Redstate

Your most recent citation is four years old, and is simply another study paid for by the very left-wing discipline of psychology.  In many instances, these papers cannot get funding unless they suggest a pre-determined conclusion.  Have you seen any "studies" suggesting that homosexuality in NOT genetic.  Not many.

But, I have the week-end off and I will use it to thoroughly research these sources.  If I find you have wasted my time, I will become quite dismissive of you next week.

I have been a mental health professional for many years (a rare conservative one) and I have NEVER met a patient who did NOT regret her abortion and state unequivocally that she wish she hadn't had it.  

if posters on this site can read.  I didn't compare anyone to anything.  I simply stated a fact about early advocates of abortion and asked how their views coincided with or contradicted those of the modern left.  How hard is that to understand?

As I just mentioned to "trevino", whoever that is, all the sad commentaries on modern America to which I alluded are irrevocably linked by the two forces which are slowly eroding our culture and country:  moral relativism and abandonment of personal responsibility.  If you can demonstrate how this is not so, please deliver.

Look, I didn't call anyone a NAZI, nor a pedophile for that matter.  I was asking rhetorical questions of moral equivalence and my opponent couldn't grasp the concept.  If posters can't make such a distinction, is that my fault?  Retorting with a crude, misplaced, and barely literate metaphor doesn't count.  Sorry.

I think one of you needs to go back and read the thread.  It has nothing to do with civility on my part, but on theirs.  I passed the test of civility until someone else crossed the line.  Then the test was over, my friend, and real life began.

You said, "Abortions have been around as long as babies have, to suggest that the current climate was brought about by some eugenics war against minorities is precisely the sort of knee-jerk reactionism we'd all do well to avoid."

Now, aside from the fact that I suggested no such thing, exactly which part of my last paragraph is "incoherant" (sic)?  It's a fact that Sanger & Co. advocated abortion for eugenics' sake.  It's a well known fact that the justices deciding Roe used wording to justify their creation by saying that the "right" to abortion "emanated" from "penumbras" supposedly found in the Constitution.  And you were trying to excuse abortion, or at least treat it sympathetically, by suggesting that its' historical presence is some kind of excuse for it.  I simply did the same thing with the concept of murder.  Are you grasping it now?  It's quite simple, really.

Look buddy, I don't need any patronizing comments from you.  Others breached the bonds of civility and I simply followed.  Abortion is too big a blight on our land to treat it with anything but disdain.  If apologists want to debate it, fine, but this is no game and I'll countenance no equivocation.  So far, apparently, I've had to repeat and explain simple comment several times to the same people.  So, yes, thier schooling and intellect do come into question.  I've just had to explain three perfectly clear concepts to you.  What would you think if I was constantly quizzing you on what you meant?

And you can keep the condescending attitude.  This is not a high school debate and I'm not trying to win anyone over to my "POV".  I'm trying to stop abortion.  I only reflect the hostility I'm shown.  And if you don't like mentioning God, maybe you need to think about where you'll be in a hundred years.  Remember,

 "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

it's rare for a woman to know she's pregnant before the baby's heartbeat, what are you suggesting - that every woman of childbearing age be screened every 18 days so that she might choose abortion?  As a practical matter, that would have to happen to provide any kind of "choice", as it is popularly known.

Everyone seems intent on making this difficult.  Why is it received wisdom that women have some sort of "right" to kill their baby?  Probably because of the Roe decision.  And the Supreme Court was wrong - that's what needs to be changed.  Wording of abortion policy can and should be hammered out at the state level.  One-size-fits-all edicts from Mount Olympus do nothing but confuse the issue and polarize the populace.  

I believe it is possible to be "pro-choice" and also be fully aware that abortion involves taking a human life. Personally, I find abortion to be repugnant, but I acknowledge that there are thoughtful people who disagree.

Also, terms such as "zygote" and "fetus" are medical in nature. They were not created in an Orwellian attempt to disguise the nature of abortion.

The essay starts with an assumption and assumes that to be proof.  Pro-choice people disagree with the fundamental assumption, so we get nowhere.  There are lots of ways to be pro-choice:

• by believing that a fertilized egg is not equal to a person
  
• by believing that other people should decide for themselves and one's own personal views should not decide for them
  
• by believing it's not the government's business
  
• by recognizing abortion will happen whether illegal or legal, so at least it ought to be safe

The first is the obvious contradiction to the premise of the essay.  Reasonable people can believe that a fertilized egg is not a person, but that a baby is.  An embryo / fetus thus acquire their personhood as development occurs.

The straw men are tedious:

• that being pro-choice means seeing equivalence between a first trimester abortion and a hypothetical abortion soon before birth
  
• that third-term abortions are perfomed on an elective basis
  
• that anyone who would sanction infanticide are at all representative of "pro-choice".

Pro-life advocates could do a far better job arguing their position than Patrick Gray does.  His argument is for people who already agree with him.

In what sense is the pro-choice position postmodern?

My understanding of the term is that it refers, in a general way, to observations which revolve around the idea that there is no 'objective truth'--however, that view is often misrepresented.  They are not saying that there is certainly no specific right answer to any question, they are saying that two people operating in different 'narratives,' to use their terminology (eg. a libertarian vs. a communist) do not have any 'objective' criteria against which to measure which one of their value systems is correct.  They present this thesis mostly as a negative reaction to their cast of the thesis of 'modernism'--that the Enlightenment project to create a 'master narrative' is possible--because they fear the oppression that excessive faith in reason can launch when those with a given narrative gain political power, as evinced by fascist and communist movements.  That is, they hold views expressly designed to make totalitarianism unlikely.  

If you are arguing that a pro-choice person believes that the moral status of the unborn is up to each individual person to decide and the law ought not intervene, of course you are correct by definition, but that is not postmodernism.  If you argue that their opinion is based on post-Modern grounds, I'm not sure you've made the case--most pro-choice folks believe their position is directly arguable within the framework of constitutional law and Western ethics that pro-Lifers and pro-Choicers share. Of course, if I'm missing an obvious connection I'm ready to stand corrected.

I only belabor this point because I note that the phrase "postmodern" is often used as a label for any view with a hint of relativism to it, but it has a specific meaning and misusing it only muddies the waters.  For the record I don't subscribe to the postmodern school of thinking myself, but their observations are interesting and worth thinking about more than as a passing comment.

Check out this link for an interview with Stanley Grenz on the topic of postmodernism and religion with a nice concise treatment of the tenets of postmodernism:

http://www.sonlifeafrica.com/model/pomo2.htm

but they are being hijacked by the pro-abortion side to disguise the real nature of human beings, for the truly Orwellian purpose of killing them - legally, of course.

are many ways to be pro-choice, but the typical pro-choicer wants abortion-on-demand, period.

And talk about straw men, gee, where should I start:

1. Rarely do abortions involve simply "a fertilized egg".  Few women know they are pregnant before a fully recognizable human being is present...
   
   
2. Yes, people should decide for themselves - whether or not to have sex - not whether to kill the results
   
   
3. Protecting the innocent and vulerable is exactly the government's business, why else would we have armies, navies, police, courts, prisons, etc.?  (And remember, it was judicial fiat by a branch of government that created the "right" to abortion out of thin air in the first place)
   
   
4. Murder, rape, and robbery will happen too, but they can never be made "safe"

When you say "personhood" you're probably thinking of personality, or maybe, personal autonomy.  In any event, it has no bearing on ending a baby's life.

Straw men ARE tedious, so I wish you'd stop using them:

1. There's nothing "hypothetical" about abortions performed "soon before birth".   Although the abortion industry and it's minions try to paint late-term, and even partial-birth abortions as rare, even a cursory look by a reporter in New Jersey found that they are widespread indeed.  This is similar to the oft-repeated mantra of pro-abortionists that wholesale abortion is needed to protect the health of the mother and/or in cases on rape or incest.  Sorry, wrong again.  These circumstances account for fewer than 2% of abortions.  And anyway, most reasonable pro-lifers would be willing to make some exceptions in these rare cases (myself included).
   
   
2. Yes, third term abortions are elective at times.  And your point is...?
   
   
3. If pro-abortionists are not advocating a form of infanticide, what would you call it?

Substitute your own life for that of a soon-to-be-aborted baby's and you will soon see that the pro-life side really needs no argument.

There are lots of ways to be pro-choice:

1. by believing that a fertilized egg is not equal to a person
   
   
2. by believing that other people should decide for themselves and one's own personal views should not decide for them
   
   
3. by believing it's not the government's business
   
   
4. by recognizing abortion will happen whether illegal or legal, so at least it ought to be safe
   

The refutations:

1. the point of the essay was to point out the fact that we don't know when the magical conversion occurs that turns the fertilized egg into a person.  I mean, is there like a popping sound or something?  Is it like the needle on the turkey that says, "Hey, this thing is now a human!"  We know there is no such mechanism, and rather the egg evolves into a human.  So if it's a continuous process, then the egg starts at 1% human, then transitions to 100% human when the "fetus" exits the birth canal.  I for one am not prepared to draw up a math table to show what percent of a murderer I am at what stage of "zygote" development.
   
2. There are lots of things I would like to decide for myself and don't want government to intervene.  I would like to steal your car.  I want to sit in your house and eat your food while you're on vacation.  In my personal view that is acceptable because you should be more giving.  Your personal views on property rights should not interfere with my views.
   
3.  I further think it is not the Government's business to interfere in my eating your food while stealing your car.  I strongly believe in my right to do those things.  These are closely held beliefs.  So please don't interfere with my choices or I'll call the ACLU.
   
4. Further, car theft is inevitable, so don't call the cops either.  Heck, death is inevitable either, so I guess I could start dispatching people too.  I promise to do so in a safe manner.  (Safe to who, I'm not sure.)

So I devolved into fun analogy.  I'm interested in how you can argue that this analogy doesn't apply, and how abortion is "different."  Again, you have to convince me that you KNOW that abortion is no more than elimination of some foreign body of growing DNA rather than stopping a life, and at what point abortion is permissable.  Taking the "I personally don't like abortion" line is a huge cop-out that is getting old.  All evil needs is for good people to do nothing.  

In 2003, the CDC said that 58% of abortions occur before 8 weeks pregnancy and 88% occur before 12 weeks.  95% occur before 15 weeks.  Only 0.04% are in the third trimester.  Third term abortions are done because of a combination of risk to life and health of the woman and severe deformity of the fetus.  Do you feel that a woman should risk her life or health to give birth to an anencephalic baby (with no brain), for example?  There are alot of medical scenarios involved, which we should leave to women and their doctors.

This is similar to the oft-repeated mantra of pro-abortionists that wholesale abortion is needed to protect the health of the mother and/or in cases on rape or incest.  Sorry, wrong again.  These circumstances account for fewer than 2% of abortions.  And anyway, most reasonable pro-lifers would be willing to make some exceptions in these rare cases (myself included).

So abortion isn't murder, then?  I guess you're saying an embryo / fetus isn't a person after all if abortion is OK sometimes.

Again, you have to convince me that you KNOW that abortion is no more than elimination of some foreign body of growing DNA rather than stopping a life, and at what point abortion is permissable.

Do you know that?  Of course not.  We each have our own beliefs.  Why should your belief be what every woman must live by, regardless of what she believes?

...is on you to prove that life isn't there.  If I am wrong then a woman's "right to choose" loses out.  If you are wrong, then a life was ended.  I think it reasonable to error on the side of caution.  Which is the worse sin?  There are numerous choices that are made for us that affect our lives in profound ways but how to those choices measure up to a life?  (If you think the choices [and consequences] are of more importance than a single human life...there's a moral compass problem I can't fix.  Go to church.)

As for beliefs, I believe that I have a right to your property.   I believe California should be cut off the continent.  So who cares about beliefs?!?  What about morals and the law?

Your original post inferred that third-term abortions are never elective by characterizing the fact that some are as a strawman - no percentages were mentioned.

Your other stats simply make my point.  In fact, I'll provide you with a few of my own:

-Babies have a heartbeat 18 to 21 days after conception

-Fingers and toes begin to develop at 5 weeks after conception

-At 8 weeks after conception, a baby is fully formed

In view of my first stat, it is obvious that, except in unusual circumstances, no mother knows she is pregnant until the child's heart is already beating.  Protoplasm has no heartbeat.

As to your last "point", abortion is, in extremely rare cases, a grim reality, because now the mother's life and health truly are at risk.  It becomes a medical procedure at that point, but I'll not parse rhetorical semantics with you - the subject is far too important for that kind of sophistry.  I will say this, killing babies for convenience sake is barbaric and unconscionable.  

You can ponder the true meaning of murder at your leisure, however.  Here's a good start, instead of "fetus", substitute your name and see how the equation works out.

What makes you think that ANYTHING a woman believes gives her the right to kill a child?

Why should anyone's "belief be what [everyone] must live by"?

Because without a general consensus on what constitutes civilized behavior, we could not have a safe, secure, and prosperous society.

Boy, with geniuses like you around, it's no wonder Al Gore and John Kerry almost got elected.... Sheeesh

We can go back and forth until we are blue in the face saying an embryo "is so" or "is not" a person and whatever that means, but we aren't going to convince each other.

However, you offered that you would allow abortion in the case of rape or incest.  Why would you do that?  Under your definition of life, isn't the embryo / fetus a person, deserving of protection by the government?  The origin of the pregnancy doesn't matter as far as the embryo / fetus is concerned, so why would you not consider it murder to have an abortion?  If it's not murder, the embryo / fetus is not a person by your own criteria.

The only consistent pro-life position is that all pregancies be treated the same, and all embryos and fetuses get full protection of the government.  Thus, anyone involved in the abortion of a pregancy resulting from rape or incest (including the woman, abortion provider, and anyone else who participated in the process) should be convicted of first degree murder.  Further, if you also believe in the death penalty for first degree murder, then all parties should also be executed by the government.  Unless someone holding the pro-life position that abortion is murder agrees to those steps, the whole argument breaks down.

I think it reasonable to error on the side of caution.

I think it is reasonable to leave the question to the people directly affected by it, pregnant women.

Because without a general consensus on what constitutes civilized behavior, we could not have a safe, secure, and prosperous society.

Do you not think we have a "safe, secure, and prosperous society"?  Notice that abortion has been legal for over 30 years, and societal collapse hasn't happened.  Notice also that there is no consensus on this issue, as Americans are split about 1/3 entrenched on each side and 1/3 in the gray area in the middle.

The mental health of the mother may be in serious jeapordy, were she to birth the child of rape or incest.  So much so, that it would outweigh the very substantial psychic damage done by any abortion, irrespective of conceptual volition.  In this case, as with the instance of physical health, since the mother's well-being is seriously threatened, it is the mother who gets primary consideration.  In a more valient time, many women gladly traded their own life for that of their baby.  My own impoverished and sickly mother gave me up for adoption, exhibiting a selflessness not expected and rarely seen today.  But that's another issue.

Look, these are serious matters, please save the sophmoric syllogisms and Kantian quandries for Philosophy 101, O.K.?  

If you want consistency, join the Navy.  You'll get to do the same thing, the same way, with the same people, at the same place - every single day.  Otherwise, get a grip.

IMHO, it would behoove you to recall that:  "Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of little minds."

...for saying prayer over milk and cookies.  Meanwhile, two meatheads shoot up a high school in one of many similar instances.

  Really, if you haven't noticed the deterioration of our culture in the past 30 years, you are either naive, very young, or horribly misguided.

Most polls indicate that Americans favor restrictions on abortion - generally the ones I've mentioned above.  Don't try to pretend that abortion-on-demand is not the sine qua non of the abortion industry.  Common sense is the first thing that goes when some wild-eyed liberal or unelected, activist judge starts pontificating on what the rest of us should and should not do.  

Abortion was never voted on by the American people - it was forced on us by the nameless nine, several of whom were the remnants of Eisenhower's "biggest mistake" - the Warren Court.

At 8 weeks after conception, a baby is fully formed

I'm not an embryologist, but I am a physician with some familiarity with the topic and I can assure you there is a profound difference between an embryo at 8 weeks after conception and a fetus at the stage of viability, let alone at term.

I find it difficult to get away from this round hole-square peg problem: the moral/legal discourse only allows two states of a fetus--it's either a person or it's not.  However, a look at the process of conception, gestation and birth reveals that the reality is a continuum as life gradually emerges from simpler to more complex forms.  Much of the complex organization of the brain occurs after birth.  People always will differ as to where along a grayscale white becomes black. In this context though, either extreme view seems absurd because both assume a fertilized egg and a 40 week old fetus are equivalent--either both people or both not people.

We need to find a way to resolve the legal issues that arise from the abortion issue, but as we go through the process as a nation of deciding who is best to draw the line on the grayscale--the states, the federal gov't or individuals--the first step is learning to live with a certain level of inevitable disagreement on the fundamentals.

You've allowed an exception for the mental health of the woman, which I personally applaud.  I doubt alot of RedStaters will be as charitable.  Of course, allowing that exception would pretty much legalize abortion for everybody.  For someone who would choose an abortion, the "psychic damage" of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and giving up the child for adoption is much greater than with an abortion.

The pro-life argument that an abortion is traumatic doesn't stand up to scientific rigor.  It may be true for some women, particularly those with wanted pregnancies, and that would be a good reason for them to not choose to get an abortion.  Most studies indicate a positive or neutral emotional result, especially compared to childbirth.  Almost all women who get an abortion do not regret it.

the first step is learning to live with a certain level of inevitable disagreement on the fundamentals

Of course, there is agreement on the fundamentals - everybody would be pleased with fewer abortions.  We can achieve that (as we did in the 1990's) by having fewer unwanted pregnancies, a better economy, and social services available to those who aren't physically or financially able to take care of a child.

In a country of 300 million people, some people will inevitably do stupid things.  The Internet magnifies these, although they are not representative of reality.  Of course, by that standard, Canada and Sweden would have a utopian culture, and abortion is legal in those countries as well.

The result of polls on abortion always depend on how you ask the question.  If you ask people if Roe v Wade should be overturned, or if abortion should usually be legal, you get a strong majority on the pro-choice side.  Here is some data:

Usually legal 55%, usually illegal 42%

Uphold Roe 50%, overturn Roe 34%

Usually legal 57%, usually illegal 39%

Uphold Roe 59%, overturn Roe 31%

Jeff, you said that you believe it's possible to be pro-death and still be aware that you've made a decision that will lead to the death of a human life.

Such is possible, but not too very probable, given the extent to which pro-death types go in order to redescribe reality.

And anyone who is capable of making such a decision, is lacking to some degree in human feeling....compassion, empathy. mercy    Without these, they are coldly pitiless......without mercy.    

You led with an attack against the veracity of the lead-in quote, and then you turned right around and proved its' truthfulness by saying:

You said...."by believing that a fertilized egg is not equal to a person"

Did you not just describe a "no man's land"?   A place where the 'thing' that's developing is in some sort of limbo?.....not yet human, so it's ok to 'off' it in a state-sanctioned killing center?     Yes, that's exactly what you've implied.

You...."by believing that other people should decide for themselves and one's own personal views should not decide for them"

You've got a nasty case of moral relativism made worse by a large dose of "imperial selfism".

And anyone who is capable of making such a decision, is lacking to some degree in human feeling....compassion, empathy. mercy    Without these, they are coldly pitiless......without mercy.

Would you use those same words to describe someone who is pro-death penalty?

Did you not just describe a "no man's land"?   A place where the 'thing' that's developing is in some sort of limbo?.....not yet human, so it's ok to 'off' it in a state-sanctioned killing center?  Yes, that's exactly what you've implied.

As I stated, there are many lines of thinking that lead people to be pro-choice.  This may shock you, but a great many people do not think a fertilized egg is a person in the same way an acorn is not an oak tree.  Being in 'limbo' is a transition from one state to another, which is exactly what happens to a fertilized egg.  That is, indeed, exactly what I implied.

that it is less traumatic to have an abortion than to go through the process of childbirth.  Cite your studies or we will have to assume this is merely your opinion.

Cite proof that most women that get an abortion don't later regret it.  From my experience with acquaintances, this does not seem to be the case.

There was a discussion about this recently on DailyKos, and a number of people described their own experiences and those of people they knew.  This is as anecdotal as your acquaintances, but none had regrets and all said it was emotionally much better than the alternative.

Adler, Nancy E. (1989). University of California at San Francisco, Statement on Behalf of the American Psychological Association Before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Operations, U. S. House of Representatives: 130-140.

Adler, Nancy E., et al. (1990). "Psychological Responses after Abortion." Science, 248(4951), 41-44.

Armsworth, Mary W. (1991). "Psychological Response to Abortion." Journal of Counseling and Development, 69 (March/April), 377-379.

Dagg, Paul K. B. (1991). "The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion - Denied and Completed." American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 578-585.

Lazarus, Arthur. (1985). "Psychiatric Sequelae of Legalized First Trimester Abortion." Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 4(3), 140-150.

Major, Brenda, et al. (2000). "Psychological Responses of Women after First-Trimester Abortion." Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(8), 777-784.

Sachdev, Paul. (1989). Unlocking the Adoption Files. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Sachdev, Paul. (1993). Sex, Abortion and Unmarried Women. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

When I was studying to be a notary public in Louisiana (where notaries are like mini-lawyers, not just signature witnesses), we learned about heirship and the structures for wealth distribution. Unless the law has changed in the past 5 years, Louisiana recognizes a fetus in the womb as a legitimate person for inheritance. I've always wondered this: If a pregnant woman's husband dies, and she has an abortion, in theory, she is doing it for monetary gain because the fetus' portion of its father's estate would go to her. Killing a fetus is legal, but at that point, she'd be killing a person who owns property.

Any thoughts, every one?

The fact that you are using anecdotes from Daily Kos speaks volumes.  

So, my anecdotes from DailyKos and yours from RedState cancel each other.  We're left with having to look at clinical studies.  By the way, C. Everett Koop, Reagan's pro-life surgeon general, refused to issue a report saying abortion was psychologically damaging because the data did not support that conclusion.

My anecdotes are not from Redstate.  They are from folks I know, either family or college people.  My point to you was that you made a sweeping generalization when you said almost no one regrets the decision to have an abortion.

As for C. Everett Koop, a decision does not have to be psychologically damaging to bring regret later in life.  

Look no further than the woman who brought us Roe v. Wade and you will find regret regarding her decisions about abortion.

states that to be a citizen a person must be born or naturalized in the US.  How do the unborn fit into federal acknowledgement by that criterion?  How does the cited state property statute fit in?

Thanks for any thoughts--

What crime has the fetus committed?

those who are even more directly affected by it, the unborn child.

If you're forcing yourself to be ProChoice because you have an inate tendency to support Libertarian causes, stop right now and read this site.

I think I already said that most Americans favor abortion with some restrictions (your "usually legal" stat.)  You misconstrue the results of your own source, however.  An even cursory look shows clearly that the margins are quite a bit narrower.  What it actually reveals is:

Illegal in most cases 25%

Legal in most cases 34%

(from 12/04)

The absolutist results should be ignored, for they fail to grasp the concept of common sense.  In rare cases, abortion should be performed strictly as a medical procedure, as I've already pointed out.  It should not be a wholesale remedy for poor judgement, however.

And to dismiss the general decline of morality in this country as aberrant is disingenuous at best.  The internet "magnifies" nothing anymore than traditional media.  Indeed, the internet gives us a more complete picture of reality, unfiltered by the Dan Rather Blather and the Peter Jennings Preening.

Thirty years ago, I could leave my house and car unlocked with complete confidence.  I could walk in any part of town, at any time of day, without fear.  My kids could walk to school, play in the neighborhood unmolested, and even ride their bikes downtown without any concern.  My wife could drive or walk any where.  If she needed a lift or a tow, friendly people were glad to help out.

Thirty years ago, I could close a deal with a handshake.  I could watch TV or go to the movies without being bombarded by graphic and/or gratuitous displays of sex and/or violence.  My kids could pray in school and march in the Christmas parade without fear of the ACLU.  The Boy Scouts were in and NAMBLA was out.

Thirty years ago, violent crime was low, because criminals knew that a swift trip to the rock pile or the electric chair awaited their misbehavior.  Homosexuality, the "love that dare not speak its' name", was tolerated, but not encouraged.  (Nowadays, we might as well call it the "love that won't shut up.")

Thirty - (one) years ago, homes for unwed mothers were in operation and adoption was encouraged.  Most women, if not chaste, at least knew that they were responsible for the consequences of their behavior.  AIDS was non-existent, as were school shootings, "date rape", and "fisting".  

I could go on and on, but repeatedly pointing out the obvious to you is becoming quite tedious.  There are any number of good books on the subject, with sturdy research and thorough documentation.  I suggest you find one.  

Just to help you along, Thomas Sowell's "Vision of the Annointed" would be a good place to start.    

Your most recent citation is four years old, and is simply another study paid for by the very left-wing discipline of psychology.  In many instances, these papers cannot get funding unless they suggest a pre-determined conclusion.  Have you seen any "studies" suggesting that homosexuality in NOT genetic.  Not many.

But, I have the week-end off and I will use it to thoroughly research these sources.  If I find you have wasted my time, I will become quite dismissive of you next week.

I have been a mental health professional for many years (a rare conservative one) and I have NEVER met a patient who did NOT regret her abortion and state unequivocally that she wish she hadn't had it.  

That's like leaving the question of whether a slave wants to be free to the slaveowner.  

Explain why the mother gets to have all the rights in the matter of an unborn child.  What about the father's rights?  Not to mention the child's rights?  The baby is NOT part of the mom's body, just contained within it.  That's why it has its own DNA and blood supply.  How many tumors can say that?

"...allowing exception would pretty much legalize abortion..."  Sorry.  We were talking about the very real psychological disturbances which can result from giving birth to a child conceived of rape or incest.

Psychic damage does not include teenage pique caused by having to take responsibility for one's behavior.   To suggest otherwise is ridiculous hyberbole.

If not, why not?

If so, you have a vested, i.e. biased, interest in this discussion.

And no strawmen, please.  I did not say there was not "a profound difference between an embryo at eight weeks" and a viable "fetus" or a term baby.  I said a baby is fully formed, that means, head, arms, legs, feet, heartbeat, etc.  That is, there's really no question that it is a child.  

Babies have a heartbeat after 18 to 21 days. What else would it be?  A cat?  A dog?  A fish?

So, please, don't bother with that "well, we can't really say what it is" nosense.  For crying out loud, if it wasn't a human life, we wouldn't be talking about it.

This is not rocket science folks.  The overwhelming majority of women who want abortions

are simply trying to eliminate an inconvenience they hadn't planned on ... and that's wrong.

All the rest is just misdirection - red herrings to muddy the water, (to mix a metaphor.)  And lack of personal responsibility is the genesis of this "problem", while a billion-dollar abortion industry is the continuation of it.

Oh yes, during the reign of Bill the Lecherous, all was rosy for American womanhood. Puh-leez.

And yea, the first step to destroying what's left of moral responsibility in this country is to make everything relative.  Is it really a baby?  Is sodomy really so wrong?  Why not give that serial killer a second chance?  How 'bout grown men having sex with boys? Etc., ad nauseum.

More utopian gibberish...

Sure a better economy would help a lot of things, but there's no assurance that we will always have one.  

Fewer unwanted pregnancies, sure if the left will give up its' assault on personal responsibility.  

And more social services - it's worked so well in Sweden, now they are aborting old people (it's the humane thing to do.)

And, taking care of [pregnant women] "who aren't physically or financially able to take care of a child" had been adequately addressed in this country long before widespread abortion: orphanages, homes for unwed mothers, adoption.

Yes, I can here them now, liberals pounding out Oliver Twist like characterations of orphanages and how could I be so heartless as to suggest such?  Here are three points to ponder in answer to the heartless Scrooge argument I know is being hatched in the back of your overtaxed brains:

1. I was born in a home for unwed mothers (thank God) with no ill effect
   
   
2. I was an orphan (Read a book called "Poor Orphan Trash" by Mildred Nelson Holmes)
   
   
3. And think - we are quickly losing our culture (as is Europe) largely due to non-replacement levels of childbirth, partly as a result of massive on-demand abortions

So, give it a rest.  Besides, you pro-abortion advocates never seem to mention that abortion was championed by Margaret Sanger early last century as a means to keep minority populations low or eliminate them altogether.  How does this square with your oh-so-tolerant, , super compassionate, We Are The World liberalism?

he said person.  There is a distiction there that if one doesn't admit exists, it makes discussing the issue near impossible with those that do.  

For example, a body that is truly brain dead is still a human life, but the person is no longer there.  Correspondingly, a fertilized egg is definately a human life, but clearly there is no person there yet.  However, some would even argue that point.  Equally clear is the fact that at some time not too far into gestation, synapsis form, neural nets develop, memories begin to be created, and we have a person.  Depressingly, there are the very few who would argue that as well.

I've always drawn the line at when brainwaves can be detected from the fetus.  Brainwaves show a functionaly brain, even if actual development doesn't start happening for a few weeks after.  So, its a reasonably safe line to draw.  Abortions after that should be illegal, or very, very hard to get.  So that puts the limit of abortion legality somewhere in the 8 to 14 week range.

Obviously you aren't a fan of Mr. Clinton, and neither am I.  However, there were fewer abortions, though, right?  That was a good thing.   Thus its not a bad thing to ponder the circumstances that led to the decrease.   Certainly mocking the person doing so is not constructive.

Its also insulting to mix questions regarding abortion in with letting serial killers go and pedophilia, which are supported by very, very few persons, unlike abortion.  Capping it off with the description that these conditons would be a "utopia" (I guess to the presumed left-leaning audience) is just the cherry on top.

As for your last paragraph, it is both stupid, and insulting.  Unless you want to be branded a Nazi for condemnation of homosexual behavior.  "They were pretty strict when it came to that, yessir.  Therefore since you have something in common with them, you must agree its good to round them all up in camps and eventually gas them, after we've exacted the maxium labor utility from their bodies and pulled the gold from their teeth.  You anti-sodomy advocates never seem to admit that."  See how silly and undignified this is?  I mean, you can do THAT, or you can influence people and change minds, but you can't do both.

Abortions have been around as long as babies have, to suggest that the current climate was brought about by some eugenics war against minorities is precisely the sort of knee-jerk emotional reactionism we'd do well to avoid.  

acorns don't become children, fertilized eggs do.  Your problem is that, except under the most unusual circumstances, women DO NOT KNOW they are pregnant until AFTER the baby has a heartbeat - an undeniably requisite condition of life.  Expending a lot of energy debating whether an egg is human is a fool's errand.  Why not confine your remarks to topics that have some connection with reality?

There are lots of things that we can value. For example, I value human life and I also value liberty.

In my analysis, I choose to subordinate my value of liberty to my value of human life. As a result, I am "pro-life" (and also anti-death penalty, FWIW).

However, I can understand a 'compassionate, empathetic and merciful' person deciding to place a greater emphasis on liberty than human life. Just because I disagree with him does not mean I have to dehumanize him in my mind.

In addition, if our objective is to change people's hearts so as to cause them to value human life, telling them that they are 'coldly pitiless and without mercy' is hardly going to work. They might very well say the same thing about you and I.

You call it "redescribing reality". I call it having another way of looking at things. I disagree with it, but I won't belittle it.

There are many explanations for a lower abortion rate in the '90's that have nothing to do with Slick Willie.  I resent having the worst president in history injected into this discussion.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.  Questioning the moral consistency of pro-lifers who support the death penalty has already been an argument in this very thread.  And besides, many people favor absolution for murderers (Google search "Free Mumia") and there's quite a constituency for pedophilia - they have their own advocacy org., e.g. NAMBLA.  Besides, these are mere extrapolations from the death penalty attacks originated by other posters on this thread.  Don't like it?  Take it up with them.  I refuse to back down from anyone's attack, including yours.

If you wish to brand me a NAZI for condeming homosexual behavior, I will have lots of company.  But don't play indignant or pretend to be "offended" and "insulted" because I've stated my opinion.  That's truly insulting.  BTW, your attempt at mockery, or metaphor, or whatever it is, is pathetic and inept.  Try saying what you mean.

Murder has been around a long time, too.  Should we make it legal?  If you don't believe the connection with abortion, eugenics, and Margaret Sanger, look it up.  And "the current climate" of 40 million dead babies was "brought about" by the pungent penumbras emanating from Roe v. Wade - no more, no less.

If you think Neolith is some gauzy left-winger, you've got things badly wrong.  His line of inquiry is a legitimate one.

As for Clinton being the worst President in history, I guess if you ignore Monroe, Buchanan, Grant, Wilson, Hoover, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and the various 19th-century nonentities, you might have a case.

You (and Dr Modo) are probably thinking of personality or personal autonomy, neither of which have any relevance to the present discussion.  I pointed this out to another poster, previously.  Try reading the thread, rather than just jumping in the middle of it.

Cases of brain death are not analogous.  They likely will not revive.  A "fertilized egg" likely will.  And, one more time, as again I've stated again and again, only a miniscule number of women, in the most unusual circumstances, know they are pregnant BEFORE the baby's heart is beating.  So. the fertilized egg question is an exercise in mental masturbation and I will not address it again.  Save it for your freshman philosophy courses...

I say the heartbeat at 18 to 21 days is where the line should be drawn.  We can agree to disagree, but setting it a some arbitrary stage of development is chimeric.  Yes, the baby is still developing synapses well after birth,  Yet, neural development is only one way of measuring human growth.  What the good doctor Modo failed to mention (and he still hasn't answered about being an abortionist), is that human beings are "developing" in some fashion thier entire lives.  You might as well set the line at 30 or 42, or 66.

No, God creates a baby's heartbeat, and Men should tremble before taking it away.

I don't know neolith from Adam's housecat.  But the guy as much as called me a NAZI.

And you want ME to tone it down?  Sheesh

And if we're voting for worst prez, I'll still go with the intern molester...

He wasn't calling you a Nazi, Warrior.  He was pointing out that your own rhetorical tactics left you open to that label by virtue of those same tactics.

As for Presidential malfeasance, if you think consensual sex is worse than losing DC to an invading enemy, allowing the breakup of the Union, or subverting the Constitution, hey, we've all got our priorities.

He, and others on this site, questioned my moral integrity with their so-called death penalty argument.  I don't take kindly to that.  Besides, I think killing children is more serious than their peculiar sensibilities.

If they can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.  

If they don't want rhetoric, they should read a cookbook.

Notwithstanding the facts that the Civil War was no single individual's "fault", or that Watergate was little more than poor judgement, neither caused me to have to explain oral sex to my eight-year-old daughter.

Yes, we've all got our priorities.

Your moral consistency was questioned.  And a just question it is.  In this, and in the "Nazi" flap, you are showing mostly that you're not grasping what your interlocutors are saying to you.

Now, if you really wish to argue that "Watergate was little more than poor judgement," then I'm happy to question your moral integrity on that count.

I grasp anything you or they might have to say on any given day.

Moral consistency is moral integrity - can yoy grasp that?

Killing an innocent baby for convenience sake is quite different from executing a rapist and murderer - can you grasp that?

And John Dean orchestrated the Watergate break-in to secure evidence incriminating his fiancee in a prostitution ring.  Nixon foolishly tried to cover it up.  Can you grasp that?  

Warrior,

My livelihood is not the issue, and I don't feel that my posts are more or less 'biased' than the others in the thread.  Bias may be an issue when questioning the validity of data, but I have presented none so judge my arguments on their merits please.

To be clear, I hesitated to cite my profession in my prior post but wanted to make sure the facts as I saw them were straight.  I hope that my intent in doing so was not misinterpreted--when I have seen lawyers on RS disclose their competence to comment on legal subjects that has seemed helpful to me.

We can pick the purpose of a discussion ahead of time and that might be helpful. I'd like to convince you my position is has more validity than it seems on the face to folks who consider themselves pro-Life, and am perfectly willing to offer you the opportunity to convince me that a strict pro-Life position is more reasonable than it seems to me.  I'd even be interested in talking directly about where on the 'grayscale' is a reasonable place to draw the line.  These are modest aims.  

My prior post on clarifications was meant to suggest a method/tone of engagement for those on either side of the issue, with an eye toward really accomplishing a workable compromise.  If you would prefer, Warrior, to have a discussion for the purpose of getting one or the other of us to admit our moral decrepitude, I'm not game.  But if you have another way to frame the debate, I'm all ears.

At the risk of losing this comment by burying it in this post, I'd like to add my observation that I bet a lot of abortions could have been prevented if a significant amount of the energy and resources that have been poured into making abortion illegal over the years had been instead allocated to efforts to prevent them and to promote adoption.  It seems a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Finally, to prevent misunderstanding, I'm not an OB/GYN, so there are good reasons I don't perform abortions, and I certainly have no financial interest in them.  I know that this is a very emotional issue, but I am disappointed in the tone of this discussion that I feel compelled to state this in order for my comments to have credibility.

You don't.  Neolith's Nazi statement flew completely past you.

Yes, moral consistency and moral integrity are related -- they are not, however, the same.

Yes, killing for convenience is something different than killing for punishinment.  Am I arguing this with you?  No?  Moving on, them.

As for Watergate, you need to write your book on it now, 'fore history persists in its regrettable errors.

OK, so the heartbeat is a natural place where one might draw that line, because it's an organ we can actually see working.

A few thoughts:

1. Why the heart over any other organ system necessary to sustain life?

Perhaps just the fact that it's a conveniently observable one is reason enough.  It could be argued that it is a marker for a certain level of cellular specialization in all tissues, not being just intrinsically a signal for 'life'.  But if a blood test to check the development of the fetal liver, for example, were developed, and found to be a more reliable indicator of differentiation, would that be an acceptible replacement?

2. Why not use the central nervous system?

It's complexity is an obstacle--do you use some brainwave criteria, level of cellular differentiation, cognitive abilities? none stand out as being a particularly useful cut off in a fetus.

3. What about embryos with heart malformations?  

By putting emphasis on a functioning heart, it might be inferred that embryos with malformations which might otherwise be viable with current technology are somehow less of a 'person'.  

The underlying problem here is how do you determine when the heart is present: just hearing the beats (at what volume threshold?), having 4 chambers, having circulation, etc...  Again, the heart doesn't appear instantaneously, it's a process of development.

I don't think these are unanswerable questions, and think the heartbeat is a reasonable milestone.  I would just point out it's got some  arbitrariness to it as do 'quickening', trimester dates, or other criteria.  Any thoughts?

these are not anecdotes from Kos,m they are peer-review articles citations.

Yes, its just semantics.  Or profound differences is worldview.  Whatever it is, its a sticking point.

You're "likely to revive" argument is interesting, in that you're arguing that more and more protection should be given to potential life.  I happen to agree.  But you must recognize the grey areas at work here.  After all, and egg and sperm also contain potential life.   I also find it interesting that you're willing to apparently concede a fetus' rights until a heart forms.  What's so special about the heart?  God creates a baby's DNA, and starts cell division too, so shouldn't we tremble before that?  Just because it can be measured?  Many women don't know they are pregnant 21 days after they are.  Brainwaves aren't chimeric, arbitrary, or any other negative phrase you'd like to attribute to them.  They are easily measured and a requirement for personhood.  

You're awfully hasty in what I can save, shove, take, think, and believe, aren't you?  Why is that?  You can either respond or not respond, but you set yourself up for failure with your rhetorical tone.

in the compendium that would pass the laugh test as "peer reviewed." Not to express an opinion on what the articles say, but there is peer review and there is peer review.

None of these are in the class of NEJ or JAMA.

Its interesting that you can pick up the Nazi analogy yet fail to pick up on the fact that you yourself compared any "pro-abortionist" to racists who advocate the practice of genocide.

Also, since I do not advocate the release of serial killers, or pedophilia, your tirade against both is misplaced.  Again.  Rest assured, 99% of the American population is with us on these two issues.

I do not wish to brand you a Nazi, just remind you that civility counts in discussions that are this important.  This is a test, you fail it.

Just look at your last paragraph.  It is all but incoherant to anyone not tuned 100% into your worldview, and I estimate I'm probably at least 75% tuned in.  Murder legal?  Pungent penumbras? emanatating from Roe?

This makes it hard for someone to see it from your POV.  If you'd only tone down the hostility, appeals to authority, and insulting appraisals of others schooling and intellect, you'd be on to something, as I feel you've contributed largely positive information to the discussion so far.  Think positively of your fellow man, and do not assume they are all racists, psuedo-intellectual, womb vacuuming monsters.

His comment was juvenile, poorly worded, and irrevelant.  The issues I mentioned, and that he tried desperately to refute with his sniveling  and puerile anaolgy, are irrevocably linked.  They all result from moral relativism and the absence of personal responsibility.  Are you beginning to get the idea now, or should I draw you a map.

And speaking of Nazism, nothing is more closely analogous to it than abortion.  Pulling babies' heads out of the birthcanal, jabbing scissors in the skull, and using a vacuum device to suck out the brains would make Joseph Mengele blush.  And in vivo abortions are just as greusome - more appropriate to Buchenwald than a "doctor's" office.

What do you think integrity means?

n 1 : soundness

  2 : adherance to a code of values

  3 : completeness

(Merriam-Webster)

Does the term "consistency" suggest itself from these definitions?  If not, you're rather dense, aren't you?

Killing for convenience and killing for punishment was the origin of the "moral inconsistency" attack.  This was the basis for the moronic ad hominem abuse by my "interlocutors", which you erroneously concluded that I didn't grasp.  Pay attention will you, or did it already  "fl[y] completely past you"?

Many books have been written about Watergate.  I suggest you read one by G. Gordon Liddy.  However, be careful running your mouth about it.  He has already shot down two lawsuits brought by principals in the matter who also disagreed with my earlier statement of the facts.  (Also available are court records and contemporaneous newspaper accounts.  Knock yourself out.)

if posters on this site can read.  I didn't compare anyone to anything.  I simply stated a fact about early advocates of abortion and asked how their views coincided with or contradicted those of the modern left.  How hard is that to understand?

As I just mentioned to "trevino", whoever that is, all the sad commentaries on modern America to which I alluded are irrevocably linked by the two forces which are slowly eroding our culture and country:  moral relativism and abandonment of personal responsibility.  If you can demonstrate how this is not so, please deliver.

Look, I didn't call anyone a NAZI, nor a pedophile for that matter.  I was asking rhetorical questions of moral equivalence and my opponent couldn't grasp the concept.  If posters can't make such a distinction, is that my fault?  Retorting with a crude, misplaced, and barely literate metaphor doesn't count.  Sorry.

I think one of you needs to go back and read the thread.  It has nothing to do with civility on my part, but on theirs.  I passed the test of civility until someone else crossed the line.  Then the test was over, my friend, and real life began.

You said, "Abortions have been around as long as babies have, to suggest that the current climate was brought about by some eugenics war against minorities is precisely the sort of knee-jerk reactionism we'd all do well to avoid."

Now, aside from the fact that I suggested no such thing, exactly which part of my last paragraph is "incoherant" (sic)?  It's a fact that Sanger & Co. advocated abortion for eugenics' sake.  It's a well known fact that the justices deciding Roe used wording to justify their creation by saying that the "right" to abortion "emanated" from "penumbras" supposedly found in the Constitution.  And you were trying to excuse abortion, or at least treat it sympathetically, by suggesting that its' historical presence is some kind of excuse for it.  I simply did the same thing with the concept of murder.  Are you grasping it now?  It's quite simple, really.

Look buddy, I don't need any patronizing comments from you.  Others breached the bonds of civility and I simply followed.  Abortion is too big a blight on our land to treat it with anything but disdain.  If apologists want to debate it, fine, but this is no game and I'll countenance no equivocation.  So far, apparently, I've had to repeat and explain simple comment several times to the same people.  So, yes, thier schooling and intellect do come into question.  I've just had to explain three perfectly clear concepts to you.  What would you think if I was constantly quizzing you on what you meant?

And you can keep the condescending attitude.  This is not a high school debate and I'm not trying to win anyone over to my "POV".  I'm trying to stop abortion.  I only reflect the hostility I'm shown.  And if you don't like mentioning God, maybe you need to think about where you'll be in a hundred years.  Remember,

 "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

The last refuge for the factually challenged.  I hear that famed quack Yuri Gellar one some slandar suits against skeptics such as James Randi and Johny Carson(?!?)  The truth, of course, is more complicated.

I'm puzzled about where you're coming from with all of this dealth penalty stuff.  Not once have I "attacked" you in this manner.  The only thing I've attacked you on is your manner and tone, which is boorish, rude, and needlessly confrontational.  Accusing a person of being an abortionist because they've got experience in the medical field and don't fit your criteria of "pro-life"?  Come on.  I haven't branded you as a Nazi, even though you've smeared your opponents of fascism and worse.

I could see this in the heat of the moment, but since you're not really interested in taking a second swing at reading what I wrote... I'd hate to think what would happen were you to argue with a bona-fide "abortionist", "evolutionist", homosexual, etc.  Our cause certainly doesn't need the harm.

I ask again, do you perform abortions?  And if not why not?

As to the rest, you're straining at gnats and swallowing camels.  Turn your question in the other direction, where it is both more practical and more likely to be decided.  

Is the covenience of the mother a good cut-off point for decideing life?  Does not wanting to gain weight give less arbitrariness to the question or answer?  What about those women who just want to finish school, or get started in their career?  Or just don't want to be bothered?

I think a heartbeat makes a lot more sense than any of these criteria.  Once we get to that point, then we can start debating CNS development and heart malformations.

Your questions are all philosophical niceties that have nothing to do with the reality of abortion.  The baby should be brought to term unless serious clinical issues are at stake - and by that I don't mean a Johnny Cochranesque legal fantasy or theoretical musings from some armchair philosopher or value-free academic.  

any such thing.  I'm commenting on your lame  comparison of brain death to the beginning of personhood.  It's a waste of time, as I've said many times before.  You want to argue theoretical constructs about disease as they apply, abstractly, to defining the start of life.  I chose a beating heart.  If you don't agree, fine, but please quit mischaracterizing my meaning or miscasting it into your philosophical house of cards.

I'm also not conceding anything.  As I have already said a million times, most women don't know they're pregnant 'til after the heartbeat begins, so your tired conjecture about the few days before a heartbeat begins means nothing in the practical world and you're still just playing rhetorical games.

I've studied brain waves and their measurment for years, so please don't lecture me on the subject.  And sure, the implication of your remarks are quite useful.  We'll just go around measuring every woman on earth for fetal brainwaves, THEN we can decide when life begins!  Real smart.  If you're trying to say that some babies have deformaties that prevent fetal EEG readings, fine, but now we're back to relatively rare cases and medical considerations.  As I told the good doctor, you're straining at gnats and swallowing camels.  Rare case can be decided on an individual basis using experienced medical judgement.

I'm not trying to pass or fail anything in your fantasy world.  I'm trying to stop wholesale abortion.  And it will be stopped, with or without your approval.      

This is not a high school debate and I'm not trying to win anyone over to my "POV".  I'm trying to stop abortion.

Well then.  What more can be said?  Two things, I guess:  1) It is far more effective to (sic) an opponents response in an environment without spell and grammar check when you don't repeatedly spell "you" as "yoy" in same thread.

2) I don't mind the mention of God, and take quite a bit of comfort knowing that he's got things under control, no matter how far out of whack country and world would seem to get.  My personal favorite passage is Micah 6:8.  This is just one more puzzling leap of logic you've made.  

I think you need to actually read my comments before responding to them.  Liddy was DEFENDING himself against libel suits by people who claim, as you did, that Watergate was about something other than I said it was.  And he won.  Get it?

If you don't know where "all this death penalty stuff" is coming from, GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD.  

I really don't care what you think of my tone, but while we're being uncivil, yours is condescending, elitist, sophomoric and peurile.  

Do you ever tire of mischaracterizing my remarks?  Becasue I certainly tire of correcting you.  I never accused anyone of being "an abortionist", if you mean my very legitimate question to Modo.  I only asked him if he had performed them.  And if abortion is so great, why is it an "accusation" to be questioned about performing them?

Again, he didn't claim "to have experience in the medical field", he claimed to be a physician.

Quite a difference, but one which, I'm afraid, you failed to grasp.

I've "smeared" no one as a fascist.  Again, you're walking around in a dream world.  You need to wake up before you get hit by a car.

I've been reading, responding, and correcting "what you wrote" all afternoon.  Why don't you try extending the same courtesy to me?  It's obvious from your misreading of the litigation comments that you're not paying attention.

And sonny boy, I've debated every kind of leftie there is, bona-fide or not.  Possibly the results of the last election might convince you of the efficacy of our fight.  If not, go home, lie down, and stop drinking that Kool-Aid.  It's too strong for you.  

If I want to be persuaded that abortion rights are folly, I will read the rants of the radical abortion rights crowd. If I want to be persuaded that there have to be some abortion rights, I will read the rants of pro-life folks. Both groups show a remarkable indifference to the actual problem, but have become so enamored of their own zealotry that they don't even care how the sound or how they affect the discussion.

As I understand your writing, you are in the minority about abortion, therefore the only way you can stop abortions completely, the way you appear to want it, is to destroy democracy.

Also, if you want to argue your point, you have to do more than make a sweeping assertion and then tell your opponent that they must prove you wrong. Debates don't work that way. Civil discussions don't work that way. Persuasion doesn't work that way.

And "yoy" for "you" is an obvious typo.  Using a dictionary for "incoherent" might help, just a suggestion.  Besides, you're being pathologically defensive - get over it, for crying out loud.  (BTW, a sure sign someone is losing the argument is when they start talking about irony.)

Re: Micah - If you think it's "acting justly and loving mercy" to dissect babies in the womb, I feel for 'ya brother.  You need psychiatric help.

Your understanding of my writing is poor indeed if you haven't grasped the nuances I've suggested re: abortion.  I have said I wish to stop abortion, meaning abortion-on-demand.   Meaning wholesale abortion as we've known it since 1973 - as an industrial slaughterhouse to rival Treblinka at its' body-burning zenith.  If you had read the thread from the beginning, you would have seen this.  

If you have read it and still stand by your judgemental pronouncements, you're just being self-righteous.  Go to jail, do not pass go, and stop cluttering up the thread with your inanities.

so long to get back to you.  I've been busy swatting a very annoying fly who calls himself "Neolith".

Yes, if you're an abortionist, it matters.  Even if you have a peripheral or tertiary connection to abortion, it matters.  So, let's not bandy words and pretenses about, please.  I've had enough of that today.

Well, one need only go to my RS biography to see my profession.  My degree is in counseling psychology.  And, I have vast experience in dealing with the psychological detritus caused by easy access to value-free, industrial style abortion.  Maybe that will be helpful to you as well.

I've already delineated what I believe is a decent, practical, and workable solution.  I'll recap:

1. Make abortion for convenience illegal
   
   
2. Allow abortion in cases of serious birth defects, physical health of the mother, and/or conception by rape or incest (serious psychological damage to mother, i.e. NOT "I can't have a baby, I'll lose my figure."  
   
   
3. And, as a practical matter, a "beginning of life" limen is not really necessary.  But if you insist, I would say when the heart starts beating.

You make a reasonable point about allocation of resources vis the fight against abortion.  In my city, we have an organization called Choose Life, Save A Life, providing counseling, pre-natal education and care, healthy-baby referrals, adoption guidance and placement, even maternity clothes.  It is my understanding that these kind of groups are located throughout the country.  They are funded by religious organizations of course and have a tough time competing with taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, which acts as nothing more than a referral service for abortion "doctors".

In the political realm, adoption is hampered by the Natl. Assoc. of Black Social Workers (NABSW), which lobbies against inter-racial adoption.  And the Gay Lobby, which, by insisting on adoption by gay couples, discourages hetero mothers from placing their children.

Don't be too disappointed about having to disclose your specialty.  In this forum, no one knows who is posting.  And even though you may be prevaricating, which I don'y believe you are, at least now we have you on record as having no financial interest.  I only deal with abortion secondarily, but it is enough to disgust me.  

I'm glad you've come along.  Reasonable and intelligent people are hard to find on the net sometimes.

Still locked and loaded.

Good to see it.

Keep shootin' till fire abates.

.... what I've learned from this thread.  Two things, really:

1.  Warrior is likely a dynamite therapist, but, as a debater, his shtick is the rhetorical equivalent of banging the table or raising his voice.  Loud and agressive, but not all that rational or convincing.  
   
2.  Everyone who has commented on the issue on this thread* (including, it appears, the prolific Warrior**) appears to believe in some version of Dr. Modo's "shades of gray" approach.  One doesn't, for instance, talk about killing born children -- no matter how despondent or psychologically damaged they may cause their mother to be.

Oh, Modo's right about postmodernism (and its misuse).

My best,

von

*Note the phrasing:  Not every commentator on the thread has commented on the relevant subject matter.

**Indeed, I have a small suspicion that he's a trolling Kossack.  (Not to be confused with Kossacks who debate in good faith.)

to make the following compromise:

In exchange for disallowing abortions after the heartbeat is present for all reasons except mother's health, rape and incest, allowing abortions prior to the beating heart for whatever reasons are advanced by the mother?  

If enacted, this policy would not force you to compromise the stand that life after the heartbeat should be protected, but it satisfies a pro-Choicer's core belief that for some period in pregnancy it is reasonable to leave the decision to the woman.

Again, an attempt to keep the perfect from being the enemy of the good...

A question for you.

First off-what is the status of RU-486?  I know there was some talk about the FDA pulling it because of problems with a few women dying after its use.  To me, this seemed like a welcome compromise for the pro-life movement.  It took away the rape, incest, drunken one night stand, oops, argument for abortion on demand.  I know it doesn't even account for the birth defects, la, la, la, that the left tries to interject in the argument.  IMO that is a whole different argument.  Just my thought is that the morning after pill was probably a good thing.  From what I understand it works similar to how an IUD would work and how the birth control pill itself works.  Am on the right track with that thinking?

I think that pill is a good compromise, if it is as safe or safer than the abortion procedure itself.

While I am not a fan of Roe v. Wade and I would like to see it overturned and sent back to the states for the voters to approve or not, I do think that a compromise of a first trimester abortion is probably a logical place to start.

Just my two cents.

 

I do think that a compromise of a first trimester abortion is probably a logical place to start.

I think you would find alot of support in principle from the pro-choice side if that would mean nobody would contest the right to have an abortion in the first trimester.  It would take a constitutional amendment to do that.  Unfortunately, nobody pro-choice will get behind it because just proposing it moves the goalposts to the right.  Nobody pro-life would get behind it because it isn't strictly pro-life.  So, we're stuck battling it out until we get to the point where abortion is rare enough that it fades as an issue.  Hopeful