Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Dirty Name]

In my ealier posts, I tried to conclude individual identity, or feeling of self existence, or feeling of self awareness, or self consciousness or Iness does not exist in early stage of pregnancy. May be not till Fetus is developed fully, having brain in particular. This, I had attributted to the point/period of time when mother feels first kick or few kicks of the fetus inside womb. That would show fetus is using its sensory and motor nerves working and are thus in order. In fact, I have attributed true start of "Individualist Life" from that point/period only. In view of that I felt abortion in the very first month particularly, is not a murder!!!! So particulary for medical benefits stem cell research should be encouraged but with specific restrictions!!!! But that was not acceptable to Pale RIder due to no scientific proof available with me for getting Iness later than conception!!! Islam believes it to be 120th day precisely, while Hindus say some where in between second trimister of pregnancy. Unexplainable, incoming Soul may know the truth!!!

Your position is no different from that of any religious person - grounded only in what you "think," and it's one area where nobody can agree.

So why don't we all just admit that conception is the only bright line area where we can draw a line and be done with this despicable practice?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name So why don't we all just admit that conception is the only bright line area where we can draw a line and be done with this despicable practice?

Because it has nothing to do with being human. All creatures have that line. An egg is not a chicken. A conceptus is not a human being.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

What is your birth date? What is the date when your mother conceived the sperm of your father? - not in months, but down to the min. The first is a known fact, the 2nd is pure guesswork.

This is perhaps the laziest dismissal of a valid point I have ever read.

Tell me, TechnoSoul, is it really necessary to know the EXACT MOMENT of conception for the purposes of abortion? Or is knowing one is pregnant enough information?

In seeking an abortion, one is acknowledging that conception has occured. But for those who wish to believe that life begins at some other point in the gestation process, some very serious questions begin to arise, none of which can be defended with anything except philosophy.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Because it has nothing to do with being human. All creatures have that line. An egg is not a chicken. A conceptus is not a human being. Starboy

Of course you can offer nothing in the way of corroboration for that statement other than to say that you said it. Unlike the pro life side of the argument that is perfectly willing and able to overwhelm you with scientific evidence.

By the way, here is a link to a second grade science course dealing with life cycles. Scroll down to lesson 30. There, on a second grade level they will explain to you that the shell is not the egg. That what is inside the shell is the egg and that it is a chicken inside if the egg has been fertilized.

http://www.cstone.net/~bcp/2/2FSci.htm

Maybe you had the measels or some such thing and were out on that day way back in the 2nd grade when the rest of us learned that if it is fertilized that an egg is indeed a chicken.

If you read from the beginning, you will also learn that on a second grade level, the kids also learn enough to accurately dismiss your "acorn is not a tree" myth. They explain in easy terms that if you disect a seed you will indeed find a "baby plant".

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Dirty Name This is perhaps the laziest dismissal of a valid point I have ever read. Tell me, TechnoSoul, is it really necessary to know the EXACT MOMENT of conception for the purposes of abortion? Or is knowing one is pregnant enough information? In seeking an abortion, one is acknowledging that conception has occured. But for those who wish to believe that life begins at some other point in the gestation process, some very serious questions begin to arise, none of which can be defended with anything except philosophy.

For legal purposes you need a document, in this case a certificate of conception instead of a certificate of birth, as that is how you must prove citizenship.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder Of course you can offer nothing in the way of corroboration for that statement other than to say that you said it. Unlike the pro life side of the argument that is perfectly willing and able to overwhelm you with scientific evidence.

Oops, you are right. People go to the store and ask for a dozen eggs and expect a dozen chickens all the time and people that want a fresh tomato in their salad actually want a fresh tomato seed. Yup, I have no evidence at all.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Pale RIder Few if any women would even be allowed to attempt to naturally birth 6 children any more. They wouldn't be able to find a doctor that would be willing to take the risk. Most women that have what were once considered normal sized babies (8 - 10 pounds) are delivered via C-section now. Doctors aren't willing to take the liability risk. So a woman who was having 6 children would have them via C-section and there would be no valid medical reason to deliberately kill any of them. Women who visit fertility clinics (where most multiple births above 3 come from) would have to consider the option much more carefully as they would no longer be able to just kill those unfortunates who were above the number that they wanted. And the techniques at in vetro centers would have to improve so as to not leave unborns in suspension indefinately. Women are not bound by any law now to raise children that they might have. In many states it is perfectly legal to leave a child with a responsible adult (fire house, police, clergy) etc and walk away and never look back. As to the 9 months that she would be pregnant. I don't think her convenience outweighs another human being's right to live. My bet is that if abortion on demand were not an option, the perfect contraceptive would be available very quickly as there would be a substantial financial motive for drug companies to produce them. Or maybe, recreational sex would dimish as there would be clear and present consequences associated with the practice. I have always maintained that if a woman's life is in danger that she has the right to defend her life up to and including the point of killing another human being to do so. In cases of multiple pregnancy, generally speaking, if a woman can't bear them, they die natural deaths long before they become an issue. Nature has a knack for working out such details. No such laws exist today, why would they exist post Roe? If a fireman rushes in and finds two blacks and one white and just happens to save the black, he can't be charged with a hate crime or any other crime for not rescuing the whites first. You are slipping back into game mode. Full game mode. Law exists today that would consider a woman in that position, why would it be different post Roe. And as to your polls. The vast bulk of people in this country don't even understand the Roe decision so are not really qualified to make an educated judgement on the issue. It has been a very long time since a majority of people in this country have favored abortion on demand. I might have to not agree with the last statement a bit. See the poll results aired on NBC news yesterday. In the following link. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm In this lastest poll, aired on NBC yesterday, 65 percent of people voted to unhold the Roe case, and only 29 percent wanted the Roe case overturned. Interesting to compare that poll with the poll here. Note. more people took part in their polling. If questions concerning Roe are asked in the context of abortion on demand or abortion under certain circumstances (health of the mother, rape, incest) then the numbers shift radically to the over turning of Roe. The trick is to ask an honest question. If you have seriously reconsidered your position then I congratulate you for being a thinking person. If you are just being sarcastic, then I congratulate you for being particularly dishonest. I suppose I will have to watch your debate when this subject comes up to see which way you go.

I congratulate you for taking part in this peer review. Please note that I have "agreed" that our individual personhood orginates at conception once the merger is complete. And that new DNA evidence would warrent renewed concideration of the legality of abortions. The micro-people as a minority should be represented in court using the new facts that you have disclosed.

If at later times on this forum I am debating about the "orgins of life" it should be noted that I might not be debating when we become individuals per-say - and so do not think that I am being dishonest in that respect. If I am debating the topic from a spiritual or religious angle, I might view life as a spirit or soul, rather then as something purely physical. And such should not be seen as flip-flopping from my present determination that is relative to science and our legal system. "abstract topics" would then be as such and not in the same bag as our current topic about individualism based on DNA evidence (only).

Likewise - if I am debating or relating information from a phylosophy perspective about "self" in respect to "self image" and so forth that would be different the talking about the physical self - and therefore not fibbing or flip flopping.

Your answers about the other "wrinkles" that needed ironing out seem to as good as any other kind of answer that I am currently aware of.

I am still feel that our current laws that allow for capitol punishment and in particular as would or could be applied to abortion cases (assuming Roe & Wade is overturned based on new DNA evidence) - and likewise long term prison sentences for first time offenders of a new anti-abortion law - is wrong. Unless so done in violation of the womans wishes.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

PS - You predicted that recreational sex might diminish as the result of new anit-abortion laws - don't hold your breath on that one.

Also don't tell them old judges that recreation sex might no longer be popular, they just stocked up on those new Dole pills that enable old judges to regain the ability for recreational sex - now covered by medicare. You might loose your case on that one idea alone.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Oops, you are right. People go to the store and ask for a dozen eggs and expect a dozen chickens all the time and people that want a fresh tomato in their salad actually want a fresh tomato seed. Yup, I have no evidence at all. Starboy

What people expect and what is are often two entirely different things...as every 2nd grader knows.

Again, I have provided evidence to support my argument, and you, as usual, have provided squat.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Technosoul For legal purposes you need a document, in this case a certificate of conception instead of a certificate of birth, as that is how you must prove citizenship.

I ran a search on “certificate of conception” and could find no governament proposal or court case that establishes the legal requirement for a "certificate of conception".

I got hits from only two pro-choice sites (both of which both have the same article) and 4 blogs/usenets. The Pro-Choice Action Network site (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...usperson.shtml) did provide references to three court cases:

Tremblay v. Daigle (1989); http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr2_0530.html

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1989. http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr1_0342.html

Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997); [Could not find reference]


Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1989 is a specific case deciding whether or not Borowski’s appeal can be heard by the court. The ruling was that the appeal was rendered moot by several factors. In this case the term “certificate of conception” never occurs in this presentation of the case. The term “conception” appears only once:

“In a legislative context any rights of the foetus could be considered or at least balanced against the rights of women guaranteed by s. 7. See R. v. Morgentaler (No. 2), supra, per Dickson C.J., at p. 75; per Beetz J. at pp. 122-23; per Wilson J. at pp. 181-82. A pronouncement in favour of the appellant's position that a foetus is protected by s. 7 from the date of conception would decide the issue out of its proper context. Doctors and hospitals would be left to speculate as to how to apply such a ruling consistently with a woman's rights under s. 7. During argument the question was posed to counsel for R.E.A.L. Women as to what a hospital would do with a pregnant woman who required an abortion to save her life in the face of a ruling in favour of the appellant's position. The answer was that doctors and legislators would have to stay up at night to decide how to deal with the situation. This state of uncertainty would clearly not be in the public interest. Instead of rendering the law certain, a decision favourable to the appellant would have the opposite effect.” Pages 364-5

This case clearly does not establish the requirement of a “Certificate of Conception”.

Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) doesn’t have the term “certificate of conception” either and the term “conception” doesn’t even appear in the transcription of the case but only appears in the authors-cited section after the transcript.

This case clearly does not establish the requirement of a “Certificate of Conception”.

Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997). I did a search on this and found a dozen or so pro-choice sites but not the case transcript. Therefore I cannot determine if the terms are in the transcript.

That term comes from the Pro-Choice Action Network Web site (as far I can determine): http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...usperson.shtml

“Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception? The sheer absurdity of this proposal reveals that society does not think of fetuses as persons in the normal sense at all, and would have great difficulty trying to treat them as such.”

I found no other references to this term on any of the search engines I used. Technosoul, could you provide a reference to the legal requirement for this certificate as you assert? Also, this pro-choice site talks about a proposal for a "certificate of conception". Could you provide a link to the proposal either in Canada (the source of the two court cases) or the US?

Or could you explain better what you meant in your assertion above?

Thanks

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder What people expect and what is are often two entirely different things...as every 2nd grader knows.

So you are saying that even the 2nd graders can't tell the difference between an egg and a chicken?

Again, I have provided evidence to support my argument, and you, as usual, have provided squat.

So what? You ignore the very obvious evidence that makes it clear that what you argue is nonsense.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

A conceptus is not a human being.

Utter nonsense. What is it then? Does it belong to some other kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species?

The answer, of course, is no. A conceptus is in fact categorized as follows:

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - PRIMATA - HOMINIDAE - HOMO - SAPIENS

I challenge you to prove it could be classified any other way.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Dirty Name Utter nonsense. What is it then? Does it belong to some other kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species? The answer, of course, is no. A conceptus is in fact categorized as follows: ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - PRIMATA - HOMINIDAE - HOMO - SAPIENS I challenge you to prove it could be classified any other way.

Hmm, animal, mammal, primate, human, homo simpson. I guess that covers allmost all the warm blooded creatures.

So.....

Guess what Starday - you are now also a Conceptus. Have a nice birth.

Sorry.... had to do a "funny".

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isaiah I ran a search on “certificate of conception” and could find no governament proposal or court case that establishes the legal requirement for a "certificate of conception". I got hits from only two pro-choice sites (both of which both have the same article) and 4 blogs/usenets. The Pro-Choice Action Network site (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...usperson.shtml) did provide references to three court cases: Tremblay v. Daigle (1989); http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr2_0530.html Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1989. http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr1_0342.html Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997); [Could not find reference] Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1989 is a specific case deciding whether or not Borowski’s appeal can be heard by the court. The ruling was that the appeal was rendered moot by several factors. In this case the term “certificate of conception” never occurs in this presentation of the case. The term “conception” appears only once: “In a legislative context any rights of the foetus could be considered or at least balanced against the rights of women guaranteed by s. 7. See R. v. Morgentaler (No. 2), supra, per Dickson C.J., at p. 75; per Beetz J. at pp. 122-23; per Wilson J. at pp. 181-82. A pronouncement in favour of the appellant's position that a foetus is protected by s. 7 from the date of conception would decide the issue out of its proper context. Doctors and hospitals would be left to speculate as to how to apply such a ruling consistently with a woman's rights under s. 7. During argument the question was posed to counsel for R.E.A.L. Women as to what a hospital would do with a pregnant woman who required an abortion to save her life in the face of a ruling in favour of the appellant's position. The answer was that doctors and legislators would have to stay up at night to decide how to deal with the situation. This state of uncertainty would clearly not be in the public interest. Instead of rendering the law certain, a decision favourable to the appellant would have the opposite effect.” Pages 364-5 This case clearly does not establish the requirement of a “Certificate of Conception”. Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) doesn’t have the term “certificate of conception” either and the term “conception” doesn’t even appear in the transcription of the case but only appears in the authors-cited section after the transcript. This case clearly does not establish the requirement of a “Certificate of Conception”. Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997). I did a search on this and found a dozen or so pro-choice sites but not the case transcript. Therefore I cannot determine if the terms are in the transcript. That term comes from the Pro-Choice Action Network Web site (as far I can determine): http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...usperson.shtml “Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception? The sheer absurdity of this proposal reveals that society does not think of fetuses as persons in the normal sense at all, and would have great difficulty trying to treat them as such.” I found no other references to this term on any of the search engines I used. Technosoul, could you provide a reference to the legal requirement for this certificate as you assert? Also, this pro-choice site talks about a proposal for a "certificate of conception". Could you provide a link to the proposal either in Canada (the source of the two court cases) or the US? Or could you explain better what you meant in your assertion above? Thanks

Wow, I am really surprised that someone else might have used that term "certifiicate of conception" as the term just popped into my mind. Although I have never been directly involved in any pro-choice group and did not know about any of their viewpoints it sees they came to some of the same logical deductions as I did by 'winging it'. Small world.

But that does raise an important question for if the foetus (which I was misspelling as the fetus) is in fact entitled to the "right to life" all other rights would also be granted relative to our consitution and bill of rights, and likewise the other billion or so laws and regulations now on the books (I lost count of how many rules we now have to regulate us).

I do not know if any pro-life advocates have fully answered that point of debate.

I would like to hear a point for point response for the points made by that pro-choice group in that message that you posted.

Now to answer you question. There simply is no such thing as a "certificate of conception" being used by anyone anyplace. At least not as a legal document of anykind, and likewise no "links" for such a document that is in use. Only the birth certificate ( reguarding citizenships).

And that was my point. My point was that there is no documentation before the birth certificate.

Because without such documentation how can you claim to be a citizen of the USA and claim the rights granted by the consitution and other stated rights or laws? (or International Laws when you cannot even document you belong to any country on earth (or seas).

Pale Rider thinks that documentation is not important, that anyone who happens to be visiting here should also have all the rights that a person born here has. And has extended those rights to the "unborns" (for lack of a better term). However I should let him answer that for his self. (as I have concluded my debate - but will still answer a few questions about remarks that I said).

Now if poster Dirty Name is correct and the foetus (conceptus) is classified as ...

(1) Animal - then all animals should have the right to life - no more killing animals for sport or for food. Same for all mammals. Same for all primates like chimps and apes, and so forth. Because they all fall under the same "classification" with the Homos.

We could even train our cat or dog to vote as citizens once we leap onto the slippery slope without first looking at where we are heading with these ideas. So watch out republians because my dog like to pee on this Bush. (I think it is one of the "liberals").

But that should be alright because it should only take another few years for everyone to be "certitifed insane" anyway.

Note that I am partly poking fun at all this gibberish. Honest.

Anymore questions or complaints?

Technosoul.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Technosoul And that was my point. My point was that there is no documentation before the birth certificate. Because without such documentation how can you claim to be a citizen of the USA and claim the rights granted by the consitution and other stated rights or laws? (or International Laws when you cannot even document you belong to any country on earth (or seas).

A quick review of the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, demonstrated that many rights guaranteed therein are not dependant upon citizenship.

The Declaration of Independence, written before the Constitution, describes certain inalienable rights without mention of citizenship or birth status: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Notice that it says “created equal” and not “born equal”.

The Constitution does not specifically define citizenship until section 1 of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. In this section certain rights are granted to “persons” not “citizens”.

This precisely why aliens residing in the US are treated as they are, even if they are here illegally and have no documentation or identification. They cannot have their homes searched without a warrant, just like any actual citizen. They have a right to a fair trial, just like any citizen. They cannot be deprived of life without due process of law, just like any citizen. And so on…

To state, therefore, that a fetus is not guaranteed rights under the Constitution on the grounds that it has no documented proof of citizenship is fallacious.

I haven't yet reviewed international laws, but I am reasonbly sure that, with the exception of some countries, they won't kill persons without some due process either.

[MerlinsByte]

Oops, you are right. People go to the store and ask for a dozen eggs and expect a dozen chickens all the time and people that want a fresh tomato in their salad actually want a fresh tomato seed. Yup, I have no evidence at all.

Are the dozen eggs in the supermarket alive or dead? were the eggs alive before they eare "dead"? If you didnt kill the eggs would they turn into rocks? cars? hmmm chickens? ....duh

[Technosoul]

[quote]

Quote by: Isaiah A quick review of the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, demonstrated that many rights guaranteed therein are not dependant upon citizenship. The Declaration of Independence, written before the Constitution, describes certain inalienable rights without mention of citizenship or birth status: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Notice that it says “created equal” and not “born equal”.

So What? We (their opinon) hold these truths to be self-evident and so forth... was a statement by them (not a right being written into law for you). They were saying... because we hold these truths we shall therefore declare our independence from England.
That was a reason to declare independance, that is all. Not a rule to be used in murder cases or for other such reasons. I do declar .... you people just don't "GET IT".

They were simply declairing independence and not setting a moral code for democarcy.
And they stated why they thought they were right to declair said independence. How better could I say it for your clearification? It was not designed as a law that we must live in conformity too, but as a justification to break away from being part of England.

The Constitution does not specifically define citizenship until section 1 of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. In this section certain rights are granted to “persons” not “citizens”.

Here we see where the law about "life" was actually introduced. And they made it clear that you must be born here or naturaliized --- hear ye hear "All persons BORN or who are granted citizenship after moving here from another country. Born is Born not UNborn.

This precisely why aliens residing in the US are treated as they are, even if they are here illegally and have no documentation or identification. They cannot have their homes searched without a warrant, just like any actual citizen. They have a right to a fair trial, just like any citizen. They cannot be deprived of life without due process of law, just like any citizen. And so on…

Wrong, the law speaks about people who were naturalized (were granted full citizenship) and the law in question would not apply ( but we respect international laws also). And you are not up to date at all. The homeland Security people can search any house of anyone who is just visiting here (non-citizens) without warrent and without informing the person of interest. Some states have enacted laws to forbid undocumented people from making use of any public building or resource which included hospitals. They can be arrested and held without a lawyer or other outside contacts for however long the Homeland Security people wish to detain them, and hold trials that are not part of our normal public court system. Where have you been for the last three years?

To state, therefore, that a fetus is not guaranteed rights under the Constitution on the grounds that it has no documented proof of citizenship is fallacious.

It is totally not fallacious. For reasons I indicated.

[quote]I haven't yet reviewed international laws, but I am reasonbly sure that, with the exception of some countries, they won't kill persons without some due process either.[/[/QUOTE I don't know about their written laws, but many countries will kill people who do not agree with the leader of that country. Been to China lately - just one of many examples.

So what? Our concern is here in the USA and our dealings with the Supreme Court or Congress,

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Are the dozen eggs in the supermarket alive or dead? were the eggs alive before they eare "dead"? If you didnt kill the eggs would they turn into rocks? cars? hmmm chickens? ....duh

Temperature is an important part of egg hatching. If mama chicken does not sit on the egg, the hatching is aborted. (unless farmer John has a machine to hatch eggs in). If you keep a store eggs for a year you will have nothing but rotten eggs, not chickens. You are eating abortions, not formulating chickens. Sounds yummy eh?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul I congratulate you for taking part in this peer review. Please note that I have "agreed" that our individual personhood orginates at conception once the merger is complete. And that new DNA evidence would warrent renewed concideration of the legality of abortions. The micro-people as a minority should be represented in court using the new facts that you have disclosed. If at later times on this forum I am debating about the "orgins of life" it should be noted that I might not be debating when we become individuals per-say - and so do not think that I am being dishonest in that respect. If I am debating the topic from a spiritual or religious angle, I might view life as a spirit or soul, rather then as something purely physical. And such should not be seen as flip-flopping from my present determination that is relative to science and our legal system. "abstract topics" would then be as such and not in the same bag as our current topic about individualism based on DNA evidence (only). Likewise - if I am debating or relating information from a phylosophy perspective about "self" in respect to "self image" and so forth that would be different the talking about the physical self - and therefore not fibbing or flip flopping. Your answers about the other "wrinkles" that needed ironing out seem to as good as any other kind of answer that I am currently aware of. I am still feel that our current laws that allow for capitol punishment and in particular as would or could be applied to abortion cases (assuming Roe & Wade is overturned based on new DNA evidence) - and likewise long term prison sentences for first time offenders of a new anti-abortion law - is wrong. Unless so done in violation of the womans wishes. Technosoul.

So you still favor abortion, only now you are being honest and simply saying that you favor law that allows the killing of innocents for no better reason that convenience?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Technosoul Because without such documentation how can you claim to be a citizen of the USA and claim the rights granted by the consitution and other stated rights or laws? (or International Laws when you cannot even document you belong to any country on earth (or seas). Pale Rider thinks that documentation is not important, that anyone who happens to be visiting here should also have all the rights that a person born here has. And has extended those rights to the "unborns" (for lack of a better term). However I should let him answer that for his self. (as I have concluded my debate - but will still answer a few questions about remarks that I said). Technosoul.

Actually, I never said any such thing. I said that one doesn't have to be a citizen of the US to have an inalienable right to life. I have no problem at all with waiting for a birth certificate to extend all the rights that US citizens have (social security, access to programs, tax status, etc.) but the inalienable right to life is something that anyone, from anywhere, has within the borders of this country. We are not permitted to simply kill non citizens because they aren't convenient. An unborn wouldn't require citizenship from anywhere in order to have the simple right to live.