people who think abortion is ok at any stage, like James Riley, — Herg

I think your interpretation of my assessment is accurate enough for your purposes here, in responding to Gregory. If we were to dive deeper, I might discuss your use of the word "ok". I think it should be legal, I think it is moral, and ethical, and to that extent, yeah, I think it is "ok." But I think it might be more accurate to say that I think it is none of the state's business, my business or the the business of anyone the women does not want to involve in the consideration of it. That passes no judgement on the issue of "ok." I feel likewise about other activities one might engage in. Whether or not I think they are "ok" is subordinated to the personal decision making process of another.

In my world, the state will not be allowed in a room where a woman is fixing to drop, unless a warrant has been issued on substantial credible evidence providing the state with probable cause to believe that the women or her doctor or someone else is intending to murder the baby after it leaves the vagina. So, the state will never know what happens in the privacy of her birthing environment, and the hair need not be parsed, regardless of some one’s impressive obstetrical knowledge about the different stages of parturition. In other words, there are some private things that no one, anywhere, ever, has a right to know. When I was growing up, we used to say “None of your business.”

P.S. Digression: If I saw a sow banging herself against a tree to abort, I wouldn't know what she was doing because I've never seen it, or even heard of it. But how I'd feel is irrelevant to the fact that I would not interfere. It's none of my business. I have, however, seen a boar kill cubs, and fight with a sow to kill the cubs, presumably because they were sired by another boar. I would not interfere with that process either, whereas I would interfere if I saw a human killing kids on the playground. But I would try not to judge. Whenever I hear people sympathizing with a prey animal under attack, I try my best to sympathize with the predator trying to put food on the table (and feed his/her own kids) while some dickhead human comes to the rescue of the "innocent" little prey animal.

Finally, and I assume this point has already been made, buried in this thread somewhere, I find it very hard to listen to pro-life people champion the cause of the unborn when so often their treatment of the born is so full of judgement and mistreatment, so not pro-life in it's essence. They lack credibility in my eyes, so I don't waste a lot of time listening to them or arguing with them. If they are pro-life, let them prove it, first, in how they treat their fellow creatures, including humans.

"Brother, we have been told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors: We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will consider again of what you have said." Sa-go-ye-wat-ha to a missionary in 1805.

I'm not going to respond to you on this because there were other ways to respond to what I initially said instead of saying you'd be happy to perform an abortion. Since you're a Nazi I'm not going to reason with you because it's my reason connected with ethical sense vs your reason connected to evil. There no real way to have a discussion with you even though your arguments are the same as others. It's just about the best way to deal with you

If not, then are you OK with millions of partially developed human beings existing in a sort of unconscious limbo for all eternity? If not, what should happen? — EricH

There a difference between keeping someone alive and killing them, just as there is a difference between murdering someone and killing someone who is attacking on high on acid

As a sign of respect to your humanity, I'll tell you that you don't have any unique arguments for abortion anyway. It's the same private opinions on when life begins. It doesn't respect pregnancy but you can't see that because you want to be an abortion doctor. An abortion doctor gives up his right to life when he takes life, just like anyone else who takes like. That natural law. That's why we have the death penalty

Philosophy can be a very dangerous thing

because you want to be an abortion doctor. — Gregory

An abortion doctor gives up his right to life when he takes life, — Gregory

Philosophy can be a very dangerous thing — Gregory

I know you won't talk to me Gregory. That's cool. But that almost sounds like a threat. Would you kill an abortion doctor? Do you aspire to the acts of Robert Lewis Dear Jr.? Asking for myself.

You didn't say you wanted to be an abortion doctor. Anyway, the death penalty is applied by the state as we all know. It won't happen for abortion because of the after the law was legal thing. But it could stop illegal ones if the Supreme Court made abortion illegal

Okay, I guess I was reading too much into your posts.

I do not think it's civilized in this country to have a Nuremberg trial situation. I think they should make abortion illegal, promote healthy birth control, and have capital punishment for the doctor (and him alone) for illegal abortions. This would help our country out tremendously

I'm glad you asked for clarification. Read my last post above

Your response was not clear so just confirming. If I'm following you, you think we should keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity. Am I understanding you correctly?

It's like someone on life support who is brain dead. Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions brings about issues such as abortion where people spin arguments and don't think about the issue with moral conscience

Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions — Gregory

In Catholic teaching, an omission is a failure to do something one can and ought to do. If an omission happens deliberately and freely, it is considered a sin. I'm no Catholic, but they do make a good case. If you pull the plug on someone, I don't see a difference between that and running a bullet through their brain pan. Letting "nature take it's course" after affirmatively removing life support is like the Governor saying he didn't throw the switch on Old Sparky.

Your answer is still not clear, so I'll try again. Do you think we should keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity? Please choose one of the two options below.

A) Yes - we must keep millions of embryos frozen for all eternity - and laws must be passed to insure this.
B) No - It may be necessary at some point to unfreeze them and thus (using your terminology) murder them. E.g., the clinic goes bankrupt and no one is willing to pay to keep them frozen. Note that I'm not implying that this a good outcome.

Actually, there is a third option - namely (a la the Catholic Church) that in vitro fertilization should be illegal - but since you have had ample opportunity to state that and have not, I assume you are OK with IVF.

Again, I am not criticizing your position. But there are far reaching policy decisions to be made if a country is to incorporate zygote personhood into its' legal system. This has to be thought though..

I did answer your question. There a difference between allowing to die and killing. The doctors can work out how they want to do this in a human way very easily

.

For those faced with those decisions there is a very real difference between stopping machines you set up and shooting the person in the head. This is not an "on paper" issue. It's life and blood reality

This is not an "on paper" issue. It's life and blood reality — Gregory

That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions.

There could be a situation where you can kill a non-criminal if they are facing great pain and it's like the situation of a horse with broken legs. That is one of those gray areas but abortion is not that unless the child is in great pain. Abortion is about the mother choosing her freedom over the child's right to life. To perform an abortion is THE most immoral thing a person can do. You can't asses these issues without a respect for life

Snip irrelevant post.

You said: "Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions . . ."

There is no distinction. That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions.

Your life started in pregnancy but you're pro-choice and don't have respect for pregnancy. So you can't see necessary distinction in these questions

Your life started in pregnancy but you're pro-choice and don't have respect for pregnancy. So you can't see necessary distinction in these questions — Gregory

I have great respect for pregnancy, I just have more respect for the pregnant. But again, that is irrelevant to the question, which has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. You said: "Putting a bullet through their head is different from taking away life support. Not noticing these distinctions . . ."

There is no distinction. That's precisely why I disagree with you: there is no "very real difference." It's exactly the same thing for those faced with those decisions. It might help if you could articulate a distinction with a relevant difference.

You can't see the difference and won't. Nature takes its course but shooting is not nature. You can't see that an embryo is a baby. These are all obvious things I've written about but go ahead and have the last word.

Nature takes its course but shooting is not nature. — Gregory

So, putting a body on life support is, or is not, nature taking it's course? And then taking if off life support is, or is not, nature taking it's course? In other words, what is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?

Life support is not nature

It's like if I say "giving him poison was to kill the pain and the death is a side effect". That's what your logic is like

Life support is not nature — Gregory

Some might consider it human nature.

It's like if I say "giving him poison was to kill the pain and the death is a side effect". That's what your logic is like — Gregory

No, because it's not my logic. Remember, you are the one who made an assertion regarding a distinction between pulling plugs and pulling triggers. I'm just trying to get you to explain yourself. But, apparently, you can't.

This is not about abstract logic. Your soul isn't involved in this discussion so you're not seeing what I've already explained. It doesn't matter what "some might" consider. Its about truth. You draw a distinction between the mother and child, pitting the one against the other, demonstrating you are a very confused person. Taking away support we set up is different from intentional killing them

We don't get to choice existential realities. If you want to give poison to kill someone's pain you have to except that you are killing then. You can't say "this is a side effect". We know how poison and bullets are in reality. " Some might consider" is not an argument

Taking away support we set up is different from intentional killing them — Gregory

This isn't about abstract logic, Gregory. As I've tried to teach you, it's very, very real to those involved. What is the difference between pulling the plug and pulling the trigger?