Say Anything Blog

When do we become persons with rights and protections under the law? Where do we draw the line? Why? What are we before that point? What about it suddenly makes us persons with rights?

To me the answer to this question is simple.  Life begins at conception.  Which is what all pro-lifers like me say, but let me explain.

Once a child (or fetus or zygote or whatever term you want to use) is conceived (the egg is fertilized, etc.) it begins to grow and doesn’t stop growing until a) killed or b) the life ends of old age.

To put it simply, once that growth has begun at conception there is life, because that growth and development which happens during the 9 months in the womb and continues outside of the womb in the form of growing teeth, learning to walk is life.

Picking some point in that stream of development in the womb after conception and saying “before this there is no life and after this there is life” is as arbitrary and nonsensical as picking a point in the stream of development outside of the womb.  Like in between crawling and walking.

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 have a death certificate, but I can support this one. It hammers home the point that abortion kills.

Ever stop to think that expectant parents say, ”we’re having a baby”, while those who abort say, ”I had an abortion”?

The contrast of those two phrases show the selfishness of abortion.

So if a birth certificate is issued for an aborted child, can you claim a child tax deduction for them?

Birth or death of child. A child who was born or died in 2006 is treated as having lived with you for all of 2006 if your home was the child’s home the entire time he or she was alive in 2006.

Seems like this would create some problems if you could profit from aborted children.

Any recognition of on unborn child as an entity deserving of any form of recognition or protection by the government brings us one step closer to the demise of abortion on demand. It raises some sticky questions. When do we become persons with rights and protections under the law? Where do we draw the line? Why? What are we before that point? What about it suddenly makes us persons with rights?

According to our founders, we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights (DoI).  The blessings of liberty—liberty being one of the endowed rights—are ensured by the constitution, to ouselves and our posterity (Preamble). 

Nothing but the Creator makes a fetus a person with rights.  Government merely acknowledges and protects those rights.

I have noticed at the doctors office they ask how many pregnancies have you had? AND how many children do you have?

Once a child (or fetus or zygote or whatever term you want to use) is conceived (the egg is fertilized, etc.) it begins to grow and doesn’t stop growing until a) killed or b) the life ends of old age.

Many conceptions end without abortion or your a) and b) examples.  And would the term “birth certificate” have to be changed to a “conception certificate”.  One of the points of debate in abortion is when does life begin, are we now challenging when someone is born? or the definition of birth?

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Many conceptions end without abortion or your a) and b) examples.

Early-term miscarriages are death by natural causes.  A much different thing than abortion.

One of the points of debate in abortion is when does life begin,

It begins at conception, obviously.  To say it begins at any point after conception is absurd, as I pointed out in my first 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:

Rob
Samantha’s original question you quoted was:

When do we become persons with rights and protections under the law? Where do we draw the line? Why? What are we before that point? What about it suddenly makes us persons with rights?

Your response made sense to me but you were addressing where ‘life’ begins and not where a *person* begins. I agree, line drawing on the not-a-person/person problem is fraught with opinion and arbitrary. nonetheless, i don’t feel that we should avoid the issue by drawing the line at a point in time when it is not a person, namely right when the ‘life’ begins. perhaps it is a conservative means of avoiding the line drawing issue and making sure that there is no violation of any person’s rights. i still am skeptical that its a person and deserving of rights. ‘life’ deserving rights, as such, leads us down the road to peter singer’s animal eutopia (he wrote ‘animal liberation’. as far as when its a person, its clear its an ambiguous. things that purport to know seem to me to political or belief based rather than based around access to true beliefs. i do think Rob’s move, to be conservative and draw the line very early due to the gray area, is a fair move. nonetheless, i support abortion. i believe the mother has the rights. the fetus is inside her. it is a matter of freedom also. the government should but out in this case. i believe the should be necessarily vague in order to support rights we know are present. the ‘life’/’person’ line being ambiguous, I feel we are safer supporting the rights of the mother who is, without argument, a human. i prefer to be conservative in that manner. it strikes me that drawing the line that early for the ‘person hood’, literally at conception, violates the rights of someone who is clearly a person, the mother, for someone that clearly is not but definitely will be at some unknown point in the near future.

How can there be life and not a person?  Granted, a just-conceived life is not as developed as a just-emerged-from-the-womb life, but that’s simply a matter of growth.

Do we consider infants any less human because they cannot walk and talk?  I wasn’t aware that humanity and “personhood” were things to be awarded a little bit at a time as a life grows.

Seems like you’re either a person or you’re not.  You can’t be conceived but then not be a person until you’ve developed a certain level of brain activity.  Or fingers and toes.  Or have emerged from the womb.  That’s an absurd characterization, and those that make it do so out of moral and political expediency than any real consideration of the facts.

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:

Rob

That’s an absurd characterization, and those that make it do so out of moral and political expediency than any real consideration of the facts.

Bullshit Rob. A two celled thing is not a person. Period. You can play all the semantical games you want, but not only can two or three cells not talk or even crawl, they aren’t a person either. Its a non issue with me. There is no argument that would ever convince me that three cells is a person, politics aside. Its a matter of common sense. As you said, it is obviously ‘life’ but definitely not a person.

Beyond two or three cells, there begins the gray area. before two or three cells, ain’t a person.

Too many abortions are used by the careless as birth control. To interrupt and intentionally kill that fetus, zygote, or whatever we want to call it is wrong. Not only because I say so.  When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, one of the justifications used by the majority to support their misbegotten opinion was the scientific knowledge about the fetus at that time.  Our knowledge about the development of a child in the womb has increased dramatically over the last 34 years.  We are no longer talking about a clump of undifferentiated cells.  Also, technology has advanced tremendously.  The more we can see that cute and tiny baby through the use of better and better ultrasounds, the harder it is to deny that we are ending human life through abortions…

A two celled thing is not a person.

Why not?

And if it’s not a person what is it?

A two celled thing is not a person.

Why not?

I have a hangnail with a leetle bit of flesh on it. Scrape off a two cells in a clump; a thing. It has my DNA. Assume scientists have the technology to make a ‘new me’ with the genetic information in the DNA. Thus there is a ‘potential human’ present in this two celled thing. Is it a person or just a hangnail? Clearly we demand more than two cells and potential person-ness to qualify as a person.

Clearly we demand more than two cells and potential person-ness to qualify as a person.

Why is it ours, adult humans, to demand at what stage of growth is a human life a person? Except to abort the life or use the life for experimentation, I see no other purpose of such taking of a human life.

Is this where we ought to be as a civilized society?

HG
Clearly the point at which it becomes a person is important if you are asking questions about being civil no? Am I somehow being uncivilized, or are you merely name-calling in the stead of a responce that actually has to do with the question I asked?

Then why get an abortion if it isn’t a person?

Clearly the point at which it becomes a person is important if you are asking questions about being civil no?

Sparkie,

Exactly my point.  The only reason to define a person is so that abortion and experimentation is considered civil.

Am I somehow being uncivilized, or are you merely name-calling in the stead of a responce that actually has to do with the question I asked?

I don’t think I called you any names, but my comment does imply that the civility of abortion and experimentation with human life ought to be questioned.

Your question isn’t a very civil one—hang-nail or person? Just ask any woman who has miscarried.  It is a very traumatic experience for many.

I have no qualms ‘aborting’ hangnails.

Your question isn’t a very civil one—hang-nail or person? Just ask any woman who has miscarried.  It is a very traumatic experience for many.

We’re talking about two celled things. Remember? Miscarrying one of those can’t be that much different than a wet ‘coochie fart’. Traumatic.

Most abortions don’t occur at conception. Most usually abortions are performed well into the third trimester. IF you could see the new GE ultrasound images??? You might think twice about abortion…

Sparkie,

I think your question is best answered by the connection an expectant mother has to that “hang-nail”, so that when the life is lost the greif is very real and can be difficult.

It is easy for us guys to call a fetus a “hang-nail”, some more than others.  But the next time someone you know happens to miscarry, I wouldn’t refer to her child as a “hang-nail” in her presence or your likely to find a few under your skin.

Most abortions don’t occur at conception.

Exactly. Not a human then. Later, gray area. Mother = no gray area. Fetus = gray area. Just legal priority = mother due to NO QUESTION of person-ness. Plus, what would all the Jewish doctors do if abortion was illegal?

I am not referring to fetuses as hangnails - I am referring to the hangnail from my example. You are intentionally misunderstanding my posts to try to make your stance seem more viable. That alone detracts from your stance. You also bring in pure emotion in the place of a rational explaination - a mother’s trauma. Another argument ‘crutch’.

I said:

“The only reason to define a person is so that abortion and experimentation is considered civil. ”

Just to follow up:

As proof of this, just think back to when the question of “when does life begin” became a burden to society.  Not until abortion became an issue.  From there the slippery slope has led us to experiment with and harvest human life.

Sparkie, I really want you to go and see the new 3D ultrasound images. Maybe they will give you a pair of sun glasses? I wonder if they have any of those images online somewhere? Go check it out if at all possible. Hangnails don’t have spines and such...BUT babies do.

I am not referring to fetuses as hangnails - I am referring to the hangnail from my example.

Wasn’t this your question?

Is it a person or just a hangnail?

You also bring in pure emotion in the place of a rational explaination - a mother’s trauma.

The only “crutch” is thinking all emotional appeals are without merit.  Were not dealing with just plain matter here, that is the significance of the emotion.

Sparkie, When do you think it becomes a human?

The only “crutch” is thinking all emotional appeals are without merit.

Been hanging out with the environmentalists or what HG?

zsa zsa
you’re the one backing guliani.

hg
tell it to rush. he loves emotional arguments.

I haven’t actually made my mind up yet. I really like Newt too! So, when do you think it becomes a human?

it is always human. that, though, is different than being a human. the hangnail is a human hangnail, but it is not a human.

look. precedent says we can kill babies. therefore, we can kill babies. god, all this baby killing talk is making me really hungry. it must be lunchtime or something. i think its a good day for a veal parmesean or something. mmmmmm.

That is so bad!

Sparkie:

our response made sense to me but you were addressing where ‘life’ begins and not where a *person* begins.

As I see it, a person begins when at the point when that entity has the capability of growing to, or returning to, the capacity of being human.

If you have a person, the victim of a traffic example for example, currently in a vegetative.  Is that a “person” or just a living thingy.  Is it more of a “person” if the doctors give “it” a high probability of recovery from the coma, than if they give it a low probability?

In the case of a zygote, post conception and absent miscarriages, that zygote will basically 100% of the time grow to be a person, unless it is killed before it reaches that stage.

The main question to me ishow is that zygote, in the nine months prior to delivery, morally in a different place than a comatose patient given a 100% chance of recovery within a year by his/her doctors?

Been hanging out with the environmentalists or what HG?

Sparkie,

No, my appeal was more to strong connection between an expectant mother and her unborn child as evidence of something resembling life more than anything else.  I think that evidence should bespeak the significance of what lies within her.

The main question to me ishow is that zygote, in the nine months prior to delivery, morally in a different place than a comatose patient given a 100% chance of recovery within a year by his/her doctors?

That’s a good question, Carrick, and the answer is that there isn’t a moral difference.

To me, life and death issues are all about choice.  I don’t really have a problem with people who choose to let themselves die, but it’s a choice that should be made by the individual.  Unborn children, obviously, can’t make that decision for themselves, nor is there any good reason to kill them given adoption options.

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:

follow up on my last post:

...As opposed to the insignificance the impetus to question when life begins imposes upon the unborn.

Carrick

As I see it, a person begins when at the point when that entity has the capability of growing to, or returning to, the capacity of being human.

I see you as merely drawing out a lingusitic distinction that supports your view. Nothing more. I see the capability of growing to, or returning to, the capacity of being human being as too weak to define a person. My hangnail would have to be included in your definition. human being-ness seems to me to be a pre-requisite for being a person, not merely the capability to have or be a human being. again though, its merely a semantic distinction that supports my view and isn’t right or wrong as such. its all opinion.

Unborn children, obviously, can’t make that decision for themselves, nor is there any good reason to kill them given adoption options.

Perhaps, but how can we then make the move that a two celled thing is an unborn ‘child’? Its not a child yet.

Furthermore, I feel that, until born, the thing, whatever it is, has no autonomy. Negative or positive. It is the mother’s choice whether or not to carry it to term. Until it is separated from her, it is part of her body, and, not being able to survive independent of her body, has no autonomy of its own. It is part of her and, as a result, is under the jurisdiction, if you will, or her autonomy. It is her decision whether or not she will bring life into the world and hers alone. Again, my main motovation here is the clear distinction I have drawn. The mother is clearly a person, the fetus is debatable and therefore should not trump the rights of something we know to be human. Adoption - yea whatever. Its the mother’s choice. If she doesn’t want to bring her child to term, its her choice, regardless of the emotional hardship it brings to any or all parties. The law says so. Stricter laws that strip the mother’s autonomy are not vague enough to be consistent with the conservative ideal of limited government.

From the time of conception this little fetus zygote thing is alive & developing into a even greater mass of cells.

Carrick,

I don’t know if it will help much, but Sparkie seems to be searching for a difference between a fertilized egg’s potential and that of semen or dna for that matter.  Then it would be incumbent upon Sparkie to distinguish between the potential at conception and the potential of that fetus at any given time in the womb.

I have a hangnail with a leetle bit of flesh on it. Scrape off a two cells in a clump; a thing. It has my DNA. Assume scientists have the technology to make a ‘new me’ with the genetic information in the DNA. Thus there is a ‘potential human’ present in this two celled thing. Is it a person or just a hangnail? Clearly we demand more than two cells and potential person-ness to qualify as a person.

Basic biology: the hypothetical two cells in a hangnail will not develop into anything else if left to their own devices, while the two celled entity in the womb can. In fact those two cells in the womb are specifically designed/evolved for the purpose of generating another entity that we at some point choose to recognize as a human person. The hangnail is designed/evolved to be sloughed off.

This does not answer the question as to why the two celled entity in the womb can not be a person.

To kill or not to kill? That is the question.

Sorry all. Law’s on my side. Goddamn democracy. No marraige for gays and abortions for all the ladies that want ‘em.

In other news, I must admit I have worked on a volunteer basis escorting women through the lines of frothing catholics infront of the clinic. I have even been hit by rocks thrown by these people. Clearly they would feel justified throwing rocks at a fetus since they throw them at me. This is who’s on your side. Emotional, lawless idiots.

This is who’s on your side. Emotional, lawless idiots.

Unfortunately, they are on both sides, Sparkie.

Is that your answer to why the two celled entity in the womb is not a person?

Furthermore, I feel that, until born, the thing, whatever it is, has no autonomy

C’mon Sparkie, no emotions allowed.

Just kiddin’.

1973 the Supreme Court made a decision based on false information…

the hypothetical two cells in a hangnail will not develop into anything else if left to their own devices, while the two celled entity in the womb can.

the simple fact the two cells are in womb makes it clear they are not being left to their own devices, in fact they have a biological support system that happens to be another person. it seems the potential person (hangnail) that’s not relying on another autonomous human for support should have even more rights than the one that relies on the other human and, if your views are brought to fruition, can limit the autonomy of the mother.

1973 the Supreme Court made a decision based on false information…

and yet if the decision they made supported your view then you wouldn’t complain that it was false information. hypocrite. this is the thing that gets me about this blog. the things the left gets holy hell for go uninspected when they support your stances. bullshit.
something is not false, btw, just in lieu of the fact that the information surrounding the case is ambiguous. this is opinion here. therefore it may be false it may not be.

it seems the potential person (hangnail) that’s not relying on another autonomous human for support should have even more rights than the one that relies on the other human and, if your views are brought to fruition, can limit the autonomy of the mother.

The difference is if you put that hangnail in a womb it will not grow into what you recognize as a person. 

The mothers autonomy is limited only to the extent that it already is limited in that she cannot harm another human being.

Hypocrit about what? I am not an advocate of killing an inocent human life. I can’t see how that would be hypocritical ? You can call me or us what you will. BUT do you have facts and anything that might make me wrong???

Stricter laws that strip the mother’s autonomy are not vague enough to be consistent with the conservative ideal of limited government.

woops.
i forgot i’m not talking to real conservatives. my bad. slipped my mind you guys are all for expanding spending and religious parenting laws. faux conservatives. the lot of you.

Hypocrit about what?

when the left uses shakey arguments like the ones you are making, or emotional arguments like the ones you are making, they get flayed for it. when those types of arguments align with your ideology though, they are the greatest things! that is hypocrisy.

A little more biology: somatic cells (the hangnail, cheek cells, the cells in your organs, etc.) are different from the reproductive cells (sperm, egg, post-conception undifferentiated cells). The terms meiosis and mitosis come to mind. The hypothetical hangnail cells and the two celled entity in the womb that results from conception can not be equated. They are from completely different biological categories.

In any case it seems as if your main criterion for personhood is independence. Is that correct? If so, how do you define this independence. When is it reached? Is it a permanent state or can we loose it?

In any case it seems as if your main criterion for personhood is independence.

I’m not stupid enough to purport to know when it becomes a human. Hence all my arguments where I point out that there is a gray area and the line drawing is not conclusive. When it is born it definately is. Before then… eh who knows!?!

Sparkie, You are getting off track. Lets hear what you really believe and when that zygote actually becomes a human being? Do you agree that the whatever it is called growing inside a woman can and should be allowed to be aborted up until the actual delivery? That thing should not be protected because it isn’t a human being capable of living on it’s own without assistance???

Do you agree that the whatever it is called growing inside a woman can and should be allowed to be aborted up until the actual delivery?

Yes. Although I would allow only for third trimester abortions only when it is a matter of life and death for the mother… just like Rudy Guliani. Although he’s a bit more of a leftist than me when it comes to gun laws.

Stricter laws that strip the mother’s autonomy are not vague enough to be consistent with the conservative ideal of limited government.

Ok Sparkie, I’ll give it a shot.

Conservative limited government is in no way opposed by protecting unborn life.  Before your statement can have a semblence of truth, it must be proven that the mother’s autonomy is removed by protecting the fetus within her.  If it is argued that her autonomy is stripped because she cannot do what she wants with the fetus within her, then the argument we are having is pointless, for it would be a forgone conclusion that the fetus is not a separate life, but merely a part of the woman’s own body.

Sparkie...What is emotional about the latest technology of human development?

I’m not stupid enough to purport to know when it becomes a human. Hence all my arguments where I point out that there is a gray area and the line drawing is not conclusive. When it is born it definately is. Before then… eh who knows!?!

So then what is your argument against those who say that we should err on the side of caution and extend the rights and protections of personhood from conception onward? Our society and system of laws necessitates that we draw the line somewhere. Were you given the authority to do so, where would you draw it and why?

Do you think it is ok for people to kill peopel?

hg
i have shared my view.
you disagree.
brick wall.

i still think that religiously motovated laws like this are entirely against the conservative ideal of limited government. i am not a social conservative though, and most of the republicans i hang around are not religious. they are more concerned with getting the government to butt the fuck out in general. to respect privacy and autonomy. they are rural and they don’t give a shit as long as they get left the hell alone. naturally i side with these types of republicans more readily than i do with religious ones where the religious considerations trump all other desires for limited government and citizens with autonomy. you rant when muslims attempt to do stuff like that, so lay off in a reciprocity-type consideration.

Samantha

So then what is your argument against those who say that we should err on the side of caution and extend the rights and protections of personhood from conception onward?

IF YOU ARENOT READING MY POSTS, THEN DONT EFFING ASK ME QUESTIONS. Sorry to yell, but i clearly stated the following above:

i believe the should be necessarily vague in order to support rights we know are present. the ‘life’/’person’ line being ambiguous, I feel we are safer supporting the rights of the mother who is, without argument, a human. i prefer to be conservative in that manner. it strikes me that drawing the line that early for the ‘person hood’, literally at conception, violates the rights of someone who is clearly a person, the mother, for someone that clearly is not but definitely will be at some unknown point in the near future.

if you’re not going to consider my points, what are you even doing responding?

What do you think we are the Christian taliban? This has NOTHING to do with Religion!…

Sparkie...There are religious wacko’s out there. BUT my argument is not based on any type of religious argument…

This has NOTHING to do with Religion!

oh. right. i must have spaced that out.

i still think that religiously motovated laws like this are entirely against the conservative ideal of limited government.

What gave you the impression that the law is religiously motivated?

Temper temper. I’m simply curious to know why you think that saying there is a grey area is a reason to not extend the rights of personhood into that grey area. as an extension of that I am curious as to why you think a mother’s rights of personhood prevent us from extending the rights of personhood to the entity in her womb.

oh. right. i must have spaced that out.

Being an atheist myself, I can assure you Sparkie that my feelings about abortion aren’t motivated by abortion.

So why don’t you quit trying to impugn motivations and just debate this subject on the merits?

As for this:

i still think that religiously motovated laws like this are entirely against the conservative ideal of limited government.

I think most conservatives would agree that laws which discourage murder are an acceptable use of government power.

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:

as an extension of that I am curious as to why you think a mother’s rights of personhood prevent us from extending the rights of personhood to the entity in her womb.

samantha
like i said, read my posts. you have no reason to be curious. i have explained that its one or the other. the mother is clearly a person. therefore i believe her rights should be supported. for those of you who think its not a religious stance, you are wrong. samantha are you not an evangelical christian? zsa zsa are you not a christian? is abortion not against christian beliefs? clearly there is a correlation. don’t play dumb with me. your entire ontology is influenced by your exposure to these religions. to say it is not a religious stance is foolish. Rob obviously doesn’t have a religious stance. i just don’t agree with him that a two celled thing is a person.
samantha, if you really want me to pick on your biological disctinction you made with the hangnail, i can just assume use reproductive matierial. unfortunately, that argument has already been beaten to death by Dave_Comet who may predate your time here at SA. i don’t think its with merit to do so and i dont think it bears on the discussion. there is no way to construe a two celled organism as a human. humans are fancier than that.

Rob
Do you agree that extremely broad definitions of murder, gleaned from debates which have no clear answer, when enforced, are against these very same conservative ideals. For example, let’s assume that there is a debate about whether or not the US’s economic policies with Nigeria with regards to oil can be construed as murderous because of the destruction of the ecosystem and whatever else. let’s just assume a debate arises. just because there is a debate, one side of which claims murder, does not mean that enforcing it as being murder is consistent with the conservative ideals. its foolish for me to even have to come up with these counter-factuals because i know you are quick. save me the trouble.

Do you agree that if left alone it would develop into a human being? Sparkie, I am not bring my religion into this argument. Lets leave religion entirely out of it just. IF the mothers life is in danger?? I believe you have to do everything you have to do to save the mothers life. BUT using abortion for birth control is so wrong and is used way too often.

BUT using abortion for birth control is so wrong and is used way too often.

so are you guys against those contrceptives that are surgically installed since they prevent the ‘fertilized’ egg/zygote/thingy from stopping in the uterus instead of stopping it from being fertilized. according to samantha, rob, and zsa zsa… those contrceptives are murder because the thing is already fertilized when it is expelled.

Do you agree that extremely broad definitions of murder, gleaned from debates which have no clear answer, when enforced, are against these very same conservative ideals.

Broad definitions of murder?  To me, murder has one definition: The taking of human life without due process of law.

Which, of course, is what abortion is.

Maybe you should take a moment and ask yourself why you go through all these rhetorical and semantical contortions in order to defend abortion.

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:

samantha are you not an evangelical christian?

Yes I am. How does that make the law referenced in the post religiously motivated? I freely admit that my faith as influenced my views on personhood. I want to know what influences yours.

there is no way to construe a two celled organism as a human. humans are fancier than that.

If it’s not human what is it and when does it become human?

Try completing this sentence: “The two celled entity in the womb is not human/a person because....”

you rant when muslims attempt to do stuff like that, so lay off in a reciprocity-type consideration.

There is a difference Sparkie.  Muslims, the ones we rant against, insist you and I believe as they do or die.  Here in America, you have the freedom to disagree with the philosophical basis of our constitution.  The consideration is not necessarily religious in the sense of conservative limited government as spelled out by our founders.  It is more a philosophical consideration—one we don’t share.

Rob
Just because its your opinion doesn’t mean its not ambiguous or not. You get my point, you are just being dodgey. Abortion is not, of course, murder.
By your logic, whatever the left claims is murderous, as far as economic policies or the like, is therefore murderous. That is the same move you are making. Since it can be argued therefore it is.

No comments from me really. Carry on. If you have no intellectual issues with it then I am not going to convince you. Nonetheless, I still know you see where I’m coming from.

you go through all these rhetorical and semantical contortions

I’m not trying to claim two cells is a person. That’s you. Keep twisting though. Maybe you’ll convince yourself your right at least.

Just because its your opinion doesn’t mean its not ambiguous or not. You get my point, you are just being dodgey.

No, I think I’m being rather clear.

Life begins at conception, thus ending that life at any time after conception is, in fact, murder.  That you’ve decided to define it otherwise for the sake of moral and political expediency is neither here nor there.

No comments from me really. Carry on. If you have no intellectual issues with it then I am not going to convince you.

I think I have provided a quite detailed, quite intellectual, case for my opinion in this matter.  You’ve responded by trying to change the subject to religion and semantical arguments.  Tiresome and childish (and not intellectual), but hardly surprising.

I’m not trying to claim two cells is a person. That’s you.

If those “two cells” are conception aren’t a life, then what are they?  They eat.  They grow.  They develops and become a more complex organism.

Trying to claim that killing this “two cell” life is like trying to claim that you haven’t killed a