[nightdriver]

"A fetus is a person when it is independent of a woman's body."

WRONG-GUH!!

Notice that with both feet firmly planted in the air, Ms. Glass goes through the gyrations of trying to re-define God, life and the natural order.

Typical of the flailing about of the liberal mind when honestly confronted with absolutes.

[aruanan]

Poor Diane just doesn't think things through. She judges that a fetus becomes a person when it is "independent of a woman's body." Yet she ignores the fact that it is relative dependence upon a caregiver that makes penalties for abandonment more or less severe.

For instance, a parent finally telling an indolent 18-year-old to get out of the house because he's not going to continue to clothe and feed him if he won't fit in with the program will not cause many eyebrows to be raised. Why? Because someone who is 18 years old is generally able to care for himself. After all, the age of majority (except for smoking and drinking) is 18. A parent who throws out progressively younger children for the same reason is looked upon with progressively greater derision. Someone who leaves a newborn in a garbage dumpster because she is unwilling to care for it is deemed a criminal (unless she tries to flush it down a toilet upon birth, in which case she is looked upon by some to be a poor little victim).

At least in the above cases someone else can step it and care for the child, though with greater effort and sacrifice required the earlier she steps in to do it. Also greater praise from society for being willing to take on a responsibility not of her own creation. In the case of an unborn child--at least one that cannot be delivered by Caesarian--the responsibility for the child's welfare is totally in the hands of one woman. That child is totally dependent on that single individual.

It's more than just bizarre to say that the abandonment of the child with its sure death as a result isn't worthy of the same censure as that described above for the mom who drops her progeny into a dumpster or a toilet. It's nonsense to claim that that abdication of responsibility for no other reason than not wanting to continue the responsibility is a constitutionally protected right. The claim that the child isn't a person until "independent of" the mother's body is just a way of salving a woman's conscience over killing it. Besides, if the fetus is a person after becoming independent of the mother's body, then the mother's act of aborting it is the act of producing a dead person. That's at least homicide.

[Doc Savage]

If I asked you, "Is a sperm cell a LIVING cell?", the only possible answer is yes. If I asked you, "Is an egg cell (ovum) a LIVING cell?", the only possible answer is yes. Therefor, a zygote is also a LIVING cell. If you abort a fertilized ovum you are there for killing a living cell or cells. Abortion is clearly the purposeful murder of a LIVING orgamism which in it's early stages derives it's nourishment from the mother's body.

Choice my ASS! It's murder!

[colorado tanker]

A fetus is a person when it is independent of a woman's body.

A suckling child is certainly not "independent" of mom's body. So does she also think infanticid is OK?

[Hank Kerchief]

When does a fetus become a person?

What is the point of the question? It has nothing to do with either abortion or rights?

Rights pertain to only one thing, the right to do. There is no such thing as a right to have, or a right to what someone else must supply. There is no right to enslave someone else.

No person, born or unborn, has a claim on the life of any other individual. Does every person have a "right to life?" Of course. Does that include an unborn person? Sure.

What is a right to life? Is it a right to demand someone else supply your food, your shelter, your clothing, your health care? Is it a right to demand someone else keep you alive at any price? Of course not?

A right to life means a person has a right to do whatever is necessary to stay alive so long as they do not, by force, interfere in the life of any other individual. Living is something you do, not something that happens to you. The right to life is the right to do whatever is required to live as a human being. This is the right of every person. It is not a guarantee every person will be successful in exercising that right. It is not a guarantee no one will die. It is not a blank check on the the account of other's lives, not even a mother's.

(Those who know me know I am opposed to abortion. Nevertheless, an agency with guns (i.e. government) is not the solution to the abortion problem. So long as that is the one most people choose to support, no real solution is forthcoming.)

Hank

[mombonn]

I can't bring myself to read the "point-counterpoint", and am sure that others have cited Scripture that describes each of us as "fearfully and wonderfully made".

From the moment I was conceived, I was me.

Thank you, Mom and Dad.

[Fun Bob]

Miss Glass (a tasty little cupcake btw) barely asserts her viewpoint. She spends the entire article reconstructing what she sees as the opposing viewpoint, aka, a strawman. That is no way to debate. She even goes so far as to invoke the Nazis in her second paragraph and equate the opposing viewpoint with Nazism. Maybe someone needs to instruct Miss glass on the finer points of Godwin's Law.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Didn't read the whole thing, but this part jumped out:

>> The Bible makes no reference to abortion or infanticide, a common practice in ancient times.

Actually there are references to infanticide, and I don't think it was well regarded. As for these things being common practice, I honestly don't know if any evidence exists of that. But there are lots of things found in archeological records that are examples of things decent people just don't do.

The Bible is the story of the development of a society that believes in the one God, and the learning of what God has said is right and wrong, so it's bound to have examples of those things that are regarded as sinful. This woman just didn't get that part of it, I guess.

Dave in Eugene

[Spok]

A better question for the liberals would be when does a newborn become a person, and when is someone who is ill no longer a person?

[Argh]

Hey, you Diane Glass person! If I cause a woman to have a miscarriage and the foetus dies, that means I get to go scot free, right?

[SB00]

"A fetus is a person when it is independent of a woman's body."

So if a baby has one toe still inside its mother, it's not a person?

[Beenliedto]

When does a fetus become a person?

Some years after graduation from hah screwl.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Despite their fervent protests for fetal rights these same conservatives eat eggs (chicken embryos) but get out picket signs about their own brood.

Can someone explain this one to me?

[Verax]

Freepers! If you seriously want to have an impact on stemming the tide of the 43 million aborted babies since 1973, send a few dollars a year to this group!

http://www.cbrinfo.org