Yeah, horrible...for parents who see their children as possessions or extensions of themselves, instead of people in their own right.

Well, I guess if the abusive parent found out that their daughter was pregnant, they would beat her so much that the fetus would die anyway...

So the parent's rights trump the child's rights if that same parent was the one who raped, and impregnated the child?

Have any of you ever had a family friend come to you and ask them to help you get an abortion? I'd welcome you to turn them away, spouting off some crap about how it's the right thing, while not having to deal with the consequences yourself.

Frawg and Turd eye:

Your objections are simply leftist canards, there are already protections in the court system to cover both of your objections.

Fact of the matter is you leftists think that parents should have no say in the upbringing of the children.

But any stranger should be protected no matter what...even if that stranger was the one who impregnated the child to begin with...and is fascilitating the abortion by taking the minor across state lines.

Brilliant!!!

So, some man gets a 12 year old pregnant, takes her across state lines to have an abortion and Senator Dianne Feinstein protects him? Sick. Sick. Sick.

Libbies - good extreme cases. What if the baby was from a space alien? And what if the confidant was an angel? Lets be sure to cover ALL the bases.

Kahn,

So what you're saying is that the bill doesn't actually take into account that this very possible situation could happen?

I mean what is the good in protecting a child's childhood, when there is a political point to be made, right?

Caveat: "...the bill..." ; S.403

I had a good friend who was beaten within an inch of her life by her father...

It's easy to rule something out as an "extreme case" when it hasn't affected those you love.

Freedom,

if a person gets a 12 year old girl pregnant, then takes her across state lines without her parent's approval, thats called kidnapping. it's already a federal crime...but thanks for playing

if a person takes a 12 year old girl across state lines without her parent's approval, thats called kidnapping. it's already a federal crime...

Third Eye Open,

Senator Dianne Feinstein's bill protects him, anyway as a "confidant".

You are making the argument for legalized abortion. That is not what THIS bill is. This is a proposed Federal law to aid people who want to skirt the laws of their own states by allowing the illegal transportation of minors across state lines. Or, making it legal in this situation only. You are assuming it's the state next door - what if it's not. What if it's two or three states away?

Third Eye Open:

Get lost, troll...get lost.

"So the parent's rights trump the child's rights if that same parent was the one who raped, and impregnated the child?"

Yah because im sure when a child is raped by a parent and gets pregnant, someone elses first priority is to get the girl an abortion... not.. ohh.. say... CALL THE POLICE. If the parent is the one who got the girl pregnant... theres a strong chance that once that girl gets out of the house and into a "confidant"s hands (who is such a caring enough person that they'll help the girl cross state lines to get an abortion), that parent isn't going to have legal power over that girl for very long. Theres a strong chance he'll be going away for a very, very long time.

Ooops, another lefty extreme case shot down by reality.

The poor man who is currently our president has reached such a point of befuddlement that he thinks stem cell research is the same as taking human lives, but that 40,000 dead Iraqi civilians are progress toward democracy.*

*Molly Ivins (Rules)

Please prove when life begins beyond a reasonable doubt. Flat out statements from the right or left don't cut it. When human life is involved, proof is required.

What separates humans from animals?

I say that it is our brains... our wonderful wonderful brains.

The earliest that a fetus has brain function (that has been found) is 31 days after fertilization.

Would it be safe to say that that is where life begins?

hmm, I think the Feinstein bill is abominable. How does this make abortion less common? It seems like she only seeks to facilitate more abortions. Therefore, through this bill in a third-party sort of way, Feinstein is enabling killing.

This isnt about choice, this is about giving a kid...someone we, the people, have deemed feeble, incapacitated, and of a lesser stature because of their age...(ie voting age, statutory rape, driver's license, etc) the ability to make a decision more important than anything previously mentioned.

Would it be safe to say that that is where life begins?

How does that brain get a chance to form in 31 days, pray tell...

The same way that ameobas reproduce... it's called cell division.

The same way that ameobas reproduce... it's called cell division.

Imacculate conception? A miracle? I wonder what gets that cell division thing going? Is that just like amoebas too? Boy, the things you learn.

March 18, 2006 Blogging Note - Please Read

We here at Blogs for Bush encourage lively debate. On a personal level, we love the give and take of an argument about an event, policy or person. We welcome debate.

That said, a good number of our readers have been taking liberties with the blog - and this goes for people on both sides of the ideological divide. We do have a comment policy, and we ask that everyone read it. What we'd like to do is lay down some ground rules which will be rigorously enforced from now on.

1. Do not insult. Our definition of insult is to call someone a name, or corrupt their nom-de-blog in a scurrilous way.

2. No foul language. If you are unsure whether a particular word is foul, then don't use it. When in doubt, leave it out.

3. Stay on topic. There's a lot of flexibility in here, but think about what you are saying - is it actually relevant to the dicsussion at hand? If you believe we are missing some vital subject of discussion, then please let us know. We're more than happy to accomodate, with the understanding that we can't talk about everything every day.

As a general rule, please keep comments polite and to the point - we want this place to be both fun and interesting to visit. As for the past, we're going to let bygones be bygones - and we expect everyone else to do the same. To forgive is a noble thing - so drop any animosities that have built up and start with a clean slate.

Comments which violate the comment policy will be deleted and people who persistently violate the policy will eventually be banned. If you want to be immediately banned, then please complain about the comment policy.

Posted by Mark Noonan at March 18, 2006 05:01 AM

...lest we forget...

March 18, 2006 Blogging Note - Please Read

Zat yer surrender document?

March 18, 2006 Blogging Note - Please Read

Why don't you just say, "I want my mommy!"

Rev.-

Personally, I believe that a fetus, until it has brain function, is just a part of the mother's body.

You may disagree with me, but that is how I believe things work.

Besides, by your logic, we shouldn't kill animals because their life is a miracle. Are you a member of PETA.

That should be:

Are you a member of PETA?

Abortion is an abomination, as is the death penalty and war. Thou shall not kill---number 5 on the sin billboard top 10. Peace

GeorgiaF, So - by your standards we are allowing living humans to be killed for how many months after the "become" alive? Because one month is NOT the current standard. Anyone care to guess what IS the current standard?

Do you have some basis for picking fetus brain function as your standard? Some ethical or legal standard? And are you sure that the 30th day might not be true for some fetus/baby? Absolutely sure? Or at least sure beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you have some documentation to back that up?

I have never had anyone come back with such a definiate response before - so I'd appreciate understanding your thought process.

Make no mistake about this... this law is just trying to prevent an end to a federal right to an abortion... I have no real opinion on that issue other than technically there is no RIGHT to an abortion in the constitution, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

HOWEVER... it's utterly wrong to suggest that we should allow ANYONE to take someone UNDERAGE as far as they want to get an abortion if it's illegal in their state. Why is it that if I'm 17, and 364 days old and need surgery, my parents must give consent unless it's an abortion? WTF?

Why is it that people on both sides point to extreme cases to show a law COULDN'T work for 85% of the people... it's ridiculous...

So we'll create a law to protect the SHEER MILLIONS OF daughters who are being incestously raped by their fathers? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I think i know what Feinstein is doing, and that's running for re-election... nothing more, nothing less.

Well back to the original topic, parent's rights verses child's rights. The examples given how this is a good thing are both already covered under standard child abuse laws aren't they?

I mean I'm pretty sure it's illegal to beat your child. Even if they're not pregnant, let alone beat them up enough that they might kill a baby as Georgia suggests. I'm also pretty sure it's illegal to rape your child as Third suggests. Any "confidants" in this situations should really be calling in the authorities verses driving anyone over state lines for an abortion. I don't know about you but I think having an abortion would be a bit farther down my to do list than stopping the beating and/or rape.

So in a "normal" situation that I believe this law is aimed at, it's for allowing an adult to transport a minor across state lines without the parent's permission or knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason why you'd want this is because of parental notification laws or the parents already said no. In most cases that's when this would come into play would it not?

To me this is just an attempt to use the Federal government to thumb it's nose at the State's laws. If you don't like your state's laws and your folks aren't with you then screw them and go to another state with whoever you can find. I'm sorry that sounds dangerous and silly.

Sen.Feinstein just goes to prove the point that I have been trying to explain to people all the time!! The liberal democrat pack of BLOOD-THIRSTY WOLVES will go to the furthest extent with every last way that they think is OUT! in order to get by with their SICK demented ways!!

The liberal left could care less about trying to set an example for our younger generation!!

Just look at it this way!!

Look at all the Grandmothers and Grandfathers who would have been proud to have had a grandbaby near to them!, watching them grow into fine young men and women, some doctors to help the sick and lame, others construction workers to help build homes for the less fortunate, others to be our fine military recruits to be all they can be!!,
others for research into the realms of a cure for cancer, the list goes on and on!

But no!! the liberals don't think about the many grandparents, all they think about is cut em open lets study their brains, let's study their privates, all so they can add another dollar to their pocket, and to make them look high and mighty and trying to tell us that they are researching, when in fact all they are doing is butchering the life that fragile little baby person to peices and then throwing it away, so they can BUM!!, I SAY BUM-another dollar!!

BUT FOR THE REAL!!!AMERICAN TAX PAYER, THE WORKING REPUBLICAN TAXPAYER, THE CARING SECTOR OF AMERICA, IT'S ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER DOLLAR DOWN THE DRAIN!!

And man I'm tellin ya! that's why I'm so VERY PROUD to have PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH as my president!! He vetoed the ABOMINATIONS BILL and I'm with him all the way!!! A big high-five to you george, your my buddy!!:)

Now back to the liberal hatemongers...

And just think!, out of all those precious little babies that have been destroyed, one of them!, at least one of them!! could have been the worlds genius!!

But the fact remains LOOK AT WHAT MAN IS DOING AND HAS DONE TO THE LIFE THAT GOD HAS GIVIN MAN AND WOMAN; THEIR ALL GONE!!! COMPLETELY!!!!!

MILLIONS OF BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN!!! GONE!!! PEOPLE!!! GONE!!!OBLITERATED!!

And for this NOBODY sen.feinstein to go to this type of extreme by trying to take women across the border is enough to send me into a rage!!

Someone needs to get a law made so that anyone trying to go across the border to get an abortion needs to be immediately put in prison for murder!

AND.........sen.feinstein needs to be taken by the arm to prison and taken and thrown into a cell as hard as he could throw her!! maybe someone can talk to her in there!!!

THE LIBERAL LEFT EQUALS NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

Jeremiah

I would like to remind everyone with regards to the developing human brain, that the study recently released only discusses the nascent cerebral cortex, and doesn't go to argue that this has the functionality of the fully-formed cerebral cortex, nor that it has the neural synapses to facilitate what we would consider "human thought" (consciousness, if you will), this isn't my feelings on the matter, but simple biology, without the nueral pathways with which to carry those signals, and the lack of the "scaffolding" of that same nueral super-highway, it is nothing more than a single cell, which eventually many more will attatch to.

Let me address your points one at a time-at

1.) I don't know the current standard, but I guess that it is 6 months in most states.

2.) My basis: Since I am decidedly a-religious, I believe that our higher cognitive brain function separates us from the animals, and, thusly, fetuses without developed brains can't be cognizant.

You have to ask the ontological question about what constitutes a human being as opposed to merely an animal of the homo sapien species. To be human is to feel, think, dream, and be aware of your surroundings, if you don't have a developed brain, you can't do those things, you can't be a human being.

Therefore, while a fetus is a homo sapien, when it doesn't have developed brain function, it isn't "human".

Just what I think.

You trolls have an excuse or sob story for every situation. You are despicable. Pick on someone your own size instead of a defenseless baby.

I have said it before and not one of you trolls has given a respectable answer. Why does someone always have to die? Dad beats daughter, lock him up, but don’t kill the baby for Pete’s sake. You should hear crazy you all sound.

Besides, by your logic, we shouldn't kill animals because their life is a miracle. Are you a member of PETA.

Referring to a "miracle" in my previous post was to question to you when this process called life begins. You know when it begins, and that is when one of a woman's eggs gets fertilized by a man's sperm. There is no spontaneous cell division, miracle, or immaculate conception that starts the process. Being an atheist, I don't buy that there's any such thing as a miracle nor an immaculate conception. And I have had enough biology classes to know where on the scale of animals cell division acts as a reproductive method. If you misunderstood what I was saying, then I hope that clears it up for you. It is this simple: At some point in time, a woman's egg is generated and placed into a position to possibly become fertilized by a sperm cell. If that doesn't happen, the woman's body ejects the egg as part of a monthly cycle and then it is repeated. No cell division, no child, no fetus, brain or not.

Now when the egg is fertilized by a sperm cell, life begins and the fertilized egg begins its path toward an eventual childbirth 9 months later. There is nowhere I can see from the point of fertilization that anyone can reasonably declare some invisible dividing line where life begins other than that fertilization point. If left alone, that fertilized egg will result in a living breathing child. (barring other natural health problems like a miscarriage).

If you can say, "it is not a person until xxxx" and you then say "that's just what I believe" then you are no different nor any more correct than some religious person who claims it otherwise - they have their beliefs and you have yours. Find a point that is better than conception that defines the beginning of the development of a child, and you will have made your case. Good luck on that.

BTW: PETA members get a special waiver - you can kill them any time for all I care. They're already brain dead.

The pro-abort people are using a red herring in order to protect an unlimited right to abortion...how often, really, would it be a grandparent or religious who would actually drive a child to obtain an abortion? What this amendment would do is protect the ability of adult males who have sex with minors to do away with the best evidence against them.

What is disgusting is that so many Democrats can't see this...abortion has become their Holy Writ.

Sex with a minor is a crime. It is considered rape. Many of the minor children who become pregnant have already been intimidated by their rapists into remaining silent about the sexual activity. This is true whether the rapist is a father, brother, cousin, teacher, neighbor, pastor, or whatever. Pregnancy is a sure way of bringing the sexual abuse out into the open. Therefore, getting rid of the evidence serves mainly to protect the abuser.

If a sexual abuser of a minor child can pass himself off as a "confidant"----or if an adult woman can do so, to protect the male involved ----then the entire process can be primarily one of allowing a criminal to go free. I fail to see the advantage of this.

Yes, there are some fathers who would beat their pregnant daughters. But it seems to be a lot more practical and humane to set up a system in which a girl who feels threatened can be protected, rather than merely establish a protocol which allows her predator, or anyone else, to create a situation in which the evidence of her abuse is destroyed, in which she is told by non-parents that she should not trust or turn to her parents in the most important decision of her life, and to interfere in a family in a way that has such overwhelming potential for creating serious problems in the future.

I heard a woman talk once about how she handled this potential problem with her daughters. She asked them "What do you think would happen if you came home pregnant?" and each of them responded "You would kill me!" When she explained that she would always love them and would always be there for them, to share their problems, they were surprised---that adolescent drama and disconnect from reality had them convinced that for some reason, their parents would stop loving them. This is typical of young people and their simplistic view of life. Allowing this to go uncorrected, or worse yet encouraging children to feel this way, is a terrible interference in a family.

Frawg---you say, regarding a question about when an abortion is no longer allowed,
"1.) I don't know the current standard, but I guess that it is 6 months in most states."

Wrong. There is no time prior to the baby taking its first breath when killing it is illegal. Literally.

What is referred to as "partial-birth abortion" involves artificially stimulating labor and then manually manipulating the baby into a breech, or feet-first, position, so that when it exits the birth canal the head is last. The birth process is stopped at that point, literal inches from full birth, so the baby cannot take a breath, and an instrument is rammed into the baby's brain at the base of its skull. One procedure sucks the rains out; one merely scrambles them till the baby stops writhing in pain. And they do. They kick and squirm and fight for life. One nurse had a baby grab her finger and hold on till it died, and she left the operating room to throw up and became an advocate against this barbaric---but legal---procedure.

The mother could go into labor naturally, with a full-term child, and decide at the last minute that she simply did not want that child to be born, and if she could find a doctor willing to perform such a heinous act (such as Dr. Warren Hern, of Boulder, Colorado) this could be done to that baby.

Not to "protect the life of the mother". For one thing, induced labor and all that manual manipulation are much harder on the woman than a C-section or a natural birth. And once 95% of the baby is out of the womb, it will not hurt her any more to let the last five inches of head slip out.

There is no requirement that the baby be damaged in any way. That is to say, retarded or crippled or in some other way subject to the eugenics standards of some.

Every time a state has put this up for a vote, it has overwhelmingly been voted down, but every time a radical Liberal activist court has overruled the populace and imposed its own views, keeping it legal.

Almiranta,

Your premise is valid, it should be pretty darn hard to reach that threshold of "confidant", but when you have a situation where the father may be the only guardian, or the mother doesn't wish to believe that the incident has happened, then where is a child to turn? If she goes to the police, then she will placed with a foster home, and at that point, any chance that she will get the choice to have the abortion becomes moot question.

It is sad that we have to have situations where we need to be concerned about these types of incidences, but they have been happening for as long as humans have had civilization ( and probably before) and I would bet my last dollar they will continue to happen, no matter which laws do, and don't get passed.

I don't relish the idea of the government sticking its nose into the private matters of families, but in this case, I feel as though there needs to be some sort of protection for that 1 in 10,000 case where the situation warrants a girl driving across state lines to get an abortion, if she so chooses. I think the idea that the attacker would be the one driving her to get an abortion is a very slim chance, and it wouldn't matter in court, since it could pre prosecuted as any other standard rape case would be, not to mention the doctors who perform abortions are very adept at crossing "t's" and dotting "i's" with regards to an underage patient.

Rev.-

That is your belief.

We all have our beliefs, and it is easy to downplay those beliefs that do not coincide with our own. If we use your standard of "if it can be a child if left alone, don't kill it," then why stop at zygotes? If you leave sperm to do what it is supposed to do, then it results in a living breathing human being. Monty Python was right... "every sperm is sacred."

In vitro fertilization creates excess embryos that wind up getting thrown away and thusly being destroyed. Should we make in vitro fertilization illegal too?

Aa notable philosopher (whose name I ironically forgot) said "you must only live by the maxims that can be universally applied." Can the maxim that you use for abortion be universally applied?

We all have our beliefs

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were serious. Nevermind.

Gozer nails the original subject in his last post.

Almiranta did a great job of telling us what the standards are now.

Georgia, You put forth a logical argument. (And TEO took the same premise and moved it forward several months). I'll meet you at the state hospital with a box full of axes and we can start killing all the retarded folks. You are deciding what the standard for life is, and there is room for disagreement. That room is what I would call reasonable doubt.

The whole abortion argument comes down to proving that the baby is not human life. In this way, it is very similar to the slavery argment. The religous people can't prove that the baby IS alive. But, that is not the test. To deprive someone of life, liberty, or property you must prove them guilty of a capital crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I say that this same standard MUST apply to an unborn child. How can you possibly sanction the killing of a baby, when it is possible that you are wrong and the baby is a person? It comes down to being SURE. And no-one is.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were capable of reasoned debate... nevermind...

Prove me wrong...

Was that directed at me? TEO says you are wrong and the standard is several months later. The current standard is NO standard.

I say - PROVE it.Prove that the baby is not alive. You described some tests and definitions. I showeed (OK, sarcatically) that there are adults who do not meet your standard. So, kill 'em? Or more logically, redefine your standard.

I'm pretty damn educated and can certainly debate. Can you? Crying foul won't cut it. If you want to try and prove it - then do. If you can't, then at least admit I'm right.

Um, why have an abortion when you can just put the child up for adoption?

Georgia, Is it your idea that I need to prove that baby is alive? I can't. But you can't prove it's not. That's MY point.

If neither position can be proven, you must examine the consequences of making either of the two choices.

1. The baby is not alive and we allow it to be born. New baby.

2. The baby is alive and we kill it. Murder.

Which is worse. I'm not trying to prove that the baby is human. I'm saying that it is pretty simple to set up a system where you don't need to prove it. Let the children live.

Prove me wrong...

About what? Monty Python? IVF? Some notable but unnameable "philosopher?" Nah. I'd be wasting my time. Back to your Rocky and Bullwinkle show.

These kinds of discussions are best left to serious people. Unborn children's lives are at stake here.

Does Ultrasound/photo tell us anything?

Jeremiah

Kahn-

The debate quip was directed at Reverend Scaramonga, sorry for the misconception.

Your quip about axes and retarded people is a bit of a straw-man. While retarded people may not be the most sentient people, they do have developed brains. That being said, they still can feel and experience because they do have a brain with the necessary involuntary functionality to do so.

Fetuses that don't have brains can't feel and they can't experience much of anything. Because they don't have a brain, the don't have the mental capacity of a retarded person.

Humanity, in my humble opinion, is more in the experience than the biology. If they can't experience anything, are they living a human life?

Does Ultrasound/photo tell us anything?

Jeremiah

Fetuses that don't have brains

Now there's a death sentence only a Lib could love.

...can't feel and they can't experience much of anything.

Yea! Let's just put them out of their misery. Must really suck to be an unfeeling, sense-lacking lump of nondescript "stuff" as opposed to an unfeeling, sense-lacking Lib with a suction hose, and other "instruments."

the don't have the mental capacity of a retarded person.

See, Kahn, you can't take the axes to the retarded, but swing away at the fetus. See the difference?

Humanity, in my humble opinion, is more in the experience than the biology.

Ahhh. I see. There's that elusive "proof" that you requested from me. Now I get it.

This law looks similar to the Mann Act:

Definition: In 1910, Congress passed the Mann Act which makes it a federal crime to transport individuals under the age of 18 across state lines to engage in any sexual activity.

The original intent of the law was to stop prostitutes from being moved from one locale to another or out of the country. It now also applies to an adult taking a consensual minor to another state.

Penalties can include being fined for $5,000, or imprisoned for 5 years, or both. The penalty could be doubled if a minor is involved.

Rev.-

The philosopher I mentioned is Immanuel Kant.

The actual quote goes as follows:

This is the basis of his "categorical imperative." (I don't feel like citing it... look it up on wikipedia).

So much for Rocky and Bullwinkle.

Jerimiah, No - I don't think they do. It is extremely difficult to prove this argument one way or the other. Georgia F proposed a reasonable position. TEO disagreed and put forward a different position that would allow abortion many months later. Neither can conclusively prove their position. Neither can religious people.

Most people can’t even agree on the exact definition of the terms involved: Life, brain activity as proof of humanness. Etc. In college, I remember philosophy class as extremely interesting because these terms were so difficult to define. I argue that the baby, the possible life must be given the benefit of the doubt. Heck, we’d give a tri-state axe murderer the benefit of the doubt in court.

Rev.-

Your definition of the Mann Act is repetitive.

If a person is under the age of 18, they are a minor.

Kant? The philosopher preferred by Adolph Hitler. Ahhh. Now it all starts to make sense. Master race, Eugenics, Sanger... OK, now I'm up to speed.

Rev.-

Firstly, please provide a cite for your "philosopher preferred by Adolf Hitler" (spelling corrected by me) comment.

Secondly, if you were to discount an entire belief system based on one person who believes in it, then how far do you take it?

Hitler also was a devout Christian, does that mean that Christianity is a religion of the Master Race and Eugenics?

That logic could get dangerous...

That logic could get dangerous...

Not any more that yours. At least mine doesn't kill the unborn. Just Google Kant and Hitler. You do know how to Google, don't you?

The point is, Kant's architectoni system constricts are way of
thought and our action, our means of acting in the world. In this way, it
dominates humankind and dominates the world. What does not conform to the
categorical imperative, what does not conform to scientific reasoning is
illicit. This mode of thought connects to Fascism in that Fascism is
simply a totalitarian state which dominates human beings. It controls the
means of production for the service of the state and it controls human
beings for their en;lightenment and freedom. Again, I refer you to
Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc.
-http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg01519.shtml

That was what came up on Google.

Are you familiar with logical fallacies? You are guilty of a few, but I want to see if you know which ones they are...

That was what came up on Google.

That's it?

The point is, Kant's architectoni system constricts are way of
thought and our action, our means of acting in the world. In this way, it
dominates humankind and dominates the world. What does not conform to the
categorical imperative, what does not conform to scientific reasoning is
illicit. This mode of thought connects to Fascism in that Fascism is
simply a totalitarian state which dominates human beings. It controls the
means of production for the service of the state and it controls human
beings for their en;lightenment and freedom. Again, I refer you to
Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc.
-http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg01519.shtml

That was what came up on Google.

Are you familiar with logical fallacies? You are guilty of a few, but I want to see if you know which ones they are...

The word of the Lord came to the prophet Jeremiah and He said:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew You"

Look it up!! It's in: Jeremiah 1:5

So that pretty much settles it for me at least, God showed the prophet Jeremiah even before he was conceived!!

So why argue about it?? When all we have to do is go to the Lord in prayer for the answer!!

God has shown His all-knowing knowledge in any given situtation no matter what the problem,with that said, He will reveal that knowledge to us, all we have to do is ask for His guidance and direction!!and I guarantee you He will always come through ALL IT TAKES IS FAITH!!

God always comes through RIGHT!! AND NEVER WRONG!!

Jeremiah

Is it okay to take a MINOR across state lines just to beat a state's laws? Isn't that the only reason why you'd have to leave your state, to beat it's laws?

Uhm Frawg....you're google searcing isn't very good.

There are over 150,000 records of Hitler following Kant's teachings.

For those interested...the bill passed, and sooprise sooprise...Babs Boxer didn't even show up despite offering the ammendment to except 'confidants'.

What a hypocritical hack.

"Hitler also was a devout Christian...."

Why, Frawg, you embarrass the great state of Georgia with your ignorance of history. Hitler was out to DESTROY Christianity, right after he intended to murder all the Jews. All of these are quotes from your great Christian Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

'National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.'

10th October, 1941, midday:

'Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.'

14th October, 1941, midday:

'The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.'

19th October, 1941, night:

'The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.'

21st October, 1941, midday:

'Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.'

13th December, 1941, midnight:

'Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease.'

14th December, 1941, midday:

'Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.'

9th April, 1942, dinner:

'There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.'

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold .'

SOURCE: http://www.answers.org/history/hitquote.html

Matt,

I've been trying to get a comment to go through which I received through e-mail!

Just wondering if it came through or not?

Jeremiah

Matt,

I've been trying to get a comment to go through over at the "Bolton" thread which I received through e-mail!

Just wondering if it came through or not?

Jeremiah

Hitler also was a devout Christian

Depends on your definition of "devout".... (insert rollseye smiley here)

Frawg, after reading your comments it becomes clear that you arrived at your conclusion first. You then worked backward developing a "belief" that fit the conclusion.

A life begins at conception....there is NO OTHER *logical* (as in actual logic) explanation. The Right Rev. has laid it out there for you when he talking about the difference between a fertilized and unfertilized egg. However, you are so committed to your conclusion that you won't acknowledge how *illogical* your conclusion actually is.

Let me ask you this simple question: if your sperm fertilize your girlfriend's egg tonight, what will happen in 40 weeks? Will your girlfriend give birth a massive blob of amoebas? No, the fertilized egg IS a human life. It is nothing else, whether you believe it, or not....

Exactly...how can life not begin but at conception? It's not like in week 4 it's suddenly life...what a joke.

That's like saying a seed planted in the soil that germenates and grows under the soil isn't really alive until it breaks the surface. Of course it's alive. As soon as that seed starts to grow it's alive.

These people trying to state that a baby isn't really a living thing is disgusting...what is it then...a sack of water and cells?

The example GeorgiaF gave before about an active experiencing mind could mean death to Alzheimer’s victims. This way of thinking can and has resulted in euthanasia practices in Germany under the Nazi’s and in the Scandinavian countries and Holland NOW. In India and China (and to some extent elsewhere) couples have been aborting babies because they are girls – and boys are culturally preferred. Similarly, pre-screening for defects and specific traits can be done. Maybe these standards are flawed? I think so.

The fetus/baby has a unique DNA signature that is a blend of the mother and father. It seems hard to say that it is part of the mother’s body. The fetuses have been successfully implanted into host mothers. So, this new life for is at least for a short time transportable. Extremely premature babies born 22, 23, or 24 weeks into a pregnancy have survived. 22 months is five and a half months.

All kinds of philosophers have said many things. Still, these questions can't be answered definitively (except perhaps with the number 42 –some people will get it). Do a search on “what is human life?” Many of the sites will be based upon religious beliefs. These may work for many people, but can’t be used as proof for people who don’t believe. But, there is a noticeable lack of definitive proof one way or the other. Frankly, this question is pretty new. The answers are wrapped in emotional arguments either for or against abortion.

I challenge the anti-abortion people to search for an answer founded in logic and philosophy. I know that some scriptures are clear on the subject – that won’t cut it in court. I also challenge the “pro-choice” pro-abortion crowd to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when human life begins. I put this harder standard on you because the consequences of you being wrong are worse. Name calling and chanting from either side doesn’t sway me much. Using an engineering approach, I’m against abortion because no one has proven to me that it is OK.

Warriornation,

Yes, you're right!, It absolutely is life!

Many Atheist try to prove otherwise but the word of God tells it plain and simple in the book of Genesis!!

A question to our atheists: How else would man have gotten here, and this huge earth we live on!!
ya know!!

would suggest you refer to the following, for an informative incite of the coneiving to the birth!!

It does'nt mention God but it does show how God infinite plan came together!!

very informative!

wonderful movie!

channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/

Jeremiah

I also don't have that much faith in the courts. The courts are like a computer interpreting a program – if there is flaw in the logic it will be found and executed wrongly. In 1857 the United States Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case “that all people of African ancestry -- slaves as well as those who were free -- could never become citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court. The court also ruled that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in its territories.” (PBS.org)

To my knowledge, this case was never overturned. The civil war, emancipation, and subsequent amendments and laws made it mute. The Courts were clearly wrong about blacks. But under the law, they were not. Our system is not perfect. But that is why we left provisions for changing it. If the courts can’t see the absurdity of their decisions – then the “programming” must change. Clearly protect human life – and define it – in the Constitution. Change it from an unknown variable to a defined constant. Get it?

Kahn,

I'm no professor and definitely not much on wording or phrasing and such but from what you wrote I'll do the best I can to explain how I feel concerning your questions.

The way it seems to me is that if we base our own individual thinking on our own logic, and it differs from what everybody else thinks then this would lead to circular debate rather than concrete thinking, meaning no basis for independent thought, and no reason for a conclusion to the matter!!

Make no mistake technological science will never change humanity!, period!

So,Inevitably this is what happens when people stray from the real truth of the matter!, so in order for us to be one hundred percent sure, who do we look to? We already know that no two different independent groups of people will agree logically!

So, How do we come to a conclusion to the matter?

There is only ONE that I know of who has the answer, and He is the concrete evidence to prove it, We are His living proof that ALL FETUSES are in fact viable fetus, Because He CREATED THEM AND US!, and If it were'nt so, then we would not be here talking today, and there would'nt be a new generation every twelve years or so!!

So you can see as I have stated as to what happens when people stray from the concrete evidence!!

God is the answer and He alone!!

Jeremiah

Gozer,

"Isn't that the only reason why you'd have to leave your state, to beat it's laws?"

--Actually no, in many states there are very few clinics which a woman could get this service performed. For instance, in Mississippi, there is only ONE clinic that is still around. So, if you were a woman and had the choice of driving across your entire state, or perhaps driving to a clinic which was much closer but across state lines, then what do you think you're going to choose?

Kahn-

It's funny that you say that I came to my conclusion and suited my beliefs to go around it.

I used to believe that abortion is perfectly permissable until the third trimester. Then, I started a college education, took a few philosophy classes, and learned when a fetus developed a brain.

First of all, I believe that there is a fundamental difference between "personhood" and simply being a homo sapien.

My whole argument isn't that zygotes aren't alive or that they aren't humans, it is that they are not the moral equivalent to a cognizant and sentient person.

If you poke a person, they will be aware that they have been poked, even if they have alzeihmers; if you poke a zygote, will they know that they have been poked?

TLD-

n contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism, and even ridiculed such beliefs in private. Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[14] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus,[15] whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[16] In Mein Kampf he wrote that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."[17]
-The above from wikipedia

His problem wasn't with Jesus, it was with Christianisty. Necessarily, if you believe that Jesus was the son of God, then you are a Christian.

GeorgiaF you are 0wn3d. Give up. Stop digging. It is getting pathetic.

Jerimiah - I understand and respect your arguments. I just don't think they will work outside the community of Christians.

georgiaF - I didn't say that you made your conclusion first. You put forth an interesting and good argument.

Killing, or possibly killing a human is an awful event with terrible consequenses. I say that we need to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard we'd give a murderer.

"I just don't think they will work outside the community of Christians."

Kahn,

Exactly!!, that's because outside of christianity there is no answer!!

Which to me is the best part of being a christian we have an answer, and the atheists don't!

Jeremiah