[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.

[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.