Replies

However, as it relates to the law of the land, I am in favor of restricting "a woman's right to choose" down to the first 7-12 weeks, depending on scientific evidence as to when the baby can think for itself and is fully formed in the womb.

Like freeper Luke Skyfreeper, it seems you've used some pretty fuzzy definitions. Think for itself? How do you define that, and how do you establish that? Surely at 7-12 weeks you can't administer an IQ test. You can't establish Apgar scores, at least not in any meaningful way that is accepted in the field. So what is it? And, more important, why should an individual's score on some kind of test be the determinor of personhood? Talk about a slippery slope! I mean, if we take that as an operable principle, almost anything goes. IQ score not up to par? Do them in! (The Nazis did just this with their "useless person" paradigm.) Didn't do very well on the SAT? Sorry, kid, you're outta here. Come in kinda low on the TOEFL? Bummer. But, sorry, the law's the law...(BANG!)

In my mind, clearly before this point, a baby is not yet "alive".

So what is it, then? Is it dead? Is it in kind of quasi-alive state of being that is new to science? I guess there are cases where science can't really define if something is "alive"; viruses, for example. There you go, ladies, at 7-12 weeks, you thought you were carrying a child, but all you had was a virus (sort of)...

Hey, believe it or not, I'm not trying to be flippant here. Maybe its more a case of being sardonic to illustrate the kinds of problems that come up when we try to dodge the real issue (how you define when a person is a person and what the basis is for that) and cover it up with word games and other assorted mental gymnastics.

Thank you for continuing to argue succintly the absolutist "life begins at conception" viewpoint on this issue. It is clear that you don't agree with me, and I respect that. It's also clear that because of your views and an inability to acknowledge common-sense solutions like the ones described in this thread, the feminist/leftist position of on-demand abortions through the entire pregnancy may in fact never be stopped.

It seems the only arguments you are capable of providing are namecalling, quotations from organ harvesting studies, sardonic references with Nazi torture procedures, and other nonsensical comparisons. What's next? Biblical scriptures? Astrological references?

If neither the pro-choice and pro-life camps can acknowledge the common sense realities that 1) babies are not fully formed and capable of premature birth until weeks into the pregnancy, and 2) that "aborting" a five month old child is not murder, then this issue cannot ever be remedied. And at this point, the far Left has won.