Finally, this barbaric practice can end!!!!

And that is something that no one can agree on. So, we err on the side of personal liberty.

Why don't we err on the side of life? After all, if we don't know if someone is dead or not, we don't bury them. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the personal liberty of the unborn baby to survive the first 9 months of life.

Why don't we err on the side of life? After all, if we don't know if someone is dead or not, we don't bury them. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the personal liberty of the unborn baby to survive the first 9 months of life.

Because in this country, we consider personal liberty to be more important than life. Otherwise, we would have remained a British colony. And children really don't have personal liberty. That's been proved time and time again by the Supreme Court. They may get that privelege in the future, but it isn't afforded to them currently. They don't have the right to free speech. They don't have the right to privacy. There's lots of priveleges that we consider to be part of "personal liberty" that we don't give to children. And again, there is the argument that a fetus is not a child, and therefore has no personal liberties.

Plus, if our society considered a fetus to be a child, we would say that a child is nine months and one week old a week after they are born. We don't, though. One week after birth, that child is one week old.

no....our age is based on our "birth" day.

Our personal liberties are important, but nothing is more important than life. If someone takes lives, they are stripped of their personal liberties. If someone takes someone's personal liberties, in this country, they are not stripped of their life.

Because in this country, we consider personal liberty to be more important than life.

Without life, there is no personal liberty. Remember, it is "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- not the other way around.

Plus, if our society considered a fetus to be a child, we would say that a child is nine months and one week old a week after they are born.

Because there is no exact gestation age that is consistent for all babies, there would be no way to do this. My kids were both 2 weeks late. I met a woman a few weeks ago with a daughter who was 3 months early. Life doesn't suddenly begin when a baby breathes. There was clearly a baby there before that first breath. Women don't say they're carrying a blob of tissue, they're carrying a child. They say they're having a boy or a girl. The baby kicks and has the hiccups in utero. The ultrasound pictures sometimes show a baby sucking his thumb, not a blob inserting part of his blob-ness into a cavern in another part of his blob-ness.

Without life, there is no personal liberty. Remember, it is "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- not the other way around.

My point is that one does not cause the other. People are not given personal liberties just because they are alive. They receive the full power of personal liberty when they reach adulthood.

Because there is no exact gestation age that is consistent for all babies, there would be no way to do this. My kids were both 2 weeks late. I met a woman a few weeks ago with a daughter who was 3 months early.

Actually, it would be very easy to do. If your baby was born at 36 weeks instead of the usual 40, she would be 36 weeks old. If she was born at 41 weeks, she would be 41 weeks old.

Life doesn't suddenly begin when a baby breathes.

Legally, apparently it does, or I would be 24 right now instead of 23.

Women don't say they're carrying a blob of tissue, they're carrying a child. They say they're having a boy or a girl. The baby kicks and has the hiccups in utero. The ultrasound pictures sometimes show a baby sucking his thumb, not a blob inserting part of his blob-ness into a cavern in another part of his blob-ness.

They can CALL it whatever they want to. A woman can call her fetus a monster, if she wishes, but it doesn't mean that her fetus is literally a monster. We assign things names, but it doesn't change what they are. A fetus sucking on its thumb IS a blob of tissue sticking part of its tissue into a cavity. I can suck on my thumb right now, and I am still a bunch of tissues sticking a part of that bunch of tissues into a cavity.

A fetus sucking on its thumb IS a blob of tissue sticking part of its tissue into a cavity. I can suck on my thumb right now, and I am still a bunch of tissues sticking a part of that bunch of tissues into a cavity.

So why are you different?

So why are you different?

Because the last time I checked, I could breathe on my own and I have a self-sustaining heartbeat.

I personally don't believe that there are any true athiests in this world. the word atheist implies that you don't believe in anything, and there's not a person alive that can look at a sunrise or sunset or the miracle of birth itself and not believe in something. It may not be a belief in God, but they have to believe in something.

I personally don't believe that there are any true athiests in this world. the word atheist implies that you don't believe in anything, and there's not a person alive that can look at a sunrise or sunset or the miracle of birth itself and not believe in something. It may not be a belief in God, but they have to believe in something.

That's a wise observation and I agree with you. But the "something" that a sunrise moves in me is a profound appreciation of nature and its qualities. Spirituality is something each of us find in our own way, which is all the more reason that it shouldn't be used as a basis for law.

So why are you different?

As these debates go back and forth, the point is clearly established that well-meaning, intelligent and compassionate people have different points of view on whether a fetus is a human being, and all other related issues. It is clear that people disagree about this.

The thing that no one will discuss is: Why does one group get to create legislation and establish criminal penalties for everyone? The answer to this question cannot be "because a fetus is a human being, and therefore abortion is killing a baby." That can't be the answer because that is exactly what people disagree about. So, what is the answer? Why do pro-life people believe that they have a right to legislate and create criminal penalties for the well-meaning, thoughtful, intelligent and compassionate people who believe that a fetus is not a human being? Why do you have that right?

It is fair to ask the question, why not err on the side of life? But that is just a question. It does not give you the right to make the rules. Why do you believe you have the right to make the rules? Will anyone actually answer this question?

But that is the very basis that country was founded on when it was settled. Think of the difference the way life was then and how it is now. Don't you think sometimes we need to get back to the basics and fix some of the evil in this world? Not to be crusaders or anything, but we're going to hell in a handbasket fast! And, I believe it began when we started removing God from the government and in our decision making processes. Just because we can rationalize something doesn't make it right. I can rationalize why I stole $25,000 from you (if I had), but it still wouldn't make it right to you.

Why do pro-life people believe that they have a right to legislate and create criminal penalties for the well-meaning, thoughtful, intelligent and compassionate people who believe that a fetus is not a human being? Why do you have that right?

I don't have the right to make the rules. If I did, abortion would be illegal. We depend on judges to decide these things, and I believe in light of the factual knowledge we have about life in utero, they will eventually come down on the side of life. The more we know about the unborn, the more their humanity becomes clear. It is only a matter of time. In the interim, the more we educate people about what really is going on in the womb, the more people will choose, of their own accord and based on the vast amount of information available, to choose life.

Here's my thoughts on is the fetus considered a living being from conception or is it just a blob of tissue.....do you consider a virus a living thing? If you know anything about viruses then your answer should be yes (even though they have to have a host organism to feed from). Essentially, a virus is nothing more than a mass of replicating cells, so if a virus is a living thing (even without a heartbeat) why isn't an embryo (fetus) a living thing before its heart forms. So, I don't buy the "it's not a living thing because it's demise occurs before its heart is formed or beats"....

So, I don't buy the "it's not a living thing because it's demise occurs before its heart is formed or beats"....

Additionally, the baby has a heart beat before most women know they're pregnant.

the word atheist implies that you don't believe in anything,

Actually, you are wrong. Atheist literally means that someone lacks belief in a creator or a god or gods, not that they don't believe in anything.