Famous Abortionist Killed in Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Vegita wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
John S. wrote:

In the legal sense it is a human, look at all my other examples where the law classifies it as human. A unique code of DNA that can be determined has human is human. That is how it works every other time and that is how it must work. Why is it that liberals can always say science is the only way but when science proves that abortion is wrong they turn there head and cover there ears.

Human life is cheap, don’t you know that? At every stage of its life. You can’t prevent abortions. You can only affect the surroundings in which they are done.

Should we also then apply this to regular murder as well? I mean you can’t stop that either. Just bring your intended victim into a doctors office and have the doc put him down for ya? Yea, well I was going to shoot you when you were getting the paper in the morning, but this way will be better for your wife and kids, you know lot less blood.

V[/quote]

I appreciate your feeling. Did you think about what I said? It’s a fact, that I stated. If I decide to murder my neighbour or not doesn’t change it.

203

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?
[/quote]

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

204

[quote]orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.[/quote]

I have to disagree here, I mean how can you only have a “little” right to life? The right to life is not a gradual thing that builds up over time, or with development. It’s an either or, you either have it or you don’t have it. I mean as a naturalist, I view all things to have the right to life, not just humans. So therefore I only can condone killing for food, or self preservation. Abortion in my book is killing, and it doesn’t meet either of those other two criteria, With the sole exception of if you don’t abort then the mother will die. That is THE only reason it should be considered. Again, these are just my opinions. Even if we say you are right about your continuum theory, who gets to decide when the right to life should be granted? How is it determined? When the brain is showing signs of development like ryan was suggesting? I mean why isn’t it a better option to just say, heck we don’t know and we just aren’t comfortable killing or potentially killing a baby human. I mean I know a husband and wife who have been on a waiting list for 4 years trying to adopt a newborn baby. There are people who would adopt, and people are just aborting instead of carrying to term and putting up for adoption. It’s SO much easier.

V

205

[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

I have to disagree here, I mean how can you only have a “little” right to life? The right to life is not a gradual thing that builds up over time, or with development. It’s an either or, you either have it or you don’t have it. I mean as a naturalist, I view all things to have the right to life, not just humans. So therefore I only can condone killing for food, or self preservation. Abortion in my book is killing, and it doesn’t meet either of those other two criteria, With the sole exception of if you don’t abort then the mother will die. That is THE only reason it should be considered. Again, these are just my opinions. Even if we say you are right about your continuum theory, who gets to decide when the right to life should be granted? How is it determined? When the brain is showing signs of development like ryan was suggesting? I mean why isn’t it a better option to just say, heck we don’t know and we just aren’t comfortable killing or potentially killing a baby human. I mean I know a husband and wife who have been on a waiting list for 4 years trying to adopt a newborn baby. There are people who would adopt, and people are just aborting instead of carrying to term and putting up for adoption. It’s SO much easier.

V[/quote]

Well yes, who are we to decide that.

Which is why I think it is up to those who we know to be human beings who will have to bear the consequences to decide that.

Each and everyone for his or her own-

I do believe though that if conservatives changed tactics and would focus on building foster homes that made sure that those “unwanted babies” are taken care of, they could work miracles.

With private money of course.

206

[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

I have to disagree here, I mean how can you only have a “little” right to life? The right to life is not a gradual thing that builds up over time, or with development. It’s an either or, you either have it or you don’t have it. I mean as a naturalist, I view all things to have the right to life, not just humans. So therefore I only can condone killing for food, or self preservation. Abortion in my book is killing, and it doesn’t meet either of those other two criteria, With the sole exception of if you don’t abort then the mother will die. That is THE only reason it should be considered. Again, these are just my opinions. Even if we say you are right about your continuum theory, who gets to decide when the right to life should be granted? How is it determined? When the brain is showing signs of development like ryan was suggesting? I mean why isn’t it a better option to just say, heck we don’t know and we just aren’t comfortable killing or potentially killing a baby human. I mean I know a husband and wife who have been on a waiting list for 4 years trying to adopt a newborn baby. There are people who would adopt, and people are just aborting instead of carrying to term and putting up for adoption. It’s SO much easier.

V

Well yes, who are we to decide that.

Which is why I think it is up to those who we know to be human beings who will have to bear the consequences to decide that.

Each and everyone for his or her own-

I do believe though that if conservatives changed tactics and would focus on building foster homes that made sure that those “unwanted babies” are taken care of, they could work miracles.

With private money of course.

[/quote]

Oh I agree, I think it would be a wonderful new job market. If you take the old saying of it takes a village to raise a child, you could literally do that and I think have some wonderful human beings brought into our society. Not so much an orphanage the way we consider them to be, but take some of these teachers who can’t find work and cross train them a little more and have them care for children from birth to the age of 18. Have several shifts like a hospital or a nursing home. Build a nice campus like a college would be structured and then have qualified adults raise groups of children. Instead of having only one mom and dad, kids would essentially have a community full of parents, and think of the growth they could achieve if it was done correctly. Of course this is one area where I think government funding would be necessary, I mean the only way you could have it privately funded is to have the children themselves paying for the care they recieved when they are released into the working force. And while it may be doable after many years, the first 20-30 years of operation for a facility would need to be subsidized somehow. Perhaps a charity could kick in but i’m not sure if that would be reliable enough for it to really work. Perhaps you could have some sort of a government loan, and then after the kids are released into the workforce they have to Pay a certain dollar amount for thier past care. It is taken out of thier pay, say 10% until thier debt is paid off, weather it takes them 20 years or 5. Anyways, I am not in favor of having kids be raised by shitty parents. So if the parents do not want to raise the kids, then as a society, we do need to come up with a good way to raise kids as a community.

V

207

[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

I have to disagree here, I mean how can you only have a “little” right to life? The right to life is not a gradual thing that builds up over time, or with development. It’s an either or, you either have it or you don’t have it. I mean as a naturalist, I view all things to have the right to life, not just humans. So therefore I only can condone killing for food, or self preservation. Abortion in my book is killing, and it doesn’t meet either of those other two criteria, With the sole exception of if you don’t abort then the mother will die. That is THE only reason it should be considered. Again, these are just my opinions. Even if we say you are right about your continuum theory, who gets to decide when the right to life should be granted? How is it determined? When the brain is showing signs of development like ryan was suggesting? I mean why isn’t it a better option to just say, heck we don’t know and we just aren’t comfortable killing or potentially killing a baby human. I mean I know a husband and wife who have been on a waiting list for 4 years trying to adopt a newborn baby. There are people who would adopt, and people are just aborting instead of carrying to term and putting up for adoption. It’s SO much easier.

V

Well yes, who are we to decide that.

Which is why I think it is up to those who we know to be human beings who will have to bear the consequences to decide that.

Each and everyone for his or her own-

I do believe though that if conservatives changed tactics and would focus on building foster homes that made sure that those “unwanted babies” are taken care of, they could work miracles.

With private money of course.

Oh I agree, I think it would be a wonderful new job market. If you take the old saying of it takes a village to raise a child, you could literally do that and I think have some wonderful human beings brought into our society. Not so much an orphanage the way we consider them to be, but take some of these teachers who can’t find work and cross train them a little more and have them care for children from birth to the age of 18. Have several shifts like a hospital or a nursing home. Build a nice campus like a college would be structured and then have qualified adults raise groups of children. Instead of having only one mom and dad, kids would essentially have a community full of parents, and think of the growth they could achieve if it was done correctly. Of course this is one area where I think government funding would be necessary, I mean the only way you could have it privately funded is to have the children themselves paying for the care they recieved when they are released into the working force. And while it may be doable after many years, the first 20-30 years of operation for a facility would need to be subsidized somehow. Perhaps a charity could kick in but i’m not sure if that would be reliable enough for it to really work. Perhaps you could have some sort of a government loan, and then after the kids are released into the workforce they have to Pay a certain dollar amount for thier past care. It is taken out of thier pay, say 10% until thier debt is paid off, weather it takes them 20 years or 5. Anyways, I am not in favor of having kids be raised by shitty parents. So if the parents do not want to raise the kids, then as a society, we do need to come up with a good way to raise kids as a community.

V[/quote]

Well I guess you are right we need a government to do that. It could never ever work as a private organization.

I wonder if there is a thing like that in Austria. I wonder if it is private or public. I even wonder if there are small villages with schools and all.

But, if it did it would certainly need governments to grow into an international organization. Because private charity simply is no substitute for welfare and can never ever be, oh no.

http://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/pages/default.aspx

208

[quote]orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

I have to disagree here, I mean how can you only have a “little” right to life? The right to life is not a gradual thing that builds up over time, or with development. It’s an either or, you either have it or you don’t have it. I mean as a naturalist, I view all things to have the right to life, not just humans. So therefore I only can condone killing for food, or self preservation. Abortion in my book is killing, and it doesn’t meet either of those other two criteria, With the sole exception of if you don’t abort then the mother will die. That is THE only reason it should be considered. Again, these are just my opinions. Even if we say you are right about your continuum theory, who gets to decide when the right to life should be granted? How is it determined? When the brain is showing signs of development like ryan was suggesting? I mean why isn’t it a better option to just say, heck we don’t know and we just aren’t comfortable killing or potentially killing a baby human. I mean I know a husband and wife who have been on a waiting list for 4 years trying to adopt a newborn baby. There are people who would adopt, and people are just aborting instead of carrying to term and putting up for adoption. It’s SO much easier.

V

Well yes, who are we to decide that.

Which is why I think it is up to those who we know to be human beings who will have to bear the consequences to decide that.

Each and everyone for his or her own-

I do believe though that if conservatives changed tactics and would focus on building foster homes that made sure that those “unwanted babies” are taken care of, they could work miracles.

With private money of course.

Oh I agree, I think it would be a wonderful new job market. If you take the old saying of it takes a village to raise a child, you could literally do that and I think have some wonderful human beings brought into our society. Not so much an orphanage the way we consider them to be, but take some of these teachers who can’t find work and cross train them a little more and have them care for children from birth to the age of 18. Have several shifts like a hospital or a nursing home. Build a nice campus like a college would be structured and then have qualified adults raise groups of children. Instead of having only one mom and dad, kids would essentially have a community full of parents, and think of the growth they could achieve if it was done correctly. Of course this is one area where I think government funding would be necessary, I mean the only way you could have it privately funded is to have the children themselves paying for the care they recieved when they are released into the working force. And while it may be doable after many years, the first 20-30 years of operation for a facility would need to be subsidized somehow. Perhaps a charity could kick in but i’m not sure if that would be reliable enough for it to really work. Perhaps you could have some sort of a government loan, and then after the kids are released into the workforce they have to Pay a certain dollar amount for thier past care. It is taken out of thier pay, say 10% until thier debt is paid off, weather it takes them 20 years or 5. Anyways, I am not in favor of having kids be raised by shitty parents. So if the parents do not want to raise the kids, then as a society, we do need to come up with a good way to raise kids as a community.

V

Well I guess you are right we need a government to do that. It could never ever work as a private organization.

I wonder if there is a thing like that in Austria. I wonder if it is private or public. I even wonder if there are small villages with schools and all.

But, if it did it would certainly need governments to grow into an international organization. Because private charity simply is no substitute for welfare and can never ever be, oh no.

http://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/pages/default.aspx

[/quote]

Well then I stand corrected. Hopefully something like that would develop in the states should abortion be outlawed. Surely we would need it.

V

210

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

[/quote]

Oy vey, no black and white.

The mind boggles.

211

[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

I have to disagree here, I mean how can you only have a “little” right to life? The right to life is not a gradual thing that builds up over time, or with development. It’s an either or, you either have it or you don’t have it. I mean as a naturalist, I view all things to have the right to life, not just humans. So therefore I only can condone killing for food, or self preservation. Abortion in my book is killing, and it doesn’t meet either of those other two criteria, With the sole exception of if you don’t abort then the mother will die. That is THE only reason it should be considered. Again, these are just my opinions. Even if we say you are right about your continuum theory, who gets to decide when the right to life should be granted? How is it determined? When the brain is showing signs of development like ryan was suggesting? I mean why isn’t it a better option to just say, heck we don’t know and we just aren’t comfortable killing or potentially killing a baby human. I mean I know a husband and wife who have been on a waiting list for 4 years trying to adopt a newborn baby. There are people who would adopt, and people are just aborting instead of carrying to term and putting up for adoption. It’s SO much easier.

V

Well yes, who are we to decide that.

Which is why I think it is up to those who we know to be human beings who will have to bear the consequences to decide that.

Each and everyone for his or her own-

I do believe though that if conservatives changed tactics and would focus on building foster homes that made sure that those “unwanted babies” are taken care of, they could work miracles.

With private money of course.

Oh I agree, I think it would be a wonderful new job market. If you take the old saying of it takes a village to raise a child, you could literally do that and I think have some wonderful human beings brought into our society. Not so much an orphanage the way we consider them to be, but take some of these teachers who can’t find work and cross train them a little more and have them care for children from birth to the age of 18. Have several shifts like a hospital or a nursing home. Build a nice campus like a college would be structured and then have qualified adults raise groups of children. Instead of having only one mom and dad, kids would essentially have a community full of parents, and think of the growth they could achieve if it was done correctly. Of course this is one area where I think government funding would be necessary, I mean the only way you could have it privately funded is to have the children themselves paying for the care they recieved when they are released into the working force. And while it may be doable after many years, the first 20-30 years of operation for a facility would need to be subsidized somehow. Perhaps a charity could kick in but i’m not sure if that would be reliable enough for it to really work. Perhaps you could have some sort of a government loan, and then after the kids are released into the workforce they have to Pay a certain dollar amount for thier past care. It is taken out of thier pay, say 10% until thier debt is paid off, weather it takes them 20 years or 5. Anyways, I am not in favor of having kids be raised by shitty parents. So if the parents do not want to raise the kids, then as a society, we do need to come up with a good way to raise kids as a community.

V

Well I guess you are right we need a government to do that. It could never ever work as a private organization.

I wonder if there is a thing like that in Austria. I wonder if it is private or public. I even wonder if there are small villages with schools and all.

But, if it did it would certainly need governments to grow into an international organization. Because private charity simply is no substitute for welfare and can never ever be, oh no.

http://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/pages/default.aspx

Well then I stand corrected. Hopefully something like that would develop in the states should abortion be outlawed. Surely we would need it.

V[/quote]

There are three villages in the US.

Give them the money and they´ll build you one thousand.

213

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

Oy vey, no black and white.

The mind boggles.

It is ridiculous to say there is no “right” or “wrong”. Let’s start at three months after birth. Right or wrong to eliminate unwanted human life form? Three days after birth? Three minutes after birth? At the instant of birth (body exits womb)? Three minutes before birth? Three days before birth? Three weeks before birth? Three months before birth?

There aint no fuckin “continuum” and yes, there is some black and white. Answer the above questions and see if there isn’t.[/quote]

When it is a fertilized egg it has no rights whatsoever- when it has been born it has all the rights of a human being.

There is no stage in between where that magically flips and presto!: human being.

All that remains are compromises, third trimester seems to be ok for me.

edited, first trimester- FIRST!

214

how about taking a step back.

If you can remove a baby without killing it, why wouldn’t you?

A line must be drawn. It will be arbitrary, but many laws are.

215

I think late term abortions are clearly murder under our current laws.

For example if you kill a pregnant woman its two murders, etc. But the law NEEDS to be settled on this topic once and for all.

I do not believe the abortion topic can be settled logically black or white, yes or no, its mother’s rights versus unborn child’s rights. It WILL BE a gray area in final practice.

No matter what anyone thinks, this is how the world works, and what will happen.

When does the child legally have rights ? when its born ? when it has a heart beat ? when its first conceived ? when it has its first brain wave pattern ? When its head sticks out and not its feet ?

The debate is over what is and is not legitimate HUMAN LIFE. Everyone is going to have a different opinion and it is relative to what you believe.

For example, we in America didn’t used to legally consider blacks to be humans. Ridiculous yes, but true.

Abortion is relative to your beliefs, I personally am Pro-choice, but I believe that a point should be set as to how late the baby can be aborted, and that this point should be early.

I believe that it BECOMES murder at a later point than many other do, who believe that its murder after conception. That doesnt make your opinion any more valid than mine no matter how passionatly you support it, or what religous reasons you state.

I am a Christian, but I understand that LEGALITY and MORALITY are seperate, if we are to govern LEGALLY, our laws must represent everyones relative choices, and not just the christian majorities.

This must be decided upon by society as a whole, you can not allow one group or political group to make this decision.

It must be debated and the “boundary” for where the vast majority of the population thinks the fetus deserves rights can be made and set.

The exact developmental stage must be set, and anything past that made illegal.

If that is at first conception, or at 1st trimester, so be it.

If you want to prevent abortions, promote birthcontrol usage, promote education, encourage young mothers to give their baby to adoption, adopt the baby yourself, donate to such organizations, etc.

216

[quote]orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

Oy vey, no black and white.

The mind boggles.

It is ridiculous to say there is no “right” or “wrong”. Let’s start at three months after birth. Right or wrong to eliminate unwanted human life form? Three days after birth? Three minutes after birth? At the instant of birth (body exits womb)? Three minutes before birth? Three days before birth? Three weeks before birth? Three months before birth?

There aint no fuckin “continuum” and yes, there is some black and white. Answer the above questions and see if there isn’t.

When it is a fertilized egg it has no rights whatsoever- when it has been born it has all the rights of a human being.

There is no stage in between where that magically flips and presto!: human being.

All that remains are compromises, third trimester seems to be ok for me.

edited, first trimester- FIRST!
[/quote]

What happens in second trimester that makes it magically turn into a human?

217

[quote]John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

Oy vey, no black and white.

The mind boggles.

It is ridiculous to say there is no “right” or “wrong”. Let’s start at three months after birth. Right or wrong to eliminate unwanted human life form? Three days after birth? Three minutes after birth? At the instant of birth (body exits womb)? Three minutes before birth? Three days before birth? Three weeks before birth? Three months before birth?

There aint no fuckin “continuum” and yes, there is some black and white. Answer the above questions and see if there isn’t.

When it is a fertilized egg it has no rights whatsoever- when it has been born it has all the rights of a human being.

There is no stage in between where that magically flips and presto!: human being.

All that remains are compromises, third trimester seems to be ok for me.

edited, first trimester- FIRST!

What happens in second trimester that makes it magically turn into a human?[/quote]

Nothing.

But since we do not know and most agree that last trimester is too late, what can we do but compromise?

220

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:

IF it is A human it has rights.

As in endowed with by our creator.

Now we just have to call him to tell is when the exact moment of endowment happens and we�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�´re golden.

If we don’t know for sure, which side should we err on?

You are assuming that there is a “right” and a “wrong” side and that we just do not, or cannot, know (yet).

I am assuming that it is a matter of degrees and that there is no clear point where a fetus poofs in to a full fledged human being.

You cannot err on either side, there are no sides, just a continuum.

Oy vey, no black and white.

The mind boggles.

It is ridiculous to say there is no “right” or “wrong”. Let’s start at three months after birth. Right or wrong to eliminate unwanted human life form? Three days after birth? Three minutes after birth? At the instant of birth (body exits womb)? Three minutes before birth? Three days before birth? Three weeks before birth? Three months before birth?

There aint no fuckin “continuum” and yes, there is some black and white. Answer the above questions and see if there isn’t.

When it is a fertilized egg it has no rights whatsoever- when it has been born it has all the rights of a human being.

There is no stage in between where that magically flips and presto!: human being.

All that remains are compromises, third trimester seems to be ok for me.

edited, first trimester- FIRST!

What happens in second trimester that makes it magically turn into a human?

Nothing.

But since we do not know and most agree that last trimester is too late, what can we do but compromise?

Erring again on the side of the second trimester, I see. So be it. But don’t tell me you don’t err one way or the other. You’ve just proven you do precisely that.

Do the Navajos apply logic like you do?

[/quote]

I told you I don´t know.

You can use so many posts demonstrating that I do not know., but why bother?

I also posted that there is nothing to be known.

In real life however some conclusion has to be reached.

The pro life crowd did not do itself a favor in the US because their adamant insisting on that every fertilized egg is holy has led to partial birth abortions which are hopefully not the norm around the world.