To my knowledge, there has never been one. Given the 'fire's stellar reputation as a forum where reason and respect for opposing viewpoints is the prevalent atmosphere, perhaps it is our duty to have a debate on this contentious issue.

According to our rules requiring full disclosure, I admit to being on the "pro-life" side of the argument, but with reservations.

Life begins at conception, since there is no other place to draw the line between existence and non-existence. So.... an abortion ends a life.

Conversely, contraceptives prevent the possibility of a life, but don't end one. Use of the "morning after pill" might end a life, but it is not a certainty, so I see no difference between it and a condom.

So.... the question comes down to WHO has the authority to end a life?

Homicides are committed daily. By definition, it is the taking of one person's life by another person.

Even among those which are not ruled justifiable, we make distinctions. Manslaughter to Capital murder, with several possibilities in between.

But.. "my side" allows no distinctions. Abortion is murder, period.

I admit to being troubled by that.

And you................ ?

I agree, abortion is murder. However is murder ever justified? We murdered someone in Texas last night and I don't feel one bit bad about that murder.

Is saving a mother's life by aborting a life anything but choosing one murder over another except in this case only one side can vote?

Many folks find this an easy subject to decide but I do not. I am not sure there is a 100% right answer.

BTW, My SIL was raped. The result of that rape, my nephew, is one of the finest young men I know and is just starting his medical practice to help folks in pain and suffering.

its 2014, were letting bad guys out of jail after 40 years on old "DNA"....I guy mite hope that the same science in this year and age would call it a life.....

Its the most simple of debates. Either its murder or it isnt. All this stuff about coat hanger abortions, unwanted children, over population etc doesnt really matter intil you have the fundamental debate. Is it a thing, or is it a child; that's all that matters. And possibly a deliniation of when its a thing and when its a child. Until you settle that, nothing really matters.

You ask for a reasonable debate, but start by calling those with opposing views "Murders"??

This is not how reasoned debate begins.

Nobody ever asked , "Is it a child?" until they wanted to kill it.

" Either its murder or it isnt."

Not exactly.

If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is homicide, but not necessarily murder.

T thought I made that clear, as far as my stance.

You have to touch all the bases to score a run, even if you knock the ball over the fence.

I like discussions where the originator states clearly his position.

BS.

No, Amigo. THAT is NOT what I said.

If you want to argue that life does NOT begin at conception, then you wouldn't see abortion as homicide.

But then, you have to demonstrate where life DOES begin.

The Lord said "thou shalt not commit murder", Scott. HE did not say 'Though shalt not Kill', otherwise HE would not have directed the Battle of Jericho and others where HE instructed that ALL the enemy be killed (all, includes Children). He also commanded the elders of the church hunt down and kill a murderer. So, I don't think HE considers Texas's executioners to be murderers. I also don't think HE considers our US Army sniper team to be murderers or those who fought and killed the enemy in Desert Storm, WW1 or WW2.

If He had said we can't kill, deer hunting or using antibiotics would be a sin.

"But.. "my side" allows no distinctions. Abortion is murder, period.

I admit to being troubled by that."

Maybe you missed the quotation marks around "my side"?

Maybe you didn't read my next sentence?

Or maybe you are not REALLY responding.

Are you new here?



This will start polite enough, but it won't last. It's an emotional issue and most who post on this thread are entrenched in their position and not going to be swayed.

Not saying there's a thing wrong with that, it's just the way it is.

I'll bet a Pepsi this is a mess by tomorrow. Enjoy.

Shouldn't we be debating "when does life begin"?

Here are your options:

1. Conception

2. The "quickening", aka ensoulment or when conscious awareness begins.

3. Birth

If we follow historical legal traditions then the option 2 is the correct answer.

It seems to me that ANYONE should conclude that an abortion at 2 months is not exactly the same as one at 8 months, but a lot of folks don't.

infanticide is just plain wrong. Period. Life begins at conception.

Lot's of folks DO see the differnce.

To no one in particular-
1) If you don't think life begins at conception, try talking the baby or the mother out of the birth. Let me know how that works out for ya.

2) Don't kill babies, a price will be paid for that life.

Here we go again:

"For or against abortion?" 9-4-2012 (39 pages)

"Abortion questions" 3-8-2011 (31 pages)

"Interesting Argument, (Abortion)". 4-28-2011 (11 pages)

"Republicans and Abortion Rights?" 2-3-2010 (20 pages) started by curdog4570

"How can the abortion people ignore..." 10-14-2008 (5 pages)

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

IMO, the killing of innocent, helpless, defenseless unborn children is so hideously and insanely wrong.

And a lot of folks - at least two posters on this thread - insist there is no difference.

For them, there is no room for debate.

"A rational Debate on Abortion"

RUFKM??

Is this supposed to be a joke?

How do you decide when 2. happens? You can't ask a child if he is aware until he can speak. You can't measure the "ensoulment" if that's even a word. You could say that reaction to external stimuli would be an indication of awareness and that happens very early in development. Way too arbitrary IMHO.

We can talk murder or homicide all you want but I have no intention of killing a child no matter what your definition or reason. Killing to me means that you end a life. No matter what you call that child, if you can end it, it is alive. If you end a child's or fetus's life, that otherwise would come to full term, you have killed that child, no matter what you choose to call it. There may be several reasons why someone would think it is a better option than bringing that life into the world, but it is what it is, killing a child, no matter how bad that sounds. Lots easier to kill a fetus.

I wouldn't touch this discussion with a 3.048 meter pole. There will not be a single winner.

My personal beliefs - moral and social - are strong, but not necessarily germane to the discussion as framed.

Those who say they are "pro-choice" have a difficult row to hoe, firstly because without the option of legal abortion, there is no "choice" to kill the baby - legally. Consequently, by default, pro-choice is a supposedly more acceptable euphemism for pro-abortion. It would be interesting to see an argument to the contrary by a person who claims to be pro-choice but not in support of chosen abortion upon request.

It also is a difficult position for pro-abortion folks because the taking of a life is involved - even given the apparently unwinnable arguments about exactly when the baby becomes a person - abortion always involves the ending of a life. The "choice" to end a life must be harrowing to those having basic moral foundations.

Having watched this situation unfold over the past 40+ years, knowing that millions of babies have been killed in the process, and having witnessed the personal and social toll wrought by wholesale abortion, I beleive there to be strong evidence that the ruling to legalize abortion on demand has been a huge factor in the ongoing and serious unraveling of the moral and ethical fabric of this society.

If it means another 0 than I'm PRO CHOICE! Otherwise I'm Pro LIfe!

"There may be several reasons why...... "

But we can't discuss the validity of the reasons, can we?

Almost all of us are never going to have an abortion, or perform an abortion.

But the zealots on both sides allow no shades of gray.

We recognize the fact that not all homicides are murder, both in our minds and in our laws, but in the case of abortions, either they ALL are murder, or NONE are homicides, according to the zealots who rule the debate.

Cur, where you going with this?

The Demonrat Party slaughters 53 million innocent unborn children.

The Demonrat Party advocates for amnesty for 30 million illegals.

Is this party of communists,fascist homosexuals and every hate-America-type ever on the right side of any issue?

Tyranny is good for funeral homes.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html



"Ensoulment"

I reckon I'll go wherever the thread leads. I thought I stated my personal stance in my OP. If a middle ground were allowed, I expect I'd be somewhere there.

For almost all of us, the question involves a choice we will never have to make in our own lives.

And yet we can't discuss it rationally.

If I was "going anywhere with this", I reckon that's my destination.

Let all those that think it is not murder or think abortion is OK... Make them take part in a late term abortion where the child is birthed and then the back of the spinal cord is cut to kill the baby.. make them look at that child and ask them if it is still OK

You are right if you think I can not have a rational debate on a topic where you are killing a child...

Hmmm, cherry picked biblical passages to support your position?

You sir, must be an orator of the highest quality.


Laffin'

To quote Tupac "....ladies that make the babies
And since a man can't make one, He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one"

I disagree. If you are able to argue about this subject you are a winner. If you get aborted you definitely are NOT a winner...your dead.

Bullshitt.

The Roe v. Wade decision was based upon a lie.

All right thinking folks condemn that without having to actually see it.

But if my 14 YO daughter or grand daughter were gang raped, I don't like the idea of her being reminded of it on a daily basis while being forced to carry the child to term.

And you would have your child carry it to term?

The best legal way i know of, to keep the population numbers of Ghetto Hood Rats under control

There has never been any responsible legislation,that would restrict abortions, which would not allowed an exception in the case of rape,incest,or health of the mother.

Pulling the gang rape card is weak.

Interesting retort. Perhaps you would care to articulate yourself beyond the level of a toddler?

If you're too stupid to understand my statement,then you're too stupid to understand the explanation.

Typical wanna-be "man-ho" pat answer. Very thoughtful and introspective.

You have to laugh at this jackass,Georgie in SuckDickville,who uses the rhetoric of an ignorant dead rapper,in a piteous attempt to illustrate his point.

Personally, I don't think a man should have any legal or ethical say-so in the decision making process for an abortion.


Culturally, abortion is a matter of opinion. Sodomy of young boys is grossly frowned upon in the USA, however it is culturally practiced and accepted elsewhere.
Bribery, DUI, speeding, prostitution, drug use, etc are all viewed in a similar dichotomy.

Who are you to say what is right or wrong?

From a religious perspective, 'at the end of the day' you have to realize that your beliefs are no more or less absolute than your neighbor, or a muslim, or a budist, or a practicing member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You might find an arbitrary justification in archaic translations, however it would be for your own mental masturbation.


It is a tough question that will never be concretely answered by mortal men. Deal with it

Oh my, did I strike a nerve?

If you read the Bible it defines murder as the shedding of innocent blood. Given a lawyer's inclination to pick at nits you could get bogged down in semantics until the Lord's return.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Who do you think decided the Roe v. Wade decision?

"Pulling the gang rape card is weak."

In a DEBATE, it's a perfectly good card, maybe the best one, in response to the "partial birth abortion" card.

Without intending to, you have joined me in the theoretical middle ground of the issue.

The zealots on the "right to life" side see this exception as a slippery slope.

By virtue of having been born in 1941, I remember well when the legislation you describe was settled law, and folks were divided on other issues, but not this one.

That is about as gay a post as I've ever have read here.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha.

Deceased and prolific are not mutually exclusive. Simply because a reference is atypical to your ethnocentric world views doesn't discount any wisdom you gloss over.

Tisk, Tisk. Ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. Good day 'sir'.

Put the kid up for adoption. Problem solved

Dead is a state that suits this former ass-hole.Prolific ? Prolific at what, nursery school rhymes ? Wisdom ? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You have no idea in what world I live,but please keep posting.Your ideas about wisdom are laughable.

I'm not worried about going to Hell for other people killing thier own kids.

We are in full agreement.

Within Chapter Two of the Didache there is this admonition:

"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten."

That's good enough for me.

kd

The second gay post in the same thread.LMAO.

This question, in and of itself, is flawed.

Life BEGAN at some point in the past. At what point that happened, and how, is a debate all unto its own.

At conception, two living cells combine to CONTINUE life.

To paraphrase:

I've fought countless times, yet I've never met an adversary who could offer me what we Spartans call "A Beautiful Death." A worthy orator I can only hope, with all the world's warriors gathered against us, there might be one down there who's up to the task

I have said good day 'sir'

I don't view a cherry picked, countlessly translated, ancient soundbite to have any validity in an argument. Doubly so in a modern context.

"Put the kid up for adoption. Problem solved"

The 14 YO CHILD might not like your proposed "solution".

Nor am I.

But I don't want them doing it with tax dollars since so many tax payers are against it on moral or religious grounds.

I remember that i liked intimacy...i remember i didnt like condoms.
Beings how that played out, i feel that i would have had no right to have any say in what transpired, be it a single or married man..

Curdog, a ration discussion of the subject usually begins with discussing the distinction between "life" and "potential life".

According to polls, most Americans are "prochoice", but most Americans also oppose late term abortions. This seems to indicate the average American has a more nuanced view then the zealots on either side.

In addition, adoption may not be as easy a solution as many zealots believe. Since 1973, it's estimated there were 56 million abortions. In order to accommodate all those children through means of adoption, half of all American household would of had to adopt one additional child.

Do you really believe half of prolife absolutist are willing to adopt, and how many of there are willing to adopt the child from a black mother?

"Curdog, a ration discussion of the subject usually begins with discussing the distinction between "life" and "potential life"."

OK.............. you go first.

[actually, it's been touched on the thread]

Read my firs post. My family faced that. The result is wonderful.


Now as to when life begins, my personal beliefs are at conception. If life begins at birth then why can someone be charged with two counts of murder for killing a woman an her unborn child?

Ironbender won.
Surprise? No.

Everyone that is FOR abortion has already been born.
Count me as being pro-choice..... I choose life.

"Now as to when life begins, my personal beliefs are at conception. If life begins at birth then why can someone be charged with two counts of murder for killing a woman an her unborn child?"

You didn't arrive at your personal belief because of what the law is, did you?

Im not sure I understand conception or the morning after pill totally... but what I THINK it is, the conception has occured, but it cannot allow the fertilized egg to stick to the wall or some such, so since it can't get a "home" it dies.

I'm one on this topic that basically has his own feelings about parts of it. And to discuss something that is an individual issue gets sticky if you will.

I feel its up to the individual and its no one elses business.

After all that individual/s has to bear the brunt of this issue for a LONG time, IF they are RESPONSIBLE.

Well, not to me.

Sometimes, one has to wonder if some folks really can distinquish the difference between a woman choosing to "create" a child (the act of copulation) and choosing to kill one (the act of abortion).

You know me better that that.

I just fine it funny when someone can be charged with murder for killing the unborn but the mother can get an abortion and it's OK. You cannot murder someone who is not alive so how can you charge someone with murder for killing the unborn then turn around and say life begins at birth. Only a liberal can be that stupid!

But think about this. If a mother can kill a child why should that right stop at birth? Say the kid is ugly or grows up to be someone mom doesn't like. What if the kid won't take out the trash or clean their room? Shouldn't she be aloud to kill them when they are twenty? What is the ungrateful little brat puts mom in a nursing home and doesn't visit every week? Shouldn't she be able to have doctors take the brat out at age fifty? If she kin kill the unborn why not the adult child? Bet that would change a lot of lives.

Which individual, mother or infant. Bet the unborn might vote a different ticket than the mom.

In that debate was requested and the hypothetical has been raised, in the alternative to "rape", let us consider the situation where a male willing to copulate has been deceived regarding the safety of the moment and then unwillingly impregnates the deceptive woman. Does he then have the same right to terminate the pregnancy through abortion?

My OP said that IF life begins at conception, then an abortion,BY DEFINITION is homicide. That's just a fact.

Then, the question becomes WHO is authorized to commit the homicide. The white hispanic was authorized by Florida's self defense statutes to commit homicide with little trayvon, for example.

That same self defense argument might be stretched to authorize a homicide when a mother's life is threatened by her pregnancy.

There really is nothing analogous to a woman impregnated during a rape, so that must be settled on common sense grounds.

Beyond THAT, making a case for authority becomes more problematic.

THAT'S why the abortion on demand folks must insist that life commences outside the womb.

And that is a very weak argument.

No...............There is no question that she is the mother.

A young lady called her folks halfway thru her first semester at Texas A&M :

I have good news and bad news.

Give us the bad news.

I'm pregnant.

What's the good news?

It ain't mine.

Yes it is. It is a mindset I cannot fathom.

78 replies and no name calling. It this the real Campfire?

On a somewhat related note I think we would all benefit if we paid the irresponsible, criminals etc. to get sterilized. This would certainly reduce the demand for abortions. Maybe a year of free lottery tickets? I have a nephew we could put at the front of the line.

The thing I will never get is this.

Someone can go to prison for murder if they cause the death of a fetus, but folks can decided to have a Doc kill a fetus, and it's ok. I don't get it.

Good point. Wish I had thought of that.

Gentlemen of the campfire,its been many years since school so forgive me if Im not correct.A person becomes human life when their DNA becomes complete.They will never become more human.Isnt this completion what we call fertilized.

The original translation of the Ten Commandments is normally relegated a higher position than 'cherry picking'.

Your points were solid, eyeball.

Creation order: Man was created first, woman second. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. " 1 Timothy 2:13
Creation origin: Man and all creation was created by God directly out of dust, whereas woman was created through the man's rib. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. " Genesis 2:7 Woman is the only creature not made from dust. Woman derives her origin from Man. "The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. " Genesis 2:22 "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man" 1 Corinthians 11:8
Creation purpose: Woman created for man: "for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." 1 Corinthians 11:9

Maybe I need to browse to the last page of this thread and see if you really pulled "rational" off.

Really? Maybe I'll go back and give the thread a gander then.

Ya it does..technically.

IMHO a glob of tissue that WILL GROW into a child, is not yet a child, no more than a fertile egg is a chicken.

Without going into depth in regards to medical opinion, I am pro-choice up until a fetus is capable of thought, pain, and feeling. At that point I become pro-life. The Morning After Pill does not offend my senses, but then again I do not come from a background of religion.

Yes, we should pay them - with free, forced sterilization.

A distinct human person begins at conception, with unique genetic material that will never change into a different ontological substance.

The "potential life" argument has been disproven genetically, physically, and philosophically numerous times--why keep rehashing it? Pro-choice/pro-abortionists no longer use it for the purpose of debate. Planned Parenthood has even dropped it from their literature and their legal arguments.

Consent and intent matter.

One will get federal charges for disturbing a fertilized eagle egg...but we can free kill our own. Doesn't seem right, to me anyways. I'm not trying to contradict your view, I just suppose I look at things differently than some. JMO and yours. Were all granted that.

This is an opinion, that in all likely hood coincides with your religious belief. Just because you assert it, does not make it true. Barak covered this in his egg/chicken example.

How many black babies are you willing to adopt in support of your belief?

Even a woman whom self-inflicts an abortion can be charged if a healthcare provider isn't used. Just my view of things...in the end, death is death.

My youngest sister is black. What your point? We said rational.

My view is, if you can't take care of the child, there are many preventative measures to make prior to having to kill.

Whose?

I doubt the fetus consents or cares about intent as the outcome is the same.

So it is your contention that planned parenthood believes potential life, is life? I doubt that. The whole basis of the pro-life movement is that it is not a life.

My view is, if you can't take care of the child, there are many preventative measures to make prior to having to kill. [/quote]

There are cost associated with imposing your beliefs on others. If you are not willing to personally shoulder those costs, you must don't really believe.

As for you sister, your growing up with here was the result of decisions made by your parents.

So I ask again. Are you willing to shoulder the cost yourself and walk the walk, or do you expect others to bear the financial costs of your beliefs?

This is a blatant straw man response.

It is not a murder unless the killing is of a human.

What separates humans from animals? Sentience!

Is the single cell fertilized egg sentient?

Is the zygote sentient?

Personally I do not believe babies at birth are self aware. The activity of the new born human's brain is like that of any large mammalian baby. It runs on instinctive needs, hunger, and pain.

Sentience is sometime defined as the ability to be aware of one's mortality. Infants do not have such an ability. Heck most teenagers are blissfully unaware of their mortality.


Many have included as abortions and murder, anything which destroys an egg after conception.

I find it ludicrous to compare the use of an IUD to late term abortion. There can be no sentience when no cells have differentiated to become nervous tissue. There can be no human mind, so there can be no murder.

The potential for humanity exists in that tiny five day old blastocyst as it implants in the uterine wall, or is repelled by the presence of an IUD. But it does not exist yet.

If it is a sin to destroy the potential for humanity, we would have to force every girl to marry by her menarche, and have relations monthly during her fertile period lest one potential human be wasted. We each must determine where we would draw the line when it come to potential humanity in this over crowded world.

Personally, I am anti-abortion. As I love kids and adore our babies and grand babies.

But I am pro-choice.

There are cost associated with imposing your beliefs on others. If you are not willing to personally shoulder those costs, you must don't really believe.

As for you sister, your growing up with here was the result of decisions made by your parents.

So I ask again. Are you willing to shoulder the cost yourself and walk the walk, or do you expect others to bear the financial costs of your beliefs? [/quote]

This position justifies killing anyone who is not a net financial asset to society.

Laws against disturbing an EGG, not an eagle. Your point is taken that it is a glaring inconsistency of the left, but not mine.

There are cost associated with imposing your beliefs on others. If you are not willing to personally shoulder those costs, you must don't really believe.

As for you sister, your growing up with here was the result of decisions made by your parents.

So I ask again. Are you willing to shoulder the cost yourself and walk the walk, or do you expect others to bear the financial costs of your beliefs?[/quote]

Yes. My wife and I have already discussed this. I just don't understand why folks see the need to bring race into this. We just had a child, a week ago. We discussed very early that of fertility were an issue, we would adopt. And that is still on the table, for the future.

How can a being that can experience hunger and pain be unaware?

The argument from sentience is politically persuasive but permits the killing of sleeping folks and those under general anesthesia or temporary coma.

Not at all.

An unsupported assertion is in itself a logical fallacy. I just addressed the logical fallacy and specified typical source of the mentioned assertion.

You ascribed intention which makes it a blatant straw man.

THIS is what a straw man argument looks like.

A sleeping person is still sentient.

A cow and a deer experience hunger and pain yet we consider them not to be SELF aware, and the killing of such is not murder.



Not really, as those are temporary status. But it might allow termination of those in permanent vegetative state.

So, if a pea doesn't know its a pea, then it's not a pea?

No, that is a Gedanken experiment. Check it out.


Yours is a partial reply. What about temporary coma? And, you ain't ever seen me sleep. ;-{>8

Is being a fetus not a temporary status?

How many abortions take place in the first five days? You need to base your argument on what is actually happening with abortions in this country. You can't be both pro choice and anti abortion based on an argument that has no bearing on the reality of the situation. Real human babies are being killed every day out of convenience. They look like tiny babies and I believe they feel pain. I am more sorry for a society that will rationalize the killing of innocent children than I am for the children themselves.

Bullsh!t. My son touched three bases and then was born. While he was in the NICU, I saw living, breathing babies that only touched two bases. I got an incredible gift to have my eyes opened about abortion by spending 10 weeks in a NICU.

The 800 pound gorilla in this debate is that living humans, by any reasonable standard or definition are slaughtered for convenience by those, who by their own actions (98% of the time) invited them into their womb.

This is evil and you needn't be religious to see it.

My wife and I have raised six children to adulthood and we have taken in six others I call strays that lived with us from one to five years. At no time were those children on any kind of tax payer handouts. That is no foster care or food stamps. I have fathered one child.

As I have stated early on in this thread, my sister in law, that is my wife's baby sister, was raped. The result of that rape is just setting up his medical practice. She was a young single girl just out of high school when raped. The family paid all the costs of her pregnancy and the early years of her child's life until she met and married a good man. Again, no tax dollars involved.

All the children that passed through our home were mostly white, one was have Native American. However no child weather red, yellow, black, or even paisley would have been turned away from our home.

So yes, I raised and supported a lot of other peoples kids and I still stand behind my beliefs that abortion is in most cases wrong. I believe that life starts at the point of conception.

As for the fertile chicken egg, it is alive until it is killed. Refrigeration kills a chicken egg but one left for weeks at room temperature can be hatched.

Yes, I would have my 16 year old carry that child to term. I would show her all the love I can muster and explain to her that the innocent child inside her committed no crime, committed no act of violence or hate. That child could be the one good thing to come out of a horrible situation. Find a living home and allow that precious, innocent child to live, grow and love and be loved as I love her.

I could of just as easily said Chinese or Indian girls. In Indian about 30% of baby girls are murdered hours after their birth. I mentioned the plight of the unadopted black children because it's closer to home.

Without abortion we would of had an additional 25mm babies of African descent in this country. Would Christians have adopted them and raised them as good conservatives, or would we be buying 25 million Obama phones for them, AND OBAMA PHONES FOR ALL THEIR KIDS AS WELL??

55 Million abortions, 73% of the women claimed they were due to economic hardship. THAT WORKS OUT TO AN ADDITIONAL 3.5 TRILLION DOLLARS IN WELFARE PAYMENTS.

So it comes down to good reasons to kill children? Why stop with the unborn ones?

Scott, everyone know you walk the walk, and I respect you for it.

This position is pure Hitleresque EVIL.

Thank you Sir.

I do see your point about the cost of unwanted and irresponsible pregnancies but the lack of self control is not an excuse to terminate those innocent lives in my mind.

There is no easy solution. Anyone who thinks there is is not facing reality.

Three of my children have decided not to have children of their own. I respect their decision even though our last grandchild is getting stale and we would like to have more.

Women have had the right to begin, prevent or end a pregnancy since as far back as men have been forcing themselves upon them.

I'm merely pointing out the possible negative consequences of your proposal, and asking if you would of been willing to fork out 3.5 trillion dollars to support an additional 55 million Obama voters?

The rape card has already been discussed.

It's, a red herring. As soon as one asks the abortion industry if they would stop all abortion on demand if it was available to the victims of rape and incest, you just hear crickets.

Spot on, and sad to say things will only get worse.

How many abortions take place in the first five days?

Billions each year.

Thirteen times a year for most any women using an IUD. And the IUD is the most common form of birth control in the most populous nations on Earth.

While this is very true in a technical sense and certainly the basis for a good discussion, in the context of this debate it is virtually an equivocation as we have been talking about the intentional dismemberment of the unborn by a skilled surgeon, for the most part.

You must have missed several of the early posts where "from moment of conception" was mentioned.

You are very welcome my friend.

You are very correct in stating there are no easy solutions. The reason this question is met with such consternation it that it resides at the confluence of our three greatest American Values. Our respect for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It involves the very structure of the most fundamental economic unit, the family, and the ties that may bind individuals in either love, or distress. Add in some religion, libertarianism, and emerging science that evolving our understanding of these process, concerns, weather founds of not, about over population, and a perceived extension of childhood until the mid 20's, coupled with a more resource intensive child rearing process (everyone needs a College degree), and yes, this combines to make it one of the most complex questions of our time.

As a (small l) libertarian, I prefer non-government solutions to the debate. As an example I fully support prolife people standing out front of Planned Parenthood clinics offering to adopt the potential babies of the clients as they walk in the door.

Of course, unlike you, most of the protestors just stand there with their sign and aren't actually willing to DO something meaningful.

As for grandkids, based on the pictures you've posted, you have a beautiful family, and I can appreciate why you would want a few more. They would be a blessing upon us all.

So far it's pretty much been and "all or nothing" discussion, and we haven't drilled down on the perceived differences based upon when the procedure occurs. There are no limbs to dismember "at conception".

The moment of conception is an argument about when life takes place. The reality is that most abortions take place much later than the point any person could argue that the life being aborted is just a clump of cells. Those taking part in abortion simply do not want to face the reality that they are killing a baby, so would rather argue about when life takes place, knowing all the time that the majority of abortions take place much later than the clump of cells they base their argument on.

I will concede that you have a point, but, for me, the "from the moment of conception" comment is meant to describe life as a continuum where it is all human life and in that regard, I do find it problematic to be drawing arbitrary lines. No IUDs for us.

On this issue I have oft wondered how many folks have a question of there being a "possibility" of the contents of the womb being a human being, but lacking certainty. To that position, I would say that we always err on the side of not taking chances where a human life "might" be lost. We do not take shots over the horizon for this reason. There might be a human on the other side. No one in their right mind would just shoot through a tent where the contents are unknown because there might be a human inside. When it comes to human life, in other contexts, we always insist the tie goes to the runner. Why do we come to a different conclusion where the uterus is involved? Just curious.

Actually over 60% occur within the first 9 weeks, 87% within the first 12 weeks.



Regardless I still imagine you would draw the line at conception?

By absolutely no means do "most abortions" take place late in pregnancy.

The number of blastocysts destroyed via IUD is orders of magnitude greater than the number of late term abortions. Even if you only consider surgical and chemically induced abortions, the vast majority of those occur in the first trimester.

But, late term abortions get a lot of press because photos are quite shocking and they make great propaganda tools. Lots of people donate lots of money to save the babies.

If that is the NOW discussion, you will find me pretty consistent. Kinda like I was just saying to Jim, I will err on the side of caution where human life is concerned. I would not want this new branch of the discussion to be a bunny trail away from brutal fetal dismemberment before we agree on the evil of that.

For me, personally.......I agree with you. As I said earlier, the only form of contraception that made sense to me and the Mrs was sterilization.

I know for a fact that the blastocyst has no brain, but sometime later it becomes a person with a mind. I don't know when that is.

And therefor I can not shove my opinion down another person's throat.

OT, yours is a valid question.

Shooting into a tent could effect someone else's family. It's not a personal family issues, it's effecting a third party. If you want to burn down your house, that's your business. If you want to burn down mine, be prepared to be fired upon.

No, it is just as wrong if it is my tent, in my back yard. Your position is in complete denial of the possibility if there being a human in the womb at conception. In fact, it is in that sense, circular.

Thanks for the reply. The place where we come to a different conclusion is that I am not interested in others shooting over the horizon either. I am very libertarian for the unborn.

;-{>8

Okay, at the time of conception.

How can it be a person if it has no mind?

How can it have a mind if it has no brain?

How can it have a brain it it has no nervous tissue?

It is just a mass of undifferentiated cells.

It depends on when you believe life begins; if it begins at conception, then abortion is murder; if it begins when the fetus can survive outside the mother, than 1st and second trimester abortion is not murder. I do believe that is is a moral issue for the mother and is solely a decision between the mother and he doctor.

If we want government out of our lives, why do some want government to be involved in gay rights and women's health issues? you can't have it both ways.

If those are your criteria, it isn't. I think a Gedanken experiment could find flaws with those criteria. For instance, is one more entitled to live, or more human if they have a better mind? See where this goes? If you have a disease where your nervous system is deteriorating are you less entitled to live?

My criteria are, that it is living, human and will continue live a human life with only normal systems of support. I just can't find a place for anyone to play God with an arbitrary line.

"A rational debate on abortion" is that even possible?

15 pages and counting .... probably not.

Actually, DJS, when one says that one wants the govt out of our lives, I agree.

But, that assumes the unborn are not persons and therein is the catch. If you see the unborn as a person you pretty much have to wind up libertarian on their behalf. You do want government to protect innocent people, right?

OT, I don't believe anyone here is defending late term abortions. The constitute less then 1 % of abortions, and rape and incest are also less then 1% of abortions. These hot button terms are the exception, and not the rule.

Almost 90% of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks, before she can feel it kick, before she is even showing, before it's obvious to the public, hence while it is still a private matter. Of course the absolutist don't care about this, to most it's a mission to impose their will (and usually their religious belief) upon other through the force of law.

Actually, this is what rational debate looks like, for the record.

As a libertarian, I should not be using the force of law to impose my religious views of when life begins upon you.

You missed the point. It has always been a woman's prerogative. A natural right to her own body.

The GFY, STFU count remains at zero.
There was a little name calling earlier, but I think those individuals left the thread.

OK now lets review that straw man you have just set up. Speak to the argument.

Is it OK to kill someone if it is a private matter? Or if it does not show? I think not.

Well said and I agree.

I don't trust people to make decisions about when the life of a child begins for purposes of justifying when to kill it. The entire notion is reprehensible to me.

You needn't be particularly religious to oppose killing innocent humans. That is the heart of the discussion.

If you want to burn down your house with someone else in it, prepare to be fired upon.

I am all pro-choice, but when you spread your legs, you have made your choice.

DNA negates the 'woman's own body' argument.

OT, your view of when life begins is a religion belief, and the rest of your argument flows from that religious belief, so an imposition of a religious view upon others is at the heart of the issue.

Seperate DNA a beating heart is not religious. It's science. The new DNA forms at conception because that is when the new life forms.

Religion is God saying "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;".

Where did I bring religion into this? You did. I think it may be your convenient straw man "out" of choice. ;-{>8

I would disagree that the issue of when life begins is based upon religious views. I would not trust it to something so nebulous; it's biological all right.

Nor do I buy into the notion that life begins when this "stream of consciousness begins"....who can say for certain when that starts?

Ability to survive outside the womb? That's preposterous...by any rational standard that is pretty clearly a child in there.

The problem with an awful lot of the abortion discussion is that it centers around "our" perceptions", the "rights" of third parties, societies "ability" to determine when life begins ...but pays precious little attention to the one life most directly affected, and unable to make his/her views known......a compassionate and civilized people will defer to that life form, and give it a chance, rather than grasp at straws to justify destroying it.

So you deny being a Christian and holding a religious belief that life begins at conception?

Yes, conception. Do you deny that a 12 week old fetus is a human?

Clearly not a human child
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

The idea that human life is determined by the degree of development is evil.We can not make that decision.A one year old child can not survive on its own but its human life.Im sure we all agree on this.The idea that anyone will choose to decide when human life is or isnt a person is scarey.Playing God is foolish.

These comments are directed at the participants in general, not to any one poster:

In my OP, I used the word "homicide", since in the strictest sense, it ascribes no ethical nor moral consequences to the act itself. Our society recognizes that individual persons are authorized to commit homicide in some instances.

My position is that at some point in a pregnancy, an abortion IS homicide.

So, with respect to abortion, I'm in the position of a juror asked to determine if a particular homicide is justified. I wouldn't be expected to vote without all the particulars being presented.

Unlike other homicides, an abortion as is commonly practiced involves the participation of more than one party, so premeditation is established at the outset, and thus, the usual elements of a "justifiable homicide" are not present.

To support abortion as it is currently practiced in our country, I MUST conclude that an abortion is not homicide............. EVER.

To be against abortion because of my Christian beliefs, I'm forced to establish if my concern is for the unborn baby, the mother, or the provider.

The unborn baby gets a free pass to Heaven, so any concern for him is shallow, at best. I'm constrained NOT to judge the mother and the provider, since they will have a chance to repent.

So......... my concern about harm done must be for the society in which I live. I certainly can't expect perfection from a society made up of sinful humans, so perfection can't be a USEFUL standard for ascribing guilt.

According to the statistics provided by one of the participants, if we allow abortions during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy at the discretion of the mother and the provider, we will reduce total abortions to 60% of their present number.

If we apply the rules for "justifiable homicide" to the remaining 40%, that number would decrease dramatically.

That's a compromise I can live with, knowing fully that it IS a compromise.

IF that makes me "pro choice" in the minds of some of my forum friends, then so be it.

You're an idiot.



Travis

Since you addressed your post to me, I'll return the favor:

"gay rights and women's health issues?"

An odd linkage, it seems to me.

Define "self aware"?

But is it a chicken?

Absolutely

Anybody argue with this order?

1) Life

2) Liberty

3) Pursuit of happiness

Another way to think it, work from the bottom up starting with the one that would logically be relinquished in time of crisis.
Life would always be the most logical one to preserve, even in the absence of the other two. Problem in America is, the other two come first now. "Right to choose" is nothing more than a selfish clinging to pursuit of happiness. A baby is inconvenient so I'll kill it.

I'm against abortion, can't fathom how a person could do it.

That said, I can understand it for cases of rape/incest and medical reasons.

This is a chicken?

Take a DNA sample and let science decide.

Hummm... If I send in a mouth swap to a DNA lab, it will tell me that I have human DNA. Is the goo on the swab a human being?

No but it will show the DNA of a human.It will not be alive.When a grown man dies he will show the DNA of a human.If you check the DNA of a dead fetus it will show the DNA of a human.Whats your point.

The ability to recognize oneself when looking into a mirror/reflection, this is one of the things separates humans beings from animals.

Is this clearly a kangaroo joey? This is about 10 weeks from gestation. But through some natural design, the young fetus transfers from the birth canal to the mother's pouch - sort of a womb for the rest of the gestational period. It cannot survive outside the pouch, but nearly everyone would agree that killing this joey when it transfers to the pouch would be wrong. Why is it that the life of the joey:



Has more value than this life?

I'm saying that a fertilized ovum is not yet a chicken. It may have the potential to become a chicken, but it is not yet.

Same as a zygote. It might be alive in that it is exhibiting biochemical activities and it is growing (cellular division). But it is not human any more than cells that I might give to a lab to be cultured.

The difference is that it is hosted in an environment that is conducive to and it is at the beginning of the biological process that might eventually lead to it becoming a human.

That's all I'm trying to say. Now the last half of the sentence above might be enough to allow one to say that it's human. I just can't make that leap.

That being said I do believe that a full term 'fetus' is a human. Not sure if I'm wise enough to know where the line is crossed.

I've asked pro-choicers a question, none can answer, it goes as follows- "You're in the hospital, you give birth to your child, and immediately regret your decision to do so. You ask the attending OB/GYN to spike the baby on the floor and kill it, should he follow your wishes?" I always get a NO!!
I then ask, "take me back in time from the moment the child is delivered, and you tell me at what specific month/day/hour/minute/second it goes from being un-ok to ok."
Still waiting.

I do think it is interesting that all the liberals who claim to want us to do so many things for the benefit of children are the main ones that are very eager to see that many of the children they claim to love never are allowed to be born. They seem to be quite willing to kill the helpless and innocent, the unborn and the old, for the sake of convenience.

Because of the "one or the other" nature of the question, I've reluctantly been pushed into the "pro choice" camp and WILL answer your question.

Prior to 9 weeks gestation it should be the mother's choice. Whether that qualifies as "OK" the way you framed your question, is up to you to decide.

Prior to 9 weeks, I consider abortion to be justified homicide just like a shooting death that was clearly self defense and no indictment is sought.

After 9 weeks, I'd shift the burden of proof to the mother and the provider to show that the abortion is not manslaughter or one of the classes of murder we define.

Partial-birth abortion would generate a charge of Capital Murder.

In MHO, a human being will give birth to another human being....not a thing, frog, deer, or ant.
So, one is choosing to kill a human being, period.

Prevention of pregnancy can be accomplished in many ways, one of which is the rhythm system.

I also believe there is a vast difference between life, and human life. This difference doesn't seem to bother many people.

As far as the authority is concerned, I would contend NO authority is needed, if you look at the number of abortions committed in our country these days. Wouldn`t you think the unborn would have at least one champion? They don`t even get a day in court.

Abortion is murder.

I have no trouble with that.

Along the same line of thought, it would seem that liberal "humanists" would place a really high value on life in this physical world, since that's " all there is".

They do seem to do exactly that with regard to the death penalty, but line up on the "other side" when the issue of abortion is raised.

I believe it displays intellectual dishonesty within the individuals.

Don't know that your 90% is correct, and am not arguing that point.

However, it seems like your term "absolutist" and the non-caring and mission you ascribe to such are judgments not based on demonstrable fact. What sound data do you use to document their state of caring, to document their mission, and to document the intended imposition of their religious beliefs.

Further, how would such an "absolutist" use the force of law any differently than a pro-abortion activist uses current law?

Can you cite sound evidence/documentation of your described "absolutist" positioning as found in this thread?

"As far as the authority is concerned, I would contend NO authority is needed, if you look at the number of abortions committed in our country these days. Wouldn`t you think the unborn would have at least one champion? They don`t even get a day in court.

Abortion is murder."

Since we are in agreement with regard to the first three paragraphs of your post, I only post these for comment.

"authority"...... I was speaking as to how I, personally, have considered it in arriving at my position on abortion, not on how it is currently viewed in our society and our courts.

"their day in court". In coming to my position, they do have their case heard. Prior to 9 weeks gestation, their mother is authorized to have their life ended. That authority is withdrawn at 9 weeks gestation and she is charged with a crime.

The severity of the charge would increase with each stage of the pregnancy and would attach to the abortion provider as well.

"murder". If you killed a home invader, I'll bet you wouldn't see it as "murder".

Once again....... all murders are homicide.

Not all homicides are murder.

It does not. No animal life has value, unless one holds the views of a vegan. There is NO sin, harm, or wrong in the killing of any infant animal.

When that life contains a human consciousness, then the taking of that life becomes homicide.



To claim that i/4 oz bundle of DNA contains a human consciousness can only be done on religious grounds, until it has formed a brain. And I would suggest measurable EEG waves.



Self aware could be defined as awareness of one's mortality, the ability to recognize future risks and take preventative actions.

It is the collection of nebulous things which separate human from the animal.



Nobody can give an exact day of the gestation period, because consciousness is a gradual awakening. At some point during the first year after conception, that little bundle of DNA has become a thinking, teachable human being.

It is a long, gradual process. I am convinced that 12 weeks after conception is far too early to consider the fetus a sentient being.

Even though I would not choose to engage in an abortion at any stage, I could not vote to call 1'st trimester abortion a homicide.

Keep things simple OK.Are you saying life becomes human when it becomes smart?

So....... my 9 week threshold doesn't work for you?

You are simply trying to reason your way into a liberal stance on abortion under 12 weeks. You know in your heart of hearts that that fetus is a human being. Let me give you a gross example that may possibly shock you into correct thinking.

We are both very hungry, possibly starving. We would have no problem eating a plate of eggs, raw eggs, or even a bowl of soup made from those 10 week baby joey's that Cowboy posted. Would you eat a bowl of soup made from 10 week old human fetuses? I wouldn't and I bet you would rather starve too, because you know in your heart that even if they don't look human , they are.

Curdog, I wanted to congratulate you on your willingness to make such a concession. One this thread, I believe you are the only "prolife" person to make ANY concessions. By the same token, I'm willing to concede everything after 20 weeks. Perhaps we could leave the middle ground to the individual states to decide?

Thanks. I find that common sense often dictates moving away from absolutes when trying to establish a principled stance on complicated issues.

Sometimes we must slide partway down a slippery slope to find a level spot where we can rest firmly.

Sometimes, but not in the case of human life. I'm pretty sure the top of the slope looking down is the place you want to be come judgement day. I'll rest there.

I still disagree with both of you but I doubt that surprises anyone.

What I do find interesting is at almost 200 posts we have accomplished your original goal of a rational discussion. As far as I know this is a first for the Campfire on such a sensitive and emotional subject. Makes me glad I resisted the urge to pass it up and not peak when I first saw the title.

The passion of both sides on the issue has resulted in what I see as a mountain range with a peak that has been whittled down to a knife edge.

I can't stand at the top of that.

My fate at Judgement Day was decided quite some time ago.

Aside from that, I can neither have, nor provide, an abortion.

To deprive a pregnant woman of ANY say-so in the matter just offends my common sense.

we're not talking about salvation. We are judged even to the attitudes of our hearts. Our actions, our conversations, our thoughts, and in this case what we advocate, all are judged.

It's not mine or your opinion on the matter we need to worry about. We have the Word of God to reveal what he thinks, and we would be well to do as He sees just, and set our own thoughts aside.

And there you are, right back to the religious argument, trying to establish a portion of yours though an act of Congress.

General question.

Should IUD's be banned? What about levonorgestrel prior to intercourse?

Curdog, I'm glad to see your libertarian position of the subject.

You choose not to engage in the process, but you are also choosing not to inflict your belief on others. Well done, there is hope for you yet.

Personally I'm opposed to the Chinese government imposing forces abortion/sterilization on it's citizens, and I'm also opposed to ours interfering in the personal, private decision of family formation here as well.

Who do I trust to make these decisions...

Government??
Preachers??
Families??

For the most part, I'll defer to the families....

The assumed value of compromise and concession can seem almost mind-boggling at times. One guy says "not after 9 weeks", and another says "not after 20 weeks" and proposes that they both leave the "middle ground" up to individual states to decide. This, on a matter of intentional homicide.

Is such maneuvering based upon presumed superior wisdom, or on what? Just how important could an "exact" time period be if left to a "compromise" window agreed by two indivduals with a proviso that invidual states should decide where within the window is "good"?. Whence such confidence in the erudition of any two human minds and the moral sense of any political subdivision? The uber serious matter of abortion reduced to compromise and then a political decision?

It would be interesting to read an explanation of why anyone's offering up a personal "concession" on a matter of intentional homicide would be worthy of congratulation.

Yeah, that works. I would be okay with anything in the first trimester being legal.



Most of my family would starve to death before they would eat a slice of pork, or allow shell fish to touch their lips. That does not make shell fish or pork human.

I am not going to taste placenta either, though many in this nation now do. And that is not because the placenta has a soul.

Yes, I do use my brain and my reasoning power to make important life decisions. Without reasoning all we have to guide us is myth and tradition. Many times either of those is far from being the best guide.

God gave you free will antelope, you are free to work within the bounds of the law. I'm not imposing anything on anyone, just saying what I believe to be in a persons best interest. I will act as I see right since I answer for it. Just don't tell me I have to kill a baby and we'll get along fine. If you want to kill babies, I pity you, but that's your choice to make and cross to bear at the same time. No condemnation from me to worry about. Like I said, I'm not the one you need to worry about. Carry on.

The Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception were political decisions. Why would abortion laws be any different?

FB, I never said anything about my person decisions on this matter, I'm debating the role of government in this matter.
If you think the decisions could reside primarily with the family and not the government, then we agree on this issue.

It just seems like you are depriving the woman of say so about her body because you can't see the child inside her. There would be no question about depriving her if the child was on the outside. Same woman can kill the same child as long as it's on the inside. We would lock her up if she killed the same child a few months later on the outside. That's the choice you don't want to deprive her of.

Well I do agree it is a moral issue and should not be a legal issue. I am still against it but making it illegal or making it legal won't change a thing. You believe it is wrong or you believe it is right. There were abortions long before Roe vs Wade and if that decision were reversed there would still be abortions.

Paul, the "concession" I made was an internal one, affecting only MY conscience. A man must have a starting place if he is to reason things out to his satisfaction.

My starting place was "abortion is wrong". Over a considerable period of time, most assuredly not during the course of this thread, that position did not set well.

For me, a man, to claim that a pregnant woman gives up ALL her rights to her own body just by virtue of becoming pregnant is too presumptuous for me personally.

But condemning the practice of late term abortions for the sake of convenience comes easy for me.

Prior to 1973, as I recall, Doctors who would perform first trimester abortions most often refused to perform them later in the pregnancy. I'm talking about G.P.'s, not abortion specialists.

That became my position as well.

I don't recall many, if any, other posters explaining THEIR thought processes on their way to a conclusion.

God gave me a conscience AND a brain to use to make my own moral and ethical judgements.

To subcontract the job to Science or the Bible is a cop out as far as I'm concerned.

The fact that other folks arrive at a different conclusion surprises me not all, since we were created, not cloned.

I'm sorry, friend, but even after reading your post several times, I can't see how it is responsive to any of my comments, yet you addressed me.

Want to try again?

Gene, I realized that your solo determination was internal, and I both understand and respect your reasoning and where you stand.

My observations there had to do with that posed process of concession and compromise as applied to a situation involving morals, ethics and homicide. The eventual relegation to politics seemed like an extra measure of degredation.

Your reasoning and factual basis for your stated position should be interesting to examine, but that is not the point of this reply.
In answer to your question, and one would think that the distinction would be crystal clear, neither Immaculate Conception nor Virgin Birth have any relevance or equation to political decisions regarding homicide of innocent babies.