In response to:

The Pro-Life Movement Must Disavow Akin Comment

Dante19 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 3:00 PM
As the husband who wrote of his wife below in 3 parts, I have come to the only conclusion that justifies why I am pro-choice: > Science cannot prove or disprove beyond any doubt whatsoever the existence or not-existence of God. (Hence why it is called "faith".) Nor can science as of yet prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that a viable human being exists with a equivalent soul, and therefore for me, equivalent legal rights, upon conception or shortly thereafter. Therefore, as a male who can only tangently experiene pregancy, I default to the belief that if it wrong to allow legal abortion w/i the 1st trimester, the issue will be dealt with at the Pearly Gates. Those who disagree with me should wait till then and not play God on earth.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 4:10 PM
The questions of when life begins and whether an unborn baby is or is not human are not religious questions.

They are scientific questions, the answers to which are completely independent of when in time you think souls are created or even if you think a soul is or is not involved.

SCIENCE, not religion, proves conclusively that a new being comes into existence at conception.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 4:10 PM
For any species that reproduces sexually sperm + egg equals new being with its own, unique DNA and its own, individual existence.

This is not a religious position. This is hard fact, proven again and again in the laboratory. You can't wave it away and pretend that its above your pay grade.

From the moment of conception a unique, individual human being has come into existence. It, like every other human being, it has inherent human rights -- first and foremost being the right to life.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 4:11 PM
Either all innocent human beings have the same inherent rights or no human being has any inherent rights. Every justification for abortion -- including your waffling about drawing arbitrary lines where no biological lines exist -- can also be used to justify killing anyone.

The absolute sanctity of all innocent human life is the only possible foundation of a consistent system of ethics.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 4:06 PM
Boy, do you not understand the Roe v. Wade decision. Justice Blackmon, who wrote the majority opinion, was a malpractice attorney before he was put on the Court. Because his state allowed abortions, he had cases against doctors who had botched the abortion. He knew about the trimester system, 1970's science, and inserted it into the law along with the understanding of viability. Science has pushed viability back to as far as 4 1/2 months and the old trimester approach has been replaced by a quad approach to fetal development. Justice O'Connor opined in the 80's, what happens when test-tube babies are viable, then what? Roe is a perfect example of judicial law-making and the problem with relying a "faith" in science.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 4:06 PM
"You have placed God in judgment by Science. On what logical basis do you justify this order?"

Dante19 has not done so. All he has spoken of is limitations or inabilities of science. At most, he tried to Judge God by the standards of Science and found that Science is not up to the task.
Dante19 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 5:03 PM
Exactly. That is why the two, science and religion, should never mix. And why religion and politics should never mix as well, but try telling that to the millions of religious zealots in this country, often and accurately referred to as the "American Taliban", particularly when it comes to abortion and gay rights.

You can argue when life begins till you are test-tube blue in the face, without universal acceptance, which justifies the rationale of continuing to keep abortion legal until there is that full acceptance one way or another. But in the meantime, the benefits from not continuing with an unwanted pregancy, no matter how conceived, clearly outweigh the costs, particular in the arena of emotion and financial burden.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 5:29 PM
It is science, not religion that defines when human life begins, which is at the moment of conception.
Dante19 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 5:38 PM
Yes, it does define life in the same sense as any other animal zygote. However, thge question of a soul and the legal sanctity of that life becoming "viably human" is debating everywhere, including here today. But still the resolution is not reached uniformally, universally and without issue. So it rages on. And neither science nor religion can, with finality, bring the argument to a forever conclusion.

You have your die-hard POV, Mof4, the rest have ours. Good for you. But still the difference exists wherein I don't want to stop your right not NOT elect to have an abortion for whatever reason legally, and you want to stop women to which you disagree from choosing otherwise. Thankfully, you can't legally do that.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 5:46 PM
Ensoulment is a purely religious concept which has no place in the debate about the laws of a secular country.

Either a creature IS human or it is NOT human. We have no half-breed hybrids who might justly be said to lack human rights.

If its human it has the full complement of rights inherent to all human beings.

An unborn baby is either human or not. If you think its not human then it is your responsibility to come up with clear, scientific proof that it makes a definitive transition from a state of "could be human but might be a cockatiel, a cocker spaniel, or a coffee bush" to "actually human" at a specific point in time.
Fabius Cunctator Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 3:45 PM
RE: Dante19 3:00 PM, 08/21/2012
RE: Science and God
You have placed God in judgment by Science. On what logical basis do you justify this order?
Scientists do not claim any knowledge in the spiritual realm. Therefore, they cannot prove that a soul exists by physical evidence. However, they can prove the sequential processes of conception and the growth of the embryo. And, therefore your argument about a human being with a soul requiring proof by science is a straw man. Your argument about having to experience pregnancy in order to judge the morality of abortion is silly. A human embryo cannot logically be non-human and then become human at some other time.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 3:35 PM
Very well put.

There are those who will say things like "Well what if I say the same thing about murder? Or Arson, Robbery, etc? I think it's OK, so let God decide..."

They are all full of cr-ap. Abortion is a difficult, thorny issue. Nobody knows when Humanity ensues.

Rep. Todd Akin has, unwittingly to be sure, harmed the pro-life movement, his senatorial race in Missouri, the Republican Party, and therefore quite possibly the nation.

Every person who speaks or writes for the public will make an occasional faux pas, and sooner or later, will write or say something inappropriate. The game of "gotcha" that the media play -- especially with regard to Republicans and conservatives -- is what makes so many politicians sound robotic when they speak.

But Congressman Akin said something that cries out for condemnation and retraction -- and necessitates an explanation.

On a Missouri TV program Sunday, he was...

Related Tags: Abortion Pro-Life Todd Akin