Thanks you for your compliment. My intention is not to convince the other side of the argument to change their mind, only they can do that after willingly taking the time to listen to and rationalize the Pro-Life position. It is the same reason I am willing to listen to and try to rationalize their position. Despite what I "feel" is right or wrong, I try to let science, philosophy, and ultimately truth reveal whether or not the Pro-Life Platform is right or wrong.

I am going to have to respectfully yet strongly disagree with your assertion that America has lost its moral base. I truly believe that the silent majority of this country is aligned with the Pro-Life Platform but because of an inability to articulate their position substantively and successfully refute the Pro-Choice Platform by deconstructing their straw man arguments and ad hominem rhetoric they choose to stay silent.

I thank yo again for your comments and you willingness to read the entire piece.

First I would like to acknowledge that I too am Roman Catholic, but I do not share the authors or the churches view. I believe in a indiviuals right to make their own decisions concerning their bodies. No one has right to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term. In the first few weeks from a medical stand point it is not yet a child. I believe that abortion in the first 8 weeks should be a anyone womans right to choose but it should not be used as a form of birth control. I am against partial birth abortions, I also believe that it is a very personal and private decision and that if it doesn't involve you personally , mind your own damn business...

Thank you! Lifetime Resident!

I believe in pre-planning. That's why I have my wife take the "Plan B" pill the night before. Two kids is enough with this economy!

You are more than welcome. Thanks you for taking the time to read it.

Mr Daur,
The Plan b pill, if it is what is also referred to as the morning after pill. Is a basically supposed to be used as a last resort. It can actually cause damage, and it not meant to be used as a for of regular birth control. It will either prevent a fertilized egg from attaching or If a fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, if it is the pill I think you refer to, than it causes a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) But it DOES NOT prevent fertilization. So what is the difference between causing a deliberately miscarriage and having an abortion? So all you Pro Life people who claim that life begins at conception how do you justify this pill??

Moe, thanks for your input. While I am not familiar with the issue you reference with your link, although I will take the time to read it, I do agree with you to the extent that I believe the Pro-Choice position allows for a slippery slope to be established where at some point in time it will be permissible to discard human life solely based on much more superficial criteria and that "right" will start to extend further and further out of the womb.

A not so unfathomable example would be a pregnancy that were determined to be a female during early ultrasounds but upon birth wound up being male because "I guess he had his legs crossed". Well the mother didn't want a boy, she wanted a girl, and the slippery slope that is being established would allow for the termination of that child after birth.

All you have to do is look at China and the imbalance that has been created through sex-selective abortions since the one-child policy was enacted in 1979. The slippery slope allows for other criteria to come into play and eventually extend to outside the womb in order to make the best determination for the mother and the child's "quality of life".

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/global-war-against-baby-girls-sex-selective-abortion-becomes-worldwide-practice

Unwanted accidental babies would cost billions by working age. When a raped woman gets pregnant, for example, or her health is at risk while pregnant, you want her to give birth so in 18-21 years another worker will contribute to Social Security. Really? Only a man would think that way, an irrational man at that.

Why won't Repubs simply make today's workers contribute to Soc. Sec. on wages from $98,000 to $250 million (Romney)? Soc. Sec. would instantly be solvent!

Anthony, thank you for taking the time to comment. While I would agree with your assessment from an economic perspective, i.e. an underfunding of entitlement programs due to a reduction in the working population, I respectfully disagree that it is a plank to be stood on to make the case for life. The case for life is not rooted in economics, it is rooted in morality and truth.

Just because something is moral to you doesn't make it so for other people and cultures. Your "truth" might be quite different from others.

@Clown Baby - "Just because something is moral to you doesn't make it so for other people and cultures. Your "truth" might be quite different from others."

Clown Baby, that is a very relativist view, the mindset whereby my "right" might not be your "right" and my "wrong" might not be your "wrong". That way of thinking has a very slippery slope that can lead to some very bad things. We are not talking about what flavor of ice cream you like compared to what I like.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, practically every single law on the books that prevents you from doing something is someone else's "morality" being imposed on you.

baloney - its a moral issue plain and simple.

stop spreading lies. the $700mm number reflects payment cuts to providers accepted based on increased volumes of newly insured patients. this is why the insurance program in this country is so broken. finally, we are making progress to efficiency and ignorant people like you can't take the time to do the research but spew non-factual "statistics".

what are you even saying? that you are voting ryan-romney? they want medicare and social security out of the governments hands. read ryan's budget.

they will seal the deal for bankruptcy in this country. you can't pay the debt without raising taxes. period.

This is a complex issue. IF we are to consider the issue not from a moral and ethical standpoint, but merely from a bottom line financial one (and I don't know that we should) - then it is surely more "economical" to control or terminate unwanted early term pregnancies. The alternative would be to continue to fund failed attempts to remediate the lives of unwanted and unsupervised children as we now have with so many of our social programs. It doesn't take a village to raise a child - it takes a mother and a father in an intact family unit. The pragmatist in me also finds holes in your argument, because we don't have jobs for those people who ARE alive, let alone for another fifty- five million.

So if a cop kills someone he is a hero, but if the bad guy kills the cop he is a bad guy? People still get killed either way, the truth is in the spin. Either I don't really care about your invisible sky wizard. I'm 100% down with abortion and your point of view is slowly dying out.

Clown Baby, if you don't recognize nearly universally accepted moral principles such as, "You must not kill" and "Killing in self-defense is justified", and if you insist on mocking what is sacred to many people by using a phrase like "invisible sky wizard" for "God", why bother engaging anyone in a dialogue?

Are you sure you do not recognize any universal moral norms? For you anything goes? Really?

Clown Baby - I might recommend that you not dial 911 in the event that you are being assaulted. The assaulter is merely expressing himself. Human sacrifice is "cool" too? It's a twisted view of the world when you start getting into moral relativism in the manner in which you present it.

Lauren, your substance is astonishing, I am defenseless and at a total loss for words. It is without doubt that everyone on your side of the issue should praise your complete deconstruction of the Pro-Life position and finally putting this issue to rest.

Aside from that, let me clarify that my statement is meant to show that just because a human life was created out of a horrendous situation doesn't mean that human life should be any less valuable.

I shall now proceed to take my place on the back burner. I thank you again for your substantive contribution to the debate.

Lauren, you and I are the only opposing comments here...which is either very scary or very telling. (We also seem to be among the only women.)

Among the many other arguments that could be made that rape victims MUST have the option to abort, pregnancy changes a woman's body, often in unpleasant ways. Can anyone honestly say that months of morning sickness, weight gain, the possibility of permanent damage to one's body, etc, just don't matter? Why would a woman whose body was violated be forced to go through nine more months of even more violation?

J, the argument you use which is usually known as "the invasion argument" seeks to dehumanize the human life that might result from a rape. I want to reiterate that rape is heinous act and a complete violation of a not only a woman's body but also their mind and emotion. The "invader" or "violator" you speak of is a human life. I will ask once again, why do the circumstances under which a life was created determine the intrinsic value that life has? If a mother gives birth to a first child as a result of a loving relationship with her husband but is unfortunate later in life to be the victim of rape, become pregnant from it, but decide to give birth to the child, is her first child any more valuable than the child that resulted from the rape?

Is pregnancy hard on a woman, absolutely, I have been a first hand witness to a wife that has gone through it four times. The physical and emotional stress of raising a child continues long after birth, are we to assume you mean that after birth if raising the child becomes to physically and emotionally stressful that the mother can choose to "terminate" then as well?

If that is not the case, reverse the timeline of development of that born child and tell me at what point termination is acceptable either specifically in the case of rape or not.

Well if we're using quotes.....Gensis 2:7 defined the beginning of life. "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 bein." Only a very late term fetus can survive and breath without support.
Further, if you're not into Bible interpretations, let's take a look at the Constitution.....Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"All person's born or naturalized in the United States" The key word "born". The amendment simply states that if you are born or naturalized in the the US you are entitled with certain US rights, nothing about fetus'. Thus, the government holds no standpoint on the topic, nor should it. The individual should decide what is right and what is wrong, not someone else.

Silly McLies, based on your argument it is perfectly legal for me to kill an illegal alien who was neither born here or naturalized.

Your argument states exactly that, nothing more, nothing less....

Now obviously that is ridiculous, anyone with half a brain of intellectual honesty would not willingly think it be permissible to kill someone who were here but not born here or naturalized so obviously there is a lot more to the issue than where you "popped out" or got your "papers".

Wow Robert, I thought you would do a better job than that in trying to support your belief. I reply with a Bible verse that contradicts the above Bible verse and then cite the Constitution to support the subject that YOU are writing about, and you reply then it's ok to kill illegals by my citation?
You then backpedal and say "so obviously there is a lot more to the issue than where you "popped out" or got your "papers"."
Wrap this debate in morality all you want, it's a control issue.
If you don't want anyone in your family to have an abortion, then don't allow them.
As far as anyone else's family, I think not.

Silly, when I first read your comment I took it as you saying that because the unborn are not "born" nor "naturalized" that they are not entitled to the rights that are defined in The Constitution and The Declaration. It is now apparent that you were merely saying that because they are neither "born" nor "naturalized" that the government has no position on the unborn.

I apologize for hastily interpreting your comment and not replying in the proper context, it is what I always ask folks not to do with my posts and instead wound up doing that to yours.

You mention that this is really just a "control issue" but don't all laws seek to control some behavior? Behavior that if left uncontrolled would infringe on the rights of others. There is "control" everywhere in law, is the law against random murder of innocent people not an attempt to control people? People control you on a daily basis whether you like it or not or choose to recognize it or not.

To Silly McLies,
I applaud your response! Thank You

Mary, thank you for getting engaged, I had a feeling you would be a willing party to the conversation.

You question requires a few different answers and I will take the necessary time and space to address each and I believe they can be broken into the following;

In regard to contraception in general there is what I would consider a "faith-based" view and a "non-faith-based" view.

The "faith-based" view follows the teachings put forth by The Vatican and Pope John Paul VI in 1968 (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control) that reemphasized the long-standing belief of The Church that "it is intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence".

Not all people are people of faith and not all people of faith are perfected to the extent that they follow the teachings of The Church at all times. It is why people of faith understand that they are indeed fallible but strive to be as faithful as possible. I happen to fall into the latter category whereby I acknowledge the teachings of my faith and will eventually be accountable for upholding them at all times.

In regard to the morning after pill it is not as easy as "are you for it or against" it because in actuality it works in three different ways. It either alters the normal menstrual cycle delaying ovulation, it can prevent ovulation so the egg is not released from the ovary therefore preventing it from possibly being fertilized, or it can irritate the lining of the uterus thereby preventing implantation after conception has already occurred. (http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html)

The first two instances are theoretically acceptable by the Pro-Life Platform, it is the third one that breaks the deal in that conception has already occurred and the morning after pill has essentially induced a "chemical abortion". And with the line in the sand being so blurry as to when the morning after pill goes from a "before conception" measure to an "after conception" measure because of our inability to essentially see what is going on inside the potential mother, I would err on the side of being against the morning after pill.

By the way, sorry if my responses seem out of order, wasn't sure in what order to post across different posting due to character limitations.

Oh, my.

"The Church" - as if the Roman Catholic Church were the only Church. And then: "[N]ot all people of faith are perfected to the extent that they follow the teachings of The Church at all times."

I am a Christian. I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not consider my understanding of faith to be imperfect by reason of the fact that I am not a Roman Catholic. I understand that some members of the Roman Catholic Chuch deny the validity of any and all other expressions of Christianity but their own. For my part, I do not deny the validity of their understandings of faith, and am bold to call them fellow Christians, despite our differences.

But enough of the theocratic dimension of this discussion, which Mr. Way purports to eschew even while he proclaims it.

If freedom of reproductive choice is the law, then each of us are free to practice our religious (or moral, or ethical) beliefs on the subject. The law will not compel either the termination or the continuance of pregnancy.

If termination of pregancy is illegal (or if it is so burdened by deterrent legal requirements as to become a practical impossibility), then those of us who do not believe that a zygote is a human being from the moment of conception will be compelled to submit to the religious (or moral or ethical) beliefs of others. They would impose their will upon us, in derogation of our fundamental freedoms of religion and conscience.

Pardon the continuation.
In a free society, the law will inevitably tolerate certain forms of conduct that some of us consider religiously (or morally or ethically) unacceptable. As a matter of religious faith and practice, I consider church-sponsored gambling and the sale of indulgences to be unacceptable. I do not begrudge my Roman Catholic brethren their Bingo games and raffles and indulgences, and I certainly would not want them all clapped in prison for doing it. No, not in a free country. Neither the pronouncements of the pope nor the Book of Concord constitute a norm for secular law.

Peter, thank you for taking the time to elaborate your position.

I first want to apologize if I in any way made it seem that the Catholic Church was "The Church" or the only Church. It was not my intention. Being Catholic it just happens to be my most familiar point of reference and don not, and I repeat, do not intend to project the notion that if you are not Roman Catholic you are by any means imperfect. I honestly don't know how to be any clearer, my point was that I as a Catholic/Christian am not perfect and in now way attempted to marginalize or discredit any other Christian of non-Christian faith.

In regard to your comment "In a free society, the law will inevitably tolerate certain forms of conduct that some of us consider religiously (or morally or ethically) unacceptable." If a court were to establish a law allowing for the termination of a born child because of the emotional and financial burden that child places on its parents up to the adult age of 18, would you hold the same position in your comment?

You argument distracts from the issue at hand. Even though we live in a free society we are not free to do whatever we want if it infringes on the rights of others. So once again the discussion circles back to the root issue at hand,what is the unborn, and do they possess the same right to life that the born do?

Well,Robert,it's fine to be against something and not use it yourself or to even advise others not to use it.But,to require that others,who do not share your beliefs to follow the teaching of your faith is down right arrogant.You do realize that there are "people of faith" that are not Catholic,don't you?I'm one of them.

Robert, I apologize for seeming a tad arch on the "Roman Catholic is the only Church" issue, but please understand my theological forbears and I have heard that for just short of 500 years now.
"So once again the discussion circles back to the root issue at hand,what is the unborn, and do they possess the same right to life that the born do?" That is indeed the root question. It is a question government in a free society should not attempt to answer. If you believe that a zygote has all rights from the moment of its conception, then you are free to act upon your belief, to advocate for it, to try to convince others of it. I respectfully disagree, though I've never tried to convince anyone else that I am right. This must be left to the individual.
And no - I would not countenance killing after birth. There is an overwhelming societal consensus that a human being is human after birth. No such overwhelming consensus exists as to a zygote.
I shan't discuss contraception, except to say that if we allow government to compel women to give birth against their will, government will next compel women to become pregnant by outlawing birth control.
May I commend to you Romans 3:28.

Peter,thanks for your comments.It seems that many Catholic thinktheat their church is the only one and that they are the only"people of faith." As you said,there are othe religions who don't believe in gambling or drinking alcohol.Some don't believe blood transfusions,eating pork and.or shellfish.And they have every right to their beliefs,as long as they don't try to make everyone else follow them by making these things illegal.

marlylou please read my response to Peter above, I clearly state that my intention is NOT to make it seem that Catholics are the ONLY people of faith. And the point of the article is the fact that the Pro-Life position is NOT a religious belief that is trying to be forced onto someone else. I made it very clear that people of faith, ANY FAITH, are usually more willing and more compelled to voice and defend their principles.

If this does not clearly refute your assumption, please let me know how I can expand on the thought although I an not sure what else I could say to be more clear.

First, Robert.. For you to suggest (even as a joke) that it would be legal for you to kill an illigal immmigrant, is first a foremost a childish response. And if you are as you say a person of faith, than why would you suggest you should be alloewed to kill someone and violate one of the 10 commandments?
Mary Lou, the morning after pill doesn't prevent fertilization of an egg, it prevents the egg from implanting and resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.
I also think that if someone Robert loved were raped and became pregnant, he would be singing a different tune

Lisa, while I understand your point of view and appreciate your willingness to share I have to respectfully point out the fact that that mindset is significantly rooted in relativism. The notion that "your right and wrong" may be different than "my right or wrong" and ignoring the possibility that truth really exists.

There is by no means an assumption of disrespect, not intention or desire to prove anyone right or wrong, instead there is a desire to substantively and rationally try to find what the truth of the issue is. I am not trying to make this sound like lofty notions of rhetoric, just trying to point out that this is not about two sides proclaiming "I'm good and you're evil" or "I'm smart and you're stupid".

I can't believe I have scrolled down this far and so far, no one has really challenged you in an intelligent way.

I am sort of Roman Catholic, in the way that Jewish people can be Jewish without being particulary religious. It is in my family. I celebrate Christmas. I cook lamb or ham on Easter. That kind of Catholic. Just a disclaimer.

I am not a vegetarian or vegan. But I do know that some people fully believe that " meat is murder" . I also believe that they should not be forced to eat meat, shop at places that sell meat, or do anything otherwise meat-related. But they can't stop me from enjoying a cheeseburger, because my belief system, which is shared by many, allows me to do so. Oh, yeah, I also don't believe vegans should be allowed to influence agricultural policy, say, by refusing to pay taxes if the US Government is going to subsidize cattle farmers or whatever. But I digress.

I do understand that, at another stage of development, I was a fertilized egg. But I was also a sperm, too, billions of which perish anonymously in tube socks and tissues in the bedrooms of teenage boys all over America. Nocturnal genocide.

If you claim our legal system should not distinguish between unborn and born life, you are assuming that there is no legal gradation of value once born. Not true. If three people were killed in the same negligent accident - a highly paid bond broker, a dishwasher, and a child, we might all feel the child's death had more...bathos. Continued

(cont.). But in the ensuing legal arguments and settlements, we would see that in addition to wrongful death and emotional distress, the wives of the bond broker and the dishwasher could also sue for lost wages, projected over a lifetime. Guess who is worth more? And the parents of the child? Sorry, but that kid might have gotten hit by a car at 12. Sure, he might have been a surgeon, but he also might have been a heroin addict.

As to medical risks, when you get your medical degree, let me know. Besides ectopic pregnancy,, off the top of my head, I can come up with placenta previa, separated placenta, uterine rupture, hemorrhage, molar pregnancy, leukemia, kidney failure, preeclampsia,.....but I am not a doctor, either. I am just not a guy, and I actually have been pregnant, so I actually had to think about these things as if they were, kind of, important.

I don't know when the unborn become worthy of benefit-of-the doubt. I, too, think that an 8- month pregnancy is a baby. But I do not believe that you can confer full personhood on "someone" who does not yet POSESS A BODY. That is to say, if I gave a fertilized egg to you for safekeeping, would it have " all the potential to develop through all the later stages"? Without the help of anyone other than the very concerned and morally straight Robert Way? Good luck with growing a body to match the civil rights you would confer. I think I'm done.

I wonder what would happen to a woman who is emplyed by 1 of these so called"faith based" institutions becane pregnant and did what they considered the right thing and decided to carry her pregnancy to term.My guess is that if she wasn;t married or wasn't married long enough,she be fired for behaving immorally.If she had an abortion,no one but she and her doctor would know.Hypocrites!

marylou, you continue to try and distract from the issue at hand, the issue of wether or not the unborn is a human life that has the same right to life as a born individual. In your scenario, it doesn't matter what you guess would happen nor does it add to the conversation in any way.

I agree with Mary, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term, is a very personal and private decision. It should be an individual's choice. The government of this country was founded by men of christian faith who believed in the separation of church and state, specifically so that no one indivdual could force their religious beliefs on anyone else. This country was founded by people seeking freedom from persecution based on their beliefs. But yet here we are, in 2012 , with men like Robert Way and Mitt Romney who are seeking to impose their religious beliefs on others. I can say that as a Catholic, who believes my faith is a very personal and private and would never dream of stripping anyone else of their basic freedoms because of religious beliefs

I think one needs to also consider the totally random hand of Mother Nature. How is it that when a pregnancy is problematic many women will miscarry, but many others will go full term to deliver sometimes severely handicapped children? I feel Nature is fickle in this regard . I have very mixed emotions on the issue and do not feel logic alone can give us answers.

So Pro-Life politicians are only Pro-Life so they can get votes of let me guess, the folks that "cling to their bibles and their guns"?

Thank you for adding undeniable substance to the conversation.....

Sadly, I believe I have to admit defeat at the hands of such an articulate person of principle. I thank you for your contribution to the conversation and will recuse myself from further comments on your insurmountable points.

Such stunning brilliance you exude....

Actually, Catholic hospitals allow abortions when the life of the mother is at stake. But people even ignore guidance by their churches.

Did you really just compare an 8 week old unwanted embryo to a chicken or frog egg?? come on now

Yes I did and I stand by it, it has no more worth than any other type of life as far as I am concerned, it is a lump of unwanted cells.

P.S. I know exactly what an embryo looks like at 8 weeks, even though the cells have started to make formations it is still at this point no more worth than anything else in my opinion.
Now a wanted little embryo on the other hand, anyone who ever wanted to be a parent knows that to that parent it is worth the world.

@Nora - "it is still at this point no more worth than anything else in my opinion"

Nora, this is the core of the issue that the Pro-Life position is trying to address. You say it is not worth anything else, and I know that is your opinion, but what are you basing that on. Why is it not worth anything else or in more concrete terms, why does it not have any value.

When does that embryo earn or acquire its worth. Is it not just a stage of human development that we all went through? Who is the arbiter of worth in this case? Is the mother the arbiter of when that new life is worthy enough to have a right to life. What happens if a mother decides her toddler is no longer "worthy".

As much as others don't like my continued use of the toddler example, it is necessary because nobody has been able to tell me or argue why a toddler is more valuable than a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus. Is value mot intrinsic?

Where is the line in the sand that divides worthy and unworthy, having value or having no value. If drawn only by the mother, when is it that she is no longer allowed to draw that line?

I think it was @Ric that may have been the only one that came close to drawing a line in the sand by saying when the unborn become born but he still didn't completely define that. Is it when the ENTIRE child is outside of the mother, before or after the cord is cut. When the child is partially outside the mother?

When is it exactly that she can no longer terminate?

Please note that I did not say it is not worth anything else, I said it is not more worth than anything else. I do not kill anything if i can help it, I catch spiders I find in my house and throw them out the window (Unless they try to attack me at that point they do go splat)
As I have told you before, people do draw the line in the sand so please stop it with the toddler talk already. Personally I draw the line at 12 weeks, but if you want to go in to argumentation on why that is I suggest you google it because it is too much for me to want to write it here. I'm sure it is possible for a mother to despise her 8 months old fetus, or her 2 year old todder but at this point it is considered able to survive outside of the mother and has legal rights, so thats how that is. And again the born/unborn terms aren't really good to use.

Nora, my apologies for the slight misquote of your comment where you did indeed not "more worth anything else", I wasn't trying to misrepresent what you said but my response to you remains the same.

You are one of the few in here that I feel I can walk through things with so I don't want to alienate you from engaging me but I do have to say that just because you don't like the toddler example does not invalidate it. Instead, please elaborate on why I should not be able to use it, I will be more than happy to let you walk me through that and answers any questions you put to me to try and get me to have to refute you as to why the toddler example is invalid.

By your admission that 12 weeks is where you draw the line I am assuming that viability is the line in the sand for you, please correct me if I am wrong in this regard. I am also making the viability assumption here based on your comment which you seem to acknowledge that since an 8 month old fetus can live outside the mother it "has legal rights" (your words).

Based on your comment, it seems to me you are of the opinion that the legal rights of a new life are acquired after conception but not before "viability", am I incorrect in this assumption?

Robert, the term abortion cannot possibly be applied to a toddler. As for whether or not terminating a human at any age is right or wrong, then we have the discussion of when something becomes a person and also who's rights are more important to us and more discussions surely. As for my drawing the line at 12 weeks, it does have to do with the developmental stage, however a 13 weeks old fetus would not survive outside of mothers body. I do feel that viability should be a major factor in when a fetus has legal rights, however because development can vary somewhat I feel the line must be drawn way before viability. Also there is the aspect of suffering, at 12 weeks the development is not very advanced and there is in addition to no viability, no sensation of pain such as we know it. I have heard of late term abortions where the fetus comes out and is gasping for air trying to live, that breaks my heart.

@Nora - "the term abortion cannot possibly be applied to a toddler".

I'd be more than happy to use another term but my point isn't whether or not the term "abortion" can apply to a toddler as it does a fetus and I would hope that be obvious. The use of a toddler is specifically to provoke the discussion of personhood, I have mentioned personhood many times in my comments throughout this conversation.

The entire issue is indeed "personhood". Is personhood an acquired trait or an intrinsic one? That IS the whole issue is it not?

In regard to viability, does a fetus becoming "viable" change the nature of what the fetus is?

Robert, personhood is not the whole issue, it is only one part of a large debate with many things to consider. Does viability change what a fetus is? Yes and no. It's still a fetus, it does however change many other things, at least for us who are pro choice.
In my opinion, the life that might have been is inferior to the life that is. (in this case the mothers life) Live human tissue is discarded a lot, and before there is any sense of sensation or thought, physically speaking that is what a fetus is. P.S. for this I am going from my view that 12 weeks is the line, sensation does develop before the time of viability.

@Nora - "personhood is not the whole issue".

Nora, here is where I will disagree with you and it may be one of those "agree to disagree" moments for you. Once the "when does an new human life begin" question was answered by science, the Pro-Choice position could only and has only stood on "personhood" as its justification for abortion and to deny the right to life from a human life as either a zygote or at its embryonic or fetal stages of development.

You said "Does viability change what a fetus is? Yes and no". I didn't ask if viability changes what a fetus is, I asked if it changes the NATURE of what it is, what it inherently is which is a human life. The NATURE of something is not acquired or developed or earned, it is intrinsic. Does viability change the NATURE of the fetus. This may be annoying you, but words having meaning and those words have bearing on the conversation.

You said "In my opinion, the life that might have been is inferior to the life that is". Not sure I follow that logic, what do you mean by "might have been". The life we are talking about exists already, is a fetus not a human organism? Both life's in question do indeed exist, one just happens to be inside another.

continued....

@Nora - You said "Live human tissue is discarded a lot and before there is any sense of sensation or thought, physically speaking that is what a fetus is".

Am I then to assume that an embryo or fetus is no different than the mother's finger, or skin, or hair? And after "sensation and thought" are developed, are we therefore no longer made up of live human tissue. Are you and I not made up of "live human tissue" even though we have sensation and thought. According to your comment we are not, so then, what is it we are "made up of"?

Robert, science has determined that it is alive, not that is has a life. There is a difference. I for one do not think the human DNA to be holy in any way. And as far as personhood being the main issue, yes we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. As for the other stuff, let me quote you and answer.
"Am I then to assume that an embryo or fetus is no different than the mother's finger, or skin, or hair?" Yes that is exactly right, unless the mother wants to have the baby, at an early stage it might as well just be a fetus-shaped tumor.
"And after "sensation and thought" are developed, are we therefore no longer made up of live human tissue." In the case of a developed human, one does not exclude the other, of course we are still human tissue.

@Nora - "Robert, science has determined that it is alive, not that is has a life. There is a difference."

There absolutely is a difference and science supports my argument. This Princeton University posting sites over a dozen scientific publications as far back as the 70's; http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Your assertion that a fetus is nothing more than a "fetus-shaped tumor" assumes that the fetus is indeed "part" of the mother much in the same way her finger, skin, and hair are. Science is once again not on your side in that respect because the fetus has an entirely different genetic make-up when compared to the mother and is viewed as a separate and distinct entity;

http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/separate.htm

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/29/unborn-part-mothers-body/

The placenta is the barrier between the two entities; http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/p/placenta.htm

If the assertion stands that a fetus is part of the pregnant mother's body and therefore the mother is the sole arbiter as to whether or not that fetus has a right to life, is that still the case a few seconds before the umbilical cord is cut? The human life is still "part of the mother" at that point is it not?

If I were to take a stand in the personhood debate, I would say that an early stage fetus has the potential to become a person, but it is not yet. Because a person is more than just something in possession of human DNA.
Hm, when using the life term, I was thinking about actually having a life as in being something conscious rather than just alive. But the actual term might mean something else.
Despite the fetus having different DNA than the mother, if it is in the very early stages and unwanted then I would still compare it to a fetus-shaped tumor or other foreign object for that matter, it is something unwelcome in the womans body.
While I understand your argumentation that if it were a part of the mother she could just cut it off 2 days before birth blabla, this is exactly the same thing that has been discussed earlier only in a different wrapping and I have told you my views on this. My line in the sand is at 12 weeks, anything before that should be the mothers decision.

yeah right, pro-life & the death penalty both are stances that the republican party endorse. it is quite confusing...

Where's Murrow, while the purpose of this conversation is not necessarily focused on the death-penalty I will say that the Pro-Life position is a right to life from conception until natural death. Please don't confuse the Pro-Life Platform with either politicians or people in general that may be Pro-Life when it comes to the unborn but advocates for the death-penalty otherwise. The Platform itself has not changed, the right to life, from conception to natural death.

The Pro-Life position cannot have people that pick and choose what part of the platform they choose to accept held against it.

The death penalty is one that I myself continue to struggle with. There is the notion that if an individual knowingly and willing takes the life of another they forfeit the right to their own. This notion goes completely against the Pro-Life Platform itself but is held but many.

I didn't want to avoid your question but I also want to make sure we stay on topic so I hope that answers your question.

Stuffin, my intention is not to say that because those words are not in the bible verbatim that it is silent on abortion, just that it is silent on the issue, regardless of what the "goat herders" of the time would call it.

And who said "conception is when the mass of cells takes on a soul". A "soul" has not even been mentioned by myself or anyone else in this conversation and at not time do I or the Pro-Life position pretend to defend the Platform based on any kind of "soul".

The death penalty is one that I myself continue to struggle with. There is the notion that if an individual knowingly and willing takes the life of another they forfeit the right to their own.
SO I'm I correct in thinking that Robert Way whould put to death a women who chose to terminate a fetus @ 3wks?

Lisa, thank you again for your contribution and now your follow-up. At no time did I gather from your comments that you were reflecting negatively on the article.

Shhh, do as I say, not as I do.

Everyone who is Pro-Life should be 100% against IVF as by definition embryos are killed.

And also pro-Octomom.

Aly, I'm glad you had a good outcome. I do NOT mean that in any snarky way.
I believe in a woman's right to choose an abortion. You seem to also when it involves rape, incest or health of the mother.
While I do not agree with that restrictive a view, I still respect your view.
My issue is when we have the author of this piece, the republican vice-president candidate, and many others who are on the extreme right, and yes many motivated by their religious views, you say "no abortions, no exceptions for rape or incest".
Vice president candidate Ryan was quoted just last week that the "method of conception does not change the meaning of life". I can provide the video link if anyone doubts my exact quote of him.
I'm sorry, when someone believes that and wants to legislate that a rape or incest can be considered just "another method of conception", I will fight to the end to defeat that legislation. The first step is to NOT cast my vote for a ticket who so arrogantly is happy to push that agenda.

That is such an excellent and touching response. Someone mentioned earlier that there must not be any women commenting on here because of the pro-life responses. I am also a woman and I am pro-life. I had my daughter at 21 and contemplated abortion once because I wasn't sure I could handle the responsibility. However, she has been the best thing to happen to my life. We are a happy, successful family (I went on to graduate college and complete a master's degree!). My point here is, what right do I have to say that my daughter's life should have been ended? Like Aly stated, it is a life or death issue.

My 2 cents- thank you. I do happen to agree with Ryan's statement about the method of conception doesn't change the meaning of life, it doesn't, but what the method of conception does change, it the life of the mother. I cannot imagine how terrifying it is to be a rape victim, and if in that situation, I could say, get yourself to a hospital within 48 hours and get the morning after pill, then you don't have a reason in that scenerio to consider abortion. But I understand that rape is often not reported right away, and like I said, must be terrifying for a woman, and emotionally she shouldn't have to be forced to have that child. Also- if you listen to the rest of Ryan's statement, he does say that the Romney-Ryan view on abortion does allow for abortion in situations of rape or incest, which is an improvement in the abortion laws we have now.
amanda- I don't know how old your daughter is, but I do hope when she is old enough, you share that story with her. It really put things in perspective for me, and made me think twice about choices I was making. I feel lucky and blessed every day that I have my life, because I could not have easily not have been here.

Aly,I undertand why you feel the way you do.I'm guessing that you were not born addicted to drugs,HIV positive or disabled in any way.You are probably also white.That's the type of child most adoptive parents want.If abortions becomes illegal,many of the children these women are forced to carry to term may not be perfect and will in orphages unitl the are 18 and in some other type of facility after that.I adopted waht many consider a less than perfect child.He is multi-racial.

Aly,also,you mentioned in your later comment that a rape victim should take the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.You do realize that most of the pro-life crowd,including Robert Way,oppose the use of that also.

marylou, while I know you and I will willingly agree to disagree on the issue at hand. I want to set it aside for a moment to commend you for being an adopting parent. Please know I do so with the utmost sincerity and respect. Folks that adopt a child into their own care do not always receive the credit they deserve.

"Aly,also,you mentioned in your later comment that a rape victim should take the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.You do realize that most of the pro-life crowd,including Robert Way,oppose the use of that also."

And I explained why above......

You are only here because your mother was strong enough to make that choice. But a lot of people are not, and are forced to choose abortion because they cannot make that choice.

The saddest aspect of the anti-abortion/pro-choice movements is that what we all SHOULD be focusing on is prosecuting people who kill their born children. The case in Basking Ridge, where a mother killed her 9-year old son because he was diagnosed with epilepsy, resulted in a not guilty verdict because she was "severely depressed". She was in the psych ward for a few years and is now out, because she is "CURED".

Face it, if the government does not punish people who can afford lawyers after killing their kids, how could abortion ever be illegal again?

Aly,
I am very happy you had a great outcome. But...I have to ask if you think it would have been the same, if you were born a crack addict or born with your spinal cord on the outside of your body. THIS is why I am Pro-choice...I do not think I could ever have an abortion....But I am not about to live knowing I FORCED someone to do something I might not be able to do. Do you ever think that someone might be thinking of the suffering of the unborn

Otter09, you establish yourself on a very slippery slope of relativism with your argument. If I am to agree with your argument than I too can possess my own definition of morality whereby it is moral "to me" to terminate my toddler in the supermarket if they continually misbehave. Rather far reaching is it not, but it is where the slippery slope of moral relativism can eventually lead.

The issue at hand here is why is it an immoral act to terminate the misbehaving child but not immoral to terminate the unborn child. It can only be justified if the unborn is indeed not a human life possessing the same intrinsic value as the toddler and I have yet to read a single argument in this entire conversation that can draw that line in the sand.

Let me ask this simple question, what if the mother and doctor were to decide five minutes after the baby were actually born? Obviously the answer to that question is "that is not an option". So what is it exactly that happens in the twelve inch path the unborn goes through to become born to not allow that same decision to be mage five minutes or even five seconds after birth?

Robert if the mother decides after birth that she does not wish to keep her child that would result in adoption. What happens during pregnancy is gradual development, and at some point if it comes out it is labor.

Nora, my main point is to try and focus on what the distinction is between the born and the unborn using a hypothetical example of "termination" occurring immediately after birth with is actually a view held by Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University as I mention in my article.

I of course acknowledge that adoption is the obvious next step in such a situation.

Robert, I see. I guess born/unborn is not a very good set of words when debating termination, unborn could mean anything from 1 day after conception to 9 months. Most pro-choice people would notsay that all unborn can be terminated, it would be more a distinction between developmental stages in the unborn that would be relevant. Until what point people think termination is ok vary widely, when the heart starts to beat, when it has limbs, when it is able to live outside the mother etc. Extremely few people would agree that termination right up until birth is ok, so I thought it was a strange hypothetical question even if Peter Singer from Princeton holds the view that there is no difference between a lump of 12 cells and a 9 month old baby.

I'm curious. Can you give me an example of what that would be? Like, mandatory circumcision, or the banning of same? I mean, something that has actually been proposed, that affects the bodies of men and not women?

No -- Repubs want death penalty, unlimited-ammo clips for guns, kill-Medicare budget and more tax breaks for the rich. America laughed in 2008 when they ran Sarah Palin, and we're laughing again. They just don't get it.

I answered you on that one above....

What about all of those sentanced to death, only to find out they were innocent thanks to advances in DNA evidence testing? Oops! It isn't just mass murderers who the death penalty kills. Where is the outrage from the pro-choice or the Right? Still a silly question?

So you want Joe the Plumber to be able to buy 1,000 clips of 96 bullets each?

The Catholic Church recommends a method called "natural family planning". It is 99% effective and 100% natural. Only committed Catholics need be concerned about this. The rest can hash it out with God later, if there is a god. Committed Catholics find that practicing their faith enriches every aspect of their lives, even the conjugal act. In fact, since NFP is symptom-based, it is effective when used in reverse. That is, it can help a couple who want to conceive a child, but have difficulty.

As for abortion, it is basically the killing of an unwanted child. If you can accept the moral responsibility for it, that's your prerogative. But I don't know why we outlaw other lesser crimes, if abortion is legal.

Great Dologirl! So you OPPOSE OBAMACARE, right? Because you are going to be FORCED to take vaccines mandated by the government; submit your medical data to faceless/nameless government "agents"; by forced by the ARMED IRS agents to pay for health insurance you don't want...

Shall I go on?

Monk,you do know what they call people who use "natural family planning",don't you? The answer is parents! This method my be effective for women who have regular mesntural cycles,but many women do not.And then there are those who are told by doctors that they cannot have children and don't become pregnant until they are well over 40and run the danger if endangering their own health by carrying a fetus.

Dologirl, your vasectomy argument would be more valid in a strict contraceptive discussion and whether or not mandating contraception is right or wrong. Contraception prevents pregnancy, it does not terminate one no matter how someone opposed to that statement wants to twist the semantics of what contraception is.

As for you charge that "no one should be able to tell me what to do with my body", that is commonly known as the Bodily Autonomy Claim. This particular argument is is one that takes much greater length to deconstruct than the space on this blog will allow so I would like to refer you to a position statement that addresses Bodily Autonomy found at the following links. I ask only that you take the time to read the resources as I would be more than happy to read andy resources you feel support your argument. I will readily admit that these links are to Pro-Life sites but ask that you do not immediately discount them based on that rather do so if you will by refuting their substance.

http://tinyurl.com/8sgrjcb and http://tinyurl.com/6spkhjj

Because abortion is NOT a crime, at least not so far, Mr. monk.

Really? I am assuming this is because I am a religious zealot and just have neglected to lay out the role the devil plays in this whole thing. But I am not surprised, after all, I was exposed for believing Adam and Even rode on dinosaurs 600 years ago further up the comments section.

Yes,Robert you did,and,Aly,who says she is pro-life disagrees with you.Your beliefs and your reason for them give you no right to force them on others my trying to outlaw things you think are wrong.
My personal feeling,if you care are these.If a women doesn't want to become pregnant and are sexually active,use effective birth control.If a woman or young girl is raped in any fashion,or if she has unplanned,unprotected sex,she should take the morning after pill.I do believe in abortion if the mother's health is endangered by continuing the pregnancy or if the fetus is unhealthy.But,this is my opinion only,the way I would like to see thing,not something that I would want to be enforced by laws..

mary45, based on your line of thinking am I supposed to gather that you believe that the wife of every conservative, pro-life male is a controlled and mindless individual perfectly willing to accept her role as not having any independent thought or influence over issues related to her husband, herself, or her children? Kinda sounds like what you're saying unless of course I am mistaken.

To Robert Way: No, of course I'm not saying anything as extreme as that. What I am saying though, is that the conservative approach includes controlling their women, and anyone else who might come under their control. I used the examples of Saudis not letting women drive and no female priests in the catholic church and could add that our country did not let women vote for some time, and we had slaves that could not vote and were not entirely free (if then) until the 1960s. Not allowing women to have abortions acts to keep them in a state of pregnancy and caring for children so they will have difficulty operating on the same level as men. Also, the idea that women should always be willing to submit to their husbands is part of it. It's all a matter of control and it’s part of the conservative philosophy. The conservative attacks on science (e.g., questioning evolution and denying man made global warming) also seem to be along this line. That is, keep people uneducated in science so they don’t have the critical thinking skills to question your often debatable statements.

mary54, please believe me when I say I absolutely mean no disrespect in what I am about to say but this comment is a complete train wreck of rhetoric.

There is no conservative philosophy that condones controlling their women, site the source.

The Pro-Life position does not seek to achieve the goal of preventing a woman from achieving the same level as a man, again, site the source. It is to prevent the killing of an unborn human life.

Your notion of "submit to their husbands" requires much more context than what "liberated women" are willing to allow for as it wouldn't serve as the sound bite it so often is. It does not mean a wife must do what her husband says, take the time to understand that phrase in its proper context.

And your accusation that conservatives reject science flies in the face of the fact that I initially base my arguments above on science. And regarding evolution and global warming, or is it global climate change this week, or wait it was the coming ice age a few decades ago, are not science, they are consensus, and consensus is not science. There is just as much "science" on the other side of both those debates. You have absolutely no ground to stand on to defend your claim that conservatives want to keep people uneducated so they can't debate the issues.

john,if i had a gun and a man tried to rape me,I wouldn't put the slug between his eyes.

What you say is confusing. Any woman has the right to carry, unless she is unconscious and cannot make the decision for herself, and her life is at stake.

There was a recent case in Central America where a pregnant teenager would not be given chemotherapy for leukemia because of her pregnancy, and would not be given an abortion because Catholics run the country. Guess what? She died and of course the fetus died too. Good job, anti-abortion nuts.

Dologirl -- So it's OK to have armed federal agents being dispatched to your neighbor's house who doesn't want to buy something they don't want from the government.

Michelle Krystofik. Good post I thought, but keep in mind that while this can change a person it does not always lead to bad things. Some feel pain, guilt, shame etc, where as others feel relief, closure etc. Making the right choice for yourself isn't always easy, and humans sometimes tend to think of the what-ifs of our lives. And of course, sometimes people feel that they actually did not make the right choice. But still, it should be theirs to make

Michelle,

You were probably dealing with broken individuals to begin with.

Bull.

That's not necessarily true, some people have much more shame giving birth to a child out of wedlock.

Not always, Michelle.

Not always, not even most of the time. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes people regret things they do. But we still allow adults to make their own decisions.

Dologirl: You're so ignorant, it's laughable. Did you read the Obamacare bill that was signed into law? It's over 2,000 thousand pages -- and it's pretty darned boring!

As for armed IRS agents -- do you deny there are HUNDREDS of armed IRS agents? Yes or no?

I agree, armed federal agents at your neighbor's door is a tad extreme. The IRS will just attach a lien on your neighbor's house, evict them and sell the home out from under them.

Ok George -- How many children are concieved due to rape and incest? Can you give me some statistics, please? Valid sources only (Ex. HIH, CDC; etc.)

Don't be silly, the Church, Republicans, and all rational and caring people never burden or mandate is such cases that the birth mother raise the child. Their approach has always bee to give the child up for adoption, which maintains the sacredness of life. Choose life is what the Creator mandates, all other solutions are an embrace of evil.

AStargazer,As I mentioned before in my reply to Aly,not all children put up for adoption are adopted.Many adoptive parents want a child they can pass of as their biological child.They also want a healthy child.which may sound selfish,but not everyone can afford to quit a job to care for a handicapped child or one with medical needs.And their health insurance may not cover the costs,either.
I must also add the any single,pregnant woman runs the risk of losing her job,and with it,her health insurance."faith based"organizations have been known to fire single women who become pregnant because of "immoral behavior."If she has an abortion,no one knows she was pregnant,except her and her doctor.

Dologirl: Here are your words: "...radical right wingers talking and distorting the truth."

For your information, Dologirl: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a special unit called the Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI).

* There are ~2,800 special agents assigned to IRS-CI;
* The designation of "special agent" falls under the GS-1801,1810,1811 or FS-2501 classification;
* Under federal law, the have the power to arrest and carry side-arms conduct investigations into the violation of federal tax laws;
* The standard issed side-arm is the .40-cal. Glock 23; they are also issued SIG Arms 9mm

-- So -- I guess it's Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh that posted the information at the the IRS' web site huh? (Ref: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-011-003.html#d0e816 ).

Beihng skeptical is fine -- but when you don't know what you're talking about, you should choose your words wisely -- especially when there are subject matter experts out there.

"Dologirl 7:20 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012 Sorry to disappoint you, but I pay for my children's health care with every single paycheck through my health insurance plan. And as for armed federal agents, that is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. I can only think this is the radical right wingers talking and distorting the truth."

I would absolutely second that request as it distracts from the issue at hand.

I'm doing just fine. It amazes me that I am attacked when I point out that Obamacare enforcement will be made by the IRS -- and that means ARMED AGENTS from the IRS's Criminal Investigation Division.

This is great -- buy Obama's corrupt government-run health scam insurance or they'll send in the SS Kriminalpolizei!

Fred M -- good point. Until recently, I had no idea that some 50 MILLION babies have been aborted over the past few decades. That's the population of some nations!

And maybe that single mother who can't finish college because of her child can't find a cure for cancer. Do you even understand what is being weighed here? Do you understand how much of a burden raising a child can be, even if you are ready for it?

Actually, you could interpret that as pro-woman, that the fetus gives its life so that SHE can live.

It seems you are missing the entire point of my article in that the Pro-Life position is NOT a religious belief. The belief that murdering an innocent toddler is held by people of faith, that does not make it a religious belief. The religious aspect of the conversation is solely to point out that people of faith usually have more of a tendency and are compelled more to be vocal about their Pro-life position. There are plenty of non-religious people that hold the same Pro-Life positions.

Toddle means to walk unsteadily. Toddler means a child of walking age. If you don't have legs, you can't walk.

Donna, thank you for your comments not only in regard to my statements but also in your further support of the Pro-Life position.

Dologirl -- I never claimed I was an expert on abortion or theology.

* I asked all of the pro-abortion people at what time is it NOT acceptable to perform an abortion on an unborn child, and I all received were smart a$$ comments.

* Someone stated there is no religion involved in our laws -- and I point out that overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers were men of faith and that first act of Congress was a prayer to God -- and I was villified for it.

* I pointed out that the IRS is charged, by federal law to be the enforcement arm of Obamacare -- and that people who don't pay the tax WILL be investigated by armed federal agent of the CI division of the IRS -- and YOU challenged me on that.

--like I said, I am not theological man or even a doctor -- but I know my history and I know the law when it comes to federal agencies that have special agents with arrest authority.

Michelle, thanks for getting involved. I want to reiterate once again what the main point of the article I posted is. The Pro-Life position is NOT a religious belief. I don't know how many times I have to explain that. It is based on and I have expressed in the article that it is rooted in both science (human life begins at conception) and philosophy (human personhood exists from conception as a result of human life having intrinsic value). There are an untold number of people in this country that are NOT people of faith but still support the Pro-Life position.

The only religious aspect to the debate that I have acknowledged is that people of faith tend to more willingly and openly defend the Pro-Life position. People of faith believe it is immoral and unlawful to kill an innocent toddler, does that make it a religious belief they are imposing on people that don't share their faith or have no faith at all.

The "it's a religious belief" argument so readily falls on its face because that argument can easily be attached to the Pro-Life position because it avoids the root issue of answering the question "what is the unborn".

Robert, you don't see it as being a religious argument, but it kind of is.

Stuffin, thank you for recognizing the time and thought I have tried to inject into this conversation. Your willingness to further evaluate the issue is all I ask of anyone.

Thanks you.

Spooner, am I to believe that there is no law that is based in morality? If not based in morality, what is it based on? The only alternative to law based on morality is law based on relative morality, i.e. the slippery slope of what is right and wrong to one group may be different than what is right or wrong for another group.

As for trial and punishment, I'll be the first to admit that I would not support the incarceration of a woman who has an abortion, on the other hand, the doctor that performs the procedure and it ultimately the one that takes the life, that I would be more willing to get behind.

You also stretch the context of freedom and liberty, while we absolutely enjoy those notions in this country we cannot not due so at the expense of another individuals' right to life. So once again we circle back to the root issue. What is the unborn and does the unborn possess the same right to life as those of us who are born?

Stuffin, you are absolutely correct in your assessment that the debate has in large shifted to the debate about personhood. The scientific community has for some time now acknowledge that a new human life begins at conception so the philosophical debate in regard to personhood rages on.

Stuffin, unfortunately for you and others in this thread. It doesn't matter how many times you say the Pro-Life position is a religious belief, it is just NOT TRUE. It is held by scores of non-faith-based individuals and if we are to believe that just because people of faith openly defend a position that it is then inherently religious then the fact that I cannot walk next door to my neighbors house and kill them because their dog peed on my grass must be a religious belief as well, after all, I am a person of faith and I believe that is morally wrong.

stuffin- that has been a recurring argument(i.e. soul in the fetus) The Greeks used the term:"animated" After Christianity, the term animated was identified has the soul. This creation period of being animated or acquiring a soul was considered to be from 40 to 80 days after conception based on sex.

Stuffin, personally I would agree that the notion of a "soul" is a religious one. I don't profess to know, understand, or assume when a "soul" enters the body. The problem for you here is that the Pro-Life position is not part of the Pro-Life Platform. Just because some people may try to use it to argue in favor of the Pro-Life position to perhaps appeal to a certain audience, it is NOT a plank that is stood on.

Abortion is against religious belief because most religions believe it is morally wrong to willing kill a human life. Once again, there are scores of people that are not "of faith" that believe the same thing so when a group of atheists are running around defending the Pro-Life position, what do you say to them?

Who am I to take a life?

Ever squash a fly?

Your assertion assumes that human life is no more prescious than a fly I am guessing?

Do you believe in "Stand Your Ground"? If yes, then you cannot say you are Pro-Life.

If he isn't discovered, does he have to pay the fifty shekels? Also, does he have to marry her and never get a divorce?

I don't follow you stuff in, I thought I was the one trying to argue this issue based on the Bible? Care to elaborate on why you copied and pasted what you did?

In Israel, a woman cannot get divorced if her husband does not give her permission. Most custody cases are automatically settled in favor of full custody by the father.

A classic ad hominem comment, attack the messenger instead of addressing the issue.

sp, abortion is the irresponsible/nefarious man's best friend and savior. why would you attack a man who is trying to stand up for women and the sanctity of the life they carry and bear? News flash: Robert is one of the "good guys"! It is men who argue in favor of abortion who are truly selfish and misogynistic.

Well said, Summit Mom. Lest we forget that 51% of aborted life is female life....no value, no substance, in no need of protection. Who exactly is it that is misogynistic, sp?

sp resident, can you please elaborate further on the point you are trying to make and how it relates to the issue at hand. I want to make sure I fully understand what you are trying to convey before I respond instead of misrepresenting your comments.

Robert, you know 'exactly' what sp resident is saying.... but just in case;

How about we implement some new "Mandatory Celibacy Laws"?
Yeah, that sounds good, doesn't it?
NO SEXUAL ACTIVITY - of any kind- for any Male person of any age, unless legally married under the eyes of the Law and/or (a) Religion! Bingo!
Let's put the Church, and the local Sheriff right into a man's pants, just like we want to put the Church and the government right into a woman's uterus!
Any act of sexual activity by any unmarried Male will be punishable by law.....
We can cut back on probably 75% of the abortions in America if men kept it in their pants, if you know what I mean. How's that sound??

But really, how about you, the church, the government and everyone else stay out of EVERY woman's business between herself and her medical caregiver? See? Isn't that much more practical?

That is the point - the abortion debate should be a serious one. A pregnant woman considering abortion should have counseling for and against abortion. I know MANY women who feel they have lost their souls to the children they have given birth to, and these women were married with supposed "full support" from the fathers of their children.

Of course someone can be "hurt" by abortion. Both sides hurt women by making believe that THEIR answer is the only answer.

^5 High Five, Marylou!

Yes, I wish they had a slightly better format.

Now that's one of the more intelligent things I've read here. Let's all get our baseballs and go home.
BTW, while your vagina is making its decision does the unborn child in the womb have any say?

@WBelmarmom - "no vagina = not allowed to have a say."

Initially I was not going to respond to your argument but after thinking about realized that it deserved the same attention I have paid to others.

If one is to accept your premise than one can also assume that a political utopia of sorts for you would be a vagina as President (sticking with your use of terms here), there would be super majorities of vaginas in both the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court would be populated with nine vaginas.

If that were indeed the case, what say you if the President with a vagina were advocating a Pro-Life platform, the Congressional vaginas acted on that by legislating abortion illegal in direct conflict with Roe v Wade, and once that law was challenged in court it was upheld by the nine vaginas on the Supreme Court?

Based on your argument I would think you would be ok with that decision because it was determined by people with vaginas. You ignore the fact that there are indeed people with vaginas that don't hold your position and their numbers may eventually be in the right places at the right time to make my scenario become a reality.

As an aside, the so called "right" you seek to defend seems to have been bestowed upon you by seven of the nine penises on the Warren Court. I guess when persons with a penis agree with you then everything is fine and their opinion, or ruling in this case, actually matters.

RIGHT ON WBelmarmom!

There are probably more Pro-Life women out there than Pro-Life men. Most religions teach women to be subjugated to their men - a pig cannot decide who to have sex with and when to have piglets.

well you would have to believe in the bible and its teachings to believe that line. Personally, the ONLY person who has any say in abortion is the one carrying the fetus! PRACTICE BIRTH CONTROL AND CONTROL YOUR FREEDOM!

The word "soul" is religious, anything said anti-abortion or pro-choice related to it is meaningless. Unless we are in a theocracy, and we're not.

Mr. Froelich, I want to thank you for taking the time to get involved in the conversation. I want to apologize to you specifically for not making the effort to reach out to you directly or as a comment on your original piece to let you know I had referenced it and was using it as the launching point for my article.

If I may get clarification from you on a couple of things it would help me to make sure I do not respond to you out of context. The question are pretty simple actually and yes or no would suffice but I am going to assume you will elaborate.

1. Would you consider it to be an absolute truth that the willful killing of a three year old child is morally wrong?

2. You say "many people would see a real and relative difference and a moral distinction between taking the life of a misbehaving child and that of a newly formed zygote- even if you don’t". Then I ask you, what side of that particular statement are you on? I will further qualify that question by saying that it is not suffice to answer by saying "it is up to the woman and her doctor" as that is a cop-out.

I fully understand that this debate is the "third-rail" of politics, for lack of a better expression. But I as well as countless other would expect those wanting to be our leaders would be willing to fully engage in this conversation as it seems you are willing to do.

This one is classic, you are in a dead heat with WBelmarmom's "no vagina" comment above for my favorite of the thread so far. I travel through Ocean County quite often to be honest, although I don't live there. I live further north with my wife who is also my sister and third cousin and my multiple kids who are somehow my second cousins... go figure....

That's actually a very important point, related to general comments about "how much worse the world is" compared to years ago. IT'S NOT WORSE! It's just that we don't read about it.

If you see a picture, that makes it real. If a kid starves to death in Ethopia, or is raped in Thailand, you don't see it, who cares? You only care if you see it.

That also means that pictures and words can be manipulated to sway you. Human embryos look a LOT like animal embryos, and it has been proven that some anti-abortion folks use images of animal embryos because they don't know the difference.

There is no heart beat to hear before 12-16 weeks. Period. Don't you realize that at 12-14 weeks the actual embryo is the size of this: |---------------------| about an inch and a half. Imagine what size the heart would be, IF it was even fully formed by this time. You will not hear it beating through the embryonic fluid, the uterus, and the walls and muscles of the abdomen until much later than this. So let's keep it real...ok? Might have heard the heartbeat a "few weeks" after your wife announced she was pregnant, or knew she was pregnant... but you don't hear a heartbeat during the first trimester.

Mattie, while it is not possible to find it without using internal ultrasound, the heart can start to flutter at as early as 5 weeks. The hearts are tiny tiny tiny, and are as you say not even close to fully formed at that time.

Wall Resident - A simple question for you then, is when does this adorable little "blob with arm buds" become a baby and do we have the moral and or legal right to terminate the life of a baby?

Wall Resident, the argument you make is one that tries to justify abortion based on level of development. Whether a human life is a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, and so on, they are simply stages of development of a human being, human person, human life, human organism, whichever human "something" you want to call it.

How does level of development qualify or disqualify a human life from a right to his or her own life?

Please explain to me where in the progression of human development the line is drawn between it being acceptable to terminate and then not able to terminate. Then proceed to explain to me what is it that makes the difference between the moment immediately before that threshold and immediately after.

The Pro-Life position has a definitive line in the sand, conception. Where is the Pro-Choice line in the sand? And it is not suffice to say "it depends" or it is "up to the woman and her doctor". What if that doctor is Peter Singer, the Princeton University professor that advocates termination of a human life up to months after birth because they have not yet acquired "personhood"?

I'm confused -- what do lifestyle choices of any given sexually active woman have to do with whether or not the life of the sperm + egg (zygote, person, whatever) in her womb is worthless, meaningless, and deserving of extermination? Many healthy babies (mine included) attended a few cocktail parties in their first few weeks of life....so what? This seems to be a straw man argument.

There are others that articulate the response to this common argument so I will provide a link to one for the time being; http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-only-prosecute-doctor-serge.html

So "the Great Republican Abortion Tribunal" would be Mitt's "Death Panel" for zygotes after rapes, incest and serious health threats to the impregnated women.

Asimon, I apologize for assuming everyone is willing to follow external links as I too usually have the same policy out of fear of virus and malware. I have created a PDF of the document and attached it to the blog post as a document if you wish to read it.

Just because I don't take the time to fully articulate a response to your question because I feel there are others that are better equipped to fully explain it does not mean that you can readily discard my rebuttal to your comment via another's writings.

If anyone wanted me to refer to a sited source I would have no problem doing so. Some folks want to make sure they don't misrepresent and argument and would rather defer to text from another they feel makes the point clearer than they presently can and that space on a blog post would allow.

These are obviously serious and complicated issues. So are many aspects of crime and punishment. But just because they are tricky does not mean we should not address them. Many in BOTH political parties, and certainly a large part of the U.S. population, believe your "zygote" is also a human being, with a (some would say God given) right to his/her life. Many also believe that Roe V. Wade was a completely political decision without legal merit -- there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. You raise good points, but clearly you think the other side should shut up and go away. Liberals are so often the intolerant ones who can't accept other points of view. What do you say to a person who believes a woman seeking an abortion is no different than Andrea Yates contemplating her own "choice"? Others, like Obama, believe it's appropriate to "finish the job" when a baby actually survives an abortion. Two very different points of view. Obviously this is an ongoing and important debate that is appropriate to engage in. And P.S.: one thing everyone can agree on is that Akin's comments were completely awful -- the only reason to cite them is for political points, not a serious discussion.

I agree with you! I wonder how many daughter from pro-life families have had abortions.I know of 1 such family myself.What really amazes me is once the fetus is carried to term,the pro-life crowd loses interest in the baby.I guess it's their responsibility to see that the bay is born and it's the mother's responsibility after.If she can't support the child or doesn't want it,tough shite.Having female parts does not mean that a woman wants a child or that she will make a good mother.

MaryLou,
What a nasty post to state that pro life people as not interested in a baby after it is born!
My Wife and I are pro life and we have 4 adopted children. We treasure our family. One of my children and his girlfriend had a baby and no one ever thought of an abortion as an option. Today she is our first grand child and we treasure her. They also married in due course and are a great couple. In families things happen and what is so important is to love and forgive and then love even more. Funny all my children are pro life, and they are so grateful that their birth parents did not choose abortion.

Concerned,
That's Marylou. In another article still up she suggests the unborn who are not perfect or of mixed race would be unwanted for adoption and so are not worth saving. She would have made a good Nazi. Look it up, the Akin story.

Jersey swamps, thank you for the note. So MaryLou is the author of a comment on mixed or biracial children not being adopted or wanted!! That is sad. One of my sons is bi -racial and he is so gifted. Being his father is a joy and honor. To see him grow up and define himself as a person of worth and positive self esteem has been very special for me. He is my Son and I am so thankful for him everyday.

marylou - I agree with you that "having female parts does not mean that a woman wants a child or that she will make a good mother." Can we agree though that even a moderately educated woman understands that sexual intercourse can result in a pregnancy or are we, as women, simply reduced to being dogs in heat? Do we have any control over our willingness to engage in actions that have cause and effect consequences? My point here is one of personal responsibility. Nature has set it up such that women bear the brunt of pregnancy and the ensuing child. However, outside of the case of rape, I do not know many women who do not have the ability to abstain from the act which causes an "undesired consequence."

I am pro-choice and I also have an adopted child.He was born healthy.Isn't that what every parent wants,a healthy child?If their mothers are unable or unwilling to care for them<what happens to them.Most of us don't have health insurance that would cover the cost associated with adopting a handicapped or very sick child.And if you cannot provide for the child,you aren't allowed to adopt him or her,or at least that's how it was when we adopted our child.
And my dear jersey swamps,I never said that the gov't should dictate who is allowed to be born .That is up to the woman who is carrying a sick or handicapped fetus and her doctor.It is a fact that handicapped children are less likely to be adopted than those who are not handicapped.Many people even consider multi-racial children less desireable.So, the next time you see white parents with a mixed race child,don't give them looks.They could me me and my family.And no,I don't want to be told what a wonderful thing my husband and I did when we adopted him.We are the lucky ones.

Concerned,the fact is that your daughter-in-law made the right"choice" for herself.it's not the right choice for every female has an unplanned pregnancy.They were in a commited relationship and wanted the child and had the support of their families.Good for them and all of you.It's just not always the case and the rest of us shouldn't assume that every family is like yours.

Donna,yes women should realize if they have unprotected sex,they might become pregnant. Even among educated girls and young women,I've heard a million times that they didn't fell it could happen to them,they had sex when they thought it would be "safe",or they got drunk and had sex without protection.And then there are the ones who were raped,whether legitimately or not.The pro-life crowd may not like it,but children born addicted to drugs or alcohol,those of mixed race,and handicapped children are often not adopted.

marylou - Then again, it seems that, in the case of a disabled or drug-addicted child, we have gradations of "value" when it comes to life. How about at the other end of the life's spectrum? When does life become too old or sick to have value? As in the case of abortion and its more common first trimester standard, should we then not say someone over 80 y.o. should not be treated for pneumonia?

Marylou, mixed racial children are as wonderful and always wanted in adoption. Stop making such awful comments. It seems you do not comprehend the capacity to love all children weather healthy, handicapped, black, white, Asian whatever.

marylou,
You are putting a dollar value on unborn children. An unborn child that YOU don't think is as valuable as a "perfect" child is a financial burden to the mother or the state if the state has to take care of the child. Nice Nazi thinking.
Now you try to put lipstick on your ugly comment by telling us you adopted a child? If someone adopts there's a good chance they don't know the child's complete medical history. Suppose some kind of medical issue surfaces? Are they or you going to love the child any less? Going to feel cheated?

Spooner, thanks for the reference, that is a very lengthy piece that I will take the time to read through. Just skimming through it initially I think I came across the crux of the piece whereby it states that "by reasoning that many of the rights expressly granted and protected by the Bill of Rights are grounded in a fundamental right to privacy".

On the surface I would argue that one's "right to privacy" which current abortion law wraps itself in does not subvert another's "right to life". Once again, that is just on the surface based on what I was able to quickly gather by perusing the article quickly and I will follow-up again once I have some time to read the entire piece a couple of times.

Thank you for submitting such an extensive piece for review, it only adds to the value of the conversation that is being had.

I will reply directly to your comment as I have here just so you know where to look for it as posts tend to get lost in a thread as long as this one.

Spooner - I just finished reading the piece and believe you are misinterpreting how it addresses the Bill of Rights.

As the author explains;

"The thing is, there is no express right of “privacy” in the Constitution. But the Court had already gotten around that in 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, by reasoning that many of the rights expressly granted and protected by the Bill of Rights are grounded in a fundamental right to privacy."

Furthermore she refers to the Griswold (married couples contraception case) ruling by stating "Griswold was the first case that created a right relating to reproduction without naming a specific clause in the Constitution, because, of course, there is no such provision."

As her piece continues, she logically steps through how the Warren Court (which ruled in Roe v Wade) wrapped abortion in this fabricated "right to privacy" and at no point does she make the case nor suggest anyone else is recommending the repeal of the Bill of Rights.

The only mention of the Bill of Rights in regard to addressing it legislatively is in her fifth summarizing point where she refers to HR300 sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) which seeks to adjudicate the Federal Government from ruling on issues of "privacy" because it does not possess the enumerated right to do so in either the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

Probably needless to say, but Pro-Life advocates do not call for repealing the Bill of Rights nor any Republican that I am aware of.

Mr Way- Ms Rufino discusses the need for the Bill of Rights? She quotes Hamilton's Federalist 84...

...Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist argued that a Bill of Rights was not necessary and in Federalist No. 84, he posed: Why do we need a Bill of Rights to “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”...

...she makes this statement regarding the 9th Amendment...

...Many claim that the right to an abortion potentially falls within the purview of the Ninth Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Space here limits me from adding more of her writings, but my point again: is that if there was no Bill of Rights, we would not be having this conversation?

Spooner, as much as you may try to put words in my mouth, I did not say "Rufino discusses the need for the Bill of Rights" much in the same way I don't say that she is discussing the need for repealing it. You are implying that is what I said and it is just not so.

I am also not going to deny that Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights and as she points out, so did Madison, but their arguments didn't prevail did they, and they were both Federalists, nor did the arguments from the anti-Federalist side that was against the need therefore the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

I'll be totally honest here, I don't understand what point you are trying to make here by mentioning Rubino's reference to the 9th Amendment and your initial question of "So are those who profess Pro Life arguing for the repeal of the Bill of Rights?" so please explain, I am more than willing to understand your point even if you have to dumb it down for me to do so.

I would agree with you in regard to your notion that "if there was no Bill of Rights, we would not be having this conversation" primarily because the fabricated "right to privacy" wouldn't be able to wrap itself in the cloak of The Bill of Rights.

Having said that, you don't go cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will say it again, neither I nor any Pro-Life advocate or Republican is putting forth the notion of repealing The Bill of Rights. That was you initial question and I have answered it.

Like I said, as for abortion, it is basically the killing of an unwanted child. If you can accept the moral responsibility for it, that's your prerogative. But I don't know why we outlaw other lesser crimes, if abortion is legal.

marylou,
Going back to your comment in the Todd Akin blog. Your short comment swirls around the cost of the less than perfect and in your mind less wanted unborn child. "Who's going to support", "Money it costs for a premature baby", "she may not have the means to support", etc. It sounds like you are saying it would be a good idea to abort a less than perfect or bi-racial child because no one wants them and they cost too much to raise.
This is the last I'll comment on this.
BTW, never said I was against abortions. I am all for keeping it legal. I just find some of the arguments of pro abortion zealots nauseating.

marylou, your arguments are putting you on VERY thin ice in that they are arguing for it to become common practice where some people are the arbiters of other people's "quality of life" and if those arbiters determine that the prospect of a "quality of life" above some arbitrary threshold were not to be achieved then the only "compassionate" thing to do would be to "save them" from the struggles of their less than "quality" life.

There is no promise of life without struggles, without discomforts, and without mental or financial or physical stress. That utopia exists with a more "progressive" mindset.

I reject your charge that even though the possibility does exist that a handicapped child may never be adopted and upon becoming an adult still unable to care for themselves therefore being institutionalized for life is a justifiable reason to argue the Pro-Choice position. Who are you to deny such an individual the opportunity to define their own "quality of life". As already mentioned in replies to you by other folks, when end of life decisions are to be made as well, are these same arbiters responsible for determining when to stop investing in granny's "quality of life"?

This Country was founded on the notion that such an individual have that opportunity and not leave it to "compassionate intellectuals" to decide otherwise.

Please understand that I am not attacking you directly with my reply here but instead the path that your arguments eventually lead to.

Jerseyswamps,It's up to the woman whether or not to abort her fetus.And many of the very people who claim to be "pro-life" don't want to pay what it costs to provide care for a premature baby,a full term baby,a toddler or a child if the mother cannot do it herself.My mention of the cost of caring for a premature baby was an attempt to explain that,and that mhy dear,is what nauseates me.
A read an article that mentioned a woman who gave birth to twins when she was a teenager.She was working at a fast food outlet to help support herself and the kids.All of the comments about this young,single mother were negative.She chose life and was bad mouthed for that. Fetuses become babies.If the mother cannot support them,the taxpayers do.You can't have it both ways.

@ASimon

Entertain the following scenario if you will...

When a mother stands by and watches another person brutally beat her toddler to death and not only did nothing to try and stop it but instead asked the person to do it for whatever reason that may be, to what extent would current law prosecute that mother?

I would respectfully ask that you only address the question that I just asked and not try to jump ahead. It seems you are more than willing to have an open mind with me as I have with you in this conversation and it is important that we step through this logically together.

As an aside, you are correct in assuming that I do not know the exact language or what the GOP has proposed and will make the effort to find it unless you can refer me to the appropriate resource that shows it. Perhaps a link to the particular Bill that it is in.

Robert, the 2012 Republican platform can be found on gop.com and any number of reputable sites like the Washington Post. Unlike other aspects of their platform, this language is not touted on their webiste, but is buried pretty deep - so to save you the time, the personhood language can be found on pages 13 and 14. Quite frankly, it's shocking that you have not actually read the "pro-life' platform that you are apparently defending in this blog.

While you won't answer any of my questions about enforcement of this personhood language, I'm happy to answer your question. If a mother requested that someone beat her toddler to death, I woud expect she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If, as Republicans and yourself would like, this same standard is applied to women having abortions, I would expect they would be prosecuted as well. So, as I posed to you several days ago, what can we women expect? There are so many horrific ramifications for us women, I think we have a right to know.

ASimon, allow me to clarify the fact that the Republican Party does not establish the Pro-Life Platform, it stands on its own and the Republican Party chooses how it is going to interpret it and promote it.

Primary example is in the cases of rape and incest, for as long as I can recall whenever a Republican is asked about abortion they always make exceptions for rape and incest which are not exceptions expressed by the Pro-Life Platform itself.

I don't want to get wrapped around the axle with semantics and probably didn't get the point across as well as I hoped I would.

Beyond that, just because I didn't know the verbatim language of the "GOP" position on abortion doesn't mean I don't know what the Pro-Life Platform is, I have defined it several times throughout my article and comments.

And yes, the GOP language of "the unborn child has a fundamental and INDIVIDUAL right to life which cannot be infringed" is directly in line with the Pro-Life Platform in that the unborn from conception possess the same right to life as born persons, and yes that includes the zygote which is merely a stage a human development not unlike that of an embryo, a fetus, and infant, a toddler, an adolescent, or an adult. The "level of development" justification for abortion has been rebutted by me elsewhere int he conversation.

continued.......

In regard to "what you can expect as a woman", to use your terms, first of all I will readily concede that the blog I referred you to probably didn't choose the right word when it used "mercy" as it has a religious context and myself would have preferred the term "leniency" since it provides more relevant context within the judiciary when conveying the notion of "going easy on someone".

As for the enforcement, I would expect AT A MINIMUM the same leniency to be extended to the pregnant mother as would be extended to the mother who stood idly by as her toddler was beat to death but that is to assume the two situations are exactly the same. In actuality I would expect an even greater amount of leniency in the case of an abortion because the woman is usually in a situation of crisis and irrational thought. I by no means am implying the woman be prosecuted for pre-meditated murder.

If you want to know from me what the sentence would be for the woman or the criminal charges, I don't pretend to be a lawyer so I really can't answer that. That being the case, it doesn't disqualify me from trying to reason through what the scenario might look like.

Now, as much as I am sure you are not going to accept that explanation, I would simply ask that you rebut it which will allow us to logically work through it together.

Spooner, not sure what you man by your statement that I am trying "in a kind of inadvertent way to promote pro-life". I think it is pretty obvious that not only am I trying to clarify the Pro-Life position but I am openly defending it as well as refuting the pro-choice arguments against it.

As for the link you provided, I just want to make sure that you realize the language of that Bill in worded in such a way that it directs the criminality of abortion the sole responsibility of the doctor that performs the procedure or provides the woman with any means to carry out the procedure herself.

Now, by my own admission I am not a lawyer, and I would need further guidance in respect to lines seven and eight of that Bill to understand whether the language in those two lines would criminalize the mother.

As an aside, this Bill is very similar in language to the one that was on the books in Texas for around 100 years before the Supreme Court "discovered" a "right to privacy" and overturned it in Roe v Wade as explained by the other link you provided regarding the Bill of Rights

http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2012/02/19/the-social-reformers-definition-of-life-demeaning-the-sanctity-of-life-for-an-enhanced-quality-of-life-roe-v-wade-revisited/

Mr Way- in plan English: you don't address these political issues like Ms Rufinos' in her article link you posted, who also advocates State Nullification. You know what that means? She's saying that the state should ignore the Supreme Court decision. . .just like this North Dakota US Senate candidate is advocating by writing law that has been ruled unconstitutional. . .You know before the Civil War, there was state nullification going on(Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions). So are you arguing that you and others(Pro Life) would go to that extreme to get your political views to be acted on?

Spooner - I think that where you might be missing Mr. Way's entire position is in your reference to the protection of life at all stages (including in utero) as a "political" view. I do not want to misinterpret his well thought out and heartfelt piece so I will welcome his response to you. I find that the definition of "life" has not been "politicized" by the Pro-Life movement, but rather the Pro-Abortion movement. For the Pro-Abortion movement to be successful in its position, it must first and foremost clearly and scientifically provide for me a date certain in which "human life" begins. Without that logical mechanism, the safe bet for me would be that life starts at conception. In the absence of that mechanism, all else is moot, i.e. Right to Privacy, Women's Rights to Choose, etc. because then we either value life in this nation or we simply do not.

Spooner, I will absolutely acknowledge that in Rufino's third summarizing point she lays out the argument that State Nullification could be used in refuting the Supreme Court's authority to even rule on matters of abortion.

Why is it so "extreme" to assume a State cannot attempt to exercise its right to sovereignty on matters it deems not to be within the Federal Governments enumerated powers? Do we not live in a Federal Republic but instead a Unitary one? Setting aside nullification in regard to the abortion debate for a moment. In general, if I am to believe that you are saying the State Nullification of ANYTHING is extreme, therefore should not be an allowable option to be exercised by the States, then what prevents the Federal Government from unfettered authority over every single aspect of our society?

Mr Way...well the US Supreme Court does, as well as the Congress. It's called separation of powers that stop the Government( the Executive Branch) from doing what you say.

...with regards to nullification: The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that "state nullification" is unconstitutional. . .It violates the Supremacy clause of the Constitution that the states upon their ratification gave to the Federal Govt. You want the Supreme Court to make an exception for abortion and accept lets say Texas or North Dakota's state nullification. . .or should we have another ratifying convention amongst the 50 states to make your groups views part of the body politic, like the proposed Rand Paul Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion period?

Donna- this life at conception issue is very politicized. . .it's called Roe v. Wade. . .and it's part of the National Republican Party platform, and will be part of the National Democratic Party platform. The Pro Life directives has become part of the Tea Party mantra, for different reasons, whether you agree or not?

...as for when life begins: I thought that was decided by the Supreme Court. . .am I wrong? But you want scientific certainly. . .I wish it was that simple. Would that akin you to: your way or the highway approach to people with different views?

...and talking Scientific. . .what happens to all that science after the baby is born. . .so now it's our turn to use that same science on Pro-Lifers. . . like Ms Rufino's proposal to use the Catholic Church there. . .I wonder it anybody consulted them..and where's the money coming from...the Government(with separation of Church &State?) I could just see the Republicans jumping up and down over that, paying for child care. . .

Spooner - My point is that there should be NO politics attached to the "cell growth," "zygote," or "human being" developing in the womb until SCIENCE can definitively provide the start point of life. Much to the chagrin of the left, science has arrived at a consensus much like Mr. Way ascribed wherein life commences post fertilization. You see, science deals with evidence and facts. Politics deals with no such thing. If such scientific findings are accepted, then we have to publicly assert that it is OK to terminate life when it is an inconvenience, burden or otherwise impractical intrusion into one's life. As far as "science after the baby is born," are you suggesting if a woman is burdened with a child during their "terrible two's" we legislate her choice to end that life?

Donna Griffin: You say: "If such scientific findings are accepted, then we have to publicly assert that it is OK to terminate life when it is an inconvenience, burden or otherwise impractical intrusion into one's life." Well, what's wrong about accepting that? As I have stated earlier, there are already too many people in the world, so we have to do something about it eventually or we'll run out of resources to sustain humanity.
Yes, an early fetus is a particular instance of a human life, but it has no inherent claim on being brought to term in spite of the hardships its mother may very well have delivering it, or considering the circumstances under which the woman became pregnant (e.g., rape.) People here have stated many feel-good reasons to avoid abortions (e.g., they wouldn't be here, after they had children they changed their position), but I still think that: 1) it's a woman's choice alone, 2) men shouldn't be controlling women's lives by telling them they can't have abortions, 3) there are practical reasons for allowing abortions (e.g., Earth is overcrowded and is running out of resources, the child cannot be adequately supported by its parents, it is not wanted), 4) even though the blog author claims abortion is not a religious issue, the main anti-choice forces and rational are religious in nature (there are a few anti-choice atheists but the number is quite small), so the matter appears to be infringing on the separation of church and state.

mary54- Let me get this straight then...you feel it should be legally appropriate for a woman to have the right to terminate a child's life in or out of the womb as a measure of public service in reducing the world's population? How about we go one step further with respect to your "humanitarian" motive and terminate the life of everyone over the age of 70. Afterall, the bulk of medical costs in an individual's life are expended during those final years and after all....it is all about conserving resources in your philosophy. I'll go you even one better since your hostility toward men is pretty evident, why do we not require gender testing for all pregnant women and we can have a government agency determine which of those male "cell masses" should be terminated?

Donna Griffin: No, no, I only support abortions up to the point of viability, to be in conformance with current law.Unusual cases, of course, excepted. Sorry for not saying that but that point, I thought, was made earlier in the thread. Once a person is born, it is hoped that he or she will be able to live a happy life of their own choosing.

mary - One can argue, too, that a newborn is not viable because the child is dependent upon an adult for its survival. When does "viability" in a "born" individual end? If you are going to legislate the ability to terminate life at one end of its spectrum, then we are faced with terminating it at the other. Shall we legislate an expiration date on viability...perhaps an age...or shall we have a committee decide grandma's viability? Sure she can knit and bake cookies, but what really is her value in the global sense? Are you opposed to President Obama's position with respect to late term abortion and the authority of a physician to "finish the job" of terminating the life of a child "born" during a botched abortion? Is the intent to kill that child paramount to the act itself having gone awry? I apologize for referring to a full-term cell mass as a "child" but I am unclear as to what else to call "it." Lastly, do you see any value of the father's position in the abortion decision or is he merely reduced to being the sperm donor in this "impractical" intrusion into a woman's life?

@sp resident - I'd be more than willing to comment on that. I don't think there is an attempt by anyone in this conversation to crucify the woman nor suggest that the guy is totally off the hook for any responsibility whatsoever. It is actually the Pro-Choice position that eliminates the guy from the equation, may I remind you of WBelmarmom's comment much further up the page, "no vagina = not allowed to have a say".

While the role of the guy is not necessarily the focus of my article I would never deny that he should absolutely be responsible throughout the situtation. And while he cannot actually carry the burden of the physical preganancy I would argue that he at least has financial responsibility throughout the pregnancy to support the woman in those things that are expenses as a result of being pregnant, including any loss of income that may result from being unable to work due to being pregnant.

Now I also understand that the guy can at some point forfeit his portion of custody to a child but there is still legal responsibility to support that child financially until the age of 18. I am just not well versed in the legal aspects of custody type laws.

I don't think any Pro-Life male would disagree with me in saying the guy should definitely not be let "off the hook". At the same time I will again admit that I do not know what laws are on the books to address the situation and would ask someone more in-the-know to shed light on whether or not there is.

As a further follow-up, I fully reject your notion that society has "always hated women". You can't throw that one against the wall hoping it sticks without substantiating that claim.

People are going to have sex.Some use effective birth control and unwanted pregnacies don't occur.And when they do,the pro-life crowd will do whatever they can to see that the fetus is carried to term.After that,it seems that they don't give a darn.So,unless they are going to adopt or other wise support all of those children,they should STFU.

marylou, in regard to "After that, it seems that they don't give a darn", are you arguing that not a single crisis pregnancy center nor organization that encourages or facilities adoption is Pro-Life? Are Pro-Choice advocates really the only ones who are concerned with a child after birth of a crisis pregnancy?

sp - As an adult woman, I have the privilege to have the anatomy which allows me to bring life into the world. A privilege that many women spend a lot of money in an effort to defy their fertility issues. I find it disheartening and distasteful when potential mothers view child bearing as an intrusion or a burden. Children deserve better and as women (and the purported gentler sex), we really have devolved into animals who would eat their young rather than raise them. I wish we lived in a more sensible and responsible society that would value every human life. We weep at the anniversary of 9/11 because of the loss of life yet we kill millions without a second thought. It's a twisted sense of humanity.

@Donna Griffin. Gee Donna, most adults have the capacity to participate in human reproduction. So what is so special about yours? I mean why bring it up? I find it disheartening and distasteful when the anti-choicers want to bring us back to the days of back alley abortions. Women deserve better and as a man I recognize it is not my right to force women to do as I decide. Are we to become animals and force women to abortions by coat hangers. I remember those days. I wish we lived in a more sensible and responsible society that would value every human life. We weep at the anniversary of 9/11 because of the loss of life yet the anti-choicers want to risk the lives of millions of women without a second thought. It's a twisted sense of humanity

Wow, Ric - Your rhetoric gets angrier and angrier. I attempted to elevate the dialogue by simply stating my position that I consider the ability to bring life into this world a privilege. Being a mother is my single most important role on this earth. I find it tough to stomach when I hear pro-abortion women refer to that "thing" growing inside of them as a hassle. You come across as extraordinarily threatened by opposing views. Why do you want to fight with everyone? You need a hug.

@Donna Griffin. Funny that you say my rhetoric is get angrier when my last response was essentially using your drama and your words with a little twist. I am at a lost. But then I also think you are distressed by opposing views.

Yes, it is wonderful you are a parent, congratulations. But what does your parenthood have to do with this discussion? You are not unique. And I have never heard any woman referring her pregnancy as that thing. We must travel in different circles.
I am distressed about one issue: Going back to the days of illegal backroom abortions. I am old enough to remember those days. I even knew someone who had one. And you want to go back to those days? Obviously you have not learned the lessons of prohibition. Abortion has been around just as long as liquor even though. Donna, why do you never mention backroom abortions. Do you think they are a myth?
By the way, out of all those I have debated on this issue at patch, I do respect you because you are honest. Most of the others on your side, and many on my side, think they speak the only truth. In closing, if I were a woman, I do not see how I could have an abortion. I am pro-choice because I do believe that decision needs to be made by the woman not by men. I am very grateful my family member survived her illegal backroom abortion. It is a shame she had no other recourse.

Ric - The mere fact that I am able to reproduce is "special." That miracle somehow gets lost in the banter and I think by considering the act of reproduction as nothing more "special" than a bowel movement is what I find inhumane. My instincts tell me that before Roe v. Wade there were not 1.5 million backroom abortions occurring in the United States every year. Add to that abortifacient drugs and that number increases even more. The fact that abortion has become legal and less stigmatized leads me to think that behavior has become more reckless in this regard as well. Before I get everyone posting about how the consequences of pregnancy inevitably fall on the woman and how "that's not fair," I have to tell you that alone should make women super diligent when it comes to their reproductive capacity. If you're 16 years old, just say no! If you're a parent, teach your children cause and effect. If you're an adult woman, you should know better. I am in my 50's now, and I remember back in college abortion was routine among my fellow co-eds. Some had multiple abortions in those 4 years. I do not have a problem with contraception, but I do not view abortion as contraception. I view it as terminating the life of an unborn child. That, Ric, is where we differ.

@Donna Griffin. You ran away from the issue of illegal backroom abortions like it was a house on fire. You said nary a word. Yet they were common up to the day Roe V Wade was decided and you and I both know that the rusty coat hanger will return if abortion is ever made illegal or hard to obtain.
So Donna, let me ask you again. Do you want to return to the days of illegal backroom abortions? Or you naïve enough to think somehow women will never use the coat hanger again if abortions is made illegal?

Ric - I am more than OK with defending 1.5 million human lives a year from a suction vacuum. I am also in favor of responsible behavior by adults. Women have choices with respect to when and with whom they engage in intercourse (clearly, I am excluding the case of rape). The sperm donors in those scenarios are, for better or worse, the choice of those women. If legal abortion were not a readily available option at virtually every stage of pregnancy, I conclude with certainty that the responsible use of contraceptive devices and the wise selection of those mates would increase therefore reducing the "unwanted burden." I posit that because underage children drink and sometimes die as a result of that drinking, shall we legalize it to permit their binge drinking while under adult supervision in order to avoid any lethal result? Do we as a civilized society ever draw a line in the sand and say that one must be responsible for the results of their actions and that indeed that consequence may not always be so convenient or pretty?

Ric, you can play the zealot card all you want, doesn't bother me in the least because it is simply an attempt to distract. Your attempt to wrap my arguments in zealotry and therefore dismiss them does nothing to refute their substance.

Your spray and pray of arguments at the end have all been addressed during the course of commenting by myself and a few others although I will note you are the first to come after me with the "coat-hanger defense" of the Pro-Choice position so I'll gladly start to address that more in subsequent comments.

Something more than a canned ad hominem rant would perhaps make your comments more credible.

As an aside, I would definitely agree with you that I do not believe I hold the "universal truth" nor for that matter believe I am one of the arbiters of it. Having said that, how are we as a society supposed to determine what truth is? Is it not through a process such as this where we reason our way through an issue? A process that allows for arguments on both sides to be weighed?

Not once in this entire thread have I chosen to attack a messenger instead of a message. Every single pro-choice argument that is made I take into consideration and do my best to apply reason as to whether or not it leads me down a different path other than the one that leads to accepting the Pro-Life Platform as being true.

Robert, you are a clown. The words you responded with actually describe the crap you wrote. Must be hard for you to understand that you do not speak the universal truth but you do spew some real class garbage.

Robert, excuse my manners. I forgot you only want responses that agree with you.

Ric...It's time for you to cross your hands on your desktop and put on your listening ears. Your script is haggard and worn and very intolerant of opposing views.

Not the case Ric, each and every opposing argument is welcome. I will readily admit that I probably could have done a better job in my initial piece regarding truth, or what is true, or "universal truth" to use your words. Whether truth exists or not could easily spin off into a whole other thread of length significantly longer than this one.

Despite my inability to really convey the definitive notion of truth, I think it is safe to say that everyone in this thread, on both side of the abortion issue would agree that it is a truth that willingly killing an innocent person is morally wrong. Now my attempt here is not to compare that to an abortion, although I use a similar example elsewhere to do just that, but instead to raise the point that some process was used, some exercise of reasoning by society was followed to come to that conclusion.

That is all I am trying to do, use that process to determine if the Pro-Life position holds the same truth for the unborn.

So I guess you are willing to accept my response to WBelmarmom further up the page where if a bunch of female Pro-life politicians and Supreme Court judges were to overturn Roe v Wade you would support it?

Robert,Women have the right to decide whether or not to carry THEIR OWN pregnancies to term.And many times,it's the sperm donor who wants her to terminate it.I think the term that many use is"get rid if it."So,if a pro-life female politian or judge decides to carry her pregnancy to term,it is her right.While I am pro-choice,I would never tell any pregnant woman or girl to abort.

It is a shame Robert that since you speak the “truth” that you cannot possibly see the flip side to your positions.
If a bunch of female Pro-Choice politicians and Supreme Court judges were to affirm Roe v Wade you would support it?
Of course you wouldn’t. You and your Roman Catholic church want to impose your Catholic “truth” on all women. As you noted, Jesus did not speak up against abortion even though Romans were regularly aborting fetuses. Of course you could truthfully point out Jesus and the Bible endorsed slavery and more than one pope was a slave trader….

Ric, I can absolutely see the flip side to my positions, I regularly take them into consideration to challenge my position and make every effort to work through opposing views.

The problem is, not a single Pro-Choice argument can effectively make the case as to why an unborn human life does not possess the same right to life as a born human life. Every single Pro-Choice argument fails to debunk the Pro-Life notion that human life begins at conception and has intrinsic value (value because of WHAT it is, not because it acquires it through function), therefore human personhood affording to it the same right to life as born human life.

The Pro-Life position draws its line in the sand at conception, the Pro-Choice position refuses to draw that line in the sand somewhere between conception and being born with the cord cut and defend that line using scientific and philosophical arguments.

Ric, you said "If a bunch of female Pro-Choice politicians and Supreme Court judges were to affirm Roe v Wade you would support it? "

My point was that just because I am not a woman, it doesn't mean that I can't be part of the conversation. It meant no more and no less than just that.

Robert, pro-choice people rarely refuse to draw the line in the sand or defend it with science and philosophical arguments. Our line and arguments just are not the same as yours. And while you don't think that our arguments hold, we don't think that yours do either which is why we still disagree :)

Robert, if you really can see the opposite view why then challenge both women to your meaningless question about the courts? Oh, I forgot, they are women and you are a man and because of the shape of your "being" you are superior.

Nora, I would agree with you because Pro-Life arguments focus on the unborn whereas Pro-Choice arguments focus on the woman. I am going to assume that you would agree with that.

The part I do not understand, is why do the majority of Pro-Choice advocates and arguments not address the unborn. Now, I know that you may say the same thing about Pro-Life advocates by asking why don't their arguments focus on or pay any mind to the mother but I would argue that they do, evident by the posts of Michelle Krystofik's posts in this thread regarding the post-abortive issues a woman and at times a man struggles with.

For Pro-Life advocates, the unborn is the main issue to be dealt with, before it is dealt with, the full attention cannot be devoted to addressing the responsibilities we have as a society to fully support the woman of an unwanted pregnancy through both the pregnancy and her decision to parent that child or put that child up for adoption after birth.

This is not to say it is a "one must be done before the other can" because the support mechanism for unwanted pregnancies continues to grow and I have been contemplating whether or not make known what those resources are somewhere in this thread but out of fear of it getting lost I amy do a totally separate blog post that seeks not to reignite the debate going on here but instead publicize resources women can look to for support.

Ric - "they are women and you are a man and because of the shape of your "being" you are superior". Really???? Blatantly false accusation aside, it that really the best you're capable of coming up with? At least @MILITANT ANTI-THEIST accused me of being an inbred further up in the comments section. Surely you can do better than that....

Robert. As you say you do think of the woman, just as we think of the unborn too,
but our conclusions are different. The values(for lack of a better word) that we place on the different aspects of abortion are different.
There is no science on either side that is "better" than that of the other, so then it comes down to what we believe is right.
As for Michelle Krystofik's post I replied to that saying that yes some have post-abortive issues but others do not and feel like it was the right thing for them for the rest of their lives.
Both sides believe they have the best arguments in this discussion. As for more support being needed, I do agree that it does. With a better support system more women who did not really want to terminate might keep their pregnancies. However, the option of having an abortion for those who do not want to continue their pregnancies should still be there. (and then we're back at where we disagree on values and rights and definitions and all that) Honestly I think there will always be 2 sides

Nora, I think without question there will always be two sides and would argue that somewhere between the outer edges of both those sides there exists a simple truth which is why this debate is healthy to continue.

In regard to one side or the other having better science, I don't believe either side has "its science". The scientific community as a whole has acknowledged for quite some time that a new human life does indeed begin at conception. Some of the most vocal Pro-Choice Apologists acknowledge that scientific conclusion and instead have focused their arguments around the personhood issue which is more philosophical.

Robert, I don't think there is any simple truth, or rather the truth for you is
not neccesarily the truth for me.This is as you say philosophical.
As for the science, when something is alive is generally agreed on in the way that cells divide and this is the same for plants, bacteria, birds, everything.
There is however much more advanced science used in the abortion discussion, and it is not all black and white. As a p.s I have to say that the term Pro-Choice Apologist is strange, I don't feel like it's anything that needs apologizing any more than Pro-Life? Though it could be a language thing that I just don't get.

Nora, "apologist" is just a term for someone that argues for some point of view. A long time ago I too was confused and asked "why are people going around apologizing for their position?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist

Easy, I don't remember the last time I read a story that documented an unborn child attempt pre-meditated murder of the woman it is carrying.

I am not so sure your stretch to align first trimester abortions with "Stand your ground" is one that a lot of your Pro-Choice brethren will circle the wagons around you on but I could just as easily be wrong in that assumption.

The problem with Stand Your Ground is the same problem with early-term abortion - to you, there is no way an unborn child can be a threat to the pregnant woman. To a pregnant woman who is not emotionally or financially able to carry a child let alone raise a child, the unborn child may be a threat. To not recognize that that is the key issue of both abortion and Stand Your Ground, is to fool yourself. The Trayvon Martin case will likely be decided in favor of Mr. Zimmerman, because even though he pursued the young man, he believed that the man had a gun and was a threat. Taking away a woman's right to kill someone who will not leave and will essentially permanently disable her (in her mind) is immoral.

You are SO hung up on the lives of "the unborn" that you don't realize how many children are suffering by being born into horrible circumstances. And you don't realize how many mothers give up their lives (how many fathers give up their lives?) for that "ideal" of "life is more important than quality of life".

uniony - I'd like to ask you to clarify one of the points you made in your last comment where you said "To a pregnant woman who is not emotionally or financially able to carry a child let alone raise a child, the unborn child may be a threat".

Are you saying that the unborn child is a threat to the woman's "way of life" or indeed a genuine threat to her life, i.e. the woman actually thinks that if the child is born that the struggle to provide for that child will kill her?

The second part of your comment is teetering on the notion that there are certain people in society that are better equipped to determine whether another human life should be allowed to live because they may not ever obtain some arbitrarily decided "quality of life". Am I to believe that you would be willing to support an initiative to sweep the nation to find all those children who may be in "suffering" and "alleviate" their pain?

Yes, I am saying exactly that - the major reason that women have abortions NOT due to a medical issue is that the unborn child IS a threat to her way of life, her livelihood, her happiness, her ability to function as a normal human being. People talk about "what if Beethoven, Einstein, Churchill were aborted"? How about what if the person who will cure cancer makes a mistake, gets pregnant, and drops out of college to have the baby and work in the McDonald's? What if she can't go to graduate school (note: without being accused of abandoning her children) and can't cure cancer? Isn't the life of the mother worth the same as the life of the child?

I lost a very high paying job because I have a special needs son and had to leave work to pick him up from school. I now make less than half my expected salary so I can help my son when he needs it. The government does NOTHING to help me, but luckily I am well off enough and get by - and have a spouse with a job too.

In NJ, there are countless cases of child abuse that are not only indications of how miserable a child's life can be, but how miserable their parent has gotten to physically injure a child. Once that baby is born, what help is there? Are there social programs to provide babysitting so that mother can go back to school? No.

It's easy to be anti-abortion when you only consider one life, the life of the child, and ignore the life of the mother. It is anti-woman to not allow early-term abortions.

I never said that every high school student in any high school is going to have sex.You man not think your's will because of thei way you have raised them,but you don't know for sure.I'm sure that many young people who were raised with the same values you have will or have had sex.Sometimes,they think they know better.My son went to public school.No one taught him that it was OK to have sex and that it was OK to have an abortion.What was taught is that the only method that is 100% effective all the time is abstience.For those who choose to have sex,there are other ways,but none of them is 100%effective.Would you disagree with that? Those public school are for all of our kids,They are not yours alone.
Incidently,my son was also broght up not to drink,use drugs.He graduated in the top 10 of his highschool class and entered college with 29 credits he earned from taking AP classes and passing all of the tests.He played a different sports year round. I'm not 100% sure that he never had sex while in high school,but I doubt thst he had the time,
PP's agenda is to keep people from having children if they don't want them or cannot afford them.Contrary to what you think,they actually do counsel girls and young women on the methods of birth control available so that they never have abortions.And they do offer those who do have an unwanted pregnancy options other than abortion.My neighbor's 17 yr. old decided went to them for an abortion and was talked out of it.

Not every female who gets a LEGAL abortion is a teen, by the way.
Not every female who gets a LEGAL abortion is unmarried, either. Nor is every female who requests a LEGAL abortion irresponsible, or too stupid to use birth control of one kind or another. Not every female who seeks a LEGAL abortion is a slut or immoral.
Same can be said for Planned Parenthood. The vast majority of women who use their *varied* services are not sexually promiscuous teens sneaking around trying to get birth control (or abortions) behind their parents' backs.... Grow up.
And PP might not have to go to school if ignorant parents like you allowed our public schools to teach comprehensive, *real life* sex education, instead of pandering to religious nutcases who want to live in the 20th century and keep their kids ignorant too. Also, you have the option to pull your kid out of any PP talk or class they hold in any public school. No one is forcing you to educate your kids... much the pity for them.

Please explain how you know your kids aren't whores or cads. My best friend was a goody-goody, valedictorian, and was schtumping a girl for months in high schol, no birth control, with neither set of parents any the wiser. He was VERY lucky that the worst that happened was the girl starting to buy Bride magazine so he bagged out. You would be surprised I guess.

If I may rephrase your question and then ask for you to answer it...

Do we really want the DNA of physically disabled person to be passed on?

Do we really want the DNA of a mentally disabled person to be passed on?

Do we really want the DNA of a (insert your imperfection of choice here) to be passed on?

That question leads down the slippery slope of "purifying the human race".

OK, and I'll await your reply to my question, as opposed to the "slippery slope" non-answer you just gave me.

Question 1: Yes. Why not? A physically disabled person isn't likely to attack my mother, sister, daughter ...
Question 2: Again, sure. Why not? A mentally disabled person isn't likely to attack my mother, sister, daughter ...
Question 3: Let's start at rapist, and we can go from there.

Ball's in your court.

Sean, Robert will not answer you because he will come out as a hypocrite. Instead he will play games with your question. The guy is so full of himself.
When I put forth a question to him based on what he had asked two women, he danced away from answering.
Again, Robert: If a bunch of female Pro-Choice politicians and Supreme Court judges were to affirm Roe v Wade you would support it?

Sean, I was simply trying to illustrate a point, not avoid your question. In answering it directly I would say that there is no reason to not let the DNA of a rapist be passed on. Can you conclusively prove that rapists reproduce rapists? No you cannot, therefore your answers to my questions fall flat on their face because DNA can't attack your mother and you make the assumption that if a rapist were to reproduce the result would be another rapist.

And the slippery slope reference stands because it is that mindset that lead people to believe persons of one skin color could own persons of another and persons of a certain "purity of race" could turn other persons into lamp shades.

I "play games with your question" as Ric suggests not to avoid them but to maybe provoke some thought on your part so I don't have to spoon feed you everything to explain why your question is flawed in the first place.

Ric - "Again, Robert: If a bunch of female Pro-Choice politicians and Supreme Court judges were to affirm Roe v Wade you would support it?"

No I would not support it because as I have stated before, just because I am not a woman does not mean I cannot have a voice in the discussion nor try to influence policy via the voting booth.

As for being full of myself, I have no such inclination, this exercise has nothing to do with "look how smart I am" or trying to beat everyone in a debate. It is an exercise to try and provoke some reasoned conversation about a topic that is still very divisive. Each and every time I engage in this conversation it forces me confirm or deny that which I reason to be true by taking other people's arguments into consideration.

I have not dismissed one persons arguments in this entire thread, even when a little sarcasm finds its way into my comments I still address each individuals arguments with as much substance as time and space will allow for.

Robert, you are so full of it that your eyes turned brown.

Ric - "Robert, you are so full of it that your eyes turned brown."

Thanks for contributing up until this point, it is unfortunate you have chosen to disengage.

If you believe that the children have to pay for the sins of the father, I guess not.

I am pro-choice, but I don't think the view that "rapist = evil = children of a rapist don't deserve to live" is fair. It is up to the woman if she can live with that. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to kill all existing children of rapists too? Or is the act of rape evil, but if his (or her) other kids were conceived without rape, that's okay?

If you are for a woman's right to choose, you need to let her choose based on her own physical, mental, family, and financial situation. That includes giving her the right to keep a child whose father raped her.

Well said, Uniony. I wasn't suggesting with my question that a woman not be given a choice to keep a child that would be born as the result of rape. I'm suggesting the pro-life movement would be better served dropping the argument that pregnancies resulting from rape should also be made illegal. And I don't buy the "slippery slope" response. It's a non-answer. To answer Robert's question: Is there a guarantee that the child of a rapist will himself/herself become a rapist? No. Of course not. So, I cannot "conclusively" say he or she will. But, that said, genetics show that children of people who are predisposed to violent acts are, in fact, more likely to be violent themselves. Rape is as much about violence and control as it is sexual gratification, if not more.

You made my point. That unborn child is a threat to the mother. There is no reason to have an abortion unless the unborn child is a threat to the mother's physical, mental, or financial health. That woman is defending her life, and if she has other kids who would suffer due to another mouth to feed, she is defending her family.

John,there are many people,probably most of them who consider themselves to be conservatives,who would love to have parents who neglect and abuse their kids sterilized,not to mention the ones who start having babies when they are teenagers and continue to have them until they reach menopause.You know,the ones that the conservatives while about supporting.

Of course I've heard of eugenics, and seen recent articles on compensation. You are talking about sterilization against one's will, as opposed to letting people choose.

Ever taken a bioethics class? I have.

John,if you don't want your kids to learn the facts about reproduction and contraception,perhaps you should home school them or sent them to a school that ahres your beliefs.I would rather have teenagers who are going to be sexualy active know how to prevent pregnancy so that abortion is not an issue that they have to deal with.And they should know how to prevent STDs,

Hmm. Maybe there is a BIG reason to target those groups? It's the same reason that free law centers target those groups. Rich white women have no problem being found not guilty of killing their kid. Poor black women are strung up.

Planned Parenthood exists because EVERY rich woman had the easy ability to get an abortion when she needed it, and EVERY rich man had the easy ability to get a doctor to "slip his girlfriend a pill" to induce abortion or cause an abortion through a "check-up".

It's like saying we are targeting poor people for free lunches - uh, yeah, because middle-class and rich people don't need free lunches.

I would find your posts hilarious (especially the last one) if not for the fact you BELIEVE all that nonsense you are spewing about PP. Let me ask you, "John" when was the last time you actually walked into a real PP building and sat down with a counselor and asked what they do there and who they treat? When was the last time you actually attended one of their expensive seminars where they talk about sex toys and listened to a Viva La Vulva talk? You mean to tell me they didn't bother with discussing the very real and present 'dangers' of sex and or the lack of (reproductive) health care at all, huh? No talk about STDs and prevention or treatments; no describing the different cancer screenings and other reproductive system testing they do; no chat about birth control or abstinence, either? Wow, just sex toys and pornography for young girls....!
Yeah, well unless you can come up with a link to this 'inside information' and it not being to some Ultra-conservative/Christian (sponsored) fear mongering propaganda site... I call you out as a straight-up liar.
See, I'm a grown adult woman, and I have been in a couple of PP offices - both for myself and with other women. I know first hand "what really goes on" there. So I'm calling you out on your bs.

from your one link:

"The CFLE is also the publisher of sexuality education manuals used throughout the world. Guides range from how to answer young children’s questions about sexuality to teaching senior citizens about sex ed. Every age in between is addressed, providing sexuality educators with user-friendly, cost-effective lesson plans addressing puberty, healthy and unhealthy relationships, contraception, sexual safety, and much more. CFLE publications are available at www.SexEdStore.com. "

They show ALL the pamphlets and workbooks they provide TO ADULTS to assist in teaching sex education to CHILDREN OF ALL AGES, (the reason there are 'games' and other teaching techniques, instead of plain, boring text to read).
Gee, no pamphlets or mention of pornography for kids or sex toys.... how could I have missed all that??

Yes,John the world is going nuts.You proved it.

I clicked on that link you just gave me again..... same page as before, don't see any of those 'topics' you posted. Again, this is a cut n copy from the link YOU JUST GAVE US:
"The Center for Family Life Education (CFLE) has been hosting an annual Sex Ed Conference since 1985. What started as a one-day conference for New Jersey health educators has grown into the largest conference in the United States that is exclusively devoted to sexuality education. Participants attend from across the nation and many other parts of the world to network and learn best practices in sexuality education, addressing a spectrum of topics, audiences, and ages.

The CFLE is also the publisher of sexuality education manuals used throughout the world. Guides range from how to answer young children’s questions about sexuality to teaching senior citizens about sex ed. Every age in between is addressed, providing sexuality educators with user-friendly, cost-effective lesson plans addressing puberty, healthy and unhealthy relationships, contraception, sexual safety, and much more. CFLE publications are available at www.SexEdStore.com

MORE FROM THE LINK YOU PROVIDED:

. The website is introducing a membership option where members can access searchable, electronic versions of the lesson plans. This option is available when registering for the conference.

The CFLE, led by executive director Bill Taverner, considered an expert in sexuality education, provides keynotes, workshops, inservice training, and other professional development at reasonable fees.

The CFLE is dedicated to the proposition that all people have a right to education that will help them understand, appreciate and take responsibility for their sexuality.

Based in Morristown, NJ, it is the national education division of Planned Parenthood of Central and Greater Northern New Jersey."

Another lie. John, YouTube is not a reliable source for truthful information. It's 100 times worse than Wikipedia for reliability and cite-ability. ANYONE can post a video saying ANYTHING they want to. There are no credentials needed. The Youtube BS you linked me to was posted by who-knows-what kind of "organization", funded and supported by who knows who.
Also, gender-based abortions? Really John?
Ok, so lets deal with FACTS not fear, OK?
Something like 95% of ALL abortions in the USA are done PRIOR to the 13th week of gestation. The vast majority of that 95% are done PRIOR to the 10th week of gestation.... gender is generally not known before the 4th or 5th month of gestation.
That means between the 16th - 20th week. Therefore (let's put on our critical thinking skill cap) the 95% of ALL abortions all across America are NOT even thought to be done on the whim of parents who aren't happy finding out they are expecting a boy or girl. Jesus, get a grip and read up on the facts John. You are spreading hysterical (and stupid) rumors based in NO facts whatsoever.

Another very important FACT you need to wrap your brain around, John...
Planned Parenthood proved (over and over again) that only 3% of their clientele are there seeking abortions. Read that again- 3%.
Of those 3% seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood, exactly O (ZERO) dollars is used from federal funding/taxes for abortions. Again, ZERO FEDERAL FUNDS.
Because of stringent oversight making sure not even 10 goddamn cents of anyone's precious tax dollars should happen to slide over and pay for some poor woman's termination.... MOST planned parenthood offices in NJ don't even OFFER abortion services in their own building! They refer women elsewhere.
They are so paranoid of losing government funding for all the OTHER wonderful and badly needed health care services they provide for uninsured and under-insured women - of ALL ages and ALL colors - that they won't take a chance anyone may misconstrue what goes on in their offices.
By the way, John, you do realize that *males* go to PP clinics too, right? Yes, many of them go there for birth control, STD tests, counseling, parenting classes, etc. Yeah, imagine that... it's NOT just an women's abortion mill after all......

No really when did u ever step into a pp clinic? When I went there the women were kind and informative....THEY PUSHED ADOPTION NOT ABORTION, pyscho John. I don't care WHAT your supposed itinerary says, the REALITY. Is no one EVEF talked to me about my vula or sex toys, for crying out loud! I would have left, you old man-perve! Where the HELL. do you get off acting like you know what goes on in there! Stay away from me an my rights and ALL WOMEN. Dirty old pig. I feel sorry for any daughters you have. Go worry about viagra or your penis or getting men to stand up for the babies they want us to get rid of!! Get a life period.

hypocrites - the purpose of using "grandmas and toddlers" as a comparison is to try and get someone on the Pro-Choice side of the equation to define what the difference is between grandmas and toddlers and the unborn. Grandmas and toddlers obviously enjoy the protection of a right to life, what is it that makes the unborn less privileged to that same right?

The comparison seeks to address the philosophical aspect of the issue which is personhood, a topic that is debated by folks that dedicate their lives to both sides of this argument in formal public debate forums so it is not a huge reach or ridiculous and inflammatory tactic.

The realities of an unwanted pregnancy are indeed real and I don't think anyone advocating the Pro-Life position is dismissing or minimizing how real they are. I myself have mentioned society has a duty to fully support women of unwanted pregnancies both throughout the pregnancy as well as after birth much in the manner that such services exist today.

Is trying to give voice to someone that has no voice really standing on a soapbox? If one believes that the unborn are indeed worthless, expendable, blobs of tissue, not worthy of status as persons with an inherit right to life then I guess that person would say it is.

And yell if you will but it does matter that there are women that sit in the Pro-Life camp because many of them actually have walked the path that you speak of.

mary - You still really haven't answered my questions. You are in favor of the legislated ability to terminate life in the womb. You are also in favor of the legislated ability to terminate life outside of the womb. When drawing legislation, there are details which need to be hammered out. To suggest that it is up to the woman, leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Again, two-year olds are a handful and even moreso for a single mother. Should there be the ability to euthanize them? How about a difficult delivery resulting in a child born with a handicap? Would you propose euthanizing the baby outside the womb because it doesn't fit the mold of perfection the parent had anticipated? How about grandma, who may have a couple medical problems, but whose children stand to inherit a bundle? Shall we kill her off too for the greater good? I think you're looking for a whole lot of gray in a subject which I find to be much more black and white. What is human life and does it have value and merit protection? My definition of human life does not include words like "convenience" or "unwanted." Without science stating that life begins on day 91st of pregnancy or ends on your 80th birthday, I'd much prefer erring on the side of caution.

How they hell can you abort an unborn child? To become a child, the fetus has to go through the birth process.
You are as daft as Bobby Way.

Ric - "the fetus has to go through the birth process"

And just when is it during the "birth process" that a fetus magically transforms into a child? Where is that line in the sand? Is it after the unborn is completely outside the mother? Is it before or after the umbilical cord is cut?

You can call me silly all you want but it will serve you better to explain your claim.

Ok, last time; If you're having an abortion during the LEGAL time frame for abortions, there's no way to know WHAT the sex of the fetus is.... Didn't you understand that in my other post? You can't tell the sex of a fetus for at least 5 months. Once 20 weeks gestation has past, "legal" abortion is limited to other factors, like severe birth defects or medical safety of the woman, etc.
American Women are not flocking for abortions because they don't like the gender of their fetus. That's Propaganda. We don't need a law on the books for every single imaginary reason crazy pro-lifers can come up with. Early-term abortions are legal in this country, and that is based on science- not religion. If your religion forbids it, then don't consider it an option for you or yours...

@Robert Way.

The moment when it is born.

Next question? Or perhaps you want to discuss the right to die with dignity. I am a bona fide expert on that subject, thank you. Heck, even a priest dammed me to hell over that.

Robert Way-
The correct/scientific terms for the being in a woman's womb is either "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus" depending on the age of gestation. "Baby" is a non-medical term used by nearly all of us (I'll grant you that) for a fetus that has been born. It is also a common term used for the fetus at all stages of gestation, but technically, Ric is correct as far as proper and/or scientific labels for the pre-born.

The funniest part is that the vast majority of abortions due to gender have a very strong religious reasons behind them.

It would do BOTH SIDES of the issue well to ignore "Faye Wattleton" and all it has to say one way or the other. Let's do that, shall we?

That's a very important point. So much time wasted on rhetoric and carefully trying to couch their religious views as non-religious. Why not save those "not aborted" babies NOW!

You said that before.....so go nigh-night!!!

@stuffin. Robert Way also thinks he is the only person who is smart enough to determine "the moral truth". He lacks the intellect to realize there is more than the Robert Way to look at an issue.

Do you obey all 619 commandments, Stuffin -- including not eating certain foods (such as pork and shrimp) and not doing any work on the sabbath? Is your heaven open only to your religion's version of the holy book?

@Ric - "Robert Way also thinks he is the only person who is smart enough to determine "the moral truth". He lacks the intellect to realize there is more than the Robert Way to look at an issue."

Ric, at no time have I tried to say that I am the determining voice of the moral truth. You can continue to try and refute my positions by attacking me but it doesn't lend itself to the conversation. Is there ANYONE of the Pro-Life side of the issue that you would have an actual reasoned discussion with? I don't think there is because based on most of your responses in this thread, you have spent more time trying to discredit me instead of my arguments.

Not once have I questioned your integrity, your credibility, or your right to argue this issue. You on the other hand have not extended the same courtesy to me. You don't like how I will at times turn questions around on people in an effort to get clarification and sometimes do so to try and get folks to see what it is they are asking to try and walk through the argument instead of just throwing rhetoric against the wall hoping it will stick.

The vast majority of the arguments made in this conversation need to have the onion peeled back on them because the majority of the Pro-Choice arguments are based on false assumptions that have to be addressed first before the actual argument is addressed.

Ms. Cathi, why is it that the ancients, including Jews and Romans, aborted unwanted fetus and yet neither god's son, Jesus Christ, nor the Bible prohibited abortion? Even Robert Way in his initial post admitted the Bible does not prohibit abortion. So why would god bless something he had not a problem with?
Are you trying to say Jesus Christ forgot to say something on the subject?

Ric
The bible recognizes that life begins at conception and the commandment thou shalt not kill prohibits abortion. Regarding life in the womb the most recognized reference is when Mary carrying Jesus in her womb meets Elizabeth who is carrying John the Baptist and the gospel states: "baby leapt for joy" in mother's womb Lk 1:41,44

@concerned. I guess I am not as smart as you because I never read that bible passage. I am not saying you are lying, so would you please cite the specific passage where the bible says "life begins at conception ". And while you are at it, would you mind explaining why Jesus went after the money sellers but not the aborters or abortionists. Did it slip his mind?
PS: For bonus points: The Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have four different birth scenarios for Jesus. Which one is the right version? But first cite that passage.

Ric
The fact that the bible verse I referred to in my prior post to you refers to John the Baptist in the womb as a Baby, that is the support for life begins at conception. Now the money changers in the Temple question, Jesus did speak, probably his strongest admonition was against harming children. He said "better you have a millstone tied around your neck and caste into the sea than harm one of these little ones." He had a profound love of children and as defined life in the womb was always referred to as a baby or child. Pretty strong stuff. This all said in our country we have atheists and others who will reject the bible as their moral code. That is why I usually do not present a religious or christian view to support the rights of a baby to live and not be aborted. That is why medical science will shine the light into the question of when life begins.

ric,
i forgot the second part of your question about the four gospels and the versions of the birth of Jesus. The gospels are read in conjunction with each other as together as a study, they present perspectives that enlighten us on the time Christ walked the earth. So they are viewed as together and not as contradicting each other. The enlighten us as a whole.

@Concerned. As I earlier mentioned to someone else, the Roman Catholic Church taught me Protestants like my father were damned to a thousand years in purgatory. The Baptist church taught me that my Roman Catholic mother was headed straight for hell. Unless you can cite me the verse that says either Catholics or Protestants are doomed I’ll say they are both liars. So frankly I have a deep distrust of anyone who takes a bible passage and then falsely claim it means something it does not. The bible passage you cited just means in the womb John the Baptist kicked his mother. Nowhere does it say life begins at conception. Nor does the bible say anywhere that abortion is wrong. Yes, Jesus even said he liked adults but still he never said a word against abortion, a common Roman and Jewish practice even back then.
As far as the testimony of the four gospels regarding Jesus’s birth, they contradict each other. No reading in conjunction can correct that. No judge would allow them to be entered in as evidence.

Ric
Very sorry for the utter nonsense you were taught.

Planned Parenthood does not "promote abortion", they simply present it as an option along with the other options such as adoption. Why do you hate on Planned Parenthood so much? All they try to do is help people

Less than 3% of Planned Parenthoods services are abortions.

However, there are definitely militant people involved in the organization who do not see reason. The more organizations that provide reproductive care for low-income women, or better yet, if instead low-income women can get insurance and have procedures at hospitals where they would not be stigmatized by "going to an abortion clinic", the better.

@stuffin, I believe you are asking this directly of @Concerned but just want to make sure that my position is clear from the article in that science has determined that at new human life exists from the moment of conception and I am not making the claim that scripture does so anywhere.

I just wanted to make sure there is no confusion and also point out that I know you meant to say "Pro-Life" and not "Pro-Choice" in your post.

Stuffin,
I was answering Ric's question not defending Mr Ways blog.. The proper translation from Greek and Hebrew was not "fetus" it was Baby. The reason Saint John the Baptist moved was that The Christ, Jesus was present to him by virtue of Mary seeing Elizabeth. The point is that the bible describes the child in the womb as a baby thus conception.

Now that said, I believe that abortion will be stopped, not by religious beliefs, or political posturing. It will be medical science that will prove that the baby in the womb is a being with its rights that are indisputable, as medicine is defining when life begins everyday as it makes advances with premature births, and even surgery on the baby in the womb. Some as small as a half a pound are viable outside the womb. The medical science when Roe v Wade was decided is very dated and the new medical science of today and tomorrow will provide society and the courts with a very different view of the baby in the womb.

Concerned, I will have to disagree on the point that abortion will be stopped because of medical progress. It will be useful for women who are at risk for early miscarriage or preterm labor, but I doubt it will be used to save all conceived zygotes or such.

Nora
It is unsustainable to have a society whereby a half pound premature baby is being cared for in one room of a hospital and the next door down the hall a 1.5 or 2 pound baby is having its life ended by an abortion procedure. This is very illogical and a moral contradiction that will change.

Concerned, I would not argue the termination of any 1.5 or 2 pound baby, nor did the courts at Roe vs. Wade. The weight of the average 12 weeks old fetus is 0.49 ounces.

Nora
the weights i used were to exaggerate a point. But your exact weight make the point as well. At the time of Roe V Wade .49 or 12 weeks was deemed the age that a baby in the womb was not viable. Today based on medical science babies are surviving outside the womb even at a half pound and even a bit lower. This is the game changer.

Concerned, I see what you're saying, but there is also another game changer. Women have come quite a bit further in society today than what they were in 1973, and their will and right to rule over their own bodies will, I believe, play a larger role than it did back then. Who knows, perhaps sometime in the future doctors can extract fetuses and grow them somewhere else. Until that day however, I doubt we will go back to having abortions not be legal

Concerned, your weights are wrong. Babies born at 20 or 21 weeks at best are 12 oz., maybe a tiny bit more. Saying that a fetus at 24 or 32 oz. is "being aborted" is clearly a crime unless the life of the mother is at stake.

And Mr. Way, yes, life begins at conception, and both anti-abortion and pro-choice folks need to agree on that important point. There are certain religions which ostensibly allow late-term abortions because the fetus is NOT considered alive until it actually leaves the mother completely, as if a tumor was removed. Those religions are wrong and rationalize something which is not true.

Nora,
Point well taken. I do not think the USA will prohibit all abortions but I think medical science advancements will make abortions rare and somewhat viewed as uncivilized. So they will be available in limited circumstances and the days of using abortion as a form of contraception will be ended by medical science.

Tom, thanks for adding to the discussion. With you being a scientist, I would like to ask you a question. Not challenging or confirming anything you said, just wanting to ask you a question because I myself do not have a scientific background and have to rely on literature and folks like yourself to answer certain things so here it goes.

The dictionary definition of "viable" as it relates to biology is "capable of surviving or living successfully, esp. under particular environmental conditions". The medical definition of "viable" uses it in relation to the fetus and derives from the biological term the notion that "viability" of a fetus is only when it can survive outside the mother's body.

From a scientific perspective, is there any other environment that a human life after birth could be introduced into that it would no longer be biologically "viable"?

Two examples I can think of are underwater and at extreme elevations. I would really like your insight on this.

Thanks in advance...

Beating of a heart means viable = life? Then if someone is brain dead, you can't pull the plug?

20 weeks is relatively standard, but with significant medical care as well as significant chance of permanent disability. 22 weeks is commonly thought of "survivable with less chance of permanent impairment".

Stopping a beating heart depends on WHY in the US - as in the noted case of brain death, as well as if someone is trespassing on your land or a threat to you. Again, I'm not sure why it is meaningless to some folks that the life of the mother IS at risk when her mental health will be significantly damaged by carrying a fetus to term and raising a child.

There cannot be a specific "day" as we can't even determine the exact gestational age of fetuses right now.

If you go by the "heart beat" theory, that's pretty early, but the thing that has a heart beating could not be considered by anyone to be a human being.

It's very hard, even if one is pro-choice, to rationalize a person waiting months into a pregnancy to decide "you know what, I really DIDN'T want to have a child". 20 weeks = over four months of pregnancy. The vast majority of women know within the first month that they may be pregnant, and are very sure by two months.

I agree therefore that some women seem to be capricious about the subject, but they are the same women you wouldn't want parenting a child.

uniony,I am pro-choice and I can;t understand why any women who had an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy would wait until she is more than a few weeks along to abort.Perhaps some of these women are in denial.Perhaps some have very irregular cycles,and are naive about the symtoms of pregnancy.Maybe they think that nature will take care of it and they will miscarry.

@uniony - "Again, I'm not sure why it is meaningless to some folks that the life of the mother IS at risk when her mental health will be significantly damaged by carrying a fetus to term and raising a child"

uniony, we need to establish that there is a huge difference between a threat to someone's way of life (which your comment refers to) and a threat to someone's life (meaning an immediate threat via death).

Mental or physical stress is NOT a threat to someone's life, it is a threat to someone's way of life. In this country we have a right to life, NOT a right to a way of life. There are a lot of people that folks encounter beyond an unwanted pregnancy that induce mental and physical stress, financial hardship, and social inconvenience that we cannot eliminate by killing.

When you're behind on the utilities and the mortgage, can't make the car payment, upside down on your mortgage, and have a broken water heater and then your boss lays you off so now you also can't afford to pay for day care for your toddler you can't exactly go your boss to alleviate the additional struggles that have been added to your life because of him.

Again, a threat to one's way of life is NOT the same as a threat to someone's life, Ectopic Pregnancy is the only documented circumstance that I am aware of that is actually a threat to the mother's life, i.e. it is very likely she will die if the pregnancy goes to term.

Where Murrow,
Sure the the terms can be Anti-Abortion and Pro-Abortion.

no one is pro abortion. The pro choice movement believes in a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. big difference.