gadgetlady

It's a cute analogy, but it doesn't work because a car requires the physical intervening act of assembling all of those parts. It doesn't assemble itself without the assembly line and all of the robots and people who participate in that process. The baby, once he or she starts growing, needs nothing but nourishment and a place to live (hmmm -- just like you and me).

Ergo, legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. If, according to you, no restrictions should be placed on it at all, it means legal through natural birth.

Tell us how you really feel, green :ohmy: Well, since Augustine's writings were the basis for Pelosi's claim that one could be Catholic and still in favor of abortion, I'll forward your comments about Augustine to her and perhaps she'll change her mind :tongue_smilie:

Here are a few sources to get you started, Carrie. I must say, just dabbling in this has garnered fascinating information. While I am not Catholic, most of these sources are: Ten Reasons: Ensoulment The Colorado Catholic Herald AmericanCatholic.org - Catholic Update One thing I found particularly interesting was the discussion of early Church thinkers and how they arrived at their conclusions about ensoulment. St. Augustine was recently cited by Nancy Pelosi to demonstrate that the Catholic Church didn't always believe ensoulment to occur at conception, but this position appears to me to be more biologically- and culture-based than theologically-based. As the writer points out at Theological Catch-Up , "Augustine also thought that males were vivified at 30 days and females at 90 days." A comment on the same page reads (emphasis mine): What Pelosi was citing were arguments in a time when natural science was still a branch of philosophy. (It’s hard to tell when you are reading the ancients whether they are talking about theology or natural philosophy because these areas of knowledge had not yet separated.) They were making causal inferences from false premises with a bit of Scripture thrown in, doing the best they could to understand human physiology and biology. About 1830 the scientific community finally realized that it wasn’t just material from the father that made a baby. With microscopes they discovered that the mother’s reproductive system produced an egg which was fertilized by the father’s sperm causing human life to begin. Before microscopes it was assumed that the mother merely nutured what had been placed within her by the father. They thought that at some point God decided to form a human out of the material; it wasn’t considered a new human life until it had limbs, etc. Then a soul was supposedly injected when the the mom first felt the baby move (quickening). Even abortions of just the supposedly inert, unformed material was evil because it crossed God’s intent to form a human from that material. The people Pelosi cites didn’t have our scientific knowledge of conception e.g. uniting of sperm and egg resulting in an entity with DNA differing from both its parents. This might be of interest, too: Key_7

Actually, people are more likely to make the journey from being in favor of abortion to being against it than the other way around. This population doesn't only include the "average Joe" (or Joan), but also includes former abortionists (those who used to perform abortions and are now pro-life), former clinic workers, and even Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade.

I'll see if I can come up with some resources for you. I'm always happy to learn new things

green, I've been meaning to post for a while that I still haven't heard anything back about a post-abortive organization in Toronto. Many of my contacts are out of the country right now (one was speaking in the UK, got home, and then left right away for Australia). I haven't forgotten and am still waiting to hear back. I hope your niece is doing OK.

Honestly, I haven't thought about it that much. Logically, it would make sense for God to bestow a soul at conception, because any other point in the development of a human being (heartbeat, lung capacity, traveling through the birth canal, speaking independently, understanding the difference between right and wrong, etc.) is arbitrary and doesn't address basic human-ness. It's probably my personal belief that conception is when it happens, but I haven't given it a lot of thought, especially as it impacts the abortion discussion. Because a lot of people don't believe in a soul and the presence or absence of a soul can't be proven, it is not a good basis on which to base a factual and scientific discussion of when human life begins. Indeed, there are religious traditions other than Christianity that consider abortion to be murder as well (I've mentioned this previously in this thread). There are also atheists who, by definition, don't believe in a soul and yet are still pro-life. I think basing the disagreement with abortion on something that can't be proven is foolish. However, based on the limited Biblical discussions of what happens in utero and how God treats the discussion of developing babies (such as Psalm 139:13-16 and Job 10:8-11) and the emotions and knowledge He ascribes to the unborn (in Luke 1:41-44), I think it's pretty clear that the unborn has a soul prior to birth, though. Precisely when? I don't know. I'd be willing to do some research on it if it's an issue that matters a lot to you. Let me know.

All I'm doing is answering your questions factually. It's your "choice" to bow out whenever you want. No one's forcing you to keep asking questions.

Is it the intent of the medical procedure of separating conjoined twins to kill one of the children? The whole intent of abortion is to kill the baby. The intent of all other medical procedures (with the exception of euthanasia) is to save and preserve life, not to kill.

Obviously. That doesn't make the baby part of the mother's body and it doesn't make him or her not distinct. The baby has a wholly different set of organs, a brain, a circulatory system, body parts, etc. No one is denying that the baby is dependent on the mother. But dependency doesn't equate to the right of one person to kill the other.

Well yes, of course. We all need nutrients to survive. The method of delivery for a pre-born baby is from the mother, as often is the method of delivery for a post-born baby (through nursing). That doesn't mean the baby is part of the mother's body. It just means the mother is feeding the baby.

When a sperm and an egg join, they produce an offspring. Sometimes that offspring doesn't make it to birth, or adolescence, or adulthood, but that doesn't make it any less an offspring. Just because you haven't held the baby in your arms yet doesn't mean he or she hasn't been "produced". You don't produce a baby through labor and delivery. You simply deliver what has already been produced. Um, no. An embryo is the term used to define a human being in the pre-fetal stage of development, up to 8 weeks. After that time, the human being's stage is called fetal, or he or she is called a fetus. Prior to the embryonic stage, the term is zygote. Of course, these are all just stages. Prior to senior citizen, we are adults. It's just a name, not a different organism. Since when are we only talking first trimester? You've said over and over that abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

Actually, they don't share blood. The baby has his or her own circulatory system and quite often has a different blood type from the mother. That's because the baby is a separate person with his or her own body, own DNA, and own blood.

I don't think the issue of when -- or if -- someone has a soul should enter the discussion of abortion because it's a religious viewpoint and is not the basis for valuing human life.

Nobody's trying to force anyone to procreate (in fact, there are some people I'd rather see not procreate!). Once the mother is pregnant, she has already procreated. Her only "choice" at that point is to bear a live baby or not. She will still have a baby, because that baby has been created and already exists. Hiding from that scientific fact does nothing to help women.

Most jurists and constitutional scholars, even those who are vehemently in favor of abortion, agree that Roe and Doe were poorly decided. Nevertheless, what we're aiming for is for the law to once again be on our side. When that happens, will your argument remain the same -- whatever the law says, goes? Or will you claim, like we are, that there is such a thing as an unjust law? The baby is not a woman's reproductive organs. The baby resides in the mother's reproductive organs, but he or she is not defined as the mother's reproductive organs. Babies do not spontaneously generate in a mother's body (thus being her organ), nor are they present in utero (we don't grow new organs or expand the contents of our organs after we've been around 15 or 20 years). Babies are entities separate from the mother, and in their own right. Once a second person is present, there's a whole new set of rights to take into consideration. If the choice is to deprive another human being of his or her right to life, then yes, I am wholly against that choice. I don't think that should ever be a legal choice in any circumstance anyway. So if the choice is whether or not to kill another person, call me anti-choice until the cows come home. Personally, I think it's disingenuous to pretend the choice is something other than that.

It is two bodies: the body of the mother and the body of the baby. No woman has two circulatory systems, two separate and distinct sets of DNA, two heartbeats, four arms, four legs, and, in the case of a mother carrying a boy, male genitalia. These are basic facts. To argue about the value of the baby is one thing, but to argue that the baby is the mother's body is ignoring elementary school biology.

There are differences in all stages of life. Newborns can't feed themselves. Toddlers can't read Tolstoy. Pre-teens can't reproduce. Fetuses can't speak. Senior citizens can't hear as well as younger people. Paraplegics can't feel pain in certain parts of their bodies. We are all in different stages of life and we all have different abilities. We are, nevertheless, all human. I am not against wife-beating or wife-murder because wives can feel pain. If the husbands got them drunk and made them pass out before killing them, I would still be against it. I'm against it because it is a violation of their basic human rights. Similarly, I am not against slave-ownership because slaves can feel pain. I am against it because it is a violation of their basic human rights. I am not against abortion because the babies may or may not feel pain (certainly the late-term babies do, and if you've ever seen videos of ultrasounds being performed during early abortions, where the baby is trying to escape the suction mechanism, you'd probably wonder if those babies could also, indeed, feel pain). I'm against it because it's a violation of their basic human rights.

The ability to feel pain isn't what makes us human. Otherwise it should be perfectly legal to kill someone so long as they're anesthetized.

LOL! - There's not even a "case" yet - the law was just passed. But if the Supreme Court doesn't decide to hear it, that's just fine; I'd be happy to see the law stand in North Dakota as other states' amendments are forthcoming as well. I don't believe I heard anyone say anything about a soul. And saying "anti-choice" isn't trying to generate negative emotions or using an inflammatory label? I am not ever against choice except when the choice interferes with another human being's right to live. Interestingly, there are many Middle Eastern countries that legally treat women as property. It is the husband's "choice" to beat or kill their wives. Is someone "anti-CHOICE" if they think a man shouldn't be able to CHOOSE to kill his wife? Is everything that is legal, just? And you can't say that that's a different situation, that it's obvious that women aren't property and therefore shouldn't be treated as such, because it's not obvious to THEM. As a country founded in law, we should base our laws on facts, not on religion or feelings or emotions. When a person is conceived, he or she is a member of the human race. That is precisely what the personhood amendment states.

Please try to understand: pro-lifers have no desire to control other people in the sense that we wish to curtail their freedom and their rights. I'm all for freedom in a myriad of ways. We just do not consider the ability to kill one's child a "right", just as the ability to abuse one's toddler isn't a "right", the ability to maim one's sponse isn't a "right", the ability to own a slave isn't a "right", etc. So the only "control" we desire is the cessation of one person's killing another.

I think you guys are missing the point. This will be challenged and will make its way up the court system -- that is the ultimate goal of it, not to affect abortion in North Dakota, but nationwide. It is intended to challenge the Blackmun hole in Roe v. Wade, whereby Justice Blackmun (writing for the majority) said that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, abortion would have to be made illegal.

I wish mine were LOL! I'm awfully tired of the whole thing. I hope, within the next 5 years . . .

The pro-abortion movement uses lots of other words to describe pro-lifers, other than just simply "those against abortion". There's nothing wrong with using a synonym here and there, and for calling a spade a spade.