Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[tPA]

Quote by: Pale RIder I love the smell of righteous indignation in the morning....smells like....Victory!! Sad thing is that she will continue to use the same pathetic argument in another location knowing full well that it is nothing but a pack of lies.

I don't even know that she realizes her rationale is faulty. The more likely scenario is that she will depart believing herself to be right and the "winner", as evidenced by our constant "personal attacks" and lack of "foundational proof"...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: tPA I don't even know that she realizes her rationale is faulty. The more likely scenario is that she will depart believing herself to be right and the "winner", as evidenced by our constant "personal attacks" and lack of "foundational proof"...

Yeah, you are probably right. Amazing what people can convince themselves to believe.

I look forward to seeing the reaction of people like that when Roe is struck down. I suppose If I did a bit of research and found the reaction of slave owners when slavery was repealed I would get the gist of what the reaction will be.

[tPA]

Quote by: Pale RIder Yeah, you are probably right. Amazing what people can convince themselves to believe. I look forward to seeing the reaction of people like that when Roe is struck down. I suppose If I did a bit of research and found the reaction of slave owners when slavery was repealed I would get the gist of what the reaction will be.

I'll tell you what the reaction was to slavery ending--KKK, Jim Crow laws, lynching...

Look at what the French did with the French Revolution--took a perfectly good ideology ("liberty, fraternity, equality") and turned it into a bloodbath; started killing all those who disagreed with them, worshipped "reason" (even turned the Cathedral of Notre Dame into the "Temple of Reason"), and pretty much squandered all the good they had accomplished with the Revolution. Not far off here, in my opinion...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: tPA I'll tell you what the reaction was to slavery ending--KKK, Jim Crow laws, lynching... Look at what the French did with the French Revolution--took a perfectly good ideology ("liberty, fraternity, equality") and turned it into a bloodbath; started killing all those who disagreed with them, worshipped "reason" (even turned the Cathedral of Notre Dame into the "Temple of Reason"), and pretty much squandered all the good they had accomplished with the Revolution. Not far off here, in my opinion...

When Roe is struck down (and it will be next time it is heard) the issue will fall to the individual states and I doubt that abortion on demand could even pass in CA or MA. I doubt that it will turn into any sort of actual conflict. They don't believe in gun ownership.

[tPA]

Quote by: Pale RIder When Roe is struck down (and it will be next time it is heard) the issue will fall to the individual states and I doubt that abortion on demand could even pass in CA or MA. I doubt that it will turn into any sort of actual conflict. They don't believe in gun ownership.

I dunno--it can get (and has gotten) violent. You should witness (or watch online) some of the protests they mounted against Bush--hardly peaceful.

But as far as it being a state issue, I am all for it. If OK wants no abortion, ever, for any reason, and a majority of the population agrees, it should happen that way. If MA or CA want abortion for any reason, by anyone, at any time, and the majority concurs, let 'em have it. It is hardly a federal issue.

[kingjust]

IMO, with the definition of life being, i'm giving 2, 1.The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. 2.The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death. With that being said life for a human begins at birth. Now granted, the fetus is "alive", but so are the sperms and the eggs. All of the cells within those things are alive. But when it comes to abortion where I think this thread just boils down to, no one has the right to tell someone else that she "HAS" to have the baby, or she "HAS" to have the abortion. It is not our right to dictate what someone else can or cannot do, "NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!!!". So I think it is infringing on the womens right to her own body when legislation is made to conform to a religious majority concensus. I say religious because believe or not all of the hub bub is originating from the religious, IMO.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tPA Yet, in the zeal to protect abortion, advocates have fought tooth-and-nail to prevent any "infringement" on the "right." That is unacceptable. There is no justice. THAT is my issue with it.

That is all very interesting but it would all depend on whether you thought that a single cell is a human being. At some point in the development of human life what is present is declared a human being. Exactly where the demarcation line is will be up to society. If society wants to claim that a human egg and a human sperm separately is a human being since they are human life and can be easily combined to make a conceptus then it could declare that masturbating and unfertilized ovulation is a crime. After all everything involved is human life. But you have to draw the line somewhere. I think that in the future for most people there will be a distinction between human life and a human being. There has to be. Science is getting far too good at manipulating life in general and it would make no sense to issue a death certificate every time you had a wart removed. After all a wart is human life but no one would mistake it for a human being. However there will come a time where it could be easily turned into a human being. I was just reading a report of Japanese researchers that have developed a technique to use human skin cells to reliably create a conceptus that develops into the early stages where stem cells are present. In America today such research will not happen because of all the magical thinkers. And it has already moved off shore to places like England, China, Japan and South Korea. It will move to places where people know the difference between human life and a human being.

Starboy

[macnpat]

Quote by: Pale RIder I love the smell of righteous indignation in the morning....smells like....Victory!! Sad thing is that she will continue to use the same pathetic argument in another location knowing full well that it is nothing but a pack of lies.

Let me give you a bit of an education, Pale Rlder.

You cannot quote one thing I said here that was a lie. Further, before the Roe vs. Wade decision came down, women didn't avoid abortions because it was "illegal". Those who did not have abortions simply couldn't find anyone to do it for them. Except the rich girls whose family doctor helped them out privately in the office. (or poor girls who got back alley abortions)

I am a woman and there is no law, has never been a law, nor will there ever be a law that dictates what I do with my own body.

That's how it is. You and tPA are just going to have to live with it.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: kingjust ..... It is not our right to dictate what someone else can or cannot do, "NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!!!". .

Would you like a short list of about a thousand things the government dictates that you can or can not do? WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy That is all very interesting but it would all depend on whether you thought that a single cell is a human being. At some point in the development of human life what is present is declared a human being. Exactly where the demarcation line is will be up to society. If society wants to claim that a human egg and a human sperm separately is a human being since they are human life and can be easily combined to make a conceptus then it could declare that masturbating and unfertilized ovulation is a crime. After all everything involved is human life. But you have to draw the line somewhere. I think that in the future for most people there will be a distinction between human life and a human being. There has to be. Science is getting far too good at manipulating life in general and it would make no sense to issue a death certificate every time you had a wart removed. After all a wart is human life but no one would mistake it for a human being. However there will come a time where it could be easily turned into a human being. I was just reading a report of Japanese researchers that have developed a technique to use human skin cells to reliably create a conceptus that develops into the early stages where stem cells are present. In America today such research will not happen because of all the magical thinkers. And it has already moved off shore to places like England, China, Japan and South Korea. It will move to places where people know the difference between human life and a human being. Starboy

Your argument is completely without merit. Overt condesention only works if you are knocking down your oponent's arguments as if they weren't there. It just doesn't have the same effect when you are flat on your back with a bloody nose. From you, it just sounds like whining.

You keep up with that rediculous single cell argument. That stage of a human being's life lasts for a couple of hours. How bright is it to base a whole block of your argument on a span of about two hours in a human being's life?

And science already knows the difference between human life and a human being. You can find it in any textbook dealing with human development. Still waiting for you to produce something that looks like evidence to support your "opinion". It doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: macnpat Let me give you a bit of an education, Pale Rlder. You cannot quote one thing I said here that was a lie. Further, before the Roe vs. Wade decision came down, women didn't avoid abortions because it was "illegal". Those who did not have abortions simply couldn't find anyone to do it for them. Except the rich girls whose family doctor helped them out privately in the office. (or poor girls who got back alley abortions) I am a woman and there is no law, has never been a law, nor will there ever be a law that dictates what I do with my own body. That's how it is. You and tPA are just going to have to live with it.

Quote by: macnpat The unborn is nothing but the Hosts tissue except for the one lone microscopic sperm which breeched her egg.

This is either a deliberate lie or ignorance of the biology of human development. Since this is not obscure knowledge that only one with advanced degrees in science would know, it would seem to be just a lie.

Quote by: macnpat This indicates that the mother is only aborting a part of her own body, and not a separate living entity.

Again, a lie...or profound ignorance. You say which.

Quote by: macnpat Those who did not have abortions simply couldn't find anyone to do it for them. Except the rich girls whose family doctor helped them out privately in the office. (or poor girls who got back alley abortions)

Another lie. CDC statistics from the time clearly indicate that the "coat hanger" "back alley" abortion is a carefully cultivated myth propagated by the pro choice movement. Records indicate that in the year prior to the Roe decision, 8 women died from "illegal" abortions. Many times that number died from legal abortions last year.

Quote by: macnpat I am a woman and there is no law, has never been a law, nor will there ever be a law that dictates what I do with my own body.

Still another lie. There are any number of laws that dictate what you may and may not do with your own body. Should I list a few for you? It seems that your whole premise is founded on lies...or ignorance. Either way, your argument fails in its entirety.

[macnpat]

Quote by: Pale RIder This is either a deliberate lie or ignorance of the biology of human development. Since this is not obscure knowledge that only one with advanced degrees in science would know, it would seem to be just a lie. Again, a lie...or profound ignorance. You say which.

Where did the egg come from? Is it not the Mother's tissue without which there would be no fertilization, and no zygote?

CDC statistics from the time clearly indicate that the "coat hanger" "back alley" abortion is a carefully cultivated myth propagated by the pro choice movement. Records indicate that in the year prior to the Roe decision, 8 women died from "illegal" abortions. Many times that number died from legal abortions last year.

Who kept records of girls from the ages of 12 and up who sought illegal abortions, whether they lived or died by going home to hemmorage to death in their own beds? How many families of women who died of botched up back-ally abortions proudly announced the true cause of death in Americas obituary columns.

I am beginning to see that you simply do not know much about this subject.

There are any number of laws that dictate what you may and may not do with your own body. Should I list a few for you? It seems that your whole premise is founded on lies...or ignorance. Either way, your argument fails in its entirety.

Why don't you list what an adult Male can and cannot do to his own body. And you will note I said "to" and not "with".

Go for it.

[Technosoul]

I'm back and have revewed the comment of this forum to my last messages. Okay, we will not talk religion. We will assume that rights have no moral bearing and even if they did it was not due to a religious belief system. You all want to stick just with biological facts as well as political documents. That is okay - mind, body, but no spirit. I guess I can grasp that.

Now let's talk turkey. One of you said that I should not make non-meainful comparisons to suggest that a turkey egg is as important as a human egg. Needless to say under law the turkey has no right to life. That is because of the same kind of thinking that allowed for slavery - that on spcies or one race is somehow sacred and all other life forms are of little importance.

Biologically speaking there is a lot of common denominators between how other creatures develope and grow and how humans develope and grow. That is why they experiment on mice to teast stuff for human use. That is why we learn a lot about the human speices via the study of nature and other animals.

Now Pale Rider did not dodge the turkey question and gets an A-plus for having the correct answer, the turkey and the egg are both the same thing - that is why no one knows what came first the chicken or the egg - because they are both part of the same circular "process".

Logically then the human egg (meaning one that is activated) is the same as an adult human being.

But lets dodge that for a moment and talk turkey again. And this is a major point that must be accounted for in rebuttle. If an animal (one that is close in DNA to that of a human being ) cannot have human rights then what makes the animal different then a human being. (remember both have flesh and blood made out of DNA combinations). What are the real differences between humans and all other life forms on earth? Once you establish that in an absolute manner then you can determine if and when an human egg reaches that stage where it do the human things that animals cannot do, or whatever? (keep in mind that any amimal can have individual DNA). Does consciousness of a certain type come into play in that respect?

Then we can turn to the legal paperwork. Let us say it reads "all humans are created with the right to life". The next question is this - after life is formed at conception and reaches the age of birth, and then grows to the age of "knowing right from wrong" do you still have those right unconditionally.
Or can your choice of action change or cancel those rights - making them legally of non-effect.

Up until a short time ago a minor could not be judged the same as an adult. But as we progressed we took much of that concept away and so now some minors can be tried as adults - not sure how low the court system can go (age wise). But what if a mother was killed giving child birth because the kid came out the wrong way - well - the infant could be tried for murder because of its acitons (that might sound nuts but know what the law might soon dictate if they rule "by word of law" only and not by commen sense (no activist judges). So at what time or age should our laws be applicable both for or agenst a human? If you can be protected under law you can also be prosecuted under law, I would assme.

Next - fellow Americans - let us examine agian very closely what is self - evident about the right to life law.

It is a self-evident turth that you do not have the right to life on death row. It is a self-evident truth that innocent children in Iraq do not have the right to life otherwise we would not drop bombs on them. (and please, do not claim such is accidental - be real). It is a self-evident truth that if you bears arms in a public place and do not drop that weapon at the say-so of the police that you lost your right to life (even if you are hard of hearing). Okay - war is war. So domestically we can note that that the real interpertation of that law is that peace loving people have a right to be protected from violent and agressive people - which is like unto "survival of most fit" only reversed to aid the survival of the meak (who get stronger middle-men to insure that right for them) whilch middle man is the government. Needless to say the self-evident turth is that the strong or well armed person would not need such protectionist rights, only the underdogs and the meak. Namely the beloved liberals among you.

It is also self-evident that a baby (before and just after birth) is meak and defenceless. (but perhaps not yet a liberal - depending on DNA mapping - we might someday know how to predict such thngs at birth - and even re-create the outcome with gene manipulation).

Next, although we could say that an unborn has the right to life based on those findings we must also comprehend that the mother is also involved in that experience. And that is where women's rights also must come into play. Giving birith is very painful in many cases which is simular to having a terrorest torture you - it would seem she would have some sort of say-so in the matter.
Something the mostly male law makers cannot comperhend.

It is also self-evident that many people died so you could maintian the right to life, which is a paradox for sure. If all the youngsters demanded the right to life they would not join the army (or even the police force) and then where would you be? So is our true hero rejecting thier rights?
Why would they do that? Because they hold other "rewards" or political opinions as much more important then the right to life.

Next we got the Patriot Act #2 which the Bush people are now drafting and will get congress to pass. Once passed the Federal government will have authority to define domestic terrorism and which groups can be identifed as such. Domestic terrorism would be defined as certain organizations that normally protest the activities of the government in an aggressive way (or whom the Feds think might have that potential). Namely anti-war groups and environmentalists who protest what industry might be doing to endanger the right to life of nature and the human population.

If they break into a turkey farm and liberate the birds because some industry is miss-treating their livestock then the Feds could classify the protesters as "domestic industrial terrorists" and place them under arrest. Under the mandates (soon to be published) of the Patriot Act #2 those arrested would not have any rights (to get a lawyer or whatever). Under the mandates of the new Act mentioned "anyone belonging to any domestic terrorest organization, once so named, could be rounded-up and the sentence for such a crime is DEATH. (so if you belong to any groups now is a good time to cancel your subsciption and donations). So that will pretty much blow away (my opinion) most of the rights we now believe that we have unless we are willing to conform out of fear to the new mandate - and the transformation of current "freedom" to a kind of dictatorship which is operated by a "collective" elite group instead of just one leader.

So fine and dandy, give the unborn their rights, but beware, the wolf stands just outside the womb waiting to consume them anyway, as freedom vanishes in the name of freedom.

Pale Rider - You will win the debate if the only thing that "matters" in the determination of how the law should be interpreted is the biological make-up of a living stem cell generated into effect at the moment of conception.

Star Boy - If we reject the influence of the religious majority and their pressure to push for a new interpretation of the law into effect, and if we go just with the mainstream thinking of biology and science then we must grasp the concept of the totality of the biological process. Namely, that any tiny micro-organisem could evolve over billions of years into a human being - then we would have to worry about that and thusly extend the light to life so that the law covers everything microscopic that might have a chance to evolve. In other words, if we interpret life as a process then we must protect that process to insure that all future humans can arrive here safely. Or we can forget law and order when speaking in biological terms and just stick with the "random chance" theory.

From a political standpoint we should think about this concept. We underdogs must limit ourself to trying to interpret what some other person said, namely who ever we think is the authority. And then we must conform and follow orders as they are dictated. Likewise if a woman as authority over her own body then she can dictate what happens in that body and can speak on behalf of any life form in her body. If our leader (leaders) have power over life and death and who gets what then by that same standard a woman can assume that authority - otherwise we got a double-standard which would be hypocritical in nature.

Technosoul.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul I'm back and have revewed the comment of this forum to my last messages. Okay, we will not talk religion. We will assume that rights have no moral bearing and even if they did it was not due to a religious belief system. You all want to stick just with biological facts as well as political documents. That is okay - mind, body, but no spirit. I guess I can grasp that. ....... Technosoul.

Got to hand it to you technosoul, you shuck and jive with the best of them. You agree to stick to biology. Then you make a rambling, cursory bow of sorts to the biology and may or may not be admitting that the biology is inarguable. You devoted 198 words to the subject, 115 of which were off on a combination animal rights, turkey / egg tangent. So you actually devoted 83 words to biology.

Then you immediately “dodge” the biology of human development and devote another 210 words to discussion about the “rights” and similarities of animals that are “close” to human beings that doesn’t make a biological point that I can see.

Then you devote 219 words to a ramble through “legal paperwork” in which you seem to try (and fail) to deny inalienable rights to minors. I believe that you have confused priveledge with right, but it doesn’t matter since it is not a biological point anyway.

Next comes 421 words devoted to demonstrating that you don’t understand what the meaning of “inalienable right to life” means.

Followed by 288 words in which you seem to suggest that it is best to abort all unborns because they may fall victim to the patriot act.

Then there are 42 words that suggest that I win the debate if all that matters is that a stem cell is created at the moment of conception. Actually, it is a totipotent cell, not a stem cell and the fact that it is a totipotent cell is what makes it a human being. A stem cell can grow to be a blood cell, or a liver cell or whatever, but left to its own, a stem cell can not grow to be more than a cell, or succession of cells. A totipotent cell on the other hand is a being that continues to develop into more and more mature stages of that being. Unborns are not stem cells, they are beings. Human beings.

Finally, there are 255 words to starboy in which you “conspiratorily” admit that you don’t grasp the biology so you will make fun of, and look down your nose at anyone who does. Furthermore, you will snicker at, and twist out of context all the concepts that you don’t understand in an attempt to discredit them without ever taking having to debate them head on.

Does that about sum it up?

So, we have you agreeing to stick to a biological argument. Then you proceed to type 1556 words, 83 of which are devoted to biology that in no way refute the fact that unborns are both human and alive and as such have an inalienable right to life.

Shuck and jive, grasping, clutching, reaching, failing…always failing.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: macnpat Where did the egg come from? Is it not the Mother's tissue without which there would be no fertilization, and no zygote?

While it is an egg, it belongs to the mother but upon fertilization, it is simple biological fact that the egg and the sperm both cease to exist. Once conception has taken place, the unborn is related to the mother but is no longer part of her body. That is the fact of biological development. Not subject to stapling, folding, or mutilating, or philosophical argument.

It is a new human being and if you are arguing that the mother owns it, then you are making the same misguided argument that the slave holders made way back when. You are arguing that a human is not a human and therefore subject to ownership and lives or dies at the whim of his or her master.

Quote by: macnpat Who kept records of girls from the ages of 12 and up who sought illegal abortions, whether they lived or died by going home to hemmorage to death in their own beds? How many families of women who died of botched up back-ally abortions proudly announced the true cause of death in Americas obituary columns.

If no one kept the records of those girls, how is it that the pro choice movement (and only the pro choice movement) seems to know so much about them. Where they got their abortions, what sort of complications they suffered, and how many of them died. If, as you say, there are no records, then it is self evident that your reference to them is a fiction, a fabrication, banana oil, an improvisation, a prevarication, a concoction, a myth, a terminological inexactitude..in short...a lie.

Quote by: macnpat I am beginning to see that you simply do not know much about this subject.

I, and anyone who cares to look, have already seen that what you "know" of this subject is either made up by you, or those who feed you your talking points. It certainly doesn't reflect any real knowledge of human developmental biology, or the law.

Quote by: macnpat Why don't you list what an adult Male can and cannot do to his own body. And you will note I said "to" and not "with". Go for it.

Interesting language trick. Do to vs do with but there really isn't any difference. If you cut off your left finger with a blade held in your right hand it is simply something that you have done to your left finger and you have done it with your right hand. So you have both done something to yourself and done something with yourself. Just depends on how you want to say it. Either way, you are minus a finger on your left hand.

Consider killing another human being. If you tear that human being limb from limb and terminate his life, you have both done to that human and done that with that human. Either way you say it, another human has been killed by being torn limb from limb. You know that you are in a very weak position when you have to start playing silly word games in an attempt to protect the point that you are trying to make.

This list of things that restrict what can be done to / with our bodies applies to male and female.

They can not pollute their bodies with illegal drugs.

They can legally not hurl thier bodies off tall buildings or subject their heads to self inflicted gunshot wounds.

In most locations they can not engage their bodies in the practice of prostitution.

We can not subject our bodies to riding in private automobiles without having them buckled into seatbelts.

The list goes on and on but it is completely irrelavent to this discussion since the woman is not aborting her body, or any part of her body. She is terminating the life of another human being. That is the biggest lie of all. The lie that an abortion is nothing but something that the woman does to her own body.

[macnpat]

Quote by: Pale RIder While it is an egg, it belongs to the mother but upon fertilization, it is simple biological fact that the egg and the sperm both cease to exist. Once conception has taken place, the unborn is related to the mother but is no longer part of her body. That is the fact of biological development. Not subject to stapling, folding, or mutilating, or philosophical argument.

If the zygote is no longer a part of her body, by what laws are she or the sperm donor required to incubate it?

It is a new human being and if you are arguing that the mother owns it, then you are making the same misguided argument that the slave holders made way back when.

Someone owns it because it is through possession that it is being kept alive until it can survive on its own.

You are arguing that a human is not a human and therefore subject to ownership and lives or dies at the whim of his or her master.

Not at all.

If no one kept the records of those girls, how is it that the pro choice movement (and only the pro choice movement) seems to know so much about them. Where they got their abortions, what sort of complications they suffered, and how many of them died.

Maybe because of the number of arrests of back-alley abortionists. But, no one will really know the savage costs to young women when abortion was not legal.

If, as you say, there are no records, then it is self evident that your reference to them is a fiction, a fabrication, banana oil, an improvisation, a prevarication, a concoction, a myth, a terminological inexactitude..in short...a lie.

I don't know how to break through this type of ignorance.

I, and anyone who cares to look, have already seen that what you "know" of this subject is either made up by you, or those who feed you your talking points. It certainly doesn't reflect any real knowledge of human developmental biology, or the law.

Does this mean that if you believe this hard enough, you can keep your head buried in the sand?

This list of things that restrict what can be done to / with our bodies applies to male and female. They can not pollute their bodies with illegal drugs.

But they can pollute their bodies with alcohol and prescription drugs.

They can legally not hurl thier bodies off tall buildings or subject their heads to self inflicted gunshot wounds.

Oh? Do laws prevent thoughts of suicide?

In most locations they can not engage their bodies in the practice of prostitution.

You are right. It is illegal to sell your body for profit in most States. Unless it's adult porn.

We can not subject our bodies to riding in private automobiles without having them buckled into seatbelts.

That pertains to vehicle laws, not the body. If you sit in the back seats they do not apply to you as a passenger.

The list goes on and on but it is completely irrelavent to this discussion since the woman is not aborting her body, or any part of her body. She is terminating the life of another human being. That is the biggest lie of all. The lie that an abortion is nothing but something that the woman does to her own body.

I agree that the woman is terminating the life of another human being and it is wrong. But, it is a question of whose rights supercede the others. A woman has Constitutional rights over her property that are not abrogated by conception.

[James]

From the second the sperm meets the egg, the baby is growing.

DEAD THINGS DON'T GROW!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: macnpat If the zygote is no longer a part of her body, by what laws are she or the sperm donor required to incubate it?

Presently no law requires her to incubate it. Roe will be struck down because of a flawed application of the law of the same sort that happened with Dred Scott. The woman's right to privacy, to not be inconvenienced, or whatever right she might claim does not supercede another human being's right to live.

Quote by: macnpat Someone owns it because it is through possession that it is being kept alive until it can survive on its own.

Newborns, infants, toddlers, pre adolescents can not survive on their own either. Are you suggesting that the parents "own" thier children until they are able to survive on their own? If you are, you are promoting slavery, if you are not, then your whole argument just fell apart.

Quote by: macnpat Maybe because of the number of arrests of back-alley abortionists. But, no one will really know the savage costs to young women when abortion was not legal.

By the same token, no one will know IF there was a savage cost to young women. The whole discussion is a fabrication. You have no more knowledge of what happend than I so there is no place within a discussion of fact for fantasy.

Quote by: macnpat I don't know how to break through this type of ignorance.

Ignorance? What have I said that is not factual. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Arguing that an unborn is part of the mother is ignorant because it is contrary to what is factual. If I am exhibiting ignorance, then you should be able to offer up facts to contradict me. I don't see that happening. Maybe you are holding back for a grand finale'?

Quote by: macnpat Does this mean that if you believe this hard enough, you can keep your head buried in the sand?

I am speaking from a position of scientific fact that you can not tear down. Whose head is buried?

Quote by: macnpat But they can pollute their bodies with alcohol and prescription drugs.

Legal. You asked for laws that restricted what people could do to / with their bodies. I obliged.

Quote by: macnpat Oh? Do laws prevent thoughts of suicide?

Thoughts of suicide and actual suicide are two different things. You do recognize the difference don't you? When Roe is struck down, thoughts of abortion won't get you in trouble with the law, having an abortion will.

Quote by: macnpat You are right. It is illegal to sell your body for profit in most States. Unless it's adult porn.

I am damned near always right. Infuriating isn't it? It is because I thouroghly research a topic before I begin to argue it. I used to be pro choice but someone much like myself completely tore down every argument that I could offer up. I researched more than you could possibly know in an effort to prove that I was right and he was wrong. I couldn't do it because I was wrong. Being a thinking person, I could not justify holding a wrong position no matter how politically correct it was. Owning slaves was once politically correct.

No matter what argument you put up, I can dismantle. The sort of argument you are making doesn't even require effort to dissasemble. I have debated this subject with OB/Gyn's and come out on top. I know this subject like the back of my hand. In fact, the more a person knows about the biology of reproduction and human development, the easier it is to sway them. You don't have to explain EVERY TINY DETAIL to them. The weight of their own