“I have always believed that a human being comes into existence when a baby takes its first breath outside the mother’s body. It is at that point that an infant becomes separated, and takes on an “identity” of its own.”

I find this a bit interesting Steve. I pronounce death of a human after cessation of blood circulation (i.e., the heart stops beating). It’s my job.

So if, by that logic, then why does not life begin with the first circulatory contraction of the cardiovascular system?

How about an active central and peripheral nervous system? If the ‘fetus’ can move extremities, why is it not alive?

How about when organs, such as the liver. begin to function (ex: the liver produces bile)? How about if the urinary system is functional?

How about when the fetus becomes aware of it’s environment, and begins to react to sounds, etc? Is it alive then?

What if the ‘fetus’ can hiccup?

These are all common traits of “alive’ humans; Cardiac Cycle, Respirations, Voluntary movement, awareness of environment, etc …

But yet you say that a ‘fetus’ takes on an “identity of its own’ after it becomes “separated”, is that right?

If so, in your vast clinical experience, please quantify your statement for all of us ‘non-clinical’ types, please and thank you.

For those who believe that because life begins at conception and thus constitutes a new human being entitled to individual rights, there can be no negotiation; no compromise. I can understand that, and can even live with that. Their beliefs are their beliefs, but when they desire to enforce those beliefs on everyone else, I have to draw the line.

Even when majority rules (pre-Roe vs Wade), outlawing abortion did not stop abortions from being performed, just as outlawing guns will not stop psychos intent on killing large numbers of people. I also do not approve of abortion as a convenient form of birth control (which it has become for many), but I have to accept some give and take. Rather than outlawing it again, I would rather see more emphasis placed on other forms of birth control. Unfortunately, a large block of abortion opponents also oppose other forms of birth control.

I wish “shotgun” weddings were still popular, but even if they were, the divorce rates are such that it would no longer be an effective solution. So, I am left to reason and pragmatism. Is it possible to compromise? It has to be, or else we remain stuck in neutral; neither going forward or backward.

I have no problem with it being kicked backed to the states. Sometimes, like what is going on with marijuana and gay marriage, once one state adopts a certain position, other will move in the same direction. We may eventually end with near consensus, but it will be more palatable since there was no edict from the federal government.

I think North Dakota’s action of limiting it to 6 weeks is unrealistic, but I have no problem with Arkansas’ 12 week limit. The 12 week limit gives the woman enough time to discover the pregnancy and to think about her options. The stage of development will still be a point of contention for many. Those who are opposed at any stage will still balk, and many will want to keep a longer cutoff, but like I said, I think we need to find a compromise. On a purely unemotional level, do we split the difference and make it 16 weeks? Personally, but perhaps for different reasons, I agree with Charles. We are not likely to see any movement, any time soon.

In my case, I have always believed that a human being comes into existence when a baby takes its first breath outside the mother’s body. It is at that point that an infant becomes separated, and takes on an “identity” of its own. That is why I still maintain that a decision should remain with the woman.

If we say a fetus, at any stage of development, has rights as an individual, we open up the possibility of a multitude of other laws and government intrusions. I think women are already being bombarded with enough well-intentioned messages about acceptable behaviors during pregnancy, and don’t need additional laws to add to the stress of the experience. By the same token, the ongoing battle over abortion needlessly impacts the psyche of women in a negative manner. If a woman feels guilty about having an abortion, or thinking about having one (I’m sure many do), why is it necessary to exacerbate those negative emotions by branding them murderers, when the procedure is legal. Freedom of speech. Gotta love it, but shouldn’t we save that type of condemnation for the Gosnells of the world?

I have never been affiliated with a political party, and am a pragmatist above all else. IMO, for the past forty years, the battle has been counterproductive. Not only has it added to the stress of each of us (not just women), but as an emotionally charged divisive issue, it has been used by politicians lacking sincerity.

I will continue in response to Utah’s related comment.

Having established those parameters, I have examined closely the basic defenses of abortion in the post-Roe world and found them to be entirely unconvincing. The arguments by abortionists have largely consisted of “rebranding” an horrific act that has finally been exposed by the Gosnell Trial, and piling up one ineffective defense upon another. All the pro-abortion arguments are essentially variations on the argumentum ad passiones, or the argument from emotion. Having had endless discussions with very bright, very knowledgeable abortionists who are also very good personal and professional friends, the discussions proceed in a remarkably predictable manner. First, I never move the discussion to abortion because I know where it will end. My friends, for reasons I don’t understand, finds it interesting to open an abortion discussion, often over a pleasant dinner or lunch. After I attempt to shift the conversation elsewhere, my friend begins reciting the abortionist litany. I politely destroy each argument until we end at the argument from emotion and the fairly self-evident fact that I am not a female (I wasn’t during the last five times we had the same argument, err conversation) . The final remaining argument seems to be that American men are ineligible to make moral or logical judgements about abortion, despite the fact that men are intimately involved in the conception of children, will have absolute responsibility for any children that develop out of the pregnancy and a little less than half of all aborted children are male.

There is a final line of argument on the abortion issue regarding the nullification of logical arguments by emotionally overbearing tautology (AKA: Shouting one’s opponent down). The whole point of requiring intellectual arguments to flow through Aristotelian logic is to provide an objective platform for discussion. If subjective argumentation must be abandoned, then logical analysis is absolutely essential, if any reasonable conclusions are to be drawn on the pro and anti-abortion arguments. To summarize, setting aside any religiously-based arguments, the pro-abortion case as currently made stands without any logical support and consist of specious, emotionally-based points usually screamed rather than delivered in a rational manner. The anti-abortion case is essentially a case against government-sanctioned murder of the most helpless of Americans. I welcome any observations identifying any failed logic in this post. As Stan Lee would have said, I offer a special, deluxe No-Prize to the first one who can dispute my logic.

As long as they attain the goals they seek, it’s actions taken are not illegal… It’s for our own good after all.

“we the people” are nothing more than cogs in the wheel of the collective, merely to benefit the collective… Since they do not believe in individual validly exists, there can be no individual rights to transgress.

I am dumbfounded as to how & why so many individuals cannot understand what is so clear …

Just ask Pin-Pin if he’s on the ship he plans to blow up. If he says no, then just take his word for it and go on your merry way. After all, if it’s good enough for the likes of Greg…

On second thought, no, don’t do that. Greg would let Pin-Pin blow up the ship because he doesn’t have the balls to accept that Pin-Pin, his “buddy,” would ever lie to him. You and I know better, so we’d best board the ship and let a jury decide whether or not Pin-Pin is a bad guy. Same goes for the tyrants in govt.

For whatever reason, I have started getting code showing up in my posts AFTER I publish them. I fixed it, but I have no idea what is causing it or why.

I will respond later to the issue of abortion.

I can’t wait to see your “Why the chicken crossed the road” joke here at the RNL.

http://www.theworriedshrimp.com//posturtlewithtxt.jpg

All the murders & torture in the name of Allah are not terrorism! (merely following ‘scripture’)

Attempting to stop the murder and torture by Islamic terrorists IS terrorism, just as terrorism has been defined by O’s administration.