POLL: Roberts and Roe v. Wade: The beginning of the End

Remove all ads!

Even a lawyer nominated for a Supreme Court position?! Who is supposed to have impeccable conservative credentials?!

The conservative's biggest fear has to be that Roberts will prove another 'turncoat'; that is, he will be more liberal than expected. Given this, I wonder if Bush was aware of this work before the nomination.

And it was no run of the mill case, either. If I understand correctly, it was one of the most important cases dealing with gay rights of the nineties. And it was argued (and won) in the Supreme Court. And nobdy made Roberts work on this case. He could have just walked away.

I agree, this might not mean much after all. There are a lot of other indications that he is plenty conservative. One can only hope ...

 

Quite the opposite. It is considered the murder of an innocent which is one of the gravest of sins. God is denying these spirits nothing, it is the selfishness of a woman who can't be bothered to carry the child to birth that is denying them the opportunity to come to earth.

God is not puniching the unborn child for anything. Those that abort a child are the ones punishing the child for no sin but their own. That is what makes no sense. And in such a case, yes, such intervention would be noticed. A pregnancy aborted is suddenly carried to term...

Religion talks sin, but they also point out that life begins at conception, and need to argue that point. The only people that would be offended are those that want to sin but find they can't because religion has spoken louder then they did and the government has outlawed the practice...

Those two need not be mutually exclusive. If they argue that life begins at conception, then they could argue as I have, that the right to life can and must be extended to those that are not yet born, then they are arguing for what they, and their supporters, believe to be the best possible course of action.

Make up your mind. Is "Sanctity of life" part of religion or is it not. You can't argue it both ways when one side suits you...

And you still refuse to say anything about the right to life for an unborn child. If the stance is taken that life begins at conception, and that it is illegal to deprive the child of that right,that makes it the governments mandate to stick their nose in.

Do you just look through my posts for the stuff that you can mock and ridicule? If that's the case, then I strongly urge you to get a life. I have tried to argue all along that aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the same as murdering an unwanted person. That is the grounds. If we don't have the right to speak up in those circumstances, then we shouldn't bitch when people get murdered either.

I am defering to them on that matter. They are (according to my religion) The Lord's representatives on this earth. My position is to defer to them in those cases. I would still be uncomfortable discussing that matter with the victim of rape or incest, and consider myself fortunate that I am not a bishop or other authority who would have to deal with that...

As I have said before, Emotive responses cannot be separated from these issues. You, like many others, refuse to look at my logic here, then criticize me for being overly emotional. I am asking that you look at the rights of the innocent rather than the selfish...

And if they decide that the previous judge was wrong, then they will change the ruling.

I even tried to go to Science to defend my position. Remember? When the egg is fertilized, the DNA of the fetrilized Egg is different than the DNA of the Mother, making it a distinct being from the mother. As the cells divide, that means that it is alive. That's not from the Bible, but is science. This means thta the child in the womb is alive. Why shouldn't it have the right to live?

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you are deliberately trying to seem stupid just to be 'right'. Perhaps I should outline my questions a little more thoroughly so you don't have a chance to conveniently 'misunderstand':

1. Why is the soul in the child's body in the first place? Surely God (being omniscient) knows that the child is going to be aborted, and such action (according to you) would result in the certain death of said soul. So why would He/She send that soul to certain death?

2. Why wouldn't God rescue the soul out of a child that was about to be aborted? It would be well within the realm of His/Her power to do so; God put it in, God can take it back out. And since we have no way of tracking what happens or does not happen to a soul (hence religion not being a science), we would have no idea what happened.

 

@BTA:
Who's calling names? On the contrary, it takes a considerable amount of skill to convincingly play dumb. I myself can't even manage it for a whole minute. To be honest, I have to admit that I'm a little jealous of people who can suppress their intellect whenever it suits them. (Hmm, that sounds a bit sarcastic. I assure you I don't mean it to sound that way. I am quite serious; I wish I had that level of control over my mind. I can think of several occasions in which it would have come in very handy. )

And while the debate may fall within the bounds of "free will vs. God's omnipotence", that's a very large topic which encompasses a lot of situations, and I'm only debating one, maybe two (relating to the topic at hand). I have no intention of bringing up any others, and simply wish to have my questions considered and (hopefully) answered.

I'm sorry if this post (or my previous one) seem hostile, as that is not my intent. I'm just trying to be as clear as I can about what I am saying, because I'm not very good at explaining myself with words on a page.

 

Because it's not a child. Sure, if it were a child, it would have that right.

Unfortunately, it's not; it's a microscopic collection of cells. Why should it have the right to live?

If it's microscopic, it doesn't have rights--and shouldn't have rights.

 

I'm not playing dumb, I just see things as specifically black and white on this issue. Some of the things that you call stupid are illustrations of the way I look at the pro-choice side. Basically, legal abortion is a liscence to murder.

First off, The soul is linked to the body at conception. Second, I am refering to physical death, the separation of spirit from body. Basically, the child goes straight to the afterlife without the experiences of this life. Third, it is God's will that the child have the opportunity to live a life. Denying the child that is imposing your own will over that of God. While we are free to do that, we must answer to the consequences for that as well.

Think of a long line at a roller coaster on a day when you only have time to ride that roller coaster once. We here have waited our turn, boarded the ride and are in the process of that ride. At the time of our death, we basically get off the roller coaster and move on to the rest of the itinerary. An aborted child is refused the right to board the coaster as it's time to load the ride, and thus has to move on without riding the ride. They still move on, but they are missing the experience of the this life. There's no wait for the next car here...

I'll apologize because I don't think I'm entirely innocent in this either. It takes two to tango...

Exactly. Basically the way I see it, God has a plan, it's up to us to choose to participate. In this case, the Lord sends the spirit to inhabit the body, but the actions of others can derail that plan...

I was unaware that I was sounding dumb. I just see my side clearly, and am trying to defend it against people that think it's preposterous.

But the DNA shows that it is Human? Doesn't that count for something?

Does size really matter? It is Human, Human Life is sacred in American Society. From the smallest of children to the largest of adults, these lives are precious. Why should an unborn child be considered differently? These same rights have been extended to woman and people of colour, why not those that have yet to be born?

And Why is that? If all men are created equal, then why is one that is created but not yet born less worthy to live than one that's been born? Just because it doesn't scream for food, affection and assistance with Hygenic concerns, doesn't mean it's not deserving of the opportunity to live...

 

@Gnarfflinger:
While I admit the long posts on a subject like this make it hard to read every word in a post without taking an inordinate amount of time, you might want to read a little more closely anything that offends you at first. For example, 'seems stupid' and 'play dumb'. I've argued with you on too many subjects to have a low opinion of you. In fact, I find (most of) your arguments to be very well thought out; I wouldn't bother arguing with you otherwise.

If it seemed like I was attacking you, it's just that I've gotten so sick of normally very intelligent people suddenly shutting down about halfway through a serious discussion. They begin answering questions that they have answers to, rather than the ones I asked. I can see by your post above, however, that I was wrong to wonder if that was what you were doing, and I apologize.

Now, back on topic:

The second and third points I understand and agree with, but it's the 'first off' that I'm questioning. Why was it linked at conception if God knew the child would be aborted? Wouldn't He/She just wait and link that soul to the next one that wasn't going to be aborted? To use your rollercoaster analogy somewhat differently, would you put the child in an unsafe car, or would you just stick him in the next one?
Or, is each soul linked to a specific car, and if his is wrecked, he simply can't go in another car? If that's what you're trying to say, then why would God put such restrictions on birth that would only hurt some souls' chances of getting to go? Why not allow them to go in whatever car is available? (Note to self: car = child's potential body)

 

WARNING: Long post ahead.

Gnarf,

Here's my problem: your reliance on absolutist principles is anathema to my position of considered examination. You are starting from an exceptionally limited perspective: your starting point seems to be set in stone, with no flexibility. You may see my view as unsavoury, as coldly scientific, as wavering or overly flexible, but you are rejecting it based solely on your religious convictions and your stance on the right to existence. That's fine; I doubt we will ever agree and am happy to leave it at that.

I consider it my duty to argue the point with you (and I'm sure you feel likewise) because, while I can see where you're coming from, I also feel that it is inequitable and that it has the potential to punish any woman for a mistake. I am not writing you off on principle; this is a difficult issue and anyone who sees it as simple is refusing to consider everything that is relevant to the matter.

If it was that easy, we wouldn't be arguing.

Which brings us full circle: we do not live in a theocratic state, and I daresay that most Westerners would not want to. If people are willing to forsake all freedoms not specifically provided for in the Bible or other appropriate religious texts, then I don't really have a leg to stand on. The "love it or leave it" sentiment doesn't help, since it corrodes the ability to argue about the sort of place you'd like to live in without being branded "anti-American", which seemed to be the flavour-of-the-month anti-liberal slur for a while there, at least.

However, I doubt that most would want to live in such a society (how much influence and temporal authority would religious leaders have in such a setting?) and as has been said before, democracy is not a matter of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. What you believe is right for you in not something you should be able to impose on anybody without their agreement or to protect people.

I can guess exactly what your reaction to that last point is; it has formed the basis of your argument. What I have arguing is that, irrespective of said point, there is a heck of a lot more going on than just the sins of the mother or the murder of an innocent child, as you seem to believe.

In short - this thread is about freedoms and liberties. You have taken the stance that it is about the rights of the conceived to exist and be brought into the world. I have taken the position that it is about the need to protect basic rights, even if you do not 100% agree with them, because the path that is being taken is creating a "false contest" between women's rights to self-determination and the rights of the unborn.

Both positions have serious consequences, Gnarf. I believe that the impact of my position is not outweighed by the results, unfortunate and undesirable though they are. I'm not pro-foetus-killing; if it comes down to it, though, I am in favour of protecting the fully-developed human life above the not-yet-viable foetus.

Inevitably, there will be some who will abuse that entitlement; I accept that. While I think it is deplorable, and that measures should be taken to prevent this from happening (of which, somewhat ironically, religion is often one), I would rather that happen than deny that right or entitlement entirely based on my personal beliefs. I don't agree with much of what some people say or do, but I have no right to prevent them from doing it unless it affects others directly. I can argue with them, cajole them, persuade them, but I cannot and will not coerce them into doing things "my way". That millions of people believe "my way" is right is not reason enough to strip freedoms from some members of society without threat to others.

Actually, I can. It is precisely that issue which I see as a problem, since it is so amorphous and neither secular thought nor religion can claim that principle as "theirs". I don't believe this is as black and white as you'd like it to be, Gnarf. A completely irreligious person can put the same value on human life as the most pious; it is only their reasoning that may differ.

Speaking for myself: I don't extend it back to a clump of cells in a woman's uterus because I don't recognise it as a human life. Until it is capable of surviving outside of that environment, I don't see it as a human life. It's the same view that allows me to see irreparable PVS patients as not being truly alive (although I won't go into the method by which they are brought to death, as I have serious problems with that and it's somewhat off-topic).

As medical technologies advance, we will have a greater responsibility to foetuses in earlier stages of development, I'll grant you that without hesitation.

And you're entitled to that opinion; I'm merely pointing out that you're taking a position to an absurd extreme to argue your case. You see aborting an unwanted pregnancy as being the same as murdering someone, based on a belief that a foetus has a right to exist at conception. I do not share that view, and see a number of potential flaws in that argument (the examples of rape and physical health of the mother being a couple). That leaves aside the qualitative aspects of "murder" as an act, which I can seldom see applying here.

Based on that, I cannot find my way to an absolutist position which does not constrain the freedoms of another, who may not have committed a sin as defined by a religion, and who must bear the burden of the law as a result. I am also enough of a realist to know that it will continue anyway, even if illegal, and that I would much rather a process be legal and discouraged through various methods (from education to contraception) than illegal, prone to orchestration by organised criminal groups, and more dangerous and traumatic. That's leaving aside the assumption that such laws can be enforced (forget having any female staff, police or prosecutors involved; forget about civil liberties or any notion of privacy as well).

You always have the right to speak up, I'm not trying to silence you. I find a great deal more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in silent agreement. I'm simply saying that I don't see your line of argument as wholly consistent, nor justifiable when applied to all of society. That such a decision as you would seek would be unfair, inequitable and (for me, at least, and I assume many others as well) morally and constitutionally indefensible if there was an attempt to entrench it within law.

 

It's not always a case of offence, but somethings to be rebutted, others to be questioned, and yet others that simply provoke some form of reaction. I'm not sure that provoke is the right word there, but it's the best I can come up with...

I don't see it as shutting down, but in going back to the basics to make sure that my position is most in line with what I believe. That's why it seems like a broken record at times.

Sometimes I try to answer what you ask by looking at the answers I have. I guess it doesn't always fit...

I don't know how much God can predict of the use of our free will. I am not sure that God knows all the decisions I will make during my life. He does know the decisions I have in front of me at this moment however. The decisions are mine to make. He has ways of making his will known, and guiding me to the best decision, but the decision is left with me. As for the future, I believe that the Lord sees generalities, but not all the details. I don't suspect that the Lord could have shown me sitting here at my computer to John or Isaiah, but they did see the last days...

God gives them that chance, but the person letting them on the ride is refusing them in the case of an abortion. Basically, God has started building their body in the womb, but if the mother aborts this process, she is the one denying the spirit that body, not God.

You're right, I recognize your right to an opinion too, even though I disagree with it.

That's where differences in perception play into this. I've always been taught that parenthood was a duty and priveledge, not a punishment. It is, often, quite intimidating, but it is imperative to the continuance of life and the family. Therefore, when a woman becomes impregnated, she is entitled to whatever support her family, friends and community can muster to aid her in this sacred duty. Whether it's help around the home or emotional support, she has the right to this, and it becomes the duty of those around her to help however they can.

I believe that there is a difference between theocracy and a democracy where the majority of the people are religious. In the latter, Religion doesn't have the overt authority as the former, but it does have power over the hearts of the voters. If enough of the voters don't want something that contradicts religion, then they will vote for opponents of this thing that they don't want. That, I believe, is a major road block to some things being legalized...

So the disagreement here is that you elevate the born over the unborn, where as I elevate the right to life over the right of reproductive freedom...

I on the other hand, fight for the right to life for all, and see that some sacrifice is necessary from time to time to grant that right. If a person is unwilling to make that sacrifice, then they shouldn't place themselves in that position in the first place. Once in that position, then they are entitled to whatever support is available to get them through it however, and the ability to place the child for adoption is possible, so that shouldn't be an excuse for an abortion either...

The right to life of the unborn child is directly affected by this choice, therefore that's moral justification and even compulsion to agrue in favour of preventitive measures in this regard. Arguing, cajoling and presuasion are all part of the duty we have to help them through this time in their lives...

Again, as I have stated, the DNA says it's human and not part of the mother's body, and the fact that the cells are dividing and it's growing means that it is alive, therefore it is Human Life. This is one of the roadblocks in our position I guess...

If you mean Brain dead, then i regard them as dead already, and they should be allowed to die with dignity, rather than being kept alive despite no hope for them to get better...

The First Presidency of the Church I attend even tolerates abortions under the circumstances of rape, incest and jeopardy to the mother, therefore I wouldn't ban abortion under those circumstances.

If there is no fence to sit on, then don't try to sit on the fence. Under Christianity, any sexual relations (consent assumed) outside of legal and lawful marriage is a sin. Therefore the law would apply justly. The Burden however ought to be shared with all who would help them bear it to the extent that they can. While I can't actually go through the process of labour on the mother's behalf, I can help in other areas, like carrying things, meal preparation, house or yard work. In my religion, I also hold some priesthood myself, and as such can give blessings to the mother to help keep her sppirits up through the pregnancy. Following the teachings of Christ here (Matthew 25:40): Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Morally, it is the duty of those that would be Christians to help out...

I think that may be the ultimate result of the review of Roe v. Wade. While abortions will be available to those that insist, they will be viewed as a last resort. Make sure the mother takes time to weigh the decision carefully before making that decision...

I understand that all of society doesn't share my views, but I wish that abortion wasn't so readily available and so quickly. I think that it would be less frequent if there were people that could help make the alternatives known and help the women in these positions to make the best choice...

But wouldn't some view it as the next logical step in Chandos the Red's progression of rights?

 

Really? That the unborn are citizens? Geez, that can get complicated. Especially since then, if a woman had a miscarriage, she'd have to go through all the legal requirements as required when someone dies. And don't even get me started on what happens in the case of twins and the like. What about income tax returns then? If my wife become pregnant in one year, and then gives birth the following year (and given the normal term of pregnancy this is common) should I be able to claim as a dependent a child that has not yet been born? What about insurance? Do I have to get a separate health plan for the fetus? After all, my wife wouldn't even have to see the doctor if she didn't have another citizen living inside of her.

quote:
------------------------------------------------
I think at the very least, if you argue that the unborn are citizens on equal level with everyone else, then we have to make other accomodations - they should be counted in the population and get representation in Congress.
------------------------------------------------

What do you mean by this? I agree that I wasn't allowed to vote until I was 18 years of age, but I will also argue that I had representation in Congress long before that. Once every 10 years, during the U.S. Census, the population of every state in the union is determined, and based on that total, a state is given a number of seats in Congress proportional to it's population. However, the count is not limited to people who are registered voters. They count everyone, including those not old enough to vote. What I'm saying is in addition to all of the other things I listed above, if the unborn are citizens, then they deserve Congressional representation, just like everyone else regardless of the fact that they are incapable of voting. Based on your logic, anyone who is incapable of voting deserves no representation.

Lastly, I do not think that you can rely on a unique generic code (i.e., DNA) as an argument for why the fetus is alive for two principle reasons:

1. DNA is a set of instructions that make us who we are but do not grant life in an of itself. It is true that every cell of a human body contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, but the only thing that this proves is that the fetus is human. This means that the fetus cannot, for example, develop into a cat, dog, zebra, or any of the other multitude forms of life on this planet. My dog has a unique form of DNA too, making it different not just from you and me, but from all other dogs on the planet as well. By your reasoning then, the dog should be a citizen too and be granted all rights just like the unborn fetus.

2. What about identical twins? Unlike most people, who have a unique set of genetic instructions, identical twins have, as the name suggests, identical sets of DNA. By your logic, these people are not distinct, and thus should be counted as one person, not two.

 

My thoughts entirely. The mothers life, body and all contained within is her own until such time as the fetus is viable on it's own. Current abortion time limits are actually set well before this point is reached, which is something I can accept.

Ah yes, the adoption question. In Britain at the moment, there are over 66,000 children at any one time being looked after by local authorities, including foster care. Of these, about half are returned to their families.
It is estimated that there are 5,000 children in the UK awaiting adoption. (I haven't worked out what happens to the 28,000. Presumably some stay as fosterlings)

Source: http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/firstq/thinking.pdf

So we seem to already have more children waiting for adoption than can be adopted, and this in a country where they can be adopted by single people - even those in same-sex relationships. (So you can be adopted by a Gay man, living with another Gay man, but only one will be your guardian, what a nonsence.)

So someone please enlighten me, Who is it that is being proposed to adopt the 185,000 that are aborted each year in the UK, nevermind the thousands more who would be conceived if birth control measures were outlawed?

Oh, I know...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/96875.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1236641.stm

[ August 08, 2005, 17:11: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

So now you're questioning God's omniscience as well as his omnipotence. Congratulations! You are the first really religious person I've ever met who will admit that he doesn't know all the answers. And that answers my questions quite adequately. Thank you.

Just a little clarification, though. Does 'the person letting them on the ride' refer to a mortal (like the mother), or some sort of seraphim on the Heavenly end?

 

Actually, I agree with this to an extent, but since giving the issue back to the states would take us back to square one, and it would not be that productive. Nevertheless, most would like to see a minimum federal standard applied to this issue. It was George II who spoke of "amending the Constitution" to make abortion illegal.

But let's not beat around the bush here then, and it may be better to bring the entire "Constitutional" argument out into the clear light of day. But first, I'm not sure what you are arguing here:

Are you saying that it's none of the government's business if people drive or not? or have the right to work? From a Jeffersonian viewpoint, that would be correct. Jefferson would say that it is probably none of the government's business if people wish to "pursue happiness" in their own manner, as long as it does no injury to others, or limits the freedom of others. BTW, the "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration, and thusly, considered by Jefferson a "natural right" and also by those who argeed to the document at that particular session of the Continental Congress - Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, etc.

Futhermore, Jefferson would agree that people are better off not being employed at all, but to be independent altogether. Jefferson thought Americans should be free yeomen, tending to their own livelihoods. Jefferson, IMO, would be appalled by the types of "coersion" used by the corporate infrastructure onto its dependents - its workers and their families. He would, without a doubt, detest our modern day workforce situation as "anti-republican" in principle. In fact, he constantly warned that we would become dependent on the "moneymen" and "greed mongers" and, in the process, sell out our true "republican principles." Please keep in mind that I do not wholly agree with this, but am only arguing this the way that, IMO, Jefferson would have, at least in my readings of Jefferson.

The anti-Federalists argued that the federal government could only act within those "powers specifically delegated" to it by the orginal document (since it had yet to be amended to any real extent at the time). It is known as "original intent" or "orginal meaning" regarding the Constitution. That was what the states had agreed to during the ratification process in 1788. Is this what you are arguing here? That would put you at odds with many of the original Framers of the Constitution, and such important Founders as Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.

Alexander Hamilton wanted to create a national bank. But there was only one problem - the Constitution gave the federal government no such power. So he crafted a fine argument based on one clause in the orginal document: The Necessary Powers Clause, or sometimes known as the "implied powers" clause. Article 1, section 8 reads:

Jefferson argued against its use in crafting a national bank. And the X Amendment (included in the Bill of Rights) would bear him some credence:

Hamilton, and Washington agreed with him, felt that the Necessary and Proper Clause should be viewed, in broad enough terms, to create The Bank of the United States. In the end Hamilton got his bank, and the Congress agreed that the clause gave the federal government broad powers to act outside those delegated to it by the Constitution. Since that time, the federal government has only increased its share of power, especially over that of states. But this makes sense because most people think of themselves as "Americans" first - not Texans, or "New Yorkers." Note: I qualified this with *most*. There will always be those who do not think this way, but will think of themselves as "Texans" first, before anything else.

Illuminating the issue in this light, leaves us with the clear notion that this issue could be decided by the states, since as you point out, there is no federal legislation regarding the issue, and the use of the X Amendment. On-the-other-hand, the courts established law in a vacuum without federal legislation, and partly on the Constitution itself:

So again, it depends on how one wishes to regard the Constitution, and cannot be based soley upon the tired and old "what the Framers intended" agrument. Nevertheless, it is now established law for the last thrity years, and viewed as rights (reproductive, or otherwise) held by women, and as a well-spring of personal liberty regarding personal choice, which is what the court argued in the first place back in 1973.

[ August 09, 2005, 04:14: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

But isn't there already something like that? In most cases, wouldn't there be some questions about how it happenned?

Can't you already claim expenses related to Pregnancy on your income tax return?

Couldn't you include a child on the way in these counts without much difficulty? But then again, you accuse me of being ridiculous when I want to defend the right to live, then I guess you have the right to be ridiculous in asking that other rights be addressed too. If it can't be done, then it can't be done, but the right to life is one that CAN be protected, and I don't think it's too much to ask that it be preserved...

I didn't say that, I just said that the DNA meant that it was human...

But I thought we were talking about Human rights, not rights of the animal kingdom in general...

But the point is that the child's DNA won't be identical to the Mother. Interesting that you never addressed the claim that the foetus is alive...

I disagree. The unborn child in the womb is another human, which deserves the right to life.

Most things have not been revealed yet. Hence all the answers will not be available until they are revealed. As for Omniscience, He knows all that currently occurs, but will not override our free will. He makes his will known, but doesn't override our freedom to ignore it or act contrary.

Yes, I refer to the mother of the child. She would be the one denying the child the right to life.

 

I knew you would, please answer my other question then. Who is to adopt the hundreds of thousands (in Britain alone) that get aborted each year. Will you? Will you make a vow not to have your own children but to adopt ones that would otherwise be aborted? Can you say the same for all the other anti-abortionists/religious folks? Provide a solution to the problem and you might find some more support.

 

Maybe the doctor would ask a question or two, but no - there is no formal legal requirement. A miscarriage isn't considered a death, it's considered a medical condition.

Maybe it's different in Canada, but the answer is clearly "no" in the U.S. You get a tax break starting the year your child is born, not the year your wife becomes pregnant. (I will acknowledge that it is possible for this to occur in the same year.) So, if you have a kid on Dec 31st 2005, you can claim the child on your 2005 tax return that you will file the folowing spring. If you child is born on Jan 1st 2006, you cannot claim the child until you file your return for 2006 (in spring of 2007).

Now you're misquoting me. I said that some people may find the idea of counting embroyos in a Census and giving them representation in Congress ridiculous - I never accused you of being ridiculous, or said that defending the right to life was ridiculous.

No, you claimed that because the DNA was distinct from the mother that this proved it was alive, and not just a bunch of cell growing in the mother's womb. It was me that said all the DNA proves is that it's human. The other stuff about dogs and identical twins was building off that same point. But there's no need to discuss that further, because you're right - I was being ridiculous (and deliberately sarcastic) at that point.

Conveniently, you again linked life to DNA in what you said next:

By placing these points side by side, it suggests that you feel they are linked, and I was only pointing out that they weren't. Verily, anything that is alive certainly possesses DNA, but not everything that possesses DNA is alive, nor is there anything about DNA that directly grants life.

Furthermore, I did address the life point. Maybe I didn't say, "the fetus is alive" but I said that the fetus is human based on it's DNA, which certainly implies that it is alive. You certainly can't say something is human if you don't think it's alive.

Here's the bottom line Gnarff. I am personally against abortion in all but the most extreme cases. I think that there is almost always a better option available than aborting the child. However, I realize that this is only my OPINION, and that there are many others in the country that do not share my opinion. The difference between you and me on this topic is not what are opinions are, but that I do think it is any government's job to legislate anyone's opinion.

EDIT: Oh, it just occurred to me the likely counterpoint - that government does in fact legislate people's opinions. For example, in most people's opinion murder is bad, theft is bad, etc., etc., etc. However, that's why I go back to the citizenship arguement. Most of those laws are legislated because of harm they do to other citizen(s). And embryos are not, by any definition citizens in any country I'm aware of. I think that's a valid point. It isn't enough to prove they are alive, because there are many things that are alive that don't get the same rights people do (animals, plants). Furthermore, it isn't enough to argue that they are human either, because there are many humans living in both the U.S. and Canada who are not citizens and thus, do not receive the right we do with our respective countries. That is why I say the issue is whether or not we make them citizens, but at the same time I acknowledge the can of worms this opens in terms of other issues. When life begins is open to debate. However when citizenship begins is at the moment of birth.

One more thing to clear up. While I am generally opposed to abortion I am not in agreement that life begins at conception. There are only a few extreme circumstances where I favor abortion, but I support the right of a woman to get an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy.

[ August 09, 2005, 16:32: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I've heard that there are some sticky rules on Adoption. Perhaps if the rules were more streamlined, that would reduce some of the stress on the system. Further, there should be options to help those that choose to keep the baby. The bottom line is that Abortion is murder, Adoption, though available, is being held up unnecessarily...

But isn't that medical expenses?

[quuote]Now you're misquoting me. I said that some people may find the idea of counting embroyos in a Census and giving them representation in Congress ridiculous - I never accused you of being ridiculous, or said that defending the right to life was ridiculous. [/quote]

Maybe others went there, all the opposing voices seem to run together from time to time...

Two separate points. First was the DNA being human and unique fromt he mother, second was cell growth. Added together, "human" + "life" means "human Life".

Could that recognition be the next step in a social progression? I think that this progression must happen...

That's why the decision in Roe v Wade won't be totally reversed--to many people sitting on the fence...

 

To add to that, Aldeth, I'd say that the majority of laws which exist in the majority of (if not all) states against murder, theft, assault, etc. exist as part of a shared sacrifice of personal freedoms to guarantee others. Essentially, you're willing to forego your "freedom" to engage in such practices, because that is the price of ensuring that the law censures and punishes anyone who does act in that way.

EDIT: Hey, I got through a post on this thread without arguing with Gnarf! Woo-hoo!

 

I take it that means no, you will not forego having your own children in favour of adopting.