41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
Sperm are alive. I have killed trillions of them throughout my lifetime. I kill them everyday. Should it be illegal to kill sperm by whacking off? The potential for ceating a human starts in a man’s ability to ejaculate sperm.[/quote]

Straw man.

No, most artificial birth control is abortifacient.

I am happy for you, how old are they?

Red herring.

But, you’d be right, I am guessing a lot of the pro-abortionists don’t have adopted kids. Though, I know there is a few anti-abortionists here who do have adopted kids.

Though, I don’t have any kids of my own (I don’t have a wife, so I wouldn’t adopt a kid until I do) I have had several brothers and sisters who were adopted. Most of my cousins have adopted kids.

So, by your reasoning should we kill those kids in foster care because there are too many of them?

That is wonderfully charitable of you do such for a child in need.

Yes, it is a sad fact. I go down to the orphanage and visit the kids, bring them toys, &c. One day I hope to fund my own orphanage and get more kids off the street.

Yes, persons have rights because all men are created equally. Did you read that created, not born.

Red herring. And, Republicans give more money to charity than Democrats obviously Republicans care more about the poor than democrats. That is ridiculous.

Yes, and those that are born rich usually stay rich.

Yes, and that is what charity is for.

The overwhelming majority of people in jail are in there for nonsensical crimes such as possession of marijuana and other idiotic things.

NB: Not a Republican.

462

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have never been concerned about when life begins and it’s role in the abortion debate. [/quote]

It is pretty important, because we have determined, at least in this country, that every man is created equal with the right to life. Now, we have to determine when man is created.

463

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The perceived rights of a clump of cells do not superceed the rights of a woman.
[/quote]

Who gives the woman absolute right over the unborn child? Do they not have equal rights? Or are children somehow less of a person than its mother? Are not all humans created equal?[/quote]

Nobody gives rights to anyone. Rights can only be taken away.

A clump of cells does not have equal rights, and i explained why.

A zygote that does not have a brain is less of a person that it’s mother.

No, humans are not created equal. Even by your own admission you think women are not equal to men. You might say otherwise, but your actions and beliefs contradict what you say.

464

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
sentient
[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn are not can’t feel pain early in its development. And, it can’t think and is not self-aware until muchlater, but how does level of development determine our value? What about humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain, have worse thinking skills, and lack self-awareness than others? If level of development gives us our value, don’t those of us with better thinking skills have more value with less?[/quote]

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.

465

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I would have to say in the first three questions there are ways to tell when you conceived. Granted, if it’s within a few days…that would be up to the woman and her husband to decide, if they want to take that chance. If the baby ends up being the rapist’s they can always give it up for adoption, but personally I would err on the side of caution and abort and hope my husband would understand. We can always get pregnant again. As for the fifth question, I would do everything in my power to make my child’s life as full as I possibly could for as long as it lived. A risk to the mother’s life is if the continued pregnancy and birth would put her life in any kind of danger. I’m not talking about pregnancy induced diabetes (I cannot remember the term for this right now, I’m sorry), but serious medical issues. [/quote]

Okay, well I guess what I am trying to get at with the first three questions, is how does the value of that human being change based on who the father is?

You can always get pregnant again? I hope I have mistaken what you said, but are you saying that child is a means to an end? If it is not what the child you want (the end), you can just abort and get pregnant again and conceive another child (the means)?

‘Any kind of danger’ seems a tad arbitrary. Let me see if I can understand you better.

Like what ailment would the mother need to be in risk of to induce abortion? Is a small risk good enough or does it have to be a good chance of it happening? If there is a high risk (or even a small risk), what if it is easily preventable?

NB: I don’t mean to be cold about this subject, I condemn rape and the rapist without reserve. No woman deserves to have something forced on her like that and not only is she being forced to let go of her innocence, she was forced to give up her freedom in some ways.[/quote]

My thinking is why should I have to go through a pregnancy resulting from a rape? Why do I need to be put through that? Wasn’t getting raped enough? Now I have to give birth to that kid? No thank you. I apologize that I am not thinking of the possible human life and I’m being selfish, but I think that making me go through with an unwanted pregnancy makes the rape that much more horrible and damaging.

No, what I’m saying is that I would hope my husband would understand WHY I would need to abort that baby and understand that we can always get pregnant again and for sure conceive a child in love and not have a baby possibly tainted by rape. If there is a way to do a paternity test in utero, an abortion in such a case would not be considered.

Okay, the only thing I can think of is my best friend from college. She has endometriosis and actually needed to take fertility drugs to get pregnant. Her first pregnancy almost killed her. She had the world’s worst pregnancy and her labor was unreal. Her doctors said she should NEVER get pregnant again or her life would seriously be in danger. Now, they also thought there was an extremely remote chance that the first pregnancy “rebooted” her reproductive system but they didn’t know. I even suggested I would be a surrogate if she decided to have another kid. Just this year she had her second daughter and her pregnancy was textbook and easy. Now, if it had gone the way the doctors thought it would, and if her life was in danger, if she started hemorrhaging uncontrollably or something equally horrific, I would say an abortion would be okay in that case. Or at least inducing a miscarriage. [/quote]

A rape is indeed a horrifying thing and I can’t speak to being raped since is has never happened to me, or you for that matter. But it still ignores the main and only question that matters. When does human life begin?

Now, if I were a politician, I would negotiate down to the rape and incest thing because it accounts for very, very few abortions. I would negotiate that down to get rid of the millions for the sake of the less than 100.
Every life is sacred, but I understand that numbers matter too. If I could get rid of most forsaking the few, I would do it.[/quote]

I have never been concerned about when life begins and it’s role in the abortion debate. I am pro-choice and think that when all is said and done it is the woman’s ultimate choice. I definitely do NOT think that she should make the decision without first telling the father and discussing it with him. I know someone this happened to a long time ago and it still bothers him today. Would that baby have been a boy or a girl? What kind of dad would he have been? What kind of life would he have today if that baby had been allowed to be born? [/quote]

I agree that the father should have a voice in the decision. It’s true that the decision affects the mother the most in the short term, due to being pregnant and delivering the baby. But the child is as much the father’s as it is hers, and he should have equal say. If he does want it and she doesn’t, let him have full custody and responsibility once the baby is born.

466

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
sentient
[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn are not can’t feel pain early in its development. And, it can’t think and is not self-aware until muchlater, but how does level of development determine our value? What about humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain, have worse thinking skills, and lack self-awareness than others? If level of development gives us our value, don’t those of us with better thinking skills have more value with less?[/quote]

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?

467

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.

468

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.
[/quote]

Why not? The test case illustrates some fundamental ethical principles:

  1. Human life still has value with limited brain activity

  2. #1 is particularly true when the limited brain activity is only temporary, and will be fully normal in time

  3. Enduring 9 months of suffering to preserve a human life is not an inordinate burden, and indeed is ethically mandated when the individual is responsible for the creation of that life, intentionally or otherwise

I just don’t buy the brain activity argument. It’s only temporarily limited brain activity, and the woman is responsible for the human being’s existence. I may have a different position on cases where she isn’t responsible (i.e., rape).

469

[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]fattymcfatso wrote:
Sperm are alive. I have killed trillions of them throughout my lifetime. I kill them everyday. Should it be illegal to kill sperm by whacking off? The potential for ceating a human starts in a man’s ability to ejaculate sperm. Should women not be able to use birth control? Eggs are alive aren’t they?

My wife and I can not have children, we adopted 2 kids that we first raised through the foster care system. I am guessing most of the people in this debate (I did not read all the posts) are not foster parents. Guess what, the foster care system is overloaded with kids who need homes that were born to teenagers who can not take care of them. So it is up to people like my wife and I to do it. Yes, if our kids were not in the system we would not have the family we do now. But we get calls every month asking us to take more children, we can not do it anymore because we are relocating to a different state. But there are always kids who need homes.

Most of you pro-lifers want the embryo to be born because it “has rights.” You guys are the same people (Republicans usually) who don’t want to pay the taxes to support the kids that you want so deperatly to be born. The kids that are born into poverty generally stay in poverty. The people who live in poverty are the people who need the social programs that cost us all money, and croud the jails that cost us money, and comit the crimes that make our country worse. More people is not always better.

Is this what you guys want?

[/quote]

Are you saying a sperm is a human being?
WE are talking about human life, not the life of anything. A sperm isn’t human. It has less than half of what it needs to qualify. When even being 99.9% of human doen’t necessarily qualify you as human, then less than 50% is a huge difference.

We’re not talking about rights we’re talking about the single right to live, that’s it nothing more. [/quote]

Humans should live. The embryo is on it’s way to being a human, the sperm is on it’s way to being an embryo. Why is it called an embryo and not a baby? Because it does not have all of the characteristics of a baby human yet.
[/quote]
The embryo has the exact same generic make up as an the same human organism in adult form. Sperm no human DNA, it’s a fish that caries 23 chromosomes that is not idetical to anything human except other sperm. It’s a red herring, one is not the other, one is not like the other.
Sperm is not a human organism, an embryo is. I challenge you to provide even the slightest shred of evidence that an embryo is anything other than a human organism.

[quote]
I get it, abortion seems mean. Killing something seems wrong. So does letting two gay guys get married I guess. Bringing a child into poverty is not a top choice for most young women, screwing up their chance at getting into school and getting a good job is also not a top choice. Once the mistake is made, the choice to fix it (within a certain amount of time) is up to them, not you guys. If you want to volunteer and take care of all of the babies you are going to “save” then I guess you should have a say in the matter. If not then I don’t understand why you pretend to care so much. [/quote]

Well, if you don’t think killing people is ‘mean’, but you admit that abortion is killing people then my job is done. Some folks do admit it’s murder, but that that’s it’s still ok because not everybody deserves to live.
I honestly cannot see how anyone can think that it isn’t murder. Even most ardent supporters of it here admit that it’s human in the 3rd trimester. Most still admit it sometime through the 2nd trimester. It’s arbitrary lines drawn in the 1rst trimester that most of us are arguing.

Do you think partial birth abortion is ok? What about 36 week abortions. What about 27th week?

470

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.
[/quote]

Why not? The test case illustrates some fundamental ethical principles:

  1. Human life still has value with limited brain activity

  2. #1 is particularly true when the limited brain activity is only temporary, and will be fully normal in time

  3. Enduring 9 months of suffering to preserve a human life is not an inordinate burden, and indeed is ethically mandated when the individual is responsible for the creation of that life, intentionally or otherwise

I just don’t buy the brain activity argument. It’s only temporarily limited brain activity, and the woman is responsible for the human being’s existence. I may have a different position on cases where she isn’t responsible (i.e., rape).[/quote]

Interesting, now it’s seems that the argument has denigrated to how valuable a life is. I personally think there are lot’s of useless adults walking around, like Nancy Pelosi for instance. I can’t go around popin’ a cap in their asses just because they are useless.

471

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
sentient
[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn are not can’t feel pain early in its development. And, it can’t think and is not self-aware until muchlater, but how does level of development determine our value? What about humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain, have worse thinking skills, and lack self-awareness than others? If level of development gives us our value, don’t those of us with better thinking skills have more value with less?[/quote]

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

What about the absence of a liver or heart? Can’t do much with out those either. Amd you cannot have a brain, a heart, or any of it with out genetics and life itself. A dead gene is useless, a living nothing is nothing.

472

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The perceived rights of a clump of cells do not superceed the rights of a woman.
[/quote]

Who gives the woman absolute right over the unborn child? Do they not have equal rights? Or are children somehow less of a person than its mother? Are not all humans created equal?[/quote]

Nobody gives rights to anyone. Rights can only be taken away.

A clump of cells does not have equal rights, and i explained why.

A zygote that does not have a brain is less of a person that it’s mother.

No, humans are not created equal. Even by your own admission you think women are not equal to men. You might say otherwise, but your actions and beliefs contradict what you say.
[/quote]

“…is less of a person” ← So you admit it’s a person? Interesting.

Again, not talking equal rights, just the right to live. We’ll grant liberty and the pursuit of happiness postpartum, and stick with just the chance to make it through the early stages of life alive.

473

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.
[/quote]

Why not? The test case illustrates some fundamental ethical principles:

  1. Human life still has value with limited brain activity

  2. #1 is particularly true when the limited brain activity is only temporary, and will be fully normal in time

  3. Enduring 9 months of suffering to preserve a human life is not an inordinate burden, and indeed is ethically mandated when the individual is responsible for the creation of that life, intentionally or otherwise

I just don’t buy the brain activity argument. It’s only temporarily limited brain activity, and the woman is responsible for the human being’s existence. I may have a different position on cases where she isn’t responsible (i.e., rape).[/quote]

Interesting, now it’s seems that the argument has denigrated to how valuable a life is. I personally think there are lot’s of useless adults walking around, like Nancy Pelosi for instance. I can’t go around popin’ a cap in their asses just because they are useless.
[/quote]

You wouldn’t kill her on a whim, but what if you had to choose between saving her vs. saving someone else?

474

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
sentient
[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn are not can’t feel pain early in its development. And, it can’t think and is not self-aware until muchlater, but how does level of development determine our value? What about humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain, have worse thinking skills, and lack self-awareness than others? If level of development gives us our value, don’t those of us with better thinking skills have more value with less?[/quote]

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

What about the absence of a liver or heart? Can’t do much with out those either. Amd you cannot have a brain, a heart, or any of it with out genetics and life itself. A dead gene is useless, a living nothing is nothing.[/quote]

Major congenital birthdefects are often a reason for abortion.

475

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.
[/quote]

Why not? The test case illustrates some fundamental ethical principles:

  1. Human life still has value with limited brain activity

  2. #1 is particularly true when the limited brain activity is only temporary, and will be fully normal in time

  3. Enduring 9 months of suffering to preserve a human life is not an inordinate burden, and indeed is ethically mandated when the individual is responsible for the creation of that life, intentionally or otherwise

I just don’t buy the brain activity argument. It’s only temporarily limited brain activity, and the woman is responsible for the human being’s existence. I may have a different position on cases where she isn’t responsible (i.e., rape).[/quote]

Interesting, now it’s seems that the argument has denigrated to how valuable a life is. I personally think there are lot’s of useless adults walking around, like Nancy Pelosi for instance. I can’t go around popin’ a cap in their asses just because they are useless.
[/quote]

You wouldn’t kill her on a whim, but what if you had to choose between saving her vs. saving someone else?[/quote]

My basis for saving someone would not actually be based on whether or not I liked them. Even if the bitch were in a jam and I had the opportunity to save her I would…Then when she got well, I’d slap the shit out of her.

476

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
sentient
[/quote]

You’re right that the unborn are not can’t feel pain early in its development. And, it can’t think and is not self-aware until muchlater, but how does level of development determine our value? What about humans outside the womb who can’t feel pain, have worse thinking skills, and lack self-awareness than others? If level of development gives us our value, don’t those of us with better thinking skills have more value with less?[/quote]

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

What about the absence of a liver or heart? Can’t do much with out those either. Amd you cannot have a brain, a heart, or any of it with out genetics and life itself. A dead gene is useless, a living nothing is nothing.[/quote]

Major congenital birthdefects are often a reason for abortion.
[/quote]

In other words the child had no chance to live if taken to full gestation? I’d have to look at the circumstance to be able to determine the best course of action, but birthing what is tantamount to a dead body if not artificially supported I would consider it. But I’d have to be damned sure I am not euthanizing it, but merely not sustaining it artificially.

477

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Major congenital birthdefects are often a reason for abortion.
[/quote]

In other words the child had no chance to live if taken to full gestation? I’d have to look at the circumstance to be able to determine the best course of action, but birthing what is tantamount to a dead body if not artificially supported I would consider it. But I’d have to be damned sure I am not euthanizing it, but merely not sustaining it artificially. [/quote]

Well allright then, at last some common ground!

478

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.
[/quote]

Why not? The test case illustrates some fundamental ethical principles:

  1. Human life still has value with limited brain activity

  2. #1 is particularly true when the limited brain activity is only temporary, and will be fully normal in time

  3. Enduring 9 months of suffering to preserve a human life is not an inordinate burden, and indeed is ethically mandated when the individual is responsible for the creation of that life, intentionally or otherwise

I just don’t buy the brain activity argument. It’s only temporarily limited brain activity, and the woman is responsible for the human being’s existence. I may have a different position on cases where she isn’t responsible (i.e., rape).[/quote]

Interesting, now it’s seems that the argument has denigrated to how valuable a life is. I personally think there are lot’s of useless adults walking around, like Nancy Pelosi for instance. I can’t go around popin’ a cap in their asses just because they are useless.
[/quote]

You wouldn’t kill her on a whim, but what if you had to choose between saving her vs. saving someone else?[/quote]

My basis for saving someone would not actually be based on whether or not I liked them. Even if the bitch were in a jam and I had the opportunity to save her I would…Then when she got well, I’d slap the shit out of her.[/quote]

I’m talking about a situation where you could only save one person, not both.

Translation: What if the baby threatens the mother’s life? In that case, I’m ok with abortion.

479

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Major congenital birthdefects are often a reason for abortion.
[/quote]

In other words the child had no chance to live if taken to full gestation? I’d have to look at the circumstance to be able to determine the best course of action, but birthing what is tantamount to a dead body if not artificially supported I would consider it. But I’d have to be damned sure I am not euthanizing it, but merely not sustaining it artificially. [/quote]

Well allright then, at last some common ground!
[/quote]

We have a lot of common ground E, even on this issue. For instance, you don’t agree with aborting a child at 36 weeks gestation.
Common ground isn’t fun to discuss. Arguing is :slight_smile:

480

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve answered this in my conversation with forlife Chris.

The absence of a brain is key.
[/quote]

If I had to choose between killing someone with severe brain damage, vs killing someone with a fully functional brain, all other things being equal I would kill the former.

But what if you could save both? Wouldn’t it be ethical to do so, particularly knowing that the brain damage could be reversed and both could have fully functioning brains?

What if the cost of saving both was that the latter would be required to endure a certain amount of suffering, for a period of 9 months? And what if that person was actually driving the car when the brain damage victim was injured?[/quote]

I’m not going the “what if?” game forlife, sorry.
[/quote]

Why not? The test case illustrates some fundamental ethical principles:

  1. Human life still has value with limited brain activity

  2. #1 is particularly true when the limited brain activity is only temporary, and will be fully normal in time

  3. Enduring 9 months of suffering to preserve a human life is not an inordinate burden, and indeed is ethically mandated when the individual is responsible for the creation of that life, intentionally or otherwise

I just don’t buy the brain activity argument. It’s only temporarily limited brain activity, and the woman is responsible for the human being’s existence. I may have a different position on cases where she isn’t responsible (i.e., rape).[/quote]

Interesting, now it’s seems that the argument has denigrated to how valuable a life is. I personally think there are lot’s of useless adults walking around, like Nancy Pelosi for instance. I can’t go around popin’ a cap in their asses just because they are useless.
[/quote]

You wouldn’t kill her on a whim, but what if you had to choose between saving her vs. saving someone else?[/quote]

My basis for saving someone would not actually be based on whether or not I liked them. Even if the bitch were in a jam and I had the opportunity to save her I would…Then when she got well, I’d slap the shit out of her.[/quote]

I’m talking about a situation where you could only save one person, not both.

Translation: What if the baby threatens the mother’s life? In that case, I’m ok with abortion.[/quote]
It’d have to be more than a threat. But in the case where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, real jeopardy as in ectopic pregnancy, the family, including of course the mother, can make the decision to save her own life. I don’t think it’s soley her decision simply because the whole family is effected, especially if there are already other children.
That’s not indispute, the child is not more valuable than mom. Though there have been cases like this where the mother has chosen the child’s life. But she could have chosen otherwise. She did not make the ‘right’ choice. She laid her life down for her child; admirable but not more ‘moral’ in such cases.