LOL AuntJeanne! Haven't been to Heaven so can't say for sure, but as I understand the Bible, those who are "asleep in Christ" will be resurrected and receive "glorified bodies"so I will hazard a guess that the bodies will be fully developed with no flaws...I think a newborn baby is the closest thing to innocence on this earth, so I think the unborn is too and thus would go to Heaven...

Personally I think life begins with implantation--which can take several hours after fertilization, so yes, I firmly believe in birth control and the morning after pill...

To be perfectly frank and honest, I have a lot of trouble with the rape and incest issue: I think if the woman carries the baby full term, the father of said baby should pay the State child support for the life of that child and should not be given paternal rights. If the mother cannot bear the thought of carrying a rapist's child (and I regard incest as rape) then I think the depriving her of a safe abortion when clearly the pregnancy would be an extreme hardship on her mental and emotional well being would be barbaric...

I think if the woman carries the baby full term, the father of said baby should pay the State child support for the life of that child and should not be given paternal rights.

Bollocks. What about good fathers and lousy mothers?

That quote was about rape and incest.

Thank you Kathy! I get in enough hot water w/o being misquote/understood ,,,,
Frankly i don't run the world; abortion is abortion and it seems hypocritical to approve of abortion in one case and not another, but there are extreme cases where I think it might be a mercy--besides medical reasons, rape and incest I think would qualify as possible reasons for abortion...

life begins with implantation

The problem with that is twofold.

Firstly its simply false. The sperm and the ovum which joined to form a zygote were both alive, and the zygote is also alive before it implants. The issue isn't about when "life" begins, its about when humanity begins.

Secondly, it would be an arbitrary point in any case. Why pick implantation rather than conception, or when cells start to differentiate, or when a heart develops, or a brain, or when the fetus "quickens" or .....

There's a sense in which that has to be an arbitrary judgement of course, but it seems to me that equating a blob of cells with "humanity" is way to early.

Cattleman, I asked her when she felt life begins. I had told when I think life begins. She used the same terms as I did and I started it. I will continue to use the same terms...imo, life begins when the brain starts functioning, just as life ends when the brain stops functioning. I think people understand the issue.

I think people understand it, but to keep repeating something that simply isn't true muddies the water. "Alive" and "not alive" are far clearer cut than "potential human" and "human".

BTW, your "brain" notion doesn't work either. Bacteria doesn't have a brain, nor does a carrot. Are you really wanting to say they aren't alive?

Cattleman. when I am communicating, my primary concern is whether or not people understand what I mean. They do. I find the thing that most easily and quickly stifles communication is someone's need to pay more attention to how someone says something rather than what they are saying. There are some extremely intelligent people who can not communicate because they get caught up in technicalities. This is a discussion about abortion. I assumed that people realize we are talking about humans and not carrots.

I really wish I could find the article again. It was by either a minister or a member of a religious orgnaization. Anyway, he said we need to determine or realize when "humanity" begins, not life.

He said only after a baby is born can it be considered human. It can then think, interact with the world, learn etc. Before that, it is life, but not human just as plants and animals are life. The things that make us "human" are far more complicated and start at birth.

Just wanted to throw that in the ring...........off to go home and eat my pot roast that is in the Crockpot.

Interesting. I see humanity more as dealing with the social aspects of being a human. That, imo, does not relate to abortion. There are different definitions for humanity. I can see that one becomes part of humanity at birth. I do not buy that one becomes human only at birth. We do not know what goes on in a little brain at what point in a pregnancy. I think it is arrogance to assume that a baby farther along in the pregnancy is not thinking and even learning. There have been studies with music etc that show that some babies, if not all, do react to outside stimuli....is that not interaction? I have to disagree with this person's theory although it is really interesting. I think the things that make us human start before birth. I do not think human is the same as humanity. Others may use a different definition.

There have been studies with music etc that show that some babies, if not all, do react to outside stimuli....is that not interaction?

So do unborn puppies and kittens.

oskar, that's true. I think that puppies and kittens are, at some point in pregnancy, puppies and kittens. They don't just become puppies and kittens at birth.

I think I didn't explain it as well as I could have GAJ.

The reason I object to people talking about "life" in the abortion debate is because it serves the anti-choice crowd's purposes, not the pro-choice crowd's.

That is because the distinction between "life" and "death" is MUCH more clear cut than the distinction between "fetus" and "human". That means that they can draw an arbitrary line in the sand (like "conception") when no such line actually exists.

The transition from "embryo" to "human" is much more like the transition from "hairy" to "bald". We know the difference, but we can't point to some exact point when one becomes the other.

I do not choose my words based on what either of those two sides may use. In a conversation about abortion we are discussing humans. Imo, when a person, in that context, says life they mean human life whether the word human is there or not. Regardless, the anti choice people I have heard consider the embryo/fetus, at any point, to be a baby, meaning a human baby. So, I don't see that the choice of words changes anything in their minds. They feel life begins at conception. They believe the fertilized egg is a human with human rights. In their minds their is no transition from embryo to human, it is a human from conception, the human develops but is a human from the start. I say potential human until the brain starts functioning.

I do not choose my words based on what either of those two sides may use.
Then choose them accurately, not in a way that gives one side of the debate an advantage.

I don't think you are going to convince the rabid anti-choice people either, since their objections are ultimately religious. But their are people in the middle.

Ah, but you see, my words are accurate in context. You are the one trying to make my comment about when life begins into some greater statement. Most people take it in context. This group is just a small number of people. We discuss things. We are not trying to convince others (outside of the group)of anything. I am not trying to convince you of anything. The people in the middle who I debate with, take things in context, too. If I were to say to them "humanity" starts whenever, they would think I was being silly or uppity. If I say to them life begins when the brain starts functioning, they know I'm talking about human life and a human brain. That differs with those who think it starts at conception. Very few people that I know of deny that at some point in the pregnancy, it becomes a life, in context, a human life. Part of the debate is when, and the other part is does a woman have a right to end it before and after that point. Most women I know who are pro choice acknowledge that aborting after the time when the baby could survive outside is killing a baby, a human baby. That does not mean the government can order a woman to keep carrying it. Pro choice means it's the woman's decision regardless. Using the words I use, the way I use them, does not give either side an advantage. My words state my opinion. I have no desire to present yours.

There's a reason why anti-abortionists refer to themselves as "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortionists". They are trying to take the moral high ground and you are going along with them. The fact that its a nonsensical description doesn't matter, its the emotional effect they are after.

And that's not just the language used by this group. Yes, most people know what it "really means" so why not say what it really means? Is it really so hard to type "human life"?

Sigh. This is really boring. I haven't noticed a lot of anti choice people in this group. I assume you are talking about this group since you said typing. If you want to think my words are nonsensical, inaccurate or whatever the question would be why should I care what you think. If you want to think I am enabling the anti choice people, giving comfort to the enemy or whatever, the question would be why should I care what you think. The anti choice people I talk to know how I feel and know I am not on their side. The pro choice people I talk to know how I feel and that I do support choice. They are the people who matter, not someone who tries to tell others how to state their views. How hard is it to accept what I mean and what others understand instead of demanding I type a word in here that isn't necessary? Do you really think the anti choice people are rejoicing because of what I type in here?

I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression Jeanne.
I wasn't saying your views are nonsensical or inaccurate. I wasn't in any way attacking you.

But the fact remains, if you are willing to accept their way of putting things then you are supporting them whether you mean to or not. Language is important. How we say things is important. If you use their way of referring to things you have already given them a boost. The issue isn't about "life", its about abortion. If you are willing to let them shift the goal posts then that's your choice. But that's what they are doing.

And why should you care what I think? Because we are two human beings in what I thought was a reasonable discussion. I care what you think.

Abortion is one thing. For some it is not simply a yes or no. It depends on when life begins, In context, human life. Some think after life begins there should not be abortions. When I explain my view I am using my words. not accepting theirs. Language is important. For me and many others when life begins, in context human life, has a lot to do with views on abortion. Denying it is a human life at some point before birth will not change anyone's mind either. While at no point do I think the government should force a woman to carry a fetus/baby, I strongly disagree with abortions after the brain starts functioning. However, the most important thing is it is not about abortion, it is about choice, about a woman's right to have control over what happens with her body. I oppose abortion after the point but support a woman's right to choose. There are a lot of people like me. It's just not as simple as you try to make it. Word games don't work with people like me. I want to help stop abortions after the point so I have to discuss life. I want to do it with education and improvement of support to help women make the choice earlier and give them all the choices. The idiots in Texas wanted to ban all abortions. At least we got it up to 20 weeks. They still threw in a bunch of things that make it more difficult if not impossible for poorer women. Sometimes we have to use different words for different people, we have to emphasize different things. There aren't just two sides on abortion or life or choice. When they say life they mean human life. In the context of this discussion, when I say life I mean human life. That doesn't mean I am using their words. That is a silly argument. Language is important. Communication is most important. You want one word put in to make my views acceptable to you. That is simply, not my goal, Cattleman. I don't care if it's acceptable to you. I still have to ask, do you really think what I type here has the anti choice people rejoicing.

Common ground (as I see it) between pro-choice and pro-life:
1. At some time before birth, the fetus becomes a baby.
2. Late term abortions are generally not a good practice except in medical emergencies
3. There are issues complicating the abortion issue which need to be addressed: rape, incest, congenital disabilities, fetal pain, maternal emotional well being, etc.

For sure i don't know all the answers...and for every "answer" there always seems to pop up another question....

Truthfully, except in cases when the birth of the baby would be traumatic to the baby I think the 20 week marker is fine.

I don't care why the Mother decides to abort, it is her choice. I believe that what your ex believed, a baby should be loved and cared for to be brought into the world. If the mother puts the baby up for adoption that is her choice. If she opts for abortion that is her choice, too.

However, once the mother decides to have the baby - get off drugs!!!! This Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome is not fair to the baby. Whether you keep her or you give her up.

Its more than "word games" Jeanne.

Abortion is about choice. One way to put it is to ask the question "does another entity, have the right to be a parasite on a woman's body". Not a nice way of putting it I guess, but a real one non-the-less.

Then the question becomes one of consent.

Make your own choices and let others do the same.