response 25 of 116:

Aug 24 02:56 UTC 2003

Re #7: She was probably encouraged to make it this kind of issue by 
activists.

Re #23: That may be true, but many groups have openly admitted they're 
seeking laws like this as a way to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.

Re #24: Funny how conservatives love to argue for states rights in 
cases like this, but they ignore that argument when a state wants to 
legalize a controlled substance, or legalize assisted suicide.

response 27 of 116:

Aug 24 03:33 UTC 2003

Yes, but at least they aren't part of a party that claims to stand up 
for states' rights.

response 29 of 116:

Aug 24 03:43 UTC 2003

Rane's rule that "there is no social wrong in killing a fetus, as
permitted by national law." is a bit frightening.  By a similar rule, 
slavery was not socially wrong.  Hey, it was legal!

response 31 of 116:

Aug 24 05:26 UTC 2003

You know, this debate is such a dead horse beat much too often.  Or 
perhaps the debate vultures have yet a bone to pick?  Egads, to twist 
such trite phrases to make a point here...

response 33 of 116:

Aug 24 12:28 UTC 2003

re resp:32: Do all of the changes which have occurred in the nation's 
history come from societal maturity?

I'm more inclined to think of such things as centralization of wealth, 
or higher taxation accompanied by more laws and government actions, as 
being from national maturity.  The legalization of abortion is more in 
line with the trend toward greater insistence on personal rights, and 
less observation of personal responsibility.

In any regard, causing the death of a fetus against the wishes of it's 
parents is causing the parents a loss.  I don't see it ever being 
regarded as murder in our current society, but surely it wouldn't be 
too far out of line to regard it like causing the death of a pet.

response 35 of 116:

Aug 24 15:59 UTC 2003

In a fit of self-righteousness, sabre wrote:

>Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus" 
>is alive.

So's an ant.

>Show me a scripture where it is stated that life begins when the 
>first breath is taken.

It's in the very language.  For instance, the Greek word for "soul"
is pneuma.  This is also the word for "breath"; if there was a
difference you would have expected all the apostles and later
translators to have and use a different word.  As long as you're
arguing scripture rather than evidence, what more do you need?

> The only verse that even deals with this issue 
> is.
> Ex 21:22
> 22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit 
> depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely 
> punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he 
> shall pay as the judges determine".
> KJV

Right.  Cause a miscarriage (kill a fetus), pay a fine.  (Serious
premies died in those days.)

> This verse in no way justifies calling a "fetus" a piece of tissue.

Quite the opposite, it demands it.  If you kill a person (even a
child), the law you cite has a very different punishment.  Anyone
reading this has to conclude that a fetus is not a person.

Note also that the penalty is paid *to the husband*.  In other words
the fetus is HIS property, presumably to be disposed of as he sees
fit.  According to this interpretation of the Old Testament a man
ought to be able to demand a fine of a woman who aborts his fetus,
or perhaps even require her to abort (if it's HIS property, he can
tell her what to do with it).

> Can you point to another one?

If that's the only one you can find, your position is in deep trouble.

response 37 of 116:

Aug 24 23:02 UTC 2003

I thought the issue is supposed to be the woman's right to choose, ja?  
If she doesn't say, "I want this pregnancy aborted" and someone goes 
and aborts it anyway, then she has an action against them.  Obviously, 
if you believe a nine-week fetus is a human being in some sense, you 
won't agree.

response 39 of 116:

Aug 25 03:09 UTC 2003

re resp:36: Death is a limitation of freedom, is it not?

The *sole* justification you've given for the morality of abortion is 
that it is legal.  Using that reasoning, before it was legal, it must 
have been immoral because it was illegal.  It was illegal because the 
fetus was regarded as alive up to that point.

The Supreme Court took away the right to life of a fetus.  Up until 
the point where they did, the fetus was legally a person.  Your 
reasoning states you would have to regard the fetus as a person until 
then, doesn't it?  If so, you're approving the removal of the right to 
life from a large group of people as "greater individual freedom", and 
dismissing it's significance in those terms because it doesn't "limit 
*like* freedoms and controls of others".

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I don't think I'm the only 
one.

response 41 of 116:

Aug 25 05:15 UTC 2003

Re #39: I never claimed "The *sole* justification you've given for the
morality of abortion is that it is legal." The moral justification for
abortion is, in fact, the right of the woman to control the function of
her own body, just as you have a right to control the functions of your
body. 

response 43 of 116:

Aug 25 17:42 UTC 2003

No problem. We assume rights based on subjective wishes for "life, liberty
and pursuit of happiness", which also embody concepts of fairness and
equality, and embody them in law. This is also true of "rights" claimed on
the bases of religion, old books, oracular pronouncements, etc. 

response 45 of 116:

Aug 25 18:03 UTC 2003

You find a fetus that can say or write that, and you might have a case.

response 47 of 116:

Aug 25 18:40 UTC 2003

re resp:41: In this item (resp:22), and others on the subject in the 
past, you've stated that abortion is okay because the law says it's 
legal.  I would think there are implications to that kind of 
statement.  For example, it wouldn't be okay if it weren't legal.  Is 
that an incorrect view of your position?

response 49 of 116:

Aug 25 20:16 UTC 2003

I assume nothing about rights. There is a big difference between creating
"rights" based in logic and reason applied to the human condition, and
creating "rights" based on mythology and doctrines from the distant past.
At least one can find "rights" that might be applicable to human society
today.