a person?

The entity is the same, the stage is different. It is what it is from the moment of conception because it carries all the necessary information that it will need to grow. Location, nourishment, and time is all that is needed, it doesn't go from one species to another, it only further develops the entity it already is -- we all continue to develop until death. I guess one has to determine the worth of the different stages. I say once it's human life, it's worth the same from beginning to end, therefore deserves the same respect and rights, regardless of what you call it.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point, I guess.

On your same premise of err on the side of human life, I set the limit at a month. If our machinery gets good enough that we can prove humanity at an earlier stage, or on a one-by-one basis, then go with that. But I do not accept that a zygote is a human being. It isn't.

I went back in the threads because I wanted to see what you base your limit of one month on -- is it only appearance? What is your opinion of my arbitrary point being based on when the heart beats (by the 25th day) and electrical activity in the brain begins?

This is an argument against the death penalty, too, and also war of any kind, and self-defense that results in killing the bad guy. If we can't negate existence then we can't live. I agree that that doesn't mean we have to negate the innocent, but I'm pointing out the logical error in the sentence as you stated it.

I don't believe it to be a logical error; introductiong those other issues doesn't negate my argument on this one, that would be a logical error on your part called a straw man fallacy :biggrin:. Surely this argument COULD be used against the death penalty, and all those other things. But I'm not arguing them, I'm arguing about abortion, :smirk:

[DesertFox]

I think the innocent have a presumed right to existence. I think we have to behave as if that right were absolute, even if it weren't, because otherwise we have no basis for moral behavior, and no amoral civilization can long endure.

[DesertFox]

The entity is the same, the stage is different. So a chicken and an egg are the same thing? :question:

What is your opinion of my arbitrary point being based on when the heart beats (by the 25th day) and electrical activity in the brain begins? I don't see any logical difference between any of the arbitrary "starting points." They're all arbitrary, yours and mine alike, to somebody, just as it's arbitary IMO to say that a day-old zygote is a human.

[Neil Peart]

Ah. So a chicken and an egg are the same thing. Got it.A chicken and an egg are not the same creature, but a chicken and an unborn chick INSIDE an egg ARE.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

So a chicken and an egg are the same thing? :question:

The contents of a fertilized egg is the same entity as the chicken it will eventually grow into, yes. A fertilized chicken egg certainly won't grow into an alligator or a lizard, :smirk:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't see any logical difference between any of the arbitrary "starting points." They're all arbitrary, yours and mine alike, to somebody.

You don't see the difference between using appearance as an arbitrary point and using heartbeat/electrical activity in the brain? Oh kay.

[DesertFox]

The contents of a fertilized egg is the same entity as the chicken it will eventually grow into, yes. A fertilized chicken egg certainly won't grow into an alligator or a lizardI disagree, and that's the crux of the argument -- just as it has been for 35 years.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I disagree, and that's the crux of the argument -- just as it has been for 35 years.

Then what entity is it? What species? The only difference is stage of life, not in the contents that makes it what it is. It simply doesn't start as one entity and become another ... unless you believe in evolution, then we'd need to go to a whole 'nother forum :smirk:

[DesertFox]

You don't see the difference between using appearance as an arbitrary point and using heartbeat/electrical activity in the brain? No, I don't, and here's why. You can get a heart to beat all by itself outside a body. It's a human heart but it isn't a human itself.

If we get to the point where we can show actual thinking, then IMO brain waves will have established humanity.

[DesertFox]

Then what entity is it? What species?Human species, but that doesn't make it a human being.

Eggs aren't chickens. That's what I think. I understand why you'd think otherwise, I just don't.

[Neil Peart]

Human species, but that doesn't make it a human being.Well, silly me for believing that a member of the human species was automatically a human being! Thanks for enlightening me, DF! :thumb:

[DesertFox]

If you took that thing outta there at one month you'd never know what species it was unless you took DNA samples. But I've already demonstrated that having human DNA doesn't mean much in terms of this argument.

[DeclinetoState]

Quote:
The contents of a fertilized egg is the same entity as the chicken it will eventually grow into, yes. A fertilized chicken egg certainly won't grow into an alligator or a lizard
I disagree, and that's the crux of the argument -- just as it has been for 35 years.A fertilized chicken egg might grow into an alligator or lizard?

:confused:

The unhatched chicken egg is certainly not a chicken. But the baby chick inside certainly is a chicken. If I confer any rights on a grown chicken (and I don't, but if I did), those rights also extend to the baby chick. Similarly, any rights that I confer upon a human being—or that are conferred upon the person by God, the government, or any other entity deemed to be able to confer rights—must also be conferred upon the unborn baby.

Similarly, if I can take rights away from the unborn baby with impunity, then why shouldn't I be able to take the same rights away from the baby's mother?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

What makes a human being, a human being?

[DesertFox]

What makes a human being, a human being?This is a philosophical question that has been answered in a variety of ways. A good answer I saw said that if a computer could answer complex, nuanced questions in such a way that you couldn't tell it apart from what a human might answer, then that computer was human.

What makes us human is our souls. This is why the Catholics so long spoke of ensoulment.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

This is a philosophical question that has been answered in a variety of ways. A good answer I saw said that if a computer could answer complex, nuanced questions in such a way that you couldn't tell it apart from what a human might answer, then that computer was human.

What makes us human is our souls. This is why the Catholics so long spoke of ensoulment.

But that is a religious argument. Scientifically, what makes a human being a human being? If we are going to have an arbitrary point, and we don't want to involve religion, we base it on science. Wouldn't science dictate that a heartbeat and electrical activity in the brain trumps appearance? I mean, a dead human body appears to be a human being, but it's not a human being, because there's no heartbeat and no brain/activity, right? Human beings with severe deformities don't appear human, but their still human beings because they have human DNA and their heart is beating, brain has electrical activity.



Directed at no one in particular:
See, this is what I mean, there's such a slippery slope, imho it would make much better sense to err on the side of life, because we are just incapable of determining when human life becomes a human being.

[bullpup]

No, it isn't. Form is fundamental to what you are. If you don't believe me, imagine a sheep claiming it's human. No one will believe it because it looks like a sheep.

Looking human is fundamental to being human. I recognize that there must be limits to that formulation, but in the main it's accurate. Look like a frog, you a frog, dude. Ergo, a mass of cells that does not look human isn't there yet.

Then there are examples of masses of cells among us...that are so corrupted that an abortion limit of fifty years after birth...hardly seems enough...:rolleyes:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Then there are examples of masses of cells among us...that are so corrupted that an abortion limit of fifty years after birth...hardly seems enough...:rolleyes:

Great first post, bullpup, :lol:

Why not wander on over to the Members Forum (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=16) and introduce yourself with an intro thread? Plenty here would enjoy welcoming you to FC :thumb:


BTW, do you base your screen name on your pets? My family has 2 American bulldog pups, and a boxer/mastiff mix pup ... you can see them here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34725) (Bodi & UGA, but UGA was killed), here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=54902) (Nashville) and here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57133) (Rebel).

[DesertFox]

Wouldn't science dictate that a heartbeat and electrical activity in the brain trumps appearance?Not necessarily. Depends on the kind of electrical activity. If one can demonstrate thinking, then one has demonstrated humanity in that zygote/embryo/fetus. But electrical activity by itself doesn't mean thinking.

Nor does a heartbeat mean human life. We know that "they" can keep an otherwise dead person's heart beating indefinitely. To just beat doesn't mean anything except that the heart itself is alive.

We simply don't know enough right now, Homes, for anything but very clear evidence to be nonarbitrary. I strongly oppose pba, for example, because there's no question whatsoever that that's a baby. I have progressively taken my opposition to abortion backwards and backwards, based on what we can conclusively say.

From what I've seen and read, no one's going to be able to prove that a zygote is a person or an embryo is a person. The fetus is definitely a person at some point, and in order to make it clear, I draw the line at 30 days. Prior to that, it isn't a person. At 30 days and 1 second it is. Yes, it's arbitrary. Any choice anybody makes is arbitrary.

You want to "err on the side of life." That's your arbitrary choice. We make the best choices we can based on what we know, what we think we know and how we believe God meant us to behave.

[DesertFox]

Then there are examples of masses of cells among us...that are so corrupted that an abortion limit of fifty years after birth...hardly seems enough...Yep. Yep2. Yep3. Yep4. Yep5.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Nor does a heartbeat mean human life. We know that "they" can keep an otherwise dead person's heart beating indefinitely. To just beat doesn't mean anything except that the heart itself is alive.

But artificially keeping a dead person's heart beating IS different than it beating on it's own, wouldn't you say? And certainly more of an indicator of life than appearance -- a dead person looks more like a sleeping person minus that pesky heartbeat :smirk:

[DesertFox]

But you're changing what you said. You said "a heartbeat," not a heat beating on its own or beating artificially. That's what always happens when people try to define humanity -- they end up modifying, and modifying again, and again, and again.

It's always artificial lines we draw, Homes, up until there's no doubt about the human being in that womb.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

But you're changing what you said. You said "a heartbeat," not a heat beating on its own or beating artificially. That's what always happens when people try to define humanity -- they end up modifying, and modifying again, and again, and again.

It's always artificial lines we draw, Homes, up until there's no doubt about the human being in that womb.

Sorry DF, but you are the one that introduced the artificial aspect of a heart beating, not me. You are the one that changed the parameters. When the heart begins to beat within the womb, it always does so on its own in a naturally progressing pregnancy (which IS what we are talking about, not any of the exceptions), not artificially. Detecting a heartbeat is detecting a heart beating on its own -- unless you are now saying that its NOT beating on its own, but in conjunction or because of the host (mother). It's certainly not like the mom hooks up jumper cables to the fetal heart and shoots the juice to it, :smirk:

At one point after conception, the heart begins to beat, on it's own. Shortly after that, electrical activity begins in the brain. Using the point at which the heart begins to beat -- on it's own (because that's what happens naturally) -- is a much better line of demarcation than mere appearance. If nothing else, it's certainly much more scientifically reliable.

[Kathekon]

Back to the OP. This is an astonishingly politically incorrect statement about abortion. I remember instances 20 years ago of researchers practically being driven off campus for daring to study 'anniversary' effects of abortion, emotional downturns around what would have been the due date or on the anniversary of abortion. It is simply not permitted to look at such things.

With respect to the larger thread element: There is no starting point for particular human life other than conception. Socially, emotionally, legally and psychologically it is different to kill a fetus rather than a 30-year old. Morally, there is equivalence in that a particular life has been ended. That there is a difference does not relieve moral obligation.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Back to the OP. This is an astonishingly politically incorrect statement about abortion. I remember instances 20 years ago of researchers practically being driven off campus for daring to study 'anniversary' effects of abortion, emotional downturns around what would have been the due date or on the anniversary of abortion. It is simply not permitted to look at such things.

Well most people will automatically discount personal anecdotal arguments, so I guess anyone's free to disregard this one, but speaking from personal experience, I have suffered at least three emotional breakdowns in the past, (two of which resulted in separate suicide attempts near the anniversary of the date). I will never forget the day, ever. I live with the reminder each and every time I look at the faces of my living children. So as for me, I absolutely agree with the OP.

With respect to the larger thread element: There is no starting point for particular human life other than conception.

I'm interested in understanding how you come to that conclusion?

Socially, emotionally, legally and psychologically it is different to kill a fetus rather than a 30-year old.

In your opinion, how are they different, and why?

Morally, there is equivalence in that a particular life has been ended. That there is a difference does not relieve moral obligation.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying here.

[DesertFox]

Homes, you're getting lost. So am I.

You in post 86: You don't see the difference between using appearance as an arbitrary point and using heartbeat/electrical activity in the brain?

Me in post 89: No, I don't, and here's why. You can get a heart to beat all by itself outside a body. It's a human heart but it isn't a human itself.

If we get to the point where we can show actual thinking, then IMO brain waves will have established humanity.

You in 96: Wouldn't science dictate that a heartbeat and electrical activity in the brain trumps appearance?

Me in 99: Not necessarily. Depends on the kind of electrical activity. If one can demonstrate thinking, then one has demonstrated humanity in that zygote/embryo/fetus. But electrical activity by itself doesn't mean thinking.

Nor does a heartbeat mean human life. We know that "they" can keep an otherwise dead person's heart beating indefinitely. To just beat doesn't mean anything except that the heart itself is alive.

You in 101: But artificially keeping a dead person's heart beating IS different than it beating on it's own, wouldn't you say?

It's at that point that I said you were changing what you said, but I now see that it doesn't matter. I said a beating heart doesn't define humanity because a heart can beat outside the human body. Hence a beating heart is not proof of personhood.

Not to mention that a heart can beat healthily and indefinitely in the body of a literally brainless person. You may call that person human, but the soul that made it human is gone and hence its humanity is gone.

Brain waves, I think, are on more solid ground IF we can show that they are the brainwaves of thought rather than just of the autonomic nervous system. I'd be interested in knowing at what day of pregnancy brain waves can first be detected. Do you know?

[DesertFox]

DTS: if I can take rights away from the unborn baby with impunity, then why shouldn't I be able to take the same rights away from the baby's mother?You don't seem to get the point at issue here, DtS.

You're assuming that a 10-day-old embryo is a baby with rights. I don't think that embryo IS a baby, hence it has no rights.

[DeclinetoState]

Brain waves, I think, are on more solid ground IF we can show that they are the brainwaves of thought rather than just of the autonomic nervous system. I'd be interested in knowing at what day of pregnancy brain waves can first be detected. Do you know?For some people, brain waves have yet to be detected:

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-03/36763845.jpg

All seriousness aside . . .

You're assuming that a 10-day-old embryo is a baby with rights. I don't think that embryo IS a baby with rights.At what point does the "embryo" have rights, then? And why then and not at some other time? And why is it an "embryo" and not a "baby"?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homes, you're getting lost. So am I.

No, I'm not lost, but it does appear that you are. :smirk: Here's the actual point of contention:

Nor does a heartbeat mean human life. We know that "they" can keep an otherwise dead person's heart beating indefinitely. To just beat doesn't mean anything except that the heart itself is alive.

"Keeping an otherwise dead person's heart beating indefinitely," refers to a heart beating by artificial means. When fetal development arrives at the moment a heart begins to beat, it happens spontaneously without artificial means. The fetal heart, once beating starts, doesn't stop and start at varying times/stages of the pregnancy. Once it's beating, it's alive, consequently the rest of the entity is alive too -- if the heart stops beating, the entity is dead, no growth continues, and a miscarriage ensues. Once that heartbeat is detected, that is a much better indication of life than appearance. I didn't say it was the only indication, only that it was a better one to use as a line of demarcation.

It's at that point that I said you were changing what you said, but I now see that it doesn't matter.

Well, no, it doesn't really matter ... but again, for the record, you changed the parameters, not me. :smirky: The fetal heart begins beating on it's own, not because it's being artificially sustained. So in the case of human fetal heartbeat, yes, it can be seen as an indication of human life beginning.

I said a beating heart doesn't define humanity because a heart can beat outside the human body. Hence a beating heart is not proof of personhood.

Well, without a clear definition of personhood, we rely on the next best thing, proof of human life. A beating fetal heart is proof of its human life.

Not to mention that a heart can beat healthily and indefinitely in the body of a literally brainless person. You may call that person human, but the soul that made it human is gone and hence its humanity is gone.

Now THAT'S a very good point. Although I wouldn't know for sure if it would still beat in a literally brainless person -- perhaps one that has no brain activity. Regardless, that I'll have to think more about. I still maintain, however, they are two different things -- a fetal heart beginning to beat is different than a dead person's heart being artificially kept beating, and can be used more reliably as a measure of identifying "human life" more so than mere appearance.

And speaking of what one calls things, a brain dead human whose heart is beating by artificial means may not be a human being because it no longer contains a "soul," but it doesn't change its status as human, it's still human (not a different species).

Brain waves, I think, are on more solid ground IF we can show that they are the brainwaves of thought rather than just of the autonomic nervous system. I'd be interested in knowing at what day of pregnancy brain waves can first be detected. Do you know?

I've seen two different points of view -- still researching to see if I can find an unbiased source, but as of now I'm only finding info on the two extremes. Pro-life sources say brain activity can be measured anywhere between day 40-45. Pro-abortion sources say while electrical brain activity can be detected early, so-called "higher" brain activity cannot be detected/measured until the third trimester.

I did find this though, and thought it very interesting:
Fetal Development Presentation (http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm)
When does life actually begin? This question has given rise to various arguments concerning the ethical implications of life's beginning. There have been many different theories that have evolved from this ethical dilemma. Through religious, philosophical, political and medical/biological perspectives, the beginning of life has been defined. Some of the most notable theories are age of viability, quickening, detection of brain waves, beginning of heart beats, first breath and most importantly, at the point of conception. Other theories have originated; however, they are products of mere opinions that most people disapprove of (recognition of sex organs, can give and receive love, creation of the soul, etc). One theory of life's first starting existence is the age of viability. It is defined as the age when the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb on its own. This is not the medical theory of when life actually begins; however, it plays an important role in the developmental process of a fetus. Changes in the age of viability have occurred over the years invariably due to the progress of medical technology. Forty years ago, the age of viability was about 30 weeks. Twenty years ago, it was about 25-26 weeks. Today, medical professionals have determined that it is possible for a 20-21 week fetus to survive (developmental deficits can still occur). Viability today has changed due to the increased medical knowledge of physicians and the improvement of life support systems. The term viability "actually measures the state of medical science and technology in a particular place and particular time"(Johansen, 1997).
Why is there a survival difference between the age before viability and the age once viability has been reached? In other words, how can a fetus of 21 weeks survive, but one of 18 weeks would most likely not make it? The fetus' lung sacs, called alveoli, is the site where gas exchange takes place. The alveoli are lined by a substance called surfactant which keeps the lung sacs from collapsing; therefore, the baby can breathe and survive on its own. The age of viability denotes the completion of surfactant synthesis. If the infant is born too early, the surfactant synthesis is not complete and will result in the inability to maintain lung stability (Ladewig, London & Olds, 1992).
Some other theories that have played an important role in determining life's beginning is the point of quickening. Quickening is defined as "becoming alive" and is determined by the first movement the unborn fetus. This occurs around 18 weeks. Years ago, technology wasn't available to see into the mother's womb like ultrasounds do today; hence, this theory evolved. Life seemed to begin when the mother could first feel the unborn child move inside her. The first detection of brain waves by an EEG has also been a theory of when life actually begins. The argument for this theory is that if we are dead when an EEG can no longer detect brain waves, then we should ultimately become alive when brain waves are detected. Not only has the brain been an interesting view of life's start, but that of the heart has come into play as well. The heart begins beating around sixth week of fetal development. This argument seems reasonable because if we are dead when our heart stops, then we should be alive when our heart begins. Another important assumption is when the baby takes its first breath. This has been the Supreme Court decision; therefore, allowing abortion of a fetus up to a certain term. With all of these theories in mind, the highest regarded theory if life's beginning is the time of conception. The chromosomes from both the father and mother combine to form a unique individual that continues to grow and develop. This theory is the medical and biological answer to when life actually begins (Johansen, 1997).

In any case, it's obvious we are both entrenched in our respective opinions. :smirky: It has been a very interesting discussion, though. Thanks for that.

[DesertFox]

No, Homes, you're the one who first mentioned artificiality. It's clear this discussion is going nowhere so I'm leaving it with this final word: Your choice of when the embryo becomes human is just as arbitrary as any other. You don't seem to follow my reasoning on why a beating heart proves nothing but that it, itself, is beating; but then I'm sure we don't agree on many other things.

DTS: At what point does the "embryo" have rights, then? And why then and not at some other time? And why is it an "embryo" and not a "baby"?You clearly are not following what Homes and I have been discussing for awhile now, and I have no intention of going back over it all. Read the thread.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No, Homes, you're the one who first mentioned artificiality. It's clear this discussion is going nowhere so I'm leaving it with this final word: Your choice of when the embryo becomes human is just as arbitrary as any other. You don't seem to follow my reasoning on why a beating heart proves nothing but that it, itself, is beating; but then I'm sure we don't agree on many other things.

I concur with your assessment and so agree to disagree, with my final word: arbitrary as both our points may be -- and I do agree they both are -- detection of a fetal heartbeat is a more scientifically reliable and sound "arbitrary" point than mere appearance. I also believe many more people, even in the pro-life camps, would more quickly tolerate moving the line of demarcation to fetal heart beat detection than when the "fetus" appears "human," or a simple 30 day/month mark.

[DeclinetoState]

If you know you've got it, it's a baby. If you don't know, you aren't going to be aborting it.

And no, you're not excused if you tell the doc, "Abort it if it's there, then tell me."

[DoctorDoom]

Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illnessGraphic evidence ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/PITA/IMG_4443.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/PITA/IMG_4411.jpg

[DesertFox]

Yep. Most women who ever had an abortion (or even a miscarriage) went thru the psychological trauma that accompanies it. These idiot witches who want to hide their own guilt behind the typical feminist crowd approach -- "well everyone was doing it!" -- still have to live with themselves at day's end. It's clear they can't handle who they are or what they've done. Just look at them: Wretched refuse, indeed. No one would be interested in such slobs.

[DeclinetoState]

What does being pro-infanticide have to do with being against the war in Iraq?

:confused:

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

I give up. You tell me.

This is a political question with moral overtones.

This is a moral question with political overtones.

There is no answer that will satisfy everyone. The right answer is to let each state decide its own policy, but the Supreme Court hasn't wanted that to happen over the last 35 years. So my backup is, 30 days or none.

Why do you ask?
I used to have the much the same opinion. "It's just a clump of cells" at this point I once thought. Later I came to ask myself, biologically speaking we're all nothing more than clumps of cells though, are we not? After that conception seemed the only viable standard. Move it back from that point, and it can be, rationalized through the prism of amoral secularism, conceivably moved back as far as one desires. How can anyone be safe from those who have no qualms about committing genocide against those who are most innocent simply because their being alive inconveniences them?

Abortion almost seems to me like an agenda to desensitize the American populace toward genocide. Perhaps the initial phase of what is to come. I pray I'm wrong about that. But the fact that the litmus test for being appointed a legal interpretor of the documents which establish our right to life is your promise to, A) not apply any concepts of Christian morality to your rulings, and B), either support or at least be complicit toward the politically motivated liquidation of children (by a party whose ideology ever more blatantly screams marxism), leaves me worried. Something is just sickeningly wrong with that.

[DesertFox]

the fact that the litmus test for being appointed a legal interpretor of the documents which establish our right to life is your promise toYou wanna interpret that, please?

[DeclinetoState]

C H is probably talking about the fact that pro-life judges can't get appointed to the Supreme Court, unless libs in the Senate are sure they are either in the minority (and will remain so), or have stronger convictions that keep their moral beliefs from influencing their rulings too much.