Redstate

50% of all conceived children are naturally "aborted", often without the mother even knowing she was pregnant. I cannot bring myself to think that personhood neatly begins at conception and that God would create a system in which he kills near half of the souls he brings into existence for a sliver of life.

What the most ridiculous pro-abortion argument is. Sometimes I think it's, "If abortion is made illegal, some mothers will die trying to obtain illegal abortions."

Then at other times, I think it's this.

I can say with 100% certainty that you will die. Does that make you a non-person?

I've always thought the question of when personhood begins was a red herring in the abortion debate, because it produces tangents like these that are irrelevant to the central question of whether it is moral to intentionally destroy the life of someone who may or may not be a person now, but could definitely be one in the future.  In President Bush's words, shouldn't we always err on the side of life?  Your question, then, is about the same as talking about whether animals have souls or not.  You may think they don't, but you most certainly wouldn't argue its right to inflict intentional cruelty on them because they lack souls.  How much more should we guard the life of a fetus, one of our own?

So I don't have time to string this argument out ad absurdium at the pace I'd like, so let me do it all at once.

Is it your contention that:

1. A person who stands a substantial chance of dying is a non-person? or
   
   
2. A person who stands a substantial chance of dying soon is a non-person? or
   
   
3. A person who stands a substantial chance of dying soon of natural causes is a non-person? or
   
   
4. Some other (I've yet to hear a legitimate "some other." Here's hoping you're the first.)

This is so right on that I can't even add to it with anything but the obligatory complimentary posting! Right on brother!

Leon, sometimes I read your posts, and I can't help but see old John Brown preaching it from the pulpit.

Look, I'm pro-life and all, but what the heck does abortion have to do with Warner granting clemency?

Frankly, I was expecting someone to chime in with that "err on the side of life" bit on the topic of the death penalty, but apparently we stopped using it in that context when Texas started executing retards.

Let's stop with the hypocrisy and call a spade a spade.  Abortion is legal (perhaps not for long with Alito joining the S.C.), as is capital punishment.  Let's be consistent.  I don't see how someone can call themselves "pro-life" and think it's okay for our government to kill people with mental retardation or about whom serious questions remain regarding their guilt.

Beyond that, how exactly are you defining life?  Conception?  That's a pretty tough standard to hold unless you're one of these folks who think intelligent design should be taught in the classroom (and if you are, I'd reference the Dover School Board's electoral fate).  I'm against the abortion of a fetus which has reached the second trimester, but I think the morning-after pill is okay.  Posts like this push me away from the "Red State" position toward the "Blue States."  When will Republicans figure out that a hard-line on abortion is a loser?

Maybe if R's had remained fiscally conservative they wouldn't have to resort to this stuff to keep their base in line.

That argument would work, but only if you can find evidence of Leon H supporting state-sponsored execution.

Can you?

Leon already has.

Honestly though, what exactly is your point?

Why don't you consider the element of intent in your argument and Leon's.

equating abortion and the death penalty, that is a tactic the left uses. Let us just say that the left has little regard for life in the sense that many endorse abortion at all stages of pregnancy as well as euthanasia of the old which is a big slippery slope.

  The only linkage I can see with the Death penalty is that you can rightfully accuse them of having more sympathy for the guilty than the innocent. But it really is a separate issue.

the point is that we are keeping track of executions.

This guys clemency was because Warner didn't want to see VA in the headlines "1000th execution since 1976 blah blah blah" in the papers.

We know exactly when that 1000th execution is.

Now do we mark the 1000th abortion?  Do we even know when it occured?

Do we know when the 1,000,000th abortion occured?

And the babies killed haven't even been accused of a crime.

I must admit I am guilty of turning my head the other way as to avoid confronting the horrific.  Thank you for your post, Leon.  It was a jolt of reality.

What pains me is what any of those 38 million children could have been.  The immense potential they had.  My only consolation is those children are with God.  

God help those who have destroyed so many lives.  All this in the name of "freedom."

Was there a run on rounding up the retarded and gassing them?  Let's not leave out Arkansas[ where all those church burnings took place ].  Wasn't it '92 when a guy with greasy palms and profound zipper problems allowed a mentally defective prisoner to be executed?  This Texas thing is another in a long tedious line of tough independant thinkers being told what what to think, how to think it, and when.  This does cause interruptions in babble about the Republican "party line", and "marching lockstep", but after one finishes voicing indignation at what one is ordered to voice indignation at one can happily return to confidently pointing out the foibles of the less sophisicated, secure in the knowledge that he has the keys to wisdom.  

I would also like to see something done about all the "born" persons we have running around without health insurance.  i wish some of the care on concern for the unborn would transfer over to those of us who actually are alive. but i suspose the unborn don't have the stigma of life.

we can say with a great deal of certainty that someone who holds this opinion beyond the level of using it to make cute but cheap rhetorical points in an argument has forfeited their humanity if not their personhood.

I too find the media obsession with the number of inmates executed by the death penalty hypocritical in light of the fact that they do not give the same fanfare and attention to the shocking and appalling number of abortions that occur in this country every year.  Both are government-sponsored policies, yet, for some reason, the media perceives the death penalty to be the more odious policy.  I disagree.  However imperfect the system may be (and I do have serious doubts about it), exacting justice for a grievous wrong committed is far less odious and eminently more laudable than sanctioning the destruction of unborn humans who are guiltless.  

How awful, tragic and sad.  

One more thing: lest anyone still believe the myth that women have abortions only when the most serious circumstances dictate it or that they do not suffer grievous emotional harm from the procedure, think again.  From an article in the L.A. Times yesterday, here are some of the reasons women had abortions:

• A high school volleyball player says she doesn't want to give up her body for nine months. "I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything," she says.
• Kim, a single mother of three, says she couldn't bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved. Ending the pregnancy seemed easier, she says -- as long as she doesn't let herself think about "what could have been."
• The 17-year-old in for a consultation this morning assures the nurse that she does not consider the embryo inside her a baby.  

"Not until it's developed," she says. "That would be about three months?"

"It's completely formed about nine weeks," the nurse tells her. "Yours is more like a chicken yolk."

The girl, who is five weeks pregnant, looks relieved. "Then no," she says, "it's not a baby." Her mother sits in the corner wiping her tears.

* "I don't think my (wedding) dress would have fit with a baby in there."

(If you want to read the article, it can be accessed here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion29nov29,0,2003
322,full.story.)

Now, which is the greater human tragedy here???  If only those unborn children had the benefit of the slow-as-molasses judicial review system, their fate might have been different.

...that he doesn't understand why God would set up a system where 50%* of all souls created don't make it to birth.

Tell you what: I'll ask that question.  Because I don't know the answer to it, myself, and I'd quite like to know.

Moe

*Or whatever the number is: I'm behind on my technical reading.

If you can't fathom the difference, as Leon clearly laid out I might add, between executing a murderer, after a trial, after appeals, after a clemency hearing -- all of which provided said killer with the opportunity to escape justice -- and killing an unborn, ergo innocent, child I really can't help you through this existential angst you claim to be experiencing.

Maybe a lot of us feel that there are things more important than money.

Where you stand and who you vote with is strictly on you, but on the great moral issue of the past 30 years don't expect a lot of us to care if you depart if your staying in contingent upon our silence.

because you will never get a straight answer from the pro-choices side.

Interviewer:  Do you support the death penalty for killers who have been convicted after they have had the opportunity to plead their case.

BBK:  Absolutely.

Interviewer:  Do you support the death penalty for unborn children who will never have the opportunity or be granted representation to plead their case?

Pro-Choicer:  Well as long as it is before the before the second trimester, or hey, it probably wouldn't have had a good chance at living right?  And even if it had lived, it probably would have to grow up unloved or in poverty, right?  

Very few pro-choicers will give just a straight yes or no answer.

Oh yeah, pass the orange juice to help wash that waffle down while I have a pro-c avoid answering the yes or no by asking me "what if the mother's life is in danger?".

Get a job.

that we'll have the answer in due course.

For your convenience, I've already answered this irrelevant question here.

Maybe if R's had remained fiscally conservative they wouldn't have to resort to this stuff to keep their base in line.

I think you're trying to find your way to The Pile™. Are you? Because I can help.

was getting a job. What strategy are you pursuing?

The point of the post is not to pass judmgent on the death penalty as a policy, but rather to highlight the utter hypocrisy in the media's coverage of the death penalty compared to abortion.  As you note, both abortion and capital punishment are legal in this country, yet why is it the media demonstrates so much hand-wringing and angst about the death penalty but not abortion?  Truly, which is the greater human tragedy worthy of this "McDonald's number served" (or, in this case, number executed) approach?  Those who have the benefit of legal representation, a trial, and judicial review?  Or those who do not?  

Your sneer at IDers is ironic considering it is science that continues to force us to re-evaluate when life begins.  A baby is now fully developed by week 9, which is still well within the first trimester.

Grow up.

The indignity of being forced to visit the free clinic is at least as horrific as being dismembered by forceps, pulverized by a vacuum cleaner, or slowly poisoned to death with saline.

I can see that I've got my priorities all out of joint. Thanks for straightening me out.

the "when does life begin" argument, always a staple.  The same time your life began,the same time mine began.  I'm reminded of the boxer who last two big fights in the first round, the manager moaned "maybe  we can go somewhere where the fights start in the second round.  Life is a continuum, you don't come in at the second trimester, to destroy the process of continuum is to destroy the life process itself.  What we, blessed with parents who didn't practice abortion, sit around and debate. Those who write off tens of millions of lives while being careful of their own might, in the name of consistency, consider  The Hemlock Society as a fruitful place for their morbid musings.  You never know what inspiration might hit you at the roundtable discussions.

"I don't have health insurance, so we shouldn't care about abortion."

Six words: idiotic non sequitur, get a job.

I've always considered this an exceptionally touchy issue, for several reasons.

--I am male, therefore the possibility that I will have an abortion any time soon is infentismal.  Since this will never happen, I lack the "insight" to fully comprehend the matter through the eyes of the ones it most effects...women.

--personally, I believe abortion to be wrong as a means of birth control.  It seems immoral to me.  However, abortion of the product of rape or incest or to protect the mother seems moral...as long as you take into consideration above said issue.

--rationality and religion rarely gel effectively.  I can see the rationality of aborting a fetus to save a mother's life, but the spirituality of it is another matter.  I am a christian, but i'm also heavily tempered in reality.

--I find a decided hint of hypocracy in those who are anti-abortion, even against abortion to save a mother's life, but support the death penalty.  At least I an consistent in my view that it is acceptable to take a life...for the right reason.

--abortion will never go away.  Ever.  Even if it is outlawed.  Much as we fight the "war on drugs," and the "war on terror," we would also be fighting the "war on abortion" should it be outlawed.

This is a moral issue trying to make it in a political world...where politics have no morals.  It's not pretty, and there will never be a correct answer or an ultimate solution.  It will always be here.

Leon -

Are you calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned, and the enactment of laws to make elective abortion illegal?

I'm no great supporter of abortion.  I think it's usually done for terrible reasons, it takes an awful toll on our humanity and compassion, and we are fairly often (although not that often) destroying something I would be more than comfortable calling an infant.

But this post really isn't about perspective.  Holding categorically that all abortion at all times is wrong and murderous isn't exactly the view of someone with perspective.  Maybe you don't think there's ever a reason for abortion to be justifiable, and maybe you think it's irrelevant that half of all conceived children don't make it to birth, and that's fine.  But where's the argument?  Rhetoric is great, not to mention effective, but there's not much here except "these fetuses are often fully formed by week 9 and the way we perform abortions is pretty unpleasant."  I agree, but can we really just toss aside every other concern?  Most women who get abortions are poor and we aren't doing anyone a favor by forcing these women to keep children they don't want.  That's an awfully utilitarian argument to make, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I also want to go on the record as unconvinced that there's not a little hypocrisy in defending the death penalty while opposing abortion.  Sure criminal defendants have a lot of court dates, but it's worth realizing that a disproportionately huge number of those executed are black and poor.  These people are getting trials, but they aren't getting fair trials.  Any number of studies show way too many innocent people slipping through the cracks.  Anyone who thinks abortion is always and everywhere wrong should take very seriously these issues with the death penalty, even if you think the death penalty is justifiable in the abstract.  I'm not saying you don't take this position; I'm just responding to a lot of commenters who I think are a bit too glib about it.

your tag line, based on this post, is misleading in the extreme.

1-- Did Brown v. Board of Education not effect you if you were not black? A ridiculous assertion on its face you say, and you're right. We've fought a Civil War to prove that it isn't right for one person to have the unilateral right over the life of another person.

2-- The Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to inflict the death penalty for rape, how do we justify killing the child resulting from rape when we can't do that to the rapist?

3-- Agreed. The Golden Rule is not rational, neither is "turn the other cheek." On the other hand, abortion, euthanasia, and forced sterilization can all be rationally and empirically justified.

4-- There is no hypocrisy in being against the killing of innocent children without judicial process and being in favor of the death penalty for felons after extensive judicial due process. Consistency is truly a hobgoblin.

5-- Neither will murder. What's your solution to that intractable problem? A "war on murder"?

Please link for me how you think a Pro-Choice Republican Presidential hopeful can win in Ames, the doorway to become President in '08.

Remember, these Republican Pro-Life voters will crawl over broken glass and drive forever to cast their vote.  A Pro-Choice Republican would certainly have some issues.  

Maybe your so-called The Pile, could save me some time.

I Advize:  If the numbers get tooo big just count the commas.  Numbers can get so big they don't have names.

I find a decided hint of hypocracy [sic] in those who are anti-abortion, even against abortion to save a mother's life, but support the death penalty.  At least I an consistent in my view that it is acceptable to take a life...for the right reason.

And your contention is ...?

• that avoidance of inconvenience is among "the right reason(s)" to take a life?
• it is "consistent" to view the taking of an innocent (however inconvenient) life as morally indistinguishable from the imposition of lawful punishment to those convicted of heinous crimes?

What?  Huh?

Or at least give it a guess based on my knowledge of God.

When God takes away someone's natural life, it is not a punishment.  It is not even detrimental.  To be absent this world is to be present with Him.  Therefore, there is no tragedy in the natural death of an innocent.  They have never suffered.  They will never suffer.  They will be born into paradise.  God's plans are different for each human being.  For some, the plan is a shortcut to glory.

On the other hand, death at the hand of man is always due to the sin of man and is not in accordance with God's plan.  The children aborted had a purpose in their life other than death.  We will never know it.  But it is our loss.

The children suffer during their killing, as dismemberment is not a pleasant way to die.  But their suffering ends at that point.  They are this day in paradise.

Those that remain, on the other hand, continue to suffer.  The mother who lives with the knowledge of the act.  The person who did the killing.  The nation full of calloused souls.  The living children who are raised with adults who have a contempt for life.  Our pain continues.

...because logic doesn't produce action. Passion produces action. You've given five logical reasons for people to do nothing with the current situation. A great many people passionately disagree with you. I'm not you, but if I were, I'd be trying to understand them.

I also want to go on the record as unconvinced that there's not a little hypocrisy in defending the death penalty while opposing abortion.  Sure criminal defendants have a lot of court dates, but it's worth realizing that a disproportionately huge number of those executed are black and poor.  These people are getting trials, but they aren't getting fair trials.

A disproportionately huge number of those executed in the womb are also black and poor -- but the difference is that they are accused of no crime, have not the benefit of trial (fair or otherwise), and have no recourse to appeal.

Really, doesn't your self-satisfied smugness deserve better justification than that?

However, as a pro-choice Republican (or relatively pro-choice, as I do believe in parental notification and a ban on late-term abortions), I do like to look at the other side of the issue.  Since we all can admit 2 things, that abortions will not stop even if illegal, and that it becomes a class thing, as the wealthy are able to still have safe abortions (again even if illegal), plus the fact that the liberal media would have a field day with both back-alley abortion horror stories, as well as stories on unwanted pregnancies this fight seems destined to be lost by those elected officials "blamed" for outlawing abortion in the first place.  And of course, we set the stage for a country where the legality of abortion changes everytime we have a political change, which is not very good.  Finally, I personally think this issue will end up resolving itself in the future, as both better methods of BC are developed and medical technology decreases the number of weeks needed for gestation of a fetus, thus making viability outside the womb a real issue in the debate (its how we won public support on late term abortion, now we just need for that late term to decrease), but until that happens I do believe a woman should have the ability to abort at any time during the first trimester.

Holding categorically that all abortion at all times is wrong and murderous isn't exactly the view of someone with perspective.

If you don't believe you are killing children I suppose this argument has a certain degree of sanity. Once you look beyond that presumption at the facts, you are killing humans - and mind you that is what we are talking about because these "blobs" don't come out as puppies or coffee tables - and I think it is just grotesque to require "perspective" beyond the commonsense conclusion: I categorically can't kill a 1-week old baby and I shouldn't be able to kill a baby at 38 weeks gestation or 30 or 24...

I also want to go on the record as unconvinced that there's not a little hypocrisy in defending the death penalty while opposing abortion.  Sure criminal defendants have a lot of court dates, but it's worth realizing that a disproportionately huge number of those executed are black and poor.  These people are getting trials, but they aren't getting fair trials.  Any number of studies show way too many innocent people slipping through the cracks.  Anyone who thinks abortion is always and everywhere wrong should take very seriously these issues with the death penalty, even if you think the death penalty is justifiable in the abstract.  I'm not saying you don't take this position; I'm just responding to a lot of commenters who I think are a bit too glib about it.

Either stupid or dishonest. Your pick. Most abortions are allegedly to poor women. Black women disproportionately have abortions, to the extent that Jesse Jackson has called the practice genocide.

But were I to play this silly game and offer to trade you a prohibition on capital punishment for a prohibition on abortion would you take it?

in a heartbeat.

And I'd throw in a draft choice to boot.

Last night my 9 year old daughter asked me, "What is abortion?"  We were watching Fox News where they were discussing Judge Alito.  I explained it to her as best I could without horrifying her.  

I said, "Sometimes when a woman is pregnant, she doesn't want to have the baby so she has it taken out even though it means the baby is going to die."

She said, "But that's murder."  I said, "Yes."

She said, "But that's worse than murder, because it's a baby."  At this point her chin was wobbling and her voice was quavering.  She was having trouble believing that this kind of thing happened.  I said, "Yes."

Then we went into a discussion about how adults have a tendency to justify their evil acts with excuses and how the devil tempts us into doing evil things by persuading us that the evil thing will make something better, even though it never does.

Unless we become like little children, we will not make it into the kingdom of heaven.  Her heart was tender toward the helpless and she was instantly aware of the evil of the sin and repelled by it.  Oh, that we were all so endowed with such God given knowledge.

abortions will not stop even if illegal

Prisons are full of people who didn't stop even though what they did was illegal. Should we turn them loose? This is really a nonsequitur. People break laws all the time, they even murder, the fact that people break laws doesn't make a case that we shouldn't have laws.

plus the fact that the liberal media would have a field day with both back-alley abortion horror stories

And this is bad, how? It seems to me that a constant stream of stories on back alley abortions would discourage many from seeking them.

And of course, we set the stage for a country where the legality of abortion changes everytime we have a political change, which is not very good

Disagree. Abortion is first and foremost a business. Businesses can't operate in an environment where your activity may be outlawed any day.

So, are we to surmise that because so many are aborted naturally it is OK for us to kill the rest?

Do you extend this logic to all life or just that which cannot defend itself?

You're very concerned about hypocrisy. I can understand someone taking the principled position that capital punishment must not be allowed because it's possible to execute an innocent man. Is it not then the case that abortions should be disallowed because it's possible to abort an unborn child who is similarly innocent?

I'm in total agreement with your analysis here.

Plus, The Pile™ is not a place you want to go.

As I said, I am no great supporter of abortion.  I think legal prohibition would probably be pretty messy, but I would gladly take it.  I find neither abortion nor the death penalty unjustifiable in the abstract, but both are just too awful in reality for us to be all that pleased about them.

I was either self-satisfied or smug.  All I'm saying is that we need to have a real debate instead of just throwing around rhetoric.  It seems to me that it's a whole lot more smug to claim to know the mind of God than it is to say we should slow down and a have a real debate.

This is a position I would be happy to take, as I mentioned above.  I don't think it's the only possible position, in that there's at least a plausible line to be drawn between the moral status of a person who has been wrongly accused of a crime and a non-person that is genetically human.  That line is hard to draw and I'd rather we not do it, but it could be done.

just went through a miscarriage (my wife's) I find all the dimissals of this argument here disgusting. It is hard enough to deal with the loss but to compound it by equating it to the loss of child is abhorrent. Given the number of women who go through it a year it is not only morally imperative but socially imperative that we do our best to support them, not make them feel worse.

As for the logical side of it, the argument is simple. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus had NO chance of ever being born, there was a chromosonal error at conception that made it impossible. So those fetuses were not even potential humans, and if some, but an unknown, subset are not even potential humans do we really elevate the entire class on the basis that they could someday be humans?

As for something mentioned above about errirng on the side of life, will that would certainly preclude the death penalty as there is no 100% certainty and it should also preclude any military operation that includes collateral damage; so I would say that statement coming from Bush or most other pro-lifer who supprot the other two is disingenous at best.

Streiff iterated most of my thoughts, but to chime in with my two cents...

1. The abortion "most affects" the aborted child, not the mother.  The child does not continue to exist after the abortion, the mother does.
   
2. Society creates limits on what is and is not acceptable behavior regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic.  The half of the population which is not priveleged to carry a child is still undoubtedly part of the process of its creation.  As such, we are obligated and should petition to be involved in any decision that affects the child.  
   
3. The morality of the decision is defined by the decision of the mother, not the circumstances under which the conception occurred.
   
4. It's irrational for a mother to abort her own child -- it's counterintuitive to the laws of nature, of which the most pre-eminent law is survival.
   
5. True, abortion may never go away, but that does not mean we need to facilitate it either.  I would rather be fighting a "war on abortion" than capitulate to the approach that just shrugs at it and moves on.  

from your disingenuous accusation of hypocrisy.

I will withdraw my characterization if you'll explain to me how distinguishing between duly convicted violent criminals and innocent pre-nascents is in any way hypocritical.

is no good here. Neither are any of these ridiculous arguments, nor the equally ridiculous insinuation that we are somehow making women who go through miscarraiges feel worse by opposing abortion.

Part of what ticks me off about the entire abortion regime is that it's supported by such stupid arguments.

If we were all to have the faith of a child.

How does everyone here draw the line for medical reasons?  The most obvious is the mother's health issue.  Is abortion justifiable when it's a choice between the baby and the mother?

There are, of course, more bizarre examples.  Suppose a man has liver failure and the only way to save him is to transplant from his sister, even though she's pregnant and will lose the child.  I realize this example might not even be medically possible, but I'm just trying to illustrate a case in which maybe it's not the mother's life that's in danger, but someone close to her that only she can realistically save.

I imagine there's at least some disagreement about this issue even among people who generally oppose abortion and I just want to hear what others think.

a lot of them are duly convicted legally but not morally.  I don't think the situations are perfectly parallel, but I think a lot of commenters are awfully quick to say, "Well, they had their chance" when the truth is a lot of them really didn't have a chance in any meaningful sense.

Was his diary so complicated that you can't understand?

Did you come away with the perception that he supports the current "infant murder in all circumstances" regime?  If so, work on your reading comprehension.

This could very well and in all honesty be the single most unintentionally idiotic thing I've ever read here - and I've been reading RedState for going-on two-years.

But for the seriousness of the subject at hand I'd be laughing out-loud at my desk right now.

As to your point, such as it is - Get. A. Job.

a non-person that is genetically human

So you accept that unborn children are innocent, you just don't accept that they are "persons." As non-persons of course, unborn children have no particular right to life. Well, at least you're upfront about it.

Maybe we need a Republican Pro-Choice and Pro-Gun Control President.

Vote for Hillary, be treated like a dog.

You were that old.

In any event, I'll take that as a compliment. :-)

There are a lot of people that are morally non-persons but genetically human in jail, and a lot that should be in jail.  They have far more rights than an unborn child.  

Than your moral authority is no good by your reasoning. Of course neitehr of us really believes that, we each recognize that desptie not personally experiencing many things we are entitle to opinions on them. My observation is not derived from personal assertion of moral authority but watching how the miscarriage affected my wife and what helped and hurt (and subsequently as we have noticed more and more people acknowledge going through the same process and hearing what they ahd to say onthe matter).

I think equating a fetus with a child does make it harder on woman with miscarriages because it compounds the feeling that somehow they were responsible for the death of an infant. The women who I have seen best able to deal with it do so by recognizing that it is nothing they did, that, at conception, a fetus has between a 30-50% chance of not making it out of the second trimester and that is okay, it's both natural and irreversible.

As for who ahs the stupid arguments, well yours is based solely on the assertion that a fetus=baby, I and most of societies throughout history disagree.

BTW, on your thread that you linked to above about 'though shaln not murder' you correctly point out how 'kill' is a mistranslation, but you use another mistranslation in your interpretation of Exodus 21:22 (the mistranslations in both cases date back to the greek translation fo thehebrew, but that isn't the point). The bible makes a clear distinction between the taking of the a life and the destruction of the fetus, the altter is punished only be a fine (treating the fetus as a body part of the woman).

-- probably less than 3% -- have some sort of medical justification.

As such, you're correct to call your hypothetical example "bizarre" (not least because you seem to be proposing that we begin performing liver transplants from live donors).

Your hypothetical represents not only a most rare circumstance, but also the fuzzy fringe at the border of the morality question. Circumstances that require us to choose between two competing lives have no clearly "right" answer, and I would not argue that abortions in cases where other lives are at stake should be illegal. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think most pro-lifers would agree.

I would regard a change in law that allowed abortions to take place only in cases like those you describe as a major victory.

But I will concede that there have been cases where innocent men and women were unjustly executed, and I support efforts to decrease the number. Everyone should have a fair trial.

What does your assessment of the justice system have to do with your view of the legality of abortion?

Not that I am going to convince you or you will convince me, but for the sake of debate.

You are right, we do have laws against murder and that doesn't stop people either.  However, it seems that most people will not view those getting back-alley abortions as bad as murdering thugs (do we really want to send a bunch of otherwise normal kids to jail for doing what they thought was best for them) and you would still have a major class division, as the rich would have no problem getting abortions (wherever they were available or through sympathetic doctors).

I think the media would turn the average voter against us in this case, as they would show the worst possible stories, not cases of simply abortion as BC.  We would see middle class victims of abuse getting abortions and so on, you think of a horrific scenario, thats what we would see.

The final one is more a point of economics.  I would argue that abortions are relatively capital light and thus it would be very easy to set up clinics as the political winds shift, especially since I think it would be in high demand during periods of legality.

My wife also had a miscarriage in 1989, which was psychologically devastating to her, but not because she felt somehow that she had killed the child, but she had been looking forward to being a mother, and was mourning for the loss of her child. After she had tried for four years to become pregnant, she also wondered whether she was capable of bearing children. Fortunately, she was consoled by the birth of our son in 1991, who now knows that he has an older brother or sister in Heaven.

But just because some fetuses do not live until birth for natural reasons (which are nobody's fault) doesn't give anyone the right to VOLUNTARILY kill a fetus which could be born.

Where does the Bible say that the "destruction" of a fetus is punishable only by a fine? Are you talking about voluntary abortion or miscarriage? Not that women who have miscarriages should be fined (they deserve our sympathy and consolation), but allowing abortions sounds rather unbiblical to me. Are you sure YOUR translation is accurate?

I have struggled with the abortion issue for years. Let me just say that i am against abortion but detest being labelled pro-life, as that has religous conotations behind it that i do not hold. I am not a religous man by any stretch. So the thought of it being morally wrong because the Bible says so never cut it with me. Irregardless, abortion IS wrong. But had a hard time explaining why.

This is what I've come up with little by little. It's no manifesto nor is it neccessarily all that logical. It IS a work in progress....

Beyond the mystical and religous reasons, what makes man, man (not a dog or a plant or something else)? It's our genetic makeup. Our DNA defines us in everyway. We are HUMAN. Everything that shares our DNA is also human. SO from the time of conception, when our DNA forms, we are human.

That does not mean we are alive from conception though. I don't think a zygote (though human) is alive by the scientific parameters that define life. These parameters are; motion, reproduction, consumption and growth. A child in the womb meets all these prerequisites at some point within the first trimester (i've read anything for 4 to 9 weeks). I've come to the conclusion that any time after this 4-9 week period you are dealing with a living human being. Its no longer 'potential' but a living, thriving being. Willfully killing it is murder.

Is this antiseptic? cold? calculating? I imagine it is. But I've dealt with my strong concerns over abortion in this manner. I've thought it out for a very long time. Doesn't mean that's the end of my thought process. But is is more than what can be said for a few knee-jerks out there.

"The Carthaginians defending the city were attacked by three Roman legions. The Carthaginians were proud and brave but they couldn't hold. They were massacred. Arab women stripped them of their tunics and their swords and lances. The soldiers lay naked in the sun. Two thousand years ago. And I was here."

Stop with your threats and do it.  If RedState is not about having a serious discussion about where the Republican Party needs to go, then you've already proved why Democrats may just win back the house in '06.  Are you really that threatened by a single person bringing up a critical point?

I'm not trolling here, I'm offering my honest opinion as to the most effective direction of the Republican Party.  If that's worthy of "The Pile", then add me and get back to your blinder-fitted self-praise.

"this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning."

Please explain how I'm violating this by stating the fact that Republicans need to get back to focusing on fiscal conservatism instead of wasting time on social issues that only further alienate moderates and allow Democrats to claim the center.

Whatever, don't blame me when Rick Santorum gets beat and Rudy Giuliani pulls out of the primaries.

Another abortion shout-a-thon.

First I'd join in the advice of others; employment works wonders in this area.

Second, I'm always fascinated by the argument, common on the left, that the absence of health insurance is the same as the absence of health care. The left loves tossing around the percentage of people who do not have health insurance but somehow they never get around to discussing the number of people who  actually go untreated or die as a consequence of not having insurance. I frankly don't know what that number is, but I'm willing to bet a case of someone's favorite brew that it's a whole lot smaller than the number without insurance.

The 'no insurance as federal sin' crowd is apparentlly unaware that federal law requires emegency room treatment by all hospitals regardless of ability to pay. And they also seem to be unaware that just about every community of any size in this country has a 'community' or public hospital of one form or another where care is provided as needed, again without regard to the ability to pay. True they are not all Mayo Clinics but then what is; but they are all competent capable hospitals and in many cases are the same hospitals that people with insurance go to.

The left really needs to find some new Talking Points™

------------------

that ALL people agree that capital punishment ends the life of a human being while less than half of Americans believe that abortion ends the life of a human being.  

It would be hypocrisy for the media to treat these as equal events.

We need every taxpayer we can get our hands on in 25 years when the average baby boomer is 76 years old.

We should have tax credits for those who have children now.  Plus, those that seek abortion should have full and proper disclosure.  For example:

1.  What percentage of women who get abortions will never be able to have another child?
   
2.  What percentage of women who get abortions are then diagnosed with depression?  A lifetime of expensive Mental Illness medication could be a heavy financial burden.

Economics - Do your country a favor and carry that future taxpayer to term.

future taxpayers will actually have jobs (and decent jobs at that).  Remember that many abortions are for the poor and would be dependents of the state from birth anyways.  I was not trying to bring econ into the abortion debate, as it seems very cold.

less than half of Americans believe that abortion ends the life of a human being

That's a falsehood.  Even most abortion advocates concede that an abortion ends a human life.

A fetus has the same DNA as humans do, so unless you're arguing for a new taxonomy, it's human.

And, the fetus is indisputably a "being", don't you think?  Or would you argue that point, too?

So ... where's this hypocrisy you're talking about?  Could it be from those who, for political reasons, refuse to call a spade a spade?

Exodus 21:22:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.

This is a fairly accurate translation to the hebrew and does capture the meaning of the verse. Essentially it reads that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and only the fetus is lost, he pays a fine, if the woman dies he gets the death penalty.

that the state is an actor in one instance, and the individual is the actor in the other.

That's where IMHO a portion of this discussion has gone and will continue to go.

There is risk associated with delivery. The risk is low, but in no case can a doctor say at the end of the 1st trimester that there's a 0% chance of complications. Virtually everybody has an extended family member or 'friend of a friend' where a supposed easy delivery has suddenly turned desperate, even tragic for the mother. With modern technology, the probability of tragic complications is low, but is greater than 0.

The question comes down to who is the best arbiter of that risk? Is a .1% risk of tragedy acceptable in your case? What about a 10% risk? Every person's situation is different, and therefore every person's ability to assume risk is different.

The mother is the person best positioned to determine the acceptable level of risk. She's in a much better position than a legislator to determine her risk profile. And her wish/ability to assume risk will determine how the pregnancy ends.

This has been an interesting subject to me over the last year or so, and I fear my thoughts on the subject have changed and will probably continue to change. I was never convinced by the whole 'right of privacy' justification of the abortion debate. However I'm convinced that the ability for a person to mitigate the risk they will subject themself to is a basic right.

We don't force people to donate a kidney to save another person, even if the other person is a relative and the donation is low risk. All adults have the final decision on the risk that they will subject themselves to. Every person has a different risk/reward calculation. In the end Roe may be overturned as faulty logic, but the basic idea of risk assumption is why another justification will always be found.

but when he gets back, boy are you in for it!

Try this one on:

[R]endering from the original Hebrew:

And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life.

Further:

There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

However, even if your interpretation is correct (I'm no Hebrew scholar, so I can't personally evaluate it on its own merits), this is certainly not biblical endorsement of abortion, as it refers to incidental injury to the fetus as a result of a fight between others. In no way does it endorse the deliberate killing of an unborn child.

I know that you feel that these passionate condemnations help further your cause but it seems to me that the only thing this sort of rhetoric does is further entrench both sides.

You equate all abortions to murder.  Ok.  So does that mean that you would not accept abortions in the case of rape or incest?  How bout if the child's birth poses a health risk to the mother?  Let's say it's only a 10% chance that the woman could die?  Is that enough of a risk to justify murdering the fetus?  How bout a 90% chance?

I also find your equating of capital punishment to abortion to be specious reasoning.  As I said upthread EVERYONE agrees that capital punishment involves the killing of human life.  The same cannot be said for abortion in which MOST people do NOT believe that all abortions are the killing of human life.  Furthermore by advocating for capital punishment you are implicitly agreeing that it is acceptable to kill human beings for the right reason.  That's fine but by then comparing it to abortion you are suggesting that abortion really does boil down to defining what is and what is not acceptable killing.  IMO, this greatly diminishes your general argument.

Lastly you do yourself a disservice with your condemnations of those who are pro-choice.  By suggesting that such people advocate murder or are immoral the only you achieve is a hardening of their views and a belief that those who are against abortion are so blinded by their faith that they cannot accept that others may have differing opinions based on different set of facts.  For instance your argument that abortion is biologically the killing of human life ignores the fact that science has STILL been unable to determine when separate human life begins.  Your reasoning is based solely on your faith but by suggesting that biology proves your suggests that you are willing to bend the truth to suit your beliefs.

I can admire your passion for this matter and, while I don't think that outlawing abortion is sound public policy, I do agree that abortion is wrong and that we should do what we can to eliminate it.  But fire and brimstone rhetoric will never change anyone's minds and if you ever want to see abortion abolished you are going to need to change a lot of people's minds on the subject.

Even most abortion advocates concede that an abortion ends a human life.

No they don't.  Maybe some do but they are a very small minority.  Most abortion advocates conced that a life ends but it is not human.

A fetus has the same DNA as humans do, so unless you're arguing for a new taxonomy, it's human.

Ok.  My skin has the same DNS has humans.  I guess that means that when I get a sunburn I'm killing human life.  Same for my sperm.  

And, the fetus is indisputably a "being", don't you think?  Or would you argue that point, too?

Absolutely not unless you consider all living organisms a being.  Is that the argument you wish to further?

So ... where's this hypocrisy you're talking about?  Could it be from those who, for political reasons, refuse to call a spade a spade?

The hypocrisy would be for the media to treat capital punishment and abortion the same since MOST Americans do not consider them the same in any way.  If the media were to do so they would be  advocating for a specific belief and not reporting the news, which is their job.

 and those against abortion define life at different points.  If life is "the potential for life", then every visit to a sprem bank would technically be just as awful as an abortion.  If life begins at conception, then that is an arbitralily chosen point in time, just as viability is.  

1. Outlaw the death penalty.  Anyone convicted of murder serves "life without".
   
2. Outlaw abortion with the following caveats:
   

...Life of the mother. An abortion can be performed, in a hospital setting, with the concurrent diagnosis of two doctors that the life of the mother will be lost if the child is carried to term.  Five day waiting period unless it's a life threatening emergency.

...Rape or incest. Charges have been filed within 5 days of conception.

...Low income women would pay nothing in either of the above circumstances.

...Illegal abortions would carry a first time misdemeanor charge against the mother, second time felony manslaughter.  Abortion providers would be charged with 1st degree murder, life without parole.

Everybody wins.  

Death penalty opponents can sleep well because the state is no longer "murdering" people and we don't have to speculate about innocent people being executed.  Frankly, life in prison is worse than the death penalty anyway.

Abortion opponents can celebrate because 97% to 99% of all abortions would cease.

Maybe Warner is did this as a set-up so Kaine can do it when he takes office?

You didn't bother to read anything I wrote, as you will notice that I addressed the issue from the JPS and the BHS, and not the LXX. Therefore, I shan't waste more of my time providing substantive responses that you won't read.

Further, your point was that you were basing your moral authority on your ridiculous canard on the basis that your wife had an abortion. I pointed out the fallacy of this, and then you agreed that it was indeed fallacious. Glad we agreed at least on that.

In Iowa they would say, "HogWash."  Trust me I know.  Remember, Iowa handed Screaming Howard Dean his head on a platter after his "Scream heard around the World."  The last thing a Republican wants to do in Iowa is upset the Pro-Life crowd.  Iowa certainly isn't New York, I assumed you knew that.

Rudy, in Ames just say, "I know everybody pays the same Medicare tax across the Nation.  Sure, some Republican politicians complain about Iowa's last position in Medicare reimbursments and New York is granted about the most, because we have so many House members.  But, I checked with Hillary, who I couldn't run against because of my cancer, and she agrees.  New York doctors and hospitals need a lot more money than Iowa docs and hospitals.  Plus, one size fits all and Pro-Choice is not that bad if you think about it for you masses of Pro-Life voters paying for expensive Medigap plans because your Medicare reimbursements are so low you don't have free HMOs like Big Apple seniors enjoy."

Run Rudy Run - Create a huge conservative turnout in '08.  

Code Blue:  Rudy's Iowa Hopes

I'm Iowa born, I've come to set you free - Iowa 23rd, Civil War

Stand Firm / Vote Republican

These are what I call the "ground level" issue.

Over the last 10 years most of the action in the abortion debate has been on the restrictions area -- waiting periods, etc. However these restrictions have become muddled by the life of the mother issue. The supreme court has repeatedly said restrictions are OK as long as there is an exception in the case of a threat to the life of the mother.

However that exception is exploited routinely at clinics across the country. Every woman has one or more of the hundreds of risk factors that may contribute to pregnancy complications. So now all a woman and her doctor has to do is identify a risk factor (which everybody has) and "poof" all restrictions vanish. Essentially any restriction can be waived by the doctor with a stroke of the pen.

Without the "life of the mother" clause a law is unconstitutional. With it a law is unenforcable. I'm convinced that's why the supreme court will be looking at another abortion case this fall -- is there a wording that can make a restriction meaningful while giving some protection to the mother in case of bad complications.

I know how you feel. It was tough for me to see my little sisters become aware of abortion, at an age when I was still happily sheltered from it. The only good I see from it is that they will be morally opposed to it before the public schools and the media try to warp their minds.

about Republican issues does not include insinuating that my discussing abortion on RedState.org is "resorting to stuff" to "keep the base in line."

You and I are free to have different perspectives about what Republicans should pursue first. It's not "civilized," however, to be so dismissive of the desires of at least half the party.

In Iowa they would say, "HogWash."  Trust me I know.  Remember, Iowa handed Screaming Howard Dean his head on a platter after his "Scream heard around the World."  The last thing a Republican wants to do in Iowa is upset the Pro-Life crowd.  Iowa certainly isn't New York, I assumed you knew that.

Actually Iowa handed Screaming Howard Dean his head on a platter before the scream. The fact that he lost was why he was trying to convince the faithful that he would continue one and go to Calfornia and all of the other places he named. The reality of Iowa crushing his dream was what brought on the scream, not the other way around.

as a father of three and whose wife suffered a miscarriage I find your opinion to be somewhere between banal and disgusting.

Most Americans consider an abortion in the third trimester as ending a life.  For the sake of argument, I'll disregard that life exists in the previous two trimesters or that the child has done something wrong to deserve death.  

Now, since 1976, there have been 999 individuals executed as a result of the death penalty.  Since 1976, the number of abortions performed legally has been roughly 1.3 million per year.  Of those abortions only .08% have occurred in the third trimester.  Yet, even then, the actual number of third-trimester abortions between 1976 and 2005 far outweighs the number of individuals executed by a whopping 3,119,001.  Still, think that's fair treatment?

stupid. I've never murdered anyone but I feel like I'm on pretty firm ground in saying it is wrong. I've never been black but I feel pretty comfortable saying Jim Crow laws were abhorrent.

If you can't comprehend the difference between the natural function of miscarriage and the anti-natural vacuuming of a uterus then you must have a real tough time differentiating between a murder and someone dying of cancer.

Excet that every abortion doctor in the country will sign off on abortions as necessary to protect the life of the mother, even when it is not true. Why? Because abortion is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and moraless murderers want in on that cash. Nothing changes, except that the death penalty is off the table for the worst crimes.

BTW, a friendly bit of advice, if you want to stick around here long, avoid being a troll. Our editors are good.

How many of those 3rd trimester abortions involved a viable fetus that could survive outside the womb? How many of those trimester abortions were considered illegal?  

Also your math is wrong.  .08% of 40 million is 32000.  

you kill your sperm?  I think maybe you're doing it wrong.

1000 inmates killed by the death penalty? That's nothing compared to the X million children aborted.

2000 soldiers killed in Iraq? That's nothing compared to the X million children aborted.

These are not equivalent subjects, in the slightest. Pulling out the abortion count as a counter to other arguments only gives the impression that you cannot factually debate those arguments.

Perhaps this site should be renamed to prolifestate.org to avoid any further confusion about it's primary purpose.

matter of scale.

I don't think it's the only possible position, in that there's at least a plausible line to be drawn between the moral status of a person who has been wrongly accused of a crime and a non-person that is genetically human.

If you assume every executed convict was innocent we are approaching 1,000 since Gregg v. Georgia. On the other hand we are talking in the neighborhood of 40,000,000 medically induced abortions since Roe v. Wade.

So while there may very well be a moral connection between someone wrongfully executed after a jury trial, state appeals, federal appeals, and federal habeas appeals and a baby that is offed on a whim, it is very difficult for those not in need of regular hits of thorazine to equate the processes that result in those two deaths.

Last I heard Gov. Jeb Bush has the unemployment rate down to 3.6% and house values in Tampa are going up 20% per year.  These future children are American not French (who lie and cheat to get their unemployment down to 10%).  To get lower than 3% Jeb would have to make people work who are currently refusing.

Every single parent mother is paying Social Security and Medicare (FICA) tax, MATCHED by their employer.  If parents have children in America these children and their employers will pay FICA tax.  That is one thing we can all agree on.

Think of your country, carry that baby to term.  It's simple Economics 101.        

That was pretty tiring.

they really aren't equivalent.

On the one hand you are talking about convicted felons or about soldiers who volunteered for the armed forces and you are talking about very small numbers.

On the other hand you are talking about babies who have no legal protection or right to due process who are being killed in the tens of millions.

You're incapable or unwilling to read the bazillion articles we've had over the past year and a half debating the very issues you mention, in particular the justification for the Iraq war.

So, I can see as how the fact that I've done maybe four posts along this line during that entire time would confuse you to the effect that you think that's all this site does.

Given the ease with which you are apparently confused, I can also see as how you wouldn't understand the basic point about how the deaths are, at least in some respect, related. Perhaps a more patient teacher can aid you with your cognitive dissonance.

This one is free.

I said "That line is hard to draw and I'd rather we not do it, but it could be done."  I certainly do believe that there is a point at which a human being is a non-person (immediately after conception, when a human is essentially a cell or two) and that there is a point at which a human being is most definitely a person (at birth).  So there's a middle ground where a line needs to be drawn.  As I said, I don't want to bother drawing that line and so I'm generally pretty critical of abortion.

Also, as a point of clairification, I don't think something can be innocent if it's not a person.  Non-persons don't have moral capacity, so they don't really admit of judgments like that.  My dog is neither guilty not innocent; she just is.  Children are neither guilty nor innocent until they are persons, which is a hell of a hard moment to discover.  So let's just draw the line way back.  I support emergency contraception, but really not a whole lot (if anything) after that.

Here's a contention for you:

1. God, an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, creates man.
   
2. Man, believing himself to be capable of understanding the divine, starts to preach about what God does and does not will, or want, or think.
   
3. God abandons his creation because his followers become know-it-alls and start following their own interpretations of divinity.

Why do I keep seeing God and abortion linked? Is anyone capable of really knowing what God "thinks" of this practice? Most of the people posting things about God ascribe to some sort of Christian background and belief set, but I've not seen ONE of them ever interpret their own "word of god" correctly --> Check out Leviticus 17:11

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood . . ."

A zygote / fetus does not begin to develop the capability to make blood for at least 18 days.  Thusly, from your own scripture, life CANNOT begin at conception. It begins 18-19 days afterwards, when the first blood cells begin to form.

A further correction: Roe v. Wade is no longer the precedent case on abortion. That distinction belongs to Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart.  

Furthermore, the contention that the death penalty is somehow acceptable while abortion is not confounds the senses. The state condemning life [whereby at least some of those convicted have been posthumuously cleared, via later confession, DNA, etc] is a dangerous and invidious power to vest in government.  If you want to defend the sanctity of life, fine. But don't split hairs.   Innocent lives lost in the attempt to adminster justice are just as valuable as those lost via abortion, except that in the former case those deaths probably have a greater impact on the lives around them, will be felt more heavily, etc.  And I should think that the slaughter of those innocent women and children--what some might call "collateral damage"--during war is just as tragic and insidious a wrong as abortion.  Why aren't people appalled at their deaths?

that very few abortions are performed for those reasons, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them.

Also, we do perform liver transplants from live donors.  The liver regenerates and we can move a piece of it from one person to another so they'll both have full livers after a little while.

You deserve a better response than this, but I'm pressed for time, so this is what you'll get.

I'm generally in favor of the notion that protection of the mother's life is a sound justification for abortion. The problem, as has been pointed out, is that those kinds of exceptions have a tendency to become gaping holes. Indeed, the very abortion regime we are under today is the result of one of those holes. It's a difficult question, and I don't have a solid answer, but individual judicial review seems like a good place to start.

As for rape and incest, I don't believe in punishing innocent third parties for crimes. I've already discussed this ad nauseam before.

I also find your equating of capital punishment to abortion to be specious reasoning.  As I said upthread EVERYONE agrees that capital punishment involves the killing of human life.  The same cannot be said for abortion in which MOST people do NOT believe that all abortions are the killing of human life.  Furthermore by advocating for capital punishment you are implicitly agreeing that it is acceptable to kill human beings for the right reason.  That's fine but by then comparing it to abortion you are suggesting that abortion really does boil down to defining what is and what is not acceptable killing.

Covered this already, too. I don't doubt that many people disagree with me. I have serious concerns about their moral compass - even to the point that it makes me wonder sometimes how we share the same general biological matter. I treid to make this explicit in my post. Now let's never go over this point again, okay?

Lastly you do yourself a disservice with your condemnations of those who are pro-choice.  By suggesting that such people advocate murder or are immoral the only you achieve is a hardening of their views and a belief that those who are against abortion are so blinded by their faith that they cannot accept that others may have differing opinions based on different set of facts.  For instance your argument that abortion is biologically the killing of human life ignores the fact that science has STILL been unable to determine when separate human life begins.  Your reasoning is based solely on your faith but by suggesting that biology proves your suggests that you are willing to bend the truth to suit your beliefs.

Perhaps I believe that the time has come that polite arguments and rhetorical niceties and gentle prodding is no longer sufficient. There is a great and malicious evil afoot in this country, and you ask me to keep the debate about it reasonable and nuanced?

Would you have had the abolitionists pursue this tack indefinitely?

There are times for that, but there are also times when the conscience must occasionally be shocked.

But fire and brimstone rhetoric will never change anyone's minds and if you ever want to see abortion abolished you are going to need to change a lot of people's minds on the subject.

You'd be surprised.

to be fair.  I just think it's a lot more internally consistent for pro-life folks to rail against all such injustices.  Abortion's by far the worse issue, but the death penalty's no picnic either.

Still, 320,000 is a lot more than 999.  

As far as the viability of the fetuses and the legality of the abortions, the study did not break down the stats in that much detail.  I would assume most third-trimester fetuses would, by definition, be viable since technology permits them to live outside the womb beginning at 24 weeks.  

The same questions posed about the abortion stats can be posed about the death penalty stats as well: how many guilty individuals were executed and how many innocent individuals were executed?  Who knows?  And that's really not the point when the focus of attention is statistics.  

When looking at sheer numbers, which is what the media has done in the instance of the death penalty, the number of third trimester abortions far surpasses the number of executions.  Yet, it still does not garner the same attention precisely because it does not conform to their political agenda.

Why do I keep seeing God and abortion linked

To a hammer, the whole world is a nail.

Is anyone capable of really knowing what God "thinks" of this practice?

He left us some pretty clear words to sort all this out.

Most of the people posting things about God ascribe to some sort of Christian background and belief set, but I've not seen ONE of them ever interpret their own "word of god" correctly --> Check out Leviticus 17:11

Context matters.

A zygote / fetus does not begin to develop the capability to make blood for at least 18 days.  Thusly, from your own scripture, life CANNOT begin at conception. It begins 18-19 days afterwards, when the first blood cells begin to form.

Blood runs through and over it. This is, by the way, an entertaining replay of an argument from the early 1970s. You might want to see why your side of the aisle doesn't use it any more.

A further correction: Roe v. Wade is no longer the precedent case on abortion. That distinction belongs to Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart.

Properly, Roe is used metonymically. Furthermore, also properly, Roe's "central holding," whatever that is, is apparently intact. Furthermore, properly, Carhart is precedent that, to Justice Kennedy's surprise, follows from Casey, and so is not in the same constellation at that decision.

Furthermore, the contention that the death penalty is somehow acceptable while abortion is not confounds the senses.

To those who understand neither due process, the historical role of the state in balancing life convicted of capital crimes and protection of society, the ordinal numerical system, or indeed, elementary logic, the world must be a scary place indeed.

The state condemning life [whereby at least some of those convicted have been posthumuously cleared, via later confession, DNA, etc] is a dangerous and invidious power to vest in government.

You might almost think we have a huge number of safeguards and appeals for that very reason. Well, a person equipped with a rational mind and the ability to reason would; you, manifestly, would not.

If you want to defend the sanctity of life, fine. But don't split hairs.

You're right. We should probably kill you, too.

Innocent lives lost in the attempt to adminster justice are just as valuable as those lost via abortion, except that in the former case those deaths probably have a greater impact on the lives around them, will be felt more heavily, etc.

By that standard, we really can kill you at leisure, as you appear to make no contribution to society for the nutrients you waste by consuming them.

And I should think that the slaughter of those innocent women and children--what some might call "collateral damage"--during war is just as tragic and insidious a wrong as abortion.

Well, you apparently think a large number of irrational things. We cannot help you. Charter can. Seek help.

Why aren't people appalled at their deaths?

I'd say you assume a great deal of ground here, but that makes a priori assumptions that we already ruled out above.

Iowa Democrats made Dean scream.  If Howard Dean shows up at Hilton in Ames, the Iowa Republicans would make him cry.  Dean would need the campus police for security.  

These Iowa Republican Pro-Life voters are wild eyed and take their position pretty seriously.  I call them single issue voters and you can't confuse them.

If A Republican running for President in Iowa was Pro-Choice he would have to win over Iowa's WHO Radio host Jan Mickelson, good luck.

Rudy:  Skip Iowa.  It would be similiar to prying a Gun-Rights voter's gun from his hands before they were dead, can't be done.

I wondered what I was feeling as I read your post.

See if you can spot the contradiction between this:

Why do I keep seeing God and abortion linked? Is anyone capable of really knowing what God "thinks" of this practice?

And this:

Most of the people posting things about God ascribe to some sort of Christian background and belief set, but I've not seen ONE of them ever interpret their own "word of god" correctly --> Check out Leviticus 17:11

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood . . ."

Thusly, from your own scripture, life CANNOT begin at conception. It begins 18-19 days afterwards, when the first blood cells begin to form.

Aside from the ease from which you contradict yourself, you've just conceded that all abortions which occur within 2.5 weeks of conception are murder. That is to say, all of them.

Furthermore, the contention that the death penalty is somehow acceptable while abortion is not confounds the senses. The state condemning life [whereby at least some of those convicted have been posthumuously cleared, via later confession, DNA, etc] is a dangerous and invidious power to vest in government.

Yes, good Lord, that's awful. Can we exhume 38 million fetuses and determine if any of them were innocent of murder, as well? I think it would be a useful exercise, do you?

If you want to defend the sanctity of life, fine. But don't split hairs.   Innocent lives lost in the attempt to adminster justice are just as valuable as those lost via abortion, except that in the former case those deaths probably have a greater impact on the lives around them, will be felt more heavily, etc.

I have a brand new policy of not responding to people who won't read what I've already written.

And I should think that the slaughter of those innocent women and children--what some might call "collateral damage"--during war is just as tragic and insidious a wrong as abortion.  Why aren't people appalled at their deaths?

Do you have any proof, here or elsewhere on this site, that anyone is not appalled at those deaths?

Or could perhaps the fact that the difference, expressed in several orders of magnitude, in the numbers betwixt the two leads some of us to emphasize the one over the other have something to do with it?

It is apparent by the wide range of dissenting comments that you have coined a new word.

             PERSPECTIVE

Didn't I address the hypothetical in the above post?  I think most pro-life activists would be thrilled (at least initially) with laws that protect the unborn in 97% of the cases and would recognize that cases like those you proposed represent cases in which there is no "right" answer, and as such, should be left on the outside of any prohibition.

Also, I wasn't aware of the live donor liver transplant program. That's good news for many people with liver ailments.

You should win the prize for the most audacious extrapolation of meaning never to be found in an actual text.  Leviticus 17:11 speaks to the atonement achieved by using the blood (which is the life) of sacrificed animals.  It states nothing about when life per se begins.

I suggest you do a keyword search of the term "womb" in an electronic version of the Bible.  There you will find many, many verses referring to the actual involvement of God in forming you in the womb, of knowing you before you were born, and of choosing certain individuals prior to birth while in the womb.  

What defies logic is the notion that a God so intricately involved in forming us in the womb, in crafting his "handiwork," would then be so far removed from caring about said "handiwork" that he supports its very desecration and destruction.

what God thinks about this? Don't you know that no one can know what God thinks about this? You may not attempt to discern this for yourself.

If you want to know what God thinks about this, you must ask Mr. Exercise Clause, who will tell you exactly what God thinks about this.

This is my first visit to Redstate. Nice site... good forum. I was throroughly enjoying the debate until I encountered your response to a comment that was well-thought out, although it does not apparently agree with your opinion.

After reading your comment, I'm now wondering if everyone here at Redstate is as hateful as you are? If so, I shall simply fade away, never to return. Which might make you and those like you happy... thinking and respectful debate usually makes people like you uncomfortable.

You're right. We should probably kill you, too.

Spoken like a true Christian? Hardly.

You are quite offensive and I sincerely hope that you are not indicative of what I will find here at Redstate.

No, actually, it appears you don't try to be nice.

And I didn't ask you.

However, it seems that most people will not view those getting back-alley abortions as bad as murdering thugs (do we really want to send a bunch of otherwise normal kids to jail for doing what they thought was best for them) and you would still have a major class division, as the rich would have no problem getting abortions (wherever they were available or through sympathetic doctors).

We do this with drugs now. Not to say that I agree with how we handle drugs but if we're willing to give hard time to a doper I'm willing to give hard time for getting/giving an abortion.

We would see middle class victims of abuse getting abortions and so on, you think of a horrific scenario, thats what we would see.

Again, I don't care to see anyone, or most anyone, suffer an unnecessary death but when you compare the dozen or so deaths from illegal abortion in a year vice the million dead babies it is a pretty easy tradeoff if we have to make one.

I would argue that abortions are relatively capital light and thus it would be very easy to set up clinics as the political winds shift, especially since I think it would be in high demand during periods of legality.

Planned Parenthood would disagree but even if I grant you the economics of the clinical hardstand it is very difficult to retain doctors as abortionists when their skill is periodically declared illegal. There are relatively few of them now and the fact that most medical students elect to not learn about the procedure indicates to me that we will win this through attrition.

that being poor was a capital offense.

And I have some serious problems with how justice is administered. I have particular concerns with prosecutors who seem so zealous for conviction that they willfully ignore or distort exculpatory evidence and are unwilling to take a fresh look at new evidence.  There are many too many examples of prosecutors who are more interested in getting a conviction than in finding the truth. I also have some questions about whether jury trials are the best way to get to the truth.

BTW, I get the sense this happens much more often in non-capital cases and that unjust imprisonment is much more often the result than wrongful execution, but that neither case gets the attention they deserve.

Just the same, I get frustrated by people conflating these two entirely separate issues.

I was throroughly enjoying the debate until I encountered your response to a comment that was well-thought out, although it does not apparently agree with your opinion.

Wow. The bar for "well thought out" just dropped lower than I'd ever known it could be. Now, maybe half of my stuff clears the hurdle. I shall do a dance of joy.

After reading your comment, I'm now wondering if everyone here at Redstate is as hateful as you are?

No. I got the special Most Hateful Human at RedState Award the first year in a landslide, then took it by a hair this year against increasingly stiff, but still numerically small, competition.

Which might make you and those like you happy... thinking and respectful debate usually makes people like you uncomfortable.

Gee, the word "tripe" usually doesn't convey respect to speakers of English. Maybe in your reality it does?

Spoken like a true Christian? Hardly.

Lots of Christians say worse. Some even mean it.

Many Christians also understand "literary devices." You might give them a run.

You are quite offensive and I sincerely hope that you are not indicative of what I will find here at Redstate.

You're a moron, and I pray not indicative of what we can expect to see with growing traffic.

goes away. Fine. But how do the babies that fall in your categories win?

But in all honesty, I'd really be willing to make this trade with the caveat that any abortion alleged to be the result of rape or incest would have to be accompanied by a police report (rape) or an arrest warrant (incest).

when you're wrong.

I shall refrain from reading and seeking the word of God and return to the pre-Guttenberg state of being hand-fed the more enlightened interepretation of the Bible by the chosen elite.

This may come as a shock to you, but there are actual people out there who believe as itrytobenice describes; I have no doubt that there are even liberal Democrats who actually believe it too. I know this is a great disappointment to you but, hey that's life.

God creates dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. God creates man. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs kill man. Woman inherits the Earth. God laughs so hard he cries.

after Jurassic Park

I think that you will find precious little agreement here. Nor will you even find more than a handful of people who will actually try to understand your point of view. This is my first visit to Redstate and already I am cringing.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that this comment will earn me the dreaded "liberal" label from quite a few folks here. From what I've seen so far, that's what happens when you disagree with the frontpagers here... you get labeled. Folks like this do nothing for the improvement of our party. In fact, I believe it's people like this who will lead to a Democratic victory in 2006 and 2008. Thanks alot, you guys. Your close minded extremism will most likely cause the loss of our majority.

For what it's worth, I understand the point you are trying to get across, avalpert. This has a lot to do with the fact that I have not closed my mind off to all other opinions.

As is mostly the case these days, moderates beware. There is no place for you in the Republican party. Just look at what you have here at Redstate... a bunch of people who would rather agree with each other and pat each other on the backs for their opinions rather than have a respectful debate that encompasses differing opinions. Even when you might differ from their thinking on some small detail. It's all the same to them. You don't agree? Off with your head! And apparently this Leon guy is JUST the Christian to do it.

Oy vey.

Eek. I'm off to find another site. Perhaps I can find some middle ground somewhere.

Perhaps your "PERCEPTION" of middle ground is skewed.

While I am sure every woman deals with the pain differently and has to go through their own grieving process, I have now spoken with many who come out of the experience best by looking at it as a refelction of the inexact nature of biology; as a system human reproduction has a high failure rate. As such, they tend to look at fetus early in the process (when most of these problems occur) as less than a 'human' in the moralistic sense.

This may reflect the circles I walk in as much as anything, but ultiamtely it makes me think that people who dismiss this feeling as 'stupid' becuase they stand dogmatically behind the notion that a fetus is a person (which has not been the historical view, irregardless of how you view abortion) are being insensitive to the real world where the failrue rate of fetuses is extremely high.

The vacuuming of the uterus is something my wife had to go throw to remove the miscarried fetus. I assume you aren't intending to be insenstive with the way you talk about it, but it comes across as such. D&C's are extremely common after miscarriages and almost always done if the fetus terminated after 8 weeks.

I'm not suggesting there isn't a difference between miscarriage and abortion, but I am suggesting that the nature of a fetus at 8 weeks is such that it is not the same as an infant at 1 second.

As for the 'moral authority', Leon is the one who questionecd mine first. I agree that we have moral authority to comment on things we haven't experienced, he i sthe one who suggested I didn't.

Since your position is that it's just a blob I don't see why one would be more sensitive to a miscarriage than a bowel movement.

If, on the other hand, it really is a tiny baby then there is cause to be sensitive.

By the way, no one is arguing "person". We are talking human. Personhood in just a utilitarian word that covers killing the least amongst us.

Perhaps I can find some middle ground somewhere.

What made you leave MobyTown in the first place?

If RedState is not about having a serious discussion about where the Republican Party needs to go, then you've already proved why Democrats may just win back the house in '06.  Are you really that threatened by a single person bringing up a critical point?

He certainly seems to be, doesn't he? Along with quite a few other folks here. This is my first time here and after this thread, I'll be moving along. In fact, I might keep right on moving until I get to the polls in 2006. If THESE folks are the people representing my party, it might be time to change parties.

This is my first time here and after this thread, I'll be moving along.

This is the second time you promised this. Man up and get moving.

for it to come across as if my moral authority derived from my exprience, only that my newfound understanding of the issue did. I would not pretend to argue from authority on any issue.

As for the biblical translation, this is the JPS translation of the verse:

22 ¶ And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

 23  But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

It makes a clear distinction between the fetus' and mother's life, as was noted in the mishnah, talmud and by rashi among others.

Many of THESE folks (myself included) have been involved in the Republican Party for years.  Have you never attended a party function or caucus???

... thanks so much for the very warm welcome I received on my first visit here. I'll be sure and pass on to my friends what a great place this is... if you want to get your balls busted for not agreeing with everyone, that is. LOL

You guys have fun patting each other on the back and insulting and degrading everyone else.

I think I'll go take a shower now.

it is not a biblical endorsement of abortion, but likewise there is no biblical injunction against abortion (at least in the old testameant). It is merely a way of understanding the biblical treatment of the fetus (i.e. whether it is a 'person' or not) and the bible seems to indicate that it is not. This was further codified in the talmud in numerous locations.

just not a person. Its a fetus and ther ei sno doubt these women have some attachment to it greater than fecal matter. But you are setting up a flase dillemma if the only categories are 'tiny baby (or 'human' if you prefer)' or 'blob'. We can have emotional attachments to other classifications of beings without equating them to 'humans' from a moral perspecitve.

This topic tends to cause hard feelings every time it comes up without name calling. Nor are the comments about reading comprehension needed to ensure that the topic will degenerate.

Few people would outlaw abortion in all instances (however Leon may be an exception). Cases where the mother can't carry to term without significant threat to life would be permitted by all but the most ardent pro lifer. Most in the pro life camp would also perm exceptions when the matters of incest and rape come up.

In any case I don't see it as a dumb question.

Do you now see that any purported "hypocrisy" over capital punishment is beside the point, and doesn't diminish the pro-life case?

I certainly have! I'm originally from Texas... I saw my share of volunteer work down there... for Sen. Hutchison, for one. I now live in the DC Metro area, and while I don't volunteer quite as much up here, I've been known to.

It may suprise some of you to realize that some of us are not happy with the general direction of our party. Would you discount our opinions so readily? Extremism sucks... no matter whether you're a left-wing whacko or a member of the GOP.

In all seriousness, I'm pretty worried at the direction of our grassroots, if what I'm reading here is indicative of how we are progressing. Why do so many of you here sneer at other people's valid opinons? It's really a turn-off. I think that without that, this would be an excellent site. As it is, I won't be back after this thread.

Which makes you all very sad, I'm sure. :-)

*This reply, posted here, will attempt to address those below as well*

It's a moral quagmire where my rational and logical understanding of the reality of the world conflicts with my social or conscious ideal of what the world should be.

And it's an issue that in itself breeds other problems.  My comment about the consistency of outlook is a matter of personal observation.  I know any number of people who vociferously support the death penalty, but who are against abortion.  When I point out to them that life is life, and all life is sacred (an old debating point), they respond that there are "degrees of sanctity" in life.  They challenge that a convicted felon has less right to life than an unborn child because of his past actions.

I call shenanigans on this.  Life IS life.  Both have within themselves the potential to become better; the felon by seeing the error of his ways and who atones to become a better person, the unborn by living life and making decisions based on experience.

Both also have within themselves the chance to become worse; the felon feigns rehabilitation, gets parole, and kills again, the unborn grows up to become a serial killer.

Should we throw away the life of the felon who could possibly be rehabilitated, and save the life of an unborn who has the potential to be the next Hitler?

Thus is the great quandary.  Either it is all or nothing.  Either one adheres to the tenet that all life is sacrosanct, or one does not.  One cannot pick and choose the value of a life...to do so is to pretend to know the mind of God, and I for one would never presume such a thing.

And this is why I have the position I do.  I support "some" types of abortions, under certain circumstances, just as I support the execution of "some" criminals.  I'll be the first to say that this is a hypocritical position based on my own debating point, but this is where my logic overrules my moral standing.  Logically, there is a need for the death penalty in some cases, just as there is a logical need for abortion in some cases.  Both are necessary for the rule of law.

But I digress.

Abortion is not black and white, right and wrong, it has a myriad shades of gray that makes it the confounding problem that it is.  It is an issue that causes the logic of law to directly oppose the morality of religion (for some) or common decency (for others).  It is an issue that ultimately defines our nation as a nation of laws or as a nation of commandments.

And because of this, it has been and always will be best to stick the issue firmly in the middle between law and morality, where morality influences law and law influences morality.

Thus is how it has been done with many other delicate issues that fall within the boundary of the law but outside the boundary of accepted morality AT THAT POINT IN TIME.  Issues such as slavery, alcohol, and pornography have, in their day, been affected by law at the behest of morality, but were not outlawed by that morality because they fell within the boundary of the law.

In these cases, changing the law did nothing to stop the root behavior.  One spawned a civil war, one was banned and then the ban repealed, and the last continues to be hotly battled in both the realms of legal and popular spheres.  But all share with the issue of abortion the aspects of being morally wrong but legally allowed. (omg, yes, I did just state that alcohol is immoral.  sacrelige! ;) )

So, in my opinion, the best course of action is to leave abortion legal, but limit the scope of those who should have access to abortion.

But this isn't really going to change anything, for those who don't fall into the legal boundary for aborition in this case will simply go underground and get one illegally.  And because of this, and the myriad dangers and problems that it can cause (both for the mother and for our own justice system), logic demands that compromise be made until such a time that the root problem (the mother herself) can be addressed.

And so, this is why I hate this particular topic, and much prefer not to see it brought up.  It changes nothing in the end, because it cannot.  And it distracts us from issues that we CAN change.

Just throwing out wrong with no explaination.  Did they teach you that at Deaniac school?  No one will trust you if you are so lazy reddstaty.

Please explain how I'm wrong.

The only employer not matching, but instead steals their employees' FICA tax, is the Florida Democratic Party.  But the IRS attached the Florida Democratic Party's bank accounts and your boss, Screaming Howard Dean, loaned the Democrat Floridians $100,000 so they are now up to date on their FICA obligations too.  That's when Gov. Jeb Bush called the Democrats, "Pathetic," remember?

Carry your baby to term, the Social Security and Medicare system requires your future child's tax dollars.

Vote Republican and put all Democrats in the private sector, where they belong.    

who aren't Jewish, I'm not really sure how persuasive somethings presence or absence in the Talmud is.

For me the Catechism  has more than ample reasoning to convince me it is right.

... in this post, yours is not the only interpretation.

I am no Hebrew scholar, but it seems to me that it's very reasonable to interpret the text as referring to a live premature birth. In that context, the "further harm" refers to the death of the child, and the punishment attached to it is the usual one for murder.

though of great value to you actually means little to a lot of other people.

While you are free to believe "life is life" and eschew war, self-defense, the death penalty, etc. your equating of all of those, while I am sure noble, pure, and consistent, places you firmly outside the bounds of 2000 years of Christian and some 3000 years of Western thought.

So I don't really care to argue with you on the basis of your unique, personal philosophy and I don't know why anyone else would bother.

In fact I feel the urgent need to indulge in the immorality of Knob Creek.

in the world.

Leave. Please. Leave. No one is going to beg you to stay.

So, do you believe in birth control, sex education, condoms, the pill, Plan B, RU, or gay releationships? All these are ways of mooting the abortion question without the quagmire of sexaul morality.

to make is that it is not a true parallel to use the death penalty as a comparison to abortion, and that those who are against abortion on the grounds that life is sacred are being hypocritical when they support the death penalty...because life is sacred.

Abortion and the death penalty are apples and oranges when it comes to the legality and logic of them, but the underlying reason of support for either is a substantive issue when using the sanctity of life as a position to oppose abortion.

It is a hypocracy that extends to the left as well.  Those who oppose the death penalty on the grounds of the taking of life are being hypocritical to the extreme when they support abortion rights.

I'm not setting up a false dilemma at all. It is a human and there are no "classifications of beings" in homo sapiens. You either are or you aren't.

And the reason women show an attachment to a miscarried pregnancy is that they know it was a human life.

Since when is the abortion question one of sexual morality?

I shouldn't be so cryptic.

Let's see, the title of the comment I was responding to was "Everybody pays FICA tax, Trust Me"

There are, at this very moment, millions of people legally resident in the United States that haven't paid FICA taxes for years.  Similarly, there are millions of people living in the United States who have never paid FICA taxes.  I will leave it to you to determine which two groups of people I have in mind (though I'll admit that you could fit other groups into those two categories).

Similarly, your statment that "Every single parent mother is paying Social Security and Medicare (FICA) tax" is also obviously wrong.

Finally, "If parents have children in America these children and their employers will pay FICA tax," I will just point out that neither you nor I know whether FICA taxes will continue to be levied in the future, so it is not "one thing we can all agree on."

Why do you keep talking about Howard Dean?

birth control etc is not the subject. Drop it or diary it.

Check my posting history before make foolish comments.  If you plan on sticking around long, don't throw specious accusations around.

With respect to doctors signing off on life threatening complications, that's why it needs to be done in a hospital, not a clinic.  Such requires a diagnosis of record which can be reviewed.  Doctors who sign off as you suggest will be prosecuted.

With respect to the death penalty being off the table, you should do some research on life in a maximum security prison.  The death penalty is a gift.  For your information, I have no problem with the death penalty.  I think the current level of arguments (both legal and political) are unproductive and give people the opportunity to glamorize oxygen thieves like Tookie.  Life without parole, and do whatever is necessary to make sure they are unpardonable, absent evidence of their innocence, as well.  Lock them away and they will be quickly forgotten.

is the standard citation:

13 For you formed my inward parts;

you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works;

my soul knows it very well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you,

when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;

in your book were written, every one of them,

the days that were formed for me,

when as yet there were none of them.

You deigned to comment about my personal philosophy.  I explained it in greater detail, giving more substance to my statements, mainly because I wrote them out in haste before class and was forced to send it off without fully fleshing out my talking points.

Yes, it is my personal philosophy. It is just one person's view of a delicate and divisive issue, and is offered forth neither to influence nor cajole, but to merely demonstrate an alternate point of view to provide discourse.

As you said, it matters little in the big picture.

But it has made you think about a position different from your own, if only for a moment, and that is what truly matters.  Perhaps next time, you will ponder WHY someone believes as they do, instead of dismissing their outlook summarily.

Our society is about the free exchange of ideas, and it advances when we can respect another's outlook, even if we do not agree with it.

on abortion, I'll take 97% over 0%.  Better than letting 1.5MM die because I stand on "principle".

With respect to your cavaet, that is what I said.  Or at least what I meant...

You do not read. Or perhaps you read but you don't comprehend very well.

I've said it more than once.. AFTER THIS THREAD. Wanted to finish the damn thread, if that's okay with you and your fellow school yard bullies. Would you like my lunch money before I go?

Good grief... you folks are some rude SOB's here. I've had a better reception at a beehive! LOL

And all this for what? Damned if I know. I think I must have insulted that pillar of civility, Thomas. /sarcasm

People like you make it difficult.  It was still a dumb question.

I never implied that anyone does not pay FICA tax.  But I will say that your argument makes alot of assumptions that may not be even close to accurate.  First, you have to assume that all these non-aborted kids are not born as "wards of the state" already, or they are starting their earning careers "in debt" for the tax dollars spent on them during their childhood.  Second, you have to assume that these kids are able to find decent jobs, which may not be possible, as we are having a hard enough time creating more than 200,000 jobs a month now.  Finally, the most important economic reality here is whether or not these abortion kids will cost the governemnt more during their lives than they pay in FICA, if you really want to get to the economic reality of the situation.

Well, I was surprised to see Leon H contribute this:

I'm generally in favor of the notion that protection of the mother's life is a sound justification for abortion.

I'd like to think God knows what he is doing. Sure we have the capability to remove the tumor when it infringes on one's life. But to remove the innocent?...

feeling about arguments from Christianity. Don't expect it to persuade you, but it should offer some perspective on itnerpretting the hebrew bible.

But from the hebrew it is not possible to interpret it that way. And the NIV translation is inaccurate (I believe though that it was not a direct ranslation from hebrew but traces back to a greek translation, via latin).

you're under the misapprehension that your opinions a) matter, b) are new to us, and c) they actually make sense.

Wrong on all counts. Day in and day out we get the same lecture. In fact, the Republicans have been getting your lecture on our stand on abortion since Reagan ran with the abortion plank in the platform in 1980. We keep winning. You keep lecturing... and I might add riding our coattails, enjoying the fruits of victory, and acting like you matter.

But let's review the bidding. You come into our house, unbidden, and proceed to insult the residents and are disturbed when one of your hosts takes offense.

Rather than apologize, or at least pause and collect what passes for wits, you continue to whine like a little girl about how you are being abused and keep promising to leave.

If I thought you actually had lunch money, I'd take it to pay for the bandwidth you've wasted.

Now begone.

It is not human, is no tto be classiffied within homo sapien from a moral perspective. It is a different in kind entity. You set up a false dillema by limiting it to blob or human, in fact there are many other possibilities. For example, animals are neithr blob nor human, we treat them differently morally than an inanimate object and then another person.

And I disagree with your second sentence there heavily, as I have asked the question of many women at this point and there is no agreement among them as to that being the reason for the attachment.

That's better than just throwing out you're wrong.

Of course illegal activity like being a crack whore won't pay FICA tax.

I'll go real slow for you.  Every single parent mother working at 7-Eleven is paying FICA tax and that amount is matched by the 7-Eleven franchisee or employer and sent to DC.

Reddstaty, only far-left-wing fruitcakes like Howard Dean want Karl Rove to resign like your diary repeats.

Also, in the future pigs might grow wings and Federal taxpayers may not be paying taxes for Medicare and Social Securty.  The current Domestic Policy of the USA has citizen paying these taxes, period.  

Mothers, carry your baby to term and don't let them become crack whores because Social Security and Medicare requires your future taxpayers' taxes.

I'd find it difficult to take offense.

I would point out, however, that others much more qualified than I do disagree with you on this point.  For instance, I note that the Hebrew word for "miscarry" is not used in this passage but does appear just a few verses later in a different context.

The NIV is not a word-for-word translation, but it is not based on any intermediate translation. Although the Septuagint and the Vulgate were consulted, the Old Testament translation is based primarily on the Masoretic Text.

your assertion that it isn't a human just beggars the imagination. If you find an example of a woman giving birth to a wombat or a hippo I might be more amenable to this bit of sophistry.

Homo sapiens does not have a moral dimension, it is strictly biological. All animals go through phases but to say a baby in utero is not human makes as much sense as saying a toddler or a teenager or an elderly person aren't human.

As to your last, I simply doubt your veracity on this. Outside my own experience there is a wealth of professional literature on the question that contradicts your own universe of experience.

once it realizes its full potential and is born, has there been an instance in which the blob has not become a human?

do not going around crushing the skulls of kittens because it just innately feels wrong.  I don't need a God, the government, or my mother to tell me this, it just feels wrong.  The amount of waffling (collateral damage, death penalty, and the classic what-ifs)that is a large part of the pro-choice debate is in my opinion, just a smoke screen and rationalization attempt to get over the fact that their position just feels wrong.  

Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you are on .... this is really the wrong place to make your case.

Political candidates are most effected by the opinions of the folks that help them get elected. Mere constituents opinions have not much influence on policy and legislation.

If you want to push a pro-life or a pro-choice agenda in the Republican Party, I would suggest the best place to do this would be as a precinct committee member or volunteer, or as a campaign volunteer.

If you want to influence the party's and candidate's legislation, policies, and planks, you need to participate, instead of railing at people here that you disagree with.

Ok.  My skin has the same DNS has humans.  I guess that means that when I get a sunburn I'm killing human life.  Same for my sperm.

It amazes me that anyone uses this argument with a straight face.  Equating a multicellular organism with its separate cellular subcomponents (skin cells=human being) is...well, I'm sorry, but it's just plain lazy.  And it seems that a lot of people like to use it.  Which is why we keep getting the old "if you're pro-life, you think masturbation is murder!" canard as well.  I am an organism.  I have DNA that is identifiably distinct as my own.  All my cells derive from cells with the same DNA.  Loss of some of my cells is not inevitably loss of my life.  Must I spell this out?  But, say, if someone causes all my cells to die, I die.  And that's why abortion--killing all of someone else's cells--is murder, and you're just suffering from sunburn.

whether or not you like something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true.

statement. Such as yours. As I've already painstakingly explained, and will not do so again, the translation "fruit depart" is the accurate one, from Hebrew. To contend otherwise is to display absolute ignorance of Hebrew.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood . . ."

You need to take a class in how to interpret scripture. You can't just pull some phrase out of the Bible and prove something with no regard for context, literary genre, or author intent.

Rather than translation. That's another issue I painstakingly dealt with, but the nearly unanimous testimony of the early church fathers and modern OT commentators supports my interpretation.

As for the Talmud and Mishnah, I have fairly conclusive evidence that Judaism lost its way sometime prior to 30AD, so I don't tend to place a great reliance on those sources for accurate interpretations of the Pentateuch, or any other portion of OT Scriputre.

There is no biological definition of what is 'human', there isn't even a precise definition of what homo sapien is as a species (unless you care to show me one) and there certainly is no definition of what it is as a special moral animal to which we apply distinct ethical properties. Biology doesn't pretend to define ethical categories and we are dealing here with ethical notions.

I make the distinction between 'human' and fetus at the moment it is breathing outside the womb (which derives from traditional jewish view).

All three of my children are in their twenties, working and paying FICA taxes.  I assume that if my brand new daughter-in-law has a baby, the baby will pay FICA taxes exactly like their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents did.  There is no way out of FICA tax.

Every single parent mother working at Burger King pays FICA tax which is matched by their employer.  

If the Ultra Rich and the non-working poor might escape FICA tax, the vast majority of Americans will pay FICA tax and the current unfunded obligations require future taxpayers because these Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) sytems are simply a Ponzi Scheme.  Everyone knows this.

American parents, carry that baby to term.  Because of FDR's (A Democrat) Social Security Ponzi Scheme, the Baby Boomers require your future taxpayers' taxes, big TIME.

Vote Republican - Solid Partners / Flexible Solutions    

It was never a blob that became a human. Do you mean has there ever been a fetus within a human that once it was born was not born a human? I doubt it, so what? There have been plenty of fetuses that never made it to being born and where thus never human.

You know, I never have considered doing volunteer work for a campaign that I believe in. Personally, I've always volunteered, knocked doors, registered voters, pounded signs, and donated just because I thought those things were fun in and of themselves - it never occurred to me to actually attempt to influence policy thereby! All this time I thought the only way I could accomplish that was posting at RedState!

</sarcasm&gt

In all seriousness, if you're going to throw rocks at a person for doing/failing to do a certain thing, you might make a reasonable effort to determine if they do/fail to do the thing you are throwing rocks at them for.

a fetus is just a stage of development, it was always and immutably human.

I'm generally in favor of the notion that protection of the mother's life is a sound justification for abortion. The problem, as has been pointed out, is that those kinds of exceptions have a tendency to become gaping holes. Indeed, the very abortion regime we are under today is the result of one of those holes. It's a difficult question, and I don't have a solid answer, but individual judicial review seems like a good place to start

This is the crux of the matter.  There is never going to be an acceptable middle ground on this matter because there is too much gray area when it comes to the health of the woman.  

As for rape and incest, I don't believe in punishing innocent third parties for crimes. I've already discussed this ad nauseam before.

Ok.  You are in a pretty distinct minority in this regard.

Covered this already, too. I don't doubt that many people disagree with me. I have serious concerns about their moral compass - even to the point that it makes me wonder sometimes how we share the same general biological matter. I treid to make this explicit in my post. Now let's never go over this point again, okay?

Ok.  Your concerns about their moral compasses is duly noted.  Let me ask you this.  How much do you think that your particular religous beliefs affect your opinion on abortion? Do you think that someone that was raised with different religous beliefs could believe that life begins at a later date?

Perhaps I believe that the time has come that polite arguments and rhetorical niceties and gentle prodding is no longer sufficient. There is a great and malicious evil afoot in this country, and you ask me to keep the debate about it reasonable and nuanced?

Would you have had the abolitionists pursue this tack indefinitely?

Well the abolitionists didn't really help matters and ultimately led to a Civil War.  While you may feel outraged about this matter, and I can understand why, by treating those who disagree with you as immoral human beings you are simply turning them away from even considering your POV.

'furit depart' is the translation I provided above (from the 1917 JPS edition to be precise).

I personally happen to be against capital punishment, because life is sacred. But I see no hypocrisy in people who are pro-life and support capital punishment for the crime of murder. Similarly, there is no hypocrisy on the left because  people who are pro-abortion typically don't believe an unborn child is a human being imbued with a right to life in the first place (or they subordinate its right to life to the privacy rights of its mother, as Harry Blackmun does in Roe v. Wade).

This is the crux of the matter.  There is never going to be an acceptable middle ground on this matter because there is too much gray area when it comes to the health of the woman.

Hmm. Not really. So long as we're talking about physical health, you're talking an infinitesimal number of abortions. For the sake of compromise, I'm willing to allow them all to take place.

What I'm leery of is the abuse of such a system whereas the potential existence of stretch marks falls under "risk of health to the woman," or "depression is an aspect of physical health." A reasonably monitored judicial regime is practical, I believe, it's done for other questions all the time.

Ok.  You are in a pretty distinct minority in this regard.

No one ever said that the majority is always correct, or even rational.

Ok.  Your concerns about their moral compasses is duly noted.  Let me ask you this.  How much do you think that your particular religous beliefs affect your opinion on abortion? Do you think that someone that was raised with different religous beliefs could believe that life begins at a later date?

Certainly, my views are informed by religion, but not exclusively dependent upon it. It's a difficult argument to avoid that a fetus/embryo is simply a child at an earlier stage of development. The argument that a fetus/embryo is non-human is to argue that humanity is contingent upon development, rather than essence.

I don't need any particular religion to tell me that's monstrous.

Well the abolitionists didn't really help matters and ultimately led to a Civil War.  While you may feel outraged about this matter, and I can understand why, by treating those who disagree with you as immoral human beings you are simply turning them away from even considering your POV.

So is it your contention that the civil war wasn't worth it?

Be careful. That way lies a can of worms.

and stick with it.  The original poster was talking about DNA.  

Now we're taling about cellular organisms.  A different discussion.

And that's why abortion--killing all of someone else's cells--is murder, and you're just suffering from sunburnM

Except you still have failed to explain how this mass of cells has attained individual personhood.  Could you explain that please?   BTW, you do realize that sperm and eggs have different DNA structures than the parents, right?

Loss of a fetus does not mean the loss of life for the mother.  

I noticed this, and pointed out that you are quibbling about interpretation, rather than translation.

Again, have you read this? Specifically, this discussion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

If you look (and that would be in English, mind you; I'm not asking for some sort of elision about what the Greeks thought about the word), you will find that while there are certainly differences about what a species is (do we count chromosomes?  significant commonalities in physical appearance?), the most useful definition of species still is that members of a species can interbreed with the production of fertile offspring.  So that organism in the human womb next door?  Human.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Most women who get abortions are poor and we aren't doing anyone a favor by forcing these women to keep children they don't want.

Any woman can give her child up for adoption after birth.  No one is proposing the forcing of any woman to keep her child.

Repetition does not make a fact.

I'd like to think God knows what he is doing. Sure we have the capability to remove the tumor when it infringes on one's life. But to remove the innocent?...

So you don't support abortions even when the life of the mother is gravely at risk?  

Do you believe in medicine?

they're both policies sanctioned by the state.  

you can uniquely identify the donor of a sperm or egg via DNA. This alone should tell you that your statement, while true, is specious.

When a sperm and egg unite they produce a DNA that can uniquely identify the unit produced by they union, aka a baby.

You are making a totally BS argument that the pseudo-scientific like to make.

the physician has a dual duty to attempt to preserve both lives, that goal cannot be achieved by killing one of them.

Please note that I mentioned that all my cells derive from cells with identical DNA.  That covers the eggs I personally produced via meiosis.  Which I did, may I add, while I was still in my mother's womb.  Not bad for a non-person, huh?

And it was you who made the DNA-to-cell leap when you noted that some of your epithelials didn't make it through a sunny day.

While I would love to know how any agglomeration of cells becomes a person, that's something scientists, theologians and philosophers alike have been investigating for a long while.  I merely note that it occurs.

And, finally, any child I carried in my womb would have, yes, DNA derived from me.  It would also have DNA derived from its father.  Making it (drumroll please!) its own organism.  Which, gee, kinda means that he or she wouldn't be me.  So yes, absolutely, the loss of the fetus doesn't mean the death of the mother.

And while we're at it, what do you mean, DNA and cellular organisms are two different arguments?  Unless you're advocating for virus rights?

What I'm leery of is the abuse of such a system whereas the potential existence of stretch marks falls under "risk of health to the woman," or "depression is an aspect of physical health." A reasonably monitored judicial regime is practical, I believe, it's done for other questions all the time.

But the problem is that you are now getting the judiciary involved in medical matters and that is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  

No one ever said that the majority is always correct, or even rational.

This is true.  But calling the vast majority immoral isn't likely to get you many converts.

Certainly, my views are informed by religion, but not exclusively dependent upon it. It's a difficult argument to avoid that a fetus/embryo is simply a child at an earlier stage of development. The argument that a fetus/embryo is non-human is to argue that humanity is contingent upon development, rather than essence

But again there must be, at some point, a beginning of that life.  Let me ask you this(note: this is somewhat explicit but I think necessary for the discussion).  Do you think that birth control is abortion, specifically The Pill?  It prevents the sperm from entering the egg.  Do you think that the moment the a sperm penetrates the egg that life begins(and I mean that very moment)?  Do you think that there is indeed a "quickening" albeit a very short one?  These are important question because they go to the root of the matter in regards to when, precisely, does life begin.

So is it your contention that the civil war wasn't worth it?

Of course not.  My point was that the abolitionists, paricularly the really self-righteous ones, did very little to change the hearts and minds of those who supported slavery.

If the pro-abortion crowd can claim that an unborn child is not a human for lack of development, I can claim that someone who is convicted of first degree murder is not a human for lack of basic human moral sensibilities, or the basic human characterstic of respect for the life of his fellow man.

But the problem is that you are now getting the judiciary involved in medical matters and that is a pretty dangerous road to go down.

Umm... you know that this is done, quite literally, all the time, right?

This is true.  But calling the vast majority immoral isn't likely to get you many converts.

It worked for Peter on Pentecost.

Now you've made me go and get Biblical on you. :-)

But again there must be, at some point, a beginning of that life.  Let me ask you this(note: this is somewhat explicit but I think necessary for the discussion).  Do you think that birth control is abortion, specifically The Pill?  It prevents the sperm from entering the egg.  Do you think that the moment the a sperm penetrates the egg that life begins(and I mean that very moment)?  Do you think that there is indeed a "quickening" albeit a very short one?  These are important question because they go to the root of the matter in regards to when, precisely, does life begin.

This is, explicitly, not a thread on contraception, and I am going to studiously avoid threadjack here to avoid another intra-Catholic discussion.

Currently, abortion occurs before the fourth week after conception on a rare enough basis to basically call it non-existent. Would you like to discuss whether a four-week old fetus is a person?

Of course not.  My point was that the abolitionists, paricularly the really self-righteous ones, did very little to change the hearts and minds of those who supported slavery.

You're right. Eventually, they took up guns and decimated the country over it, and the general consensus of history (and yourself) is that it was the right thing to do.

I'm not quite there yet.

I'll respond to you, which I'm sure will be greeted by numerous insults.

you can uniquely identify the donor of a sperm or egg via DNA. This alone should tell you that your statement, while true, is specious.

And you can uniquely identify the parents of a child by their DNA.  

I'm not making any pseudo-science arguments.  I'm trying to make things clear.

While I would love to know how any agglomeration of cells becomes a person, that's something scientists, theologians and philosophers alike have been investigating for a long while.  I merely note that it occurs

This is my point.  I'm not suggesting that I personally know when human life begins.  My point is that scientifically no one knows the answer to that.

And while we're at it, what do you mean, DNA and cellular organisms are two different arguments?  Unless you're advocating for virus rights?

Someone upthread said that since fetuses have human DNA that makes them human beings.  That isn't true.  

Can you explain to me why a single-cell zygote is more human than single celled skin cells?

involves the likely death of the mother?  

Umm... you know that this is done, quite literally, all the time, right?

Sure but I see little evidence of it being beneficial to society.

This is, explicitly, not a thread on contraception, and I am going to studiously avoid threadjack here to avoid another intra-Catholic discussion.

I apologize.  I certainly wasn't trying to get the discussion to switch over to contraception and I was trying to specifically address one type of contraception because I was trying to avoid threadjack.

Currently, abortion occurs before the fourth week after conception on a rare enough basis to basically call it non-existent. Would you like to discuss whether a four-week old fetus is a person?

So does that mean you're ok with the day after pill?  

You're right. Eventually, they took up guns and decimated the country over it, and the general consensus of history (and yourself) is that it was the right thing to do.

Well that's not exactly how it went down.

I suppose we are now warranted in assuming an equivalence between sperm and children.  Nice to know that.

But to suggest that uniqueness of DNA somehow means that a single-celled organism is a human being doesn't make much sense either.

From that single-celled zygote will proceed, if the zygote is permitted to develop, every last blessed epithelial cell the zygote will ever own.  Every cell of mine is a human cell (although I'm sure some people I've met might debate me on that one {grin}), and they all proceeded from that zygote.  

The difference is not in the amount of humanity each cell possesses, but their relative importance in development.  As a healthy adult, I can produce lots and lots of epithelials.  I'm doing so while, and at the same time, spending an afternoon in etheric debate.  But if someone had deprived me of my one and only zygote, someone else would have to do this typing.  

And I guess that the basic argument that every pro-lifer trots out (I know, because it's my favorite, too) is that: given that the zygote is uniquely human, and if left to its own devices it would develop into a uniquely human adult--if we can't tell when the zygote becomes a person, wouldn't it be better to just say no to abortion?

Sure but I see little evidence of it being beneficial to society.

Surely a good liberal such as yourself sees a place for MedMal suits?

So does that mean you're ok with the day after pill?

It does not. It does mean, however, that I'm willing to belay substantive discussion of the day after pill until abortion-as-birth-control is dealt with.

Well that's not exactly how it went down.

Right. Actually what happened is that the south became so inflamed over the rhetoric of the abolitionists, and were convinced that an abolitiionist had been elected President that they seceeded - whereupon the country was decimated and history (and you) agree that it was a good thing.

was poorly stated.  Feel free to disregard it. But Abigail is making the argument much more cogently than I ever could, and I don't think that freedom should extend to her.

And if someone deprived you of your one and only original egg and sperm you wouldn't be here today either.  

I can accept the argument that we should protect a zygote because it will eventually turn into a human being.  But that is NOT the same thing as trying to say that a zygote is a human being.  

But in conjunction with others, yes, it makes perfect sense.

Might I add that I find this entire discussion infinitely tedious, perhaps even more so than debates over the whole evolution/ID thing?  

You post conjures up, to me, the following comparison:  pro-life is to pro-choice as vegetarian is to meat-eater.

(Some) vegetarians believe that it is wrong to kill animals, that an animal's life is as sacred as a humans.  (Many) meat-eaters think that is preposterous.  Survival of the fittest, they say, or it's a necessary evil, or an animal's life is hardly equal to a human's life, and so on.

Pro-lifers believe that it is wrong kill a fetus, that the life of a fetus is as sacred as a live-born person.  Pro-choicers think that is preposterous.  Survival of the fittest, they say, or it's a necessary evil, or a fetus's life is hardly equal to a human's life, and so on.

Getting a pro-choice country to go pro-life (and yes, those who support abortion in the case of rape and incest are pro-choice, choosing to abort the innocent fetus depending on the circumstances of his or her conception), is going to be as easy as getting a meat-eating country to go vegetarian.

Also, while I'm not a fan of abortion by any means, I also think it is disengenous to describe abortion in terms of "dismemberment", pulverization, "knives", etc., when most abortions are performed through the use of a pill (which is not be confused with the "Plan B" pill, which prevents conception in the first place).  If people think that most abortions are caused by cracked skulls, only to find out that abortions are typically performed through the use of a pill, they may think that less "offensive" and "shocking" and be okay with abortions.

True; but while the zygote is the irreducible form of the human being, neither the egg nor the sperm are.  The sperm and egg are each necessary, but not sufficient, for human life.  The zygote is the necessary and sufficient form for life.

I've never really comprehended this whole "human being/personhood" thing.  In fact, I tend to get very dichotomous about it.  Either one is endowed with inalienable rights, or one is not.  The moment that one may comment about someone else's "personhood" is the day that everyone's rights become, well, alienable.  Sadly, that happened quite a while ago.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here.  As I have said I am pro-life but anti-legislation regarding abortion because I don't believe that is the proper way to handle this problem.

My only real gripe, at least in this context, is that people continually claim to know when human life begins using biological reasonings.  I have yet to see anyone make a purely biological argument to explain when human life begins.

I sometimes get the feeling Leon posts threads like this, just so he can watch Thomas tear apart the arguments from the other side.

To your own morality, but not your own facts.

If, by most, you mean 2.9%, then you are correct. If, however, you intended the usual definition of "most" (more than 50%), your contention is not only wrong, but so disastrously wrong as to constitute bad faith posting. Please don't do it again.

I try to just think of the repetitive nature of the debate like it's a relay race.  Somedays, you just gotta hand the baton off and let someone else run with the same arguments.  I, personally, find the evolution/ID arguments far more tiring.

Oh, and apropos of that fact, duty calls.  I'll check back on this thread later.

Are you saying that a zygote is necessary and sufficient for human life, or are you saying that it is human life?  If the former, can you explain to me how it is efficient.

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if these questions have already been answered.

"efficient" should be "sufficient"

I guess this will be a good point to cut off conversation with you because you have just dimissed my religion as having lost its way. But since you took the firt step, I find it absolutely ridiculous for any religion to believe that an omnipotent god would have a child on earth, let alone one put for the sole purpose of dying to provide forgiveness for humanities sins. The god could certianly forgive without that. Additionally, from my viewpoint all Christianity (save the coptics) is in fact Avodah Zarrah (idol worship) and a violation of the first commandment punishable by death. The followers of the false messiah known as jesus lost there way before they ever started as a religion.

And if you look upthread a bit, you'll see why it is sufficient.  Barring that, a good basic biology text will help.

people we generally identify as humans who are incapable of producing viable offspring are not human. See, at an individual level that definition isn't meaningful. And it comes back to, biology does not provide us with definitions of moral categories.

and I am sure neith of us is going to convince the other just by restating our position.

I don't see it as just a stage in development as we would say infant, adolescent, teenager, adult, it a distint type of entity alltogether.

In fact, the Republicans have been getting your lecture on our stand on abortion since Reagan ran with the abortion plank in the platform in 1980. We keep winning

I don't know if "we" keep winning.  "They" [politicians] keep winning, and abortion remains legal eight supreme court justices and 25 years later.  If I were "them" I would keep it legal, keep running against it, and keep winning, to give "we" the impression that we're "winning".  If it gets the electorate out over broken glass to vote...  

Rather obviously, there's a reason I'm not Jewish. I'm sorry if my stating that reason offended you. You've just explained to me why you're not Christian, and I won't get all shirty about it.

But the point is that you can't bring forth disputed texts that our religions will not jointly accept, and expect them to establish the dispositive interpretation of a Pentateuchal passage in question.

In other words, both accept the book of Exodus, so the points of understanding that we have will be found there, rather than the Talmud or Mishnah.

Zygotes are not a sufficient form for human life.  They cannot exist without the mother's womb.  The womb enable's the zygote to develop into a multi-cellular being and ultimately to a human being.  

I'm not sure why you can't comprehend the "human being/personhood" thing.  We must define what it means to be a legally recognized person.  You seem to want to define a zygote as a person.  Others do not.  

This is a circular comment...

the moment that one may comment about someone else's "personhood" is the day that everyone's rights become, well, alienable.

If the object we are referring to is a someone then their personhood is already defined, they are a person.  This isn't a slippery slope.  This is an attempt at creating a bright line definition of what constitutes being a legally recognized human being and what constitutes an organism that is merely an undeveloped potential human being.

is human life then obviously it's sufficient by definition.  If it is not human life, then I hardly think it is sufficient, as a good basic biology text will show.

as all that complex

Except you still have failed to explain how this mass of cells has attained individual personhood.  Could you explain that please?  

If no one takes any action one way or the other --- no negative (abortion) or affirmative (unusual prenatal care) --- in the vast majority of cases at the end of approximately 9 months a new, healthy, independent, human life will emerge into the world. You cannot make that claim about any other 'mass of cells' in or on the human body.

...when I wrote that I was thinking of my own hospital, not nationally.  

Thus the danger in assuming that every place is just like where I live.

that I find infinitely tedious.  It is, I believe, the result of a confusion between the life of the human organism and the largely specious conception of "personhood", which seems to have been invented, or at least deployed bearing a sense distinct from mere humanity, solely for the purpose of enabling people to entertain the irredeemably evil notion of human nonpersons.  

As to your personal convictions, I understand them, and dissent, for the simple reason that I reject voluntarism in all its forms and modes, particularly the form which holds that precepts of morality are either nonbinding unless affirmed by each individual by an act of will/assent, or somehow more binding by virtue of such acts of will and assent.  If abortion is depraved because it is that taking of innocent human life, or if it is simply wicked on account of the degrading effects it has upon those who procure and provide it, without explicit regard to the question of "life", then that depravity obtains, and is a fit object of legislation, without regard to the will of the individual.  We do not say that there ought not exist laws against murder, or any other crime, but that people should be persuaded, on what basis I do not know, that they ought not want such things.  

I do not think such solicitude for the autonomy of the individual counts for very much, or accomplishes much more than the coarsening of most aspects of our public culture; it is the societal equivalent of a petulent teenager who always responds to rules and demands with such pieces of solipsistic, masturbatory idiocy as "Prove it." and "You can't make me." and "You have no right."  

As I said, I find this debate tedious - although I find Leon's passion quite inspiring - on account of the confusions and arbitrary assumptions underlying altogether too much of it.

It is not human, is no tto be classiffied within homo sapien from a moral perspective. It is a different in kind entity. You set up a false dillema by limiting it to blob or human, in fact there are many other possibilities. For example, animals are neithr blob nor human, we treat them differently morally than an inanimate object and then another person.

The "fetus" is merely a stage of human life, just like "embryo" and "infant" and "toddler" and "teenager" are stages of life.  Your argument makes about as much to me sense as saying "it's not a human, it's a toddler."  We all go through each of these stages in life - it's not like, when your mother was pregnant with you, you somehow weren't human.  What were you then, a rabbit?

There is no biological definition of what is 'human'

Wow, they would have loved you back in the pre-Civil War days, when they were arguing about who counts as a human.

The Republican party's official platform calls for the repeal of Roe v. Wade.  So you don't have much basis for calling pro lifers here extremists.

also, while I have never experienced a miscarriage, I have carried four children in my womb, and it was during my first preganancy that I realized just how empty the pro choice position was (and I used to be pro choice).

Funny... I almost busted when I read that

Personhood is an invented term just like our legal system is an invented system.  That doesn't make it any less applicable or relevant.   You may consider it evil to think that a single cell organism is, in no way, different than a fully developed human being.  But many others disagree.  Which brings me to my next point.

There are certain aspects of our morality that can be legislated and said legislation can have an effect.  Murder is a good example.  Because the view that murder is evil and wrong is virtually universal  laws that outlaw murder are considered just and reasonable.  As such the enforcement of such laws are generally consistent and supported by law enforcement, the legal system, and the people.  

Other aspects of morality are far more difficult to legislate.  We had for many years laws against homosexuality.  They did nothing to prevent homosexuality, although they did keep people quiet about it.  The laws were unevenly enforced and were generally toothless, except for the random unlucky gay person who would get caught.

Drug laws are another example.  Although most people view drugs as bad there is a wide range of opinions as to what drugs are bad and what it is about drugs that makes them bad.  As such drug laws are unevenly applied and enforced.  This has created the absolutely horrible War on Drugs.

If Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow it would likely only impact the poorest women(note:  I'm in favor of abolishing Roe V Wade).  The reason is that too many people support abortions, at least in certain circumstances.  So enforcement of abortion laws would become extremely difficult.  This is true today moreso than ever before due to advances in medical technology and drugs like RU-486.  

Because of this I don't believe we will ever have a signficant drop in abortions in this country because of legislation.  If that is the case then we should be looking at other ways to eliminate abortion.

Why don't you just ask yourself when your life began?  Was it when when you were born?  Was it a month earlier?  Was it nine months earlier?  

Are you really arguing that when your mother was pregnant with you, you somehow weren't a human life?  What were you, then?  You had all the DNA you have now; you had the same human physiology you have now, or at least the full potential for it; and you were alive.  

Human + Alive = Human Life.

is it?  A monkey?  Squirrel?  Dog?

Is that outlawing a thing (which would, incidentally, not be the result of overturning Roe) is never successful at deterring that thing, or changing behavior.

Which begs the question of why we have laws at all.

1.  Non-aborted children may be a ward of the state but most non-aborted babies are not currently.  Either way, neither child has a balance due at a majority age to the government.
   
2.  The American economy will continue to grow and creat jobs just like it as always done.  
   
3.  All citizens who die before 67 years of age will pay more in Social Security taxes than they get back.  Black males have the shortest lifespans so they will be ripped off the most by the Social Security and Medicare ponzi schemes, exactly like it is now.

The country doesn't "pay the price" for children.  The country is blessed and requires  Americans having children.

There is no way that anybody can argue that the country would be better off if all Americans births were aborted.  We need these future taxpayers.  Like I said, it's Economics 101, chapter - PONZI SCHEME.

Whaaaa?

I'm still waiting to hear about a single, confirmed case of an innocent person being executed in this country since capital punishment began again in 1976.

Even if there were some, and there may well be, there are more people (prison guards, etc.) who have died because we refused to executed a murderer, and that person murdered again.  Keeping convicted murderers alive decades with no chance of parole is an invitation to disaster.

Is perhaps the best of all of these 200+ posts,

thank you.

everything that is wrong with this debate.

The contention with regard to the single-cell human being and the fully developed human being is not that they are not different in any respect, but that they are not different in any morally relevant respect.  Avoiding arbitrariness is key here.

As to the matter of most of the examples of ostensibly unenforceable law you cite, I will say only that I see no reason to embrace a false dichotomy according to which I must choose between maintaining all of these statutes without regard to circumstance, nuance or prudence, and simply abolishing the lot of them and enacting some sort of social ethic the philosophical expression of which would have to be JS Mill's stupendously specious harm principle.  In the first place, the diversity of opinion regarding these matters is something that can be hashed out in the normal give and take of republican politics.  In the second place, law does, and always will, possess an educative function, by which what is permitted, what is proscribed, and what is mandated teaches the citizen at least something of the moral bounds of society.  Shall we abolish laws against public drunkenness and drunk driving merely because there  will always be those who dissent from prevailing norms and laws?

It may not be possible to prevent all abortions or all instances of drug use (I leave the sodomy question to the side, as I don't advocate laws proscribing it), but the notion that mere persuasion will - if anything can - suffice to reduce the incidence of these undesirable acts, and that the law can achieve nothing, will ultimately fail for precisely the reason I have intimated: it is predicated upon the assumption of the primacy of individual assent in moral matters, and if our history on such things teaches us anything, it is that leaving such an opening is to concede the case at the outset.  With regard to certain things, at least, civilization must state that morality is what it is, and that the opinion of the individual doesn't count for a hill of beans, that it's not all about him or her, and that he will be held to account.  Historically, the intersection of law and morality has always come down to this, and all of the argumentation to the contrary has amounted to an attempt to square the requirements of civilized existence with an erroneous and inflated conception of the individual, usually by reducing the former to a function of the latter.

I'd be with you, Leon, if the government was legally requiring the abortions.

In my mind, and the minds of many people judging by the numbers you gave, the government executing a citizen is a much bigger deal than a person getting an abortion.  A comparison between the two isn't really valid for drawing any conclusions... any more than a comparison against the 1000th soldier dying in Iraq would be.

They all are very different issues.

In 1800, the total population of the U.S. was about 5 million... today it's almost 300 million.  According to your logic, we should have less than 5 million jobs in the U.S. today, right?

Population growth in this country causes job growth.  More demand for goods and services, and more supply of labor.  It's pretty simple.

There is no comparable situation in which a tiny risk of death allows someone to take another's life.  

In the law, we allow victims to kill perpetrators in self-defense, but only if there's a substantial risk of death/bodily harm to the victim.  

Logically, the same rule should apply to abortions - if there's only a tiny risk of death, you don't get to kill the fetus.

assumes people are employed, this is emphatically not the case for (a) retirees, and (b) most children, each of whom number in the millions.  Those people do not pay FICA taxes.

Every single parent mother working at 7-Eleven is paying FICA tax and that amount is matched by the 7-Eleven franchisee or employer and sent to DC.

See, now you post something accurate that I don't have to argue with.

was meant to be ironic. Is it not ironic that many find the potential execution of a murderer more news worthy than the real execution of millions of babies?

The pro-abortion position, when shorn of its pseudo-scientific and legalistic adornments and expressed among friends rather than adversaries, is generally stated something like this:

1. If you don't like abortions, don't get one.
   
   
2. Don't tell me what I can and can't do with my own body.
   
   
3. If you're male, shut up and leave the room.

Maximos, I would say that this position is an utterly perfect example of asserting the primacy of individual assent in a matter of the utmost moral gravity. Thanks for your clear-mindedness, and passionate expression of same.

just becaus ethere is no biological definition does not mean there is not an ethical definition. In fact, they often reffered to biology in trying to justify the definition of non-whites as subhuman. To this day there are still people who try very hard to counter the 'out of africa' theory for the sole purpose of biologically justifying the claim the europeans are somehow superior.

The sources you cite to understand the text include church fathers and christian exegetes, my soruces include jewish scholars of the mishna and talmus as well as later scholars such as rashi. So even if we do both accept the original text, we do not have the same interpretation of its meaning. It is just as useless then I guess to argue from it as a source as anywhere else.

In the end, this is ultimately why I believe as a matter of law choice should be the answer. We are both arguing from our own worldviews with no agreement on the basic fundamental question of whether a fetus is to be treated as a 'person' or not. Neither of us are about to change our basic worldview, and neither of us represent a tiny minority (I am no longer sure what the plurality view is, but I think it is fair to say both our views will be well represented). With such basic disagreement, I see no compelling reason for the state to favor one over the other.

Some day, it will be a lovely cherrywood ensemble, with a wonderful, deep, rosy finish.

The "fetus" is not merely a stage of human life, just like "embryo" but unlike "infant" and "toddler" and "teenager" are stages of life.  

"Your argument makes about as much to me sense as saying "it's not a human, it's a toddler." "

That's only true given your definition of 'human', as opposed to mine (the first second a newbord breathes outside the mothers womb) which excludes fetuses but includes toddlersa nd thus creates a big difference between the two.

And the circle continues.

You are trying to use equivocation here. I can say its a human fetus in that it is a fetus belonging to a human (it is in one) or within the category of fetuses it can be called a human fetus as opposed to say a monkey fetus; but neither of those uses of the adjective make it a human in the ethical use of the term. If it makes you feel better the monkey fetus isn't a monkey its a fetus, jsut as both monkeys and humans are primates.

most would agree that it's an entity separate and distinct from the pieces of furniture that spawned it.

Living up to your byline again :-).  Even if I never posted again a fragment would be kept alive forever....

Let's play the horse trade game - if you and I were the only two decision makers on this issue, what would you give me to see it your way?  What would be a fair trade?

What absolutely enraged me was the nurse telling the girl that at 5 weeks, her baby was like an egg yolk, and that it wasn't fully developed until 9 weeks.

So, I wonder what she tells girls who come in for an abortion at 9 weeks?  "Don't worry honey, its not really developed until 14 weeks. Right now its just an egg yolk".

humanity as the ability to breathe, but dogs can breathe.

Fetuses can breathe, too. In fact, neonatal care now makes it likely that most babies born after 20 weeks will survive and thrive.

If I follow your logic then, a baby at 20 weeks gestation who is aborted is not human, but a baby born at 20 weeks somehow is?

babies breathe inside the womb?    

Ah, Leon, this is part of why I admire you on this topic.  Personally, I don't have any inclination to even try to converse with people whose opening line is the extortive "What are you willing to give me to keep me from murdering a million innocents every year?"

rather arbitrary assignment of "humanness" based on the fetus' environment deprive it of legal protection?

Leon and I have had our fair rounds of serious conversation on the subject.  I know we're supposed to be serious all the time, but I just can't help myself sometimes.  Apologies if I offended, Sir Nacho.

I didn't define humanity as the ability to breathe. I guess I should have been mroe precise in saying a homo sapien infant breathing outside the mothers womb.

The baby at 20 weeks would only be if it was breathing outside the womb, I am not all that familiar with partial birth abortion, so I don't really know what goes on there. That said, by twenty weeks, though I would still not consider it murder, I would think the ethical consideration make the conditions under which abortion in permissible more stringent.

Zygotes are not a sufficient form for human life.  They cannot exist without the mother's womb.

then we don't have a person until what, the age of four or five? Until then the infant cannot walk or talk or feed itself --- they cannot exist independent of another person. So if that's the criterion then can we kill children up until age five let's say?

Well, given Roe Delenda Est, I know your offering price is probably high - how about universal health coverage?  It would, of course include all the pre and post natal care for our cornucopia of new ones.

Oh, and hey, if this is a little too farcical, by all means I will politely shut the heck up.  Abortion has and will remain a second tier issue for me, so I guess I think about it more like a policy position than is probably acceptable in this neck of the woods.

but its independence as an entity from the mother.

And all these definitions are arbitrary, even the definition of a species at the individual level is arbitrary.

I derive my definition from ym undersatnd of what makes humanity unique such that we assign special ethical treament to it; as such I see that as the ability to exist and think on ones own.

you become a human being?

You are just quibbling about different stages of development.

In the end, this is ultimately why I believe as a matter of law choice should be the answer. We are both arguing from our own worldviews with no agreement on the basic fundamental question of whether a fetus is to be treated as a 'person' or not. Neither of us are about to change our basic worldview, and neither of us represent a tiny minority (I am no longer sure what the plurality view is, but I think it is fair to say both our views will be well represented). With such basic disagreement, I see no compelling reason for the state to favor one over the other.

You are aware, one hopes, that this has never stopped the winning side in a legislative battle from coming out more on top than the other side.

I have to ask: Would it have been licit, in, say, 1880, to make it open season on the Indian tribes? There was wide disagreement about their essential humanity, whether they should be shot on sight, pushed off their lands and starved to death, etc. Indeed, a public opinion poll of the time would not have favored the answer "no." Does the mass of public opinion matter?

my definition specifies its first breath outside the womb; it is not the act of breathing itself.

permitted third trimester abortions, and they started requiring doctors turn in stats for all abortions, the number of third trimester abortions in Kansas alone was about 200 per year, and only about 20 were done for a reason other than the mental health of the mother.

You can look up the Kansas stats (or if you demand I will look them up later, but don't have time right now).

By that calculation there have been 6,400 later term abortions since 1973.

rather than outlawing abortion we should put price controls on them. No one may receive any form of compensation of a market value greater than $5.00 for performing an abortion.

Take the money out of the equation and the the number of people in the 'game' will go way down.

-----------------

Note that it is important not to say "charge" or "be paid" or some such; we need to eliminate 'grants', or 'gifts' or other non-payment forms of compensation.

And I am only providing my view on what the alw should be; as I have no legislative or judicial influence, other than as an intellectual exercise, nobody really cares.

As for the 1880, since I believe my definition of human would not be different then, I would not have advocated open season on the Indians. If you are asking whether the disagreement would have made me view that the law should allow it; I have to confess that I doubt it. But whether the mass of public opinion should matter, in this country it does. We do of course have the consititution to restrain abuse by the majority, and that hasn't always worked, but even with that enough of a majority could unleash whatever it wanted on the law of this country through amendmants.

And I will be your huckleberry.  I'll go Blue Dog and bring you votes from Kaintuck.

You defend a full term abortion? Your argument does.

Your opening argument explained why you favored, ahem, choice. I noted that your argument, extended to a period of time some while ago, would necessarily have left within the enlightened conscience the slaughter of Native Americans, at least in the territories. So: Is that a licit outcome?

If ending the legal right to abortion is something that high up on your list, you ought to push for such horse trades.  You might be surprised how many lukewarm pro-choicers might throw over their votes to someone who promised to bring along something else they thought was more important.

and against the death penalty, than to be anti abortion and for the death penalty.

the one thing I said in my reasoning above was 'no compelling reason', here I would argue that there is a compelling reason. But, as I think about it, my reasoning here may not suffice for someone who equates the fetus with an infant.

In any case I would not consider it murder, but that doesn't mean it is ethical. However, whether a full term abortion were ethical would depend on the circumstances. If it was to protect the mother than certainly, if not I would have to know more details.

In my original post that you said I was wrong I posted:  /Every single parent mother is paying Social Security and Medicare (FICA) tax, MATCHED by their employer.  If parents have children in America these children and their employers will pay FICA tax.  This is one thing we can agree on.

So that was wrong but you do agree with my post:  Every single parent mother working at 7-Eleven is paying FICA tax and that amount is matched by the 7-Eleven franchisee or employer and sent to DC/

You are correct that there are millions of children under the age of 19 that are currently paying FICA tax.  I have been paying all the way back till when I was 14.  There are a lot of people over the age of 65 paying FICA tax too.

Mothers:  Carry that baby to term.  There will be a very good chance your future taxpayer will not be able to weasel out of their FICA taxes and the country needs every taxpayer we can get our hands on.

Of course there is no FICA tax on employer HSA deposits.  It's compensation without taxation.

Vote Republicans because Democrats are Pro-Abortion.  Democrats even support late term abortion, they're evil.

For people who saw Indians as subhumans, either.

See, just so we're clear, therein is the problem. I could put aside the biology and the theology and accept arguendo that we're not sure if we're dealing with a human person. Fine. But I get really leery of deciding that arbitrary groups of humans are nonpersons; historically, it hasn't gone well at all.

Furthermore, to apply your logic and similar strains of logic to different situations that we now see as morally atrocious at best, is to give license to those atrocities in the name of competing public opinion or, worse, to overwhelming public opinion.

Immediately after birth, and for a long time afterwards, the infant is completely dependent on others for its survival, and some are never independent enough to ensure survival. Does a human gradually gain degrees of humanness as it learns to care for itself? Does a human forfeit that designation (and the rights pertaining thereto) by losing the capability of self-care?

Also, despite your insistence to the contrary, your designation is based on environment. Consider a pair of identical twins: one is born by ordinary vaginal birth, but the other remains within the womb. According to your arbitrary rule, one of these is a human child and the other is something else entirely, even though they are identical in development and the only thing they don't share is location ... and protection by law.

on others for survival in some sense. In a very physical sense though fetuses are dependent on the womb. The difference is not self-care versus help but the interphysical connectivity of the fetus versus exposure to the world.

"one is born by ordinary vaginal birth, but the other remains within the womb. According to your arbitrary rule, one of these is a human child and the other is something else entirely, even though they are identical in development and the only thing they don't share is location ... and protection by law."

Take the analogy further, if the woman began to crash before delivering the second twin and the only way to save her was to kill the fetus; I would say it is permissable and not the killing of a person. They are at that moment not identical in development as you suggest, one has developed to the point of delivery and one ahs not, they have both ahd the same amount of time to develop but they have not yet reached the same stage (and in fact we recognize this by pronouncing one as older than the other).

Let's grant that the mother's health argument is valid, but let's also grant that the concern is rare.

That aside, how could you possibly defend abortion at 36 weeks gestation. Your belief is monstrous.

I specifically said that it would be unethical depending on circumstance. Just becuase it isn't murder does not make it right. I'm not defending abortion at 36 weeks, but I would differentiate between abortion at 36 weeks and infantacide. Your inability to comprehend the differnce is monstrous.

"But I get really leery of deciding that arbitrary groups of humans are nonpersons"

You see the fetus as a group of humans, a point that I am particularly arguing. I am providing a specific definition of when a fetus is to be treated as a human, it may be arbitrary but so is any definition of a human.

"Furthermore, to apply your logic and similar strains of logic to different situations that we now see as morally atrocious at best, is to give license to those atrocities in the name of competing public opinion or, worse, to overwhelming public opinion."

I didn't mean to do that, I don't particularly care about majority opinion and that had nothing to do with my reasoning above (in fact I noted that both opinions are probably minority but it was the closely divided nature that I highlighted). Thinking through it more, I do understand how one (not neccesarily you) who sees it as murder worthy of the death penalty would take issue with my view here. At the same time, I thik idolatry is worthy of the death penalty but recognize that I am in no poistion, nor should I be in a society so diverse as the one we exist in, to force that on others. I would say the same is true as regards abortion, it is very much a religious and philosophical debate.

I am going to leave this discussion because it appears that it has run its course.  I'm responding to you because you were the last person I read but this is response to you, Maximos, Blackhedd, and Neil.  

When you start trying to make this a personal experience issue it stops being an interesting discussion.  

FTR, We were all zygotes but that doesn't mean that zygotes are human beings.  

I'm assuming that it won't have much effect because of the reality of modern day America and our medical advances.  

RU-486 ultimately trumps this debate and sooner or later they will have a more advanced drug that will do it with fewer side effects.  

Outlawing it won't change people's desires.

I have been counting the days of my life ever since. How old do you consider yourself? Do you start counting from your date of birth or conception?