Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "he evidence is as clear as day human life is created at conception and whether you believe the creator to be some higher being or simply the man and woman who engage in sexual procreation, with the act of conception man and woman become the creators and with that act of creation the creator endows the created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."
FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See? So, even though such children are as fully different from ordinary animals as are adult humans, nevertheless two--out-of-three items on that list are PROVABLY denied to them, FREQUENTLY. Thus the Founding Fathers MUST have been talking about adults, not children, and ESPECIALLY not fetuses. Which means WE are perfectly free to deny the third item on the list, life, to unborn humans who in all scientific truth are no more special than ordinary animals.
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "The evidence of their intent is clear as day and is not subject for reinterpretation"
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY THAT.
doughgirl wrote: "Man oh man. You compare humans to chickens?"
In the sense of the adage, YES. You CANNOT count hydatidiform moles as persons. You CANNOT count bodies that never grow brains as persons (these typically die shortly after childbirth) -- or you might as well count bacteria as persons, too. In 1790 you COULD ONLY count their true numbers AFTER birth has sorted the terminally defective from the survivors (or in the case of chickens, after hatching had done the equivalent). That's a fact. Today we could possibly do better, to sort before birth the terminally defective from the probable survivors. But the precedent has long since been set in NOT counting unborn humans as persons -- and should civilization fall and our technology be lost, we would be right back at the 1790 level, unable to count chickens before hatching. When you are just plain unable to do something (like fly by flapping bare arms), there is no reason to try.
doughgirl also wrote: "I give our founding fathers more credit than that. I think abortion was so inconceivable that they did not need to put it in writing. They probably thought there never could be a woman would want to intentionally kill her unborn child."
FALSE. Well-educated people have known that various women throughout the ages have sought abortions. (Mostly among prostitutes, I think, but they held no exclusivity to it whatsoever. EVERY culture in which parents would disown a wayward daughter is a culture that encourages such daughters to seek abortions.)
doughgirl also wrote: "Life was precious in those days unlike today."
That's called the "Law of Supply and Demand". If you want humans to become valuable again, you simply reduce the excess inventory. We need do nothing different for that to happen, thanks to the ALWAYS-HAS-BEEN-FALSE assumption that human life is inherently valuable (go ahead, if you want to claim that human life is inherently valuable, let's see the evidence for it!). That assumption is leading us straight to a Malthusian Catastophe, in which the global inventory of humans will be reduced by 90% (if the Catastrophe is merely typical). Apparently you DON'T think 90% of humanity is valuable, or you would promote actions to preserve it! Like preventing the inventory from continuously growing, to become the straw that breaks the back of the Earth's biospherical "camel".
Trajan Octavian Titus wrote: "That's because to the left morals are relative."
This may be true of "the left", but it is NOT true of me. I merely claim that morals are arbitrary, and there is LOTS of evidence to support that claim. If they were non-arbitrary and universal, then every human culture would have had the exact same set of morals. Instead, human cultures had whatever morals they arbitrarily chose, that worked for them. THAT'S A FACT. To claim that morals are relative is to claim that every culture should accept the morals of other cultures, but this is a logical impossibility since OFTEN the morals of Culture A included "Death to Culture B!". YOU, on the other hand, seem to think YOU can arbitrarily decide that YOUR morals are inherently superior to all other morals, WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. That fact actually makes you just like all those Culture As out there, all of which say the same thing, with equal lack of evidence. BAH! That's why I prefer ethics over morals. Ethics CAN in theory be non-arbitrary and Universal.
doughgirl wrote: "they don't see the livign thing inside the woman as anything. In fact Coffee thinks that a nine month old in the womb, could be aborted. No problemo."
I think that there is a problem in that so much time was wasted before such an abortion is performed. Why is that, do you suppose? Because pro-lifers interfere with other people's business? If a pregnant woman does not want to be pregnant, she should be allowed to end it as quickly as possible. No wasting time, so that abortion in the ninth month NEVER needs to happen. Yes, even at implantation the unborn human is perfectly alive and perfectly human AND perfectly parasitic and perfectly animal. If it is unwanted, it can be killed BECAUSE it is an animal. I'm sure you can think of a number of unwanted ADULT human parasites (criminals). But they DO count as "people", not mere animals, and so cannot be killed arbitrarily. Why do you have a problem with simple facts and logic?