A 32 weeker, most likely viable.  Enough questions!  Address the issue:

"Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body."

Good points Paul, but to equate abortion and gun-control is dangerous.  One could easily argue that the technology of abortion is dangerous and should be severly restircted or outlawed because it causes clear harm to people.  Thus, we should restrict/outlaw other forms of dangerous technology, like firearms.  We (the govt) get to say what you (the individual) can do...

First lets lay the groundwork.  Once we agree on terms, then I would like to take up your challenge:

1) I assume you've read the previous posts that clearly state the facts that the fetus' body is not the woman's body. From a genetic, developmental and anatomical perspective, it is a given that the fetus' cells, tissues and organs are not the woman's cells, tissues and organs. I assume you are aware of the independant development of fetal organ systems and their timing. Do you understand and accept these biological facts as a given?


2) Also, physiologically, no woman is capable of creating a placenta [u]by herself[/u]. The production of the placenta requires the active engagement and cooperation of TWO separate entities - the woman's uterus and the fetal chorion. (For those who don't know, the placenta is the organ that sustains the fetus in the uterus)  Its tissue is only half-derived from the woman, the other half of the placenta derives from the active participation of the fetus.  Do you understand and accept this biological fact as a given?


Once we can agree to the biological facts, I'd like to continue with your question.

Sure.  Maternal biology provides environment for fetus to grow in in a more or less symbiotic fashion.  Now I've told you all I think I know about reproductive biology.  I know you're in the biz, so I'll cede the points.  No tricks now! [;)]

(edited for one-handed spelling errors...)

DKProf,

You said:

Forgive me for using an analogy in return, but your argument is very similar to one in Heinlein's Starship Troopers:



DKProf, I propose to you that just as Men are not potatoes, unborn children are most certainly [b]NOT[/b] the moral equivilent of a hunk of scrap steel, or an AR-15!

No tricks. Just starting from common ground.

Having agreed on a basic starting point, I wonder where the woman's absolute right to do with "her body" supercedes the the right of the fetus not to have "it's body" damaged or destroyed?

Since NO woman can create the placenta ALONE, but rather she REQUIRES the active participation of the fetus (another biologically distinct human), then neither the placenta nor the fetus can be truly considered "belonging" exclusively to the woman.  

Furthermore, the purpose of the abortion is NOT to affect the woman's organs whatsoever.  The purpose of abortion is to unilaterally destroy the [u]shared organ[/u] (placenta) actively created by two separate entities. In doing so, the fetus, also not biologically part of the "woman's body", is targetted for destruction as well.  In all actuality, the "perfect" abortion does not involve the "woman's body" at all.  It simply speeds the inevitable removal of the fetus (which would occur naturally - only slower), but in doing so, necessitates it's death.  




P.S.
I'm trying to stay level-headed and keep emotions in check since "rationally" debating the shredding/dismemberment of helpless human against their will is difficult without resorting to outbursts of disgust.

The only way unborn babies will ever be protected in this country is *if* Democrats figure a way out to get a block-vote from them.

I have had all these same arguments with "choicers" before.  They cannot and will not concede my points because it would mean that what they are advocating is so hideous, they just couldn't face it.

So, they sink into denial, and stonewalling.  Almost like talking with a brainwashed socialist drone.

Wondering if it is a baby in there?  Hand a pregnant woman a .45 and then say to her, "That isn't a baby, is it?  I can cause you to miscarriage, and that will be OK, cause it is only a tissue mass and I'll only be charged with assault and battery."

She will pump your atheist, babykilling carcass full of lead when her God-given instincts kick in.  And the baby in her womb will give a startled jump each time she shoots you.

If you can find a few women that have had abortions, ask them if it was a baby they paid someone to kill. An appalling question? but you know the answer already, don't you.

You're scared of the pregnant woman with the .45

---------
If women can kill a person(their baby) at will, who do men get to kill at whim?

I want the answer.

--------

There is no "absolute right" to do whatever you want with your body in this society.  Sheer bunk.

Try walking your body down the public sidewalk without any clothing.

Or get caught:
-poking illegal drugs into it
-starving it
-shouting inappropriate stuff at the airport
-lying to Feds
-selling your body
-praying at a public school
-saying "I don't recognize your authority over my body, your Honor."
-killing your body
-smoking at work in Calif.
& etc.

There are seemingly endless "victimless crime" laws you may not commit with your body.

What is dangerous is to think that any of the ideology of Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson is good for America.



"We are a people that believe in basic rights. We believe in self government by consent. That didn't just happen. It happened on the basis of certain principles. And those principles state very clearly that the basis of human rights is not human will or choice but God's will, the Creator's will.
That means that if we reject that principle we are destroying the essence of our whole way of life. And that is what is involved in abortion when we assert that a human choice, the choice of the mother, determines the childs right to life. That cannot be true in light of our American principles."
Alan Keyes


The Declaration of Independence is quite emphatic that the rights of man come from the hand of the "Creator". That these rights are "inalienable". That they begin when we "are created". And that among these rights is the right "to life".


If this article is correct and I hold that it is, than never was there a person who was pro-abortion who was a friend of the Constitution.
[url]www.sobran.com/columns/020115.shtml[/url]

And it is no coincedence (as the above link to the article demonstrates) that is is those in positions of power who support the murder  of unborn children who also wish to disarm the us.




"Nearly three decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally protected. Ostensibly libertarian, the ruling was actually one of the most tyrannical acts in American history.

What greater power can the state claim than the power to redefine human life itself — to withdraw protection from an entire category of human beings? And what greater power could the Federal Government usurp than the power of the individual states to protect innocent life from violent death?"
Joseph Sobran

Yes, it's strange that they call themselves "Pro-Choice", yet the unborn baby doesn't get a choice.  It's just easier to call yourself pro-choice rather than pro-abortion or pro-murderer.  It's terrible to think that more unborn babies have been murdered in this country than all wars could kill during our history.  God can't just sit by and let these hideous crimes against humanity go unpunished.  Hence, we are now seeing evidence of judgment on our country.

[b]Belloc[/b] though very painful to consider, thanks for reminding many here what abortion is really all about. [:\]

Wow, thanks.  I've been know to disappoint, but I'd agree that we have to do our thinking.

My take on your question is this:  When our country was founded, men demanded and took for themselves the right to self-determination in an extraordinary way.  Unfortunately for those of us who live in the modern world, the times they lived in allowed them to neglect the recognition that others, particularly women, and should be afforded the same rights they sought for and achieved for themselves.  That includes the rights to make decisions about your own healthcare. Others have the right to voice their objections, and to seek legislation that reflects their opinions about how to resolve these disputes.  

Already answered. Twice. You believe that a woman can go into labor after nine months carrying a beautiful health baby boy or girl and at a hospital tell the doctor "wait, no, don't deliver my baby. I changed my mind. I want you to do an abortion."

Since this is your view, (barbaric as it is) no "proof" will ever convince you of anything else.

Belloc this is for you:  Abortion is not only a right but a good thing.  I fully support it.  Some people prove that it SHOULD have been performed but wasn't!

I prefer the Chinese model; legal abortion up until the fetus has drawn it's first breath and become independant.

The only thing wrong with abortion is it is not a free medical service paid by tax money and strongly encouraged.  Overpopulation is a very serious problem and abortion is part of the solution!

I equate opposition to abortion the same way I view opposition to any other constitutional right.

And having an abortion isn't one of them.  The Supreme Court of the United States made that clear.  

So let's add this up. You prefer Hillary Clinton to George Bush and you have a warm fuzzy fondness for the policies of Communist China. Truly you wish to engage in a little patricide so that you will rule supreme in the court of all imbeciles. As for overpopulation, try renting out your head to some homeless family There's plenty of space there and since you're not using it.




That's an interesting way you mistreat the english language.

You mean like it made it "clear" that it was not a crime to enslave and murder blacks. You mean that kind of clarity?


[url=http://www.ustaxpayers.org/how_tyranny_came.htm]How Tyranny Came To America[/url]
By Joseph Sobran


"....Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now."

Because by questioning it OPENLY, the admin will basically be labelling Roe v. Wade decision a Supreme Court sanctioned murder, which Bush would rather not deal with right now.  Even in the best of time a president would just as soon not openly challenge a Supreme Court decision.  I don't believe Bush expect this to go unnoticed, but what he is doing for the time being is weakening the feminists' arguments by exposing their contradictions.

Look at it this way, the ants can't overturn 2nd Amendment (and they tried), so they pass laws grouping certain types of guns for special taxation and permits, which in time expand to include more types of guns, vilifying them all the while to justify their actions until 2nd Amedment is just an empty shell.  It's been, what, almost 70 years since NFA Act?  The ants are patient.

Politic is an art of possible, and Bush gets it, and he does so without expending any political currency.  That's why John Ashcroft came out and said he will defend 2nd Amendment, so to challenge him is to challenge explicitly the Constitution (the ants have always done so, as we all know, but never explicitly), and by declaring a fetus a person for the purpose of medical aid, he can appear compassionate without openly "infringe upon a woman's right to choose".  After all, Bush is just doing it "for the children"

Texasjoe:

You'd best have some solid proof about what you spew out of what you call a mouth.  I just love it when people comment on things they have no clue about.

btw, "I heard it somewhere" is not a valid proof, it just makes you look more like a redneck.

I agree with you that overpopulation is a serious problem and must be addressed.

I appreciate your principled stand on the issue, and your willingness to speak up for what you beleive.

Now, go into your room with a gun and one bullet and do your part for the cause.

We all thank you in advance for your contribution to reducing overpopulation.

[b]IF[/b] she had "absolute control over her body", wouldn't she be able to "think" or "will" the fetus away?  The fact that she needs to go to a second party to perform the abortion for her [b]is proof[/b] that she [b]doesn't[/b] have "absolute control" over her body.

LMAO!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]Quoted:
Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body.[/b]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am assuming that this humanistic "progressive"(read communist) individual is an American?? Good!
[b]We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY......"[/b] US Constitution, July 4, 1776
Tell that "humanistic progressive individual" to get the hell out of my country when you see them will ya? I find it interesting, that the same people who want to close beach's to humans to protect snowy plover nests,(read unborn birds), who have shut down logging to protect spotted owl nests, (read unborn owls), and who close our rivers and deny farmers water for irrigation to protect salmon eggs and sucker fish, (read unborn fish), are the same "humanistic" (read people hating, or self hating) individuals who scream loudest for the "freedom" to kill unborn humans! The fact of the matter is, your "progressive individual" is anti-american, and anti-creator. This is demonstrated by their hatred of our Constitution. The fact that some wear the black robe of "justice" matters not! Unconstitutional law (or decision) is of NO effect!

Okay [b]DScott[/b], you've posted twice since I took up your challenge and still no response from you regarding my arguments that your logic of "it's the woman's body" does not extend to the placenta and fetus.

Counter or concede. Silence is acquiescence.

My belief is that life begins at conception.
What chaffs my shorts are the people who are anti death penalty but pro choice.
A baby has committed no wrong, but can be terminated at the "mother's" whim and the gov't MUST support it, but a criminalwho was found guilty of a capital crime MUST NOT be killed by the gov't.

Abortion Clinics. Two people go in, only one walks out.

I'm glad to see the large number of pro-life people on this board. The truth about this issue will come out. Simple truth.  Such as the fact that we have memories that pre-date our “first breath” or our birth. That the baby can feel it's own death. That the myth of "choice" or "control of her body" is nothing more than woman playing god. Having the power of life and death.

Like Caesar, presiding over the fallen gladiator, thumbs up, or thumbs down?

That is your choice? God forgive them, they know not what they do.

LOL. Yes MM make no pretension about his ambition to be king of all imbeciles.
But to address your population concerns I would tell you this. When you hear something such as "overpopulation" you must first ask yourself "OK, who is telling me this information?". Since the overpopulation myth is coming from the same marxist liberal morons that have been also crying "global warming" it is best to take it with a few hundred grains of salt.

"NASA extinguishes global-warming fire"
[url]www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20020203-90259646.htm[/url]

Overpopulation? No. Oversocialism.
[url]www.pro-life.net/gates/index.htm[/url]
click on "answers" on the left menu.

Why? Proving this argument advances exactly NOTHING, with regards to the present discourse. Were someone to prove it, then one would still need to answer the question of defining where and how and by what authority it can be done. Even more important, however.....any failure to prove it still leaves us exactly where we were beforehand. Namely, whether or not the fetus is a part of the woman's body or not. More importantly in that it is the PRIME factor that must be qualified in order to find the heart of the matter, and should rightly be determined before one can ask such a question.

Concepts like this often cause me to question.....if it truly is 'her body, her choice', why then is a biological component of the male required to initiate the process? If it truly is 'her body, her choice', would that not more accurately refer to a concept such as asexual reproduction?

I'm with you, EXCEPT for the fact that the woman didn't make the baby on her own, where are you considering the father's rights? I think Abortion should be legal (It is murder, and the parents will be judged for that by God. I guess if you're an atheist, you won't have to worry) but, I'll be damned if a woman kills My child. No matter how much crying a woman does, it doesn't change the fact that the child is also half the father's. Abortion needs to take into account the father's wishes too.

DScott,

I accpeted your challenge to debate on Jan 31. To date, you have failed to respond to m post. Therefore I take it that you concede my two points:

1)That a woman gives up her "absolute" right over her body when her actions necessarily involve another individual.

2) That abortion in America is a multi-billion dollar industry that funnels huge amounts of money to various politicians and certain political parties in order to perpetuate the industry' source of income.

It appears to me that you are becoming overwhelmed by arguments against yours, and are unable to post a ready, and reasonable defense.

Perhaps [b]you[/b] should pay a visit to the Abortion TV website and see what is is you are defending. Photos do not lie, my friend. You will find posted here photos of the results of your "choice."

[url]http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures2.htm[/url]

Is this really defensible in any civilized society?

Sorry, life tends to interfere with net-time, ironically enough.  The down-time and slow connection is frustrating to work with.  I'm thinking about what you've said, and haven't had a chance to formulate my response yet.  Understand that I'm interested in discussion, not debate.

Be back soon...

See my response above...

No one is going to change what they beleive based on these exchanges.

Gotta go!

Now don't tell me you're one of those who actually believe there's life outside the net! [;)] Such heresy! Such sacrilege! Thou art excommunicated from the forum! Be gone blasphemer!!  

[b]And don't return until you've addressed your many challengers who've picked up your gauntlet, lest ye never post another credible "challenge" again!  

Art thou a man[%(] or a troll[:K] ?
[/b]

i've read through most of the responses and have come to the following conclusions:

first, try as some would like, there truly is no legal basis for making a decision about abortion.  the supreme court decision wasn't about whether or not abortion is murder, but rather whether or not a woman has a right to choose.  right or wrong, states nor the federal government can call abortion murder.

second, abortion is an issue of morality. i'm not saying that those who are proponents of the pro-choice side are immoral, far from it.  this world is full of different moralities.  there is no absolute.  hence the differences of opinion on this issue.

third, the constitution doesn't protect the rights of the unborn.  there is no basis for rights extending to unborn humans.  right or wrong, the constitution does not protect LIFE.  it is based on the premise of a human's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it does not protect it.  rather, it deals with the liberties side of the equation in the hopes that morals (there's that word again), in the environment of a free state, will take care of the other two.

fourth, abortion doesn't require technology.  there is such a thing as completely natural and spontaneous abortion and it happens.  it happens and the woman may not even know it.  i understand the point trying to be made, but it missed the mark.

fifth, the argument that is used to "prove" an unborn human is a human with rights based on the fact that perps are prosecuted for TWO murders rather than one when they kill a mother and her unborn is almost laughable.  the DA and prosecuting attorney don't care that it was a baby (in the eyes of the law, not their own personal beliefs).  they are concerned with charging the perp with as many things as possible in an effort to increase said perp's incarceration time.

sixth, i cringe at the thought that government is the vehicle by which most pro-lifers want their agenda furthered.  rather than treating it at the heart of the issue--teenage pregnancy, unwed mothers, etc. an so forth, in other words, why women who want abortions get pregnant in the first place--they appear to limit their attack to the Band-Aid approach.  "Just make it illegal and all will be better."  i admit to having serious problems with abortions in general, but i also know that making it illegal will hardly solve the problem.  the pro-lifers approach is extremely short-sighted and doomed to failure.  people break the existing laws.  what makes them think that women won't break that one?  so by making it illegal, you wouldn't really be solving the problem in the first place, would you, because there would still be women getting pregnant who didn't want the child.  and THAT is the true problem that needs addressing.

[b]

[b]"sixth, i cringe at the thought that government is the vehicle by which most pro-lifers want their agenda furthered.  rather than treating it at the heart of the issue--teenage pregnancy, unwed mothers, etc. an so forth, in other words, why women who want abortions get pregnant in the first place--they appear to limit their attack to the Band-Aid approach.  "Just make it illegal and all will be better."  i admit to having serious problems with abortions in general, but i also know that making it illegal will hardly solve the problem.  the pro-lifers approach is extremely short-sighted and doomed to failure.  people break the existing laws.  what makes them think that women won't break that one?  so by making it illegal, you wouldn't really be solving the problem in the first place, would you, because there would still be women getting pregnant who didn't want the child.  and THAT is the true problem that needs addressing."[/b]

ARlady, you could not be more wrong. First, the Constitution DOES protect the right to life. It's so important,that is in the 2nd paragraph of the preamble. Those "self evident",and "inalienable Rights" are accepted as given facts by the writers. One cannot have "liberty" without LIFE! You mention "morality" several times. It was the ferverent prayer of many of those men that we be a "moral and virtuous" people. Killiing our own off-spring is neither "moral", nor "virtuous". You say government should not make it illegal because it is a "moral" problem. IT'S NOT! It is a fundamental denial of liberty and the RIGHT to life (given by the creator, and GUARENTEED by the Constitution) of the unborn!(And THAT is a moral problem!) In the paragraph previous to the "self evident" paragraph, the founders refer to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BIBLICAL LAW!!! Notice what has happened to our nation since we threw God out of our society, and started the state sanctioned killing of our young. Draw your own conclusions, but DON"T tell me the Constitution does not protect the right to life!

Quoted:
[b]i've read through most of the responses and have come to the following conclusions:[/b]
Wait, no don't tell me, you are pro abortion.

[b]first, try as some would like, there truly is no legal basis for making a decision about abortion.  the supreme court decision wasn't about whether or not abortion is murder, but rather whether or not a woman has a right to choose.[/b]
No, it was about the usurpation of States rights and the consolidation of Federal power.

[b]right or wrong, states nor the federal government can call abortion murder.[/b]
Wrong. (what a surprise) They considered abortion the taking of human life, i.e. murder, before people like you put liberal gun grabbing morons on the High Court. THAT, little girl, is history.

[b]second, abortion is an issue of morality. i'm not saying that those who are proponents of the pro-choice side are immoral,[/b]
Well one would have to actually have morals to consider something immoral so again no suprise here. Of course murder, slavery, and rape are "issues of morality".

[b]far from it.  this world is full of different moralities.  there is no absolute.  hence the differences of opinion on this issue.[/b]
In the Douglas/Lincoln debate Douglas said:
"While I sir, am opposed to the insitution of slavery I shall not tell another man how to live or what is right for him."
To which came Lincoln's reply,
"Sir, no man has a 'right' to do that which is wrong."

So you are saying that you agree with Douglas that it is not wrong to envlave and murder people if one does not actually consider them people. I mean, slave holders just had a "different morality" right?

[b]third, the constitution doesn't protect the rights of the unborn.  there is no basis for rights extending to unborn humans.  right or wrong, the constitution does not protect LIFE.[/b]
If you are serioius here, (and I fear you are)
than you are way too silly a little girl to debate the merits and provisions of the United States Constitution. So humans don't have any rights? Because they are unborn humans? Actually there is a basis (they are called "books") for protecting unborn life.

[b]it is based on the premise of a human's right to life,[/b]
So something that is "based on" a "premise" of a "right to life" at one and the same time does not enumerate protections cognizent of that self evident truth??! Please tell me you're not over 15 so this will make sense.

[b]liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it does not protect it.  rather, it deals with the liberties side of the equation in the hopes that morals (there's that word again), in the environment of a free state, will take care of the other two.[/b]
Wrong.

[b]fifth, the argument that is used to "prove" an unborn human is a human with rights[/b]
Members of AR net, I give you the moronic stupidity that is liberalism and moral relativism. "look guys, some humans have rights and some don't, OH! gotta go, Brittanys on!"


 

[b]based on the fact that perps are prosecuted for TWO murders rather than one when they kill a mother and her unborn is almost laughable.[/b]
Again it is no suprise that YOU would laugh at this.


[b]the DA and prosecuting attorney don't care that it was a baby (in the eyes of the law, not their own personal beliefs).[/b]
Yes, of course they don't. You know for a fact that every DA and PA in America "don't care that it was a baby in the eyes of the law."
That MTV really made you so smart!



[b]sixth, i cringe at the thought that government is the vehicle by which most pro-lifers want their agenda furthered.[/b]
Of course the truth is, well, let Joe Sobran tell it,

"Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now."





[b]rather than treating it at the heart of the issue--teenage pregnancy, unwed mothers, etc.[/b]
Yeah, the hell with what is right or wrong. All that matters is being a bleeding heart liberal.
Bravo.


[b]an so forth, in other words, why women who want abortions get pregnant in the first place--they appear to limit their attack to the Band-Aid approach.  "Just make it illegal and all will be better."[/b]
Yeah because no pro-lifers ever opened a crisis pregnancy center or anything right?


[b]i admit to having serious problems with abortions in general,[/b]
Now [i]I[/i] am laughing.


[b]but i also know that making it illegal will hardly solve the problem.[/b]
Your right, making rape illegal does not seem to have solved that problem either. Drat. Oh well, lets do away with that law.


[b]the pro-lifers approach is extremely short-sighted and doomed to failure.  people break the existing laws.  what makes them think that women won't break that one?  so by making it illegal, you wouldn't really be solving the problem in the first place,[/b]
Of course you can't deny that there would be LESS abortions but that might require too much mental effort on your part.


[b]would you, because there would still be women getting pregnant who didn't want the child.  and THAT is the true problem that needs addressing.[/b]
So "address" it. How do we make men and women act less like barn yard animals?

Actually, the decision was whether or not a strict Texas statute criminalizing all abortion except for when the life of the mother is at risk is a violation of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is incorrect, IMHO, to refer to it as a decision of choice. It was a decision on just how much influence the State can Constitutionally maintain over medical procedures. In fact, the opinion of the case regards the 'choice' as "primarily, a medical decision", and that "basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician."



Some few people hold the concepts of our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as somewhat more than what the term 'premise' entails. And that it goes beyond simply hoping that morals will take care of the rest.

Just an example:
US Constitution - 14th Amendment
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."

US Supreme Court - 410 U.S. 113
"the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

If the State has an interest in the potentiality of human life, and create laws/regulate circumstances regarding it, one could say that it is within the State's jurisdiction, and thus eligible for equal protection under the law.

Question: what makes it acceptable for NOW, NARAL, and PP to do the same?

I have been involved in more than one pro-life group, and for MANY of them, legislative action is only a small facet of their work. I have no problem with those who wish to take aim at the pro-life movement. However, in claiming that they do not treat the 'heart' of the problem, you do many, many men and women of differing beliefs and backgrounds a great disservice. One could just as easily say that by pro-abort groups support of UNFPA, they care nothing of family health, nothing of womens rights, nothing of choice, except when that choice is abortion.

While I do agree that abortion is a symptom of the true problem, the problem you propose....while I would find it truly interesting to discuss, somehow I feel it would draw this towards the land of 'dead thread walking'.

Ahhh... the ever popular moral-relativism defense!! There is no right or wrong in assigning who/what deserves full "human-status" - WHOORAY... We're off the hook! KILL AT WILL and rationalize it away!!  Using your "logic" [b]ARLady[/b] all manner of atrocities can be committed under the defense that "this world is full of different moralities. there is no absolute".  If you truly believe this [b]ARLady[/b] your in good company. So said the Nazis about the Jews, Catholics, gays... So said the slave-owners about their slaves... So says the Chi-Comms about their newborn female babies... So says Planned Parenthood about 3mo, 4mo, 5mo or more thinking, feeling fetuses... and on and on. That one is a losing proposition [b]ARLady[/b].

Oh... so when a mass murder gets 35 consecutive life sentences for bombing 35 people at a club, then that is a "laughable" example that shows the DA and PA don't care about the other 34 people - they're just piling on also?!

This is a PERFECT example of the power of the State in allowing the destruction of a fetus when it is convenient (abortion) but defends the life of the [u]identical[/u] fetus when it is killed under different circumstances (murder).  The hypocrisy must be rectified in our society - and err, if we must, on the side of the one who has no choice - but who bears all consequences, the fetus.

But you're ok with the Gov't being the vehicle for moral-relativists to carry out THEIR agenda!?  So according to you only [i]certain[/i] types of people (moral relativists) should have any influence in their Gov'ts actions and not others (pro-lifers)? You "cringe" at them having a say in Gov't?!  Why don't you moral relativists just rationalize a way to declare us pro-lifers as less-than-humans who are beneath the protections afforded you wiser humans and just retroactively abort us?  

So you think killing babies will stop teens from getting pregnant! What kind of asinine argument are you using here?
If you think that getting an abortion will "fix" the problem of teen pregnancy, unwed mothers... then why has the rate of teen pregnancy not fallen since Roe/Wade?  There's NO pro-lifer who thinks that banning abortions will directly affect teen pregnancy.  WE (or at least I) don't give a damn about over-sexed teens promiscuity as much as the shredding of 3mo old fetuses. For God's sake give the baby up for adoption!! What is wrong with that?

HMMM.... the "mother" can have an abortion without the father's concent, but if she HAS the child, she will try to get the court to ORDER the father to support the child. Seems like a double standard. Make the father pay support, but don't give him a choice in the case of an abortion.
And in some states, a legal minor doens't have to have parental concent to have an abortion, even though she is still the responsibility of her parents.
Seems to be alot of double standards out there in the world of femminisim.

[smoke]

The_Macallan and hard-case,
Let us explore the not much deeper than floor wax philosophy of ARady:

Poste by ARlady
[b]right or wrong, states nor the federal government can call abortion murder.[/b]

So according to her IF it is in fact "wrong" to not call abortion murder than that does not mean the States have any right to stop doing what is wrong.
This somehow to her makes sense.

[b]there is no absolutes[/b]
This is in fact why there are so many girls getting pregnant. Because "there are no absolutes". There is no right or wrong. There is no God. There is no truth. It's all what people "feel" like doing according to her.

Of course the Founding Fathers believed in "absolutes" but I doubt she cares much about that. In fact, the Founders warned us that if the body of the people stopped believing in certain "absolutes" than freedom and liberty would vanish and the Republic would fail. But even a first year freshman taking history could see that ARlady has never cracked open a history text in her young life.

Double standards are the ether in which feminism exists.

We're missing the obvious!

If there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, just different moralities, THEN WHY IS ARLADY SO UPSET AT PROLIFERS?  What's so [b]WRONG[/b] about banning abortion?  There is no "wrong" in this debate - she said so herself - just differing opinions. According to her, there are no absolutes - so banning or not banning are equivalent! So why doesn't she just willingly accept the laws to ban abortions?