That is exactly what Kerry should say. After all he is America’s most conservative Senator.

I'm sorry... is this coming from "cut their heads off and send it to their mothers" girl?

Dawn, and?

well, one would think that you more than even Kerry believe in legalized murder and find more than "'nuance' to believing it's a life yet being ok with killing it."

So, Kerry feels the same way about babies that I feel about terrorists? 'Cause, I am ok with killing terrorists even though I realize they are alive. If Kerry feels like I do, can you call CNN and FOX with that info?

I am not that close follower of this debate, and not quite sure, why terrorists should be killed: out of vengeance, or to prevent future atrocities?

Rev, I don't care much for vengeance, that's an added bonus for me. I think we should kill them to prevent future atrocities and also trials where they can preach to their following from the witness stand (ala Saddam who should be dead as a doornail right now).

But, how come no liberals are commenting on the 'life begins at conception' remark?

I guess, Kerry is as uninformed as majority of Catolics or Republicans es or Democrats, so it is hard to interpret his words. What he means by conception? Fusion of gametes? First cleavage? This all is just plays of words where the players have little idea of what they are talking about, and use them to draw party lines. He is ready to please ignorant conservative voters, and it is fine with me, as long as he is efficient about it. His real position is of no import, as he has no idea what he is talking about.

Now, to Karol: if it is OK to kill somebody with friends, brothers, kids, to prevent some potential wrongness in the world, why it is not OK to kill a fetus with *nobody* it is dear to, and a lot of harm it is going to bring to its mother, say?

Well, Karol, it's not really just about that, is it? While the Roe V Wade decision sets the legal marker as to where life begins, it simultaneously claims that a woman's body is her own property. Deciding where life actually begins is a more philosophic topic of discussion, which pretty much means people will never agree.

But the legality of abortion is intimately connected with your conception of when life begins. If you were, say, to put a newly-born baby back in the mother's womb, I don't think you could find a legal case for terminating its life, yet it's technically "her body" again.

Assuming the fetus hadn't committed known terrorist acts, that is.

The legality of it has already been established by the supreme court. They did address the question of where life begins, but what about the state being able to dictate what a woman does with her own body? The issue is not limited solely to where life begins.

It's so entertaining to listen to pro-life conservatives who support the death penalty point out hypocrisy to us all.

'It's so entertaining to listen to pro-life conservatives who support the death penalty point out hypocrisy to us all.'

because an unborn baby and a serial killer are pretty much the same thing.

Well, scot, what we, humble ultra liberals, ask for is an argument which support inflicting death on some living being while prohibiting it on the others. An argument, Scot, not a gut feeling, as feelings can be wildly different across even the limited scope of cultures represented in this country. An argument on which a judge could rely upon.

It is a logical fallacy, to assume that asking for such an argument we equate an unborn baby with mature serial killer (I hope you are not referring to the brave GIs out there? just joking...). So bear with us, Scot, and tell us, when in your opinion a life deserves to be interrupted. Karol is of course invited as well.

I don't care about the lives of the terrorists or murderers on death row. Are you saying you feel the same way about babies? I mean, it's fine if you are, just admit that their lives don't matter to you.

Rev,
"Well, Scot, what we, humble ultra liberals, ask for is an argument which support inflicting death on some living being while prohibiting it on the others. "

Hmm...

When you take a holistic approach of abortion.

Women’s choice, social responsibility, personal responsibility, emotional cost, and the federal government’s responsibility to protect the right to life, freedom, and happiness (the government or God depending one you view has given us that right, and it is the government’s job to protect those rights). I only see one point that goes the pro choicer's way. (Of course most people agree that a woman should not do crack when she is pregnant, but yet she can get an abortion?!?)

The last point of it is the government’s responsibility to protect life is broadly defined by me as defense and keeping the peace, and that is the point in which the death penalty and the abortion debate intersect. The government has the responsibility to protect the lives of unborn babies, and to protect citizens from killers.

That point only carriers you so far as imprisonment, once you understand justice. Justice will carry to the point of understanding the death penalty.

cube

Chere Karol, let me reiterate: in a complicated debate on the state intervention into one's private life, one would rather avoid *feelings*. After all, huge numbers of people have pretty bad feelings towards an average American - would you take it as a basis for any argument? So, let me for now keep it to myself, what I feel about fetuses and people about to be executed by a state.

Any argument here should be based on basic principles on which we should agree (like value of human life, and restriction of government intervention to just necessary), and work on the problem from there by logic. Right?

I must confess, I am pretty displeased with the cheap demagoguery of the "just admit..." attempt. Is it what they taiught you in your school? If so, you overpaid them.

Now, to cube: "The government has the responsibility to protect the lives of unborn babies..." assumes quite broad relegation of some responsibilities to the government (which should also then take care of relocating pregnant women from inner city ghettos and ecologically harmful sites), but yet falls short of convincing me that to protect peace you guys should *kill*. Certainly there are other ways, not?

Rev, not all death is the same. If it was, then war would always be wrong. Do you believe WWII was wrong? Should we have not killed any Germans. Your comparison of babies to terrorists is twisted. It is entirely logical for someone to believe we should kill terrorists and murderers and not kill babies. Logical enough for you?

I'm actually not into the abortion debate, it isn't one of my issues and it isn't something I have a lot of knowledge about. There are people who, I'm sure, can give you a more factual debate on abortion than I can (Oschisms, Candace, where are you guys) but I can say that if you believe it's a life at conception that killing it can not be right. To me, the pro-choice/pro-life argument is limited to when you believe life begins. And, again, I do understand the pro-choice position: if the person believes that life does not begin at conception. To believe it does and still be ok with abortion is unacceptable and illogical.

"I must confess, I am pretty displeased with the cheap demagoguery of the "just admit..." attempt."

I must confess the way Rev is so full of herself would be funny if it were not so pathetic. Somebody who says things like "but yet falls short of convincing me that to protect peace you guys should *kill*" should shut up about cheap demagoguery, and get her own ass educated about history, instead of spewing bullshit with intellectual pretentions.

As a Jew, I believe that life begins at birth when the first breath brings the nefesh (soul) into the new person. That is a religious argument, of course.

It is true, however, that the Supreme Court has placed a different legal interpretation on the issue. As an American I would follow the law. I think any president, including Kerry and Bush, should as well.

Well, Karol, once again: the gist of your argument is that abortion is wrong *just because* fetus is alive. No further ifs and whens; alive means it should be born. But yet you allow plenty of reasons to kill someone who already is alive (primarily, if you are not into that revenge thing, because it is less expensive to keep this poor body away from yourself). I see no logic here at all, just pure sentiments.

I liked Lenin's outburst of rage, it seemed sincere to me. Perhaps she learned history hard way, up her ass, as she puts it. Or my own cheap demagoguery turned out to be too pungent, so she followed the trail attracted by the musk... Whatever - "pathetic", "ass" and "bullshit", over just 4 lines. Good. I like enraged disillusioned conservatives, like Edichka Limonov they are entertaining. I'll write more on them, in time. Be well, Comrade Lenin, we think about you!

Of course any president should follow the law, the issue only arises when it's time to nominate new judges.

I tend to agree with Chris that the question of when life bgins is a philosophical one. I can't think of a two-weeks fetus as a person; to me, it doesn't look like one. By the same token, a 6 months fetus doesn't exactly look like a part of woman's body, either. It looks like there's another person in there.

Rev, sweetie, you're confusing outrage with sarcasm, and pungency with stupidity. If somebody calls you a pussy, doing the same to them will not make you look good, and if you get me to call you names, it doesn't mean you're being effective. Anyway, I like self-adulating pseudo-intellectuals, so please keep "thinking" of me. It makes me feel very important.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Rev a comic genius, but she is quite funny in a hyper-ironic, uber-hypocritical, blindingly self-deluded kind of way. But then again, perhaps my amusement is simply a response typical of one who has absolutely zero intellectual respect for another.

absolutely zero intellectual respect for another
ss,
you make "zero" sound like a very big number.

Wow, it's too bad I've been in class all day. Here's my take on the whole issue:

Karol is absolutely right: this ultimately comes down to when you believe life begins and Kerry's position is hypocritical. The original statement that pro-choicers believe life begins at delivery, however, isn't the case (with some exceptions, perhaps; never say never).

Most people who are pro-choice don't have a particularly strong belief on when "life" begins: sorry to the pro-lifers, but even the Bible doesn't clarify that it's officially a soul at conception. The typical guideline is "when the fetus becomes viable." I'll have to do the research to make sure I'm completely right as to the level where this is guaranteed (state or federal), but the abortion laws do have a time limit. At some point, the fetus becomes viable (and, what I think is more definitive, the procedure becoms dangerous), and abortions are not performed. The reasoning behind partial-birth abortion is very different. Whereas early-pregnancy abortions can be thought of as a form of retroactive "birth control" (and this is where the pro-lifers have some ground, especially with chemical abortion), partial-birth abortion is never performed for that reason. It happens when - and here's some grayness - either the life/health of the mother is in jeapordy or the baby has some serious defects.

This is where the "value of life" issue gets fuzzy: if the woman's not going to die, but not going through the abortion will affect her health, at what level of severity should she have the right to kill the baby? And why is it that disabled children's lives are worth less? What are the ethics of pregnancy termination mid-term, when women find out, say, that their child will have MS or some other debilitating disease? Those questions are where nuance and philosophy play a role, and they are questions that even pro-lifers have to deal with (if it's either mom or child, SOMEONE is going to die and just saying "I'm for 'life'" won't cut it).

Myself, I'm not comfortable pretending I know at what week the fetus is officially a human life, so I err on the side of caution when it comes to the issue personally. I believe that most people aren't going to be having abortions once it becomes an involved surgical procedure, and I don't think I believe life begins AT conception, so I'm not radically uncomfortable with current policies and thus not a radical pro-lifer. I also believe that when it comes to a choice between a woman's health and her child's, that this person, who has carried her baby for nine months, should be allowed to weigh the costs for herself: I don't envy the position that she's in, but I wouldn't fault her for not sacrificing herself for her child (as many pro-lifers do).

Unfortunately, abortion is not in reality a life-and-death issue, or the choice would be easy. Life and death issues themselves are far more complicated than we give them credit for: it's impossible to believe universally that everyone has the "right" to "life": for example, either terrorists have the right to life or we do, and as much as we wish the world were otherwise, we live in a messy place.

However, if you're going to say that you believe a child at conception is a fully alive, fully human, fully innocent soul, then morally there is no distinction between killing a baby and killing a small child. No amount of "nuance" will save Kerry from that one.

Third to last paragraph, last sentence should read "(as many pro-lifers would)", and yes, it comes from hearing pro-life representatives scream into microphones that "if it were a choice between me and my baby, I'd choose my baby! Any decent woman would!" so it isn't just me pulling arguments out of my ass.

Also, as to the laws, another difficulty is that there is some legal controversy surrounding the laws. In general, post-viability abortions are illegal unless the health of the woman is at stake. Partial-birth abortion laws often try to restrain this and have in three states been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. According to this site, which I have bookmarked and checks out with other sources, 40 states and DC have banned post-viability abortion. Other states have some wierd restrictions and rights written into their code; you can read about those on this sub-page. The ultra-political nature of this issue has made everything really messy.

But dear pro-lifers (for all the ambiguity of this word) - neither of you is sure what life is (and I bet neither of you has a clear idea of developmental biology of mammals), yet you claim that the life is sancrosanct in womb. Why that? And why won't you allow that sometimes circumstances force you to kill small children, for greater good - and with all due sorrow you go and kill and get over it. Not?

Sister Lenin - good. Continue feel important, your turn will come. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual, by the way? Perhaps I am a bona fide intellectual? How do you know? Curiuos...

Rev,
Anyone who knows anything about Edichka Limonov will never call him "disillusioned". If there is one delusional guy in Russian politics, it would be him. So let's see, talking about things you know nothing about, while using unnecessarily big words and making snotty comments about your opponent's education, while being engaged in an inconclusive debate - is that what you call bona fide intellectualism?
If my answer seems incomplete, and you'd like to continue our sisterly discussion, please be welcome to do so on my blog :)

Well, nearest I can figure, Dawn's asking you how you can be pro-life (which you aren't...yet) and still support the death penalty for murderers.

I should think it pretty obvious that society and public policy should treat convicted murderers and innocent people differently.

If there should be no distinction between the two groups?:

1) How can you put a convicted murderer in jail for life while allowing an innocent unborn child to live, if the mother chooses?

2) How can you put a convicted murderer in jail for any length of time, while newborns are allowed to live?

3) How do you draw distinctions between who is innocent and who is guilty of crimes society deems punishable?

4) How do you draw distinctions between the criminals and the victims? If you can't, why should anyone be punished for any crime?

I can certainly understand someone telling me that both the unborn child and the convicted murderer are lives that deserve mercy...

But someone telling me that opposing abortion is meaningless without also opposing the death penalty is failing to draw the distinction between the innocent and the guilty that begs the 4 questions listed above.

Well, nearest I can figure, Chris's argument is that the fact (if you treat Kerry's belief as fact) that life begins at conception should not impinge upon a womans right to her own body.

Well the problem there is that the woman has been given the right to kill another human being as part and parcel of her right to privacy.

One needs to explain why she has been given this right to kill another human being. Is it because the human being is too young?

Fine. Does she have the right to kill this human being as part and parcel of her privacy rights if it is going to have darker skin than her?

Fine. Does she have the right to kill this human being as part and parcel of her privacy rights if the amniocentisis shows a slim possibility that the human being might have spinal bifidia?

Fine. Does she have the right to kill this human being as part and parcel of her privacy rights if the father's Jewish?

Fine. Does she have the right to kill this human being as part and parcel of her privacy rights if the human being is a female and her culture values male children more? (See: India, China)

Chris needs to clarify exactly what alive human beings it is ok to kill as part and parcel of the mother's privacy rights and why.

Otherwise the whole range of what is specified above is allowable acording to his belief system. They are also allowable according to federal law.

Partial-birth abortion laws often try to restrain this and have in three states been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. According to this site, which I have bookmarked and checks out with other sources, 40 states and DC have banned post-viability abortion.

You see, this is contradictory. Why is partial birth abortion been banned except for the fact that it is post viability? The phrase "partial-birth" connotes a viable child that has been partially delivered. One cannot partially deliver a blastocyst or an embryo. Those get scraped off of the uterine wall. If you are aborting a partially born baby, it is old enough to be partially delivered, have its neck punctured by a scalpel and its brains suctioned out, collapsing his skull and allowing the corpse to be removed from the womb. (This is what people defend) If partial-birth abortion has always been found unconstitutional, doesn't that make the statutes in those 40 states unconstitutional?

Yes, but not because they conflict with Roe v. Wade. Because they conflict with Doe v. Bolton.

A summary of the differences between the two opinions:

January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision handed down two rulings legalizing abortion in America. Prior to these rulings abortion in most of the 50 states was prohibited. And in the states where abortion was permitted various restrictions had been placed on the reasons for the abortion. These restrictions were removed by the January 22 rulings. The Court based their decision on the "Right to Privacy," which they claim is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but which they could not specifically find anywhere. They concluded that it was implied in either the fourteenth amendment or the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights.

The principle decision, Roe v. Wade repealed all state laws prohibiting abortion. The companion case, Doe v. Bolton extended the right to abortion to the entire nine months of pregnancy. The Court divided the term of pregnancy into trimesters (not a medical term at the time), and ruled that there could be no restrictions on abortions performed during the first trimester, or first three months of pregnancy.

The court allowed that during the second trimester states could pass certain regulations regarding abortion, but only to insure a woman’s safety. There could be no restrictions on a woman’s right to choose abortion. During the third trimester the court conceded that a state could impose restrictions on abortion, if the state found it in its interest to protect the child; however, the woman could still have access to an abortion for health reasons. Health was defined by the World Health Organization interpretation as any condition that might impact her physical, emotional or psychological or financial well being, effectively extending abortion on demand for the full nine months of pregnancy.

It is true that 40 states have these statutes, but as long as Doe v. Bolton is precedent, they are unconstitutional and if challenged, will be found so.

Viability has absoutely nothing to do with current federal abortion law, which supercedes state law.

Sucks, but that's the way it is. I didn't fabricate the precedent.

I forgot to add:

Guess who determines the patient's (meaning the mother's) emotional or psychological or financial well being

The abortionist. That's right, the guy who's gonna make 500$ from the procedure. 200$ from the billing, and 300$ from selling the fetal tissue.

An unbiased medical observer, to be sure.

But candace, Kerry never says the child is a fully blah blah morally life whatever, he says life begins at conception -- and hey, kanyoo yasna. Obviously, if conception doesn't happen there ain't gonna be a baby (abortion or no) -- My point -- woah, 31 comments ago, to karol was that life may start then, but that doesn't mean there aren't reasons that it can't be terminated (fallopian tube pregnancies, for one). Just like life is sacred blah blah blah folks are the first ones lined up at the death-house's door to hear that Timonthy mcVeigh was put to death at 12:03 a.m. on 6/11 or whatever. Just like like american liberators who run over iraqi children with tanks while trying to feed them.
Life is messy, complicated, and oooh, wait for it...nuanced.

Dawn, I try to understand how treating an innocent person and Timothy McVeigh differently is somehow complicated and nuanced. I fail. I just can't get my mind to understand. To me it's pretty simple and not nuanced at all.

As for fallopian tube pregnancies, they were never illegal to perform and simply a strawman argument in terms of the abortion debate. MD's have never let a baby mature in the fallopian tube until it burst the tube, ending the mother's life, and the baby's.

If there are reasons as to when life can be terminated, I'm curious as to what the reasons are. If the mother's "right to choose" includes the right to end the life of another human being, there must be some pretty compelling reasons beyond not wanting to have a baby, considering that American jurisprudence only recognizes the deprivation of life as just in warfare and for convicted murderers.

Once the pro-infanticide forces admit that there is life at the moment of conception, then the woman's right to do as she pleases with her own body ceases to exist. Because there are two bodies now. And this is the conceptual framework that Kerry must use if he did not misspeak.

I should never post without checking The Corner. Jon Adler links to Stuart Buck today, who interprets Doe v. Bolton as binding only on the State of Georgia.

Adler
Stuart Buck.

That's right, Dawn. Karol tried to charge Kerry with intellectual dishonesty for not implying "life there?-> hands off it!". Yet, as the discussion above has shown amply, the folks here do not hold to this maxim either. They start to qualify "life? but not the life of someone potentially dangerous to us? not the life of someone on the wrong side of the front life? etc." They wearily discard the question as philisophical. They cite their own ambiguities and doubts. And this is just fine - the question of abortion is difficult, and hardly suited to be put at feet of hysterical crowds (thanks to candace for a vivid description). Yet one demands a surgically clear cut opinion from a sleazy politiko, like Kerry? What a nonsense, folks. Get some life.

"considering that American jurisprudence only recognizes the deprivation of life as just in warfare and for convicted murderers. "

Actually Oschisms, american jurisprudence used to countenance deprivation of life for rape, escaped slaves, horse stealing, medical research, etc. etc. standards of decency evolve and if I teenager is impregnated by a rapist --those evolving standards of decency say that the doctor can terminate the pregancy. Evolving standards would say that if a married woman with four kids becomes pregnant and it's clear that she can't handle five kids and is on the verge of snapping her lid and killing them all -- an abortion is perfectly reasonable.
Get on the trolley: evolve with the society you live in.

Kerry believes "life" begins at conception. So do I. I believe "human life" in a biological way begins. I do not think embryos,zygotes,fetuses have any conscious of themselves existing and barely formed mass of cells don't feel pain or anything else.
This is a reason I am reluctantly pro-choice. I am not pro-choice when a baby is weeks away from becoming viable.
What exactly is viable? Can live on it's own or can be kept alive with machines and incubators (pre-mature babies, that live?) Either way, I don't support abortion if it's within 2 weeks of being born premature and baby could be kept alive with machines.

Kerry seems to believe "life" begins at conception in a biological and religous way. So according to Karol Kerry is sanctioning murder. This would be true if Kerry performed the abortion or had one himself. Besides Christian dogma would regard an abortion as a sin and like many sins people commit them all the time. As an electec politician Kerry has a duty to seperate his personal religous beliefs from dicating to the rest of us on how to act. Remember seperation of Church and State?
In this modern world people can be religous and be very...(stealing one from Dawn)...wait for it...nuanced. Many Christians have sex before marriage, covet they neighbors wife, and so on.
What if a Catholic were President? The Catholic Church says the War in Iraq is wrong. Would that President be religiously unable to invade Iraq? If you use the standard you are using for the abortion debate, he would be.

dawn - i'm totally with you on the comment on fallopian tube pregnancies and that's why i do make distinctions between abortion "as birth control" (which doesn't happen post-viability) and abortion for medical reasons. but as oschisms pointed out, this whole conversation demands that we acknowledge that issues "of life and death" aren't absolutes -- and yes, some people don't have the right to life, for justice reasons. that's different from abortion.

so, oddly, we don't really come out at odds... until this last statement:
"evolve with the society you live in."

a true progressive isn't somebody who just "evolves" or goes along with whatever society wants to do, because society will make mistakes. i maintain that there are principles we have to stick to if we want our society to work and be just, and while we can think twice about them, some things are universal. once again, the divide between conservatives and liberals becomes one of principle: one side believes in the existence of truth and the other just does what feels good.

American jurisprudence used to consider black people undeserving of the protections of the laws prohibiting murder. The times changed because American law- granted, all too slowly- recognized that each individual, by virtue of their humanity, deserves protection of the law.

If indeed there is a life inside pregnant women you are saying that the murder laws do not cover this person. Extention of the law's protection to cover more humans is progress. Retrenchment of the law's protection to cover fewer humans is regression.

As for the case of a raped teenager, as terrible as the crime of the father is, why should the son or daughter be faced with capital punishment when they are an innocent party? What's the problem with giving the baby up for adoption?

As far as the mental health of the woman with 4 kids goes, who determines her mental health? The abortionist who makes 200$ from the procedure and 300$ from selling the corpse? Mental disorders have different degrees of severity. So what at what degree of lack of mental health is the murder of your children allowed? Slight depression? Full blown shicoprenia?(sp) Who determines this? The mother? The father? The abortionist?

It should be noted that I'm very specifically answering your worst case scenerios(sp) but I still haven't gotten an answer to the above questions, including:

Is it permissible to abort a child because it is a female? Note that many Chinese newspapers in America advertise sex-selective abortions, so this isn't an occasional thing. It happens enough for people to make a living at it.

Rev tries to equate enemy soldiers and convicted murders with innocent children. Somehow without answering the 4 questions I posted above that naturally flow from such a preposterous position.

Again, it's one thing to say that every life is precious, including Tim McVeigh's.

It's another to say that because you think Tim McVeigh deserved the death penalty, you can not oppose murder of any kind.

I tried waiting for the trolley.

It seems that progress tore it down and built the Lexington Avenue IRT line.

Wiseass comment I know. Couldn't help it.

By the way is it just me?

Or is it a little chilling that I ask for the rationale behind depriving life in the womb of it's legal protection and instead of a legal argument the answer comes back:

Because it's fashionable.

Paul, I never mentioned religion. I remain wed to the position that if you believe life begins at CONCEPTION then ending that life is always wrong.

"I remain wed to the position that if you believe life begins at CONCEPTION then ending that life is always wrong."
Then how can you be for the death penalty crackie?

Ha! Full circle, I love it.

Societal evolution = fashionable...ok...if you say so.

Oh, and candace, not that I've ever had one, but I don't think abortions feel good.

Well, Dawn, I trust you're experienced enough and they do need to be told so...

i demand justice.

if you kill all killers there will be no more killers killing or kommiting krime or anyomre abortions.

the simple clean logic of that statment is inescapable.

The person who kills all the killers will then have to commit sucide, because he is a killer also.

Societal evolution = fashionable...ok...if you say so.

Well, yes. You're looking at society as something that constantly moves toward betterment. That just ain't so. Compare the plight of Jews in Eastern Europe in 1840 to the plight of Jews in Eastern Europe in 1940. That century is certainly not one of societal evolution for those people in that place. Or perhaps you could say that society did evolve, but it evolved in a way that is not only repugnant to you and me, but in a way that did not recognize the Jews' right to life as intrinsic to their humanity.

When you say:

"Get on the trolley: evolve with the society you live in.

You are saying one of 4 things:

1) 51% of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (Not true, BTW)

2) 100% of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (Not true, BTW)

3) Congress passed a law that made abortion legal in all circumstances (Not true, BTW)

4) The Supreme Court decreed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (pretty close to true)

And you are saying that as a consequence of one of these 4 things: A human being loses it's right to protection under the law and can be killed. (We are still taking the John Kerry view of when life begins. That is, after all, what this thread is about.)

Now if you believe as I do, that an unborn child, by virtue of its humanity is entitled to all the legal protection that is granted to any other human, then you also believe that black people can never again be considered property in America.

Now if you believe as I do, that an unborn child, by virtue of its humanity is entitled to all the legal protection that is granted to any other human, then you also believe that any American government that decrees Jews to be less than human, burns them alive, and uses their ashes to make soap must be acting unconstitutionally and must be resisted.

But if you believe as you do, that popular will, or legislation of Congress, or a Supreme Court decision decrees legal protection then these 3 entities also have the ability to revoke that legal protection.

If:

1) 51% of Americans believe that black people should be slaves, does that strip them of the protection of the law?

2) 100% of Americans believe that black people should be slaves, does that strip them of the protection of the law?

3) Congress passes a law that decrees all black people in America to be property of white people, does that strip them of the protection of the law?

4) The Supreme Court decrees all black people in America to be property of white people, does that strip them of the protection of the law?

By your legal reasoning, it does.

By my legal reasoning, it doesn't.

I know which America I want to live in. One where progress is measured by the extension of legal protections to ALL humans. Not one where progress is measured by time passed, whether the society revokes the right to life for certain groups or not.

By the way, should it be legal to abort a child simply because it is female?

We await your answer with bated breath.

"life begins at conception" even amongst people who beleive this, it means different things.

For some it's a religious conviction. Life and a Soul begins at conception. Aborting an early term pregancy is killing a soul with all the spiritual importance of a fully formed human. I believe Kerry as a Catholic falls into this category. But we don't live in a theocracy and I respect Kerrys decision not to impose his religion on a free society.

For others life begins at birth. I think this is the minority of Americans.

I believe human life begins at conception but a human being does not exist. I make a distintion between the beginning of human life and a human being. At some point in development a fetus becomes a human being and is entitled to all the rights and legal protections and a women loses her right to choose. Apparently the courts have decided something along these lines. And I think the majority of Americans also favor this policy.

At some point in development a fetus becomes a human being and is entitled to all the rights and legal protections and a women loses her right to choose.

Fine. Where do you draw that distinction? 3 months? 6 months? Is it permissible when the baby is small enough to be scraped off of the uterine wall, but impermissible when the baby has to be dismembered and removed through the vagina 1 limb at a time?

I've been trying like hell for 50 odd posts to get the pro-infanticide to state where they draw these distinctions. Has it escaped you that no one's deigned to answer? In absense of people willing to clearly articulate these distinctions am I wrong in assuming that these distinctions simply don't exist? That for all the high-minded principle the pro-infanticide side speaks of, not one has been willing to clearly state that killing an unborn child because it is female is wrong? The right to end a child's life is, apparently, an article of faith. The less it's thought about, the better.

"At some point in development a fetus becomes a human being and is entitled to all the rights and legal protections and a women loses her right to choose. Apparently the courts have decided something along these lines."

Again, look at Doe v. Bolton. The courts have decided that an unborn child can be killed at any point that it is not fully delivered for any reason, specifically because of the health of the mother. The health of the mother includes her emotional health. What you assert is simply not true, unless the distinction you claim the courts have drawn is at the point of birth.

Oschisms
If you read, I spelled it out very clearly:

"This is a reason I am reluctantly pro-choice. I am not pro-choice when a baby is weeks away from becoming viable.
What exactly is viable? Can live on it's own or can be kept alive with machines and incubators (pre-mature babies, that live?) Either way, I don't support abortion if it's within 2 weeks of being born premature and baby could be kept alive with machines."

You Write:

"Again, look at Doe v. Bolton. The courts have decided that an unborn child can be killed at any point that it is not fully delivered for any reason, specifically because of the health of the mother. The health of the mother includes her emotional health."

I admit, I have no clue what the courts decided on any abortion cases except Roe Vs Wade. I made my statement on something Candace wrote about what the courts decided. She wrote:

"The typical guideline is "when the fetus becomes viable." I'll have to do the research to make sure I'm completely right as to the level where this is guaranteed (state or federal), but the abortion laws do have a time limit. At some point, the fetus becomes viable (and, what I think is more definitive, the procedure becoms dangerous), and abortions are not performed."

I tried to show my ignorance of first hand knowledge of the subject by using the word "apparently".

"Apparently the courts have decided something along these lines."
If I am wrong about what the courts decided then I should do some research of my own.

I found a defintion of Viability and stand by my statements.

"Viability. Capability of living. A term used to denote the power a new-born child possesses of continuing its independent existence. That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems. The constitutionality of this statutory definition (V.A.M.S. (Mo.), §188.015) was upheld in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788.
For purposes of abortion regulation, viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physical on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388, 99 S.Ct. 675, 682, 58 L.Ed.2d 596.

C'mon, Paul, you're obviously going out of context. My paragraph:

"Again, look at Doe v. Bolton. The courts have decided that an unborn child can be killed at any point that it is not fully delivered for any reason, specifically because of the health of the mother. The health of the mother includes her emotional health."

Is pretty obviously stated in response to your paragraph:

"At some point in development a fetus becomes a human being and is entitled to all the rights and legal protections and a women loses her right to choose. Apparently the courts have decided something along these lines."

And not in response to your viability post several posts north of it.

You've got a statute that says:

For purposes of abortion regulation, viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physical on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388, 99 S.Ct. 675, 682, 58 L.Ed.2d 596.

What that means is that the abortionist, who gets paid 200$ for the procedure, and 300$ to sell the corpse decides when the child is viable. Is it any wonder the children are never found viable?

That statute would never be enforced, anyway, because of Doe v. Bolton. Here's what a lawyer says about that:

"Practical effect matters here. Some old laws remain on the books banning abortions of various kinds. If Stuart Buck, or Justice Thomas, or anyone else, can name a case in which a licensed physician was successfully prosecuted in the U.S. for no other reason than the performance of a post-viability abortion, I'll eat volume 410 of the United States Reports. The universal opinion of every prosecutor in America for the last 31 years seems to be the same as yours and mine."

Paul, you may draw distinctions between pre and post viability, but the federal courts simply don't.

Not that much of this is relevent. The point of this thread is that if John Kerry believes life begins at conception- not viability, conception- and he also supports abortion, then no one can posit an argument that John Kerry doesn't support murder for political gain.

God forbid someone present a complex idea in this forum.

It's not our job to condemn to hell those who choose the wrong path, but to guide them and show them the right way.

KERRY SUCKS

KERRY SUCKS