Abortion

[01solara]

I see that's a huge talking point for those that believe it's just alright to kill abortion providers...not saying you do but anyone who googles that can get a real eye full. This act (which I haven't read) seems to want to protect any "infant born alive" (how's that for language?) with legal rights...even "infants" that can't possibly survive. I agree with Obama on this...it is a back door effort to limit abortion...a foot in the door as it were.

Those who oppose abortion, having been unable to abolish Roe vs Wade, have focused on limiting access to abortion in every state...

We are talking about full term pregnancies when a fetus becomes viable it is a baby not a blob of cells with no feelings. I have never and will never advocate that abortionists should be killed. I just think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and danger to the health of the mother. Women that I have talked to on a personal level (a few not a lot mind you) have experienced a lot of guilt and regret. I know that a lot of feminist groups believe that fetuses are just a blob of cells and that abortion is the most wonderful thing ever. They must because when women get talked out of aborting they get really mad.

 

[Kulindahr]

Personhood/life...with all the "rights"....from all that I've heard from the far right religious christianists begins upon the uniting of sperm with egg. In their view, women loose all rights at that point until she is forced to give birth to said supposed "person/child"....YOU want to talk about when life begins...this is very much the tack taken by those that are anti-choice...so they can call women who have abortions murderers, and preach violence against abortion providers.

Yes, talking about when life begins is the point, because that's where the issue is -- despite your earlier denial of that, which you claim was a response to jdoe4822's serious summary of some points.
I don't particularly care what tack other people take, or what slurs you want to cast. What I do care about is being precise in terminology, rather than sloppy. You -- along with most here -- are being sloppy, in your last two clauses above.

It has already been expressed on this thread that not all murders are equal, some are even justified...but we must protect, with all the "rights" a collection of cells that has the potential to become a person....this includes accepted forms of birth control be sure of it. The references to Sanger are evidence of that.

You use negative emotive terms for distraction quite nicely: "collection of cells" isn't meant for precision, it's meant to give emotional bias to the discussion. "Potential to become a person" avoids the issue; it's a way of refusing to define terms.

If men carried a pregnancy 9 months you can be sure this "discussion" wouldn't be happening.

Both fallacious and false -- fallacious because it isn't relevant.

For that to be true, the existing condition would have to be that all women favor abortion (on demand, from the way you're talking). Since every pro-life group I've been part of has had women -- in fact, more women than men -- that condition fails. The fact is that there are millions of people who do get pregnant and strongly oppose abortion-on-demand -- or any abortion at all -- so what others might think if their biology could be changed is not a factor.

2. You are correct infant mortality was part of the various approaches, and how can one have an infant (regardless of mortality) and not know they are a person? It seems to me it's one and the same...once a child comes to term and is born they are a person...they don't start out as much of a personality but that comes with time. I wasn't using it as a measuring stick I was simply stating that historically these questions have been approached in many varied ways.

So a change of location defines a person? That's scientifically and rationally ridiculous -- which is why jdoe4822 called for relying on science. Or are you claiming that getting air in the lungs makes someone a person?

The lights are on but no one is home. Is the house occupied? A person only in the sense of a physical body...a resource.

If the house were occupied, what would be occupying it? A soul? That answer wouldn't be acceptable to a lot of people.

So how do we know that "no one is home"? Plainly, it's because there's no brain activity -- thus, brain activity indicates the presence of a person. So when the unborn has no brain activity (brainwaves, not just random neurons firing), then it's "a person only in the sense of a physical body", i.e. it's "a resource". But when brainwaves appear, by your own observation, there's someone home, which means there's a person in the real sense.

You, along with many, many others, implicitly recognize that brain activity is the mark of a person. But for some reason, you are unwilling to accept the consequences of that. You use issue-avoiding terms like "collection of cells", rather than face the reality that during the course of a pregnancy, a new person occurs (comes into existence?). That sort of term is used to dehumanize people who are unwanted, who we'd like to eliminate, to avoid guilt over killing, and that's exactly what it does here: removes the guilt of killing a living being, which may be a person.

You mentioned the word murderer, and it's quite accurate: killing a person is murder. When those brainwaves show up, the unborn has become a person, and any abortion after that point is murder.

Generally, that's actually after the end of the first trimester, which means that the standard which has become increasingly common around the world errs on the side of safety, as far as the personhood issue goes. So if when you're arguing "pro-choice" you mean the first trimester rule, then we're actually sort of talking past each other.

Since I essentially said that before, though, I can only presume you mean abortion on demand, all the way through pregnancy -- and that's just vile.

 

[Kulindahr]

Would that include your taxes going to a nine year old girl that, after being raped by her stepfather, becomes pregnant with twins (it happened in Brazil earlier this year) - a situation that would inevitably lead to the death of not only both twins but the 9 year old as well if allowed to carry to term? How about those who via amniocentesis discover their child has a trisomy of chromosome number 18(also known as Edwards syndrome) where the fetus, if it managed to survive until birth (about 95% don't), has a near 100% mortality rate within the first few months postpartum? Should your tax dollars be spent on putting expectant parents through the emotional hell of seeing their extremely deformed child struggle through a few months of life before finally dying?

Some of the reasoning here is involved in support that got Oregon's death with dignity "assisted suicide" law passed: that when there is no possibility of anything resembling a full life, life can be let go.
My sister faced a choice like that; her first child was found by ultrasound to have its heart in the wrong place, intestines arranged badly, and a list of other problems. Her choice was to carry to term, and she and my brother-in-law spent a very brief period of time bestowing all the love they had on a son who didn't live a week. But not everyone can go that route, for reasons from the financial (it cost more than having a healthy child) to the emotional to whatever. My sister decided not to let that life go, but not everyone would make the same choice.

I specifically like the small note he made about the mentioning of religious faith being a "conversation stopper" such that, whenever someone mentions that it's "just their religion" the opponents must be content to leave it at that. I respect your right to believe what you believe - anyone can believe anything they want to, but, religion is not above criticism, it's not above ridicule, ESPECIALLY when used to make medical and political decisions, and, in those cases, ridicule and criticism of religion is REQUIRED.

Using religion to make medical decisions is most often imbecilic; using it to make political decisions is frequently dangerous.

Using ideology falls in the same boat -- in fact, I'd call religion, when used in such a way, a form of ideology.

 

[Kulindahr]

WOMAN trumps FETUS.

Basic fact of nature.

Unless you can demonstrate miraculous, heaven-sent power contra, I will not accept any profane intervention into the intimate precincts that are the woman's.

Powers over abortion are foundationally tyrannical powers and you won't ever hear me allowing it in America. A person may advise against. Our government may NEVER prohibit. Nature/God has given the precincts of childbearing to women. Government may never interfere there. Again, as a legal matter, it is, most adamantly, the woman's choice.

By this logic, I can go out and kill anyone I want.

After all, just as God equipped women to bear children, He equipped me to use weapons. So if by virtue of a woman having the equipment to give birth, she can kill those to whom she's supposed to be giving birth, by virtue of my having a rifle, I can go out and kill others.


Having equipment is not authorization for misuse thereof.

The only other argument under which "woman trumps fetus" is sound is that she has the power -- the old "might makes right" bit. But in that case, then if I shoot her for having an abortion, I'm right.....

 

[Kurn]

No, you're not right. Women have a special privilege in these matters for obvious reasons. Sorry, Kul, the old male ego has to lose this one. Especially since the male often has obviously unmaternal instincts on many occasions.

For the sake of morality, the basic natural Law is and must be that the woman's choice is the Law.
Real morality, not pretend morality, demands that this be so.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, you're not right. Women have a special privilege in these matters for obvious reasons. Sorry, Kul, the old male ego has to lose this one. Especially since the male often has obviously unmaternal instincts on many occasions.

For the sake of morality, the basic natural Law is and must be that the woman's choice is the Law.
Real morality, not pretend morality, demands that this be so.

Real morality demands sound reasoning. So far, you haven't provided any except might makes right.

"Noble blood" once had "special privileges... for obvious reasons" -- like, it could kill (murder) with impunity. Your claims are no more valid than those.

 

[Kurn]

Thou hast male organs and are responsible and jealous over the same.

Womenfolk have female organs and are responsible and must manage the affairs thereof, which have histories very different from thine or other menfolks.

Our responsibilities--whether a male or female citizen--to ourselves are equal, but the specific conduct related to our bodily sovereignty differeth manifestly.

But if you had a human embryo in your urethra and it threatened your reproductive capacity, I wouldn't blame you for having it extracted.

The woman has a much more complicated set of issues to deal with. At least it seems so to us male munchkins.

I don't know what more of sound reasoning you could require, although I don't go into details much.

It's her business. Mind your own. I assume you don't want genitalia to be registered with the local authorities.

 

[JB3]

Thou hast male organs and are responsible and jealous over the same.

Womenfolk have female organs and are responsible and must manage the affairs thereof, which have histories very different from thine or other menfolks.

Our responsibilities--whether a male or female citizen--to ourselves are equal, but the specific conduct related to our bodily sovereignty differeth manifestly.

But if you had a human embryo in your urethra and it threatened your reproductive capacity, I wouldn't blame you for having it extracted.

The woman has a much more complicated set of issues to deal with. At least it seems so to us male munchkins.

I don't know what more of sound reasoning you could require, although I don't go into details much.

It's her business. Mind your own. I assume you don't want genitalia to be registered with the local authorities.

That's not so much sound reasoning as it is you saying 'you have a penis, so you can't be involved in the discussion about abortion', because that's essentially the argument you're making. That's sort of like telling a white man that he couldn't be involved in the civil rights movement and crafting the Voting Rights Act because of the color of his skin. As an argument, it makes no logical sense.

The issue here is much more fundamental to the definition of what makes a human a human, and when the protections of the constitution take effect. This debate is still ongoing, and its a healthy one to have. There is no right or wrong answer; there is only a 'better' and a 'worse' one.

 

[boogalee]

Can you abort a corporation?
In a doctor's office?

Of course not and I guess I should have used a sarcasm smiley to indicate my intention. The very same people who espouse their love of the unborn gave corporations rights...people rights. I find that ironic.

Of course it involves legislation. Getting blacks defined as actual persons required legislation, after all.

So you are a forced birther. Have you read The Handmaids Tale? You want to force your religious beliefs on everyone...that isn't very democratic of you.

It's been here, if you're reding along....

Cute but not an answer...

Well, Rome has its problems, and since it didn't form a denomination till a lot of serious thinkers had had their say, its teachings are, properly speaking, parochial opinions.

Early Christians had different views on the subject, and the matter was never settled -- as I already noted, there are (at least) three different Christian views on the matter.

There are more than that and I feel confident that you are a Protestant...are you a Dominionist? Part of the 'New Reformation'....ahh never mind. You are making a religious argument for legislation in a country that has seperation of Church and State...this is NOT a theocracy and I seriously hope that those that would make it one are put in their place.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you are a forced birther.

??? A what???

Have you read The Handmaids Tale?

No. Is it science?

You want to force your religious beliefs on everyone...that isn't very democratic of you.

Phobia much?
I'm not certain I've even mentioned my own religious beliefs here. What I have mentioned is science, and reason -- and not many others have.

There are more than that and I feel confident that you are a Protestant...are you a Dominionist? Part of the 'New Reformation'....ahh never mind. You are making a religious argument for legislation in a country that has seperation of Church and State...this is NOT a theocracy and I seriously hope that those that would make it one are put in their place.

If you must know, I'm an Evangelical Orthodox Catholic.

WTF is a "Dominionist"? Sounds like Star Trek....

Okay, I wiki-ed it.
I suddenly have an urge to establish a colony on the back side of the moon -- they can go have their own little dominion all by themselves.

NO!! WAIT!!
They're linked to Rushdooney? I'll take that back -- the moon is far too close. I suggest a giant ship to freeze them in and ship them off toward the Greater Magellanic Clouds.

Let the freaks who want to go back to Moses build a time machine and go herd sheep, scratch at lice, and die at 40. I'll stay with Luther: better a ruler who does not believe in God but is fair and just than a devout Christian who is incompetent.


I'm making a what??? Um, what are you reading? It's not my posts, because I haven't made a religious argument yet -- the closest I've come is to point out that there is no Christian position on the issue of abortion, despite what some may tell you; there are at least three Christian positions -- four, actually, that I'm aware of which can be argued from the Bible to one extent or another (conception, "perfectly formed", quickening/soul connection, first breath).

And since you're being petty, and making personal pokes, the position I'm arguing for here on the basis of science is not the one I find most comfortable or the one I would take as a religious preference.

 

[Kurn]

That's not so much sound reasoning as it is you saying 'you have a penis, so you can't be involved in the discussion about abortion', because that's essentially the argument you're making. That's sort of like telling a white man that he couldn't be involved in the civil rights movement and crafting the Voting Rights Act because of the color of his skin. As an argument, it makes no logical sense.

The issue here is much more fundamental to the definition of what makes a human a human, and when the protections of the constitution take effect. This debate is still ongoing, and its a healthy one to have. There is no right or wrong answer; there is only a 'better' and a 'worse' one.

By what you cite as "more fundamental" we are still by nature obligated to leave the woman alone. It's her decision. If the embryo/fetus is a person, the woman is far more a person. My reasoning is perfectly sound. It's my expression that may not get it across well.

Very simply: Howeversomuch a person a fetus is, it's still dependent upon the body of the woman and as a legal standard, as the primary and natural premise, whether or not a pregnancy continues is not and never shall be decided at the ballot box, in a legislature or by a court decree. The woman decides, and that is the beginning and ending of all normal matters pertaining to what happens in her body.

The inability to manifest empathy toward other citizens is by far a greater moral problem for America and for the World than abortion or any other problem that people have improperly dragged into the arena of politics.

Again, the woman is a person. Moreso than a fetus.
.
And generally designating the termination of a pregnancy as murder is as bad or worse than murder. That's good New Testament-Legal reasoning, by the way. Forget the Pope. Jesus would endorse what I just said.

 

[JB3]

By what you cite as "more fundamental" we are still by nature obligated to leave the woman alone. It's her decision. If the embryo/fetus is a person, the woman is far more a person. My reasoning is perfectly sound. It's my expression that may not get it across well.

Very simply: Howeversomuch a person a fetus is, it's still dependent upon the body of the woman and as a legal standard, as the primary and natural premise, whether or not a pregnancy continues is not and never shall be decided at the ballot box, in a legislature or by a court decree. The woman decides, and that is the beginning and ending of all normal matters pertaining to what happens in her body.

The inability to manifest empathy toward other citizens is by far a greater moral problem for America and for the World than abortion or any other problem that people have improperly dragged into the arena of politics.

Again, the woman is a person. Moreso than a fetus.
.
And generally designating the termination of a pregnancy as murder is as bad or worse than murder. That's good New Testament-Legal reasoning, by the way. Forget the Pope. Jesus would endorse what I just said.

Your reasoning is specious. I'd agree to a point that the woman has control over the fetus to a certain point in the pregnancy. However, when it reaches a point that the fetus is viable and can survive outside of the womb, it is reasonable for the fetus to gain the same rights as the mother. Those rights include due process and equal protection, both of which would be violated should the mother choose to end the life of the baby.

By your reasoning, it would fine for a murderer to kill someone if they are 'more of a person'. Whether you agree or not, a fetus that is able to survive outside the womb has the same rights as the mother, same as a newborn child has the same rights as their mother or father. Or do you not agree that a child is every bit of a person as their mother or father?

There are hugely negative implications to your line of reasoning, ones that are horrifying in their own right.

 

[Kurn]

No. The hugely negative reasoning is your refusal to acknowledge the personhood of the woman.
This is related to our own often-shallow idea of what our own personhood consists of, a state which, admittedly, is rampant in our society, and particularly among many gay people.
My reasoning isn't specious at all. My rhetoric is, however. It hasn't gotten the point across.

 

[JB3]

No. The hugely negative reasoning is your refusal to acknowledge the personhood of the woman.
This is related to our own often-shallow idea of what our own personhood consists of, a state which, admittedly, is rampant in our society, and particularly among many gay people.
My reasoning isn't specious at all. My rhetoric is, however. It hasn't gotten the point across.

What about the personhood of the child?

You still have as yet to explain how the woman is more of a person than the child, and why this 'personhood' should have any influence on the formation of laws.

 

[boogalee]

We are talking about full term pregnancies when a fetus becomes viable it is a baby not a blob of cells with no feelings. I have never and will never advocate that abortionists should be killed. I just think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and danger to the health of the mother. Women that I have talked to on a personal level (a few not a lot mind you) have experienced a lot of guilt and regret. I know that a lot of feminist groups believe that fetuses are just a blob of cells and that abortion is the most wonderful thing ever. They must because when women get talked out of aborting they get really mad.

I thought the OP was about when life begins...a definition of 'life'...

Abortion on demand is needed by women for many reasons. I say again, it is a difficult decision and generally not one taken lightly...even by the dreaded feminists. There is regret attached to many needed decisions in life but that doesn't make the decision the wrong one for that individual. I will say that one of the things that religion does is generate guilt....

 

[palemale]

But it isn't just her uterus in question, is it? There's a biological organism in there that's not part of her body, and the question is whether it's a person. I advanced an argument about when personhood begins, but apparently hardly anyone here is interested in considering that most vital question -- it gets dismissed by slogans, or ignored with the unsupportable notion that life begins at conception thrown up as truth.

I have no problem with the morning-after pill, or abortion shortly after pregnancy is discovered; there's no basis for believing that there's a person involved (well, except the mother). But when you get brainwaves indicative of a being responding to its environment, when you get a being moving on its own, in charge of its own body, it's not just tissue, it's a guest. The time to make the decision to evict is before the unborn is a guest, i.e. a person.

So, for example, if the mother of the 9 year old Brazilian girl who was impregnated when her step-father raped her discovered the pregnancy after the point where brain waves were detected, the 9 year old should be forced to give birth to twin? That's a rather perverse result, Kuli, don't you think.

 

[boogalee]

Yes, talking about when life begins is the point, because that's where the issue is -- despite your earlier denial of that, which you claim was a response to jdoe4822's serious summary of some points.
I don't particularly care what tack other people take, or what slurs you want to cast. What I do care about is being precise in terminology, rather than sloppy. You -- along with most here -- are being sloppy, in your last two clauses above.

Well aren't you just all THAT!!! LOL Cast me as you must.

You use negative emotive terms for distraction quite nicely: "collection of cells" isn't meant for precision, it's meant to give emotional bias to the discussion. "Potential to become a person" avoids the issue; it's a way of refusing to define terms.

You are NOT in control of the language..sorry....if you don't want to respond to the intent and content of my posts don't, but don't try to make it about language and definition...If seen a lifetime of that from the right....ever read 1984?

For that to be true, the existing condition would have to be that all women favor abortion (on demand, from the way you're talking). Since every pro-life group I've been part of has had women -- in fact, more women than men -- that condition fails. The fact is that there are millions of people who do get pregnant and strongly oppose abortion-on-demand -- or any abortion at all -- so what others might think if their biology could be changed is not a factor.

I don't see how you get that but OK. It has been my observation that many who are the 'head' of such organizations are men and I wonder how they can possibly understand what it means to be pregnant for 9 months with all the attendant problems and dangers.

So a change of location defines a person? That's scientifically and rationally ridiculous -- which is why jdoe4822 called for relying on science. Or are you claiming that getting air in the lungs makes someone a person?.

Bolding of the quote above is mine....I really fail to see how you got that from what I said and I still haven't seen this science you continue to site.

I think a baby that is born and able to survive on it's own is indeed a person...I personally have a problem with a lot of the heroics used in medicine to sustain 'life'...I suppose that is also going to be part of this discussion in the future. The Shivo case....what a travisty by the religious right.

If the house were occupied, what would be occupying it? A soul? That answer wouldn't be acceptable to a lot of people.

Why do you think that is the only answer? I would say conciousness, self awareness.

So how do we know that "no one is home"? Plainly, it's because there's no brain activity -- thus, brain activity indicates the presence of a person. So when the unborn has no brain activity (brainwaves, not just random neurons firing), then it's "a person only in the sense of a physical body", i.e. it's "a resource". But when brainwaves appear, by your own observation, there's someone home, which means there's a person in the real sense.

Ah, no, not really. I would think there are many levels that I'm not qualified to discuss.

You, along with many, many others, implicitly recognize that brain activity is the mark of a person. But for some reason, you are unwilling to accept the consequences of that. You use issue-avoiding terms like "collection of cells", rather than face the reality that during the course of a pregnancy, a new person occurs (comes into existence?). That sort of term is used to dehumanize people who are unwanted, who we'd like to eliminate, to avoid guilt over killing, and that's exactly what it does here: removes the guilt of killing a living being, which may be a person.

First, you are presuming to know my mind and those of 'many others' You are making a mistake with your argument here...you are still operating under the definition of life at conception and you continue to presume that you and your ethical reasoning should apply to everyone....you yourself have given yourself the 'ethical right' to eliminate living people under your belief system. I can only wonder how far that would go....do you suppose there are those who's religion tells them that homosexuals are an abomination and should be eradicated....and failing that at least abused and subject to various laws and regulations? You will no doubt tell me there is a difference....and somehow manage to miss the point.

You mentioned the word murderer, and it's quite accurate: killing a person is murder. When those brainwaves show up, the unborn has become a person, and any abortion after that point is murder.

Generally, that's actually after the end of the first trimester, which means that the standard which has become increasingly common around the world errs on the side of safety, as far as the personhood issue goes. So if when you're arguing "pro-choice" you mean the first trimester rule, then we're actually sort of talking past each other.

Since I essentially said that before, though, I can only presume you mean abortion on demand, all the way through pregnancy -- and that's just vile.

Vile or not there are times it is needed. You are making assumptions about the nature of that need based upon what I can only call a moral superiority stance based upon your understanding of the nature of the universe....or in this case God.

I would like to see some proof that late term abortions are used to any great extent by women who have total access to abortion. I would like to see some evidence that this is common and needs to be interfered with by self-righteous believers is Jesus. As I've said before, something you just don't get, this is a personal issue....not something the state needs to be involved with.

This issue is being discussed, I'm guessing, because of the health care bill coming up. The anti-choicers are against funding of abortions, just as they have been against stem cell research and birth control and sex education....I call that vile.

 

[palemale]

Would that include your taxes going to a nine year old girl that, after being raped by her stepfather, becomes pregnant with twins (it happened in Brazil earlier this year) - a situation that would inevitably lead to the death of not only both twins but the 9 year old as well if allowed to carry to term? How about those who via amniocentesis discover their child has a trisomy of chromosome number 18(also known as Edwards syndrome) where the fetus, if it managed to survive until birth (about 95% don't), has a near 100% mortality rate within the first few months postpartum? Should your tax dollars be spent on putting expectant parents through the emotional hell of seeing their extremely deformed child struggle through a few months of life before finally dying?

What was really perverse about the Catholic Church response in this case is that the bishop excommunicated the mother who brought her daughter to the clinic for an abortion and the medical professionals who performed the abortion. Of course, the bishop did not excommunicate the step-father who raped the the girl. As far as I know, no Catholic Bishop in Latin American, or anywhere in the world, ever excommunicated any Catholic dictators responsible for murdering thousands of political opponents (often the Church gives tacit or explicit support to these dictators since they are only murdering "godless, atheist communists").

By the way, while I was raised Catholic but am an atheist, I do not have a knee-jerk anti-Catholic bias. In my life I have met tons of Catholic social activists involved in civil rights activities, labor unions rights and other social activism. Indeed, I think the Catholic Church's critique of capitalism, opposition to the death penalty and support for social welfare policies is highly commendable. I just find its stand on abortion, and actions such as the one I highlighted above, not to mention its views on homosexuality, to be a bit hard to take.

 

[boogalee]

??? A what???

A forced birther is someone who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy no matter what.

No. Is it science?

It's a cautionary tale.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tale-Margaret-Atwood/dp/B001IC52I4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247843536&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Handmaid's Tale: Margaret Atwood: Books[/ame]

Phobia much?
I'm not certain I've even mentioned my own religious beliefs here. What I have mentioned is science, and reason -- and not many others have.

Not phobia at all. A rational response to a huge body of irrational beliefs. Some would not find your argument all that reasonable. I can only surmise your reference to science has to do with brainwave activity....the quality of such activity (what does it mean...at what level) hasn't been determined, at least by me.

If you must know, I'm an Evangelical Orthodox Catholic.

Evangelical and Orthodox Catholic are a somewhat new branch or am I just jumping to conclusions here? I searched and found this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

A Dominionist is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist
The C Street house for instance. Steeple Jacking is one of the things this group is involved in:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Steeplejacking-Christian-Hijacking-Mainstream-Religion/dp/097719728X"]Amazon.com: Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion: Sheldon Culver, John Dorhauer: Books[/ame]
If you are interested in more information I suggest the website Talktoaction...
http://www.talk2action.org/

Something that is not well understood by many Christians is that their moderate church has been taken over (by design) by Dominionists. The congregation is unaware for the most part...

NO!! WAIT!!
They're linked to Rushdooney? I'll take that back -- the moon is far too close. I suggest a giant ship to freeze them in and ship them off toward the Greater Magellanic Clouds.

Let the freaks who want to go back to Moses build a time machine and go herd sheep, scratch at lice, and die at 40. I'll stay with Luther: better a ruler who does not believe in God but is fair and just than a devout Christian who is incompetent.

Yep...

I have to go....I'll respond to the rest later.

 

[Kulindahr]

By what you cite as "more fundamental" we are still by nature obligated to leave the woman alone. It's her decision. If the embryo/fetus is a person, the woman is far more a person. My reasoning is perfectly sound. It's my expression that may not get it across well.
....

Again, the woman is a person. Moreso than a fetus.
.
And generally designating the termination of a pregnancy as murder is as bad or worse than murder. That's good New Testament-Legal reasoning, by the way. Forget the Pope. Jesus would endorse what I just said.

A person is a person. If you want to start rating people as being more or less persons, shall we rate whites above Asians? Japanese above Koreans? Someone who has yet to reproduce as more than someone who has?

You aren't using reasoning, Kern; I'm not sure what you are using, but it isn't reasoning.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "New Testament-Legal reasoning" -- the NT isn't about law, but about love and sacrifice, which means putting others ahead of yourself. So as for Jesus, He would most likely recommend that the mother carry the child to term, even if it meant her life -- after all, that's the example He gave, laying down His life for us all.