>> ^bmacs27:

@Lawdeedaw Really? So this sounds like the words of a guy that values the personal liberties of the mother over a zygote?
"There is something that precedes liberty, and that is life," Paul said. "If we are to defend liberty … you have to understand where that liberty, and where that life comes from. It does not come from the government, it comes from our creator."
Seems to me the "right to life" precedes liberty, and I suspect he would legislate accordingly. Not to mention his introduction of the "sanctity of life act" in 2005 which would have defined life as beginning with conception, and his votes in support of a federal ban on partial birth abortions in 2000 and 2003.
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like every other anti-choice politician's policy making. I didn't realize "choice" was such an infringement on "liberty."


Sigh---even if I am wrong on this issue it doesn't make I dumb btw. Nor would it you.

Paul also doesn't believe in the death penalty--but that's again up to states in his opinion. He doesn't like cocaine but it's not his right to take it from you to decide.

Are his policies sound or sane? No less than the other "candidates." I am not saying he is god nor am I saying that all his policies are golden (I.e., the gold standard.) I would still suspect his policies are better than liars who have no real policies...

Essentially I feel the exact same as Paul in this matter except I don't think life begins in the womb (I feel it begins when intellect starts; i.e., when stimuli can be reacted to.) And, just like Paul, I would never, ever take away a woman's choice on abortions.

Below is a conservative site blasting Paul for his decision to put his personal feelings aside and give choice...

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/07/12/ron-paul-wrong-on-abortion-its-a-human-right/

If the cavemen-conservatives hate him, I like him.

^thanks archwaykitten

I think that addressed the burden of proof succinctly.

As to this:
Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

This, once again, cuts both ways. No other human is so dependent on another for it's continued survival and well being. More over, the personal freedoms of the mother are NOT being revoked or impinged at the choice of the child, but by those of either the mother or in extraordinary circumstances a rapists choice. Either way, why is the child to pay for the crimes of a rapist or the choices of the mother?

Everything comes back to when life begins, after that laws respecting human life trump every other consideration out there.

This is how you end the abortion debate:

Determine the time at which a fetus is declared a human being and is granted human rights.


The extreme pro-choice crowd says at birth.

The extreme pro-life crowd says even before conception and ever egg is sacred.


It is IMPOSSIBLE for the two sides to even remotely understand one another without addressing instead the question of when life begins. If you can find a clear and objective definition of when a fetus gets promoted to human status you can resolve this, trouble is that just can't be done.

My own best answer is conception in a womb. The reasoning being that after that point, if the mother just does nothing but try to live their lives, the fetus will be born and grow up. That's the natural course from that point on, and any point afterwards just seems an arbitrary and fuzzy mark. That leaves me in the pro-life camp, and I make no apologies for that, despite being -gasp- male...

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

When does the value for life begin?

When enough people die to worry about the future of our species.

>> ^ponceleon:
Bacon renders 250,000 cheeseburgers delicious every year.
I dig that.


Brilliant comment, ponceleon! That made me laugh

-------
>> ^EDD:
>> ^dbarry3:
>> ^rougy:
Abortion renders 500,000 women dead every year.
Who would dig a thing like that?

^Complete and utter BS strawman comment, that. But I guess you'll like this one:
Marriage renders 2 000 000 women dead every year. Who would dig a thing like that?


EDD, Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. Could you clarify? Are you talking about domestic violence? If so estimates are closer to 1,300 deaths for women due to domestic violence. Not 2,000,000. (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html)

In regards to my statement being a "BS Strawman comment" I would also appreciate further clarification. The rational behind my statement was that in 2005 there were 1.21 million abortions in the US (http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php?scope=U.S.%20specific). If you figure half of those people were female that equals roughly 500,000 women in one year, just in the US.
-------
>> ^lesserfool:
>> ^dbarry3:
Abortion renders 500,000 women dead every year.
Who would dig a thing like that?

"Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization."


Lesserfool, you're right in posting this. This is a tragic statistic and it sucks. It just does. That so many tens of thousands of women die each year from this procedure. But look at the other number stated in this fact: 19 million. That's the death of 19,000,000 that subsequently also resulted in the death of 70,000. Why do we value life that's represented by one statistic and not the other?

When does the value for life begin?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Depends on who you ask I guess. For me, the issue is a matter of 'innocence' versus 'guilt'. An unborn child is completely innocent. It has done nothing bad or good. It is a life in potential. An INNOCENT life deserves the opportunity to live, grow, and have the chance to contribute to society.
The opposite is true of the guy on Death Row. They had a chance to show what they could do, and they squandered it. They chose to perform actions so heinous, so awful, and so damaging that they have forfieted thier right to continue to participate in civilization.


So your personal objection has nothing to do with "life is sacred", but based on the perceived innocence of the child.

I suppose this perceived innocence could be extended to other innocent life, but can I assume that your defense of life only extends to humans? When do you personally draw a line in the sand regarding time? Out of womb, 1 year old, 3 years old, 7 years old, etc?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
My question to the "Pro-choice" or "Anti-Life" crowd is similar... What is the reason to HAVE an abortion when there are many other options available? I see abortion as the most extreme choice to be applied only in the most exigent of circumstances.


I'm actually trying to have a rational discussion with you. Please stop trying to make points like an emotional child: i.e. "Anti-life." Pro-choice and pro-life have been the accepted labels for a while. Likewise, pro-choice could label pro-life as "anti-choice", "anti-free will", "anti-american", "anti-liberties", "anti-women", etc, etc. Subversive and childlike "under the radar" name calling quickly drops a conversation into a emotional gutter. So. just. stop.

As for your question:

I can't speak for pro-choice people, only myself. As normal, I don't find myself in either camp. My view on abortion is the result of the following personal beliefs:

1) Personal liberties. I am a huge supporter that, among adults, a person should be able to do anything they want as long as doesn't harm another, non-consenting adult or their property. A great book on this subject is "Ain't Nobody's Business of You Do" by Peter McWilliams. Of course with freedom comes responsibility and accountability. The three are completely intertwined and can't exist without the others.

2) I don't know when life begins. Many have beliefs of when life begins, but those are just beliefs, not knowledge, no matter what they say. In my mind, when life begins will be a question that will never be answered satisfactory. Some people like to think about this question in potential instead. I personally don't agree with that since the baby is completely dependent on the mother. You don't even see brain activity until 12 weeks. Either way, I've resolved that I will never truly know to my satisfaction.

3) I've seen the results of a society where abortion is completely outlawed. Even if you do everything positive to decrease abortion, there will always be some. It's the equivalent of trying to stop teens from having sex. It isn't realistic. As a society, we can shoot for the ideal, but ultimately have to deal with what is realistic.


So concrete answers... I'll have to give snippets. I think that abortion should be legal so that the ones that do it can be done safely. I strongly disagree with 3rd trimester abortions - I think they should be illegal with the exception for the physical health of the mother. I think there need to be an honest campaign spreading sex education material (including abortion and its alternatives.)

I like a lot of Ron Paul's views, but I could never vote for him. Well, I guess that really depends on who the alternatives would be. I'd vote for Paul over Cheney.

While Ron Paul doesn't like to flaunt his religion to get conservative votes, he is a creationist and supports teaching the "facts" that support creationism in school. I don't think he believes that creationism has been proven scientifically, but he has voiced his skepticism of evolution.

He also believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder and should be outlawed. While he doesn't think it should be handled by the federal government, he has stated that the person preforming an abortion should be prosecuted (if it were illegal, which he supports).


That isn't to say that Ron Paul is a bad person. I can't think of any politician that I agree with on everything. He does at least try to explain the reasoning behind his stances, but some of his views on science make me very hesitant to support him. When I look ahead to the technological changes that are likely to take place over the next 50 years I just don't see his policies working as well as they may have in the past, nor do I see him changing his stances to fit the new realities that will result.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Life is sacred is a stupid notion of idealists, life isn't sacred, we wish it was but it isn't.
I can bet right now there is a fire mission danger close to some civilian village, right now there are hundreds of children dying out of malutrition and disease and famine and war. All this is happening while people in the 1st world argue about banning abortion... shit if you care so much adopt all the babies in Africa that are born to slain parents of war and HIV.
The other day AP put out a story that the US would need to donate about 79 billion to help African development to a point where the socities would become self sustained.
Contrast that with the 700 billion dollar bail out plan for the economy, remember that the figure picked was arbitrary when most analysts presume that toxic debt exposure exceeds the trillion mark.
Raised by doctors my view of life is only at birth, you don't count a chick that didn't hatch from its egg as alive do you?


But it's still a chick. You just said so in your own statement. The same thing applies to any stage of human development you choose: it's a human zygote, a human blastocyst, etc. It's human. Whether it is considered a "person" under the law is the debatable point.

And clearly society disagrees with you about life beginning at birth for, as swampgirl pointed out, someone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged in many states with a double-murder.

I think life begins when you get your driver's license.

To argue whether life begins at conception is ridiculous. Of course it does. The word itself is the definition of fertilization and implantation of an embryo.

The question rather is does it have it's own right to live? Or does the woman have the right to her child's life while her body gestates it.

When does a child have human rights? There is a duality in this country on this. A woman can have an abortion in her 3rd trimester, yet a person can be charged with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman.

what a GREAT discussion!
i have read through the 80+ comments and have been impressed with many of the arguments.
that being said..
the arguments being presented here,while valid,all fall into the trap.
the "when does life begin" and the "fetus rights" trap.
both are valid and significant arguments to discuss,but ignore the larger premise of "legality".
because THATS what this argument is REALLY about..legality.
the concept of a government,ANY government,legislating "morality" should be a reprehensible idea to any free thinking human being.
because thats what this issue is ultimately about..morality.
it is a moral choice that a woman has to make to abort a pregnancy.
thats a choice that only she can make,and from my experience,it has always been an almost unbearable one.
if you are pro-life or pro-choice,these are your choices based on your philosophies,concepts and understandings based on YOUR moral understandings.
henceforth your views and decisions will be based accordingly.
and as we have seen on this thread,our views are varied immensely.
but once you ask,or allow, the government to legislate morality,when does it end?
where would you put the "do not pass" sign?
in the old testament,if a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery she
was "to be brought into the streets and stoned to death".
adultery is a moral issue,as is lying and stealing, even masturbation.
morality itself is a relative perception.
some base theirs from a religious standpoint,others a sense of fairness guides their morality.mostly we get our morality from family,friends and neighbors.community helps shape how we look at things from a moral perspective.
but if you let the government legislate morality,we risk fascism,or worse...
a theocratic fascism.
that should give everyone pause.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S

note* i am pro-life and counsel women who are either contemplating,or have had an abortion.

personally, i dont think it really matters where life "begins" - if someone is going to have to carry you for 9 months and deal with 18 years of bringing you up, they get the right to pull the plug before they screw your future life up.

@pinky
BWAHAHA... the biggest strawman...
"It is ridiculous to compare an ovum or a sperm to a zygote. Why? Because neither an ovum nor a sperm if left alone in their unique environments will ever develop into a human being, but a zygote will."

Are you kidding? An zygote cannot survive on its own any more than a brain cell can survive sitting on the kitchen table. In fact, a human body can even reject an zygote and it does it all the time.

Here is the problem with this whole issue, you have to pick some point (both legally and logistically) to cell a human as born. We use BIRTHDATE for a reason, it defines the birth of a human. It's when a fetus exits a human body and lives on its own either in the world, or in an NICU.

To extrapolate the nonsense of the slippery slope of legal rights at conception, a woman should be charged with child abuse for drinking or smoking while pregnant. How about taking medications? What about a woman that falls down?

See a woman that gives their child alcohol or subjects them to smoking or throws their baby down the stairs would be in trouble for child abuse. If a zygote is really given the legal status of a baby, then a woman that causes a miscarriage from physical injury should be charges with murder, just like a woman that shakes a baby to death. It isn't an exaggeration, it is following the logical conclusion of those who cling on to some intangible timeline of when life begins.

@billO, what about those unborn babies who grow up to be axe murderers?

What about the unborn baby who will kill the mother? See, you cannot both declare equal weight to an unborn babies life and then say that the mother's life is more important. All life is equal under the law, so all the pregnancies that will be fatal to the mother MUST be allow to continue under this logic. We have to rely on prayer and just let women die (oh and the fetus as well) because life began at conception.