Redstate

It was congress. As I argued the day the case was decided , the court made the right call, even though they were upholding a bad law.

Congress dropped the ball on this one when it banned the most humane way to abort a 2nd-3rd trimester fetus without also banning even more gruesome methods.

That's what they get for choosing to score a few points with their base rather than actually address the problem.

It simply found (correctly) that the partial-birth abortion statute does not violate the Constitution. Why is this distinction so hard to understand?

One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.

The Supreme Court didn't "ban" anything. It upheld a law that Congress passed which banned partial-birth abortion.

Unless by "They" you meant "Congress". I prefer to say "We" banned a specific procedure, since the bill passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming majorities and I have only voted for pro-life Congressmen since I became legally eligible to vote.

Good news, though! Under the orginal (deeply flawed and highly questionable) structure of Roe v. Wade, the states can ban late term abortions altogether.

Now that Sandra Day O'Turncoat is off of the Court, the states can ban it. And all of these Democrats like Howard Dean and John Kerry who have recently added the phrase "states' rights" to their lexicon can go around celebrating how great it is that the federal government is not getting involved in an issue like abortion that should be left up to the states to decide.

Romney/Thompson 2008

The Supreme Court didn't say anything about "late term" abortion ever, and it allowed no ban on anything. Harry Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor said that after "viability" (which could be decided by the abortionist based on his definition and standards for viability), state bans required a health exception to include such things as age, and physical, familial, psychological, and emotional well-being. In other words, any abortion. We have a fake cutoff period, and a fake "exception."

The Supreme Court may be even worse off now that Rehnquist is gone. We know Kennedy favors abortion. Who is to say Roberts and Alito will do the right thing? Many people, for good reason, think they won't. More importantly, we need a state legislature and governor brave enough to challenge it.

This case is a hollow victory. It does not save any lives and that was the reason it was upheld in the SCOTUS because it did not pass the "undue burden" test of abortion restrictions.

So the movement is no better off than before the ban on Partial-Birth abortion.

???WhoamI????

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Someone had to give you a "6". You earned it. ; )

Romney/Thompson 2008

I would figure that an abortionist feels about the same as any other atheist. They have all found something they can hang their hat on to rationalize their actions and decisions.

All are dying inside from the separation between themselves and the Lord, but cannot fathom what it is that makes them empty and angry.

It cannot be separation from God (since he is not real) therefore it's the destruction of the environment, baby seals, BDS, Christian hypocrites, Halliburton and so on.

Guess it's cool to trash atheists on RedState.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

dkilmer, you know perfectly well that this board is moderated by volunteers, on their own time: so unless you feel like dropping 20 grand into the kitty every year to pay for me to do this for a living* send us a note via the Contact link the next time you see what you think is a problem, 'kay?

Jeebus. I don't nag you when you're taking time off playing a freaking video game.

Moe

PS: Since dkilmer's so exercised on the notion: everyone, be nice to the atheists. If they're right it won't really matter, and if we are they'll be having plenty of problems soon enough.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*And even then it'll be 9 to 5, M through F. And all major holidays.

Sorry - I regretted it two seconds after I hit "post". One second after I hit "post", I congratulated myself for not having used mbecker's favorite phrase.

As atonement, I'll do an essay: "Why Atheists Are Just As Moral And Happy As Everyone Else".

Hopefully, you know that your dedication is appreciated, even by those of us who are dying inside.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I was thinking of, "You are a [insert an adjective, if the situation warrants] idiot".

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

Lord knows that people might be forgiven for thinking that I'm chained to my computer and only allowed to access this site*. :)

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*The truth is much more prosaic: most of my other hobbies need more than five uninterrupted minutes at a time for best effect. Amazing how a newborn mucks that all up. I mean, it's not like I have that much to do, and yet, there's never enough time to do it...

I've found your response rate to be almost superhuman. Especially when mbecker yells "Moe!" It's almost like the beckster has something akin to a Batman beam that he shines into the night sky and you instantly appear.

meant "response time"

My post was inappropriate. The sharp pointy stick I stuck in the atheist's eye will hardly draw them closer to God.

This one issue (abortion) bothers me more than all other issues facing the country today. A country that fails to protect the most defenseless can not survive over the long haul.

I let my emotion on this override my judgment.

to simply vilify something or someone rather than taking an uncomfortable look at a complicated issue.

OBGYNs that perform abortions are as christian, dedicated, honest, and caring people as any cross-section of RedState posters. I know that makes it harder to "understand" why they do what they do, but that is precisely what is missing in discussions like these.

You couldn't throw a good Iowa straw poll party with all the atheists in the whole world.

Your reference to the fact that most abortionists in America are probably Christian underlines the level of barbarism we are acheived since pandoras box was opened for us by judicial oligarchs.

Its easy to kill little people we can't see especially when everyone else joins in the mass denial of what we are doing, so w can all have consequenceless sex and be better able to make the BMW payments.

Its not complicated.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Christian? See my above post. One might also note Barack Obama is considered a Christian, and he wouldn't support a ban on infanticide of fully born infants. Then we have atheists like Bernard Nathanson. Religion tells us nothing.

Caring? Abortionists care deeply about raking in as much cash as they can as fast as they can.

Honest? They don't have to be dishonest because the court system, the attorneys, and the rest of the abortion industry does it for them. And what about all the young girls who come in with their adult boyfriends?

Dedicated? Their dedication is in stabbing children to death and finding new ways that make it easier for them to kill, mutilate, and torture their victim.

"Understand why?" It's not that difficult. It's a lucrative business where they rake in hundreds of dollars of cash every few minutes with very little effort or overhead. They have become numb and insensitive to the barbaric and cruel acts they are committing.

I would feel more opposed if I were an atheist, if it were possible. Looking to science, I would see that an unborn child is a living human is being and should be treated no differently from any other living human being. I think abortion is far more justifiable under a religious argument than a non-religious one. It would seem to me that it is only through religion that one could define human or life differently or justify valuing human lives in one stage of growth or physical location less than those in another.

It's one of many reasons I see liberalism in itself as a religion.

If you were an atheist, why would you look to science?

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

Actually, I already DO look to science even as a Christian. However, my lack of faith would not change what I thought about science. We are talking about something that has been and can be plainly and directly observed as it happens. Human life begins at fertilization. That's the case whether one believes in God or not.

As a Christian, I suppose there is some small comfort in knowing that God will do justice.

Semantics matter here. Yes, "human life" begins at conception. A fertilized egg is human by virtue of its DNA. And obviously it's alive. So it's human life. But that's not the same as a person. Personhood can -- and in my view does -- require more than human DNA. I think that if we put religion aside for a moment, most of us would say that what makes a person a person is our cognition -- our level and types of thoughts and emotions. That's what really distinguishes us from a worm or bacteria. To illustrate, if you removed the sections of my brain responsible for cognitive function and destroyed them (hence no possibility of recovering them), I cease to exist as a person even if you keep the rest of my body alive. I still have human DNA and I'm still alive -- hence I'm "human life" -- but I'm no longer a person.

I understand your emphasis on "personhood", but given that such beings hav the right to "life" unless taken by due process of law, I see a distinction without a difference practically speaking.

I think that once the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine (?) wall, you have a developing human life, and that any arguments you make for the right to kill it at any stage thereafter can be made for killing the severely disabled born persons.

It is difficult not to bring religion into this given the two real world views of the "intrinsic value" of human life in the image of God vs the utilitarian view you are describing.

But many atheist handicapped persons in Decatur, GA prttested the killing of Shiavo on the grounds of her right to life and due process at least as equal to that of a convicted murderer.

We know that if left unharmed, an attached fertilized egg will develope into a cognition enjoying human being.

So I think Life is key.

more later

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

when someone is severely injured and falls into a persistant vegatative state, or a coma as we usually call it, they usually lose cognition.

The fact is, however, there have been numerous cases of people who were in comas for months or even years, only to suddenly awaken and resume their lives. I think you need to re-think your definition of what is a person.

Over the years, a number of totalitarians have tried to decide for their people who had the right to live and who had the right to die. These decisions were very often made for utilitarian reasons -- the person was old, or mentally deficient -- and could not contribute to society -- in the opinion of the regime.

Dangerous ground, indeed!

No dangerous ground and no need to re-think my definition of personhood (at least not based on your comment), just misunderstanding on your part. If it can be reasonably argued that a person in a vegetative state has a chance at regaining cognition, then that person is still a person. And that case is fundamentally different from an organism (e.g., early embryo) that has NEVER been a person (by what I consider the common sense general criterion of cognition) and therefore has not established personhood.

And your slippery slope argument is almost not worth commenting on. First of all, it doesn't address my argument for what criteria for personhood are sensible, but rather implies that IN PRACTICE such criteria could be misused. Second, it is quite a stretch (to say the least) to say that just because some whackos in history (e.g., Nazis) have considered retarded people sub-human and lacking a right to life that we cannot consider at least consider an organism that has ZERO cognition, nor has ever had it, to be a non-person.

oh, and just to illustrate my point as I've done elsewhere in this thread, if the parts of my brain responsible for cognition were removed and run through a juicer (i.e., zero chance of recovery), but my body kept alive, are you actually saying that I would continue to exist as a person, that that living, essentially brainless body was a person (me)?

When was the last time someone was charged with murder for putting someone into a persistent vegetative state?

-
NARF

Given that the, as you define, "as yet to establish personhood" embryo will so self establish if left alone, I don't se a moral difference between killing before such establishment.

I do agree with your has "a" chance to re-establish test for the amorphous PVS and comatose persons. Yes, if the whole brain is removed, there is no chance.

I also think that the slippery slope argument, if applies anywhere, applies here, esp given the fact that so many have recovered from PVS.

Plus, look at Europe and their exoansions of the culture of death to the old and the born for 10 minutes.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Given that the, as you define, "as yet to establish personhood" embryo will so self establish if left alone, I don't se a moral difference between killing before such establishment.

So it's ok to kill an equally developed embryo in a lab (since "if left alone" it will not establish personhood)?

question and my answer advances the discussion and establishes some clarity.

I think it is immoral to create embryos that will not be inseminated in the first place. So the killing of them is akin to pulling the plug on a human with no brain and so no chance for recovery.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Thanks. I'm unclear on your answer, or perhaps just on your rationale. If you believe that an embryo with the potential to become a person "if left alone" has a right to life, why would there be no right to life for an identical embryo in a lab? Let's assume that that embryo in the lab could be implanted and gestated -- i.e., it has the same potential to become a person, just not "if left alone". Why would one have a right to life based on potential and the other not have that right simply based on the fact that one requires deliberate intervention to realize that potential?

custody. The former is already in custody.

My head hurts and I can't decide if its cognition initiated by the human vacuum cleaner or

Absolut vodka red bull after girlfriend didn't show...

Btw, I think I could support a morning after pill

of boy, now here it comes

and I was just a poor second baseman in high school

Maybe I should change from Contestphallus to JoMorg

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Ouch. I'll give it a rest until tomorrow. Don't feel too bad about the girlfriend not showing and calling you an a**hole. As I said, we're all supposed to assume that we're a**holes because it's apparently, per BSCF (Biological Studies Conducted by Females) part of the Y chromosome. So just take 3 Advil PMs, sleep until 4pm, then call your girlfriend and tell her you slept with two chicks you met last night.

And yes, Joe Morgan was awesome in the mid-70s. I liked that funny elbow flapping thing he did at bat, too. That Big Red Machine was quite a team. But no, stick with Contestphallus. It's much more distinctive and no doubt enticing to da' ladies (in a Leon Phelps "Ladies Man" kinda way).

I'll reply to your custody comment tomorrow so you can get started on the agenda I've suggested.

they had to pass a law because infants born AFTER they had attempted to abort the baby, were being murdered on the grounds that the intent was to abort it.

What does THAT say about society that such a law would even be necessary?

I'm unfamiliar with that law, but I will say that location of the fetus is irrelevant, as is viability. If it's a person, it has a right to life even within the womb. If it's not a person, it has no right to life even outside the womb. If you removed an early embryo from a woman, it still is not a person and as such has no right to life.

has its first cognitive thought?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

the answer is NO! ;>)

I'm no expert on the neuroscience, but safe to say we know when "brain waves" (not a technical term, but activity detected by EEG) are not present, meaning cognition cannot be taking place. There is considerable science on this matter, some of it discussed on right-to-life websites although I don't suggest relying on such info from an organization with an agenda. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

I would like to see an absolute ban on abortion.

However, I know that is unrealistic at present.

If a measure of brainwave activity were implemented as a test, I could support that as a good step forward.

As it stands now, he/she is not a 'baby' until they are delivered (or accidentally/deliberately killed but still wanted by the mother).

Recognition under the law that they are babies and therefore protected from then until delivery (whether wanted or not)....this would be a huge step forward.

That lump of cells would have become a person.

First, I'd prefer to discuss what is the best policy (i.e., a philisophical discussion) rather than what you consider a pragmatic political or judicial strategy (what you consider a realistic "step forward"). Perhaps others would like to spin off into a discussion of strategy to move in one direction or another, but I'll pass.

Second, let's not confuse a "lump of cells" with an organism with brain waves, let alone brain waves that could possibly represent anything resembling person-like (or even animal-like) thought.

But I think there are other good places to look besides science. And I'd take a lot more comfort in people fixing problems than in the idea that someone (God included) will do justice afterward.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

I spent some time when I was younger bouncing between atheist/agnostic. I think it was harder for me back then, as it seemed so much crueler (not that it isnt cruel). Like you said, a living human is being denied its right to expierance life. It was especially hard to get my head around it knowing that the majority of cases it was a consensual act for enjoyment that brought about the situation.

At least know, I can hope these children get to be shown the love that their parents did not give them. It also makes it easier to deal with the other side, for as much as I disagree, I know love thy neighbor still is in effect. Although it is extremely hard sometimes.

All are dying inside from the separation between themselves and the Lord, but cannot fathom what it is that makes them empty and angry.

I've been trying to decide what word, if I had to choose only one, would best describe that statement, and I'm torn among the following: presumptuous, self-righteous, ignorant, hilarious, moronic/asinine/foolish, sad, and stereotypical. It's just so hard to choose because they all fit so well.

Believe me, I could be condescending regarding "faith", but I won't because I see no purpose in offending people, and even if I did I probably still wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want to insult someone regarding such matters. It would also be inappropriate for this forum. So if you can't get a clue (and anyone who would write what you wrote probably can't), at least have some etiquette.

I wish all the people that get offended when someone mocks their faith, would also show the same respect for some one without faith. Although I would imagine we are on opposite ends on this matter, I agree with you about that comment.

Thanks. FYI, I'm agnostic rather than atheist, so it's not quite opposite ends, but close. But I appreciate your comment.

If you disagree with my comment, say so and expound on the many ways that it was incorrect.

(But in a new diary please so we can put this one back on topic. I'd agree with self-righteous and like to hear your explanation for the other words you chose. Perhaps you could title it "Why those who believe atheists are dying inside, empty and angry are presumptuous, self-righteous, ignorant, hilarious, moronic/asinine/foolish, sad, and stereotypical. Better yet, use Becker's famous "idiots" to shorten the title. I guarantee it will be a lively post.)

However, stating you see no purpose in offending people and then turning around with a comment intended to offend ("anyone who would write what you wrote probably can't (get a clue)") sounds too much like its coming from your own "condescending", "presumptive" & "self-righteous" pedestal.

I apologized above - my comment was inappropriate because it was off topic and disruptive to the topic. I personally regretted it because it was not something Christ would have said and it will only further alienate those who do not believe.

I posted my comment prior to your apology. I still fully believe everything I wrote in it, but the tone may have been different if you had already apologized. Regardless, go ahead and be offended. You deserved it at the time I posted it, and arguably still. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate how offensive it was to an agnostic or atheist (perhaps even to non-Christians -- or those whom YOU don't consider Christians -- since you probably also think that those who don't have Christ in their lives are dying inside, too).

No, I won't take your suggestion to post a diary to make the argument you suggest. Some things are just too obvious -- or at least should be -- to spend much time on. And anyone who would believe something so absurd is not going to be convinced otherwise anyway.

unbelievers are missing something very important and therefore have an emptiness is not a silly idea in my mind. If you are saying that is silly idea than you would have to be saying that belief is silly in itself, because belief in God would obviously lead to thinking that those who don't have a relationship with him are missing something very important. I respect you as a person, but this doesn't mean that I admire all your beliefs. I respect you even if you think I am living in a fantasy. And I think you should respect us even if we think you are living in denial and missing something important in your life. We don't respect each others beliefs, but we can respect each other and the right to hold those beliefs - which is something I don't see in your above comment.

Big difference between "missing something very important" (not offensive) and "dying inside" and "cannot fathom what it is that makes them empty and angry" (highly offensive). If he had said the former I certainly wouldn't have responded as I did.

empty inside and angry adequately defines MOST of the atheists I have ever encountered. If that does not match you, then don't be offended. But it is my observation.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"self avowed" atheists.

I have probably met many atheists whom I had no idea whether they were or not, because they did not wear it out on their sleeve nor were trying to ridicule, or pick a fight with people of faith.

So they naturally would not fit in that category.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

which was apologized for. And I don't think all atheists are angry people. But there is an emptiness in not having a friend in the Lord, something I don't have contempt for, just pity. The first post indicated contempt which the writer rightly apologized for. I won't threadjack any further.

I actually wasn't really offended. It takes much more than that and your comments were really quite civil. I was more amused at how you had taken umbrage at my self righteous comment (and it was) by assuming the same posture.

I was going to post a PS, but the boss was looking at me funny which meant she expected some help on folding clothes (and they say guys don't get 'code').

When we disagree with others who are obviously in the wrong (from our perspective), it's easy to be self righteous. We all do it (except Franz, who is righteous) and I can find ample amounts in nearly every article by every author on RS. Whether it's justified or not depends on which side of the issue you stand, I suppose.

I am quite aware at how offensive my comments were both to atheists and others. It is an offensive message, which I cannot help - it's been around for much longer than I. It is what it is, although others say it more compassionately than I did.

What I can help and where I erred was disrupting the thread with my post. I should have realized it would happen, but it was not my intent.

Instead of contributing, I detracted (and continue to do so) from the overall discussion. Lesson learned.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Fair enough. And at least we agree on the inherent and absolute righteousness of Franz (and not just because I'm a Franz-fearing man)

will be known for your complete lack of intelligence.

"Doctors will find ways to save women's lives that get around your invasive law."

The law congress passed had an exception of the life of the mother. If the doctor needed to save the mothers life, they would not need to "get around" the law, now would they.

Understand what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself.

Be accurate and call him indoctrinated.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

This supposed 'invasive law' is as much yours as it is ours. You see, the hidden requirement of citizenship in a democratic republic - such as ours - is that the citizens must take ownership of their government's activities. That explicitly includes activities that they might not personally approve of. There are mechanisms in place to allow citizens to correct perceived errors made by their government: commenting on weblogs isn't actually one of them.

Shorter Moe Lane: stop whining because your faction lost this particular battle - and didn't even bother to fight the FISA authorization. More accurately, stop whining here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I can call a thunderstorm a cumulonimbus, but it still a thunderstorm as well. Hiding behind terminology is meaningless. Do you often call a headache by its medical term, how about a cold?

I could go through all your little talking points about pain, and a central nervous system (which is funny fetuses arent fully developed, being I saw my child at this age conrolling her limbs on her own,and she was making gestures at that time that she makes now,which would seem to indicate a nervous system. Also I believe in KS there is a doctor that will do it willingly, but that was probably all made up.

But thanks for lecturing all of us, I mean your so enlightened and everything. Just remember, religious people and pro lifers are evil, your smart and enlightened, and if any one questions your flawed assumptions, they hate women.

But dont worry, there not "persons", because historically speaking dehumanizinng a group has never produced anything negative.

Husker 2001
"But thanks for lecturing all of us, I mean your so enlightened and everything. Just remember, religious people and pro lifers are evil, your smart and enlightened, and if any one questions your flawed assumptions, they hate women."

Well, glad you aren't snarky about your objections to my post.

One tip: YOUR is possessive (Your house, your car)
YOU'RE is the contraction you are looking for: "You're so enlightened...you're smart..."

The development of the CNS I speak of is higher development. The fetus doesn't feel pain at this stage. It is not a person. The person who matters is the woman who is dealing with this decision. The reason about 400 of the 1.5 million abortions performed are done at the late-term is because there is a serious medical problem. It's not a whim. That's right--we are talking about 400 procedures each year. That's it. And, they are done because of the private hell that is a troubled pregnancy (either the woman or the fetus is in serious trouble), and not because some woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore.

I'm glad that you had a normal pregnancy (at least I hope it was normal) and that your wanted child is healthy. But for one tiny second, imagine that you had problems. Bad ones. And your doctor (whom you trust) said that this procedure is the only thing that will save your life. Your fetus is already dead or dying. This is your only option. Would you want your doctor to be restricted by *politicians*? Where is your hatred of all things governmental here?

And I do not ask this as one of the anti-abortion zealots. Because, well, I am not one and don't really agree on this issue for the most part. However:

If a 6 month old fetus is not a person, and is thus subject to the will of the expectant mother as to whether it will live or die, then why is murdering a woman who is 6 months pregnant legally considered a double-homicide?
We can't have it both ways. Either the fetus is a person and can be murdered, or the fetus is not and can be aborted.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

This is the one thing that makes the pro-fetal-homicide forces squirm in their chairs. They have to keep their pie-holes shut when a pregnant woman gets murdered so they don't contradict their own illogic. It's actually rather entertaining to read the non-response responses from NARAL, the NAGs and others when one of these murders occurs.

In fact they don't squirm in their chairs, and you give them too much credit for doing so.

In the recent Scott Peterson murder case both NOW and NARAL opposed the effort of the prosecution to add the murder of Lacy's unborn son to the charges (they didn't get their way).

My friend, it would seem that whenever we try to give credit to a leftist group we almost always have to retract it.

Regards,
HT

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I stand corrected in my misguided and mistaken effort to provide a microscopic bit of credit... :-)

You were observing hypocrisy where there was none.

"this procedure is the only thing that will save your life"

Everyone agrees that a live can be taken in self defense. I am not aware of any Pro-Life spokesperson who says that the government should limit self defense. If you are, please provide a link because I would be interested to see it.

So how about all of the abortions that are performed outside life-saving?

And, they are done because of the private hell that is a troubled pregnancy (either the woman or the fetus is in serious trouble), and not because some woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore.

Got any evidence for this claim? Feel free to link away.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/positionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2046/

http://blog.bioethics.net/2007/05/the-narrow-battle-ground-of-late-term-...

Here you go. They are all short articles. And I stand corrected on one fact--about 2200 abortions are late-term, not 400 as I originally thought. I had read that number some time ago, so I can't recall the source.

...granted, don't know how "late-term abortion" is being defined this week. I think if you raised the bar to 20 weeks, which is where the debate in this particular issue is, the real number will make your mind reel.

Personally, though, I question the mental state of anybody who knows the state of a developing fetus at 20-24 weeks and would willfully subject it to what is being described above.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

"The fetus doesn't feel pain at this stage. It is not a person."

The whole nervous system thing has already been hit, but here's another interesting idea -- that personhood is encapsulated in the ability to feel pain. That's an interesting and novel take -- what philosophical and scientific evidence do you have to support this idea? By the way, there are many other persons that you're denying as having personhood -- for example, those with leprosy or congenital analgia.

Or was it just a non sequitur, covering up the fact that your definition of personhood is arbitrary?

-
NARF

... exact same thought.

Bundled into that sappy, maudlin bit of sophistry was an absurd implication. The fetus doesn't feel pain, ipso facto, the fetus is not a person.

As the resident teacher here (with a background ranging from primary educ. to post graduate) please allow me to let you in on something, to wit:

Attacks on errors in spelling, grammer, punctuation, etc. are kind of frowned on in this forum. Why? Well, several reasons.

1) The fallacy factor. An argument cannot be reasonably deconstructed because the author of same argument makes erros in areas of, let's say, contractions. To take such an approach (as you have) makes one look like he can brag about his command of the language, but not present a cogent argument.

2) The present forum is populated by people with wide ranges of education. I recently picked up my second masters degree (clearly not in English). When I chat amongst friends in this community I am typing quickly and often make mistakes as I go. In fact, in my haste I rarely go back to make corrections because the culture of such a community is rapid typed communications in an informal setting. Correcting English grammer and punctuation rules is considered in bad form. There are several guides to internet etiquette (sic?) you may wish to peruse.

3) If you want to continue down this line of silly argumentation, We can start with your most recent comment box, where you (according to my English post grad educated wife) make no less than 23 errors, ranging from placing "your" in all caps instead of "your", to using "... glad you aren't ..." instead of writting "Well, I'm glad ... " which would eliminate your fractured sentence.

Childish huh? FWIW, my wife adds that I have 18 errors in this present comment box, but it remains less than "YOURS". (That makes 19). Ok, she's gone.

I'll only briefly address your argument (without my wife for further nitpicking on further errors in this comment thread). The restriction of doctors comment you make is just plain silly, as is "hatred of goverment" you ascribe to conservatives.

1) The restrictions come from Roe v Wade, not out side. Before this ruling people were able to democraticaly settle abortion on a state by state basis. The democratic process was thwarted when a court took the decision away from the voting public. That's the restriction.

2) All actions of a licensed medical provider are guided by regulation, coming either from a legislative entity or an agency under the executive. The allowance, restriction, and/or method of medical practice is overseen by the goverment.

3) There remains not one medical emergency that neccesitates (nor even indicates need) for an abortion that is carried out using the PBA methods.

4) Hatred of government is reserved by the "Bush is Hitler" crowd on your side of the fence. Conservatives favor limited central govenment, not the abolition of government. If you want to define conservatives by using militias as a defining point, perhaps I should associate liberals with those who would call WTC victims "little Eichmans".

5) Your "Imagine for one tiny second..." scenario is a keeper pal. A doctor that we "trusted" (your example) advised my wife to have an abortion because our child would not live for long after birth. I just registered my daughter for kindergarden this morning, and soccer this afternoon. She has no medical disabilities at all. Bad example for you to bring up, eh?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

but I was wondering about the thing of not mentioning grammar mistakes, as I have seen the monitors point out when some people have bad grammar or spelling. I haven't done much of this myself considering that I don't notice such mistakes and probably make a lot myself.

There is a good difference. Thanks for bringing this up so I can speak to it.

When visitors to the site atttack each other for grammer it can come across as petty (as when "pp" did it).

When the monitors do it (I think you meant to write "directors") it becomes a different thing. Why? The site belongs to them. They bought and paid for the site, and it is their "home" and their rules. If they breach etiquette to slam a visitor who is showing poor manners or taste thats fine.

We can do it too, it just isn't as justified.

My opinion, that's all.

And I make a lot of mistakes too. That's ok. You just keep on coming here and typing up your thoughts and you'll be in good company buddy.

Regards,
HT

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I tend to agree with you. Of course I suppose there are levels of bad english, and sometimes somebody is so bad they are hard to understand, but for the most part it would be good to not be too picky.

...for the banning that we'd be serving up anyway.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"...comes from Roe v Wade, not out side." should read "...not 'our' side".

But I'm sure proud progressive was going to correct me.

BTW, can I just call proudprogessive "pp" from this point on?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Sorry for making you all go down the grammer path. My bad grammer is legendary with my fellow workers. Like I said in a later post, english is not my field.

Please accept my compliments for your making a statement on what constitutes a good argument versus what constitutes...a tantrum? I am convinced that "critical reasoning" is a dying concept, with an unavoidable consequence of a terrible coarsening of discourse. If everything is reduced to sound bites or shouting, sooner or later people will look for a tyrannical "savior".

Found a great resource on critical reasoning at http://www.ou.edu/ouphil/faculty/chris/crmscreen.pdf. I wish I could make passing a course in critical reasoning a prerequisite for getting a voter ID card.

Regarding "Bush is Hitler", I find that the Left, which includes proud and not proud progressives, probably since the Nixon era, engages in what I call "Jew du jour". They cannot win arguments by any semblance of critical reasoning. They cannot win by campaigning honestly on their legislative objectives. They therefore are reduced to creating a "Jew du jour", someone or some entity to blame everything on. Whether the "Jew du hour" is George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney, or Don Rumsfeld, or Alberto Gonzalez, or John Roberts, or Sam Alito, or Clarence Thomas, or Newt Gingrich, or Halliburton, or Walmart, or drug companies, the mechanism is the same: hate that guy. Hate that company. Hell. It worked for the National Socialists. It feeds on fundamental human weakness. Don't argue with success!

Please, please, before anyone starts wearing out his keyboard with accusations of proud progressive == national socialists, that is not what the above text says. What the above text says is that the mechanism of convincing people of your righteousness by directing their blind hatred against an individual or institution isn't a new idea. That's all!

Thank you for correcting my english, Im a scientist so my grammer means very little to me, I figure someone else can fix it later.

Speaking as a scientist, prove to me that a fetus does not feel pain. For every study that claims this, you can find another that refutes it. Also, unless you get the opportunity to interview a fetus, how do you relly know what it feels? Honestly I cant say either way, but I find it amusing you speak with so much certainty.With the increases in medical technology, children are being born earlier and earlier, my question to you is what is the difference between a 24 week old fetus and a premature baby bord at 24 weeks? Im talking only about the actual child.

Also we didnt have an easy, normal pregnancy. There was lots of bedrest, sonograms, tests and absolutely terrifying moments. So please dont assume things were easy.

"because historically speaking dehumanizinng a group has never produced anything negative."
(snark understood...)

How a society treats women is virtually always reflected in the health of the society in general. Infant mortality rates, literacy rates, life expectancy. All are related to the rights and value a society places upon women. Educate and value women and abortion rates go down. Vilify women and restrict their healthcare and society as a whole suffers.

role in the civilization process. Women are part of the "society", not pitiful weak bystanders.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

So people that are against abortions villify women? The point I was trying to make was claiming a group "sub-human" has been used as justification for many attrocities throughout history.

It is almost amuses me how much people cling to the word fetus. As long as its just a fetus than everything is ok. I dont see many people using medical terms to describe everyday condtions, yet in this case everyone must speak clinical. I guess terminating a fetus sounds better than terminating a child.

I really dont understand the whole education angle. From my personal expeirance an overwhelming majority of women I know are very pro life, and they all seem very in tune with how ther bodies work. The lack of education seems to be on the other side, as if people dont realize one of the purposes of intercourse is procreation, not just recreation.

To me this is not just a womens rights issue, but a human rights issue.

Explain to me how an unborn child at 20 weeks can have a heartbeat, can make a fist, and can actively move without a "developed Central Nervous System."

Also, I'd like to know where you get your facts supporting the claim that late-term abortions are only performed when the health of the mother is at stake or the pregnancy is ectopic.

Lastly, explain to me how your last two sentences have anything to do with reality. Are you saying that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban somehow threatens women's lives, even though the baby is being born anyway? Or, are you claiming that the Religious Right strongarmed the Massachusetts legislature into passing a bill against late-term abortions?

-
NARF

And no comments to refute your assertion that the child is, in fact, a child.

I wonder why???
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

between acknowledging that a 20week fetus is a child and that late-term abortions are horriffic, devastating, and sometimes necessary.

Although it is impossible to generalize all women into one sentence but, for what it is worth, women who undergo these procedures don't blithly think they are discarding a lump of inanimate cells. By this point in a pregnancy a woman KNOWS what she is ending. That leaves two possibilities - either women who undergo procedures such as this are heartless, cold, uncaring, ignorant, etc. Or they are choosing - for whatever reason - to undergo a heartwrenching, life-altering procedure because it is the somehow lesser of the horrible options from which she is forced to choose.

If you go with the stupid or heartless explanation, bans like this make perfect sense (and the vitriol against women and doctors involved). If, however, it is possible that the latter is true, then desperate, hurting women are being emotionally raped by people that can't or won't bother to imagine walking a mile in their shoes.

Thanks for the reply, but you didn't really answer any of the questions I'd addressed to PP. PP claimed the 20-week-old was not yet a child, and that the 20-week-old did not yet even have a "developed Central Nervous System." I was responding to him on these points.

You're obviously taking a different tact -- you're admitting that the 20-week-old is a child, and yet you still believe it should be legal to kill this child. That position is more intellectually honest than PP's, but far more "heartless", to use your terminology. If this is a child, what is the difference between killing him or her at 20 weeks after conception, versus 20 weeks after birth? And don't brush this off as a cheap shot; this goes to the heart of the pro-life movement -- if an unborn child is truly a child, why does that child not deserve the same rights as a born child?

-
NARF

I don't necessarily believe most people KNOW what the abortionist will do and how developed the baby is at that point in pregnancy. Abortionists certainly don't make them informed.

Why do I get the feeling your definition of "necessary" is the complete opposite of what it actually means? The only time such an abortion would be necessary is if she had a life-threatening disease or illness in which continued pregnancy, childbirth, labor induction, and C-section would all kill her. What would you say about the women who don't know they are pregnant until they give birth? They do exist you know.

It doesn't matter what kind of pain or trauma a woman may be experiencing. That's a sepatrate matter that must be addessed SEPARATELY. It cannot excuse any action that would alleviate such pain or suffering.

Would you say the same about a woman who paid a doctor to stab her newborn into tiny shreds or using whatever other gruesome method the woman thought might alleviate her suffering.

Should we have to "walk a mile" in the radical Islamists shoes before we call them "cruel and heartless?"

I would use another word for my expression but it would both compromise my beliefs while descending to your level.

It is a child.

While I can empathize with mothers to be who might experience life threatening issues - which is certainly a private matter - my guess is that those are a very, very minute portion of partial birth abortions.

I am amazed at how some of you find ways to protect people like Osama Bin Laden and other killers in courts to provide them "rights" yet you refuse to protect the most helpless among us.

As I said before, absolutely disgusting.

Progressive(??), please present your credentials that allow you to assert what the baby feels. Also, that we may assess your statement that NONE of these procedures(read:murders) are for convenience.

might I suggest that perhaps yours and Hillary's "progressive" eugenics will be given back to the states to kill within one more Republican Presidency and that this will occur in 2008 based off the fact that most of the public is not near as heartless as you and she and your ilk are. I also think you need to rethink the discounted fact that those against abortion are the religious right because I am not and neither are any of the members of my conservative household, we are against murder of innocense pure and simple.

Nice what a little research yields. You get the "A" for the day!

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

However, if we used the AGW argument (for all their restrictions proposed) - because the risks are too great not to take action; then the Liberals should be all over protecting the unborn.

The risk the unborn might actually be feeling pain should outweigh the personal needs and desires of the mother.

Don't hold your breath.

Huh? Kill? What in the world could you possibly be "killing". After all, it's not like a person or anything.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Yes, it does indeed. Believe me, I am NOT trying to make a case for legalized abortion at any stage. I am merely pointing out the second wrong associated with later abortions. Murder is indeed bad enough; but here, actual torture is added.

Why doesn't the threading work properly so it's possible to see who's replying to who?

You have to use the Reply To This link, though.

Hooray!

...if you were trying.

Impressive, in its way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

No one is obligated to produce anything. A child either forms or not. No one makes choices as to how nature takes its course. It has zip to do with "autonomy" since the woman doesn't abort herself. Someone else butchers the baby.

Born children can just as easily harm the woman's social life or work productivity. No one can "choose" to stab a mother's born children to death in the most cruel and inhuman methods available because they harm her social life ot work productivity. The woman can place the child with someone else if she cannot or does not want to care for the child. Before birth, the woman need not care for anyone or anything.

Unless her life in imminent danger, NOTHING - no discomfort, no pain, no emotional trauma, and no financial loss - can justify the cruel, barbaric, and sadistic abuse and torture applied to a child.

If she doesn't have rights to her own body and the resources of her body, then basically state that. Don't try to claim I'm being immoral when I bring up an argument that denying abortions or removal of the fetus is denying the mother of her right to self-determination. It doesn't matter if the mother opened her legs and chose to have sex. (quoting gamecock). She can't give up her child to the state, immediately, like a mother with born children can.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

You write that you don't think the woman should be "forced to serve another human being." Are you acknowledging that at least in some cases in which you favor legal abortion (leaving aside threats to the life of the mother), the fetus is a person?

If yes, and since you also seem to have indicated that if the fetus could be removed safely from the mother and proceed with development (i.e., "viability"), you'd be against legal abortion in that case, let me ask you to ponder a few hypotheticals and answer these questions:

1. If the state of medical science were such that viability were pushed back all the way to conception, would you oppose all abortions?

2. If the state of medical science were such that viability were not possible until birth, would you want abortion of a fetus in the ninth month to be legal under any circumstances?

3. Imagine two adult conjoined twins. One would be likely to survive an operation seperating them. The other will certainly die from such an operation. Should the first have the option of having the operation without the consent of the other?

4. Imagine that, a baby is born, but for some reason it will die if the umbilical cord is cut (no amount or type of medical intervention would be able to save him -- he's not "viable" if detached). The situation persists for years. Now we have a six year-old child still attached via the umbilical cord to his mother, still not viable. Should the mother have the legal right to kill him, despite his obvious personhood, simply because he's not viable?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Just a 4? I guess I can't BUY a 5 around here (lol). Anyway, now that I've cooked up those hypotheticals I'll present them to anyone who takes the absurd position that viability should determine whether or not abortion is moral or should be legal. Hopefully those questions will get such people to realize that what matters is whether or not the embryo or fetus is a person, not its ability to survive if separated from the woman, which is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is murder.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Yes, thanks much, rooster impersonator.

Did Detrius get blammed? I was looking forward to his/her answers.

Mind you, I'm holding out hope that she'll say something that'll seriously tick off her desired constituency.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Thanks for the reply, Moe. If possible, please track her down and compel her to answer those questions, using advanced interrogation techniques if necessary (or just desired). Bring Franz with you.

And can you make RedState less addictive? I'm late for dinner plans. Later.

Regarding the baby in utero being "the resources of her body", consider that the state presently identifies individual identity on the basis of DNA. Given a sample of the pregnant woman's DNA, and a sample of the baby's DNA, any crime lab would report "different people".

Prior to the ability to analyze DNA, the state identified individual identity on the basis of fingerprints. As soon as infants develop prints, the state would again conclude "different people".

50% of the time the sex of the baby is not that of the pregnant woman. Different people.

Depending on the differences in blood type and Rh factor between the pregnant woman and the man, the baby is likely to have different blood type and/or Rh factor. Different people.

Hair color, different. Eye color, different. Dreams in utero, different.

The state quite scientifically and dispassionately defines the cessation of life as brain death, a "flat" EEG. EEG activity begins in utero early in the first trimester. Prior to EEG technology, the state scientifically and dispassionately defined the cessation of life contingent on cardiac activity. Cardiac activity begins in utero early in the first trimester.

He/she is not a "resource". He/she is, by many criteria of the state, a different person and alive, albeit absolutely defenseless and absolutely innocent, unlike, say, for example, myself, who is armed to the teeth and regrettably a sinner. I can see a man finding it a waste of time to watch out for Frank, but for the most defenseless and the most innocent? That's a different story.

The right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Same principle here.

I have the right to lay down with whomever and have fun, if I get pregnant I then have an obligation to care for another human being because I used the right of my body for my pleasure and I then have no right to make the decision to decide the fate of another human being, nothing complicated.

Bad argument.
1. Are you in favor of abortion legality in case of rape at any or all stages?
2. Do you believe a fetus is a person at any or all stages?

My point is that what matters is whether or not the fetus is a person. How the woman got pregnant is irrelevant. If it's a person, it has a right to life, period. If it's not, it has no such right, period.

[You weren't asking me, but if you don't mind, I'll take a shot at the questions.]

1. Are you in favor of abortion legality in case of rape at any or all stages?

No, I am not. Please note that forcible rape was the last non-murder capital crime on the books, and it was the courts, not the legislatures, who decided that the constitution forbade that penalty for that crime. Just as it was the courts, not the legislatures, who concluded that the constitution requires abortion on demand. Of course, as everyone at Red State knows, the constitution mentions capital punishment several times, in each case being quite specific about what is required, thus clearly not prohibiting its application. After protecting defenseless and innocent human life in utero, the next level of protection applies to women from men. At 6'2" and 190 pounds, I should not be judged "equal" to a 5'4" and 130 pound woman. I find it quite reasonable for society to conclude that when a 6'2" 190 pound guy forcibly rapes a 5'4" 130 pound woman, he has forfeited his right to life. Isn't it remarkable that in 2007, the death sentence in forcible rape is applied to the baby, not the perpetrator?

2. Do you believe a fetus is a person at any or all stages?

Yes. I must be honest and say that I cannot get very worked up over a clump of cells that requires a microscope to see. But I understand that nature has spent millions of years perfecting the process of developing that clump of cells to a fully formed human with a life expectancy of 80+ years. An abortionist violently shoves nature aside, and asserts his will in its stead. Isn't it remarkable that those who insist that nature is right, and when man interferes with nature he is wrong, are the same people who make a very special exception for nature's delivery of a baby?

to those two questions.

Well done!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Your answers (the "no" and the "yes") are consistent. The reason I asked those questions is because Jaded made the argument that the woman had a choice not to have sex, and I wanted to show that that point was irrelevant. If consensual sex made a difference, the most likely implication would be that abortion should be allowed in case of rape, but if someone considers the embryo or fetus a person, then it makes no sense to allow abortion in case of rape unless one would also want to allow a mother to kill an infant that resulted from rape.

As for personhood, I don't consider that microscopic "clump of cells" that you referred to to be a person because to me what makes a person a person is our capacity for thoughts and emotions. If you surgically removed all sections of my brain responsible for thought and emotion and destroyed them (i.e., they were irretrievable), I would no longer exist as a person even if the rest of my body were kept alive. I, too, am in awe of nature, but that doesn't mean that clump of cells is a person and is entitled to the rights of a person.

I realize that some concede that that early embryo is not a person, but argue that it's POTENTIAL to become a person entitles it to a right to life. I disagree, but that's another debate I'd rather have (yet again) on another day (preferably when I'm using a more comfortable keyboard than the one on this laptop!).

"the woman had a choice not to have sex"

I believe the key point in that statement is that pro-lifers are not grabbing a woman off the street, inseminating her, announcing "ah-hah, you are with child", and then demanding that she deliver the baby. Pro-lifers are pro-choice at the time of intercourse. If you're using live ammo, don't be surprised if you are careless and get shot, because that is exactly what should be expected to happen. Having gotten shot, or pregnant, as the case may be, you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

"what makes a person a person is our capacity for thoughts and emotions"

I fully understand such a definition. It actually seems quite reasonable. The problem, of course, is in the details. How precisely do you codify a statute to finely draw the line between just enough "thoughts and emotions" and not enough? I think I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, but codifying such a statute is far, far beyond my abilities.

I used to attend Mass every Sunday with a beloved aunt in Brooklyn. Every time, we would see a diminutive woman come with her adult son, obviously suffering from some severe mental disability. Over the years, perhaps decades, I watched them age. I saw her go gray, then white, progressively more stooped. I watched him age too. Never heard a peep from either of them. Can't help but think that that fellow would fall on the "wrong" side of any "carefully codified" law that specified the threshold for "thoughts and emotions". And that would be tragic. It really is better not to play God, with an upper or lower case "g", you choose, and accept when nature sometimes doesn't turn out somebody as wonderful as you and me and our buds at Red State.

Indeed setting the standard and conducting the measurements of such cognition would be a subject of debate, but if that general criterion for personhood (some level and type of thoughts and emotions) is agreed to and used as the basis for legality of abortion, then we do know enough to at least bracket the issue. We know for starters that if absolutely no brain activity is detected that thoughts and emotions are impossible, so abortions in the first several weeks should be legal by that general criterion of personhood and basis for legal abortion. And we know enough about the nature of brain activity to conclude, I believe, that there is at least some reasonable chance that a fetus in the third trimester (and probably sometime in the second trimester) has thoughts and emotions that could be considered person-like, so abortion should not be legal under any circumstances (with the POSSIBLE exception of saving the life of the mother, but not necessarily). The debate could proceed from there among people with much more scientific knowledge regarding fetal development than I have, and could be refined over time as science advances.

Keep in mind that the present definition of clinical death, i.e., a flat-line EEG, is only effective when there is no probability of restoring the EEG. In the case of human life in utero, it is true that for the first few weeks [I believe six] there is no EEG activity, but the probability of developing fully functional EEG activity is close to 100%. So the abortionist is in a "race" with nature to kill before it is "too late".

Your efforts toward defining a "life" versus "not life" law make me wonder whether a better solution would be to avoid the "difficulty" in the first place. If someone insists on driving 90mph down a winding country road, and somehow keeps totalling his cars, is the solution to build a car that shrugs off his repeated impacts with fenceposts? Or motivate him to slow the [expletive] down?

What you're missing is that a person who flat-lines has already established personhood. He has already BEEN a person. That cannot be said for an organism that has never been a person. Fundamental distinction.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant. A person has a right to life. An organism that is not a person (has never been a person and is not now, nor even resembles an animal in terms of cognition) has no such right. How a pregnancy occurs is irrelevant.

We're not just talking about any organism. This one happens to be human from fertilization. As far as being a "person," I don't see how having been one before is a fundamental distinction. That makes no sense to me.

to get pregnant not that someone should decide that right upon me via rape and I do believe that a woman should be able to abort in the first 3 months of pregnancy for that reason or illness that would kill the mother or baby anyway and after the 3rd month if the mother cannot decide then she has chosen to make the choice to keep the child and I am totally against using abortion as birth control as the liberals love for them to do. There are many of us on the right that having varying degrees of how we see abortion however the women I talk to are pretty much in agreement on the rape, life of the mother and never after the 1st trimester. I believe that a fetus is a person by their potential souls not by the cells or how consolidated the mass has become before it actually looks human. I believe these living souls are hurt by the process and while I would never want 1 woman to have one I support their right in the instances stated above.

So you believe:

1. "A fetus is a person by their potential souls not by the cells or how consolidated the mass has become before it actually looks human." So presumably, by that standard, you consider a very early embryo a person.

2. If a woman has been raped she should be able to legally kill that innocent person.

3. But she can't kill that innocent person after the first trimester, even though it was just as much a person during the first trimester.

Help me out here. A woman can deliberately kill an innocent person (otherwise known as murder) simply because that person was the result of a rape??

And let me ask you to imagine the following hypothetical. A woman was raped and beaten into a coma, and was impregnated as a result of the rape. She awakes 4 months later. Thus, she never had the opportunity to decide to abort in the first trimester. Do you think she should be able to abort legally? Why or why not?

The obligation, it seems to me, is due to "custodial duties", much like if an adult discovers a lost child by the side of the road.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

and I use that term loosely ... had the "choice" to be "autonomous and free" when she opened her legs to allow herself to be impregnated.

>>>Pregnancy does diminish work productivity and the social life a female may choose to lead<<<
And abortion really does wonders for the productivity and social life of the murdered baby, doesn't it?

When lefties like you open your yaps, you turn yourselves into a living, breathing caricature of a person. It's almost sad to hear the pitiful utterances that you spew forth. You are truly pitiful.

If there were medical technologies to safely remove the fetus and raise it independent of the mother, then abortion should of course be denied.

It's known as the "D&A" procedure - "Delivery and Adoption".

Of course no procedure is without risk, but it has worked remarkably well whenever diligently applied.

Not a hard question. It's the nature of our cognition, the level and types of thoughts and emotions. Ours are different than those of a fish or a worm. Was that really something you needed to be told? Do you really have no sense of what, other than DNA and other physical traits, distinguishes us from other animals?

What type of criteria and means of measurement do you consider sufficient for evaluating and differentiating "the nature of our cognition, the level and types of thoughts and emotions" from all the rest of Animalia?

soli Deo gloria

I don't have detail (I'm not a neurologist) and it's not necessary. Do you doubt that the cognition of humans is categorically different from that of other animals? Let's not be silly.

Oops, I see from more closely scanning upthread that you already spoke to your views of human uniqueness there, and are clearly not my intended respondent.

Actally I was not hoping to engage anyone merely maintaining "it's not a person yet", but more particularly those using that as a rationale for abortion--which you clearly are not, but I couldn't fit that qualifier into the subject line. Please accept my apologies for my lack of clarity on this.

As to my being dense or silly, I'll let others answer. There is still a place for development of rhetoricals, however, as you have demonstrated with your own impressive hypotheticals upthread. Let's just say I may have camouflaged my trap a little too well.

soli Deo gloria

No problem. Actually, I do assert that the lack of personhood is an adequate rationale for legal abortion. I don't believe an organism with a mere potential for personhood has a right to life.

And I'm a big fan of hypotheticals, so by all means use them. And thanks for the compliment.

on your position once again, having apparently misunderstood at least one thing you wrote upthread.

I think your clarification of one last point, if you don't mind, would enable me to finally comment what I feel is an essential aspect of the personhood issue.

When you said:

"Do you doubt that the cognition of humans is categorically different from that of other animals?"

do you see your term "categorically different cognition" as being closer to

1) in at least some particulars, so different from all other members of Animalia that unique terminology is required to describe those particulars, with the understanding that the differing particulars are simply non-existent in all other species,

or

2) in all particulars without exception across all species, although separated from humans by perhaps vast gaps of magnitude, nevertheless measurable on identical continua?

Thanks for your patience. Whatever your personal outlook on this matter, I am actually attempting to go somewhere with this, and look forward to your reply.

soli Deo gloria

I don't think the term "person" has a scientific defintion as you propose. The only reason a "person" has a right to life is because the Constitution would guarantee one.

In ordinary, non-legal use, I don't think of the term "person" as anything but a human body. Otherwise, the term "dead person," one that makes perfect sense, would be an oxymoron.

Science and technology is not as good as you suggest, because there is not even simple agreement over what constitutes "brain activity" or "brain waves" in the unborn. I've read over a lot of experts' journals, statements, and opinions from both sides, and there is not even a basic agreement on anything. It's also a lot harder to test or study on the unborn since the baby is in the womb and the brain's physical structure is not even complete until the fetal stage (week 8). You posted a NRLC link earlier. How could one be biased about it if there were any consensus as to the earliest possible brain activity? Scientists and experts don't have the answers to even very basic brain questions (aside from the physical structure).

"The only reason a "person" has a right to life is because the Constitution would guarantee one."
But the constitution recognizes some rights rather than creating them.

A question you have not seemed to address is which side are you going to error on in this issue. Would you agree that it is likely that we cannot pinpoint the exact time when a fetus gains consciousness and personhood. Therefore, do you not allow abortion at the point when it is possible that there is consciousness. Or do you not allow abortion at the point when there definitely is consciousness?

I'll have to reply tomorrow or perhaps later tonight. (Don't want you to think I'm ignoring the questions)

Peta is successful in all of their efforts to gain full rights for animals. I suspect that some of the radical members believe that a pets life is already on equal footing with the owner. Would that make the cognition argument irrelevant?

NT.

no time to reply and continue discussion today. Sorry for delay. Please check back tomorrow and I'll try to find time for reply.

Yes, it made no sense to me either that having once been a "person" should have extra significance. That is not a "common sense" or "logical" assumption as I see it. Such an idea seems absurd to me.