If you’re going to accuse someone of coming down on the side of rapists then you really need to demonstrate how. I would advocate a very long prison term and castration myself. How is that coming down on the side of rapists? I think we need to make rape such a stiff punishment that it would stop a majority or rapists (though obviously you can’t stop anything 100%). Saying that a woman should consider the life of even a child conceived by rape is coming down on the side of the rapist? No, it is coming down on the side of the child and the mother’s concience. Again, as I’ve said, I would never force it on a woman because it is morally gray…enough, but I would hope the hearts of the American people would change that rape would become a thing of the past (wishful thinking) and that women would not have to make a decision, and that women who do face this decision, will think of their baby (because it IS their flesh and blood too.)

As I’ve said before, I agree that a woman has the right whether or not to get pregnant, but once there is a life in her womb, the question is this, does she have a right to end that life? No, obviously I’m not saying a man has the right to insist on abortion.

I’m sorry for your jaundice. You should spend more time in the sun and hopefully it will clear up (or more appropriately, spend more time in the Son). :-) Once again, as a Christian, I would challenge you to come up with a Scriptural defense of abortion. Your misguided OT defense does not hold a drop of water in support of abortion. I just don’t understand how you read your Bible and maintain this conclusion? How can someone who advocates the Christian faith also advocate the death of the innocent? Ask yourself, whose work are you doing in advocating this? God’s? How?

I am also challenging you again on your definition of when life starts. You never defended your position against the problems that I stated about vitality. You cannot reconcile abortion if you admit that the child in the womb is human life. I still am just completely flabbergasted how a person claims to know Jesus (a Christian is someone who is “Christ-like”), can go completely contrary to His words and character in advocating the killing of the innocent as a “choice.” You are advocating a Jesus that is NOT the Jesus of the Bible, which, according to 1 John 4, is the very definition of a false teacher. Let me know here Ed, am I debating a fellow sheep, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

I am yet to understand how saying that a woman does not have the right to end the life of another is “anti-woman” and “anti-rights”. Not everything is a right, as you have demonstrated with the speed limit laws. Until you clearly demonstrate how abortion is a right, and does does not equal murdering of the innocent (which I think in previous posts I’ve demonstrated how it IS), then you have no cause to say that someone who is pro-life is “anti-woman.”

We’re talking a life and death issue here Ed. This isn’t just a matter for blog chats – if I’m right, you’re advocating the death of millions of babies, just so you can appear to be “pro-woman” so your party can get votes. Are you ok with that? If you’re right (and I hold no breath that you are), and I’m wrong, the worst thing that will happen is that some children will face tough lives instead of no lives and women will give their undesired children up for adoption to loving families. It is a tough debate, but even if those who were pro-life were unsure, it would be better to preserve life for inconvenience than to face God and find out “oops. it was murder.” It is not my last defense, but I do believe Pascal’s Wager would be appropriate, if absolutely nothing else. Any way, this is a serious issue, not a simple debate.

I thought the issue was a woman’s right to decide to carry a child or not. On that issue, you’ve finally come down for the choice of the woman — but now you seem to be backing off. Are you arguing that the father has the right to insist on abortion?

I’m reading all your posts with a greatly jaundiced eye. I’m waiting for any glimmer of a chance that you’ll come down in favor of a woman having rights at all. The Lot case would be such an example, but now you waiver.

Joe, you can insist that you’re not anti-female, but in practice, in every case you seem to come down on the side of vitiating the rights of women. Every case.

That’s not a pro-life pattern, merely anti-woman, or anti-rights.

And to try to bring this back around to the original post, your position doesn’t differ from Gov. Palin in any way I can determine. She’s every bit as anti-woman as your position.

McCain would have done much better to choose Cassie. Cassie’s not old enough, but seems better qualified in every other way, particularly in judgment.

No person has the right to rape another individual! In rape, it is always the victim’s rights that should be the most important, whether man or woman. I thought I’d stressed that in my extra long post on rape. Stop the rapists and you have no issue of abortion in rape situations.

I hope this is sinking in with someone else, because you aren’t seeming to read my posts with understanding Ed. In rape, it isn’t about “choice” either male of female. No one has the right to choose rape. Period.

Finally you come up with an example where the women chose, and you claim they shouldn’t have it because of rape? So in rape, you choose the male’s rights over the woman’s rights every time, even if she is the rapist?

I’ll trust God, too. Nowhere does God say women have no rights.

My only point is that God can take something from a bad situation and use it for good (i.e. Ruth/David/Jesus). Joseph said this of his brothers selling him into slavery. It was a horrible thing what they did, but he said that the Lord intended it for good – it ended up that Joseph saved the lives of his family, as well as all of Egypt because of it. This is the kind of character I am advocating. Not to say what happens is good – evil should be condemned as evil – but trusting that God is greater than the evil.

What confuses you and makes you think Lot’s daughters didn’t want the pregnancy?

In the example of Lot’s daughters getting him drunk so that they could get pregnant with his child, one of their sons from that incident was named Moab. I don’t know if that name rings a bell, but there is a famous person in the Bible what was a Moabitess – Ruth. Ruth is the great-grandmother of King David, as well as a direct ancestor of Christ. So again, even in this difficult, sinful situation, would abortion have been the solution?

The Old Testament also records (does not advocate, merely records) Lot’s daughters getting him drunk so that they can get pregnant with his child. Both children’s descendants became thorns in Israel’s flesh.

The Bible doesn’t call it incest. The Bible doesn’t really call it anything – it just says not to do it!

While it is not rape, I want to remind you that Jesus had a prostitute and incest in his family tree: Tamar and Rahab.

I think if you check Deuteronomy or any of the other listings of the 613 laws, you’ll find that relationship between Tamar and her father-in-law is not incest. In fact, under Bible definitions, father-daughter sex isn’t incest.

We need to be careful about what we claim as moral foundations, and how morality changes over time.

Here’s the moral dilemma about rape. On the choice side, with rape, a woman did not have a choice. She was forced into something that she never chose to do, and so the baby is not her choice, but was forced upon her. So, why should she be forced to bear the burden of someone else’s heinous sin? That is logical and morally understandable, so that is where I pause in rape victims.

On the flipside, and why this is a dilemma, is asking, do two wrongs make a right? Other people’s sin affects us every day. I had an acquaintance in high-school whose sister was brutally murdered in a robbery. She lives with the murderer’s sin, every day. How about those who are victims of a drunk driver? Again, they are directly affected by the other person’s sin. Things I do not choose are thrust upon me often, and it isn‘t fair. For example, I have no choice in this 700 billion dollar bailout, but it is being chosen for me, and I will have to reap the consequences of someone else’s decision. The same goes for the Iraq War, our country’s out of control spending, and on and on and on. But, in all those things, it is not acceptable to let someone else’s sin, mistakes, what have you, cause me to sin, because I am responsible for myself, not them. Since I disagree with a lot of the government’s wasteful spending, do I stop paying taxes? No, I have a responsibility to God and country. Even if I don’t like it, I do the right thing. So, the question then in a rape victim’s case is this, what is the right thing? She is not responsible for what was done to her (and I am absolutely irate over people who blame the woman). She does not deserve a child to be thrust upon her without her consent. Even if she gives it up for adoption, she does not deserve to have to go through the pain of pregnancy and labor. It isn’t fair to thrust that upon her or ask her to do something that she didn’t choose for herself. But again, what is the right thing to do, regardless of someone else’s barbarism?

Is the right thing to end the life of the baby? While obviously the father has no claim on the child, the child is still 50% from the mother as well. The child did not choose its parents, or its mode of conception. While rape is a horrible thing, is the baby the punishment, or can it be a good thing out of a horrible situation? It depends on how you view the child. As you’ve said, no child should be unwanted. For my wife and I, we believe that if someone raped my wife and she got pregnant from it, we would have the child, and I would adopt it as my own. How could I not? It would be part of my wife and I love my wife dearly. I asked her opinion on this subject and as a mother of two kids, she strongly stated that she believes she would keep the child. Ed, be thankful that you are not discussing this with her. Against her, you wouldn’t stand a chance! She is an amazing debater and I lose to her regularly. :- )

I think I know what you’re doing here though in asking about rape and focusing all your attention on rape victims. The reason is because if here, why not there? If it’s ok in rape, why not any unwanted pregnancy? I mean, if a woman is using a contraceptive, she’s not making the choice to have a baby, right? So, since it wasn’t her choice to get pregnant, she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, right? And even if she wasn’t using a contraceptive, should she be burdened with a child for the rest of her life? Therefore, abortion is the only compassionate thing to do. I don’t think I’d like to fall for that today, thank you. I think that’s why there is no one working together on this issue. I think the pro-life movement would probably concede abortions for the life of the mother and possibly for rape, IF that was the only agenda on the minds of the pro-choice movement. But, choice is the main goal – not just choice in life and death and for rape. The idea is that no one has the right over a woman’s body in any situation, and so abortion should be legal regardless, as long a woman wants it, she should be able to get it. Rape is just the flagship of a much larger abortion armada. On the flipside, I think those who are pro-choice would be willing to conceded partial birth abortion, and maybe one or two others, if that’s all that the pro-life movement wanted. But obviously, it is not. We would like to see children welcomed into this world – loved and brought up as someone special. Don’t we teach our students and children that everyone is special? Isn’t it kind of hypocritical to then abort a child?

While it is not rape, I want to remind you that Jesus had a prostitute and incest in his family tree: Tamar and Rahab. Tamar tricked her father-in-law into sleeping with her, and Rahab was a Canaanite woman who was a prostitute. Both are direct ancestors of Jesus. I’m sure glad they didn’t abort their children! Also, people thought Mary had committed either adultery or had been the victim of rape, since she and Joseph were married well after her virgin pregnancy began. So, I think women can rest assured when wondering if God understands what they’re going through.

Ok, for an official Joe position on rape abortions and passing laws. I know this will change everything in America, so hold your breath! : – ) I believe that passing laws by itself won’t change people’s hearts. Jesus said that if you hate, you have committed murder in your heart. If you lust, you have committed adultery in your heart. What needs to change is the hearts of the American people. They don’t need laws imposed on them against their will (like active judges striking down the will of the people). They need to bring the laws up themselves and vote on them because their hearts are in the right place. If America is given the case against rape abortion and does not believe it to be valid, my heart mourns, but I could not impose that law where it is not in line with the hearts of the people. Whether we like the moral compass of this nation or not, the laws of the nation should accurately reflect that compass. One reason I am a pastor is because I believe it is far more important to share Jesus with someone than to share why abortion is wrong. A person’s greatest need is a relationship with Jesus Christ and the assurance of a secure destination with Him in heaven – not that they need to be a Republican (don’t get me started on Republicans!). I know it is an audacious statement to make, but I believe that only when a person comes to Christ, and lives the way Christ intended, is their heart where it needs to be.

But I want you to understand, that most importantly, more than even the consideration of passing laws against rape abortion, I believe we should crack down on rapists, castrate them, and put them away for a very long time. Again, I do not blame a woman for the dilemma of whether or not to abort a child, I blame the man. No case is more obvious than rape. Men should be disgraced by incest, rape, and adultery. Men need to be taught why rape is horrible, and there needs to be much steeper punishments for raping a woman. Many men still haven’t gotten the message that women are equals and should not be mistreated, in any way. Many women have not gotten that message either, and continue to put up with horrible situations. Women are valuable, and should be treated with respect! If we eliminated rape, the idea of rape abortion wouldn’t even be an issue. Again, God needs to get hold of the hearts of the men of this country!

If there are any ladies contemplating abortion, I would recommend the book “The Atonement Child” by Francine Rivers. It is a fiction work, but beautifully illustrates the dilemma that we are talking about here. It’s about a woman in a Bible college who is raped – she loses her fiancé, gets kicked out of the college, and she and her parents struggle with what to do with the baby, of aborting it or not. It’s a powerful book!

By the way, regarding those pregnancies that miscarry, that you say are 40-60% that are spontaneously aborted: in a courtroom, there is a big difference between accidental death and premeditated murder, is there not? And yes, I believe in miscarriages, doctors SHOULD do everything they can to save the baby. Don’t you? If I’m not mistaken, I had thought that doctors DO do everything in their power to save the baby. Miscarriages and abortions are two different things. One is voluntary, the other is not.

And yes, I do believe that abortion is murder – it is the willful termination of another human being without consideration of their will. Are you saying that the unborn child isn’t a human? Are you sticking to your definition of life beginning at viability?

No, I am not familiar with Freakonomics stuff.

You’re familiar with the Freakonomics stuff, I’m sure:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/abortioncrime-where-do-ideas-come-from/

The last statement of the article you quoted stated:

“The states with the most active pro-life laws have seen the biggest abortion declines,” he said

I’m glad that the abortion rates have dropped! Surely, both you and I can agree that this is a good thing.

As I said, I believe that these programs would best be run by faith based organizations, not Big Brother. I would advocate privatizing the help of young mothers and their children.

Saw an article today that said an unspoken problem right now is that hundreds of churches are in default on their mortgages. The banks haven’t foreclosed out of deference to the churches, but foreclosures may be imminent as part of the bailout.

In Bush’s America, the faith-based community is no better prepared to provide extra funding for humanitarian purposes and disaster relief than are others in need of humanitarian aid and other disaster victims.

Most abortions in the U.S. are had by mothers these days. Quite contrary to the claim that these abortions are had lightly or cavalierly, they are had by women who know the score. They have children, they are unwilling to have another, unwilling to bring a baby into such a world. If we wanted to reduce the numbers of abortions, we need to make sure kids have a loving family capable of raising them to come into. Our failure is not in depriving women of their rights to abortion, but in depriving already-living children of their rights to life, thereby encouraging more abortions.

This statement is a half truth. Abortion wasn’t in the same demand as it is now. From what I quickly researched, none of the founders were really clear on the subject one way or the other – which indicates there wasn’t anyone protesting the status quo. What would that status quo have been? The English Common Law which states that abortion before any signs of life were shown was a misdemeanor (because it could have been an accident), after then first few months, when it was apparent that the woman was pregnant, it became a felony, punishable by jail time. So, can you find documentation stating that the English Common Law wasn’t practiced by the colonials regarding abortion? There are a miriad of other things we could probably think of that were legal back then that we wouldn’t think to legalize now. I’ll be meth was legal too. Who cares it didn’t exist – they still didn’t have laws against it! Non-issues are rarely put into law.

You said, “Unless she gets pregnant, in your view. Then she is less than equal, and may not control even her own body.”

No, a pregnant woman should be afforded the same respect and value that all human life should be given. Her own body, I’m fine with. The body of the baby insider her body is what we’re disputing

“Balderdash. Not only are there not enough such programs, those we have are grotesquely underfunded. The Republican platform calls for such programs to be suspended for women who do not have all their visa papers perfect. Come back when you get that statement closer to reality, please.”

The Republicans have problems with people crossing the border for free healthcare. We do a lot for the rest of the world, but the American taxpayer has a hard enough time paying for our own healthcare let alone for the healthcare of the world. These neighbors of ours should be responsible for helping their own citizens.

“Because you’re trusting Big Brother both to take away the rights of the mother, and to take care of the mother, though there is no demonstrated competency of Big Brother at either task.”

As I said, I believe that these programs would best be run by faith based organizations, not Big Brother. I would advocate privatizing the help of young mothers and their children.

I actually liked your link. You didn’t link the first page of the article, but on the first page it says, “There’s an impetus in the Bible toward the protection of the innocent, protection for the weak, respect for life, respect for God’s creation.” That is what I am advocating in this discussion.

As I’ve said countless times, the Bible can only mean what it meant. As in Psalm 139 where it says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” Is it just saying that God’s chosen people are cool? Or is it saying that life, even in the womb, is special to God?

You said, “Join us in educating people how to avoid pregnancy in sex, you’ll get some credibility with me. This is a spun way of your saying, “Sex should be punished, and pregnancy is one way of making sure the punishment sticks.” At least, that’s what I hear.”

I would join you in educating people how to avoid pre-marital sex, if that was your desire. You’re statement reveals your colors, that you want to teach people how to have sex without any responsibility or consequences. The “free-love” crowd is now teaching the next generation. It’s very sad.

Pregnancy is the nature of cause and effect. You step in front of a bus, there will be consequences. You have pre-marital sex (even with contraceptives), you may get pregnant. Abortion makes the choice to have sex even easier for teens who don’t know any better and don’t know the pain (physical and emotional) and consequences of abortion. Read some testimonials. How many of them are from teens who had pre-marital sex and just didn’t want the baby?

You said, “And, of course, this statement is accurate only if there is no pain and no emotion involved in an abortion. You assume that to be the case, but I don’t buy it.”

The earlier the abortion is performed, the less the physical pain and emotional attachment to the baby. The farther along the pregnancy, the more difficult the abortion gets, I would imagine.

You said, “I’m saying you have to deal with the conflicts.”

That’s fine – dealing with the conflicts is the responsible thing to do. That’s what I’m advocating. Let’s have the discussion on the rights of a pre-born child (the term fetus is so impersonal). Let’s discuss the rights of a mother. There are conflicts here – for sure. But just a sweeping, “let’s legalize abortion under any condition at almost any term” is not the answer.

You said, “You can’t claim to respect the woman’s rights when you ask that all protection of her rights be removed.”

I think that almost anyone would agree that the life of the mother should be taken into consideration and protected. She has the right to life. What I’m trying to nail down here is that you keep crying foul to her rights being violated, but you have not really specified here what those rights are in regard to pregnancy. Does she have the right to survive a pregnancy? If at all possible, yes! Does she have a right to consideration if she has been raped? I believe that is morally considerable. Does she have the right to terminate the life of another under any circumstance since it is her body? What is your answer? Is there ever a time that you’d say abortion is ever wrong? I imagine you’d say when a mother wants the child and is forced, but any others?

You said, “No, I merely note that you ask the same sort of government intrusion into personal privacy that only one other government on Earth asks.”

The decision to end another person’s life is not a matter of personal privacy. Post-modern thinking cannot work when other people’s lives hang by your decisions. There should be laws that protect from abuse, which is what we do not see in our current abortion laws – and abuse of the system is rampant. Again, at least 93% rampant.

You said, “We have a higher standard in America, or have had, based on that line in the Declaration about unalienable rights. You’re proposing to eliminate that idea, for fertile women. I want to know on what legal basis, and you’re balking.”

What unalienable right is broken in advocating the survival of a child?

I said, “Don’t I have the right to kill another human being? No? Then you are infringing upon my rights and putting me in slavery!”

You said, “Where do you base a right of murder? You’ve gone ’round the bend with this argument. The premise is absurd, if not insane.”

I agree – murder is not a right. I totally agree, “the premise is absurd, if not insane.” So, why are you advocating the right of a woman to terminate her baby, simply because she doesn’t want more kids? You have to understand my point of view – I’m seeing your advocating of women’s rights to abortion as “absurd, if not insane.” There is no question of murder, after the baby has passed through the birth canal – why is there a question before?

You said, “Let’s put it this way: We’ll grant the baby full rights — but they must be exercised outside the woman’s body. Isn’t that fair? You’re assuming the baby is alive and viable, when its existence is wholly dependent on another. If you can figure out how to get that fetus out without harming it, be our guest.”

That’s horrible Ed! I can’t believe you’d even suggest that! So, in your line of thinking, as soon as the baby can survive on its own, it can have rights? You’ve just killed my 2 year old (and possibly my 5 year old) who could never survive without help in our world. Sure, maybe they’ll get help from someone else, but according to your definition, they are still parasites to our society. (they’re definitely consumers, that’s for sure!) So then are those who are living in assisted living, are they not? Are you sure you don’t want to rethink your definition of life? You know you’re taking Hitler and Stalin’s position here, right? Again, dependence on another for survival doesn’t mean that life does not exist.

You said, “You’ll also assume responsibility for supporting it, right? Oh, that’s right: It loses those superior rights once it’s born.”

Ideally, the mother would assume those rights, but yes, I would be willing to assume the life of an unwanted child if God opened the doors. As I mentioned, my wife and I have already discussed this and are open to the possibility, as are thousands of other couples just like us, if the government would make it not cost an abhorrent amount of money just to go through the adoption process. I know couples who cannot get pregnant who would love to adopt. I know couples who have regretted the husband getting a vasectomy too soon and would like another child. I think if you really knew the hearts of the American people, we’d find homes for these children who are “unwanted.” I would also be willing to shell out a few more bucks a month in taxes to take care of these kids too, if that is the only other option.

You said, “And please, demonstrate to me how God is not okay with killing children, especially in the light of the OT commands that children of conquered peoples should have their heads dashed on stones.”

I assume that you are referring to Psalm 137:9 where it says of Babylon, “Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!” You take the whole story out of context, Ed. God is worth defending, even against someone who claims to be a Christian. If you serve Jesus, you serve that same God of the Old Testament too. So, to give some context, let me explain this and another example that usually gets brought up. The Babylonians had killed the Israelite’s children in this manner when they took Jerusalem, and the Edomites were in their cheering section. The Psalmist is saying that justice is coming because what they did to Israel would be done to them. This is actually a prophesy that was fulfilled when the Persians did exactly to Babylon what the Babylonians did to Israel.

The other example of God’s judgment is with the Canaanites. I am confident that they had repeated offers to repent of their sin, and turn to their Creator, or there would eventually be consequences. Again, I believe the Canaanites did the same thing to those who had come into the land before them, and so they were punished the same way. Since things haven’t changed a lot in the thousands of years, they didn’t listen to God and didn’t come to Him. So, the consequence that was forewarned (so they knew what would happen and still didn’t repent) was that they would be killed. And it happened. God is a God of love, but is also a God of justice and holiness. He said if this, then that, and yet people are surprised when God keeps His word.

This post is way too long and I’ve got a lot of other things to do today. Thanks for the discussion Ed! I don’t expect a reply to everything. I just want you (and those reading) that there are good reasons for a pro-life position which should be considered, ESPECIALLY, from someone who claims to be a Christian.

There is a pattern emerging of distorting my positions. I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but it’s happening a lot. Now, in addition to being a communist advocate of slavery, I know condone rape as well? Is that what you really think? Again, as I’ve said several times already, you’re talking about 1% of abortions as your main line of defense of the other 93% (the other 6% being health issues)! As a pastor, I would probably counsel the adoption of the child, but I understand and appreciate the moral dilemma of a rape victim getting pregnant, and I also understand that some good people fall down on the other side of the issue. I recently read a story of a woman who was date-raped by a drunk boy, had her parents force him to marry her to avoid prosecution (they were both minors), he abused her to try and get her to miscarry, and she delivered a brain damaged child (as a result of the abuse). Yes, I understand that there are cases like these where there is a moral dilemma regarding what to do, but you cannot use this kind of case to justify the other 93% of abortions that have absolutely nothing to do with rape, and nothing to do with the health of the mother or the child. Those are the abortions that I strongly protest to.

The answer I’d like to hear is, “Rape cases are different: Under Biblical law the rapist did not have father’s rights, and so I can see no Christian reason to force a woman to carry a rapist’s baby — of course abortion would be supported.” Don’t tell me how small is the percentage of women who would be forced to bear the stigma — any percentage is far too many. This moral blindness on the part of anti-choicers is indicative, I think — it’s symptomatic.

Date rape is not so rare, nor are the cases where a rapist is let off the hook if a marriage can be arranged. That is still the law in Italy, and it is only NOT the law in the U.S. because enough women have stood up for their rights. I would have hoped it would be rare in the U.S. today, but that was before I worked intake for Legal Services. I’d find at least a case a week. I hesitate to think how many cases there are in Texas, let alone the entire nation.

But I want to be clear: Any law that does not allow abortion in case of rape, no questions asked, is tantamount to war crimes. I do not plan to sit by and watch my nation take that inhuman path. You think I’m calling you communist merely because the policies you advocate are similar in legal grounds to the policies of the Communist Chinese — and I have to say you either don’t understand what communism is, or you don’t understand what pregnancy is, or you’re intentionally missing the point.

At a minimum, then, the moral stand is to allow abortion in all cases of rape, and incest (which is generally statutory rape at least), and in any case where the life of the mother is compromised. Since abortion opponents generally won’t allow that, I think that their motives are less than honorable, and certainly deserve questioning, in addition to no action on their proposals to ban.

“The other 93%?” My experience in the law is that the rape and incest numbers are much higher than 7%. But let’s assume it’s that low.

For 93% of these women, you think their rights should be terminated in favor of new, never-before-implemented right to life for a fetus, a right never recognized by scripture or by law.

Your sole justification is your claim that abortion is murder. If we accept your definition, then we have a serious problem with the 40% to 60% of pregnancies that are spontanously aborted. Under any scheme granting rights to those fetuses, how can fail to do everything possible to stop those spontaneous abortions? If we do anything less, we’re treating the women who want abortions unfairly, aren’t we? It’s as if you value the unwanted baby over all others — an altruistic position, perhaps, but one untenable in law and medical practice, I believe.

But we’re not there yet. You’re still not saying you WON’T support the war-crime analogous position of no abortion in case of rape.

It’s a dramatic case, but it’s a valid one. I’m probing to see if there is any occasion upon which you grant a pregnant woman the rights other citizens enjoy of control of their own bodies. You’re reluctant to grant that, but you complain when I call it for what it is, anti-women’s rights. Can’t have it both ways.

Again, I would not find it easy to be in this situation. With many of these cases, there is no chance for the baby’s survival. In a case like that, you either have one dead person or two. To preserve life, it is better to have the one than none at all. However, again, you are not accounting for 93% of abortions. Are you ignoring them and hoping the issue goes away, I’ll forget about it or something like that? When are you going to address the vast majority of abortions? If 93% of abortions are worth defending, then defend them without falsly using rape and health as an excuse.

You said, “She’s asking for the rights of a woman to be suppressed in favor of the rights of the baby the woman carries. The question she’s really asking is, “Why should a woman have a right to choose to have a baby?””

In her case, there was no rape, health issues, or anything else, except two 17 year olds who wanted to have sex with no consequences, and so they tried to abort her. She is asking, “Who was fighting for my life and my right to exist?” not, “why should a woman have a right to choose to have a baby?” You’re asking your question backwards. You’re not asking the question “why should a woman have a right to choose to have a baby?” at all. No one argues against a woman choosing to have a baby. Shoot, I know people who have 13 kids (they are financially able and absolutely love being parents – I don’t understand having that many, but God bless ‘em – they have great kids!). The real question is, “what right does a woman have to choose to STOP having a baby, even though the life in the womb has begun?”

You said, “You say Sarah has no rights in the matter. Interesting case, if you can make it. I don’t think you’ve bothered to think this through.”

I don’t really remember saying that. Having a child is not an issue. If a woman wants a kid, it’s pretty easy to get one if she is physically able. But on the flipside, no one was there telling Sarah, “No! Abort Isaac! You’re too old to have a baby! You’ll be dead in a few years and it wouldn’t be fair for the child to not have a loving mother. Besides, it’s not safe to have a baby at your age!” You tell the Jewish people that she should have had a right to do that. I’m sure not going to!

You said, “And yet you flippantly keep asserting that the rights of the mother are trash, and that those who stand up for the rights of the mother are callous and flippant.”

I never said that the life of the mother is trash. The mother’s life should be guarded and treasured. I said that she does not have the right to end the life of another human being, just because she doesn’t want it.

I said, “Yes, that is to be applauded to think of the mother’s life, and her life while pregnant and after the birth of the child, but why is no one on your side standing up for the life of the baby?”

You said, “I find that last sentence offensive in the extreme. I think only an analogy can express it. Your claim is like this: “Why do you only stand up for the rights of rapists and war criminals?” Your claim is equally off the mark and ill-informed, completely failing to understand the basis of the claim of a right for choice.”

I can only go by your words, forgive me. If you are standing up and defending the rights of the child in some way that I was unaware of, forgive me. I have not found those words on this discussion however. I’m trying to defend a mother both the mother and the child. Rape is abominable and should be a war crime – I agree. As I said before, if I had my way, they would be eunichs.

“Every child should have a right to be a wanted baby, Joe. You can’t measure the pain of unwanted babies, either to the baby or the parents, on any scale we know”

I agree with you that baby’s should be wanted. Yet those who are not wanted by their biological parents may have the opportunity to find acceptance in the arms of other loving parents, like my grandpa, my aunt, and four of my cousins. All from mothers who chose life, even though they were in no place to have a child. Again, I would advocate adoption programs that would make adoption easier and more affordable. Yet you are advocating throwing out a child like throwing out a pair of old unwanted socks because a woman should have the right to choose. Just because a child is not wanted does not mean it shouldn’t have the right to exist. As a Christian, you should know that even if the parents do not love the child, God does. He places great value and worth on people. If He values them, that should be enough to allow them to exist.

“This is why I don’t like these discussions — anti-choicers are generally so cemented into their anti-women, anti-rights world-view that they regard any opposition to their stand as “tantamount to murder.””

That’s not a cemented statement? Again, resorting to name calling does little to move a discussion forward.

“We can’t reason people out of positions they didn’t get to by reason.”

You’ve said that before. Is it completely unreasonable to consider a baby in the womb alive and valuable?

You said, “Let me ask you fundamental questions: Is a woman alive? Is she life? If not, when does her life end? Upon what basis do you insist that the most sacred rights of Christianity, the choice to have a child, be denied a woman?”

Have I advocated denying the privilege of being a mother to any woman? In your statement, “the choice to have a child”, you’re leaving the words, “or not” out. Why? No one is saying a woman cannot have a child.

“How do you justify oppressing women and forcing unwanted children on them, and how do you justify forcing a child to be born to parents who don’t want her?”

No one forces an unwanted child upon a woman. Again, adoption is a viable solution. Yet, in the video you watched, do you think that she would have rather been aborted than to have the life she leads, even if her parented didn’t want her? Absolutely not! I personally know someone whose mom tried to abort her; she survived and turned out fairly normal. She had to live with the pain of knowing that she wasn’t wanted by her mother all of her life. Yet, when asked if she would have rather have been aborted what do you think she says? Absolutely not! Emotional pain is no reason to terminate life, otherwise, you are advocating the abortion of countless children around the world each year. As Christians, our responsibility is to love them, and let them know that God loves them too. God said in 2 Corinthians 6:18, that if we come to Him, He will be a Father to us, and we will be His sons and daughters. He does not say, “hey, if your parents don’t want you, I don’t want you either and I think you should be die!” How horrible!

You said, “We have about 25 million children in the U.S. right now that have no health care. At the risk of fuzzing the issues, why do you choose to defend those who are not born against the rights of those who are alive and suffering now? If we can’t take care of these 25 million kids, what right does the state have to insist more kids be heaped on that pile of suffering?”

So, you would advocate the killing of all of these 25 million kids because they are suffering from no insurance? I’m guessing not. Even a rough life is better than no life at all. Should they have insurance? Absolutely. Just because I’m advocating a pro-life position doesn’t mean that I haven’t advocated insurance for kids. We’re just not on that subject right now, are we? But just because they don’t have insurance doesn’t mean that their lives are not valuable.

You said, “This from a guy who thinks its not barbaric to force women to bear the children of their rapists? Spare us, please. You think it’s fine to practice what is, under U.S. law, the equivalent of a war crime so long as it’s against a woman, while claiming greater rights for an unborn baby.”

There is a pattern emerging of distorting my positions. I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but it’s happening a lot. Now, in addition to being a communist advocate of slavery, I know condone rape as well? Is that what you really think? Again, as I’ve said several times already, you’re talking about 1% of abortions as your main line of defense of the other 93% (the other 6% being health issues)! As a pastor, I would probably counsel the adoption of the child, but I understand and appreciate the moral dilemma of a rape victim getting pregnant, and I also understand that some good people fall down on the other side of the issue. I recently read a story of a woman who was date-raped by a drunk boy, had her parents force him to marry her to avoid prosecution (they were both minors), he abused her to try and get her to miscarry, and she delivered a brain damaged child (as a result of the abuse). Yes, I understand that there are cases like these where there is a moral dilemma regarding what to do, but you cannot use this kind of case to justify the other 93% of abortions that have absolutely nothing to do with rape, and nothing to do with the health of the mother or the child. Those are the abortions that I strongly protest to.

“In short, it’s just one more case of where you choose to oppress women and force them to suffer. It’s not even a question of degree of suffering — just make the woman who had sex suffer. I can’t condone such schemes.”

Every aspect of children involves suffering. Raising a child from a newborn to adulthood can be defined as suffering. Watching them leave the house to go have their own life is suffering. Maybe we should mandate the extermination of all children to save their parents from suffering and pain. Would that make you happy? There is also suffering in abortion. As you said, many times is it not an easy decision. I’ve been reading stories of those who have had abortions and regret it. Here are some of their stories. They are heartbreaking.

geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/risks_of_abortion.html

I’ve also been reading stories from those who are “pro-choice” who have had abortions. Even among those there are many who have a lot of sadness, but even those who did not morally struggle I find equally heartbreaking. In this discussion, not having suffering may not be an option regardless of which side of the issue you fall on.

You said, “Much in medicine is “barbaric.” When one gets surgery, one must sign a release form, granting permission to the physician.”

Equating abortion with just any other surgery, or chemotherapy is not accurate. There is a big difference, and everyone knows it, including you. I’m not just saying the methods of abortion that are performed are barbaric, I’m saying abortion itself is barbaric, which I was hoping you’d see by the life of a woman who survived.

Again, you call me an “anti-choicer.” Does this enflamed rhetoric help anything? For the second time, please use rhetoric that actually advances the discussion. Name calling is cheap talk. But, I suppose I’ve already been called a communist, slave driver, etc. so, what’s one more label?

You said, “I’d have a lot more sympathy for the anti-choice position had the anti-choicers earlier come around to supporting two ideas in pediatric medicine: First, that babies below the age of about 6 months (not fetuses — babies) can feel pain, and so would need pain-killing medicines during and after surgery; and second, that babies are human lives worth saving an investing research monies in, so the creation of an infant-tailored heart-lung machine would be worthwhile. I confronted both of those issues on Senate staff barely two decades ago — and frankly, it is still extremely difficult to get support for pediatric medicine that recognizes children are not mere homunculi, and therefore there is need for research into pain mitigation for children.”

It sounds like you and I are on the same side of this issue. Believe it or not! :-) I would hope that those who were opposed were simply arguing that it wasn’t the government’s job to provide healthcare as opposed to advocating that the child didn’t actually NEED healthcare, pain medication, etc. If they thought that children didn’t feel pain, they’ve either never had a child or they’re parents with short memories. I would agree with you here.

You said, “Your argument is this: The pain imagined for the fetus trumps the pain and rights of the mother. What’s the legal basis for that? What’s the moral basis for insisting the mother has no right to her own life and pain mitigation?”

I didn’t say that. You sound like I’m saying that I’m against epidurals and anything but a natural birth. Not at all! I would hate to be in the position of a fallopian tubal pregnancy or something like that, where it would be impossible to bring the child to full term without killing the mother. In those cases, I believe you have a moral case to argue, but again, we’re not talking about 93% of abortions here, are we? A baby’s pain doesn’t TRUMP a mother’s pain, but I’m asking that it’s life doesn’t get extinguished simply because the biological mother doesn’t want it because there are many other adoptive parents who would.

You said, “Oh, so you’ll accept the advances of modern medicine if you think they’ll benefit your argument that women lack rights, but not otherwise? Until 1980, a baby under 7 months gestation had very little chance to survive. I think viability is a valid demarcation for when a life with rights begins (since even the sperm and the unfertilized egg are, by your loose definition, “alive”).

I am all for the advancement of modern medicine. I’m very thankful for it because many of my relatives would not be alive today if not for the advancement of medicine. Abortion is not an “advancement of modern medicine.” Abortion is diametrically apposed to the Hippocratic Oath, both ancient and modern. The aim of medicine is to preserve life, in the best manner possible, not to take it away. In the traditional Hippocratic Oath, you will find this statement, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.” nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html.

I appreciate you stating your position on when life begins. As I’ve said before however, even a newborn cannot survive on its own. I know a few teenagers that I wonder about their viability as well. Surely, dependence does not dictate when the life begins, does it?

You said, “You say not at conception for everything except oppressing women. I think those are invalid distinctions. I think that any proposal that oppresses a woman must meet a higher standard, not a lower one.”

I’m trying to understand how abortion elevates women? From my perspective, it teaches them that their unique capability for delivering a child is not special or valuable. It teaches them that they can be used for sex and then pressured into terminating the life inside them because the “father” doesn’t want it or is in no position to support the child. Instead of supporting, helping, and taking care of the love of his life, the man abandons the woman and leaves her with no viable alternative. To me, I implicate men with the crime of abuse and abandonment more than the woman for aborting the child. IMHO, abortion lowers women to a level of abuse not seen for centuries! And women think it’s a matter of their rights? They’re being used by politicians and by shallow men. This is why the message of Christ is so important for women. You have value and worth – so much so that God has said that there is no difference between nationality, race, financial situation, gender, etc. – everyone who is in Christ is equal. Jesus treated women with respect and dignity in a culture that degraded them to property. Women, your bodies, and the little person you carry, is of more value than the men who would rape, abuse, mistreat you, and cause you to desire to abort the precious child in your womb that you alone have been entrusted with. Don’t cheapen your amazing, unique body, by aborting the whole life-giving process just because of an inconvenience.

Ed said, “Yes, I watched the video. What was it you thought I should get from it?”

1) How barbaric the practice of abortion is – in saline abortion, the baby is burned to death, inside and out.

This from a guy who thinks its not barbaric to force women to bear the children of their rapists? Spare us, please. You think it’s fine to practice what is, under U.S. law, the equivalent of a war crime so long as it’s against a woman, while claiming greater rights for an unborn baby.

In short, it’s just one more case of where you choose to oppress women and force them to suffer. It’s not even a question of degree of suffering — just make the woman who had sex suffer. I can’t condone such schemes.

Much in medicine is “barbaric.” When one gets surgery, one must sign a release form, granting permission to the physician. Otherwise, anyone who took a knife to you, even with the aid of anesthesia, would be liable for assault and battery. Medicine is much about the mitigation of such barbarities, with difficult tradeoffs made all the time. Cancer chemotherapy is, in short, poisoning of the patient. The hope is that the cancer cells will die before too much damage is done to the patient’s non-cancerous cells. If that happens, the patient might live.

I’d have a lot more sympathy for the anti-choice position had the anti-choicers earlier come around to supporting two ideas in pediatric medicine: First, that babies below the age of about 6 months (not fetuses — babies) can feel pain, and so would need pain-killing medicines during and after surgery; and second, that babies are human lives worth saving an investing research monies in, so the creation of an infant-tailored heart-lung machine would be worthwhile. I confronted both of those issues on Senate staff barely two decades ago — and frankly, it is still extremely difficult to get support for pediatric medicine that recognizes children are not mere homonculi, and therefore there is need for research into pain mitigation for children.

Your argument is this: The pain imagined for the fetus trumps the pain and rights of the mother. What’s the legal basis for that? What’s the moral basis for insisting the mother has no right to her own life and pain mitigation?

2) That the baby is a life – that a baby that is only 2lbs can survive and have a life – she would have had a completely normal one if the abortion hadn’t given her cerebral palsy.

Oh, so you’ll accept the advances of modern medicine if you think they’ll benefit your argument that women lack rights, but not otherwise? Until 1980, a baby under 7 months gestation had very little chance to survive. I think viability is a valid demarcation for when a life with rights begins (since even the sperm and the unfertilized egg are, by your loose definition, “alive”). This isn’t a medical question so much as a legal one, and you’ve already answered most of it: When do legal rights attach to a fetus? You say not at conception for everything except oppressing women. I think those are invalid distinctions. I think that any proposal that oppresses a woman must meet a higher standard, not a lower one.

Here’s a real question you need to consider: Joe, can you advance a plan to save ectopic pregnancies without killing the mother? How do you distinguish between the ectopically-planted egg and any other?

3) To hear the question, “Where were the people fighting for my rights as a woman?”

That’s not the question she really was posing, though, was it. She’s asking for the rights of a woman to be suppressed in favor of the rights of the baby the woman carries. The question she’s really asking is, “Why should a woman have a right to choose to have a baby?”

It’s a grand question, one that reaches to the depths of Christian faith — think of Sarah’s inability to have a child for example, and how that entire story affects the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You say Sarah has no rights in the matter. Interesting case, if you can make it. I don’t think you’ve bothered to think this through.

4) To see the heart of those who are pro-life. It’s about the fundamental belief that life is sacred and not to be taken flippantly.

And yet you flippantly keep asserting that the rights of the mother are trash, and that those who stand up for the rights of the mother are callous and flippant. You take this stand with such bellicosity that you’ll side with war criminals and rapists against women.

Got a mirror?

You are telling me that it is not being taken flippantly, but you have yet to challenge the statistic that only 7% of abortions are for either rape or medical conditions. Why are you ONLY concerned with the mother?

Why should a woman not have a right to choose whether and when to reproduce? Why are you ONLY concerned about suppressing the rights of women to reproductive choice?

Yes, that is to be applauded to think of the mother’s life, and her life while pregnant and after the birth of the child, but why is no one on your side standing up for the life of the baby?

I find that last sentence offensive in the extreme. I think only an analogy can express it. Your claim is like this: “Why do you only stand up for the rights of rapists and war criminals?” Your claim is equally off the mark and ill-informed, completely failing to understand the basis of the claim of a right for choice.

Every child should have a right to be a wanted baby, Joe. You can’t measure the pain of unwanted babies, either to the baby or the parents, on any scale we know.

But you seem completely oblivious to the difficulties of determining life, pain, and rights around unborn babies. This is why I don’t like these discussions — anti-choicers are generally so cemented into their anti-women, anti-rights world-view that they regard any opposition to their stand as “tantamount to murder.”

We can’t reason people out of positions they didn’t get to by reason.

So, let me ask you a fundamental question: Is an unborn baby alive? Is it a life? If not, when does life begin?

Do you seriously think those questions have bright-line answers?

Let me ask you fundamental questions: Is a woman alive? Is she life? If not, when does her life end? Upon what basis do you insist that the most sacred rights of Christianity, the choice to have a child, be denied a woman?

If it is, how do you justify killing it? You still haven’t answered that question, considering Lisa jumped in and answered it. It’s called the sanctity of life – that is why those who are not pro-choice are passionate – it’s a life.

At what point does a woman’s sanctity of life end for you, Joe? At what point does the fetus’s rights trump the rights of the mother? How do you justify oppressing women and forcing unwanted children on them, and how do you justify forcing a child to be born to parents who don’t want her?

We have about 25 million children in the U.S. right now that have no health care. At the risk of fuzzing the issues, why do you choose to defend those who are not born against the rights of those who are alive and suffering now? If we can’t take care of these 25 million kids, what right does the state have to insist more kids be heaped on that pile of suffering?

I give the same outrage to those who are killing in Darfur, those who are crusading in the name of Jesus or Allah, those who are killing to resurrect the USSR – it doesn’t matter – murder is atrocious because it violates the sanctity of life! It’s the fundamental command of “Do not kill!” I thought we lived in a country where “all men are created equal.” Why does a birth-canal change that?

Because we lack better legal means of distinguishing such rights. Your method requires that we trample most of the rights of the possessor of the birth canal. You’ve not bothered to try to justify that murderous action, but instead keep calling abortion, which is not considered close to murder in scripture, as murder.

If your position requires you to twist scripture, shouldn’t you at least consider what’s at stake for all parties?

Regarding illegal immigrants and detainees, they should have the same rights afforded to all mankind. A US citizen has special rights granted because of their citizenship, but again, we declared in our Independence that “all men are created equal!” We cannot lose that…at any stage or position of life. No person should be without the rights afforded to all mankind.

A phrase written by a slaveholder, who understood that platitudes, even grand ones, have real consequences, and are ideals, not always suitable to be used as laws. Abortion was legal in 1776, by the way. No woman, though denied other rights of citizenship, was regarded as too petty to have the rights of reproductive choice.

As a Christian, the example of Christ comes to mind – where He treated sinners, tax collectors, and Samaritans, on the same level as the religious and political leaders of his day. We should follow His example and treat all mankind with equality.

Unless she gets pregnant, in your view. Then she is less than equal, and may not control even her own body.

You said, “You want to call the fetus a human only if it detracts from the rights and privileges of the mother, and not for the benefit of the child itself.”

So, not only are you a masterful speech-writer, an amazing teacher, and a great bureaucrat, but you are a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart as well? You assume too much Ed, and you assume it wrongly. Those who are pro-life care deeply for the life of both the mother and the child. Again, all mankind is equal.

Except for pregnant women, in your view. Their rights are subservient to an entity that cannot survive without her.

I agree that we should have programs that help a pregnant teen, or one who is in poverty, but as I’ve already stated, we DO have such programs in place already.

Balderdash. Not only are there not enough such programs, those we have are grotesquely underfunded. The Republican platform calls for such programs to be suspended for women who do not have all their visa papers perfect. Come back when you get that statement closer to reality, please.

Even my wife and I qualify for state assistance (which we don’t need) if we decide we want another baby. That would be both pre-natal and post-natal care. The only hole I see is that adoption programs are not sufficient – adoption is too hard and too expensive. My goal is not to rip those public programs away (even though they would probably be better done privately by faith based organizations). How is it that you get the thought that I’m just out to be cruel to the mother and don’t care a wit about the child? I have no political points to score. I’m not a politician running for office. I score no points from my base for being pro-life. I’m pro-life because it’s the right thing to do. This isn’t a political debate, though many have made it so. It is a moral debate with political implications.

Because you’re trusting Big Brother both to take away the rights of the mother, and to take care of the mother, though there is no demonstrated competency of Big Brother at either task.

Biblically, the Jewish nation DID consider the life of an unborn child. Look at Exodus 21:22-24, “”If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…” (NKJV)

Harm for the mother, not harm for the baby. What happens if the baby is killed, but the mother otherwise unharmed? No eye for eye, no tooth for tooth. Even then they recognized the difficulty of granting all rights to an unborn baby.

See a somewhat thoughtful discussion here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/weekinreview/13luo.html?pagewanted=2

This passage doesn’t differentiate between the life of the mother or the child – it merely says “if any harm follow” – then whatever happens to the woman or child would happen to the offender – eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Even if the mother and child survived, a fine would still have to be paid for the pre-mature birth. The Old Testament protected the unborn child AND the mother.

I don’t think a careful analysis would say that the passage talks about harm to the child at all. In that time, a premature birth meant death of the baby. That death was not regarded as a murder. It was regarded as depriving the father of property, if the husband wanted it so regarded.

I’m not saying that we stop giving a woman the right to choose whether or not to start a family. But a woman needs to know if she engages in sex, the possibility for getting pregnant is real, even with contraceptives.

Join us in educating people how to avoid pregnancy in sex, you’ll get some credibility with me. This is a spun way of your saying, “Sex should be punished, and pregnancy is one way of making sure the punishment sticks.” At least, that’s what I hear.

With abortion in the picture, it’s the closest thing you can get to sex without consequences possible. And you wonder why pre-teen sex is so huge these days?

And, of course, this statement is accurate only if there is no pain and no emotion involved in an abortion. You assume that to be the case, but I don’t buy it.

You said, “if we assume that a fetus has rights, all we do is set up a great conflict of rights.” Why should possible difficulties make an unborn child not a life? Just because it has implications doesn’t mean it is or isn’t true. If life is worth defending, then the conflict of rights is worth engaging.

I’m saying you have to deal with the conflicts. You keep assuming there is no woman involved, and you assume the oppression of the woman who is really involved without any sort of balancing of her rights against her baby’s rights. If you were proposing to deal with that conflict, you’d have a lot more respect for the careful balancing act done in Roe vs. Wade, which is all about the rights you claim to wish to honor, while calling for their suspension and oppression, and calling for the vitiation of the decision itself.

You can’t claim to respect the woman’s rights when you ask that all protection of her rights be removed.

It’s really amazing how you label me. Now all of a sudden I’m a communist who wishes to put women into slavery!

No, I merely note that you ask the same sort of government intrusion into personal privacy that only one other government on Earth asks. It’s the same coin, two sides. You also assume that our government will never make the turn China’s has. You have more faith in such a claim than I — we’ve witnessed a dramatic turn to the Communist Chinese positions on many other rights, such as habeas corpus, religion, speech and press, and search and seizure. I think you’re not seeing the whole picture.

Isn’t posting the speed limit at 65 m.p.h. a form of driver slavery then?

No. Driving fast is not a right.

Rules of law are not enslavement – it is a willful giving up of our rights so that all things can be done decently, morally, and in order. All laws are, ranging from speed limits and traffic signals to murder and rape. According to Scripture, “All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient” (good for us). So, imposing laws are willfully giving up anarchy in favor of democracy. Speed limit laws, laws against murder, laws stating that women can vote, etc. are not enslavement. Neither is imposing laws protecting the life of children. I do not think it should be government forced, but should be put on ballot propositions for voters to decide, without the interference of legislatively active judges. If it fails, it would be an accurate representation of the moral condition of our country. If it passes, then it is obviously not slavery, but a willful choice.

We have a higher standard in America, or have had, based on that line in the Declaration about unalienable rights. You’re proposing to eliminate that idea, for fertile women. I want to know on what legal basis, and you’re balking.

Why is the life of the baby worth more than the life of the mother? Since when does a minor child get such expansive rights? Why would you propose such rights for an unborn baby, then drop the rights after the birth canal? There are so many hypocritical ideas wound up in your claim it’s difficult to sort them out.

Comparing those who advocate protecting life with those who mandate abortion as law is detestable. They are polar opposites with no comparison, and to propose that argument is shamefully hollow.

They have the same legal basis. You keep pretending there is no such thing as law in this issue, but that’s not the case.

Don’t I have the right to kill another human being? No? Then you are infringing upon my rights and putting me in slavery!

Where do you base a right of murder? You’ve gone ’round the bend with this argument. The premise is absurd, if not insane.

This is your argument for abortion? You cannot make this argument until you adequately define when life begins. You haven’t even made the attempt.

Let’s put it this way: We’ll grant the baby full rights — but they must be exercised outside the woman’s body. Isn’t that fair? You’re assuming the baby is alive and viable, when its existence is wholly dependent on another. If you can figure out how to get that fetus out without harming it, be our guest.

You’ll also assume responsibility for supporting it, right? Oh, that’s right: It loses those superior rights once it’s born.

Shylock gets his pound of flesh only if there is no blood involved; we’ll offer the same sort of solution to the baby: Life, but not at the expense of the mother. Once we liberate it from the womb, the kid is on her own. What’s unfair about that? You offer the video of a woman who made it, right? That proves the system would work, right?

I am willing to change my position if 1) you reasonably demonstrate how an unborn child is not a life until birth, and 2) you demonstrate how it is ethical to end a helpless life. As a Christian, you would also need to 3) demonstrate how God is ok with someone taking the life of an unborn child.

You show me how a one-week fetus lives without a parasitic relationship with its mother, I’ll grant you the argument that there is a basis of rights. Absent that, we must balance rights of the mother in there somewhere. Your equations work only if we oppress the mother at every turn. I find such oppression unacceptable.

You show me how it is ethical to end a woman’s rights.

And please, demonstrate to me how God is not okay with killing children, especially in the light of the OT commands that children of conquered peoples should have their heads dashed on stones.

You do know too that this discussion ties in with our evolution debates, right? You believe we are the product of chance – that we are of no more value than a pond of muck and algae.

I know that your position on the medical part of abortion is as poorly informed as your anti-evolution arguments, and that they bring out in you the unthinking, unreasoning person who ignores the science and philosophy, yes. Evolution is not a chance process, but you claim it is, though you know better. Evolution makes a great case against abortion, but you prefer not to address it because it requires that we recognize that natural abortion is common — and in fact, that complicates your case for life, which you hope to avoid completely.

I’m not sure this is a good time for you to bring up the issue of evolution. You know that many creatures in nature can choose to abort? You know that many creatures in nature can choose exactly when to become pregnant, and that some can choose which of many mates gets to fertilize the eggs, well after the copulation?

You are aware that between 40% and 60% of all human conceptions abort spontaneously, right?

Evolution and abortion are similar largely in the amount of ignorance required to take a firm stand against science, and against women, in both cases.

From Scripture, I see a human as being the only thing that God directly breathed life into, we are fearfully and wonderfully made, something to celebrate and value. A human is someone that God is intimately acquainted with even in the womb. God calls life valuable – so much so that He was willing to die for us out of His love for us. From my understanding, you couldn’t place any more value on a life than that.

Why do you exclude women from that equation? Is there a scriptural basis for that?

What are you doing to defend those lives that God loves besides advocating their demise?

The only demise I work for is the demise of ill-informed, crude arguments like that one.

You cannot side with war criminals and rapists, and claim to be doing the work of God, in my humble view. Abigail Adams urged, vainly, to John Adams, “Remember the women.” Why do you think we should ignore her advice now?