RIGHT TO THE CHIN

See, it's all kinda inconsistent.

The baby is a fetus because the mother has a "choice" to decide whether or not it's a baby or a fetus.

fetus == that thing to be aborted
baby == that thing to be brought to term

Yet, the entire "right to chose" movement rests on a very individualistic, personal "rights" ideology: namely, the rights and freedoms of the individual to self-determination is nearly absolute. That there is something metaphysically TRUE & real about a mother's absolute freedom. Existence precedes essence.

But yet regardless of when you believe a fetus becomes a baby or whether or not it can go back, the very fact that it can become a baby, means that that thing becoming a baby has none of the "existence precedes essence" freedoms of the thing determining it's babyness. Makes no bloody sense.

Maybe it's just because I'm an insensitive male, but I've never considerd rape to be a justifiable reason to terminate a pregnancy.

Just my opinion: It's hard to get pregnant. A lot of things have to happen just right in order for it to happen, and once you realize that it's kind of a wonder anyone ever conceives.

Think a "fetus" is just a lump of tissue? Ask someone who just found out they're pregnant after trying for several years. Having undergone numerous, expensive fertility treatments and getting one's hopes up month after month makes that lump of tissue seem so much more valuable.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;"...

...it doesn't say unless it was in cases of rape.

I absolutely agree with you. It's ridiculous, but true. The "right to choose" is highly prized among liberals, but they seem to forget they already had a choice. Use birth control, or, heaven forbid, don't have sex. What they want is more than a right to choose -- they want a right to easily avoid the consequences of their actions. (Obviously that does not apply for rape victims, but I do believe children created in that way still have value. Their parentage isn't their fault.)

Here's a good post about Bush's "culture of life" statements and actions. Not really along the same lines as this discussion, but interesting.

just what are you getting at bill?

b-

that i am against abortion, 100%, in ALL cases.

Right on!! I hate that little "except for rape" clause people feel obligated to tack on.

what about incestouos rape? also, don't think for one second that abortion is easy for everyone. while i firmly respect you and your point of view, i think that you should realize that all people(men and women) that have been a part of an abortion are not irresponsible and remoreseless.

I agree that having an abortion is not easy. Even in the worst cases. And it shouldn't be. And, yes, many who have abortions do it out of fear and are not intending to be malicious. The fact remains, however, that NO MATTER the horrible circumstance of the pregnancy, it is STILL a child. Those who have abortions are often (and sometimes blissfully) unaware of the emotional toll the abortion will have on them in later life...even in the most "justifiable" cases. And if the mother is in years-long torment over her decision, doesn't that cancel out the benefits "nobody can tell me what to do with my body" defense? "The rights of the mother" are always talked about. I say, the mothers have a right to a good life without having to deal with the stigma and ramifications of abortion. As one who has experienced this issue very closely, they just have no idea what they're getting themselves into...aside from the obvious biblical implications.

People need to stop screwing around...Literally and figuratively. This is life we're talking about.

ALL CASES!! bring on the bastard retards! i know this doesn't sound like me, bill. there are gray areas in life. i know you know that.

This is probably straying outside the topic at hand--just a bit, though. I, too, am stridently opposed to slaughtering infants. Here is what I'd like to posit, though. Disagree if you will, but being predominantly superego, it matters naught to me. I think the whole matter of abortion is yet another terrible witness to this supposedly great nation being founded on perhaps the worst idea ever, which was before it so very stridently despised, yet which we have so fideistically ascribed to, which we in so many ways feed off like our morning bowl of Wheaties. We are the political regime of champions, founded on the political idea of champions: the ever-to-be-awed and never-to-be-crossed Individual Will. When all "legitimate power" flows from the will of each individual, individually, how the hell can anyone come along and restrict it?

i'm not sure why all this holier than thou self righteousness surprises me, come on. slaughtering infants. better call mr. e. rudolph and get some bomb making tips. that way you can slaughter the conscious first! right???

Mr Edwards:

Are you advocating the termination of pregnancies that will result in children with Down's Syndrome or other birth defects?

I doubt you are, because it doesn't sound like you. But that's what people do when they play the "incest" card. They say, "This child will have birth defects. Let's not give him a chance at life." What about children with birth defects that are not the product of incest? Should we be allowed to abort them just for that reason?

If yes, then what about people outside the womb with similar defects? What about living products of incest? Are they to be considered less human?

Just my 2 cents. I think I may have some change coming.

i realize that i am the lone voice of dissent in this forum. my point is simply this, it is very, very easy to point the finger of judgement. in my opion abortion is a very nasty, cruel end to a situation, without a real beginning. that said, not all people (men and women) who have had abortions are evil, lust driven, careless, mean, irresponsible and, dare i say, godless. it is so very easy to judge. no, i DO NOT endorse aborting a child (fetus or whatever) because of potential birth defects or any other reason, however, i am not so blinded by conviction that i cannot accept the fact that all things are not etched in stone
(every pun).

Yeah, I knew you didn't feel that way. I just wanted to post something that made me seem intelligent for a change. (semicolon, close parenthesis)

There is no holier-than-everyone self-righteousness intended in using the phrase 'slaughtering infants.' I do not employ such a term to point a condemning finger at any individuals who choose to abort. I, in fact, am a pro-choice individual politically, while I remain in my personal convictions indomitably opposed to the act of abortion. While many are not able to accept such an apparent dichotomy, I have every intention of not making all of my political decisions based on some [very unChristian] notion that the state needs to legislate my moral convictions, or that every American citizen ought not have the freedom to choose a course of action which I am opposed to. I don't seek to legislate against drunkenness, gossip, or extramarital sexual relations any more than I do abortion. (I thus find little alternative but to resent the stab that I ought to seek some bomb-making tips from eric rudolph. At best, I could take it as a tongue-in-cheek criticism, though I believe you misfire, b edwards.) However, there is a great need for individuals to seek a balance within the public square between their personal convictions and the construction of policy. Without this, we engender toward totalitarianism--and I do not make such a comment out of some paranoia or worldwide conspiratorial tendencies, before you suggest I receive bomb-making tips from Timothy McVeigh. I employ the term 'slaughtering infants' very specifically. Perhaps I should have said I am opposed to fetus slaughter in exactly the same respect that I am--here in more universal accord--opposed to manslaughter. Our legal system has prescribed certain legal ramifications for the hacking to pieces of a human body by an individual, and calls it manslaughter, or homicide in general. The hacking to pieces of an infant body before it has come to full term and delivered, according to my convictions, is quite deserving of being called fetus-slaughter, or grouped along with infanticide in general. Due to the current civil climate, in which the will of the individual regarding a fetus is irreproachable, there are no legal ramifications of fetus-slaughter. Giving that it is permissible within the legal system, I seek neither to condemn the choice to perform the act, nor the individual who makes that choice positively or negatively. Neither do I seek to legislate against that choice on the grounds that it is untenable to Christianity. But I reserve every right to criticize the action itself and call it what it is.

wow, how wordy. do you feel a little better about yourself now mr. Neuros?? with a response like that, perhaps i shouldn't have insulted you with an eric rudolph reference. ted kazcynski sounds far more appropriate for you, bob.

And I suppose the wordiness is a clue to my bombing-prone nature, eh? Funny, you sound kinda like a schoolyard bully who, lacking the ability to really elucidate his disliking of the one whom he terrorizes, he just throws punches. [*dodges the next blow and kicks the bully in the nuts]

while my vocabulary is nowhere as good as yours, a school yard bully i am not. i'd be willing to bet we'd like each other. even though we seem to oppose each other on this issue, i think we are very like minded. please contact me at bedwards4@comcast.net. by the way, my name is brian, bob.

Yeah, Bob, Brian is a pretty good guy; nowhere near the infant slaughterer you picture him to be (colon, close parenthesis).

When he posts a dissenting message on someone's blogs he's doing so in the spirit of fostering open-mindedness and a free exchange of ideas.

Or something like that.

Brian, I am all for open-mindedness. I also did not intend offense with the bully remarks. Podge, I don't really take Brian to be an infant slaughterer. Nor do I sit outside clinics and hurl "murderer" at women who decide to abort. I'd rather offer to treat them to a cup of coffee, a nice lunch, and ask them how they are feeling. As for you, Brian, I offer you a good beer or some of my best bourbon--if you drink--one of these days.

Brian, in addition to the good beer or bourbon, I extend invitation to smoke one of my pipes as a complement to any discussion we might find worth having. That is, if you're here in ChatTown, with additional stipulations that you would smoke a pipe while drinking a stimulating beverage. Podge, consider the offer extended to you as well.

I enjoyed Bob's last "Neuros" post. That assessment is reasonable.

I guess my only points starting this thread were:
a. to practice my stand-up routine
b. that I would support a law banning abortion

man, blogging sucks.

Bill, you're developing a stand-up routine? Whoa. The whole thing makes more sense now, and we all look like fools. Is this an individual routine, or with an improv comedy group? Man ... I always wanted to be a comedian. Maybe I missed my calling and got serious about things in life--that's why I became so angry. I stopped laughing. Uff-da. [*coughs and keeps on drinking]

bob, no hard feelings at all, i really enjoy good bourbon once in a while and i do live here in the 'nooga.

bill, try this one at your next stand-up gig...
"so these two lesbians go into an abortion clinic..."

Holy crap! I'd fall off my chair cos I laughed my ass off just at the start of that joke. Bill, you gotta use it!