Redstate

Unless Reuters has taken to employing people without high school diplomas. No one who covers news for a worldwide organization like Reuters would possibly be stupid enough to make a mistake like this.

It's intentional.

Reversing it would simply return the matter to the state legislatures, 47 of which would likely vote to keep the procedure legal.

I'm no lawyer but I can't help feel this is a lot more complex than that.

First, I get the impression that, despite its so-called conservative leanings (Scalia, Thomas), this SCOTUS has not been kind to so-called States Rights.

Certainly the Oregon assisted suicide law and the California Marijuana initiative strike me both as the kind of measures that ought to be left within the purview of States to legislate as their voters see fit.

Yet time and time again the SCOTUS intervenes in such matters. So there seems to be some lack of consistence which undermines your point.

Second, if abortion is a crime, then I don't know how you can manage a country in which some crimes are legal in a State and not in another -- and we're not dealing with the age of drinking or buying booze on Sundays either.

At the end of the day, you've got to have some nationwide standards -- which is why, as I said, the States Rights/constructionist argument seems to fly out of the window every time a weighty matter is being considered.

I'm not necessarily pro-this or con-that; I'm just pointing out that your argument strikes me as ineffective.

The best analogy to abortion in this sense is the death penalty.  The SC overreached and imposed its values on the whole country against the will of the majority in many states.  It then retracted that new Constutitional Right and returned the issue to the states.

Since then many states have reinstated the death penalty, some have none.  Some who have it on the books, rarely or never use it.  And it is barely an issue on a national scale.  If only abortion could be handled in a similar state by state, compromise driven way.  The country would be much less divided.

There are a bunch of pro-life commentators on this site who have suggested that once the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it would be entirely reasonable for them to declare that the fetus is a person deserving full protection of the law and in doing so banning abortion.

So, while I agree that the likely outcome of overturning Roe would be to return the issues to the states, that is not the limit to what a Supreme Court justice might be in favor of.

The death penalty is different because we have a dual state and federal system, and it's possible to have the death penalty in federal court but not in state court, or vice versa.

There's no such thing as a federal abortion or a state abortion.  If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Congress will be free to legislate on abortion issues, just as it already has been.  And states will be free to legislate as well as long as their laws don't conflict with federal law.

The only way this will change is if there is a major, major revolution in the Supreme Court's thinking on federalism.  This would be a far greater change than what it would take to overturn Roe v. Wade.  That's not to say that it will never happen, but it won't be any time soon.  Keep in mind that 2 of the 3 votes for federalism in the Raich case are already gone.

You can argue that the issue would be better left to the states as a policy matter or that Congress will steer clear for political reasons or whatever, and you may be right.  But Congress will still have the power to legislate if it wants to, which means the activist groups on both sides will not stop lobbying Congress, and will not stop trying to elect representatives to Congress who will pass the laws they favor.

but I don't think this is a bad thing. I freely admit my agenda, should we be successful in getting Roe overturned, would be having abortion banned with the exception of the life of the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies). I am confident we can accomplish that in most states but it doesn't mean I would ever stop pushing for a federal ban on the practice.

I find it real hard to tell a woman she ought to carry her rapist's child.  The same goes for a victim of incestuous abuse.

I have an extremely hard time beleiving that the people who are deeply concerned about the abortion issue would tolerate this being left to the states. They see abortion as institutionalized murder and not as an issue of cultural taste. If Missouri instituted ceremonial blood sacrifice of virgins to a pagan harvest god, its difficult to imagine the rest of the country standing by, saying "well, that's Missouri for ya".

So too with abortion.

If people want the unborn accorded legal rights as citizens, they should pursue this end through the political process I think. And not look to the courts.

I also agree that the Death Penaly is not a good analogy because it is a punishment; it comes after the crime.

Abortion has to do with defining what a crime is. You can't seriously argue that you can have a situation where killing babies is legal in California and murder in Arizona.

Also, you did not deal with my other point, which was that the SCOTUS keeps messing with States Rights.

Hence the legitimate concern that no matter what a State may vote on, the SCOTUS can then find a way to invalidate it. (If that's the word.)

I feel that abortion law needs to be the law of the land.

and it is a horrible situation where a woman must carry a child that was forced on her in a vicious act of violence. But the crime of another doesn't justify killing an innocent child.

With the life of the mother it's a different story, because someone, and maybe both people involved, will likely not survive the pregnancy. Since the mother has the better chance of survival, best to save her life. It's a gut-wrenching decision to make, but fortuneately with our ever-improving medical technology, this situation may become obsolete in the next few decades.

BTW, I'm sorry if the title violates the profanity rule, I'm a bit unclear what exactly the boundries are.

in that pro-lifers will not cease their campaign to ban abortion if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. However, if the opportunity arises to kick the matter back to the sates and see it banned in some places, we'll take it, because less abortions are always a good thing.

with inflicting the death penalty on the innocent child while the Supreme Court says it is illegal to execute rapists. Ditt for incest.

I don't know how one can only be pro-life for legitimate children.

will push for a national ban.  Just as people who are deeply concerned about the death penalty try to nationalize it.

But say you are Senator X from some center-left or center-right state (say TN, VA, NJ, or PA for example).  Maybe a national ban on partial-birth abortion (which I suspect has majority support in all 50 states) and perhaps a push for parental notification on a national level would pass your desk and get a yea vote.  But when a ban on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions comes up... you get to avoid that contentious debate by saying its a state issue.  No politician wants to talk about anything that controversial unless they represent OK, MS, MA, or NY type states.

It's the same reason the FMA will never get 2/3rds support even though 90+% of Senators say they oppose same-sex marriage.  Those who want to avoid the debate will pass on it.  And any restrictions beyond partial-birth and parental notification are less popular than banning same-sex marriage.

It's not in the representatives interest to nationalize the issue if Roe falls.  Most difficult decisions would be made at the state level.

As for the "differing laws" argument.  Firearm laws are very different across states and cities.  No one forces NYC to allow all guns in and on one forces WY to ban them.  That's federalism in action.

where he mentioned being pro-life only for legitimate children.

I have no problem with her making that decision.  But the thing is, she did not freely choose to engage in the activity that got her pregnant, unlike a woman who slept around and ended up pregnant.

I don't think that a woman who was viciously attacked and raped should have to carry her rapist's child.  And if she is forced to carry the child, the rapist may try to victimize her some more, like demanding visitation rights.

differ on this. I think killing the kid is a bit over the top in these situtations.

it was meant as a general statement.

but I've never heard the contrary view expressed by anyone of any political variety.

It's the framing of the debate.

If Roe legalized abortion, then overturning it would make abortion illegal nationwide.

Of course this is inaccurate, but it's scary to pro-choice and marginally pro-choice people, which is precisely why they say it.

has said that abortion should be available to those who are victims of rape or incest, no?

Except that even the conservative SCOTUS does not respect Federalism, as I pointed out above. So while I agree with you in theory, it doesn't work in the practice.

You are obviously very sincere, but you must remember that not everyone share your religious convictions, and a nationwide law on the subject might be construed as a way of enforcing your religious tenet over that of others.

I don't know how one can only be pro-life for legitimate children.

This is the statement in question and I reiterate I've never heard anyone advocate resticting abortion to illegitimate children. Are you saying Bush did?

I used the wrong word and I understand! It was not meant to be illegitimate in the correct sense; it was more along the line of the result of the rape or incest.

The issue is that there is no difference between the context of conception--- whether it be under the horrific circumstance of rape or incest or consensual.

The death penalty and firearms laws aren't kept local by SCOTUS.  They're kept local because Congresscritters don't have an incentive to nationalize the debate.  That would be doubly true for something as controversial as abortion.

and I don't agree with it. But let there be no doubt, I'd gladly give that exception if I could get the elective abortions abolished.

And you realize that the offspring of rape can be legitimate, right?

that precise point. It seems to me the only point we agreed upon was that no one advocated limiting abortion to illegitimate children.

California voted for medical marijuana and SCOTUS allowed for prosecution of same.

As of now, no state is allowed to outlaw abortion. Leaving the decision to the states is a step in the right direction.

cannot create positive law. That is they cannot "ban" anything: all they can do is overturn existing laws or rule executive policies unconstitutional. The most the Supreme Court can do on abortion is overturn Roe (and related cases) and suggest in their ruling that Congress is freer to write a federal abortion statute.

The sanctity of human life is something that spreads across faiths and creeds. It is a Law of Nature that even a die-hard atheist would acknowledge, and one that is at the foundation of our entire society and governmental system.

are you happier about Miers now? Now we know as far as we can that she is prolife?

Er, no. Life is a chemical process. There is life before conception. There is life in the sperm that is discarded during masturbation.

When you're talking "life" in the event of abortion, you're really talking soul, what differentiates a human being from, well, everything else.

Not everyone agrees that the soul is created at the moment of conception. Some folks will argue that since the Soul resides within the Brain and since human consciousness does not begin to waken until sometime after the 24th week of intrauterine life, that's when the Soul is created, but that is hardly a unanimous opinion.

Other folks have believed, or still believe, that the Soul is created at the very precise moment of birth.

Then also, some (Paul, I think?) thought a man could literally lose his soul. So under certain circumstances, you can have life, even adult life, without a soul.

(I hate to point this out but that last bit has often been used to justify religious massacres.)

The point is, your belief in the moment of creation of the Soul is obviously different from mine. I respect your belief; I would ask that you respect mine.

One of the wisest pieces of issue analysis I have ever received came from my college roomate.  His position on aboriton was the follows:

The abortion argument in America will never be resolved because the two sides are having different arguments.  Pro-choice people are concerned with WHO gets to make the choice.  Pro-life people are concerned with WHAT choice is made.

I for one do not think life as a human being begins at conception.  I'm not sure exactly when it does begin.  And as I have said before I have no clear guidance from either religion or science that answers this question clearly.  As a challenge, can anyone provide chapter and verse that shows God considers life to begin at conception?  Preferably the new testament - I'm mostly interested in the teachings of Christ himself, not what came before.  

This is a large part of the problem, especially in dealing with abortion during the first trimester.  Many people simply don't consider the embryo at that stage a human being.  It has the potential, but so does every egg a woman ovulates that doesn't get fertalized.  Personally I couldn't take the guilt of considering each sperm to be a human being simply because of it's potential to fertalize an egg.  

From what I do know of biology and religion I can say i would support a total ban on 3rd trimester abortion (possibly mitigated by TERMINAL threat to the mother)  And I'd support unfettered access to first trimester abortions.  The reason - I don't consider an embryo a human, I do consider the fetus at 6 months to be one.  

I'll probably be flamed for this - but Corporations achieved their personhood purely through the supreme court.  Simply by accepting that corporations were persons in relation to the 14th amendment - which later grew to encompass the first, fourth etc.  This wasn't even part of the ruling itself, but a preamble written by the court clerk.

Now I agree fully that the court should not create "positive" law - but it is almost necessary for them to fulfill their role as interpreter.  But let's be practical here - if an agreement between people can be granted the rights of actual people - is it much of a stretch to see a potential human being be granted the rights of actual people?

said all doubt should be resolved in favor of life/ From the moment the sperm and egg unite, it is "developing" human being, agreed? You say 6 months its a human.

Have you seen the latest early 2nd month photos of a developing fetus?

I'll get some Biblical verses as well. I am always pleased when a liberal views the Bible with so much authority. amen

But, my point was that there are people posting on RedState who hold the view that it would be appropriate and correct for the Supreme Court to ban abortion by declaring the fetus to be a person deserving of protection under the fourteenth amendment.

I don't agree with that view, but the AP is not alone in seeing some confluence between pro-life judges and abortion banning.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

In earlier societies, and at common law, abortion was generally considered to be a crime, or at least wrong, after the point of "quickening," or the point at which signs of life begin to appear.  In those days, that meant when the baby begins to kick, or approximately the end of the first trimester.

The Bible hasn't changed, but as technology has developed, allowing us to see images of the fetus developing from the earliest stages, it's easy to understand how some people believe the line should be moved back even further.

Moving the line back to before the point of implantation is about the most extreme position you could take, though.  It's hard to argue there is "life in the womb" before there's even an embryo.  After all, as a natural part of the process, the sperm and egg will often meet but then fail to implant in the uterine wall; and if we were able to identify the countless cases where this takes place, it's doubtful any of us would consider it a tragedy comparable to a miscarriage, or a loss of human life.

If you believe the embryo is a human life from the moment of implantation, you'd be opposed to abortion at any stage, but that would still allow for Plan B and other forms of traditional contraception.

That's actually why I left christianity - the reverence given to the bible.  However, I do believe in the teachings of Jesus.  But I mean sincerely thank you for pointing that verse out to me.  I'll reread luke tonight for the context - I suspect that verse refers to Jesus himself - who was a remarkable man, a miracle worker, and a divine teacher.  

For the record - I do consider the bible a repository of wisdom - just not a divine authority.

so to ponder the moment God had the 'idea' to create you would be incorrect.

If God be truly omniscient, he has always known you, even before the foundation of the world.  And if God be truly omnipotent, what He has willed can't not be.

Rom 8:28-31

Eph 1:3-5

allowed this prosecution, because there was a Federal statute in question that, according to the court, abrogated California's right to do as it would with regard to cannabis. What Adam is saying (I think) is that federal law would not be enacted with regard to abortion, because its controversial nature makes it a radioactive issue for people in Congress. They'd likely much prefer to punt the issue to state legislatures.

Potential/developing - semantics.  I agree with that statement.  The trimesters idea is an artifice we use for communicating.  

The only thing I would argue over is the appearance issue.  I studied biomed engineering in college and so I've seen the pictures.  However, a body 5 minutes after death appears exactly like a human being so the superficial resemblence is not what I really mean.  I am open to a 2 month fetus being the cut off point.  I really have to reread luke before I can say if it has changed my views - thanks for pointing it out to me.

The last thing I would say - is if I'm convinced on the religious front, my political view would not change, except in the face of scientific evidence of conciousness.  This could change my personal views on the matter.  But I hold very strongly to the idea of separation of church and state - I've never seen a theocracy be a force for good in history.  

Spirituality and a relationship with God is one of the greatest gifts we have.  But that relationship is personal and private.  Government for better or for worse is a vehicle of rational thought not faith... Render unto Caesar...  

Don't hold the bible as an authority but believe the teachings of Christ (which I only know through the bible).

Hence the legitimate concern that no matter what a State may vote on, the SCOTUS can then find a way to invalidate it. (If that's the word.)

There's no question that one could conceive of ways a court might try to mess with a state's power to regulate abortion. Roe vs. Wade is one such example. Some have theorized that a future court might cite the 14th ammendment's equal protection clause (or indeed due process clause) to mandate equal rights for the unborn, thereby prohibiting all or almost all abortions. The question is: would they wade into such a political morass. My guess is they would take a pass; the high octane controversy surrounding abortion far exceeds that of any other issue, and the court well knows it.

One thing I have never been able to grasp is the disregard of real world consequence in a world where abortion is made illegal.

I have a friend who was in a long term marriage, whose husband turned physically abusive after so many years.  After several beatings she decided it was over, only to find several months later she was pregnant.  Being a student who could not make it on her own, she quickly went to get information on getting an abortion.  Her mother took her to group that would give her medical advise.  It turned out being a religious intervention group.  They threw pictures of aborted babies at her and guilted her into having the child, which she did.  After the birth, they gave her some diapers, but offered no additional support.  The girl who was once a bright student and in a happy relationship is now a single mother living with her parents, who are borderline impoverished themselves.  She works two jobs to support her child, and has dropped out of school.  She also has a bit of a guilt complex.  The child has no father figure, as the biological father now has a restraining order for beating her again.  He has been ordered by the court to pay child support, but never does.

I cannot express how terribly changed this girls life is.  This girl has had her whole life ripped away from her, is emotionally torn, and is all but impovershed.  She always wanted children, but now all she does is work to support the one she has now, who she is never able to see.

Abortion is not a pretty option.  Non-conservatives hate thinking about it just as much as those of faith do.  However, when you look at this girls life, if that choice were made, there is a great chance she would have been able to recover mentally, finish college and find a fulfilling career, learn to trust again, learn what it was to be happy again and be able to provide a life for a family.

Another example.  I know a white woman who was raped by a man of a different ethnicity.  The mother was pressured by family to have the child, which she did.  Having a mixed child, the emotional scars of rape overcame her, and she became mentally unstable.  She gave the child up for adoption. The child then had abandonment issues, which surfaced as rebellion, which grew into a very bad relationship with her foster parents.  She eventually ran away.  I havent seen her in years.

The problem is that people dont see the real life examples of someone making "the choice".  Liberals are infuriated by those of faith because they portray women in desperation as harlots.  Any moderate thinker will come to the realization that a women in this situation does not take the choice lightly.  In the real world, abortion is used by someone who has no options, not as birth control.  Real life does not exist in a vacuum that can be easily regulated with blanket rules.

And what about the consequences that nobody bothers to think about?  If abortion were made illegal, teenage child bearing goes up.  Unsafe abortion rate goes up.  Single parent family rate goes up.  Welfare rate goes up.  College graduation rates go down.  Poverty rates go up.  Prostitution goes up.  All in an environment where the health care offerings arent exactly supportive.

Any person who would have the choice of another revoked instead of working to help prevent the situation altogether is offering an elitest, short-sighted, greed driven, and most importantly, unrealistic perspective.  I know Ill never change another person's mind on this issue, and really I dont want to.  All I can ask is that others dont try and dictate the choices of others, especially when you offer no real solution to the problem.

People would presume to force others into situations they cant handle, and in many cases, they are there through no fault of their own.  The solution to abortion has always been education, not removal of choice.  Abortion can be virtually eliminated, but instead we sit and argue about it from our ideological soap-box.  If you arent working to educate people, you are part of the problem.

I just reread the first chapter of Luke - and the translation is slightly different (New Oxford bible) which state "before his birth"  and honestly the language you quoted does not pin down conception as the point in time of his being filled with the Holy Spirit.  And so still leaves me with the question.

However, when you look at this girls life, if that choice were made, there is a great chance she would have been able to recover mentally, finish college and find a fulfilling career, learn to trust again, learn what it was to be happy again and be able to provide a life for a family.

Yes, and if that "choice" were made, "there is a great chance" the child now alive would be dead.

End of story.

PS -- is giving up a baby for adoption illegal where the girl in question lives?

Possible in the state? Yes. Possible for a young women that has just gone through pregnancy?  Probably not.  Excellent job at making that decision for her though, your compassion is compelling.  Your point is understandable, but your lack of care for the well being of one person to uphold an idealistic position pertaining the well-being of another shows your point is just that; idealistic, not realistic.

Your point is understandable, but your lack of care for the well being of one person to uphold an idealistic position pertaining the well-being of another shows your point is just that; idealistic, not realistic.

How do you know anything about my "lack of care"? For all you know I counsel pregnant women and contribute generously to shelters.

Anyway, why do you posit it is not possible for a woman who "has just gone through pregnancy" to give up her baby for adoption? I think what you likely mean is that she would find it excruciatingly difficult to give away the child she loves so much. But your solution is to allow her to kill it in advance so that this great love will not come to pass?

And yes, thanks: should I get enough votes on the court, and enough in my state legislature, I do intend to "make the decision" for anybody, if the decison we're talking about is whether another human being lives or dies.

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that the state government has to spend more on education than it does.  That's positive law.  And it's not the only case.

Where killing is compassionate, I see.

First, many pro-lifers think there should be exceptions for cases of rape and incest.

Second, opposition to Roe has as much a federalist/Constitutional Law side as it does a pro-life side to it.  You can be pro-choice and anti-Roe if you think it isn't a Constitutional Right.

Third, by your above logic it would seem that ending the life of a two year old would be justified if the suffering for the child and parent(s) was going to be great enough that the life was not worth it.  Medically there is no difference between an 8-month old unborn child and a 2-month old born child.   But I presume you afford the ethical standards of the right to life to the 2-month old (I could be wrong on that), but not to the 8-month old.  And your list of social ills would also lead to the conclusion that ending the life of any person who is likely to be poor or uneducated is justified.  To each his own, but I'd hold off on the preaching if that is your conception of right is wrong.

So when the country is so divided on what constitutes a human life, you would still presume to make the decision for someone else so willingly?  Should head scratching be made illegal because the lost cells are a waste of human life?

My point here is that you would presume beyond all real factors in a persons life to make the choice for them, because you assume to know when life is created.  I would be a liar if I said I dont understand your point, but that statement is a huge assumption by any man, and you are basing your decision to revoke the rights of others on something that is not agreed on as law.

The moderates understand that.

when we are talking about :ife" in every other context as well? If "life" is moral/political discussions is simply religious code for "has a soul" why aren't atheists completely blase about all issues involving human life and death, holding humnan life of no greater value than the lives of other creatures?

tries to square the Trinity by making the Bible a Fourth Person thereof.

You think the mother should choose when life begins.  Why is that more compassionate than letting the child choose his or herself?  My guess is they will probably choose life, as we all do 99.99% of the time.

You obviously see the child as nothing more than a clump of cells.  That's your choice.  But if you say it as a functioning, live being then you'd see why so many people are aghast at the thought of 1 million abortions being conducted in the U.S. every year.

We restrict choice all the time.  We can't kill one another.  We can't rape one another.  We can't steal from one another.  We can't violate the rights of one another.  The question isn't about who is making the "choice."  The question is whether the "choice" is violating the rights of an individual child.  If so, then this vulnerable segment of society is being taken advantage of and needs defending.  If not, then abortion should not be a difficult decision.  It should be the same as getting a wart removed or plastic surgery.  Just another medical procedure.

Re: Now I agree fully that the court should not create "positive" law - but it is almost necessary for them to fulfill their role as interpreter.

when I say "positive law" I mean a brand new legal statute that goes into the law books-- not an interpretation of some old legal statute, but a new one. The Court cannot do that. Only legislatures (and public refrerenda) can do that*. The Court can certainly give the green light to any anti-abortion statute written by any legitimate law-making process; it could even go so far as to recomemnd such. But it cannot write such a law itself.

* Executive orders do not count either: they do not have the force of law and apply only to agents of the executive branch.

is there anything they don't understand?

This lack of the ability to understand results in their inability to form an opinion, hence, they are "Moderates"

to convince yourself that it is OK to make that choice for another person when you look at others as though they have third-trimester abortions frequently and without heed.  Its easy to peg me as someone who just doesnt care so you can offer blanket legislation without perspective or consideration.

And its true, we cant kill/rape/steal or infringe upon the rights of others.  However, 99% of the electorate will agree that those things are wrong.  In most states, including many red states, those who are pro-choice are in the majority.  Darn those moderates.

I can't speak on behalf of, or explain, atheists. Their definition of "life" is their problem.

What makes "human life" special is the fact that we are born with a soul. If you don't believe that, then obviously you have other criteria.

I would be grateful if you didn't reject wholesale other people's beliefs with a cavalier "this is not true".

This is unworthy of this forum.

what the word meant then you would realize that being a moderate doesnt mean you arent opinionated.  Being a moderate means you realize that the solutions to problems are usually somewhere in the middle.  Being a moderate means you consider difference of opinion before you intrude into the most intimate parts of another persons life.  Being a moderate means you tend to pay less attention to the far right and far left and think for yourself.

Thank you for clarifying.

How about the Oregon doctor-assisted suicide? Same thing then? Federal statute trumping up State Law?

What prevent SCOTUS to find some kind of federal statute (murder etc.) somewhere to similarly make abortion illegal even if a State says it is not?

and evil to boot.

But like other legal killing of innocents there are times it is acceptable by society.

For example saying that actions have consequences so that children born in poverty may die in poverty.

Or that children killed in combat to defend US interests are collateral damage.

Or a child killed in self defence holding a gun.

Or as the result of economic or political decisons.

Once we accept that society allows the murder of human children, the question becomes at what point is it unacceptable?

No arguing slippery slope about when life begins or if a fetus is human.

Just a honest discussion of when is it in society's best interst to kill or to protect.

I grew up in the south of the 1950s where abortion was illegal but the States of Alabama and Mississipii tied the tubes of poor and the insane women under the theory that the State knew best.

So I look at giving up the privacy of Roe v Wade as giving the State huge and unwarrented power. It is an unintended byproduct of outlawing abortion, if the State can regulate one thing, they why not this other.

OTOH at some point the State's interest in insuring societies preferences overides this 'fear' and demands intervention.

I put the limit at the end of the first trimester. It is a good place, traditional and reasonable.

From then on let the state gradually gain control until it becomes nearly impossible.

It's not a misunderstanding Unless Reuters has taken to employing people without high school diplomas.

Haven't you noticed how many college graduates (including profs) are too dumb to know the difference between opposing Roe v. Wade and opposing legalized abortion?

what's the test? Mine is the uniting of sperm and egg, and given that we vote in this country, or did before Roe, and will after its reversed, the issue of theocracy is does not obtain. All citizens can freely speak to pursuade other citizens to vote a certain way on any issue. If religious speech is persuasive, very well.

My main argument is scientific. Once egg and sperm unite, a human being is developing. You can call it semantics. But its accurate.

so, you've said viability 6 mos? Looks to human kill 2 mos? conscious??//?? you've got a logical problem secular man.

studies that indicate that women who are rape victims and carry their babies to term have fewer mental health issues than women who are raped and choose to abort.

Maybe we should stress those stats.

Also, these exceptions can be included (I don't support tham, given that I don't think two wrongs make a right), but they are generally the pro choice sides "sympathy" red herring, and given that these cases make up less than 1% of abortions each year, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of abortions are because somebody just doesn't want to assume responsibility for their actions and wants to kill their baby in their womb, because they aren't inconvienient.

humans to term, I have a real hard time thinking they were just "blobs of tissue."

Having seen all of them in the womb, before I could feel them move, moving, wiggling, sucking their fingers etc, I have a hard time believing that a baby has no value other than the value its mother wants to give it.

Abortion is a creepy concept, it creates a class of humans whose worth is defined by whether or not it is wanted.  To deny the humanity of a baby, is simply to justify ones own belief that murder in the womb is an acceptable practice.

John the Baptist recognized that Jesus was inside Mary, and responded.  Mary wasn't even in her first trimester at the time.  But the fetus inside Elizabeth's womb recognized the Lord inside of Mary's.  

Good selection.

I am off to work, but I would add that the Psalm's and Jeremiah verses are very good ones, and since Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, that pretty much negates the "OT verses don't count" from the OP.

When you're talking "life" in the event of abortion, you're really talking soul,

Is that waht he was talking about?  As for me, when I speak about "life" in the event of abortion, I am always really talking about human beings.  

Also IMHO, "what differentiates a human being, from, well, everything else" is that we make the laws.  Why we have this power and everything else (as far as we know) does not may very well be a question for religion. However, others are just as likely to asert its is a question best answered by biology much as I assert the question of the status of unborn children is best answered.

John Kerry is "pro-life." I don't want him on the SCOTUS either.

and it's wrong.  The body is not a vessel for the soul; the soul is the essence of the body.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0502/opinion/george.htm

Respectfully, your notion of soul-body dualism is inconsistent with Christian doctrine:

It is something of a modern habit of thought (strange to say) to conceive of the soul--whether we believe in the soul or not--as a kind of magical essence or ethereal intelligence indwelling a body like a ghost in a machine. That is to say, we tend to imagine the relation between the soul and the body as an utter discontinuity somehow subsumed within a miraculous unity: a view capable of yielding such absurdities as the Cartesian postulate that the soul resides in the pituitary gland or the utterly superstitious speculation advanced by some religious ethicists that the soul may "enter" the fetus some time in the second trimester. But the "living soul" of whom scripture speaks, as John Paul makes clear in his treatment of the creation account in Genesis, is a single corporeal and spiritual whole, a person whom the breath of God has awakened from nothingness. The soul is life itself, of the flesh and of the mind; it is what Thomas Aquinas called the "form of the body": a vital power that animates, pervades, and shapes each of us from the moment of conception, holding all our native energies in a living unity, gathering all the multiplicity of our experience into a single, continuous, developing identity. It encompasses every dimension of human existence, from animal instinct to abstract reason: sensation and intellect, passion and reflection, imagination and curiosity, sorrow and delight, natural aptitude and supernatural longing, flesh and spirit. John Paul is quite insistent that the body must be regarded not as the vessel or vehicle of the soul, but simply as its material manifestation, expression, and occasion. This means that even if one should trace the life of the body back to its most primordial principles, one would still never arrive at that point where the properly human vanishes and leaves a "mere" physical organism or aggregation of inchoate tissues or ferment of spontaneous chemical reactions behind. All of man's bodily life is also the life of the soul, possessed of a supernatural dignity and a vocation to union with God.

Because most democrats and many pro-choice republicans claim an artificial distain for abortion but when pressed they admit it should be an option for women. Once again we really do know absolutely nothing about Harriet Miers.

Look, afunk, I was young and in denial for many years. Why? Because I wanted the right to get rid of an "inconvenience" in case it intruded on my spoiled life. And so I played games to make my conscious shut up. Eggs, alone are not a developing child, nor are sperm, alone. 2+2=4

Once egg and sperm unite, we know what we have don't we? from that point till your 2 month or 6 month pardonability date.

Here's the question, which I posted elsewhere:

Consciousness, viability or "looks"?

what's the test? Mine is the uniting of sperm and egg, and given that we vote in this country, or did before Roe, and will after its reversed, the issue of theocracy is does not obtain. All citizens can freely speak to pursuade other citizens to vote a certain way on any issue. If religious speech is persuasive, very well.

My main argument is scientific. Once egg and sperm unite, a human being is developing. You can call it semantics. But its accurate. Can you justify killing a developing human?

so, you've said viability 6 mos? Looks too human to kill @ 2 mos? conscious??//?? you've got a logic problem secular man. But underlying it is a spriritual issue that compels you to justify some date after the good sex, but before it "looks" too human to kill. I would suggest that we are only a better microscope away from it looking too human at conception.

Would Elephant man have been safe from summary execution under the "looks" test?

The SCOTUS jurisdiction is not just limited to the interpretation of law only, but it also as jurisdiction to interpret fact as well.

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,

Thus upon reviewing the facts about unborn children in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Court concluded:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Suppose that a newly configured Court weighs the sum of all man's empirical knowledge and concludes that based on their merits, that unborn children are generally alive and human beings from the moment of conception.  Is this a judgment about the law or the facts?  I say the facts.   If the Court then reviewed the laws both as to custom and statutes and concluded that the law has always recognized human beings as persons, albeit sometimes as 3/5 a person then I think most would agree (although some may disagree with the Court's judgment) that this is an interpretation of the law.   In both cases no new law "statute is being created by the SCOTUS.

Subsequently if the Court then concludes that as living human beings unborn children are persons under the law, and must be afforded the equal protection of the law, then the argument could also be made that they are likewise simply exercising their jurisdiction to interpret this case both as to law and fact.

Much like the SCOTUS did in Roe V. Wade when it interpreted the facts and the laws, and concluded:

that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Many many thanks

The poster says: "Reversing it would simply return the matter to the state legislatures, 47 of which would likely vote to keep the procedure legal."

Use of the word "simply" here indicates that the author does not understand the issues. There is nothing "simple" about this given the the constant tug of war we have in the U.S. about states' rights and pre-emption of state law.

the things that qualify for a capital crime in one state, aren't the exact same things that qualify for a capital crime.

Also, the various other lesser crimes that involve killing-manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc vary from state to state.

Then you have the various laws on whether or not the killing of a pregnant woman is one murder or two-some states say two, and the SCOTUS has upheld these laws, while other states say not.

of pulling splinters out of your behind?

Either it is awlays a baby and it always deserves to live, or it isn't.  The fence just doesn't exist.

There are two things that jump out at me in this exchange:

1.  The people who would like to ban abortion but for cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.  These people are pro-choice, as they are chosing who lives and who does not.  What is the difference between a baby conceived between consenting adults and a baby conceived in rape?  I can think of none.  Such an exception seems to me to be a judgment of the mother's actions, rather than a true pro-life stance, and should not form the basis of law regarding abortion.
   
2.  PB wrote "I do intend to "make the decision" for anybody, if the decison we're talking about is whether another human being lives or dies."  I ask this poster, are you truly pro-life, or do you make choices regarding the value of life as well?  

Would you support a member of your country's army shooting and killing a member of a foreign army in war?  If so, you are pro-choice.

Do you support the death penalty?  If so, you are pro-choice.

Do you support the justifiable homicide defense?  If so, you are pro-choice.

Do you support the right to use lethal force to protect property?  If so, you are pro-choice.

Do you support someone's decision to refuse life-support?  If so, you are pro-choice.

Many of these examples involve making a choice between who deserves to live and who does not.  We each have our basis for supporting some forms of killing and opposing others, but nevertheless, I doubt anyone here can say that there is never a time when killing is not warranted.  The only person I can think of who would disclaim all forms of killing would be Jesus himself.  I do not think Jesus would kill another man to protect himself or his property or his country.  We, however, are mere mortals who must make these types of decisions every day.  I think it is BS for someone to claim abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent being--innocent beings are killed without violation of law every day and these same so-called "pro-lifer" sit silent.  

I can only conclude that we all support the killing of innocent beings and God's children in some fashion or another.  We're all pro-choice, and we all want to play God, by choosing who we think should live and who we think should die.  "Pro-life" is a misnomer and a crock.

"I can only conclude that we all support the killing of innocent beings and God's children in some fashion or another."

Has it struck you that most of the examples you bring up do not involve the killing of innocent people, but rather people that intend to do you harm or that have been convicted of a captial offense?  Equating an armed robber or convicted murderer to the same level of innocence as an unborn fetus must leave you with an interestingly twisted moral philosophy.

The only point you may have about an inconsistency among pro-lifers is in allowing abortions for victims of rape and/or incest, which would involve the killing of innocent "people" (assuming you believe a fetus to be a person), and at the same time lacks the exculpatory self defense argument that you'd have in a "mother's health" case.  Still, not all "pro-lifers" allow for those exceptions and can thus take a consistent position.

You mistake the emphasis of my point.  I make quite clear that I do not equate a criminal with an unborn child, which is why I CHOOSE to support a justifiable homicide defense.  I support killing in certain circumstances, but those are my choices and judgments.  I'm making a value judgment and you clearly do, too (by accusing my judgments of reflecting a twisted moral philosophy).  

However, if someone were to say that they opposed all forms of killing, I would hardly accuse them of having a "interestingly twisted moral philosophy."  I would simply note that their value of certain human lives differs from mine and only upon kneeling before God in His judgment will I know whose values were correct.

"I make quite clear that I do not equate a criminal with an unborn child, which is why I CHOOSE to support a justifiable homicide defense.  I support killing in certain circumstances, but those are my choices and judgments."

I'm still not sure I get the point.  It doesn't really matter what form of killing you CHOOSE to support--  presumably there is an ethical rationale that requires us as a society to differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable homicide.  If your point is that you can disagree with the law, I would think that's trivially true.  If your point is that there's no difference between various moral judgements, and that everyone's "choice" is equally valid, then I'd say you're absolutely wrong.  Sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, but I'm finding it hard to decipher exactly what you're arguing.

"However, if someone were to say that they opposed all forms of killing, I would hardly accuse them of having a "interestingly twisted moral philosophy.""

Well, that's not why I called your moral philosophy twisted.  Despite your claim to the contrary, you explicitly said that since some of us view self defense, et al., as justified, that we are all as guilty of choosing to kill "innocent" people as abortion supporters.  I'm not sure how else to interpret your statements, but that's not what you meant, I'll apologize for my remark.

Perhaps, let me ask just three questions first:

1.  Do you support the death penalty, knowing there are circumstances in which persons are found guilty and put to death when they are, in fact, innocent?
   
2.  If you do support the death penalty, under what circumstances?  First degree murder?  Rape?  Second degree murder?  Manslaughter?  Treason?  Burglary?  Heresy?
   
3.  Would you support abortion in cases where (and bear with me because this is obviously hypothetical) it could be proven without a single error that the unborn child would grow up to be a serial killer?

Those are tough questions, I'll answer as best I can.

1.   Do you support the death penalty, knowing there are circumstances in which persons are found guilty and put to death when they are, in fact, innocent?

There's two levels on which we can ethically judge an action:  right vs. wrong and rational vs. irrational.  From an omniscient point of view, what's right and wrong would always be clear-- putting guilty people to death would never be a problem.  Since we're not omniscient, though, we have to make a judgement call about what the most rational course of action is to achieve a known "right".

Personally, I am not in favor of the death penalty.  That doesn't neccesarily mean that it's not rational to support the death penalty in other cases.

2.  If you do support the death penalty, under what circumstances?  First degree murder?  Rape?  Second degree murder?  Manslaughter?  Treason?  Burglary?  Heresy?

I don't support the death penalty.  Those who do may have different opinions on when capital punishment is appropriate.  Just because opinions vary doesn't mean everyone's right, and a lack of clear demarcation doesn't mean arbitrary (conventional) demarcation is not needed.

3.  Would you support abortion in cases where (and bear with me because this is obviously hypothetical) it could be proven without a single error that the unborn child would grow up to be a serial killer?

I don't believe in punishing people for crimes they haven't committed.  We will never be able to predict the future that accurately.  And by never, I mean it's a physical impossibility in a quantum universe.  Sorry to reject your hypothetical like that, but I just don't think it's valid, and thus has no relevance to the world we live in.

That would also reconcile the moral arguement for contraceptives? Is that your point? Since the pill/condom operates before implantation?

Perhaps, in an intellectual world of moral absolutes, there is no middle ground.  But the truth is that moral views have to be translated into laws and policy, and that is tricky.  If death of innocents is always equally bad, then why do we have different levels of defining and punishing murder (e.g., manslaughter, first degree, etc.)?  Doesn't that imply that some 'murders' are more understandable and acceptable than others?  And, as someone else said, how can you allow war, when you know that innocent children will suffer horrible, painful deaths? Doesn't that imply that sometimes innocents have to die for a larger goal?  I think that you can and should hold tight to your moral beliefs, but at the same time you have to understand that laws need greater flexibility than those beliefs might provide.  

But the truth is that moral views have to be translated into laws and policy, and that is tricky.

Well, it can be tricky, that's true.

If death of innocents is always equally bad, then why do we have different levels of defining and punishing murder (e.g., manslaughter, first degree, etc.)?

You're setting up a straw man here. I'm not at all sure that, as a matter of law, the "death of innocents is always equally bad." As a non-attorney I'm loathe to expound on the law (with so many lawyers lurking 'round these parts) but I think it's safe to say that the law has long noted a distinction between taking an innocent life by design, and taking one by accident (and the various degress of responsibility between these two point). Abortion is an example of killing by design.

And, as someone else said, how can you allow war, when you know that innocent children will suffer horrible, painful deaths?

You don't "allow" war -- you avoid it if at all possible. You fight only in self-defense, when there's no acceptable alternative, and even then you don't kill unnecessarily.

I think that you can and should hold tight to your moral beliefs, but at the same time you have to understand that laws need greater flexibility than those beliefs might provide.

But I don't have to "understand" this, nor will I ever. The law should allow a pregnant woman the right to defend her life. It should not allow her the right to kill her child for any other reason.

pretty much I agree with that.

Unlike manslaughter etc, there isn't any "accident" in abortion.  The mother intends to kill the baby that is inside her, and she hires a doctor to help her accomplish the job.  

And like I said, I sat on that fence-the one that says it is a murder for me, but not for you, and frankly that just isn't a real position.  If something is a murder for you, then it should always be a murder period.

We don't say "hey I think it is wrong to kill the convienient store clerk for money, but hey if you think its okay, then go right ahead" in our society.  Why should we do this for the most vulnerable and most innocent?

I think your answer to question #1 is the response to all questions of when is killing appropriate, be it in war, self-defense, punishment, etc.  People make judgment calls based on the most rational course of action to achieve a known "right".  What is "right" varies among people, and all will swear on their lives and the lives of their loved ones that their "right" is the correct "right". But, in the end, it remains a judgment call.

You said that putting guilty people to death would never be a problem, but first we would have to know for a fact who was guilty.  In comes the judgment call:  guilty of what?  As you said, the arbitrary line is drawn.  Do we know if the line drawn is "right"?  If so, how?  We must base it on what we believe and reason, most likely.

The same goes for other forms of "killing".  While I don't support certain forms of killing, I do respect those who may disagree with me but have a rational argument to acheive what they beleive is "right", while I may have my own (hopefully) rational arguments for what I believe is "right".  That leaves two people with rational bases for what they believe (or "know", as you put it) is right.  Who decides who is truly "right" in the end?  God?  You?  Why not me?

Living in a world of so many people with so many rational arguments for that which so many people disagree on regarding what is "right", I have come to recognize that it can't always be "my way", "I'm right".  It takes compromise, and my "right" won't always be law.

Since this thread began with abortion at issue, I will close with that topic as well.  For those of you who want to ban abortion--it won't be banned tomorrow, so what are you doing to make the procedure irrelavant today?  I highly doubt abortion will be banned in the next ten years, or my lifetime, even, but are any of you working in your communities to help young women avoid the need for the procedure?  Are you helping them to avoid sex at a young age, to understand and know how to use birth control at an older age, to escape poverty, to get out of violent relationships, to report sexual abuse?  Are you educating women about the dangers of date rape and how to prevent it?  Are you explaining to your young men the necessity of using of condom? (and yes, abstinence is nice, but not everyone will wait until they are married to have sex, and a good number married women get abortions as well (approx. 30%)).  Are you helping the children in your community develop the self-esteem necessary to keep them from using sex to fit in or be liked?  Are you teaching the men in the community that they must bear and support the children they sire?

What are you doing to prevent the need for abortion in the first place?  Or are you just sitting at home, or standing on the road side with a "pro-life" banner, electing politicians and judges who say that they oppose abortion?  Great work, but that won't stop the 1,000,000 abortions that will take place in the next year.  If you really meant it, you would get out there and keep those girls from getting pregnant or needing abortions in the first place.

Thank you for allowing me to rant and to engage in the above discourse with you.

Re: What makes "human life" special is the fact that we are born with a soul.

No. What makes human life special is the fact that we are humans, and until we either encounter sentient alien life or create some other sentient beings (including perhaps AI) here on Earth, we're the only ones around who can have this discussion. The metaphysical doctrine of the soul* makes for an interesting topic, but it is not necessary for a discssuion of the ethics of taking human life, since very obviously people who reject the "soul" postulate still value human life and can, in a meaningful way, discuss the ethical issues involved in ending human life.

By the way, I'm sorry if you feel I have disdained your beliefs. That was not my intent. My intent was to advance the claim that one may discuss this issue in public policy without depending on any religuous doctrine.

*    Note that I did not say "theological." The concept of a "soul" does not depend on belief in God or gods.

There is also an argument that individual personhood cannot be credited until that point in gestation when twinning of the zygote is no longer possible (which, I think is reached a few days after fertilization).

birth control!!! This comes as good news.