marjon9

If you mean falafel, I think they are really great. But I can't promise that the particular brand available in the super market is going to be good. It may be, may not be. As you probably know, it's a middle eastern vegetarian sandwich. If the falafel itself is made well, and it has a well made sauce and a fresh pita bread, they are really good. If you have a chance to eat one in a good middle eastern restaurant, that might be the place to start. If you try the one in the store and it's not too good, you may not want to try one again. That would be a shame because a good, fresh falafel is truly grand.

I think it is "unnecessarily mean" to work toward forcing other people to live by someone else's moral code. As soon as the pro-life people take that off the table, I'll be much nicer, I'm sure. I have no definition of what I believe to be a "true" "pro-life" advocate. All I can say is, it sure looks pretty mainstream to me that pro-lifers do NOT make ANY exception for the life of the mother, notwithstanding gadget's protestations to the contrary. I think that is something that is important to look at, and says a lot about just how intrusive into the private lives of others the pro-life people are willing to be. And as for men having no right to vote (or speak at all, I'm sure you would recommend), this is something that I am not suprised to hear from you. But men have wives, mothers and daughters, you see, so I think we have every right to speak and vote on this issue.

I appreciate your comments Metalband. My views are actually quite close to yours. The last thing I am is an abortion advocate. I can't imagine a situation where I would ever want or encourage an abortion for my own child. My issue is with those who seek to legislate their version of morality. In my experience, almost all pro-life individuals would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example. Their goal is to make abortion illegal. That's the issue that motivates me. This complex, highly personal issue must be left to individual choice. But like you, I am strongly opposed to abortion on a personal level in most situations I can imagine.

Here's another web site with the same view quoting a Pope and several doctors including Bernard Nathanson. Wasn't he the 75,000 abortion guy? I guess those Popes and physicians are wild and crazy fringe elements. American Life League - your pro-life information source: Declaration: Protecting the Life of the Mother Here is a quote from that page: There is never a reason in law or in practice to advocate a "life of the mother" exception for abortion. We base this statement on testimony of many pro-life physicians over the years, including John F. Hillabrand, M.D., Herbert Ratner, M.D., and Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. Further, we adhere to the following teaching of Pope Pius XII: Every human being, even the infant in the mother's womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral "indication" that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life-which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit. Allocution to Italian midwives Pope Pius XII October 29, 1951

If this is a "fringe" point of view in the pro-life movement, that is news to me. My understanding has always been that this is how all pro-life people view the world. After all, there is no "life of the mother" exception to so-called partial birth abortion ban, isn't that right? So, if a fetus is a separate human being with a heart and brain and a different blood type at 8 weeks, or whatever your claim was, why should there be an exception for the life of the mother there? You are more familiar than I am with the pro-life movement. I suppose I should take your word for it that this guy's views are out of the mainstream. But that is truly a surprise to me.

Here is something that might help move the discussion forward. It is an article by a pro-life advocate who argues that there should be no exception for the life of the mother. (Does this help explain why some of us find the pro-life argument so terrifying? Can you imagine if you guys become the majority and start making laws?). So, even if nothing else happens today, you will be introduced to your first pro-life advocate who maintains the view that the dividing embryo should be saved but the mother should die. (That may not be a choice often in the real world, but if it were, this guy would vote for the mother's death). You can find the article here: Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion - Vision Forum Ministries (You see Carlene, sometimes I do my research). I've pasted the text below: Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., December 16, 2002 Susie, a mother of five children, finds herself and her three-year-old year son Johnny adrift at sea in a tiny one-person raft. They are hundreds of miles away from the nearest boat or landmark. The prospects look grim for both mother and child. On board is a container of water and food. One problem is that there is no realistic means for acquiring additional food at sea and even less for collecting rainwater. If the food and water on board are carefully rationed, Susie will have enough provisions on board for one person to barely survive two weeks at sea, which is the time she has estimated it will take for the little raft to follow the currents to a latitude and longitude frequented by shipping vessels, one of which, she is sure, will rescue her. This is her one hope for survival, but she must last two weeks at sea. Although she might hope that a rescue ship will arrive before that time, the appearance of such would be nothing short of a miracle. Susie now confronts the biggest dilemma of her life. Based on the information before her, only one person can survive the sea voyage. As things stand now, both mother and child seem destined to die of dehydration and hunger. The only realistic hope for any survival would be for one of the two to die, leaving the other with the supplies. What to do? Susie is aware of only three options. Option One: She could simply pray, trust God and accept the very real possibility that both she and her son will die; Option Two: She could sacrifice her own life and leave her son with the necessary provisions for his own survival; or, Option Three: She could kill her son, leaving her with the necessary food and water to make it to safety. This last option is the most ominous, but the one Susie feels obligated to carefully consider. Susie ponders the situation. It is true that Johnny is her son, but it is also true that he poses a very real threat to her survival. Mother and child are both yoked in an uncomfortable environment for a long period of time, mother and child are both living off the same limited food source, and mother and child both find themselves in a life-threatening situation. With every bite of food or drink of water that he takes, Johnny increases the possibility that Susie will not survive at sea. The fact that Johnny does not intend her harm is not at issue. The bottom line is that little Johnny is a threat to her own life. To kill her son, Susie reasons, is really an act of self-defense. After all, isn’t it better for one of them to live, than for both to die? Furthermore, there are four other children at home who will suffer greatly if they lose their mother. The loss of a brother is tragic, but the loss of mother can harm many lives by depriving other children of love and affection. Susie’s life should be saved because it is clearly the more valuable of the two. As she considers these points, Susie notices a school of sharks circling her boat. Her decision made, Susie waits until the middle of night at which time she kisses her son, effortlessly lifts his sleeping body from the raft, and then throws him into the water where he quietly slips below the waves and is ripped to pieces and consumed by the man-eating sharks. Thanking God that she did not have to watch her son’s death or hear his screams, Susie wipes the tears from her eyes and resolves to move on. She knows that her decision was a valid choice and an act of self-protection. Further, she is comforted by the fact that Johnny is probably better off to have died a quick death with the sharks than to be put through the agony of long-term starvation and dehydration. All things considered, her actions were merciful. Susie manages to survive the next two weeks, is rescued, and returns home to serve as the mother of four healthy children. What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as “an unfortunate, but necessary evil.” After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night? In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable. Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy. Why do we shudder at reports of ancient pagan parents who threw their children into the flames or put them to the knife to appease a heathen god? We shudder and cringe because the parent-child relationship is the most sacred, the most inviolable, and the most foundational to life and civilization. Upon this relationship rests the eternal destiny of every true Believer. It is the relationship of the heavenly Father to the Son, and it is the relationship that every Christian has as a child of God. It is our one hope. It is because of this truth that we embrace the spirit of R.M.S. Titanic commander E.J. Smith who proclaimed “women and children first” as the great ship went to its demise. A man worth his salt will not try to evaluate the value of his life in comparison to that of his wife or children. He will simply die for his loved ones. He will play the part of the man and willingly sacrifice his life for those dependent on him. He will give up his seat on the lifeboat for them; he will face death and make any sacrifice for those that God has placed under his protection. Just as every man should know that it is his duty to die for his wife and children, every wife should know that that it is her duty to sacrifice for the child she has nurtured in her womb. Sacrifice is implicit to the Christian definition of mother. This brings us to the question at bar. Is there any substantive difference between Susie’s actions and that of the mother who orders an abortion “to preserve her own life?” Count on the fact that the blade of the abortionist is every bit as bloody when applied to the skull and chest and legs of an unborn little boy or girl as the teeth of the sharks were to young Johnny. Does this description offend you? Infanticide is offensive. “But we must have abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy,” some will argue. “Is it fair to deprive a husband and family of a mother? After all, such an abortion is simply an act of self-defense by the mother against the child. And what if the child’s chance of survival is rather slim in comparison with the likelihood that the mother will die if the baby is brought to term? Surely, abortion is reasonable in such circumstances.” For thousands of years, man has found ways to rationalize murder, but for those who call upon the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, there is but one standard for resolving this and all ethical questions: Holy Scripture. The Bible gives no authority for a parent to ever take the life of an unborn child. Scripture does give three valid bases for taking the life of another, none of which can even remotely be construed as a justification for “abortion for the life of the mother.” Man may take another’s life in the case of just warfare; man may take another’s life when acting on behalf of the civil magistrate to execute a person guilty of a capital crime; or man may take another’s life as an act of self-defense, or in defense of others where there is a significant and immediate threat to life best remedied with a lethal response. To conclude, mothers should never kill their babies. There are no exceptions. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule. Abortion is not even biblically permissible in so-called “life of the mother” cases. As with all ethical decisions, our approach to the question of “abortion for the life of the mother” must be dictated by Scripture alone. We are not to look to situation ethics, the advice of the medical community, personal opinion, or even “common sense” to help us make life-and-death decisions concerning our unborn children. Nor may a Christian look to their emotions, to human traditions, to majority consensus, to their personal experience, or to a private revelation from God as the basis for their decision-making. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly equipped unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is the only source of wisdom for our ethical decisions. Even within the Christian community, however, some would argue that it is better to kill one unborn baby, than to risk depriving a family with living children of their mother. Others would argue that it is a legitimate act of self-defense for a mother to kill her baby where medical experts conclude that there is a high probability that the little baby could threaten the life of the mother. Still others might argue that where a baby will probably not make it to term anyway, but the continuing growth of the baby threatens the health of the mother, that it makes common sense to allow the mother to take the life of the child. Each of these arguments is rooted in a form of unbiblical situation ethics and a rejection of the sufficiency of Scripture. In Scripture, we learn that God alone is the author of life and that He alone can grant jurisdiction to take life. Further, we learn that the unborn baby is a life with an eternal soul; that man does not have the right to judge or evaluate the quality of a person’s life, and thus, the right to determine which babies have a right to life; that “expert” medical predictions about the future are based on the thinking of finite men and are often wrong; that God alone knows the future because He planned it and superintends every micro detail; and that He alone holds the key to life including the power to heal. Finally, we learn that taking innocent life is universally condemned as a crime punishable by death. Concerning abortion as a form of self-defense, the Bible teaches that such killing is only valid as an act of self-defense against a wrongful party. Wrong requires intent. Mothers may not kill their babies as an act of self-defense because an unborn child intends the mother no harm and lacks the mental capacity to pose a willing threat to a mother. Furthermore, child-sacrifice as a means of self-preservation is universally condemned in Scripture as one of the most wicked crimes imaginable. On the other hand, self-sacrifice is the “greatest form of love” and the essence of arenthood, even as it is the essence of true Christian leadership. Because there is no biblical distinction between the value of life in utero and ex utero, mothers and fathers must always be willing and ready to sacrifice their lives for their children, born or unborn. In light of the above, Christians must join together to uphold God’s Law and stand in defense of the unborn. Killing a baby in the womb is unconscionable under any circumstances. To embrace anything but a “no exception” policy in opposition to abortion is to condone infanticide. Historically and biblically, the greatest judgments have been reserved for those nations which embrace perversion and child sacrifice. (Both are rampant within our nation.) Political leaders who profess to be Christian, but who promote the right of any individual to perform abortions (child sacrifice) for any reason whatsoever, are party to the promotion of the slaughter of the innocent and will be judged. Such men and women will be judged even before heathen leaders, because “judgment begins first in the house of the Lord.” Consequently, before pointing out the speck in the political eyes of unbelieving politicians, we must first remove the enormous log of compromise from the collective eyes of our own evangelical community. The unwillingness of Christians to take a principled “no exception” stance on abortion, as well as their habitual fear of holding professing Christian leaders accountable to the biblical no-exception standard, is a likely cause of our ineffectiveness to turn back abortion in America. God often blesses nations because of the obedience of the elect. The elect of God is the remnant of faithful believers who occupy and advance the kingdom of God in their land. (Had there been but ten in the days of Abraham, Sodom would have been spared.) Because of this, it is the failure of the remnant, even more than the evil of the heathen majority, which determines the future of a nation. The remnant must be faithful to God’s standards. If past is prologue, and history does repeat itself, we can and should expect that, absent repentance, such compromise within the Church will possibly become the heavenly impetus for our collapse as a nation. Rescue the perishing. Care for the dying.

Even if you did have the thought process you describe, do you suppose that the 11 others all made the identical mistake, notwithstanding the relative clarity of the three options? Do you suppose 396power made the same mistake, notwithstanding that he wrote the poll? If it is really true that you never before even heard of a pro-life advocate who would not allow the option of saving the physical life of the mother, then meet 396power. As the author of the poll I think he knew what he was saying. And I think the eleven others did as well. The poll is pretty clear.

Carlene, this comment is beneath you. Why do you always have to get angry? Where does that come from? I am obviously not trying to set any "rules." All I am doing is saying that statistics, in this particular case, are irrelevant to the point I am making. In my view, when people decide to say that they would be against the right to choose even if the life of the mother was at stake, this is a significant window into the way they think. In that context, statistics are not relevant. You are far too intelligent to believe that I am somehow trying to set any "rules." It would be nice to discuss issues sometimes without always needing to hear from you how offensive and inappropriate I am. I don't really mind if you feel like you need to do that, but it is so irrelevant, and such a waste of time.

I don't agree that I am being "nasty" to anyone. I like to engage in vigorous debate. Sometimes I become, shall we say, enthusiastic. But I don't agree that I am being nasty at all. And I can take it every bit as well as I can dish it out. I don't become personally offended when people disagree with me, even if they call me names. And as for the substance of what you said, I have tremendous compassion and understanding for the difficulty and challenge in reaching a decision about this highly complex and personal issue. I would never attack anyone for their beliefs. The issue I have, as I have stated again and again, is that the so-called "pro-life" crowd believe they have a right to legislate and use the police power of the state to force me and my family to live by their moral code. That's the part that is intolerable to me. And as long as those people continue to assert that they have the right to force me to live by their values, I consider them to fair game for the strongest possible attacks. Yes, it is difficult to make these complex and highly personal decisions. That is exactly why there must be a right to choose, and the decision must lie with the individual, not the state.

Again, the points you are making, while valid as far as they go, do not address the point I am making. I think that the way people voted in this poll reveals a frightening thought process, notwithstanding the "facts" and "stats" of the dangers of childbirth. That is how I see it. If you believe that all those people really understood that "in this day and age" risk to the mother's health is not an issue, then you have the right to believe that. I disagree. I'm also not sure the point you are making about the war in Iraq. I certainly don't support that war. The fact that the war is even more dangerous than pregnancy does not seem particularly relevant to the issue at hand. And for that matter, it seems to me that "pro-life" republics/conservative christians are far more likely to support the war than those awful liberals. My point here is that the "pro life" voters were offered a choice, and they voted for the category that reflects their beliefs. That is, even where the mother's life is in danger, there should be no option for an abortion. I think that is terrifying. And I think that you are rationalizing this result with "statistics" and speculation about what these people "really meant." We're just going to have to disagree on that.

Regardless of what the "stats" are, I believe it is quite revealing that people voted to sacrifice the life of the mother. If this were no issue at all, why would there be a category in the poll? I understand the point that you are making about the stats, but I still think that the poll reveals the thinking and priority of the voters. If I were a mother with a difficult pregnancy, I don't think I would consider these "pro life" voters to be on my side. In fact, I'd be pretty terrified of them. I have no doubt that others can and will disagree, but that's how I see it.

I am really sorry to hear that you have met with this bump in the road. I know it must be frustrating and upsetting. BUT, I just have to speak up about my opinion. It's in my nature, I'm sorry. The distance between you and a new band is about $10,000. Considering the value of the band in your life, that is a gap that can be crossed, one way or another. You and your life are well worth it. There absolutely is a way to do this. If anything in your life is worth $10,000, this is it. It's kind of a funny feeling talking about this to a moderator of this forum, because I know that you know all these things, and you knew them for years before the lap band was even a glimmer in my eye. But I still feel compelled to speak up because you are talking about facing a life without the lap band. WRONG ANSWER. You and your life are worth the $10,000. This is a no brainer.

I was looking at the poll results and I had a thought about the three categories. There is "pro life," "pro choice" and "pro choice only for extreme cases ie Mother in danger of death." Ten people so far voted in the category of "pro life." Yet in this poll "pro life" means that they would be perfectly willing to let the mother die to save a 6 week old dividing embryo that may not even have a brain, and may not even be born alive at all. That way of looking at things is so bizarre to me I can't even fathom it. If ever a category was misnamed, "pro life" is misnamed in this poll, as it is defined. People who voted in that category in this poll would gladly let the mother die. That does not seem like like "pro life" to me at all.

It's the goatee. :hungry:

Thanks, green. Well said. That about sums it up. To me, discussion of controversial issues is a good thing. When I posted the thread, I certainly realized that people would have strong opinions about the subject and that most people, myself included, would be utterly repulsed by any thought of pedophelia. But it never occurred to me that simply because something involves a topic that is controversial and repulsive, that therefore that means we should not talk about it. That thought never crossed my mind. To me, that is an inconceivable view of the world, that because something is controversial and repulsive, that therefore we should not talk about it. I just don't get that at all. I respect people here too much to believe that they need to be protected from controversial topics. Like a lot of other people here, I like to talk about controversial topics sometimes. I'm sure I'll continue to do so. If sometimes I post something that someone thinks should not be discussed, then I'm sorry you feel that way. My goal is not to offend.

TracyK, you certainly have the right to your opinion that abortion is immoral. I even believe that you have the right to speak out hatefully toward someone who takes an action that you believe is immoral, if that's what you feel you need to do. But the problem is, many people with your opinion believe that they have the right to pass laws that force everyone else to live by the same moral code that makes sense to you. That's the part I have a problem with. I'm not sure if you are one of those people who believes they have a right to force their own morality on other people, but many of those in the "pro life" movement feel they do have that right. For me, that's the issue here. And as for the 75,000 abortion thing, here are some numbers on that. Let's say the doctor worked doing nothing but abortions for 50 weeks a year for 20 years. Let's assume 5 work days in a week. So, 5 work days times 50 weeks equals 250 work days a year. 250 work days a year times 20 years equals 5000 work days. 75,000 abortions divided by 5000 work days equals an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years. That means that if the doctor did only 10 abortions on one day, he would have needed to do 20 the next to keep up the average to 15 a day. If he was out sick for a few days, or if he ever took more than two weeks of vacation a year, he would have had to increase the abortions on the days he did work in order to maintain the 15 abortion average. To me it does not seem like a credible claim that a doctor performed an average of 15 abortions a day, day after day, year after year for 20 years. Perhaps someone else could see it another way. I think it is important to have credible figures in this debate and not appear to be willing to believe anything in order to forward your argument. Who knows, people may feel that an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years is a credible claim. It does not appear to me to be credible.

Once again I feel compelled to state an opinion that is probably going to make some people angry, but I can't help it. I just can't read this post above without commenting. If I were away from my family right now in Iraq, I too would feel forgotten. But it would not be because people have failed to put yellow ribbons on trees. Rather, I would feel totally abandoned by a country that is willing to let me die, and never again see my wife and child, for something so utterly meaningless, a war that was entered into on the basis of tricks and lies. I would feel angry and abondoned by leaders who's management of the war was breathtakingly incompetent from day one. I would know that many of my friends died because arrogant buffoons made enormous mistakes in the way the war was executed, and were too proud to admit it for years after their incompetence was obvious to everyone. I would know that this pride and arrogance cost tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, both U.S. and Iraqi. (Yes, Iraqi lives count too in my ledger sheet). If I were away from my family now in Iraq, serving my third term of duty even though I never agreed to serve more than one, knowing that I was here because Bush lacks the courage to admit he made a mistake, I, too would feel abandoned and forgotten. After seeing my friend killed after he had already packed his bags to go home from his second tour of duty, but was called back at the last minute to serve a third, I would feel rage and betrayal on a scale that is impossible to put into words. I would be almost frantic with grief and on the edge of insanity over how utterly unnecessary and meaningless the whole thing was. I would carry anger and mental illness over it for the rest of my life, even if I was able to get home without dying or losing any body parts. You see, the term "support the troops" has different meaning to different people. I feel quite sure that if I were over in Iraq, I would not be looking for yellow ribbons on trees. Rather, I would be looking for the people in my homeland to have the courage to do what it took to get me the hell out of there. "We made a bad choice to go in. Nothing can change that. What we can change is how our troops feel about the treatment and support (or lack thereof) that they are getting." I totally agree with all of that. But I strongly disagree that yellow ribbons are the way to "support" the troops. Support them by getting them the hell out of harms way. This war has already lasted longer than WWII. And all we have done is alienate most of the world, and set back hopes of resolving conflicts in the Middle East by at least a generation. Isn't it enough damage yet?

My port took a long time to close up as well, like more than a couple weeks. I had draining that was pretty red. It never seemed exactly like blood because it was thinner. But it was pretty red and it kept coming for a while. I do think that this "can" be normal. My general thought on this is to trust the doctor. But only so far. If you have the feeling that the doctor is not hearing you and something is really going wrong, of course deal with it. Maybe go to the emergency room. But a fair amount of draining, and a long healing process, can be pretty normal for a lot of people at the port site. Good luck getting it sorted out.

Obviously a lot of people agree with you. But for me the question for me is not whether or not "an eye for an eye" is fair treatment for the criminal. I'm sure it is fair treatment for the criminal in those particularly terrible crimes where they apply the death penalty. The question for me is whether we, as a society, want to stoop to that level in our response. The issue for me is whether you and I are worth more than that. Most countries in the world have reached the conclusion that executing a human being is just too low to stoop as a society, regardless of whether the criminal deserves it. I'd rather stand with the majority of Western democracies on this point, rather than stand with those who still apply the death penalty, like China, North Korea, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

I miss the whole bunch, Jack, TOM, and Wheetsin. I heard a rumor they are putting together a show for a national tour called "Rants and Raves on Ice."

You might be right, but I'm sure in the mood to try.

Thanks so much for your contribution, nursekathy, it was really insightful. I just hope you get your rabies shot in time.

Your pro-life propaganda about abortion is pretty much totally meaningless as far as I'm concerned. I have no doubt that you can find a limitless supply of pro-life people to say anything you want them to say. I don't have any expectation that such material represents reliable statistics or evidence. And, as for what it would take for you to prove to me that a dividing embryo constitutes life, I am sorry I was unclear. There is definitely nothing you could ever do to prove that to me. In my opinion this is not a matter of science. We can all see the scientific evidence. We can all see what a fetus looks like at different stages. In my opinion each person needs to analyze that information and make a personal decision regarding what they believe constitutes "life." I don't believe that this is a matter that the state has any business being involved with at all. So, you would absolutely never be able to "prove" to me that a dividing embryo constitutes "life." That's the whole point. And what that means to me is that pro-life side will never, ever be able to meet its burden of establishing that it has a right to tell other people what to do in this regard. I am totally closed-minded on that issue. I do not believe that anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to do when it comes to the early stages of a pregnancy, where you basically are talking about a dividing embryo that is months from viability. I don't think there is any "proof" you could offer that would ever lead me to the conclusion that you have a right to use the police power of the state to force other people to live by your moral code. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

There you go again with your argument that it is "life" because it is "life." That is a meaningless way of proving your case. You are not speaking up for "life." You are speaking up for something that, in your opinion, constitutes life. And I might say, you have not proven that in any way. So I totally disagree with you that you are standing up for "life." You don't get to win the argument by simply declaring yourself the winner. You have not in any way established that a dividing embryo constitues "life." And, as for Dred Scott, or Roe v. Wade, it has nothing to do with whether I am "fine" with these decisions or any other. I accept the rule of law except in the extremely rare case where my conscience does not allow me to follow the law (as it would not, for example, if the Court said it was OK to draft me into the army). If the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, I, personally would certainly accept that that is the law of the land. But I also know that it would do very little to stop abortions. As history makes crystal clear, all it would do is force women to have illegal abortions, forcing them to take extreme risks to their health. You'd be the big winner there, I guess. It hardly seems like much of a victory to me. And if my wife decided she needed to get an abortion, I would find a way to make it happen, as safely as possible, without the slightest hesitation regarding the "legality" of the decision. Certain matters of conscience transcend the law. I'd be willing to pay the penalty if caught breaking the law. But in any event, if Roe v. Wade is overruled, after you are done celebrating your great victory you will quickly see that nothing has changed except abortions are now vastly more risky for the women having them. A woman who decides to get one is not going to be stopped by this law, especially after the several decades of relative sanity that we have enjoyed on this issue. So, your great victory will be shallow, indeed.

Your premise is mistaken. It does not matter which way the pendulum swings on this issue, it will never be my burden to prove why the state should leave me alone. It is always the states burden to prove that it has the right to force me to do something. Sometimes the state meets that burden, and gains the right to use force. That could happen in the abortion context. But if it gains the right to do that, it will be because society has determined that the state has met its burden to demonstrate that it has the right to use force. It will never bemy burden to prove that the state should leave me alone. I have no way to "prove" to you that a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old is or is not "life." I'm not going to get involved in trying to do so. In my opinion, there is no correct or final answer to this question anyway. It is a personal decision between a person and his or her conscience. In my opinion, when discussing a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old, it is nobody's business what anyone else believes about whether or not that constitutes "life." You are the one who wants to impose your will on others and force them to live by your rules. You are the one with the burden to prove that you have a right to do so.