The First 100 Ways Ending "Legal" Abortion

Vision Forum Ministries ^ | January 21, 2003 | Herbert W. Titus, J.D.

[Lexinom]

Indeed, you need to show why any murder is not an infringment of life.

Sorry, I sometimes get ahead of myself. Should read:

Indeed, you need to show why any prohibition of murder is not an infringment of the would-be murderer's rights.

[tpaine]

I think I've presented a pretty logical case for why the unborn should be protected by the law.

They are protected, -- by our rule of law. -- As I explained in #51, and elsewhere here.
You want to change that rule, and in effect, change our Constitution. And if you succeed, women would simply ignore your new rule, or go elsewhere to abort.

Making this a reality, however, will mean fundamental cultural changes. For example, extramarital affairs must come to be viewed again as a disgrace and aberration, not as the norm.

Get real. -- Victorian hypocrisy was the abberation. The "Victorian Compromise" was, and still is the norm.

To your credit, you've observed that simple top-down legislation of morality cannot change the heart, which is by its nature evil - just look around if you need proof.

You see our sexuality [the heart] as evil. Sad comment.

[cpforlife.org]

"magic poof moment"

LOL--Don't go getting all technical on me now like MHGinTN does!

[Lexinom]

We are getting to the heart of the matter: A chasm will ever exist this side of eternity between the "ideal" and the "actual". We will never eradicate, say, robbery in our human existence because the propensity to rob will always exist in the human heart . Does it then follow that the solution is to decriminalize theft? Think about it. Such is the logical outcome of a vacuum of absolute truth: there is no basis on which to call robbery "wrong", yet mysteriously we all know this to be the case... If there is no objective right or wrong, why have laws at all?

The logical case for real - not potential - legal protection for the unborn is this:

The moment of conception - the joining of the sperm and the egg - marks the ontological transition from non-being to being. From that point forward in the temporal domain, the product of that unioin will grow and develop. That point is the watershed moment, and all other development thenceforth are gradual, incremental, thereby disallowing within rational though a "magical moment" at which said product becomes a "person". Therefore, the only "moment" is at the very beginning, and the living being conceived by another human being is a human "person".

THEREFORE, the law should recognize the legal rights said beings, not merely offer provision for lower government to recognize them. It should do so on the same basis it recognizes the rights of all other citizens.

You see our sexuality [the heart] as evil. Sad comment.

No, the misuse and unbridled abuse of sexuality, power, and influence stems from an evil heart.

[cpforlife.org]

"Her fertilized egg is nothing but a potential person, and pregnancy is a condition which she can reject." tpaine

Actually, tpaine, her fertilized egg IS a person WITH potential.

Just like you and me. The only difference is age.

Personhood begins at conception--not birth.

Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.

[Mr. Silverback]

People who argue that a fertilized egg is not a person might as well argue that it is a fish.

[tpaine]

We are getting to the heart of the matter: A chasm will ever exist this side of eternity between the "ideal" and the "actual". We will never eradicate, say, robbery in our human existence because the propensity to rob will always exist in the human heart . Does it then follow that the solution is to decriminalize theft?

Sigh. -- Your attempt to equate laws against robbery, where YOU actually suffer a loss, and 'laws' against early term abortion, where YOU suffer nothing, is sophistry.
You have no personal right to demand that a newly pregnant woman carry to term. Nor does society have the delegated power to demand that a newly pregnant woman carry to term. Later in pregnancy, the State is delegated the power to defend the developing unborn person. --- Think about it.

Such is the logical outcome of a vacuum of absolute truth: there is no basis on which to call robbery "wrong", yet mysteriously we all know this to be the case... If there is no objective right or wrong, why have laws at all? The logical case for real - not potential - legal protection for the unborn is this: The moment of conception - the joining of the sperm and the egg - marks the ontological transition from non-being to being. From that point forward in the temporal domain, the product of that unioin will grow and develop. That point is the watershed moment, and all other development thenceforth are gradual, incremental, thereby disallowing within rational though a "magical moment" at which said product becomes a "person". Therefore, the only "moment" is at the very beginning, and the living being conceived by another human being is a human "person". THEREFORE, the law should recognize the legal rights said beings, not merely offer provision for lower government to recognize them. It should do so on the same basis it recognizes the rights of all other citizens.

Round you go. -- You are ignoring the undeniable rights of the newly pregnant woman for the magical moment 'rights' of a fertilised human egg.

You see our sexuality [the heart] as evil. Sad comment.

No, the misuse and unbridled abuse of sexuality, power, and influence stems from an evil heart.

Whatever.
I think our points have been made more than once.

[tpaine]

Personhood begins at conception--not birth.
Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.
65 cpforlife.org

______________________________________


People who argue that a fertilized egg is not a person might as well argue that it is a fish.
66 Silverback


______________________________________


Argue what you want fellas.

Just don't throw women in jail for 'murdering' their own fertilized eggs.

[Lexinom]

Sigh. -- Your attempt to equate laws against robbery, where YOU actually suffer a loss, and 'laws' against early term abortion, where YOU suffer nothing, is sophistry. You have no personal right to demand that a newly pregnant woman carry to term. Nor does society have the delegated power to demand that a newly pregnant woman carry to term. Later in pregnancy, the State is delegated the power to defend the developing unborn person. --- Think about it.

I have thought about it, virtually every day for the last 15 years. Your appeals to the SCOTUS decisions (not, as you assert, to the Constitution) of Roe v. Wade and, implicitly, Doe v. Bolton, ring hollow since we are questioning their legality and not accepting them as absolute truth. Again, the SCOTUS is not an infallible authority, as we see in Dred Scott. They can be right, as well: Brown vs. Board of Education. Appeals to logic, to common sense, and to the American ideal codified in our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are much stronger, since we all possess them - the latter by citizenship, the former by membership in the human race.

I think our points have been made more than once.

Yep.

I dare you to click this link. You may as well know exactly what it is you defend.

[Lexinom]

Per the oft-referenced #51, the magic "poof" moment is "near the end of the first trimester" - whenceforth states MIGHT begin defending the rights of the baby.

This is later contradicted in #58: "Sorry Virgina, there is no Santa, and no "magic" point," which begs the hitherto unanswered question: If there is a post-conception moment in development before which the child has no legal protection against murder and after which she does, why the sudden change in legal status at that particular point?

[hiredhand]

This proves my point that a person who realizes this, also realizes that they approve of murder.

Age IS the only difference. No *POOF* theory....at least none that anybody can explain away.

Why can't badguys just be badguys without trying to twist an aberation into something more palatable, and then demonizing those who don't buy into it?

One side of this argument errs on the side of caution. Don't kill people (even if they are "fertilized eggs") and you can't go wrong. But kill the innocents and eventually there will be consequences from God for evil.

The "Pro Murder" crowd just can't fathom this for some reason though. They've got it all rationalized in such a way that it's easy to murder.

I would be a lot better with somebody who looked me in the eye and said that they were a murderer, and had no reservations about it....rather than somebody who rationalizes evil and demonizes others who refuse to believe such an abvious lie.

[CourtneyLeigh]

Actually, tpaine, her fertilized egg IS a person WITH potential. Just like you and me. The only difference is age. Personhood begins at conception--not birth. Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.

Many would disagree with what I'm about to propose be practiced by christians and anyone who recognizes that life begins at conception.

God willing, and Husband agreeing; when I have my children, I'm going to count their age beginning at nine months. And that means, I will consider my baby 9-months old when it is born.

Of course the doctors and locals may find it difficult to sign a birth certificate based on the conception date. But NINE MONTHS IS NINE MONTHS!

:oD

[hiredhand]

God willing, and Husband agreeing; when I have my children, I'm going to count their age beginning at nine months. And that means, I will consider my baby 9-months old when it is born.

Actually....there are quite a few folks out there who do this. :-) Not a strange idea at all!

[MHGinTN]

You're quite a piece of deceptive work, tp: "Just don't throw women in jail for 'murdering' their own fertilized eggs." I can easily believe you would have been one of those 'arguing that black people are not really people thus they cannot be recognized for franchisement' when the Dred Scott case was all the rage in America. It is telling that you continue to use an exposed-as-false phrase (fertilized eggs?) in your irrational ramblings. For those reading along on this thread, your argumant flaws are glaring the more with your specious repetitions. Thank you for helping us show the irrational nature of denying the unborn their right to be recognized as human beings.

[nightdriver]

"In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution does not recognize a child in the womb of a mother as a "person" entitled to the protection of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

It seems that the black-robed reprobates inhabitating the USSC have always had a problem in determining what constitutes "personhood."

In 1857, they said, in Dredd Scott, that those with African heritage were not to be considered as "persons," but rather "property."

I have never come across evidence that the USSC has ever changed its feeble mind on that issue.

[Lexinom]

That is an interesting idea. The difficulty would be determining the day, since conception has a 72-hour window.

For Sandra we're pretty sure it is on or around April 15 2002. For Luke/Victoria, it will be mid-September 2004. Maybe it's best to celebrate it (assuming you celebrate the occasion) on the Saturday closest.

[Campion]

Just don't throw women in jail for 'murdering' their own fertilized eggs.

Are you really so confused and ignorant that you don't realize that no women were ever "thrown in jail" for having an abortion prior to Roe v. Wade?

The person who punished legally was the abortionist, not the secondary victim. That's what the woman is, BTW, the secondary victim of abortion.

[cpforlife.org]

Very Good CourtneyLeigh!

Check these out:

http://www.happyconceptionday.com/pages/6/index.htm

[hiredhand]

Well! WHO would have thought!? :-)

[Lexinom]

Thank you.