ABORTION.......

A good point FF. However there is a definable difference between aborting a fetus for whatever reason, and knowingly damaging a fetus that you fully intend to give birth to and raise. This again comes to the crux of the pro-choice argument that a fetus isn't a human until it's born. In your example above, you're aborting a fetus, but permanently damaging a human.

It has nothing to do with religion Frank, it has to do with legality...and the last time I checked, murder was never backed by our laws.

One...if it is a full, living human being...it has this soul you folks are always talking about...and the soul, pure and innocent, is going to Heaven to spend eternity with your god.

Two...how do you know that is not a part of your god's plans for this particular being? How do you know that each "life you save" is not simply creating a person who would have spent eternity in Heaven if youl had not intervened...but who spends an eternity in Hell because it becomes an abortionist?

When a religious zealot tells you "it has nothing to do with religion"...more than likely, it has everything to do with religion.

Those that oppose abortion are in favor of life.

Those that are in favor of abortion are opposed to life.

It's not about religious zealotry ... it's about having a moral code.

Now, care to explain why those opposed to abortion are going to find a place in Hell because they would require a mother to bear her child?

Questioner writes

Quote:

A good point FF. However there is a definable difference between aborting a fetus for whatever reason, and knowingly damaging a fetus that you fully intend to give birth to and raise. This again comes to the crux of the pro-choice argument that a fetus isn't a human until it's born. In your example above, you're aborting a fetus, but permanently damaging a human.

Well since I believe aborting a fetus out of convenience and willfully damaging a child you intend to give birth to are both criminal, that part of the equation is a non starter to me. And as abortion ends a life, that is pretty darn damaging.

As to the second part of your argument, that fetus is either a human being or it isn't. If it is, then the period inside the womb is just one phase of human development and the human experience and ethically is deserving of care and concern for its whole existence. And that would assume that abortion for convenience would not be an option.

If it isn't, then the rationale that a woman should have complete control over what she does with her own body should not be compromised simply because she chooses not to abort her baby.

As to the second part of your argument, that fetus is either a human being or it isn't. If it is, then the period inside the womb is just one phase of human development and the human experience and ethically is deserving of care and concern for its whole existence. And that would assume that abortion for convenience would not be an option.

If it isn't, then the rationale that a woman should have complete control over what she does with her own body should not be compromised simply because she chooses not to abort her baby.

Quote:

One...if it is a full, living human being...it has this soul you folks are always talking about...and the soul, pure and innocent, is going to Heaven to spend eternity with your god.

That raises the question, why would God bother to give us the gift of life then?

Quote:

Two...how do you know that is not a part of your god's plans for this particular being? How do you know that each "life you save" is not simply creating a person who would have spent eternity in Heaven if youl had not intervened...but who spends an eternity in Hell because it becomes an abortionist?

How many "should've been aborted" children become abortionists? My guess is that they probably value life a little more.

If it isn't (a human being) then the rationale that a woman should have complete control over what she does with her own body should not be compromised simply because she chooses not to abort her baby.

I agree with the first paragraph completely. I don't really understand the point you're making with the second.

.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those complaining about religious zealots are invoking religion a whole lot more than of the pro life group is, so far as I can tell. I didn't evoke religious principals at all to make my case.

Yeah...and the religious zealots pushing Intelligent Design also don't invoke religion a whole lot either.

But that does not mean that their religious zealotry is not the motivating factor.

It just shows they are getting smarter...and more duplicitous.

Quote:

Those deflecting the original illustration to be an univited passenger who jumps in the car are ignoring the voluntary part of the particular analogy I used which is a choice made out of convenience. Rape, incest, etc. is a different discussion.

Well discuss it...because it impacts on what is being said here.

Quote:

And yes, a woman (or man) who does not accept the risks of pregnancy should not engage in intercourse unless measures to prevent pregnancy have been taken--vasectomy, tied tubes, etc.

It must be wonderful to have never made a mistake. I cannot identify with it...but it must be wonderful for you.

Oh, by the way....is making a mistake a reason for taking rights away from a woman?

Everybody makes mistakes. And responsible people accept the consequences for them.

Otherwise, it appears that some on the 'a fetus is not a human being' side are running out of ammo and resorting to more and more personal insults. I think the pro life group has won this round.

In other words, if the fetus is not a human being and thus can be discarded at will, and the principle of a woman being in control of her body is the rationale for that, then that principle would have to apply to whatever the woman does whether or not that fetus is brought to full term and is allowed to be born.

To punish a woman for abusing a fetus that she does not abort simply has to be interpreted that the fetus is in fact a growing human being.

Now then, do we begin debating the legalities of a law protecting an unliving thing over a living one?

Questioner writes

Quote:

Now then, do we begin debating the legalities of a law protecting an unliving thing over a living one?

This goes back to my original premise. At what point can the law say precisely that a human life is at risk in the womb?

The language of Roe v Wade is exquisite on this point. Boiled down to its elemental components, it says that in the first tri-mester, the state has little or no interest in the developing fetus, in the sec9nd tri-mester increasing interest, and in the third tri-mester a good deal of interest. Now of course this has been gravely corrupted by the pro-abortion lobbies and activist judges who have taken Frank's position that there is no time that an abortion is not ethical or legal because an unborn baby is not a person.

Personally, I do not see it as my prerogative to judge any woman re the decisions she makes in these matters, but that does not prevent me from reasoning that an abortion for convenience is an intentional and willful termination of a human life.

If we as a society come to terms that an unborn baby is in fact a person, then I could see a rationale for holding a woman responsible for willfully harming it.

Questioner writes

Quote:

Now then, do we begin debating the legalities of a law protecting an unliving thing over a living one?

This goes back to my original premise. At what point can the law say precisely that a human life is at risk in the womb?

The language of Roe v Wade is exquisite on this point. Boiled down to its elemental components, it says that in the first tri-mester, the state has little or no interest in the developing fetus, in the sec9nd tri-mester increasing interest, and in the third tri-mester a good deal of interest. Now of course this has been gravely corrupted by the pro-abortion lobbies and activist judges who have taken Frank's position that there is no time that an abortion is not ethical or legal because an unborn baby is not a person.

Personally, I do not see it as my prerogative to judge any woman re the decisions she makes in these matters, but that does not prevent me from reasoning that an abortion for convenience is an intentional and willful termination of a human life.

If we as a society come to terms that an unborn baby is in fact a person, then I could see a rationale for holding a woman responsible for willfully harming it.

This is a very good point Foxfyre.

Though they hide behind Roe v Wade, as if legality made the thing morally right -- the fans of Roe v Wade apparently don't really believe what it says. The decision actually allowed for the restriction or banning of abortion at certain stages of pregnancy.

But pro-abortion cheerleaders today try to shout you down if you go there.

Don't know how to explain it any better, Cereal.

The reason I think a woman has a choice is because it is her body that is being used as a host.

If the pregnancy is carried to term...WHICH I SEE TO BE STRICTLY HER CHOICE...a baby results.

The baby is the responsibility of the mother and father...and both should be made to endure the financial costs involved.

That simply is my opinion...and while it may differ from yours...I honestly do not see it as inconsistent. But if you do...I respect your right to do so.