You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

I believe that it was said earlier that slavery was not abolished because it was "unpopular". I guess I'm not understanding what that means because that's exactly why the Civil War happened and why slavery was abolished. As I believe snuffy was pointing out, there's no comparison between people enslaving other people and certain people being allowed to physically intervene when a woman becomes pregnant against her wishes and force her to grow a person (btw it doesn't matter what color).

Earlier it was stated that if a sperm is left alone it will not become a person and that if an egg is left along it will not become a person but if a fertilized egg is left alone it WILL BECOME A PERSON.

Nope. Not what I said. I said if a fertilized egg is left alone, it will be an adult one day. It is already a person, albeit a tiny one. Just as a newborn is not an adult and a toddler is not an adult, yet they are still persons.

Some people actually believe that a fertilized egg will always become a person - if nothing else happens. How very wrong that is!!! No wonder we have so many people at odds in this country.

Fertilized eggs will never become people unless they are given the proper nutrition from their hosts, proper nests in which to incubate for a certain length of time within their hosts, and all of the conditions of making a person are met - including a healthy labor and delivery. Fertilized eggs are not in and of themselves people. They are only the promise of people. They cannot survive if they are left alone. They are blobs of tissue without the proper conditions. Just like sperm is a blob of tissue and an egg is a blob of tissue. Just because they have united, never guarantees that a human being will be produced.

I have a news flash for you. Without proper nutrition and proper living conditions, you will cease to be a person too. However, you are currently a person, and the removal of nutrition and proper living conditions won't remove your personhood. It will only cause your death. You are a person and you always were a person from the moment you were conceived, regardless of your future prognosis.

Nope. Not what I said. I said if a fertilized egg is left alone, it will be an adult one day. It is already a person, albeit a tiny one. Just as a newborn is not an adult and a toddler is not an adult, yet they are still persons.

I have a news flash for you. Without proper nutrition and proper living conditions, you will cease to be a person too. However, you are currently a person, and the removal of nutrition and proper living conditions won't remove your personhood. It will only cause your death. You are a person and you always were a person from the moment you were conceived, regardless of your future prognosis.

This is the best and easiest argument for being pro-life that I have ever read. Thank you, Gadgetlady. You put it into the proper and perfect perspective, IMHO.

No, laws should not be passed based on solely on popular opinon but fact. Slavery was abolished for the FACT that a black man is 100% human and not inferior. This can be proven even in science.

How does one prove that a being is fully human? I'm curious about the scientific criteria.

A law against abortions will never happen till you can state as FACT that life begins at conception. Which you cannot prove or dissprove at this time.

Where else might it begin? At birth, is "life" magically bestowed when the being travels through the birth canal? Or at viability, is "life" bestowed depending on current medical technology? Or when the mother thinks that "life" exists -- is that when the baby becomes a life?

"Life" is not an arbitrary principle. The unborn baby has unique characteristics that make it not a part of the mother, but a separate entity. Basic biology teaches us this.

It is a FACT that life begins at conception. The argument those in favor of abortion make is not that that life exists (if there's no baby there, why would the mother need an abortion?), but that the value of one life (the mother's) overrides the other life (the baby's). My argument is that no one has the right to kill another person because they deem that person's life to be valueless or unworthy.

How does one prove that a being is fully human? I'm curious about the scientific criteria.

Where else might it begin? At birth, is "life" magically bestowed when the being travels through the birth canal? Or at viability, is "life" bestowed depending on current medical technology? Or when the mother thinks that "life" exists -- is that when the baby becomes a life?

"Life" is not an arbitrary principle. The unborn baby has unique characteristics that make it not a part of the mother, but a separate entity. Basic biology teaches us this.

It is a FACT that life begins at conception. The argument those in favor of abortion make is not that that life exists (if there's no baby there, why would the mother need an abortion?), but that the value of one life (the mother's) overrides the other life (the baby's). My argument is that no one has the right to kill another person because they deem that person's life to be valueless or unworthy.

Yet, you would not throw the women in jail? If that fetus is a human being, why wouldn't the mother and doctor be charged with murder? I am really curious on why you would put such low stock on someones life.

Clearly you say that a fetus as just as many rights as a born baby yet you want different punishments? :confused:

Don't claim something of fact just cause there is no evidence to prove it other wise. You say life begins a conception then you would have to outlaw all brith control pills, all morning after pills. Arrest woman for drinking or smoking while pregnant and many other things.

Edited April 1, 200818 yr by snuffy65

It is a FACT that life begins at conception.

That is an opinon that life starts when the sperm merges with the egg, not a fact.

And you even said that conception means that the fertilized eggs now has a potential for life. POTENTIAL!

I have a potential for being president. You can call me President Snuffy now though, thank you!

That is an opinon that life starts when the sperm merges with the egg, not a fact.

And you even said that conception means that the fertilized eggs now has a potential for life. POTENTIAL!

I have a potential for being president. You can call me President Snuffy now though, thank you!

It IS a fact. There is no such thing as "potential life". Life either IS or it IS NOT. Just like you can't have a "potential thought". Either you have a thought or you don't.

Yes, you could potentially become president. That is a vocation you might aspire to and work towards, but it does not define the essence of your being. It is simply a job, not a statement of your humanity. You cannot potentially become a person. You ARE and you always WERE a person, since the time that your mother's egg and your father's sperm combined and created a new being with neither your father's DNA nor your mother's DNA, but with your own unique DNA.

Biologically, life begins when the sperm joins the egg and a new entity is in existence. It is a fact. It's when your life began and it's when my life began. You may believe your life or my life didn't have value until we were born (or whatever other arbitrary criterion you choose), but that doesn't change the fact that we can medically, scientifically, and biologically pinpoint the inception of our lives at conception.

It IS a fact. There is no such thing as "potential life". Life either IS or it IS NOT. Just like you can't have a "potential thought". Either you have a thought or you don't.

Yes, you could potentially become president. That is a vocation you might aspire to and work towards, but it does not define the essence of your being. It is simply a job, not a statement of your humanity. You cannot potentially become a person. You ARE and you always WERE a person, since the time that your mother's egg and your father's sperm combined and created a new being with neither your father's DNA nor your mother's DNA, but with your own unique DNA.

Biologically, life begins when the sperm joins the egg and a new entity is in existence. It is a fact. It's when your life began and it's when my life began. You may believe your life or my life didn't have value until we were born (or whatever other arbitrary criterion you choose), but that doesn't change the fact that we can medically, scientifically, and biologically pinpoint the inception of our lives at conception.

So I will ask again. Would you convict a abortionist and/or a pregnant woman of murder? Cause by your definition you couldn't have it any other way.

So I will ask again. Would you convict a abortionist and/or a pregnant woman of murder? Cause by your definition you couldn't have it any other way.

There are such things as mitigating circumstances and lesser charges such as manslaughter and negligent homicide. I would absolutely support convicting abortionists of murder and even serial murder. However, as I stated earlier, pre-Roe any laws against abortion held only the abortionists liable. Would that change were Roe reversed? I don't know, and it's not really my focus. My focus is stopping abortion, not how the legislature and the courts will come down on those who disobey the law.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to support snuffy in this argument. If you insist that an embryo, or even a just fertilized egg, is a person with all the rights of a fully grown human being, and you insist that it is your right to speak for that fertilized egg which you call a fully complete human being, then you must be compelled to treat women who have used abortion and morning after pills as murderers. Anyone who assists in those things should also be accomplices to murder, i.e., the pharmacist, the doctor, the nurse attending, the man who supplied the money for the abortion.

I'm afraid I can't see it any other way. You are totally unrelenting in your insistence that a fertilized egg is a full and complete human being, how can you disagree? Isn't that why shooters have sat outside abortion clinics in the past, believing that they have the right to speak for those full and complete human beings that are being aborted in the clinics, by killing doctors, nurses and other people who entered the clinics to commit what they consider to be murder?

OK, no problem. We'll throw mitigating circumstances and intent out the window. Throw the book at them, that's what I say.

You ladies are so intent on making sure women are charged with murder after abortion is illegal, I expect to see you on the front lines pushing for harsher sentences.

NOW will you answer any of my questions, snuffy?

Mitigating circumstances and intent? I can't believe that you would ever cut a woman any slack who went off and killed a human being just so that she wouldn't be inconvenienced. How could mitigating circumstances influence your imposition of the death penalty on a woman who obtained an abortion and killed a full blown human being? Her intent is obvious.

I know I'm not as much fun as snuffy, but I just felt the need to get this cleared up. Who knows where snuffy is right now.

Mitigating circumstances and intent? I can't believe that you would ever cut a woman any slack who went off and killed a human being just so that she wouldn't be inconvenienced.

That's because your clearly consider me a judgmental, heartless monster without compassion who cares nothing for the mothers or the babies after they're born, but only cares for the undeveloped "blob of tissue". And nothing could be further from the truth.

How could mitigating circumstances influence your imposition of the death penalty on a woman who obtained an abortion and killed a full blown human being?

As with every case of the death of one human being at the hands of another, there are varying degrees of culpability and prosecution. Otherwise, our justice system would be simple: someone dies, no matter what the circumstances, and it's instant death penalty for someone else. But that's just not how it works.

Once again, this is a cute little diversion, but my focus is stopping abortion, not how the legislature and the courts will come down on those who disobey the law.

Yes, I understand your position and your desire to change the law. However with change comes responsibility. Too often impassioned people have rushed to make or change a law without fully understanding or considering the repercussions of that change. This could also hold true on another thread where discussion of the death of a child whose parents held religious beliefs that compelled them to not seek medical treatment that could have saved the child's life.

People get very angry and militant when it comes to someone killing a child. They don't seem too concerned with mitigating circumstances over where that thread is being discussed. I'm not sure that I understand the difference between the death of that child and the death of a child who is aborted... that is IF you believe that both children should be the afforded all of the same rights under our laws because they are both individual, fully functioning human beings.

Yes, I understand your position and your desire to change the law. However with change comes responsibility. Too often impassioned people have rushed to make or change a law without fully understanding or considering the repercussions of that change.

Once again, pre-Roe the abortionists were charged but generally not the mothers. I have no reason to believe that would change.

People get very angry and militant when it comes to someone killing a child. They don't seem too concerned with mitigating circumstances over where that thread is being discussed.

Well, despite your implication, those "people" aren't me. I said on the other thread that I thought it was a case of neglect, not murder. Ergo, mitigating circumstances and intent come into play.