georgerussia

Let's summarize now. Your point was that both fetus and newborn could have OPINION. Now you seem to agree that they both rely only on instinct, and therefore cannot have opinion. As a result, you have made your previous point invalid. The fetus does not have a choice because it simply cannot have a choice. Is the summary correct? Then you'll probably never believe, as the question where exactly 'life' starts is not scientific. It's political/religious question. So the answer you're looking for will come from something like International Association of Child Molesters (i.e. Catholic Church), and will be questionable by definition. This is something you anti-choice crowd seem to be unable to understand (or, which is more likely, this is just another political game from your side). Pro-choice people do not chose to end someone's life (unlike pro-death-penalty people who do). They just allow the woman to make such a choice if she believes this is right. There is a lot of pro-choice people who would not do abortion themselves, but they support rights of others to do so. It is that simple. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

What you quoted is just a part of main description, which states " the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms". If you call yourself pro-life in this way, you'll have very hard time to prove your position if you ever killed a mosquito or took antibiotics (which kill live bacteria inside your body). I'm not even talking about eating animals, and therefore supporting animals being risen and killed just for this purpose. And a lot of other things do it. If you do not support their right to live, then your position does not support your own definition of pro-life, and therefore you are not pro-life. A sperm is also alive, so I wonder if you consider swallowing cannibalism? After all, one eats and digests something which could be the base for future BABIES!!! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So what is your point? What exactly are you trying to prove? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It looks like you're mixing 'opinion' with instinct reaction - which cannot be considered 'choice'. If you're still insisting that a newborn express THEIR opinion, and not just instinct reaction, I would like to see proof. You also ignored the second part of the question - at which stage you consider a fetus being capable to make choices? It's quite obvious that a fertilized egg cannot make a choice, so when? The question is not only whether they could _explain_ their opinion, but whether they _have_ such opinion at all. I am saying that both should be allowed, and the mother should have a choice. A surrendered newborn could live without his biological mother, so if she wants to abandon him and not take care of him, it could be done, and some procedures must be followed. Unfortunately at this moment a fetus cannot live without his biological mother. Hopefully the medicine will advance, and at some point of time an aborted fetus could be transplanted into a womb of anti-choice female, who should be happy to carry it to the full term (and then likely to surrender it, as anti-choice crowd seems to have no problems with unwanted children). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, what really matters is that you've admitted that you're just playing games while inventing new meanings for well-known words, and labeling the opponents. Which confirms my impression that the whole "pro-life" is just yet another mumbo-jumbo created by politicians to support their personal agenda/beliefs, and they do not really care of "sacred human life". I suspected that, but it's always nice to get first-hand confirmation. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My question to you was about fetuses, not about newborns. I asked two questions: how could you prove that a fetus really could have an opinion (and at which stage? could fertilized egg make a decision too?), and what is the proper way to get the fetus opinion? The reason I'm asking it is that you brought this issue yourself saying that 'fetus does not have a choice'. Therefore you need to prove that a) fetus could have a choice and b) it's possible to know beyond the reasonable doubt what the fetus choice is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I'm not saying that. I'm asking you a straight question: do you have any proof that a fetus in any stage (in any state, including just a fertilized egg, as you didn't seem to specify any restrictions) is as capable of making choices as a newborn? Somehow it's the parents who are making medical decisions (including life-threatening situations) for their babies quite after a while they were born. Why do we need that if even the unborn fetus - according to you - could make such decisions, and you allegedly know how to understand their opinion? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

She doesn't have to check out anything. It's you who should check out the dictionary. baby • noun (pl. babies) 1 a child or animal that is newly or recently born. 2 a timid or childish person. 3 informal a person with whom one is having a romantic relationship. 4 (one’s baby) one’s particular responsibility, achievement, or concern. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/baby?view=uk * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

We're talking about abortion now. There is no baby yet. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Would you please provide any proof to support your statement that a fetus (in any state, including just a fertilized egg, as you didn't seem to specify any restrictions) is as capable of making choices as a newborn? Once you have it done, could you please explain the proper way to ask the opinion of the fetus - or you want us all just ask you instead of fetus? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do you have any proof that the unborn fetus is capable to have choices? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

When she's going into the children section, she could remove the books from shelf and look at it. But if she wants to go to adult section, she usually goes there with me, and I'm paying attention on what she's looking for. And of course I check out everything myself; this is actually the only way to ensure she would not get 20 books and lost half of them somewhere. I have no problem with those materials being in "adult area", as long as they are available to adults. However putting Heck Finn into adult area because it contains the word "nigger" is kinda overkill. I think they do not have this software anymore. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I suggest you add a poll asking "have you read all I wrote here"? The results may surprise you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't get it. Are the community activists bring those books to your kid's room? We're talking about public library which simply makes content available, and is no different in this case from TV or Internet. You're already filtering what your kids could watch on TV or DVD. You're filtering the web sites they could visit. You can also filter what books YOU consider inappropriate to your kids, and I can (and do) filter what I consider appropriate for my kids. And I do not want someone else to make this choice for me. I do not understand how a book staying somewhere on a shelf could scare away a reasonable adult person. Likewise a bunch of Christian books in my public library do not scare me away, even though I would not let my kids to read any of them. However I would not go so far to insist they need to be removed from the library, even though I consider them totally inappropriate for kids. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, anti-life assumes you would want or even encourage everyone to take their life. While, in fact, you only recognize their rights to do so, that's why it's called pro-choice. However making a choice regarding to life is done by a specific individual, and that's why supporting death penalty and wars is truly anti-life. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, you're not. You're ending life of fetus - which is not the same thing as child, both in common sense and legal meanings. Acting as it was true you're no different than someone who would force everyone to do dinner prays just because he himself believes in Jesus. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, this is not radical. Ty my standards it's kinda conservative. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Which is kinda crappy. As far as I know, most - if not all - major changes in society were done against so-called "community standards". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But what's wrong with it? Apparently just a few posts ago you seem to be ok with murder if the "cause" is right. Or you're only against "murdering" fetuses, but once it's born it is fine? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No one is. Just ask them. In the past 35 years, 132 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The irony there is that those people who have problems with the word "nigger" and "derogatory sexual and political epithets" apparently have no such problems with the Bible which describes premarital insect sex, murder, slavery and hatred (and which I'd say is the most hateful book I've ever read). The problem is that if we follow everyone's idea of content that is inappropriate for children, our libraries will be empty. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

As my accountant says, at this moment it makes sense to use various legal schemes to reduce taxable income only if your personal taxable income is over $600K a year. The reason is that those schemes themselves cost money, and the cost is quite prohibitive on smaller amounts. Increasing taxes might make those schemes viable on smaller amounts (say, 300K/year), but probably won't go significantly lower below this amount because of required initial expenses. This means that you will actually get more money by taxing middle class (who has money but not enough to utilize most legal taxation avoidance schemes) than by taxing rich (who will just switch to sheltering and as a result you'll collect even less money than before). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is the first step. The second should be introducing "legislating during influence" offense with random tests before or after voting for specific bills. It's not legal to drive under influence of pot, even prescribed by MD, so it shouldn't be legal to legislate under influence as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The more I read about this, the more this initiative makes sense to me. And the more I believe half of legislature will fail the test. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In my opinion this kind of choice alone does not tell anything about how good the mother is, and does not justify welfare. I believe it's your opinion too, as you're not supporting her with your money. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *