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

We disagree with each other. I understand and respect your position. You seem unable to do the same with respect to my point of view.

You are absolutely right. I cannot respect any opinion that holds it is acceptable to brutally rip the life away from another human being. Sorry 'bout that.

You are absolutely right. I cannot respect any opinion that holds it is acceptable to brutally rip the life away from another human being. Sorry 'bout that.

The thing that you and daffodil and funnyduddies don't understand is how much damage your do to the pro-life movement with your endless bitterness, disrespect, and hostility. I know you think you are doing god's work, but what you are actually doing is hurting your cause. Of course you won't be able to see that.

The thing that you and daffodil and funnyduddies don't understand is how much damage your do to the pro-life movement with your endless bitterness, disrespect, and hostility. I know you think you are doing god's work, but what you are actually doing is hurting your cause. Of course you won't be able to see that.

I'm not at all bitter. And there's a difference between having a debate with someone about the legal, moral, philosophical, scientific, and political issues involved and ministering to a scared, pregnant mother. Believe me, when I'm counseling someone who's considering abortion, I don't talk about slave ownership or infanticide. But it's perfectly acceptable in a forum such as this. Sorry you don't like it.

Some of you do not believe in a woman's right to an abortion. Some of us do believe that women should be the ones to make decisions about their reproductive organs.

Many posts have been made back and forth. The pro-lifers (I'm always confused by the use of that term by anti-choice people because I consider pro-choice or pro-abortion people to be pro-life), are adamant and firm in their beliefs. They want abortion of any kind to be illegal. They believe that they are quite capable of making decisions for all women with regard to whether every pregnant woman should be compelled - forced, by law - to carry that potential human being to full term. (If the fertilized egg is physically capable of becoming a baby.)

I would like for those people who present themelves as being the only right ones in this argument, to consider something that makes more sense to me than any African-American slavery or Hilter analogy.

What if the pro-abortionists became a huge majority in numbers and they spewed hatred toward any woman who became pregnant out of wedlock because they believed it was incredibly wrong for an out-of-wedlock pregnant woman to go to term with the pregnancy and subsequently give birth. What if the vast numbers of pro-abortionists worked hard to prove that the world is over-populated and that over-population contributes to global warming and to the eventual end to civilization as we know it. What if that argument was so compelling and popular that the law was changed to reflect that belief. What if the new law required that any woman who was unmarried and became pregnant must have an abortion. How would you feel if that became the law of the land?

Well, pro-choice people feel that is the same kind of power you are wanting to wield over all women in this country. The pro-choice beliefs and new law would require women to do something you totally do not believe in, to us that is no different than your efforts to require women to do something that we just as strongly do not believe in right now, today.

That's precisely why I don't believe the decision about abortion should be a "majority-wins" decision. I believe it should be based on the scientific facts about when human life begins. And if you base it on those facts (separate DNA, circulatory system, beating heart, etc.), then you get a decision independent of someone's whim.

BTW, I do believe everyone should have complete control over their own reproductive organs. Use birth control, get sterilized, whatever. But when there are TWO sets of reproductive organs involved, the mother's and the baby's, then the mother has no right to interfere with the baby's. And yes, the unborn baby does have reproductive organs, even though they are not fully matured.

That's precisely why I don't believe the decision about abortion should be a "majority-wins" decision. I believe it should be based on the scientific facts about when human life begins. And if you base it on those facts (separate DNA, circulatory system, beating heart, etc.), then you get a decision independent of someone's whim.

Exactly, and that's the point people have been trying to make. Scientists can't come to a conclusion about when life begins. Some think life begins at conception. Some think life begins at implantation. Some think life begins when the organs form and start working. Some think life begins when those organs are able to work on their own, without support by the mother's body. Why is it YOUR definition of when life begins that should be followed?

Yup laurend, we've come full circle and no one who wants to make the choice for women can tell us precisely why THEIR belief of when life begins is the only true answer.

gadget, you do not own another woman's unborn baby. You cannot give it life, no matter how much you want to. It cannot become a full and complete human being without a host. You (and those who share your beliefs) are not God and it is not for you to tell everyone else when life begins and that abortion is murder. It's between God and the host. Right or wrong, that's it. Because even if you succeeded in passing a law that required women to carry babies to term in all cases of pregnancy in America, there would still be abortions. To make them illegal is only going to succeed in putting it back in the hands of the desparate women who, for whatever reason, are unable to continue their unwanted pregnancies. I realize that is just exactly what you want, but the majority of Americans will not allow you to be in charge of their unborn babies, no matter when life begins.

P.S. laurend, your last question is great. I don't recall anyone for their team actually committing to a specific time, except to say that once the sperm finds a cute egg, and they dance a little, it's a life.

You (and those who share your beliefs) are not God and it is not for you to tell everyone else when life begins

Great! Then let's legalize slavery, genocide, and infanticide -- just so long as we understand it should only be OK if the person committing the slavery, genocide, or infanticide justifies their position by saying the victim's life hasn't begun yet.

You're just plain silly. Do you really think you're winning friends and influencing people with that drivel? Is that the best you can do lately? I know ya'll keep coming up with more outrageous claims and scenarios all the time to try to get your way, but I think you're going to have to do much better than this tripe.

Websters defines tripe as anything worthless, offensive, etc., rubbish, trash. Yeah. Tripe fits.

Gadget, you forget, we're agreeing with you. We also agree that any laws concerning abortion should be made by the scientific consensus of when life begins. The problem is that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. So which is it? Should laws be based on what YOU consider to be life? Or should laws be based on what SCIENTISTS consider to be life?

I think the laws should be based on a scientific definition of human life. It is very clear when human life begins: when conception occurs, and a completely separate being begins developing, with separate DNA from the mother.

I think the laws should be based on a scientific definition of human life. It is very clear when human life begins: when conception occurs, and a completely separate being begins developing, with separate DNA from the mother.

Apparently not, since a lot of scientists can't agree about when life begins. It's NOT very clear when life begins, otherwise, there wouldn't be a huge controversy over abortion.

YI know ya'll keep coming up with more outrageous claims and scenarios all the time to try to get your way, but I think you're going to have to do much better than this tripe.

You may call them outrageous claims and scenarios, but they are not. May I remind you that the proponents of infanticide are not the fringe elements of society. So what, pray tell, is outrageous about what they're saying? Why is it offensive? Or do you not find it offensive or wrong? I'll post their quotes and credentials again so it's easy for you to review and answer:

“There is little evidence that termination of an infant’s life in the first few months following extraction from the womb could be looked upon as murder... It would seem to be more ‘inhumane’ to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness. Murder cannot logically apply to a life form with less mental awareness than a primate.”

Winston L. Duke

Article: The New Biology

Reason magazine, August 1972

“No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to life.”

Dr. Francis Crick

Nobel Prize winner

Pacific News Service, January, 1978

“In our book, Should the Baby Live, my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

Peter Singer

Professor of Bio-Ethics

Princeton University

“It is reasonable to describe infanticide as post-natal abortion... Infanticide is actually a very humane thing when you are dealing with misbegotten infants. We might have to encourage it under certain conditionalities of excess population especially when you’re dealing with defective children.”

Joseph Fletcher

Professor of Ethics

Harvard Divinity School

Infanticide and the Value of Life,

Prometheus Books, 1978

“Infanticide has a logical continuity with abortion and even with contraception.”

Edward Pohlman, Researcher

Planned Parenthood

Psychology of Birth Planning

Shankman Publishing

Cambridge MA, 1967

“If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”

Dr. James D. Watson

Nobel Prize winner

Time magazine, May 28, 1973

And your wording of "completely separate being" is actually key to a point I would like to make. Is a being really "completely separate" when it has to be incubated by another being to survive? If a fetus were truly a "completely separate being," it would be able to survive outside its mother's womb. It can't, therefore, it isn't.