Redstate

50% of all conceived children are naturally "aborted", often without the mother even knowing she was pregnant. I cannot bring myself to think that personhood neatly begins at conception and that God would create a system in which he kills near half of the souls he brings into existence for a sliver of life.

What the most ridiculous pro-abortion argument is. Sometimes I think it's, "If abortion is made illegal, some mothers will die trying to obtain illegal abortions."

Then at other times, I think it's this.

I can say with 100% certainty that you will die. Does that make you a non-person?

I've always thought the question of when personhood begins was a red herring in the abortion debate, because it produces tangents like these that are irrelevant to the central question of whether it is moral to intentionally destroy the life of someone who may or may not be a person now, but could definitely be one in the future.  In President Bush's words, shouldn't we always err on the side of life?  Your question, then, is about the same as talking about whether animals have souls or not.  You may think they don't, but you most certainly wouldn't argue its right to inflict intentional cruelty on them because they lack souls.  How much more should we guard the life of a fetus, one of our own?

So I don't have time to string this argument out ad absurdium at the pace I'd like, so let me do it all at once.

Is it your contention that:

1. A person who stands a substantial chance of dying is a non-person? or
   
   
2. A person who stands a substantial chance of dying soon is a non-person? or
   
   
3. A person who stands a substantial chance of dying soon of natural causes is a non-person? or
   
   
4. Some other (I've yet to hear a legitimate "some other." Here's hoping you're the first.)

This is so right on that I can't even add to it with anything but the obligatory complimentary posting! Right on brother!

Leon, sometimes I read your posts, and I can't help but see old John Brown preaching it from the pulpit.

Look, I'm pro-life and all, but what the heck does abortion have to do with Warner granting clemency?

Frankly, I was expecting someone to chime in with that "err on the side of life" bit on the topic of the death penalty, but apparently we stopped using it in that context when Texas started executing retards.

Let's stop with the hypocrisy and call a spade a spade.  Abortion is legal (perhaps not for long with Alito joining the S.C.), as is capital punishment.  Let's be consistent.  I don't see how someone can call themselves "pro-life" and think it's okay for our government to kill people with mental retardation or about whom serious questions remain regarding their guilt.

Beyond that, how exactly are you defining life?  Conception?  That's a pretty tough standard to hold unless you're one of these folks who think intelligent design should be taught in the classroom (and if you are, I'd reference the Dover School Board's electoral fate).  I'm against the abortion of a fetus which has reached the second trimester, but I think the morning-after pill is okay.  Posts like this push me away from the "Red State" position toward the "Blue States."  When will Republicans figure out that a hard-line on abortion is a loser?

Maybe if R's had remained fiscally conservative they wouldn't have to resort to this stuff to keep their base in line.

That argument would work, but only if you can find evidence of Leon H supporting state-sponsored execution.

Can you?

Leon already has.

Honestly though, what exactly is your point?

Why don't you consider the element of intent in your argument and Leon's.

equating abortion and the death penalty, that is a tactic the left uses. Let us just say that the left has little regard for life in the sense that many endorse abortion at all stages of pregnancy as well as euthanasia of the old which is a big slippery slope.

  The only linkage I can see with the Death penalty is that you can rightfully accuse them of having more sympathy for the guilty than the innocent. But it really is a separate issue.

the point is that we are keeping track of executions.

This guys clemency was because Warner didn't want to see VA in the headlines "1000th execution since 1976 blah blah blah" in the papers.

We know exactly when that 1000th execution is.

Now do we mark the 1000th abortion?  Do we even know when it occured?

Do we know when the 1,000,000th abortion occured?

And the babies killed haven't even been accused of a crime.

I must admit I am guilty of turning my head the other way as to avoid confronting the horrific.  Thank you for your post, Leon.  It was a jolt of reality.

What pains me is what any of those 38 million children could have been.  The immense potential they had.  My only consolation is those children are with God.  

God help those who have destroyed so many lives.  All this in the name of "freedom."

Was there a run on rounding up the retarded and gassing them?  Let's not leave out Arkansas[ where all those church burnings took place ].  Wasn't it '92 when a guy with greasy palms and profound zipper problems allowed a mentally defective prisoner to be executed?  This Texas thing is another in a long tedious line of tough independant thinkers being told what what to think, how to think it, and when.  This does cause interruptions in babble about the Republican "party line", and "marching lockstep", but after one finishes voicing indignation at what one is ordered to voice indignation at one can happily return to confidently pointing out the foibles of the less sophisicated, secure in the knowledge that he has the keys to wisdom.  

I would also like to see something done about all the "born" persons we have running around without health insurance.  i wish some of the care on concern for the unborn would transfer over to those of us who actually are alive. but i suspose the unborn don't have the stigma of life.

we can say with a great deal of certainty that someone who holds this opinion beyond the level of using it to make cute but cheap rhetorical points in an argument has forfeited their humanity if not their personhood.

I too find the media obsession with the number of inmates executed by the death penalty hypocritical in light of the fact that they do not give the same fanfare and attention to the shocking and appalling number of abortions that occur in this country every year.  Both are government-sponsored policies, yet, for some reason, the media perceives the death penalty to be the more odious policy.  I disagree.  However imperfect the system may be (and I do have serious doubts about it), exacting justice for a grievous wrong committed is far less odious and eminently more laudable than sanctioning the destruction of unborn humans who are guiltless.  

How awful, tragic and sad.  

One more thing: lest anyone still believe the myth that women have abortions only when the most serious circumstances dictate it or that they do not suffer grievous emotional harm from the procedure, think again.  From an article in the L.A. Times yesterday, here are some of the reasons women had abortions:

• A high school volleyball player says she doesn't want to give up her body for nine months. "I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything," she says.
• Kim, a single mother of three, says she couldn't bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved. Ending the pregnancy seemed easier, she says -- as long as she doesn't let herself think about "what could have been."
• The 17-year-old in for a consultation this morning assures the nurse that she does not consider the embryo inside her a baby.  

"Not until it's developed," she says. "That would be about three months?"

"It's completely formed about nine weeks," the nurse tells her. "Yours is more like a chicken yolk."

The girl, who is five weeks pregnant, looks relieved. "Then no," she says, "it's not a baby." Her mother sits in the corner wiping her tears.

* "I don't think my (wedding) dress would have fit with a baby in there."

(If you want to read the article, it can be accessed here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion29nov29,0,2003
322,full.story.)

Now, which is the greater human tragedy here???  If only those unborn children had the benefit of the slow-as-molasses judicial review system, their fate might have been different.

...that he doesn't understand why God would set up a system where 50%* of all souls created don't make it to birth.

Tell you what: I'll ask that question.  Because I don't know the answer to it, myself, and I'd quite like to know.

Moe

*Or whatever the number is: I'm behind on my technical reading.

If you can't fathom the difference, as Leon clearly laid out I might add, between executing a murderer, after a trial, after appeals, after a clemency hearing -- all of which provided said killer with the opportunity to escape justice -- and killing an unborn, ergo innocent, child I really can't help you through this existential angst you claim to be experiencing.

Maybe a lot of us feel that there are things more important than money.

Where you stand and who you vote with is strictly on you, but on the great moral issue of the past 30 years don't expect a lot of us to care if you depart if your staying in contingent upon our silence.

because you will never get a straight answer from the pro-choices side.

Interviewer:  Do you support the death penalty for killers who have been convicted after they have had the opportunity to plead their case.

BBK:  Absolutely.

Interviewer:  Do you support the death penalty for unborn children who will never have the opportunity or be granted representation to plead their case?

Pro-Choicer:  Well as long as it is before the before the second trimester, or hey, it probably wouldn't have had a good chance at living right?  And even if it had lived, it probably would have to grow up unloved or in poverty, right?  

Very few pro-choicers will give just a straight yes or no answer.

Oh yeah, pass the orange juice to help wash that waffle down while I have a pro-c avoid answering the yes or no by asking me "what if the mother's life is in danger?".

Get a job.

that we'll have the answer in due course.

For your convenience, I've already answered this irrelevant question here.

Maybe if R's had remained fiscally conservative they wouldn't have to resort to this stuff to keep their base in line.

I think you're trying to find your way to The Pile™. Are you? Because I can help.

was getting a job. What strategy are you pursuing?

The point of the post is not to pass judmgent on the death penalty as a policy, but rather to highlight the utter hypocrisy in the media's coverage of the death penalty compared to abortion.  As you note, both abortion and capital punishment are legal in this country, yet why is it the media demonstrates so much hand-wringing and angst about the death penalty but not abortion?  Truly, which is the greater human tragedy worthy of this "McDonald's number served" (or, in this case, number executed) approach?  Those who have the benefit of legal representation, a trial, and judicial review?  Or those who do not?  

Your sneer at IDers is ironic considering it is science that continues to force us to re-evaluate when life begins.  A baby is now fully developed by week 9, which is still well within the first trimester.

Grow up.

The indignity of being forced to visit the free clinic is at least as horrific as being dismembered by forceps, pulverized by a vacuum cleaner, or slowly poisoned to death with saline.

I can see that I've got my priorities all out of joint. Thanks for straightening me out.

the "when does life begin" argument, always a staple.  The same time your life began,the same time mine began.  I'm reminded of the boxer who last two big fights in the first round, the manager moaned "maybe  we can go somewhere where the fights start in the second round.  Life is a continuum, you don't come in at the second trimester, to destroy the process of continuum is to destroy the life process itself.  What we, blessed with parents who didn't practice abortion, sit around and debate. Those who write off tens of millions of lives while being careful of their own might, in the name of consistency, consider  The Hemlock Society as a fruitful place for their morbid musings.  You never know what inspiration might hit you at the roundtable discussions.

"I don't have health insurance, so we shouldn't care about abortion."

Six words: idiotic non sequitur, get a job.

I've always considered this an exceptionally touchy issue, for several reasons.

--I am male, therefore the possibility that I will have an abortion any time soon is infentismal.  Since this will never happen, I lack the "insight" to fully comprehend the matter through the eyes of the ones it most effects...women.

--personally, I believe abortion to be wrong as a means of birth control.  It seems immoral to me.  However, abortion of the product of rape or incest or to protect the mother seems moral...as long as you take into consideration above said issue.

--rationality and religion rarely gel effectively.  I can see the rationality of aborting a fetus to save a mother's life, but the spirituality of it is another matter.  I am a christian, but i'm also heavily tempered in reality.

--I find a decided hint of hypocracy in those who are anti-abortion, even against abortion to save a mother's life, but support the death penalty.  At least I an consistent in my view that it is acceptable to take a life...for the right reason.

--abortion will never go away.  Ever.  Even if it is outlawed.  Much as we fight the "war on drugs," and the "war on terror," we would also be fighting the "war on abortion" should it be outlawed.

This is a moral issue trying to make it in a political world...where politics have no morals.  It's not pretty, and there will never be a correct answer or an ultimate solution.  It will always be here.

Leon -

Are you calling for Roe v Wade to be overturned, and the enactment of laws to make elective abortion illegal?

I'm no great supporter of abortion.  I think it's usually done for terrible reasons, it takes an awful toll on our humanity and compassion, and we are fairly often (although not that often) destroying something I would be more than comfortable calling an infant.

But this post really isn't about perspective.  Holding categorically that all abortion at all times is wrong and murderous isn't exactly the view of someone with perspective.  Maybe you don't think there's ever a reason for abortion to be justifiable, and maybe you think it's irrelevant that half of all conceived children don't make it to birth, and that's fine.  But where's the argument?  Rhetoric is great, not to mention effective, but there's not much here except "these fetuses are often fully formed by week 9 and the way we perform abortions is pretty unpleasant."  I agree, but can we really just toss aside every other concern?  Most women who get abortions are poor and we aren't doing anyone a favor by forcing these women to keep children they don't want.  That's an awfully utilitarian argument to make, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I also want to go on the record as unconvinced that there's not a little hypocrisy in defending the death penalty while opposing abortion.  Sure criminal defendants have a lot of court dates, but it's worth realizing that a disproportionately huge number of those executed are black and poor.  These people are getting trials, but they aren't getting fair trials.  Any number of studies show way too many innocent people slipping through the cracks.  Anyone who thinks abortion is always and everywhere wrong should take very seriously these issues with the death penalty, even if you think the death penalty is justifiable in the abstract.  I'm not saying you don't take this position; I'm just responding to a lot of commenters who I think are a bit too glib about it.

your tag line, based on this post, is misleading in the extreme.

1-- Did Brown v. Board of Education not effect you if you were not black? A ridiculous assertion on its face you say, and you're right. We've fought a Civil War to prove that it isn't right for one person to have the unilateral right over the life of another person.

2-- The Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to inflict the death penalty for rape, how do we justify killing the child resulting from rape when we can't do that to the rapist?

3-- Agreed. The Golden Rule is not rational, neither is "turn the other cheek." On the other hand, abortion, euthanasia, and forced sterilization can all be rationally and empirically justified.

4-- There is no hypocrisy in being against the killing of innocent children without judicial process and being in favor of the death penalty for felons after extensive judicial due process. Consistency is truly a hobgoblin.

5-- Neither will murder. What's your solution to that intractable problem? A "war on murder"?

Please link for me how you think a Pro-Choice Republican Presidential hopeful can win in Ames, the doorway to become President in '08.

Remember, these Republican Pro-Life voters will crawl over broken glass and drive forever to cast their vote.  A Pro-Choice Republican would certainly have some issues.  

Maybe your so-called The Pile, could save me some time.

I Advize:  If the numbers get tooo big just count the commas.  Numbers can get so big they don't have names.

I find a decided hint of hypocracy [sic] in those who are anti-abortion, even against abortion to save a mother's life, but support the death penalty.  At least I an consistent in my view that it is acceptable to take a life...for the right reason.

And your contention is ...?

• that avoidance of inconvenience is among "the right reason(s)" to take a life?
• it is "consistent" to view the taking of an innocent (however inconvenient) life as morally indistinguishable from the imposition of lawful punishment to those convicted of heinous crimes?

What?  Huh?

Or at least give it a guess based on my knowledge of God.

When God takes away someone's natural life, it is not a punishment.  It is not even detrimental.  To be absent this world is to be present with Him.  Therefore, there is no tragedy in the natural death of an innocent.  They have never suffered.  They will never suffer.  They will be born into paradise.  God's plans are different for each human being.  For some, the plan is a shortcut to glory.

On the other hand, death at the hand of man is always due to the sin of man and is not in accordance with God's plan.  The children aborted had a purpose in their life other than death.  We will never know it.  But it is our loss.

The children suffer during their killing, as dismemberment is not a pleasant way to die.  But their suffering ends at that point.  They are this day in paradise.

Those that remain, on the other hand, continue to suffer.  The mother who lives with the knowledge of the act.  The person who did the killing.  The nation full of calloused souls.  The living children who are raised with adults who have a contempt for life.  Our pain continues.

...because logic doesn't produce action. Passion produces action. You've given five logical reasons for people to do nothing with the current situation. A great many people passionately disagree with you. I'm not you, but if I were, I'd be trying to understand them.

I also want to go on the record as unconvinced that there's not a little hypocrisy in defending the death penalty while opposing abortion.  Sure criminal defendants have a lot of court dates, but it's worth realizing that a disproportionately huge number of those executed are black and poor.  These people are getting trials, but they aren't getting fair trials.

A disproportionately huge number of those executed in the womb are also black and poor -- but the difference is that they are accused of no crime, have not the benefit of trial (fair or otherwise), and have no recourse to appeal.

Really, doesn't your self-satisfied smugness deserve better justification than that?

However, as a pro-choice Republican (or relatively pro-choice, as I do believe in parental notification and a ban on late-term abortions), I do like to look at the other side of the issue.  Since we all can admit 2 things, that abortions will not stop even if illegal, and that it becomes a class thing, as the wealthy are able to still have safe abortions (again even if illegal), plus the fact that the liberal media would have a field day with both back-alley abortion horror stories, as well as stories on unwanted pregnancies this fight seems destined to be lost by those elected officials "blamed" for outlawing abortion in the first place.  And of course, we set the stage for a country where the legality of abortion changes everytime we have a political change, which is not very good.  Finally, I personally think this issue will end up resolving itself in the future, as both better methods of BC are developed and medical technology decreases the number of weeks needed for gestation of a fetus, thus making viability outside the womb a real issue in the debate (its how we won public support on late term abortion, now we just need for that late term to decrease), but until that happens I do believe a woman should have the ability to abort at any time during the first trimester.

Holding categorically that all abortion at all times is wrong and murderous isn't exactly the view of someone with perspective.

If you don't believe you are killing children I suppose this argument has a certain degree of sanity. Once you look beyond that presumption at the facts, you are killing humans - and mind you that is what we are talking about because these "blobs" don't come out as puppies or coffee tables - and I think it is just grotesque to require "perspective" beyond the commonsense conclusion: I categorically can't kill a 1-week old baby and I shouldn't be able to kill a baby at 38 weeks gestation or 30 or 24...

I also want to go on the record as unconvinced that there's not a little hypocrisy in defending the death penalty while opposing abortion.  Sure criminal defendants have a lot of court dates, but it's worth realizing that a disproportionately huge number of those executed are black and poor.  These people are getting trials, but they aren't getting fair trials.  Any number of studies show way too many innocent people slipping through the cracks.  Anyone who thinks abortion is always and everywhere wrong should take very seriously these issues with the death penalty, even if you think the death penalty is justifiable in the abstract.  I'm not saying you don't take this position; I'm just responding to a lot of commenters who I think are a bit too glib about it.

Either stupid or dishonest. Your pick. Most abortions are allegedly to poor women. Black women disproportionately have abortions, to the extent that Jesse Jackson has called the practice genocide.

But were I to play this silly game and offer to trade you a prohibition on capital punishment for a prohibition on abortion would you take it?

in a heartbeat.

And I'd throw in a draft choice to boot.

Last night my 9 year old daughter asked me, "What is abortion?"  We were watching Fox News where they were discussing Judge Alito.  I explained it to her as best I could without horrifying her.  

I said, "Sometimes when a woman is pregnant, she doesn't want to have the baby so she has it taken out even though it means the baby is going to die."

She said, "But that's murder."  I said, "Yes."

She said, "But that's worse than murder, because it's a baby."  At this point her chin was wobbling and her voice was quavering.  She was having trouble believing that this kind of thing happened.  I said, "Yes."

Then we went into a discussion about how adults have a tendency to justify their evil acts with excuses and how the devil tempts us into doing evil things by persuading us that the evil thing will make something better, even though it never does.

Unless we become like little children, we will not make it into the kingdom of heaven.  Her heart was tender toward the helpless and she was instantly aware of the evil of the sin and repelled by it.  Oh, that we were all so endowed with such God given knowledge.

abortions will not stop even if illegal

Prisons are full of people who didn't stop even though what they did was illegal. Should we turn them loose? This is really a nonsequitur. People break laws all the time, they even murder, the fact that people break laws doesn't make a case that we shouldn't have laws.

plus the fact that the liberal media would have a field day with both back-alley abortion horror stories

And this is bad, how? It seems to me that a constant stream of stories on back alley abortions would discourage many from seeking them.

And of course, we set the stage for a country where the legality of abortion changes everytime we have a political change, which is not very good

Disagree. Abortion is first and foremost a business. Businesses can't operate in an environment where your activity may be outlawed any day.

So, are we to surmise that because so many are aborted naturally it is OK for us to kill the rest?

Do you extend this logic to all life or just that which cannot defend itself?

You're very concerned about hypocrisy. I can understand someone taking the principled position that capital punishment must not be allowed because it's possible to execute an innocent man. Is it not then the case that abortions should be disallowed because it's possible to abort an unborn child who is similarly innocent?

I'm in total agreement with your analysis here.

Plus, The Pile™ is not a place you want to go.

As I said, I am no great supporter of abortion.  I think legal prohibition would probably be pretty messy, but I would gladly take it.  I find neither abortion nor the death penalty unjustifiable in the abstract, but both are just too awful in reality for us to be all that pleased about them.

I was either self-satisfied or smug.  All I'm saying is that we need to have a real debate instead of just throwing around rhetoric.  It seems to me that it's a whole lot more smug to claim to know the mind of God than it is to say we should slow down and a have a real debate.

This is a position I would be happy to take, as I mentioned above.  I don't think it's the only possible position, in that there's at least a plausible line to be drawn between the moral status of a person who has been wrongly accused of a crime and a non-person that is genetically human.  That line is hard to draw and I'd rather we not do it, but it could be done.

just went through a miscarriage (my wife's) I find all the dimissals of this argument here disgusting. It is hard enough to deal with the loss but to compound it by equating it to the loss of child is abhorrent. Given the number of women who go through it a year it is not only morally imperative but socially imperative that we do our best to support them, not make them feel worse.

As for the logical side of it, the argument is simple. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus had NO chance of ever being born, there was a chromosonal error at conception that made it impossible. So those fetuses were not even potential humans, and if some, but an unknown, subset are not even potential humans do we really elevate the entire class on the basis that they could someday be humans?

As for something mentioned above about errirng on the side of life, will that would certainly preclude the death penalty as there is no 100% certainty and it should also preclude any military operation that includes collateral damage; so I would say that statement coming from Bush or most other pro-lifer who supprot the other two is disingenous at best.

Streiff iterated most of my thoughts, but to chime in with my two cents...

1. The abortion "most affects" the aborted child, not the mother.  The child does not continue to exist after the abortion, the mother does.
   
2. Society creates limits on what is and is not acceptable behavior regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic.  The half of the population which is not priveleged to carry a child is still undoubtedly part of the process of its creation.  As such, we are obligated and should petition to be involved in any decision that affects the child.  
   
3. The morality of the decision is defined by the decision of the mother, not the circumstances under which the conception occurred.
   
4. It's irrational for a mother to abort her own child -- it's counterintuitive to the laws of nature, of which the most pre-eminent law is survival.
   
5. True, abortion may never go away, but that does not mean we need to facilitate it either.  I would rather be fighting a "war on abortion" than capitulate to the approach that just shrugs at it and moves on.  

from your disingenuous accusation of hypocrisy.

I will withdraw my characterization if you'll explain to me how distinguishing between duly convicted violent criminals and innocent pre-nascents is in any way hypocritical.

is no good here. Neither are any of these ridiculous arguments, nor the equally ridiculous insinuation that we are somehow making women who go through miscarraiges feel worse by opposing abortion.

Part of what ticks me off about the entire abortion regime is that it's supported by such stupid arguments.

If we were all to have the faith of a child.

How does everyone here draw the line for medical reasons?  The most obvious is the mother's health issue.  Is abortion justifiable when it's a choice between the baby and the mother?

There are, of course, more bizarre examples.  Suppose a man has liver failure and the only way to save him is to transplant from his sister, even though she's pregnant and will lose the child.  I realize this example might not even be medically possible, but I'm just trying to illustrate a case in which maybe it's not the mother's life that's in danger, but someone close to her that only she can realistically save.

I imagine there's at least some disagreement about this issue even among people who generally oppose abortion and I just want to hear what others think.

a lot of them are duly convicted legally but not morally.  I don't think the situations are perfectly parallel, but I think a lot of commenters are awfully quick to say, "Well, they had their chance" when the truth is a lot of them really didn't have a chance in any meaningful sense.

Was his diary so complicated that you can't understand?

Did you come away with the perception that he supports the current "infant murder in all circumstances" regime?  If so, work on your reading comprehension.

This could very well and in all honesty be the single most unintentionally idiotic thing I've ever read here - and I've been reading RedState for going-on two-years.

But for the seriousness of the subject at hand I'd be laughing out-loud at my desk right now.

As to your point, such as it is - Get. A. Job.

a non-person that is genetically human

So you accept that unborn children are innocent, you just don't accept that they are "persons." As non-persons of course, unborn children have no particular right to life. Well, at least you're upfront about it.

Maybe we need a Republican Pro-Choice and Pro-Gun Control President.

Vote for Hillary, be treated like a dog.

You were that old.

In any event, I'll take that as a compliment. :-)

There are a lot of people that are morally non-persons but genetically human in jail, and a lot that should be in jail.  They have far more rights than an unborn child.  

Than your moral authority is no good by your reasoning. Of course neitehr of us really believes that, we each recognize that desptie not personally experiencing many things we are entitle to opinions on them. My observation is not derived from personal assertion of moral authority but watching how the miscarriage affected my wife and what helped and hurt (and subsequently as we have noticed more and more people acknowledge going through the same process and hearing what they ahd to say onthe matter).

I think equating a fetus with a child does make it harder on woman with miscarriages because it compounds the feeling that somehow they were responsible for the death of an infant. The women who I have seen best able to deal with it do so by recognizing that it is nothing they did, that, at conception, a fetus has between a 30-50% chance of not making it out of the second trimester and that is okay, it's both natural and irreversible.

As for who ahs the stupid arguments, well yours is based solely on the assertion that a fetus=baby, I and most of societies throughout history disagree.

BTW, on your thread that you linked to above about 'though shaln not murder' you correctly point out how 'kill' is a mistranslation, but you use another mistranslation in your interpretation of Exodus 21:22 (the mistranslations in both cases date back to the greek translation fo thehebrew, but that isn't the point). The bible makes a clear distinction between the taking of the a life and the destruction of the fetus, the altter is punished only be a fine (treating the fetus as a body part of the woman).

-- probably less than 3% -- have some sort of medical justification.

As such, you're correct to call your hypothetical example "bizarre" (not least because you seem to be proposing that we begin performing liver transplants from live donors).

Your hypothetical represents not only a most rare circumstance, but also the fuzzy fringe at the border of the morality question. Circumstances that require us to choose between two competing lives have no clearly "right" answer, and I would not argue that abortions in cases where other lives are at stake should be illegal. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think most pro-lifers would agree.

I would regard a change in law that allowed abortions to take place only in cases like those you describe as a major victory.

But I will concede that there have been cases where innocent men and women were unjustly executed, and I support efforts to decrease the number. Everyone should have a fair trial.

What does your assessment of the justice system have to do with your view of the legality of abortion?

Not that I am going to convince you or you will convince me, but for the sake of debate.

You are right, we do have laws against murder and that doesn't stop people either.  However, it seems that most people will not view those getting back-alley abortions as bad as murdering thugs (do we really want to send a bunch of otherwise normal kids to jail for doing what they thought was best for them) and you would still have a major class division, as the rich would have no problem getting abortions (wherever they were available or through sympathetic doctors).

I think the media would turn the average voter against us in this case, as they would show the worst possible stories, not cases of simply abortion as BC.  We would see middle class victims of abuse getting abortions and so on, you think of a horrific scenario, thats what we would see.

The final one is more a point of economics.  I would argue that abortions are relatively capital light and thus it would be very easy to set up clinics as the political winds shift, especially since I think it would be in high demand during periods of legality.

My wife also had a miscarriage in 1989, which was psychologically devastating to her, but not because she felt somehow that she had killed the child, but she had been looking forward to being a mother, and was mourning for the loss of her child. After she had tried for four years to become pregnant, she also wondered whether she was capable of bearing children. Fortunately, she was consoled by the birth of our son in 1991, who now knows that he has an older brother or sister in Heaven.

But just because some fetuses do not live until birth for natural reasons (which are nobody's fault) doesn't give anyone the right to VOLUNTARILY kill a fetus which could be born.

Where does the Bible say that the "destruction" of a fetus is punishable only by a fine? Are you talking about voluntary abortion or miscarriage? Not that women who have miscarriages should be fined (they deserve our sympathy and consolation), but allowing abortions sounds rather unbiblical to me. Are you sure YOUR translation is accurate?

I have struggled with the abortion issue for years. Let me just say that i am against abortion but detest being labelled pro-life, as that has religous conotations behind it that i do not hold. I am not a religous man by any stretch. So the thought of it being morally wrong because the Bible says so never cut it with me. Irregardless, abortion IS wrong. But had a hard time explaining why.

This is what I've come up with little by little. It's no manifesto nor is it neccessarily all that logical. It IS a work in progress....

Beyond the mystical and religous reasons, what makes man, man (not a dog or a plant or something else)? It's our genetic makeup. Our DNA defines us in everyway. We are HUMAN. Everything that shares our DNA is also human. SO from the time of conception, when our DNA forms, we are human.

That does not mean we are alive from conception though. I don't think a zygote (though human) is alive by the scientific parameters that define life. These parameters are; motion, reproduction, consumption and growth. A child in the womb meets all these prerequisites at some point within the first trimester (i've read anything for 4 to 9 weeks). I've come to the conclusion that any time after this 4-9 week period you are dealing with a living human being. Its no longer 'potential' but a living, thriving being. Willfully killing it is murder.

Is this antiseptic? cold? calculating? I imagine it is. But I've dealt with my strong concerns over abortion in this manner. I've thought it out for a very long time. Doesn't mean that's the end of my thought process. But is is more than what can be said for a few knee-jerks out there.

"The Carthaginians defending the city were attacked by three Roman legions. The Carthaginians were proud and brave but they couldn't hold. They were massacred. Arab women stripped them of their tunics and their swords and lances. The soldiers lay naked in the sun. Two thousand years ago. And I was here."

Stop with your threats and do it.  If RedState is not about having a serious discussion about where the Republican Party needs to go, then you've already proved why Democrats may just win back the house in '06.  Are you really that threatened by a single person bringing up a critical point?

I'm not trolling here, I'm offering my honest opinion as to the most effective direction of the Republican Party.  If that's worthy of "The Pile", then add me and get back to your blinder-fitted self-praise.

"this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning."

Please explain how I'm violating this by stating the fact that Republicans need to get back to focusing on fiscal conservatism instead of wasting time on social issues that only further alienate moderates and allow Democrats to claim the center.

Whatever, don't blame me when Rick Santorum gets beat and Rudy Giuliani pulls out of the primaries.

Another abortion shout-a-thon.

First I'd join in the advice of others; employment works wonders in this area.

Second, I'm always fascinated by the argument, common on the left, that the absence of health insurance is the same as the absence of health care. The left loves tossing around the percentage of people who do not have health insurance but somehow they never get around to discussing the number of people who  actually go untreated or die as a consequence of not having insurance. I frankly don't know what that number is, but I'm willing to bet a case of someone's favorite brew that it's a whole lot smaller than the number without insurance.

The 'no insurance as federal sin' crowd is apparentlly unaware that federal law requires emegency room treatment by all hospitals regardless of ability to pay. And they also seem to be unaware that just about every community of any size in this country has a 'community' or public hospital of one form or another where care is provided as needed, again without regard to the ability to pay. True they are not all Mayo Clinics but then what is; but they are all competent capable hospitals and in many cases are the same hospitals that people with insurance go to.

The left really needs to find some new Talking Points™

------------------

that ALL people agree that capital punishment ends the life of a human being while less than half of Americans believe that abortion ends the life of a human being.  

It would be hypocrisy for the media to treat these as equal events.

We need every taxpayer we can get our hands on in 25 years when the average baby boomer is 76 years old.

We should have tax credits for those who have children now.  Plus, those that seek abortion should have full and proper disclosure.  For example:

1.  What percentage of women who get abortions will never be able to have another child?
   
2.  What percentage of women who get abortions are then diagnosed with depression?  A lifetime of expensive Mental Illness medication could be a heavy financial burden.

Economics - Do your country a favor and carry that future taxpayer to term.

future taxpayers will actually have jobs (and decent jobs at that).  Remember that many abortions are for the poor and would be dependents of the state from birth anyways.  I was not trying to bring econ into the abortion debate, as it seems very cold.

less than half of Americans believe that abortion ends the life of a human being

That's a falsehood.  Even most abortion advocates concede that an abortion ends a human life.

A fetus has the same DNA as humans do, so unless you're arguing for a new taxonomy, it's human.

And, the fetus is indisputably a "being", don't you think?  Or would you argue that point, too?

So ... where's this hypocrisy you're talking about?  Could it be from those who, for political reasons, refuse to call a spade a spade?

Exodus 21:22:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.

This is a fairly accurate translation to the hebrew and does capture the meaning of the verse. Essentially it reads that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and only the fetus is lost, he pays a fine, if the woman dies he gets the death penalty.

that the state is an actor in one instance, and the individual is the actor in the other.

That's where IMHO a portion of this discussion has gone and will continue to go.

There is risk associated with delivery. The risk is low, but in no case can a doctor say at the end of the 1st trimester that there's a 0% chance of complications. Virtually everybody has an extended family member or 'friend of a friend' where a supposed easy delivery has suddenly turned desperate, even tragic for the mother. With modern technology, the probability of tragic complications is low, but is greater than 0.

The question comes down to who is the best arbiter of that risk? Is a .1% risk of tragedy acceptable in your case? What about a 10% risk? Every person's situation is different, and therefore every person's ability to assume risk is different.

The mother is the person best positioned to determine the acceptable level of risk. She's in a much better position than a legislator to determine her risk profile. And her wish/ability to assume risk will determine how the pregnancy ends.

This has been an interesting subject to me over the last year or so, and I fear my thoughts on the subject have changed and will probably continue to change. I was never convinced by the whole 'right of privacy' justification of the abortion debate. However I'm convinced that the ability for a person to mitigate the risk they will subject themself to is a basic right.

We don't force people to donate a kidney to save another person, even if the other person is a relative and the donation is low risk. All adults have the final decision on the risk that they will subject themselves to. Every person has a different risk/reward calculation. In the end Roe may be overturned as faulty logic, but the basic idea of risk assumption is why another justification will always be found.

but when he gets back, boy are you in for it!

Try this one on:

[R]endering from the original Hebrew:

And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life.

Further:

There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

However, even if your interpretation is correct (I'm no Hebrew scholar, so I can't personally evaluate it on its own merits), this is certainly not biblical endorsement of abortion, as it refers to incidental injury to the fetus as a result of a fight between others. In no way does it endorse the deliberate killing of an unborn child.

I know that you feel that these passionate condemnations help further your cause but it seems to me that the only thing this sort of rhetoric does is further entrench both sides.

You equate all abortions to murder.  Ok.  So does that mean that you would not accept abortions in the case of rape or incest?  How bout if the child's birth poses a health risk to the mother?  Let's say it's only a 10% chance that the woman could die?  Is that enough of a risk to justify murdering the fetus?  How bout a 90% chance?

I also find your equating of capital punishment to abortion to be specious reasoning.  As I said upthread EVERYONE agrees that capital punishment involves the killing of human life.  The same cannot be said for abortion in which MOST people do NOT believe that all abortions are the killing of human life.  Furthermore by advocating for capital punishment you are implicitly agreeing that it is acceptable to kill human beings for the right reason.  That's fine but by then comparing it to abortion you are suggesting that abortion really does boil down to defining what is and what is not acceptable killing.  IMO, this greatly diminishes your general argument.

Lastly you do yourself a disservice with your condemnations of those who are pro-choice.  By suggesting that such people advocate murder or are immoral the only you achieve is a hardening of their views and a belief that those who are against abortion are so blinded by their faith that they cannot accept that others may have differing opinions based on different set of facts.  For instance your argument that abortion is biologically the killing of human life ignores the fact that science has STILL been unable to determine when separate human life begins.  Your reasoning is based solely on your faith but by suggesting that biology proves your suggests that you are willing to bend the truth to suit your beliefs.

I can admire your passion for this matter and, while I don't think that outlawing abortion is sound public policy, I do agree that abortion is wrong and that we should do what we can to eliminate it.  But fire and brimstone rhetoric will never change anyone's minds and if you ever want to see abortion abolished you are going to need to change a lot of people's minds on the subject.

Even most abortion advocates concede that an abortion ends a human life.

No they don't.  Maybe some do but they are a very small minority.  Most abortion advocates conced that a life ends but it is not human.

A fetus has the same DNA as humans do, so unless you're arguing for a new taxonomy, it's human.

Ok.  My skin has the same DNS has humans.  I guess that means that when I get a sunburn I'm killing human life.  Same for my sperm.  

And, the fetus is indisputably a "being", don't you think?  Or would you argue that point, too?

Absolutely not unless you consider all living organisms a being.  Is that the argument you wish to further?

So ... where's this hypocrisy you're talking about?  Could it be from those who, for political reasons, refuse to call a spade a spade?

The hypocrisy would be for the media to treat capital punishment and abortion the same since MOST Americans do not consider them the same in any way.  If the media were to do so they would be  advocating for a specific belief and not reporting the news, which is their job.

 and those against abortion define life at different points.  If life is "the potential for life", then every visit to a sprem bank would technically be just as awful as an abortion.  If life begins at conception, then that is an arbitralily chosen point in time, just as viability is.  

1. Outlaw the death penalty.  Anyone convicted of murder serves "life without".
   
2. Outlaw abortion with the following caveats:
   

...Life of the mother. An abortion can be performed, in a hospital setting, with the concurrent diagnosis of two doctors that the life of the mother will be lost if the child is carried to term.  Five day waiting period unless it's a life threatening emergency.

...Rape or incest. Charges have been filed within 5 days of conception.

...Low income women would pay nothing in either of the above circumstances.

...Illegal abortions would carry a first time misdemeanor charge against the mother, second time felony manslaughter.  Abortion providers would be charged with 1st degree murder, life without parole.

Everybody wins.  

Death penalty opponents can sleep well because the state is no longer "murdering" people and we don't have to speculate about innocent people being executed.  Frankly, life in prison is worse than the death penalty anyway.

Abortion opponents can celebrate because 97% to 99% of all abortions would cease.

Maybe Warner is did this as a set-up so Kaine can do it when he takes office?

You didn't bother to read anything I wrote, as you will notice that I addressed the issue from the JPS and the BHS, and not the LXX. Therefore, I shan't waste more of my time providing substantive responses that you won't read.

Further, your point was that you were basing your moral authority on your ridiculous canard on the basis that your wife had an abortion. I pointed out the fallacy of this, and then you agreed that it was indeed fallacious. Glad we agreed at least on that.

In Iowa they would say, "HogWash."  Trust me I know.  Remember, Iowa handed Screaming Howard Dean his head on a platter after his "Scream heard around the World."  The last thing a Republican wants to do in Iowa is upset the Pro-Life crowd.  Iowa certainly isn't New York, I assumed you knew that.

Rudy, in Ames just say, "I know everybody pays the same Medicare tax across the Nation.  Sure, some Republican politicians complain about Iowa's last position in Medicare reimbursments and New York is granted about the most, because we have so many House members.  But, I checked with Hillary, who I couldn't run against because of my cancer, and she agrees.  New York doctors and hospitals need a lot more money than Iowa docs and hospitals.  Plus, one size fits all and Pro-Choice is not that bad if you think about it for you masses of Pro-Life voters paying for expensive Medigap plans because your Medicare reimbursements are so low you don't have free HMOs like Big Apple seniors enjoy."

Run Rudy Run - Create a huge conservative turnout in '08.  

Code Blue:  Rudy's Iowa Hopes

I'm Iowa born, I've come to set you free - Iowa 23rd, Civil War

Stand Firm / Vote Republican

These are what I call the "ground level" issue.

Over the last 10 years most of the action in the abortion debate has been on the restrictions area -- waiting periods, etc. However these restrictions have become muddled by the life of the mother issue. The supreme court has repeatedly said restrictions are OK as long as there is an exception in the case of a threat to the life of the mother.

However that exception is exploited routinely at clinics across the country. Every woman has one or more of the hundreds of risk factors that may contribute to pregnancy complications. So now all a woman and her doctor has to do is identify a risk factor (which everybody has) and "poof" all restrictions vanish. Essentially any restriction can be waived by the doctor with a stroke of the pen.

Without the "life of the mother" clause a law is unconstitutional. With it a law is unenforcable. I'm convinced that's why the supreme court will be looking at another abortion case this fall -- is there a wording that can make a restriction meaningful while giving some protection to the mother in case of bad complications.

I know how you feel. It was tough for me to see my little sisters become aware of abortion, at an age when I was still happily sheltered from it. The only good I see from it is that they will be morally opposed to it before the public schools and the media try to warp their minds.

about Republican issues does not include insinuating that my discussing abortion on RedState.org is "resorting to stuff" to "keep the base in line."

You and I are free to have different perspectives about what Republicans should pursue first. It's not "civilized," however, to be so dismissive of the desires of at least half the party.

In Iowa they would say, "HogWash."  Trust me I know.  Remember, Iowa handed Screaming Howard Dean his head on a platter after his "Scream heard around the World."  The last thing a Republican wants to do in Iowa is upset the Pro-Life crowd.  Iowa certainly isn't New York, I assumed you knew that.

Actually Iowa handed Screaming Howard Dean his head on a platter before the scream. The fact that he lost was why he was trying to convince the faithful that he would continue one and go to Calfornia and all of the other places he named. The reality of Iowa crushing his dream was what brought on the scream, not the other way around.

as a father of three and whose wife suffered a miscarriage I find your opinion to be somewhere between banal and disgusting.

Most Americans consider an abortion in the third trimester as ending a life.  For the sake of argument, I'll disregard that life exists in the previous two trimesters or that the child has done something wrong to deserve death.  

Now, since 1976, there have been 999 individuals executed as a result of the death penalty.  Since 1976, the number of abortions performed legally has been roughly 1.3 million per year.  Of those abortions only .08% have occurred in the third trimester.  Yet, even then, the actual number of third-trimester abortions between 1976 and 2005 far outweighs the number of individuals executed by a whopping 3,119,001.  Still, think that's fair treatment?