POST SCRIPTS

Nick, it's pointless. You have your own opinion of supreme moral virtue, and I have mine. Why don't you go about your own business, and I'll go about mine, and we leave it at that.

... but you can't do it, can you? Why is that?

I see you have jumped straight to the morale argument...interesting, not really the strongest hand for the pro-abortionist...but lets back track a little here.

Why does government exist?

I would argue that the first and noblest reason for the existence of government is the protection of innocent human life. I would hope that most people would agree with this concept.

It is carefully worded, as to not suggest that the government never has the right to take life, for this is clearly not the case. It simply categorizes what life is not appropriate for it to take.

Innocent Human Life.

If you agree with this concept, then the question of abortion becomes rather simple. It is merely a question of determining at what point human life begins (a scientific question) and the determination of its innocence (a legal question).

We classify categories of life by genetic code, DNA.

Ok so when do you possess all of the genetic code you will ever possess?

Answer: At the moment of conception.

So from a PURELY scientific view point you are human at the moment of conception.

But this is only part of the equation.

Now we must establish whether or not you are living. This is fairly simple. Living things grow. At the moment of conception you have all of the genetic code you will ever possess, and you are living i.e. form a PURELY scientific view point you are "Human Life".

We have just answered one of the biggest questions concerning this debate with out delving into morales....that comes later.

Now let us establish "innocence". This is somewhat more subjective, but I doubt you would find any DA in the land that would prosecute a fetus and then push for the death penalty for the crime of fighting to live during the 9 month gestational period, that nature has designed (and by nature I mean God, but call it what you like for the purpose of this debate).

Thus far we have made the case that at the point of conception you meet the scientific and legal requirements to be categorized as "Innocent Human Life".

Now lets get back to your question on why I "cant let it go?"

Because I believe that to destroy innocent human life for any other reason other than self defense is immoral.

So if you want to refer to that as my "...supreme morale virtue..." then I guess that is a somewhat accurate statement.

I don't believe that the government, or and individual has the right to destroy innocent human life because they feel like it.

Since you claim to disagree with this "...supreme morale virtue..." am I to assume that you think the government or the individual DOES have such a right?

You say..."Why don't you go about your own business, and I'll go about mine, and we leave it at that."

Interesting that you wish to apply such a philosophy here, when we are talking about decisions which result in an innocent third party.

But you openly reject such a philosophy when it comes to basic economic decisions.

I would very much like a response to the main points I have brought up.

Please make them specific and address the points I have brought up, so we can see some progress from this conversation.

Again, I challenge anyone to argue the science and the legalism FIRST. then we can move to the morale if there are still questions.

But in order to have a meaningful discussion, we must set the terms.

And the first term must be around my central finding.

The validity of the statement:

"Abortion is the systematic destruction of innocent human life."

If you agree with this statement, then let us move on to the morale implications.

If you disagree with this statement, please specify which part and why.

Thank You.

Nick, it's pointless. You have your own opinion of supreme moral virtue, and I have mine. Why don't you go about your own business, and I'll go about mine, and we leave it at that.

... but you can't do it, can you? Why is that?

I want to answer this question a little more pointedly.

The reason I cant just let it go, is simple.

If I saw a person attempting to kill a child in the street, I wouldn't "let it go". I wouldn't assume that he simply has a different " supreme morale virtue" and leave it alone.

I would be witnessing a crime, and my sense of justice would compel me to act.

I see these scenarios as being similar.

If you felt the same way, would you "let it go"?

I don't think you would.

So I hope that at least answers the question of why this is so important to me.

I find the brutalizing of the innocent abhorid. It is especially so, when the innocent in question, is also defenseless.

I simply cannot let that stand without putting up some kind of fight.

Again, how would you say we are different in that respect?

Nick, nobody's makin' ya do any of this stuff. Nobody's telling you you cannot hold the opinions that you do.

But I do not agree with you, and there's an end to it.

Unless of course, you want to make a war: try and force me to live according to your beliefs (or give you my oil). Is that what you want to do? I have to tell you, it's been tried a vast number of times and it don't work.

Libby, between the two of us, you are the only one advocating the taking of life for nothing greater than convenience.

And your inability to justify it, is telling.

You didn't bother to address any of my points. I'm guessing, because you understand that there is no answer except to accept the definition.

So just say it...

You except as part of your values the concept of the deliberate taking of defenseless, innocent human life, for no cause greater than your own convenience.

Say that out loud to yourself, and then have the audacity to come back to these pages and attempt to dictate to us, how much we should drive, or how much in taxes we should pay. Presume to tell us that you are the compassionate one, while we are the barbarians.

Then embrace the fact that in your compassionate world, life has no intrinsic value. This is the logical outworking of your world view Libby.

This is the reality you have helped create.

You don't even bother to defend it with an argument, or set of counter points.

I can understand to a small degree the person who just hasn't thought about it, but you have Libby. You have excepted it for what it is, and have sought to defend it.

Shall I describe in detail the procedures you defend?

If I were to claim that such a procedure as sticking a needle into the skull, scrambling their brains, and sucking them out through a vacuum, prior to ripping all of their limbs off, had been performed on a terrorist or child rapist, what would be your response Libby?

Yet, you casually except this when it is performed on the most defenseless of our society.

There is an entire generation coming of age Libby, that is going to be asking these questions. I seriously doubt, the answers you've given here, will suffice.

As a genuine liberal, I agree with you 100%!
We genuine liberals know that the public good comes first.
Unborn babies are part of the public.

Libby I have to jump in here. I'm confused about your position. The American people were against abortion and found it morally wrong and repugnant for a couple of centuries. Even when Roe v. Wade came down the mantra was "safe, RARE, and only in the first few weeks". We've come a long way from RARE baby. The case was trumped up by activist feminist demanding that society do what they wanted. That amounts to telling others how it will be or else.

The brutal realities a couple of decades after that ruling are all too clear. Millions of babies slaughtered. Roe regrets her participation. Women and men no longer think about the reality of what they are doing. (many are filled with pain and regret later when they realize what they have done) Abortion is used instead of birth control. It's used as a convenient way to avoid responsibiliy.

The decision was "forced" in the courts and into our culture. The feminist womens courses on college campuses are filled with bias and propaganda. Young minds have been preyed upon to force this trash thinking and it's disgusting.

While I welcome your agreement on this topic Quentin, I want it made clear, that I am putting governments responsibility in the role of preserving public safety in a very direct instance.

Providing for the "public good" is too broad and subjective a topic for me to take at face value.

But I want to keep this topic on abortion.

You are not confused, Tina. I have not said what my position is. I have only said that I do not agree with Nick's, or Quentin's.

And all this groady hyperbole is a waste of everybody's time. "Millions," "slaughter," what a lot of nonsense.

Why are you incapable of arguing simply the science and legality questions. We'll put the morale question on hold...do you except my definition?

So far Libby, all of your posts have strengthened my argument.

I will reiterate the statement:

"Abortion is the systematic destruction of innocent human life"

Does anybody want to come in here and help Libby out?

Anyone reading can see that she is desperately struggling to stay afloat here.

She cannot bring herself to debate even the most basic of scientific and legal questions I have raised.

Surely somewhere out there, there is someone who can bring forth an argument for this practice.

Anyone?

I assure you that if you leave it to Libby and the subterfuge she has embarked on, it will not go well for your camp.

So out of the thousands...thats right, you can check the numbers, THOUSANDS of people who read this blog, there is NOT ONE who is willing to come forward and debate my statement?

Libby has already as much as admitted that she is unwilling to debate this issue, preferring to say that we simply have different "opinions" and taht I should leave it alone; but can any of you think of one topic on this blog site where Libby has ever taken her own advice?

No Libby is a fighter. And while I do not appreciate her positions or methods, I can appreciate that she will fight for them...except this one.

What we see demonstrated here is a last gasp.

Someone desperately wanting to defend something, but unable to present any evidence.

Libby knows where this conversation is going, she is in an impossible position.

She cannot debate the science or the legality, so all that she is left with is the morale argument.

She cannot accept my statement, but neither can she bring evidence to refute it, because none exists.

So she must disregard it. Pretend as if it is not a real issue.

But how can that be? How can the protection of innocent human life NOT BE an issue?

Forced with the inevitable choice of changing her mind, or excepting the fact that she prefers a world where the majority get to decide who's life has meaning and who's does not, she chooses silent dissent.

Explain to me, how then am I to take you seriously when debating issues concerning things far more complex, when you can not even bring yourself to say that the value of innocent human life is not up for debate in your world view. We all have value, and our lives are not to be snuffed out at the whim of the majority.

Why cant you do it Libby?

The intent of this posting was not to cast people in a disparaging light, it was do demonstrate the brutality of a procedure, which should no longer be excepted.

It was not to cast judgment on anyone who has had an abortion, or anyone who has supported one. It is above all else a plea.

Whether or not you have supported this position in the past, is no where near as important as how you feel about it tomorrow.

But if you can read my statement; and unable to debunk it, accept it and continue to support such a procedure, then something IS wrong.

I don't wish to pound the keys to try to convince you Libby that millions have been slaughtered...you obviously prefer not to think about inconvenient things like babies in the sink.

I would be interested if you care to share your position since you seem to defend abortion. Or can I guess that you are one who personally would not have one but think others have the "right" to get one if they want it?

I would be thrilled to think that this posting has actually had such an effect, that the reason people are not presenting a defense for abortion, is because they have been convinced by the argument.

But experience tells me that most people will go right on accepting this practice even though their illusions are being stripped away.

Like I said at the start though. There will come a time when a younger generation demands an answer.

This is a lively discussion. I personally hate abortion, but since no one had the courage to defend the practice, I can explain for the pro-choicers how they can defend the "taking of innocent human life." They simply do not believe an unborn fetus is a human life. It is not a baby until it is fully born and outside the mother's body. As long as it is in her body, even partially, it is not a human with any kind of rights. It is alive but not independent of the mother's body. Sort of like an unwanted growth on your ear that you might ask the dermatologist to remove.

They simply do not believe an unborn fetus is a human life. It is not a baby until it is fully born and outside the mother's body. As long as it is in her body, even partially, it is not a human with any kind of rights. It is alive but not independent of the mother's body. Sort of like an unwanted growth on your ear that you might ask the dermatologist to remove.

I think it's telling that these same women, and their supportive guys, can hold that position and get abortions, sometimes more than one, until they are having a baby they want to keep. Then all of a sudden it's ultrasound and talking about baby names and buying baby equipment and toys...just doen't hold up does it?

Many of the women (and men too) really regret their earlier decision(s). They regret not giving it much thought and they resent the unanswered feminist pro abortion chit chat in the media, women's magazines, movies, and on college campi that pressed them in their decision. Where could they look to for support to keep the baby or put it up for adoption? Until more recently...nowhere, and that is a shame.

I will let Nick address the science but..."an unwanted growth?" Wow...you are perfectly describing the total lack of respect for life that this position represents. Great job!

"Unwanted Growth" Wow, it seems tragically similar to the tactic used by racists. Reduce something to less than human status and you don't have to feel bad about hurting or killing it.

Sorry, that should have read, "reduce someone to less than human status"

...tragically similar to the tactic used by racists. Reduce someone to less than human status and you don't have to feel bad about hurting or killing it.

That is exactly how it's done...sad but true.

Dan you are absolutely right that their basis for accepting such a procedure is their "feeling" that it is less than human.

But that is all it is; a "feeling" a desire really, completely devoid of scientific, legal or morale justification.

They simply do not wan to be responsible for their actions in a particular case, so they attempt to justify it.

"Feeling" that something is true, when all of the evidence demonstrates that it isn't, is not a sound basis for policy.

You will simply have to let the abortionists defend their position.

The only one who I have ever seen defend it appropriately is Yale ethicist Peter Singer.

He simply accepts the statement I have laid out, and goes even further to say that life has NO value past what we the majority give it, and that parents should be able to "abort" their children a month after its born.

Peter Singer has taken abortion policy to its logical conclusion.

In the progressive world view that accepts abortion, they must also accept that life has no intrinsic value.

How many of us, would like to live in such a world?

Well after 20 comments not one coherent defense of abortion.

Nick, it's pointless. You have your own opinion of supreme moral virtue, and I have mine. Why don't you go about your own business, and I'll go about mine, and we leave it at that.

... but you can't do it, can you? Why is that?