Say Anything Blog

While I don’t agree with your stand on abortion I think that your position as outlined is consistent and principled so long as you also exclude saving the life of the mother as a legitimate reason for abortion.

I tend to agree with Jonah Goldberg on this. If you believe that a fetus has rights, it’s impossible to argue that it loses its rights if it was conceived through non-consensual intercourse.

so long as you also exclude saving the life of the mother as a legitimate reason for abortion.

No, I think that’s wrong Mike.  If we’re talking about a situation where a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the child abortion can and should remain a viable choice.

Think about a small hospital Emergency room where there is only one doctor on staff.  If two major traumas come through the door at the same time and the doctor can only work on one at a time, are we going to hold that doctor responsible if the patient he cant work on dies?  No, of course not. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

so long as you also exclude saving the life of the mother as a legitimate reason for abortion.

No, I think that’s wrong Mike.  If we’re talking about a situation where a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the child abortion can and should remain a viable choice.

Think about a small hospital Emergency room where there is only one doctor on staff.  If two major traumas come through the door at the same time and the doctor can only work on one at a time, are we going to hold that doctor responsible if the patient he cant work on dies?  No, of course not. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And when your grandchild is the result of a crack addicts brutally gang raping your daughter who is having severe complications and you know the fetus is malformed and the rapists got off on a technicality…..?

Rob...I agree that the doctor shouldn’t be held responsible but the decision to save the mother rather than the fetus or person A instead of person B is based on considerations other than the sanctity of life. This would seem to open a door that opponents of abortion would prefer remain closed. If the taking of innocent life is wrong then one can not take the life anyone. including  the unborn child, even if it means saving another person’s life...you can’t save a life if it means taking another. You are forced to let both die in order to remain principled.

You are in a hospital and an intense fire starts. At one end of the hospital is a petri dish with 5 blastocyts,

at the other a two tear old child. Which do you rush to save first?

It’s a nice sounding argument (saving the life of the mother), but I’m hard pressed to think of any practical situation where a late-term abortion would be less risky than an emergency c-section.  What medical condition exists where a baby is killing the mother?  The only scenario I can think of is if the mother has a problem not related to the pregnancy, and still there I’m hard pressed to think how the baby would cause the mother’s demise, especially early in the pregnancy. 

Years ago, many mothers died during childbirth. However, with better health care, a better understanding of the needs of a pregnant woman (vitamins, etc) and the availability of c-sections for cases where vaginal delivery is dangerous...giving birth is not a terribly risky venture these days.

Can someone come up a few scenario where the mother is legitimately endangered?  Probably, but this has always been a blanket exception.  I’m curious how many abortions are performed SOLEY for the sake of saving the mother’s life.  My guess is that the number is somewhere in the dozens.

King

(From memory, perhaps someone has a link...) Coulpe of years ago a study from ? West Virginia ? came out that showed every single "late-term abortion" (ie; partial borth) was for the health of the mother.  And when the records were released it showed that all (I think) were listed as "Mental health". 

That tells me (stand by for an OPINION) that the mother wrong, the pregnant woman was "upset" at having to give up her lifestyle, whichever it was she was into..., and raise a child.

RealityBob -

And when your grandchild is the result of a crack addicts brutally gang raping your daughter who is having severe complications and you know the fetus is malformed and the rapists got off on a technicality…..?

This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it?  But, as others reading this will support, I believe the laws could be changed so that the rapist does not get off on a technicality, but instead is forced to pay (but he can’t, probably) for all services to ensure the baby is as healthy as practical and for all adoption services to place the cild with parents who want a baby and for lost time/pain/suffering and more for the victim. 

Since the state would end up eating these costs, at least since the raper/incester would b ein prison a long time (with new laws), I hav easked myself if I am willing to havce my taxes got to this.

My answer is an enthusiastic YES.  If we stop paying for the stuff we disagree with and start paying for different things, at least we wil be paying for things that make sense.

So your answer is to throw money at the problem?

Reality Base (apologies)

I already throw money at every other problem.  I was saying, clearly I thought, that I would rather throw money at a worthwhile cause, one that doesn’t involve killing people (or fetuses, as some insist on calling them).
(And stop throwing money at problems we didn’t cause and that aren’t being cured by the thrown money.  If it ain’t working, change what you’re doing...)

I also didn’t imply that the mother (or her dad) would be bouncing the crack-baby in their parlor.  I said that a family (who can’t have babies and would pay up to $100,000 for a thrid-world baby, also rife with disease and malformations) would be happy to take that baby. 

And they might even be willing to help pay for the mother’s therapy. Some people believe the cash is just something we carry until a good use for it comes up, like saving the life of a child.

And when your grandchild is the result of a crack addicts brutally gang raping your daughter who is having severe complications and you know the fetus is malformed and the rapists got off on a technicality…..?

 So which is the reason to kill the baby?  1) Because it is your grandchild?  2) Because someone was raped?  3) Because the fetus is "malformed"?  4) Because the rapists were let go?

 1) I’ve heard that in certain cultures, killing your own is the "in" thing to do.  Doesn’t seem to smart in the long run though.

2) Surely, while three lefts turns make a right, two wrongs don’t.  Perhaps you should also kill your daughter since she is no longer a virgin as they do in some cultures.

3) What is malformed?  Can it live outside the womb?  Can it have reasonable life?  Do we start aborting for any abnormality?  Who draws the line in this new type of eugenics?

4) Ah, rightous anger misplaced.  Yep, kill the child because the rapists went free.  Makes perfect logical sense.  You can’t punish them by jailing them; so you’ll kill their (possible) child assuming that they care.

No Kbeil, they kill the daughter because she admits to being in the pressence of a non-family male, despite the fact that he raped her....

An innocent life is an innocent life, whether that life was conceived by an act of hatred or love, and while the idea of a mother carrying to term a child conceived when she was raped is abhorrent it pales in comparison to the idea of that child being killed before it has a chance to live.

Ok.  So when I rape your girlfriend and impregnate her, have fun raising my kid. 

MI: Your morality speaks for itself.

Ok.  So when I rape your girlfriend and impregnate her, have fun raising my kid.

I’d rather raise it than kill it. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’d rather raise it than kill it. 

You didn’t tell me you adopted. So, how many kids do you have?

You didn’t tell me you adopted. So, how many kids do you have?

Yes. Because as we all know, one can’t oppose abortion without adopting.

Just like one can’t support the war without fighting in it.

Just like one can’t support "gay marriage" without being gay and wanting to marry a man. Right Dave and modern instances?

Dave, you’re forgetting about all those other people out there just begging to adopt a little black kid, but can’t because so many of them are aborted.  When abortion is made illegal, that’s when these guys will put their money where their mouths are.

Davey, MI was talking about raping my girlfriend.  I probably would adopt in that situation.

But I guess you guys think one must adopt before one can oppose abortion.  Just like I must marry a guy before supporting gay marriage or join the military before supporting the war in Iraq.

Give me a break.

You guys think my life hasn’t been touched by this?  I’ll tell you what, things would be a whole lot easier in my world had I given into my girlfriend’s arguments to have an abortion about five years ago.  But I didn’t.  I convinced her that it was wrong.  That’s made my life hard, probably harder than you’d ever guess, but it isn’t a decision I’d ever take back.

This is because I am a person who takes responsibility for the consequences of my actions.  Unlike you two who are apparently resigned to taking the easy way out by killing a child who can’t fight back and can’t speak up.

Cowards. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Great, grand, wonderful for you.  That’s the choice you made.  You have no right, however, to make that decision for others.  Oh sure, you can sit in sanctimonious judgement all you like.  But that’s as far as it goes. 

I’ve never been careless enough to knock up a girlfriend, so I haven’t had to make that decision.  But if my wife were to get pregnant and it wasn’t planned, we’d probably have the baby, unless it was a threat to her health.  One thing is certain, however, and it’s that no one else will be part of that decision-making process. 

Any other names you want to call us now?  How about a "bring it on" for good measure?

Great, grand, wonderful for you.  That’s the choice you made.  You have no right, however, to make that decision for others.

Amazing that you say that without any sense of irony. You’re talking about killing someone.

Any other names you want to call us now?  How about a "bring it on" for good measure?

You’re the one who got nasty, so just shut up now.

42 Million abortions in the USA since 1973…

You have no right, however, to make that decision for others.  Oh sure, you can sit in sanctimonious judgement all you like.  But that’s as far as it goes.

Its not about making decisions, its about not killing an innocent.  I’m not talking about telling people how to live their lives, I’m talking about stopping people from killing their unborn children.

The crux of our disagreement is over whether or not a child, a conception, is a life worth protecting.  You disagree, but you’re wrong.  It is a life, and no amount of desire to allow people to shirk their responsibilities is going to change that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I doubt that anyone denies that the fetus/unborn child is alive but there is disagreement as to whether that life constitutes a human life with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails.

Pro abortionists can impose and make judgments pretending that an unwanted pregnancy sanctifies their choice. If anyone is being sanctimonious and self righteous? The abortionist’s are the pompus careless decision makers that have no regard for human life other than to destroy it and throw it in the garbage! Angry, self centered, thoughtless, inconsiderate, pathetic, unconcerned for anything or anyone other than themselves! To assume responsibility for their own contraception is way too much to ask. SANCTIMONIOUS??? Having the power to force an innocent life out of the body of the mother is pretty sanctimonious if you ask me?

You guys think my life hasn’t been touched by this?  I’ll tell you what, things would be a whole lot easier in my world had I given into my girlfriend’s arguments to have an abortion about five years ago.  But I didn’t.  I convinced her that it was wrong. 

If you’d been unsuccessful in convincing her that abortion was wrong, would you have handcuffed her to a chair for 8 months until her water broke? Held her at gunpoint until the third trimester?

Just wondering.

This is because I am a person who takes responsibility for the consequences of my actions.  Unlike you two who are apparently resigned to taking the easy way out by killing a child who can’t fight back and can’t speak up.

Cowards.

Yeah, because it’s soooooo brave to slaughter cows just because hamburgers taste better than salads. Being pro-life or pro-choice is a philosophical position; my belief has not harmed anything. But by choosing to be an omnivore, you are acting on that belief, and you are actually killing things "who can’t fight back and speak up". Is there a more clear-cut example of someone "taking the easy way out"? 

No, but you’re "brave" because you want to both force raped women to bear children and slaughter cows just to whet your appetite.

Some f*cking hero.

likwid shoe wrote: 

Yes. Because as we all know, one can’t oppose abortion without adopting.

No, of course you can. It would just make you profoundly hypocritical. Who was it who said "The statement that it is wrong to break people’s legs is still true if proclaimed by one who breaks people’s arms."? Because that’s what you’re doing. You don’t want to take any peronsal responsibility for the ethical claims you make. This does not mak your claims wrong--it just makes you like a PETA member who hunts and eats at Burger King. You’re asking others to make sacrifices that you yourself are unable or unwilling to make.

Dave are you a vegetarian? My next door neighbor became a vegetarian and almost right away she lost 20 pounds! She told me at first she didn’t feel well. She went to a nutritionist and they told her to be careful and get other forms of protein because it can cause kidney damage??? She feels real good now that she has been doing that!

Dave hits the stupid tree, Yeah, because it’s soooooo brave to slaughter cows just because hamburgers taste better than salads.

Abortion does not compare with eating hamburgers (for whatever reason). Try again Einstein.

But by choosing to be an omnivore, you are acting on that belief, and you are actually killing things "who can’t fight back and speak up". Is there a more clear-cut example of someone "taking the easy way out"?

They’re animals and they’re getting eaten. Who the fuck cares.

No, but you’re "brave" because you want to both force raped women to bear children and slaughter cows just to whet your appetite.

Some f*cking hero.

Wow. Just wow.

It would just make you profoundly hypocritical.

No it doesn’t. I can very easily proclaim that killing is wrong and yet not take on everybody who was to be killed. There is no hypocrisy with such a position. Let’s turn your distorted logic back to you: are you devoting your life to these animals you so dearly care about? You’re not? Why you hypocritical little twit!

Who was it who said "The statement that it is wrong to break people’s legs is still true if proclaimed by one who breaks people’s arms."?

I don’t know. But it doesn’t apply.

Because that’s what you’re doing.

No it’s not.

You don’t want to take any peronsal responsibility for the ethical claims you make.

I am taking "peronsal responsibility" for the ethical "claims" I make. What you are asking me to do is to take responsibility for other people’s actions. That, my confused liberal college disciple, is not going to happen. I will only take personal responsibility for my own actions. You got that?

This does not mak your claims wrong--it just makes you like a PETA member who hunts and eats at Burger King.

Does not apply.

You’re asking others to make sacrifices that you yourself are unable or unwilling to make.

I am doing no such thing. I am merely advocating a position of personal responsibility for one’s actions. Something for which you have no clue about and don’t recognize.

I am merely advocating a position of personal responsibility for one’s actions.

So now you want to not only force raped women to carry their children to term, but you want them to raise them as well?

You are a monster. You’re a vile, despicable excuse for a human being.

So now you want to not only force raped women to carry their children to term, but you want them to raise them as well?

You are a monster. You’re a vile, despicable excuse for a human being.

Says the kid who endorses killing babies and who equivocates human lives with animals.

I am glad that you see me as a "monster" and a "vile, despicable excuse for a human being" Dave. You know why? Because you’re ass-backwards.

Oh and Dave - sometimes that personal responsibility thing I was talking about includes things that are beyond one’s control.

Since you didn’t disagree, I must conclude that you do support forcing raped women to care raise their children--eliminating adoption as an option for them. That says miles about your morality.

Great, grand, wonderful for you.  That’s the choice you made.  You have no right, however, to make that decision for others.  Oh sure, you can sit in sanctimonious judgement all you like.  But that’s as far as it goes.

No M.I., Once the CHOICE has been made to have sex, conception introduces and third party to the equation.  A third party that is a Human.    The CHOICE to have the child or not to have the child occurred BEFORE conception!  Society, by increasing numbers, wishes for people to recognize that the decision to not have the child occurs BEFORE the act of sex.  Don’t want a child???  Don’t have sex!

After conception, you have to examine the wishes of the third party.  Since they have no wishes we have to debate what we think they would want.

Dave continues, Since you didn’t disagree, I must conclude that you do support forcing raped women to care raise their children--eliminating adoption as an option for them. That says miles about your morality.

And once again your logic does not follow. 

Adoption is fine. I wouldn’t want people like you raising kids. I’d rather the kid have a chance.

Oh, and infanticide boy - worry about your own morality. You have a ways to go before you are anywhere near the higher level of everybody else that frequents this site.

Captain Obfuscation rides again... 

It would just make you profoundly hypocritical. Who was it who said "The statement that it is wrong to break people’s legs is still true if proclaimed by one who breaks people’s arms."? Because that’s what you’re doing.

You support gay marriage Davey?  Then why don’t you go out and marry a dude to prove it to us all.  Otherwise you’re being profoundly hypocritical.

But hey, attack me and my motives all you want.  That I can’t adopt children right now certainly doesn’t make me wrong about abortion being murder.

 I can’t think of a better argument for how hollow your arguments in favor of abortion are when you are reduced to making points about me, personally, and draw equivalence between humans and animals.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The crux of our disagreement is over whether or not a child, a conception, is a life worth protecting.  You disagree, but you’re wrong.

Your interest in "protection" ends at another person’s uterus.  We can debate the issue of life and death until the cows come home, but the fact remains that no matter how strongly we believe what we believe, every individual is going to make that determination on their own.

You support gay marriage Davey?  Then why don’t you go out and marry a dude to prove it to us all.

Because I disagree with the institution of marriage. Because, even if I did, having a heterosexual enter a same-sex marriage would do more harm than good for the cause.

Your refusal to adopt children is directly relatd to abortion in this country. If pregnant women knew that their children would be adopted by upstanding citizens, they would be more likely to carry them to term. Since you don’t believe that abstinence (or a lack of procreation) is immoral, why have children? Why not adopt? The more people who choose to adopt, the more adoption centers will be trusted. The more people trust adoption centers, the more pregnant women who will give their fetuses up for adoption, rather than abortion.

Your refusal to adopt children is directly relatd to abortion in this country. If pregnant women knew that their children would be adopted by upstanding citizens, they would be more likely to carry them to term.

So abortion is our fault then.

Wow...so far removed from responsibility.

Pass that buck,..pass it.

42 million abortions in the USA since 1973 peaks my interest and should peak the interest of others...I could care less about anyone elses utterus. It is that life inside it that millions of women feel so free to destroy that concerns me??? When contraception is so easily available. It isn’t the summer of 42. It is 2006 and anyone can go into a store and buy something to prevent a pregnancy??? If that is not a life growing inside a woman??? Then tell me? Why bother getting an abortion?

Your refusal to adopt children is directly relatd to abortion in this country. If pregnant women knew that their children would be adopted by upstanding citizens, they would be more likely to carry them to term.

So abortion is our fault then.

http://www.educate.com/homepage.cfm?CFID=14334709&CFTOKEN=39524469

It can only help. Reading comprehension is a valuable tool in today’s workplace, and I’d hate to see you miss out. Come on; give it a shot. Remember: When you love to learn, you’ll learn!

but the fact remains that no matter how strongly we believe what we believe, every individual is going to make that determination on their own.

An individual is not allowed to make a determination when it involves killing another human being.  The constitution requires due process of law before a life can be taken.  That trumps a woman’s "individual rights."  That is just how it is.

Davey, why don’t you farm?  If you threw yourself into the agriculture industry there would be more food for the starving people in the world?  Since you believe in reducing the overall suffering in the world why don’t you farm so that fewer people will starve?

What’s that?  You don’t want to farm?  Don’t feel it is the right life choice for you?  Ok. I’m fine with that.  Unlike you, I don’t hold people to absurd standards so I won’t accuse you of hating the hungry.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So a fetus is a citizen of the U.S., covered by the constitution?  Does a pregnant couple take a deduction for a dependant on their taxes for their fetus?  Where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to the unborn?

Where in the Constitution does it say that it applies to the unborn?

Where does it say that it doesn’t?

Here’s what the Constitution says:

nor shall any person be...deprived of life...without due process of law;

What are we doing when we abort an unborn child but depriving them of life?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So when they wrote the USC, they were thinking of both born and unborn when using the word "person"?  On what evidence is this conclusion based? 

I’m fairly certain that the founders probably thought that they wouldn’t need to tell people that killing their unborn children is wrong.

As for the definition of what a "person" is, that’s the rub isn’t it?  I feel that an embryo which has implanted in the mother’s womb is a person and thus should be afforded the protection of law.  I believe that because, barring natural calamity, that implanted embryo will become a human being.  That is undeniable.

You, however, don’t believe the implanted embryo is a person.  You believe this because you want to excuse away your belief that women somehow have a right to "choose" whether or not they want to keep the child they created when they had sex.  Believing that was is in the mother’s womb is nothing but a "clump of cells" allows you to do that, because if you recognized it as a human your beliefs are tantamount to murder.

The problem for you is that what you believe doesn’t change the fact that what is in that mother’s womb will grow into a person and that when you kill it you deprive that person of its life. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m fairly certain that the founders probably thought that they wouldn’t need to tell people that killing their unborn children is wrong.

So, you’re interpreting the Constitution to apply to the unborn, as it is not explicitly stated.  

I’m fairly certain that the founders probably thought that every person has a right to privacy.  I interpret the Constitution as including this right, under which a right to abortion falls.

So, we interpret the USC differently.

I feel that an embryo which has implanted in the mother’s womb is a person and thus should be afforded the protection of law.

Feeling doesn’t make it so.  I feel that eventual personhood does not grant citizenship to an embryo.  Since it’s impossible to empirically determine when personhood is imbued, every individual needs to make that determination on their own.

I’m fairly certain that the founders probably thought that every person has a right to privacy.  I interpret the Constitution as including this right, under which a right to abortion falls.

MI, I agree that the Constitution provides provisions for privacy.  I disagree that privacy provisions extend to making it legal for a mother to kill her unborn child.  That just doesn’t make any sense, no matter how you try to twist and contort.

Since it’s impossible to empirically determine when personhood is imbued, every individual needs to make that determination on their own.

Or, we could recognize that when an embryo implants in the womb that it will become a person and therefore if we kill it after it implants we are denying a future person (whose existence is basically inevitable once the implantation occurs) their life.

These are facts, MI, not beliefs. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m fairly certain that the founders probably thought that they wouldn’t need to tell people that killing their unborn children is wrong.

I doubt that. Abortion was very common and sometimes even acceptable in colonial and early American times. Many of our founding fathers didn’t believe blacks were ‘people’, so I doubt they had much consideration for the unborn.

As for the definition of what a "person" is, that’s the rub isn’t it?  I feel that an embryo which has implanted in the mother’s womb is a person and thus should be afforded the protection of law.

Many would argue that life starts before implantaion, at conception. Why is your definition of what a person is the right one? There is no clear-cut definition of when an embryo, zygote, or fetus has a right to life, if it has any right at all. Before we can make abortion illegal, society as a whole must first determine this.

I doubt that. Abortion was very common and sometimes even acceptable in colonial and early American times. Many of our founding fathers didn’t believe blacks were ‘people’, so I doubt they had much consideration for the unborn.

Where and when was abortion common and/or acceptable in colonial or early America?  This is the first I’ve heard of anything remotely like that.  And I’m going to discout instances where abortion was suitable for blacks as they were being treated as less than humans.

Many would argue that life starts before implantaion, at conception. Why is your definition of what a person is the right one?

Because an embryo that has not implanted is not growing.  It is not receiving nutrients and it could be washed from the woman’s body without implanting at all.  I do not believe that an "abortion" occurs when sperm fails to fertilize the egg.  I don’t not believe an "abortion" occurs if the embryo fails to implant.  I do believe one occurs if we cause an implanted and growing embryo to "un-implant" (for lack of a better term) or otherwise die.

That is my reasoning. 

There is no clear-cut definition of when an embryo, zygote, or fetus has a right to life, if it has any right at all. Before we can make abortion illegal, society as a whole must first determine this.

Which I absolutely think we should, because this current gray area where everybody is being allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes a life is unacceptable.  Overturning Roe is the first step in that process.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Andrews: I gotta go with DNA on this one, but also think that, in order to make abortion legal, much less a "right" we need to make a legal determination about when the human being begins to exist.

Which I absolutely think we should, because this current gray area where everybody is being allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes a life is unacceptable. 

I rather think it’s preferable, and unavoidable.  Even if consensus can be reached now, that consensus is going to change as time goes on.  It’s going to be something that people determine for themselves.

I agree, Robert.  I think the reason the "pro-choice" crowd wants to avoid this definition is that there is no other way to logically define when a life begins other than at the beginning.

They want to avoid the twisted reasoning that would be needed to set the life beginning at something like 3 or 4 months into a pregnancy, so they choose not to define it at all.  Which is total crap. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Through voting.  It’s the American way.

MI’s most recent comment is a case-in-point for my last comment.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Like I’ve said before, at some point we’ll probably get to the compromise of the shift from embryo to fetus.  But that’s a conscious decision, not an immutable fact, as you claim.  Over the course of generations, that compromise point is subject to change.

Because an embryo that has not implanted is not growing.  It is not receiving nutrients and it could be washed from the woman’s body without implanting at all.  I do not believe that an "abortion" occurs when sperm fails to fertilize the egg.  I don’t not believe an "abortion" occurs if the embryo fails to implant.  I do believe one occurs if we cause an implanted and growing embryo to "un-implant" (for lack of a better term) or otherwise die.

That is my reasoning. 

Once conception has occured, it is an independent human life, whether implantation has occured yet or not. Implantation is just one step in a long serious of equally important developmental stages. You are wrong that the zygote is not growing before implantation. It actually doubles in cells and size many times over. Just because it may be more likely for implantation to fail to occur then any other stage, does not really mean anything.

If you purposely disrupt implantation, it is still an abortion. You are interfereing in one of many crucial developmental stages. If you were to inhibit implantation in your girlfriend, it would be no different than MI’s wife having an abortion in the 8th week of pregnancy for example.

You, just like MI, have determined where a right to life begins, and while they might be very far apart on the developmental timeline, neither of those beliefs grant a right to life when life begins. Why is your belief more superior? Its not based on fact but rather opinion. You’re an advocate of limited pro-choice, but its still pro-choice.

If you want to see a good timeline of development, check out this site: http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

Do you have a blog andrew?

No, why?

Davey, why don’t you farm?

I’m reasonably certain I can earn more money in a different field.

You do a good job of staying above the fray, and I’m looking for good blogs.

Dave spits, It can only help. Reading comprehension is a valuable tool in today’s workplace, and I’d hate to see you miss out. Come on; give it a shot. Remember: When you love to learn, you’ll learn!

Whatever. We all know what you were trying to say. Do you deny it now?

Do you deny it now?

No. I still accept as true what I wrote:

Your refusal to adopt children is directly relatd to abortion in this country. If pregnant women knew that their children would be adopted by upstanding citizens, they would be more likely to carry them to term. Since you don’t believe that abstinence (or a lack of procreation) is immoral, why have children? Why not adopt? The more people who choose to adopt, the more adoption centers will be trusted. The more people trust adoption centers, the more pregnant women who will give their fetuses up for adoption, rather than abortion.

I do not accept as true your lame-ass, feeble-minded attempt of an interpretation of it.

So, Dave, more adoption will prevent women from exercising their "right to abortion"?  That is like saying abortion is the antidote to children.  Oh my!  It’s not a child, it’s a choice.

Dave spits out, I do not accept as true your lame-ass, feeble-minded attempt of an interpretation of it.

So quick with the insults any more infanticide boy. Wonder why. You’ll have to excuse this "feeble-minded" guy for thinking that your statement of, "Your refusal to adopt children is directly relatd to abortion in this country." was a sly attempt at putting the blame of abortion on those who disagree with the practice. You’re much too good for that kind of tactic. Hah!

In any regard, why do you believe that we have to adopt in order to oppose abortion? What kind of lame-ass feeble-minded attempt of an argument is that? Such tactics show us the weakness of your position.

So, Dave, more adoption will prevent women from exercising their "right to abortion"?  That is like saying abortion is the antidote to children. 

Does not compute. Does not compute.

So quick with the insults any more infanticide boy.

http://www.educate.com/homepage.cfm?CFID=14334709&CFTOKEN=39524469

Please, likwidshoe. I beg of you. This is getting sad.

I figured that would make Dave’s head explode.  His position is self-contradictory.

Dave continues, Please, likwidshoe. I beg of you. This is getting sad.

Insult me Dave. It is all you have left.

Dave: Let me ‘splain it to you.  The vast majority of abortions are performed for birth control purposes.  Abortion is the "final solution" to the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior.  Those women don’t want to go through the process of having a child, so the state of the adoption situation is irrelevant.  They want to have sex, but don’t want to have children.  Nice, eh?

They want to have sex, but don’t want to have children.  Nice, eh?

Perfect!  Where were these chicks when I was in high school?

MI: Good idea.  Let’s pitch society to the high school boy level. 

Dave...The careless irresponsiblity of why 42 million and counting abortions have been performed is one of the biggest reasons Abortion is so appauling! 42 Million in the USA alone??? Many of those women have had multiple abortions. Why? Because they are careless and not interested in the responsiblity of taking precautions against preventing a pregnancy. Abortion is their birth control of choice. Anyone can walk into a grocery store and purchase contraception. BUT, they don’t. Once a women is pregnant that decision she is making is not only about herself. It is about herself and another life that is developing inside her. Pro life advocates want protection for that little entity growing inside a woman. The lack of responsibility for taking precautions is what concerns me most. I have had many friends who have no regard for that responsibility. It is disgraceful and wrong to be that self absorbed! Many of the women I know don’t want to take the pill because they don’t have a steady boy friend and yet they have casual sex often and multiple partners??? All the more reason to use contraception??? (I know Richard is probably enjoying me talk about this?)

Zsa Zsa,  Thanks for the personal beliefs and information on your friends.  The words personal responsibility have been sadly lacking here in the USA for about the last 45 years.  Maybe with the new make up of the US Supreme Court that more accurately reflects the beliefs of a majority of America we can now let each state determine the penalties for killing a baby.

The lack of responsibility for taking precautions is what concerns me most. I have had many friends who have no regard for that responsibility. It is disgraceful and wrong to be that self absorbed!

Exactly why abortion must be legal.  Those friends you describe are the last people I want out there reproducing.

Chief, MI… I understand both sides of the issue. I just don’t understand why 42 MIllion abortions in the USA have had to be performed, and for the most part because of lack of responsibility??? Especially when contraception is so easy to get? 42 Million is an awful lot of abortions???

Agreed.  Making the day-after pill available without prescription would help.

Or an increase in taking responsibility for one’s actions.  That might improve society overall.  Selling pills, on the other hand, is a lot easier.

Taking responsibility for our actions would be nice. BUT, if we take away the pills? How would we be able to continue having frivolous law suits against drug manufactures? Robert108 what are you thinking? What fun would it be if we all were made to take responsibility for our actions? Sex might not be as fun if we took away the Russian Roulette game?…

Oh, come now, Zsa-Zsa (no pun intended).  There is as yet no law that holds your side criminally liable for lying about taking the pills, now is there?  I’m sure you didn’t intend to overlook that portion of the responsiblity equation.

Once conception has occured, it is an independent human life, whether implantation has occured yet or not. Implantation is just one step in a long serious of equally important developmental stages. You are wrong that the zygote is not growing before implantation. It actually doubles in cells and size many times over. Just because it may be more likely for implantation to fail to occur then any other stage, does not really mean anything.

Ok, I thought I had this down about two years back when I first had an in-depth discussion about abortion.  This may cause me to change my position.

Is what you’re saying that conception occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg?  My reasoning behind my previous stance was that you didn’t have a life until the fertilized egg implanted and started growing.  Sort of like how you don’t have a plant until you put the seed in the ground and it starts growing.  Am I all wet there?

If I am chalk it up to the fact that I ain’t a doctor.  I thought I had a good working knowledge of this stuff from what I’ve read in the past, but maybe I’m all wrong. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Bat: I think ZZ was being ironic.  Good irony, Z!

Rob: I think the question of fertilization vs implantation is the only legitimate question in this area.  DNA is established at fertilization, but continuation of life is only possible after implantation.  I don’t think there is a parallel here between the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom, though.  That would be a real slippery slope.

I’m not saying there is equivalence between plants and humans, just using the seed example to illustrate where I’m coming from.

Regardless, I don’t think my position makes me pro-choice, at least not wittingly, because I don’t believe there is a choice when it comes to a life.

Does a life exist prior to implantation?  Sounds like I need to do some more thinking on that one.   Does it exist at the time of implantation and after?  You betcha, which is why a position like MI’s is so absurd.  How can you oppose a late-term abortion (which I believe MI does if I’m not mistaken) but not a first trimester abortion?  What’s the difference, really? 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Bat one...I think we are on the same side. I was just being a smart aleck. I think that the morning after pill will cause all kinds of legal red tape as soon as a few people claim complications from using it. I am definately on the side for life!… The thing that confuses me is that people don’t take responsibility for their actions. Abortion does not make them liable for that responsibility. It is really sad!

Rob: I didn’t say "equivalence";  I believe I used the term "parallel".  I don’t consider you pro-abortion(pro-choice), either.  The embryo is obviously alive from the moment of conception, so it’s a judgment call, IMO.  From the moment of fertilization until death, many natural events can cause death of the individual.  The choice of medical abortion is not one of them.  That is the essence of my objection to the process.  Doing it on purpose is not the same thing as having it happen naturally at any point in the process. 

Zsa-Zsa,

Of course we are.  I have a very simple (and perhaps simplistic) view of this.  If it grows, its alive.  If its alive, its human.  If you kill it, you will answer for doing so.

I simply couldn’t resist the temptation to be impish.  Believe me, I have paid for the privilege and have the cancelled checks to prove it. 

Bat one...I couldn’t agree with you more.

Rob -

I’d have to push you towards the sperm+egg = life, with or without implantation. 

Imagine the implanted "zygote", whatever that is..., cooking along for nine months, everyone (nearly everyone!) agrees that the bulge inside Mom is a baby.  And when born, it is entitled to all the trappings of human-dom…

But if it were to be born in a pool, and held under, it would die.  It didn’t get everything it needed to live, namely air.  Everyone would be mortified that someone would kill a baby like that.  </