When Does Life Begin?

I agree that both circumcision and abortion are "bad" (my value judgement), but they are particularly bad when they are performed without the informed consent of the subject. A woman should never have an abortion forced upon her, and a child should not undergo circumcision until it is able to give informed consent. Autonomy is the principle that pertains to this discussion if you ask me. I would not force abortion or circumcision on anyone, but at the same time I would not deprive them of them.

Hey Cicerone,
Its been a while since I've been around to bug...debate this issue with you. Sorry this message is long. I was going to split this message in two and address one part to Eorl and one part to you, but I don't know if Eorl is still here. I believe I last read his wife was expecting a baby. If so then he is probably much too busy. Hope things are okay with him.
Anyhoo..
When I was last here you said:
"Where I (have) problems with your definition for "sanctitiy of life," is your concentration on the unborn fetus that should be the choice of the pregnant woman, father, or the circumstances that resulted in that pregnancy such as rape or incest. In other words; none of our business.
In the mean time, we have all of those living humans who are ignored by your insistence on imposing your personal religious belief on complete strangers concering all fetus' you argue based on "sanctitiy of life. "

My reply
I used to be an abortion advocate. I believed that in the best interests of society we needed a means to control the population explosion. Is this one of your concerns when you mention "all of those other LIVING human beings" who I assume you are implying are not now having their needs met much less talk about bringing more people into the world? I don't have a good response to that for you. One day I just looked at the problem and I saw how big it was. Holding back the surging population was more than I could do anything about. For that I needed something bigger than myself. I decided right then and there to let God handle it. Don't get me wrong, I believe in doing all that we can to help each other.

Eorl said
"I want a society that protects and values people's lives. Now, if you are able to demonstrate to me that the life of 10 day old foetus is equal to the life of a 14 year old girl, then I need to consider risking that 14 year old girl's life to protect the foetus instead. But you can't demostrate that the two lives are equal because they are not, for many reasons. This is why I view the anti-abortion position as one that is cruel and dishonest, and costs lives, rather than the other way around. This is why the left, the humanitarians, amnesty international agree with me."

My reply
I don't feel that we should be placing a value on human life. This person is more valuable than that one because...they are white...they are a male...they have passed through the birth canal. What if the foetus was Johannas Salk (inventor of the polio vaccine) and the fourteen year old were Christina S. Walters (Christina S. Walters randomly selected and shot three teenaged girls as part of a gang initiation. Two of the girls died and one survived.) Would you still feel that the life of the foetus was of lesser "value".
The thing is, we don't know. How can we judge? We don't know. Because we don't know shouldn't we treat all human life with the same respect?

Some here have said that by voting my conscience- antiabortion-I am forcing my views on everyone else. Antiabortionists are accused of trying to force their beliefs on others yet I doubt I could impose or force my beliefs on anybody if they did not want to believe them. Anybody here think so? I've yet to even talk about my beliefs. I've yet to discuss my belief in abstinance outside the marriage because I doubt anyone here cares. What I'm saying is if there is no underlying belief in the sanctity of human life, all human life, then who is going to chose who deserves to live or die? If I understand you correctly you say it is "right" to make such a determination because the foetus is of lesser value. I suppose the people involved, parents, doctors, lawyers will determine the outcome, but to assume that anyone has a "right" to take a human life...well this seems to be where our viewpoints differ.

It seems to me sometimes we are intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. It bothers me when I see human life degraded to a disposable commodity. Unwanted pregnancies, incest and rape are disavowed by destroying the evidence. I will not argue against abortion advocates when the argument is for compassion. I can't find any argument against compassion. Even so there is a prolife stance. Fourteen-year-olds do have babies. Rape victims do have babies.

As an antiabortion advocate it seems I am often blamed for women being pregnant. Our society encourages people to have sex. Even cartoons for kids have sexual overtones. Why then should it surprise anyone that after listening to all of this sexual pandering someone gets pregnant who doesn't want to be pregnant? Proabortionists then point their finger at me and say that it is my fault they are pregnant because I believe life is precious and should not be trifled with. Morals and values are abandoned right and left and, wouldn't you know, I am to blame.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, ABORTION CHEAPENS HUMAN LIFE. Your statement above is an excellent example of what I am talking about. You have placed a value on human life, a fourteen-year-old is more valuable than a foetus. Pro life advocates don't do this. If you had just told me that we should show a little compassion towards the fourteen-year-old whose body may not be quite developed enough to handle a pregnancy without causing danger to the mother or child I might have cut you some slack (but not before mentioning some places that child could turn to for support to have the child or before mentioning how very precious a gift from God life is), but you placed a value on it.

Valuable... so many wars are started and fought over who is more valuable. So many lives destroyed over who is more deserving to live. Is a hutu more valuable then a tutu, is a tutu more valuable than a hutu, a sunni muslim more valuable than a sheite muslim, a sheite muslim more valuable than a sunni, an isreali more valuable than a palestinian or vice versa, a white more valuable than a black, (Dr. Suess) a person who butters their bread on the top more valuable than a person who butters it on the underside? How valuable is a human life? The bible tells us that we're all so valuable in God's eyes that he sent his only son to die for our redemption.

I listened to a taping of Mother Teresa on TV the other day. She was talking about abortion. What she said is that life is precious and to treat it as such. I think that is what God really wants us to know and have in our hearts.

Eorl,
It seems like we want the same thing- a society that protects and values people's lives. Whose lives? Human life is very valuable to the prolife advocate who believes that all life has worth. They work towards that end. Do you understand what I am saying? I'm not faulting you for your honest opinion, but if we promote all human life then everybody stands to benefit. Maybe at best the most people can do is agree to disagree on this issue, but still we need a definition under our law. Justice Brandis said, "Some questions can be decided even if not answered." He has probably had to decide a lot of questions that were not black and white. (With God's help) hopefully we'll have laws that help us respect each other.
(Read On)
--------------------------------------------

Cicerone,

Did you read what I wrote to Eorl above about the sanctity of human life. It sounds to me like you believe the sole purpose of the prolife advocate is to see that every fertilized egg (or unfertilized egg for that matter) must be born. Yes in a sense they do believe that, but sanctity of human life is much more, it has a lot to do with the underlying value we place on it. This is a very subtle difference with a very big impact.

I once read a story about a famous actor who went to Africa to help Albert Schweitzer. When he arrived he noticed that the nurses and medical aides were catching flies that were trapped inside the netting of the tents and then releasing the flies outside the tent where they could fly away free. They had been instructed by the good doctor to do this. The actor thought, my, this great man is such a lover of life that even the flies are treated with great care. Albert Schwietzer didn't necessarily feel that the world needed a lot more live flies. What it needed was a lot more love. This was an exercise he used to help teach his aides and helpers his philosophy of reverence for life. When he first set up his clinic a badly injured man was brought in. When he asked one of the natives who served as his aide to help take care of the man the aide would not because the man was not from his tribe. It deeply saddened Dr. Schwietzer that this severly injured man would be left for dead by his aide who would not stoop to help him because he was not from their tribe. Dr. Schwietzer then set out to teach about reverance for life by having his aides learn to treat all living things with great care.

I read something just the other day about tribalism in a book called The Practice of Kindness, by the editors of Random Acts of Kindness. In the book it states socialogist Pitarim Sorokin, who founded the Intitute for Creative Altuism at Harvard identitfied five obstacles to love. They were fear, stress, limitations, self-devaluation and tribal altruism. The book says, not surprising, they are also obstacles to kindness.
The last obstacle to love and kindness, tribal altruism -by which they mean the sense that the small group is more important than the whole, was said to be the most complex. Tribal altruism is the driving force behind racial conflict, religious intolerance, and war. It is also the dangerous halfway house we can become stuck in when practicing kindness.
The book said when we first overcome our fear, stress, sense of limitation, and self-devaluation to extend kindness to others, we often start with what is near us- our family, our "tribe", our religious group, our local community, our nation. But if we stop there, we risk the danger of perpetuating greater harm to the whole of humanity in the name of love for our smaller group. It is only when we can move beyond all five obstacles, when we can see every man, woman, and child as a precious and indespensible part of humanity, that we bring the practice of kindness to its fruition.

Hello aurorell,

That's is a very long post you left, so it is hard to reply to everything you said in one setting.

Making the rights of a embryo equivilent to that of a adult human doesn't increase the rights of the unborn and much as it lowers the rights of the born.

Abortion should not be for population control, I don't support that idea. However, forcing a person to bring an unwanted pregnacy to term is without rationale. To make such a mandate means nothing in a world where we can't provide the people in it now the quality of life they need.

Hello aurorell,

That's is a very long post you left, so it is hard to reply to everything you said in one setting.

Making the rights of a embryo equivilent to that of a adult human doesn't increase the rights of the unborn and much as it lowers the rights of the born.

Abortion should not be for population control, I don't support that idea. However, forcing a person to bring an unwanted pregnacy to term is without rationale. To make such a mandate means nothing in a world where we can't provide the people in it now the quality of life they need.

I never meant to imply that abortion be used for "population control." That is not the issue; the issue is that only the mother and her doctor should be the one responsible to deterime whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

The only problem with pro-lifers is their determination to affect law to give the fetus legal rights over the mother, but does absolutely nothing to help with all the babies in this world that needs food, shelter, and medical care. If they are indeed concerned about "life," they surely don't show it. They only wish to impose their personal religious' belief on others they don't even know. Hypocrisy is more like it.

Is that clear?

Diest, thanks for an excellent formulation:

"Making the rights of an embryo equivalent to that of an adult human doesn't increase the rights of the unborn as much as it lowers the rights of the born."

It would make a great signature line.

Abortion is certainly performed without the informed consent of one person, the unborn. Nobody has asked his/her permission to end his/her life, have they?

This is important unless you have medical evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being.

Also, abortion is performed without the truly informed consent of the mother. Mothers are NOT shown ultrasound of their babies, nor given the information when the heart is beating (before the end of the first month), etc, are they? They are not informed by the abortionist that the unborn is genetically unique, with DNA that does not match their own, are they?

No, they are told that the unborn is 'just a piece of undifferentiated tissue' or 'a part of their body' or 'a few cells'.

The abortionist hides this information, and tells these lies to fatten his bottom line.

Is that your idea of 'informed consent'? Would you support mandatory ultrasound disclosure, heartbeat information, genetic information, etc by abortionists to the mother?

Something is not alive until it is aware of its own existence; so stands my beliefs. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to simply lay down and die, never to harm a living thing?

I believe that no one has any "rights". Well, that's not entirely true. You are born with one right: The right to choose- although often your choice is between doing one thing or dying. Cling to that right, it is the only one you have!

Why? Because people are born in all walks of life, in all different countries, into all sorts of different families. Many of them have very little or no rights- save for the right that they always have. Anyone can run away or start a rebellion if the want to- but they aren't guaranteed victory. You can never claim something is your '"right" simply because you want it to be. You must choose to do or acquire it, but it can never be handed to you on a silver platter.

So how does this relate? If something cannot choose (and hence is not aware of itself), then it has lost its only right and it is not alive.

So unless the baby can choose not to be aborted, then it is under complete control of its mother, just as though it were property. Is it morally wrong to destroy something that has the potential to become alive someday? Perhaps. If you had a rock, and a genie told you to hold on to it for it is actually a man who was cursed; and in a year it will turn back into a man, is it alive? No. If you drop it in the ocean, should you be tried for murder?

So, if you are in a coma (i.e. unaware) and unable to choose, are you no longer a human being?

What about mentally retarded people? How aware are they? What degree of 'awareness' EXACTLY is necessary for them to be 'living human beings' in your view?

What about catatonics?

Exactly. Just look at the Terry Shaivo (ug, spelling?) case.



If they are aware of themselves, then they are alive. As long as they understand that they are alive, then they are.

If you think you are alive, you are. If you don't, you aren't.

Foley, I am most alive and happy when I am not self-conscious. But I'll expand on that on Wednesday. I've got to go to a funeral out of state.

So, what of people who have come out of coma after years or decades? Were they not human beings during that time?



What degree of 'self awareness' is required to define a mentally retarded person as a living human being?

Are you ready to begin extermination of the mentally retarded who fail the standard?

What of newborns? Do they 'understand' that they are alive? Do they 'think' they are alive? If not, then they aren't?

Interesting you should put it that way. I eagerly await your fleshed out idea.

Before I go any farther, I'd like to clarify my use of the word 'alive' in this context. By 'alive', I mean spiritually and intellectually. Things can be alive and not be 'alive' by my standards: ie Bacteria do not qualify- sorry.


Being human doesn't mean you're "alive". No. They had no rights during that time. If someone allowed them to 'live', then that was someone else's choice. If they didn't, then there is nothing wrong.


98% of retarded people will meet the standard, I assure you. All they have to do is exhibit that they want something or do not want something and viola- you have proved that you can choose, and hence you are alive. If you are a reptile, though- they have no cerebrum. They do not think, they react. They do not qualify, because they run on instincts.



Will they show that they want something? Will they show that they don't want something? If either answer is yes, then my answer is yes too. And if not, then they have no rights, and they are at the mother and father's mercy until they are capable of deciding something. Of course, it would not only be hated by society to kill a newborn with 'no rights', it would be completely foolish.

Sorry for being so anti-Society's Standards.

So people in a coma have no rights, eh? This is because they cannot respond and indicate that they want or don't want something?

OK, so HOW LONG must one be unable to indicate one's desires before losing one's rights?

Do you lose your rights when you are asleep and unaware, i.e. unable to indicate you want or don't want something?

If a woman is raped while she sleeps (or unconscious due to alcohol or drugs), is it ok because she was unable to indicate whether she wanted it, and thus had no rights during that time?

Is it ok to kill one's enemy after knocking him unconscious because he's no longer human , i.e. he can't make a choice to defend himself or indicate he wants to live?

cicerone said:
I never meant to imply that abortion be used for "population control." That is not the issue; the issue is that only the mother and her doctor should be the one responsible to deterime whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

The only problem with pro-lifers is their determination to affect law to give the fetus legal rights over the mother, but does absolutely nothing to help with all the babies in this world that needs food, shelter, and medical care. If they are indeed concerned about "life," they surely don't show it. They only wish to impose their personal religious' belief on others they don't even know. Hypocrisy is more like it.

Is that clear?
Not quite. Are you saying that killing is the only way to solve these problems? How about education?
I don't know if I necessarily believe the fetus should have legal rights over the mother, like I said, I have a hard time arguing against cases where compassion is stressed.
Do you understand what I mean when I say it feels as though we are thowing the baby out with the bath water?
You may believe that supporting choice isn't the same as supporting population control, but legalized killing can have some very subtle consequences.

A kind of gender genocide that is happening in India and China has been previously discussed in these forums . Because males are more "valued" than females, there is a very disproportionate number of abortions for males than females. I was reading in the newspaper where China is now offering incentives for the people to have female offspring because their one family one child policy is resulting in those "one" children largely being male.

My newspaper ran an article the other day about a young mother who was sitting in the park with her child. A young woman passed by and the mother overheard her remark to other people in the area, "Isn't it a shame that everyone doesn't get amnio."

Later she would recall that woman's remarks when she read how the American College of Obstetritions and Gynecologists recommend that all pregnant women get prenatal screening for Down syndrome. "I worry," she said, "that universal screening brings us all closer to being like that woman...uninformed, judgmental and unable to entertain the fact that people with disabilities have something to offer."

"What's gone undiscussed in the news coverage of the guidelines seems to be a general assumption that reasonable people would want to screen for Down syndrome. And since nothing can be done to mitigate the effects of an extra 21st chromosome in utero, the further assumption is that people would be reasonable to terminate pregnancies that are so diagnosed."

There is an estimated 85% to 90% termination rate among prenatally diagnosed cases of Down syndrome. With universal screening the number of terminations will rise.

The mother of the Down syndrome child goes on to say that she believes there is a fundamental societal misperception that the lives of people with intellectual disablilities have no value- that less able somehow equates to less worthy. Like the young woman in the park, we're assigning one trait more impotance than all the others and making critical decisions based on that judgment. In so doing...we're embarking on the elimination of an entire class of people who have a history of oppression, discrimination and exclusion.
The negative stigma associated with this illness was formed when institutionalization was routine. "In fact this wave of terminations and recommendations comes as people with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities are better educated and leading longer, healthier and more productive lives."

Her hope is that calls for universal prenatal screening will be joined by equally strong calls for providing comprehensive information to prospective parents, not just about the tests, but also about the rich and rewarding lives that are possible with disabilities. (See she is not trying to impose her personal beliefs on women with Down syndrome- she just wants to let them know there is a prolife stance.) "If physicians and genetics professors are willing to learn from people with disabilities and their families they can disseminate the nuanced, compassionate message at the core of diversity and human rights: All people have value and dignity and are worthy of celebration."

Remember too that Margaret Sanger's stated purpose for birth control was to keep down the number of undesirables, the poor, the sick, etc.

Here are a few more things to ponder from my newspaper's editorials.
For 2,400 years physicians took oaths rejecting abortion and euthansia. The Hippocratic Oath was written about 44 B.C. Hippocratic principals are also expressed in the third-to -seventh century Path of Asph the physician. The World Medical Assoc. (Geneva 1948) restated the Hippocratic Oath against abortion and euthanasia defined as crimes against humanity. The oath was dropped after Roe vs Wade.
Germany was propbably the first country to legalize euthanasia. before the Holocaust exploded 275,000 acutely and chronically ill and disabled Germans were killed. In 1949, Dr. Lee Alexander M.D. chief U.S. medical consultant at the Nuremburg War Crimes trials, wrote a report on the process by which the german medical profession became a willing collaborator with the nazis, and "from small beginnings" a society was perverted. It led to the horrors of concentration camps and the Holocaust.
Dr. Alexander also stated he was very concerned about American society and especially the medical profession. He claimed it was already infected with Hegel's philosophy of "rational utility" (What is usefeul is good). It replaced traditional religious morality.
Dr. Alexander shortly before his death in 1984 commented on the American situation, "it is much like Germany in the 20's and 30's. The barries against killing are being removed." (Joseph Stanton M.D., Human Life Review, Fall.1981)

Not quite. Are you saying that killing is the only way to solve these problems? How about education? Did I say anything about not providing education?

I don't know if I necessarily believe the fetus should have legal rights over the mother, like I said, I have a hard time arguing against cases where compassion is stressed. What compassion?


Do you understand what I mean when I say it feels as though we are thowing the baby out with the bath water? When did I ever imply this?


You may believe that supporting choice isn't the same as supporting population control, but legalized killing can have some very subtle consequences. You call it "legalized killing." Where in the laws in Roe vs Wade does it approve killing?



A kind of gender genocide that is happening in India and China has been previously discussed in these forums . Because males are more "valued" than females, there is a very disproportionate number of abortions for males than females. I was reading in the newspaper where China is now offering incentives for the people to have female offspring because their one family one child policy is resulting in those "one" children largely being male. True. What's your point?

My newspaper ran an article the other day about a young mother who was sitting in the park with her child. A young woman passed by and the mother overheard her remark to other people in the area, "Isn't it a shame that everyone doesn't get amnio." Again, what's your point?

Later she would recall that woman's remarks when she read how the American College of Obstetritions and Gynecologists recommend that all pregnant women get prenatal screening for Down syndrome. "I worry," she said, "that universal screening brings us all closer to being like that woman...uninformed, judgmental and unable to entertain the fact that people with disabilities have something to offer." Again, what's your point?

"What's gone undiscussed in the news coverage of the guidelines seems to be a general assumption that reasonable people would want to screen for Down syndrome. And since nothing can be done to mitigate the effects of an extra 21st chromosome in utero, the further assumption is that people would be reasonable to terminate pregnancies that are so diagnosed." So, who's making that choice? You?

There is an estimated 85% to 90% termination rate among prenatally diagnosed cases of Down syndrome. With universal screening the number of terminations will rise. What's your problem?

The mother of the Down syndrome child goes on to say that she believes there is a fundamental societal misperception that the lives of people with intellectual disablilities have no value- that less able somehow equates to less worthy. Like the young woman in the park, we're assigning one trait more impotance than all the others and making critical decisions based on that judgment. In so doing...we're embarking on the elimination of an entire class of people who have a history of oppression, discrimination and exclusion. Here again, what's your point?

The negative stigma associated with this illness was formed when institutionalization was routine. "In fact this wave of terminations and recommendations comes as people with Down syndrome and other intellectual disabilities are better educated and leading longer, healthier and more productive lives." This is true. I worked for two nonprofit organizations that provides services to the developmentally disabled. But my question to you is, why are you so concerned about what another woman does?

Her hope is that calls for universal prenatal screening will be joined by equally strong calls for providing comprehensive information to prospective parents, not just about the tests, but also about the rich and rewarding lives that are possible with disabilities. (See she is not trying to impose her personal beliefs on women with Down syndrome- she just wants to let them know there is a prolife stance.) "If physicians and genetics professors are willing to learn from people with disabilities and their families they can disseminate the nuanced, compassionate message at the core of diversity and human rights: All people have value and dignity and are worthy of celebration." I agree, but what makes you think this information is lacking?

Remember too that Margaret Sanger's stated purpose for birth control was to keep down the number of undesirables, the poor, the sick, etc. That's not my position. What's your point?


Here are a few more things to ponder from my newspaper's editorials.
For 2,400 years physicians took oaths rejecting abortion and euthansia. The Hippocratic Oath was written about 44 B.C. Hippocratic principals are also expressed in the third-to -seventh century Path of Asph the physician. The World Medical Assoc. (Geneva 1948) restated the Hippocratic Oath against abortion and euthanasia defined as crimes against humanity. The oath was dropped after Roe vs Wade.
Germany was propbably the first country to legalize euthanasia. before the Holocaust exploded 275,000 acutely and chronically ill and disabled Germans were killed. In 1949, Dr. Lee Alexander M.D. chief U.S. medical consultant at the Nuremburg War Crimes trials, wrote a report on the process by which the german medical profession became a willing collaborator with the nazis, and "from small beginnings" a society was perverted. It led to the horrors of concentration camps and the Holocaust. Roe vs Wade has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Dr. Alexander also stated he was very concerned about American society and especially the medical profession. He claimed it was already infected with Hegel's philosophy of "rational utility" (What is usefeul is good). It replaced traditional religious morality.
Dr. Alexander shortly before his death in 1984 commented on the American situation, "it is much like Germany in the 20's and 30's. The barries against killing are being removed." (Joseph Stanton M.D., Human Life Review, Fall.1981) Dr Alexander misses the big picture. We are more concerned today with the misuse of our military superpower status by attacking a sovereign country that has killed by some estimates about 100,000 innocent Iraqis, and has precipitated the growth of terrorism around the world. That some are more concerned about the legal status of the zygote is not logical when there are so many children in this world who are starving.

That is my philosophy.


Instantly.


If I hit you when you are asleep, won't you wake up and respond to it?


They cannot choose, therefore, they have no rights. That is my philosophy. That doesn't mean I don't have morals beyond that- I believe it would be morally wrong to do those things, but that doesn't really relate to what I was talking about before, because those I simply have morals beyond philosophy. Also, I have no right to knock out my enemy in the first place.

One problem here is that we view death in very, very different ways. I truly believe that Brahman is everything, the universe, perfect, and everything is in harmony. That said, death is no different than life- for if nothing ever died, then there would only be life- and hence, life wouldn't be special- the term wouldn't even exist. I believe in reincarnation and the harmony of the universe.

You, on the other hand, view death as the ultimate end before being judged. That might throw our philosophies in different directions, huh?

Before the conversation decays anymore...

I'd like to encourage people to stop comparring sleep to a coma. The level of brain activity present in a sleeping person is gross in comparassion to a person in a coma.

Next...

The comparisson of euthanasia for the comatose to abortion is to much of a stretch. If by the comparisson the prolife platform wishes to combat the prochoice's stance that life rights begin at cognation and therefore it must be inferred that they would end at the absense of cognation is false.

The morality and legality of this issue can't be so easily alligned with such a simple comparasson.

One thing can be alligned to the general public: It's a priate concern, one that the government doesn't need to intrude upon.

There is a significant moral separation between an early pregnacy abortion and a coma patient being taken off life support. Why have one piecfe of legislation to affect both? The laws that govern our medicines are separate from the laws that govern other substance consumption. To each issue, let it be treated as a separate issue.

For or against abortion, a CHOICE is made. I'm far more comfortable with the mother/couple making the choice as opposed to the state.

Take for instance the situation where a government imposes a law on how many children you can have (such as China). In that situation, Prochoice would mean something altogether different. Pro-choice would define the movement that recognized the mother/couples right to choose how they design their family.

Why should the choice go to the state? If your answer is no better than you think that they will make the same decision as you, then ask yourself if you'd still be in favor of the idea of giving that power if the government wasn't in your favor. Make no mistake, that's what the pro-choice agenda would have. It's dangerous.

So all that is required for me to lose my rights is to be 'unaware', eh?

If I am asleep, I am open season. You replied that surely I would respond when I awake, and that is true.........if I awake.

You are at least candid when you state that your view means that nobody has any 'rights'. The entire pro-abortion community shares that essential similarity, but not your honesty.