Explain Your Reasoning.

[fyrefighter]

Fantasea, you are right they must keep it cold and clinical. The power of written and spoken words using the right ones at the appopriate times helps their argument with people who dont want to spend the time analizing what was really said or written. Ex. What would you rather have 1)A nice juciy stak cooked to perfection. OR 2) A segment of muscle tissue cut from a young immature castrated bull seared over a fire. To someone who loves their children there is no doubt about when life starts and if it is a child starting its journey through time. Remember everyone who is reading this comes from a mother who was pro choice. My 2 cents. OUT

 

[AK_Conservative]

Well my reasoning for being anti-abortion differs from most i would think. I consider myself to be agnostic. There is no God reasoning in my opinion of abortion. I personally do not think abortion is a correct form of birth control. I believe life begins at conception. From the moment the egg attaches itself to the 'wall' it begins to grow! I tend to htink of it this way. What if your father and mother decided to have an abortion with you? Would you like that? what about the baby's life? I know he wants to grow! Both individuals, at the moment of concent, take the responcibility upon him or herself whether they want to or not. Take responciblity for your action!

Now making abortion illegal will be very very difficult. I say this becuase there are so many factors to consider: Rape, health risks to the mother, and the widely used one i hear today is fear of the parents of the pregnant girl/boy! Now if abortion was to be illegal EXCEPT on these cases (maybe a few more.. idk), the fear of the parents would be exploited. Girls would say there dad would be abuses and blah blah blah and Planned Parenthood would be so sympathetic, they would go ahead with the abortion.

This is a very very difficult address with abortion. So many different points of view.Take it as you may!

 

[FutureIncoming]

IValueFreedom quoted and wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureIncoming
Are you lacking the linguistic data to realize that the phrases "human zygote", "human embryo", and "human fetus" can all be turned around, into "zygotic human", "embryonic human", and "fetal human"?

Umm... there is a major difference when twisting those phrases.
"Human zygote" is a noun for a zygote belonging to a human.
"zygotic human" is a human that possesses the characteristics of a zygote. "Zygotic" is an adjective, hence, why it was never made into a real word in the English language.
The same is true with the word "embryonic." Just because it sounds like it could be a word doesn't mean that it is.
"Fetal," on the other hand, obviously is a word. The most common usage (I'm only guessing) would be in the term "fetal position." "Fetal position" and "fetal human" are exactly the same type of phrase. Fetal is used as an adjective to show characteristics of the subject.
"Fetal position" - a position of an object that shares characteristics of a fetus (scrunched up).
==========================

Yes, I do understand the differences, and also was pretty sure I was coining a couple of words there. But I had a particular goal in mind to address. The scientific/medical descriptions of the unborn do not include vernacular "child", while Fantasea wishes to hypocritically apply that word to all stages of human growth, even before birth (while ignoring the vernacular meaning of "Being"). However, Fantasea also does occasionally stress the human-ness of the unborn, and THIS is something that can be consistent with the scientific/medical descriptions.

That is, a "zygotic human" would indeed be an accurate label for an unborn human at the zygote stage. And so on. OK?

 

[FutureIncoming]

thapcballa wrote: "Steen i have a question, why is baby in your opinion considered nonhuman until the second it comes out. Why isn't the baby considered human while inside the mother. Also explain why when someone kills a pregnant mother, its double homicide. Homicide is killing a human."

I saw what steen wrote in answer to that, and while he made some valid points, I think he could have done some explaining of the terminology standards.

thapcballa, the word "child" in the scientific/medical literature is reserved for a human that has left the womb and is now growing independently of it. Inside the womb, descriptors such as "zygote", "embryo", and "fetus" apply, and at the same time there is no question that the growing organism is also human.

Next, and obviously, the killing of an unborn human can be called a homicide, simply because the word translates from the Latin as "human killed", or something like that. USUALLY the word homicide also implies murder, but that is not always the case. For example, if the driver of a car gets into an accident and a passenger dies, the driver may be accused of negligent homicide, but not murder.

Murder is something that is done by one person to another (and "deliberately" does not always apply, else categories like Second Degree or Third Degree murder would not exist). One portion of the overall abortion debate involves the claim that the unborn human qualifies as a person, so that killing an unborn human would therefore be murder. My own understanding/interpretation of Roe vs. Wade is that "person" can only be applied to the unborn if the unborn is developed enough to live independently of the umbilical connection to a womb. By that definition, all children are persons, but by corollary and extension the word "child" cannot even legally (much less scientifically/medically) be applied to the early developmental stages of an unborn human.

I now expect somebody to offer a correction of my understanding/interpretation as described above. I might mention that some anti-abortion people are promoting the development of artificial wombs, thinking that this would be a loophole in Roe vs. Wade, especially if the MOTHER'S womb is specified in that Decision. I suspect it is not so simple. The biology of fetal growth pretty much requires the umbilicus and a womb. Surrogate technology in the veterinary industry already is doing things like getting one common species to surrogate-mother individuals of a different but related and endangered species. Humans and gorillas may be closely related enough that a gorilla's womb might support a human fetus (although other problems remain, like the relative sizes of the human head at birth, vs the pelvic girdle). Experiments that could find out if this is workable are currently frowned-upon -- and yet those wombs are much more readily available than artificial wombs (currently and definitely not functional enough). If the abortion opponents really think that a replacement for the mother's womb is all that is needed to loophole Roe vs. Wade, then they should be pursuing this line of experiment-with-fetus research, instead of forbidding all such. (And how are they going to certify the final versions of those artificial wombs, anyway?)

Finally, while Fantasea refuses to consider the question of what REALLY defines a person, such that it can be Universally applied, I think it would be entertaining to mention the following logic:
1. Many humans believe an entity exists which they call "God"
2. Some believe God created both humans and the Earth (called "Terra" in Latin)
(I suspect this group includes most of the most-dedicated of the anti-abortion crowd, due to religious beliefs. This group of humans is relevant below. Please note that I do not include Fantasea in it, due to lack of data.)
3. If God created humans, then God cannot be a human.
4. If God created Terra, then God must be extra-terrestrial in origin.
5. If "persons" are limited to humans only, then God is not a person.
Therefore I conclude that everyone described by 2. above, who also thinks that God qualifies as a person, needs to do something about the definition of "person".
After which, heh heh heh, I tend to think that NO unborn human will EVER qualify -- and the abortion debate, with that group at least, can Officially End.
But I'm still waiting for one of them to take up the challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and accurate, regardless of physical nature (God is claimed to be non-biological, right?). Then explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too." Good Luck!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Fantasea quoted: 'Next, it is actually a true fact that you are still hypocritically putting the word "child" in a sentence where it does not belong. It is also actually a true fact that you are continuing to make an unproved claim (the sentence that includes the phrase "absolute right"). It is also actually a true fact that human rights are associated with human abilities. For example, it is actually a true fact that young children do not have the right or priviledge to drive an automobile. And it is actually a true fact that unborn humans do not have an inherent right to live, if for no other reason than: It is actually a true fact that even fully adult humans do not have an inherent right to live; otherwise many myriads of adults would not have been killed by a tsunami in Descember 2004. The so-called "right to live" is actually in truth and fact just a convenient fiction and priviledge that various humans have granted to various other humans. And finally, YOU actually and in true fact have no right to arbitrarily by-fiat replace one set of human priviledges with another, especially when you would be giving more privileges to the incapable than to the capable. Haven't you learned that privileges are usually EARNED, not granted?

Now, if you should possibly happen to decide that any of the sentences in the previous paragraph is less than complete truth, then you had better be able to explain in detail, supported by actual true facts."


Fantasea wrote: 'First, your use of the word “true” as an adjective modifier for the word “fact” is superfluous since a fact is inherently true. Or, perhaps, you know of some “false” facts which you would care to share.

I am fascinated by your bold faced attempt to swap the meaning of the word “right” for the meaning of the word “privilege”. The Declaration of Independence declares to all, the inalienable “right” to life. There is no mention of life’s being a privilege which may be accorded to some but not to others."


Regarding your first statement, you are quibbling. Complaining about the way I chose to express certain facts in no way counts as evidence that the statements are false.

Regarding priviledges, you are correct that the Declaration of Independence CLAIMS that there is a Right to Life. HOWEVER, that document is a POLITICAL statement, not a scientific statement. Where is your Right to Life if lightning hits you? It is precisely because there is in actual fact NO Right to Life anywhere in all of Nature that I chose to use the word "privilege". Technical accuracy IS better than political correctness, and the Right To Life in politics is indeed a convenient fiction. Next, it just so happens that you are overlooking the FACT that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Law of this Land. It's purpose was to tell England that we weren't going to pay attention to THEIR laws any more. The Constitution is OUR Law of the Land. Can you find an equivalent Right to Life statement in there?

Now, would you like to try again, to point out any untruths in the stuff quoted at the beginning of this Message?

 

[vergiss]

To someone who loves their children there is no doubt about when life starts and if it is a child starting its journey through time. Remember everyone who is reading this comes from a mother who was pro choice. My 2 cents. OUT

1. You're right. They know it's when their child is actually born.
2. ...did you mean a mother who was pro-life?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Fantasea wrote: "Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is."

Fantasea quoted: "
As before, you continue to be illogical.
1. Humans CLAIM to be special.
2. Humans CLAIM a right to life based on 1.
3. When asked the nature of the specialness claimed in 1., the answer is "brainpower".
The conundrum begins when humans lacking brainpower are considered.
4. The corollary of 3. is that humans lacking brainpower cannot be special.
5. The corollary of 2. is that a right to life cannot be claimed for nonspecial humans.

That is very simple logic, with simple statements and no strange semantics.
YOU are essentially claiming that human specialness exists even when brainpower is lacking, but you have utterly failed to provide any data supporting the claim. You might as well try to "save your cake for later, and eat it at the same time". Logically impossible."

Fantasea wrote: "My sole claim is the biological fact that the product of conception is a living, growing, developing, unborn human child.

FutureIncoming replies: "I do not dispute THAT statement at all, EXCEPT for the hypocrisy associated with improperly including the word "child"."

Fantasea wrote: "You have, thus far, chosen to try to bend, twist, and contort that biological fact into something which it is not. You have been unsuccessful because facts are resilient. They always spring back to their origins."

FutureIncoming replies: "You are mistaking my efforts. I am not trying to contort any biological facts. I am discussing aspects of the notion that just because human life happens to exist, that does not mean it MATTERS, objectively. And even subjectively with respect to humans, where human life can logically be expected to matter, that does not mean it matters everywhere and all the time. So far YOU have failed to provide any evidence indicating that human life matters objectively, OR that among humans it actually matters everywhere and all the time. So far as I can see, you are claiming that certain human lives matter only because you can financially benefit from their suffering. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

Fantasea wrote: "I have asked you to furnish facts from a medical or scientific source which will support your claim. You have not done so and consistently lean on the Roe v. Wade opinion."

FutureIncoming replies: "Since I have not made any claims that distort human biology, I do not need to furnish any facts in support of non-existent claims. To the extent that I have referenced Roe vs. Wade, that is simply because it IS relevant to a discussion about when human life MATTERS to humans."

 

[FutureIncoming]

Fantasea quoted: "Well, there are Scenarios and then there are Scenarios. Can you agree that any Scenario in which population rises in exact synchronization with production-of-goods is perfectly equivalent to the initially static Scenario above? If so, can you then agree that WHENEVER population happens to rise faster than goods-production (regardless of whether the cause be a spurt in population growth or a breakdown in production), then wages tend to suffer and prices tend to rise? Have you noticed the Historical tendency for businesses to seek to monopolize a market, just so goods-production can be restricted to the highest-profit-margin point? And have you noticed that when one company buys out another, the total number of jobs always goes down?"

Fantasea wrote: "Irrespective of all you have written, consider this. The number of jobs in the US continues to increase. The living standard in the US continues to increase. The life expectancy in the US continues to increase."


FutureIncoming replies: "How interesting that you chose to begin your remarks with "irrespective", thereby indicating you want to ignore what you quoted, as if no facts were present. Anyway, the US is not a simple Scenario. You are comparing apples and oranges. I will clarify, however the quoted thing I wrote about jobs. I was referring to the total jobs that previously existed within the two companies, before one bought the other. Some of the employees will have to compete for the retained jobs.

Something you wrote in a prior message, about how a good worker doesn't need a Minimum Wage, doesn't always ring true when the Law of Supply and Demand is added. In the situation where an acquired company dumps some workers, it is easy to think that some of those workers were as competent as the ones who were retained. So, which will the company prefer to keep, when competency is equivalent? Ignoring seniority, the answer is, "the ones who will accept the lesser wage!!!" THAT's what I meant when I wrote (not quoted here) something about how extra people puts pressure on wages, to drop.

I should apologize for not mentioning that the Scenarios I described had inflation deliberately excluded from them; I simply forgot to actually say so. Thank you for accepting it as an assumption (by also not saying anything). In the ordinary world, of course, wages don't go down all that often, because of inflation. But if the Scenarios had included inflation, then I would have written something like, "prices would go up at a rate in comparison to which inflating-of-wages is left behind", or "overall buying power goes down"."


Fantasea wrote: "Two incomes are required to afford two new cars, multiple cell phones, homes, furnishings, clothing, and, in general, a preferred lifestyle far above the basics."


FutureIncoming replies: "Generally true, but that is not what a Minimum Wage is about. It is about the fact that if someone gets a job, the employer generally wants the employee to BE ABLE to show up as scheduled. How is this physically possible if the job pays a wage so low that the basics cannot be met? It seems to me that if {A} "Human Life Is Valuable", then the wage should be able to cover the basics. But if {B} "Human Life is Not Valuable", then the logical things for an employer to do are (1) Pay as tiny a wage as possible, (2) Say to the starving employee who requests a raise, "There's plenty more where YOU came from, who'd be glad to have your job!", and (3) Actively oppose abortion, to help ensure that plenty more people enter the competition for jobs, and allowing continuation of policies (1) and (2).

Guess which of {A} or {B} that employers seem to be seeking to do the most, out there in today's economy.

 

[fyrefighter]

Vergiss

1. You're right. They know it's when their child is actually born.
2. ...did you mean a mother who was pro-life?

1. No, your wrong I knew that was my child the moment I found out my wife was pregnant.
2. I mean your mother had to be pro life or you wouldnt be reading this.

Have you ever had a child?

 

[Busta]

Well my reasoning for being anti-abortion differs from most i would think. I consider myself to be agnostic. There is no God reasoning in my opinion of abortion. I personally do not think abortion is a correct form of birth control. I believe life begins at conception. From the moment the egg attaches itself to the 'wall' it begins to grow! I tend to htink of it this way. What if your father and mother decided to have an abortion with you? Would you like that? what about the baby's life? I know he wants to grow! Both individuals, at the moment of concent, take the responcibility upon him or herself whether they want to or not. Take responciblity for your action!

Now making abortion illegal will be very very difficult. I say this becuase there are so many factors to consider: Rape, health risks to the mother, and the widely used one i hear today is fear of the parents of the pregnant girl/boy! Now if abortion was to be illegal EXCEPT on these cases (maybe a few more.. idk), the fear of the parents would be exploited. Girls would say there dad would be abuses and blah blah blah and Planned Parenthood would be so sympathetic, they would go ahead with the abortion.

This is a very very difficult address with abortion. So many different points of view.Take it as you may!

Abortion will actually be easy to outlaw. All we need to do is, not overturn, but fulfill Roe-v-Wade. In section 9a of the Roe-v-Wade ruling the Supreme Court said that if "personhood" is established than the 14th. Amendment would give the FEZ the Right to Life and protect the FEZ from harm.

Enter the establishment of "personhood":
Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Kentucky: Since February, 2004, Kentucky law establishes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

It's not sollid enough to take to the Supreme Court yet, but were getting there.

 

[steen]

Ah, and therefore the hydatidiform mole is also having the right to be born. After all, you can't tell the difference at conception.

In another post you wrote agreed that your mole could never produce a child. I think you must be in need of a break, or something.

But the hydatidiform mole can still be born. So per your criteria, we can not treat the woman by removing it.

 

[Busta]

But the hydatidiform mole can still be born. So per your criteria, we can not treat the woman by removing it.

A hydalidiform mole can be born?

 

[steen]

I personally do not think abortion is a correct form of birth control. I believe life begins at conception. From the moment the egg attaches itself to the 'wall' it begins to grow!

[Conception is 3-7 days before implantation, and cell division begins around conception.

I tend to htink of it this way. What if your father and mother decided to have an abortion with you? Would you like that?

If they had, I would never have existed and wouldn't be able to care one way or the other. That argument is no more valid than arguins that masturbation or contraceotion results in a chils not being born, and how would that kid feel. The argument is nonsense.

what about the baby's life?

There is no baby until birth.

I know he wants to grow!

Well, THAT is a fascinating claim. You know the mind of a zygote, a cell that doesn't even have a mind. Such blatantly false claims merely demonstrate hyperbole and deceptive arguments.

Both individuals, at the moment of concent, take the responcibility upon him or herself whether they want to or not.

Your claim of wishful thinking as a fact is false.

Take responciblity for your action!

Such as by obtaining an abortion.

 

[steen]

Re: Vergiss

2. I mean your mother had to be pro life or you wouldnt be reading this.

Pro-choice people have kids all the time.

 

[steen]

A hydalidiform mole can be born?

Sure it can. Of course, it is merely a slimy mass of tissue, and 15-30% have gone into metastatic cancer of the woman when it happens, but sure they can be born.

 

[Busta]

Sure it can. Of course, it is merely a slimy mass of tissue, and 15-30% have gone into metastatic cancer of the woman when it happens, but sure they can be born.

I don't get it. Maybe if you re-word the description of how a woman gives birth to a hydalidiform mole, that would help.

 

[steen]

I don't get it. Maybe if you re-word the description of how a woman gives birth to a hydalidiform mole, that would help.

If the hydatidiform mole grows into a large enough mass, the uterus will begin contractions and expell the mole.

 

[AK_Conservative]

[Conception is 3-7 days before implantation, and cell division begins around conception.
If they had, I would never have existed and wouldn't be able to care one way or the other. That argument is no more valid than arguins that masturbation or contraceotion results in a chils not being born, and how would that kid feel. The argument is nonsense.
There is no baby until birth.
Well, THAT is a fascinating claim. You know the mind of a zygote, a cell that doesn't even have a mind. Such blatantly false claims merely demonstrate hyperbole and deceptive arguments.
Your claim of wishful thinking as a fact is false.
Such as by obtaining an abortion.

First off, you misinterpreted my WHOLE point!

If they had, I would never have existed and wouldn't be able to care one way or the other. That argument is no more valid than arguins that masturbation or contraceotion results in a chils not being born, and how would that kid feel. The argument is nonsense.

What i ment for you to do is reflect upon it NOW. How would it make you feel if your parents came to you and said, "We almost had you aborted, but we unfortunately, we did not have the funds to do it" How would that make you feel NOW, not when u were a fetes :roll:

There is no baby until birth.

haha, Im sorry, this is the most idiotic comment ive ever heard on this issue! You must have the mind of a zygote, becuase this has absolutely no truth to it whatsoever!

Such as by obtaining an abortion.

You believe having an abortion is taking responcibility for your actions? YOu are straight up ignorant on this! That is the complete opposite of taking responcibilty!

 

[FutureIncoming]

steen, I'd like to express thanks for the information about hydatidiform moles. I never knew about them before. Their existence certainly does seem to indicate that the standard pro-life definition of "person" very much needs to be revised.

 

[Busta]

If the hydatidiform mole grows into a large enough mass, the uterus will begin contractions and expell the mole.

So anything that causes the uterus too contract and is expelled is "borne"?

 

[FutureIncoming]

To Busta:
From the strewn-out messages that steen has posted, I gather that this is what he is talking about:
When sperm fertilizes ovum, a hydatidiform mole may result, instead of a normal zygote. It is apparently able to do cell-division and attach to the uterus to obtain nutrients, just like a normal zygote. It is able to grow to some arbitrary size before the woman's body notices that it is not hosting a normal embryo or fetus, and that is when the hydatidiform mole is expelled/"born" (but I personally think the whole topic is just another variant of genetic machinery gone awry, such as can lead to an ordinary miscarriage).

With that as the background, look at the basic pro-life definition of "person", as supplied by Fantasea: "A living growing organism having human DNA" -- or words to that effect. And steen has indicated that in the very early stages of growth, there is no way to tell the difference between mole and embryo. The basic definition of "person" therefore declares that a hydatidiform mole must be called a person. Now, Fantasea has also more recently tried to include a specification that the human organism be able to grow into a child -- but does he realize that such a definition would EXCLUDE human adults?

Haw, haw, haw!!!

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
A quote from your source:

Often, doctors can diagnose a hydatidiform mole shortly after conception. No fetal movement and no fetal heartbeat are detected. As parts of the mole decay, small amounts of tissue that resemble a bunch of grapes may pass through the vagina.

As I wrote, these moles cannot produce a child. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by steen
Never claimed that they could. But they are human sperm and human egg merging into a human zygbote with human DNA all the same. Per YOUR definition, that makes them human beings.

It seems you have a bit of trouble admitting to that FACT. Why is that? Are you to cowardly to admit when you messed up? Or are you just straightforward dishonest?

Since you acknowledge that these moles cannot produce a human child, then why not just stop repeating that rhetoric which can be intended only to confuse the issue. After all there are many human bodily functions which, while they exist, can never produce a human child. There is no point in discussing them.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea, you are right they must keep it cold and clinical. The power of written and spoken words using the right ones at the appopriate times helps their argument with people who dont want to spend the time analizing what was really said or written. Ex. What would you rather have 1)A nice juciy stak cooked to perfection. OR 2) A segment of muscle tissue cut from a young immature castrated bull seared over a fire. To someone who loves their children there is no doubt about when life starts and if it is a child starting its journey through time. Remember everyone who is reading this comes from a mother who was pro choice. My 2 cents. OUT

Excellent observation and thoroughly appropriate example.

 

[Fantasea]

Well my reasoning for being anti-abortion differs from most i would think. I consider myself to be agnostic. There is no God reasoning in my opinion of abortion. I personally do not think abortion is a correct form of birth control. I believe life begins at conception. From the moment the egg attaches itself to the 'wall' it begins to grow! I tend to htink of it this way. What if your father and mother decided to have an abortion with you? Would you like that? what about the baby's life? I know he wants to grow! Both individuals, at the moment of concent, take the responcibility upon him or herself whether they want to or not. Take responciblity for your action!

Now making abortion illegal will be very very difficult. I say this becuase there are so many factors to consider: Rape, health risks to the mother, and the widely used one i hear today is fear of the parents of the pregnant girl/boy! Now if abortion was to be illegal EXCEPT on these cases (maybe a few more.. idk), the fear of the parents would be exploited. Girls would say there dad would be abuses and blah blah blah and Planned Parenthood would be so sympathetic, they would go ahead with the abortion.

This is a very very difficult address with abortion. So many different points of view.Take it as you may!

The original attempts to legalize abortion were on the basis of providing an alternative to back alley butchers and the need to provide relief to victims of rape and incest.

This opened the door a crack. It was not very long before the door was pushed wide open to permit abortion on demand for any reason, or no reason, at any point between conception and the moment of birth.

It is inconceivable that when the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton opinions were written, "back alley abortions" estimated at less than ten thousand a year would explode to well over a million a year and in thirty two years would total nearly fifty million.

Once more, the law of unintended consequences reigned supreme.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea quoted: 'Next, it is actually a true fact that you are still hypocritically putting the word "child" in a sentence where it does not belong. It is also actually a true fact that you are continuing to make an unproved claim (the sentence that includes the phrase "absolute right"). It is also actually a true fact that human rights are associated with human abilities. For example, it is actually a true fact that young children do not have the right or priviledge to drive an automobile. And it is actually a true fact that unborn humans do not have an inherent right to live, if for no other reason than: It is actually a true fact that even fully adult humans do not have an inherent right to live; otherwise many myriads of adults would not have been killed by a tsunami in Descember 2004. The so-called "right to live" is actually in truth and fact just a convenient fiction and priviledge that various humans have granted to various other humans. And finally, YOU actually and in true fact have no right to arbitrarily by-fiat replace one set of human priviledges with another, especially when you would be giving more privileges to the incapable than to the capable. Haven't you learned that privileges are usually EARNED, not granted?

Now, if you should possibly happen to decide that any of the sentences in the previous paragraph is less than complete truth, then you had better be able to explain in detail, supported by actual true facts."


Fantasea wrote: 'First, your use of the word “true” as an adjective modifier for the word “fact” is superfluous since a fact is inherently true. Or, perhaps, you know of some “false” facts which you would care to share.

I am fascinated by your bold faced attempt to swap the meaning of the word “right” for the meaning of the word “privilege”. The Declaration of Independence declares to all, the inalienable “right” to life. There is no mention of life’s being a privilege which may be accorded to some but not to others."

Regarding your first statement, you are quibbling. Complaining about the way I chose to express certain facts in no way counts as evidence that the statements are false.

It is obvious that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "quibble".

Regarding priviledges, you are correct that the Declaration of Independence CLAIMS that there is a Right to Life. HOWEVER, that document is a POLITICAL statement, not a scientific statement. Where is your Right to Life if lightning hits you? It is precisely because there is in actual fact NO Right to Life anywhere in all of Nature that I chose to use the word "privilege". Technical accuracy IS better than political correctness, and the Right To Life in politics is indeed a convenient fiction.

So you say, politically, there is a right to life, but scientifically, there is not. I marvel at your ability to invent convoluted statements in an attempt to bolster your convoluted position.

Next, it just so happens that you are overlooking the FACT that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Law of this Land. It's purpose was to tell England that we weren't going to pay attention to THEIR laws any more. The Constitution is OUR Law of the Land. Can you find an equivalent Right to Life statement in there?

Now, would you like to try again, to point out any untruths in the stuff quoted at the beginning of this Message?[/QUOTE]Your reliance on the written opinion of Justice Harry Blackmun is not as universally respected as you seem to believe. In fact, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz also think Roe was bad law.

In a March 2005 speech at the University of Kansas, Ginsburg, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said Roe was decided in a way which forbids any regulation or restriction of abortion—something which "seemed to me not the way courts generally work."

As for Dershowitz, in his book, "Supreme Injustice," the famous pro-abortion liberal compared Roe v. Wade to the Bush v. Gore decision that decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election—blasting both rulings as instances where politics became wrongly inserted into the courts.

When contemporary, liberal, legal minds as great as these disagree with you, I have to side with them.