Steven Shelikoff wrote:

I'm not denying anything. Only downplaying the significance of the
"health issue" as a criteria for choosing abortion.

Of course you'd have to downplay the significance of the health issue,
along with any other real issue that doesn't fit your opinion.

That's a cheap shot. I only meant that the "health" issue is not the
focal point, or the germaine issue, when most women contemplate
abortion. If you wish to debate that, I'd love to see the supporting
evidence.


Abortion is normally not done for health reasons, but for convenience.
Shallow, callous, immoral, and irresponsible, but convenience.

It doesn't really matter what you think the reasons are. Your morality
and whether you believe it's callous, shallow and irresponsible isn't an
issue here. First because in a free society it shouldn't translate to
another person with their own right to control their reproductive
process and second because I thought we decided to restrict the
discussion to legal issues and leave morality and religion out of it.

Steve, while we can agree that specific, recognized, and organized
religions can be excepted from the discussion, because they have no real
relevance, the same cannot be said for morality. Our whole legal system,
and the basis by which the basic laws are created, is based of a
particular sense of morality. Morality transcends religion, and it's the
ruler by which we gauge our actions. Without morality, how could we
justify a ban on any sort of killing? Afterall, it could be argued that
it's someone's personal choice, to kill another. But we have a sense of
morality which says that the taking of another life is wrong, and we
wrote laws to address this. Abortion is the same thing. As long as

Yes, yes, wonderful, all well and good. But it's not the issue here at
all. The issue here is that legally, today, abortion is not murder.
That's the law, with all of the morality behind it.

For which you deny that a mistake could not have been made, based on an
improper assumption that the unborn fetus is not a life, worth
considering, either legally or morally?


people feel that it is morally wrong, there will be people who push for
laws to restrict it. One could make the case that those who see nothing
wrong with the callous termination of a life, and who justify it as "a
dependant fetus" or "it's not really a life until it's born" and any
other excuse, are only trying to appease their conscience, for their own
lack of morality.

And one can also make the case that those who want to push their
morality on others are presumptious *******s.

Most criminals also feel that way. But we see who's viewpoint is more in
line with the preservation of a harmonious society.



No it doesn't. Society reserves the right to pass sentence on
individuals who have been found to be a danger to society. Remember,
we're talking legally, not morally here.

Of course it does. Society will not fare any differently if the
individual spends the rest of his life in jail or is killed.

It costs money to house, feed, and provide medical care for these
scumbags. We are running out of room to keep the seemingly increasing
numbers of the criminal element. Plus, there is always the chance that
he'll either escape, or be parolled by a bleeding heart liberal, who
feels that he's "suffered long enough".


Money is not the issue since it costs more to kill them.

??????? I'd like to hear your rationale for that statement. How could it
be cheaper to feed, house, cloth, and give medical care to an inmate for
30+ years, than to give him one big electric shock, or a shot of lethal
chemicals?

Because of our legal system. Look up the figures for yourself.

I assume you're talking about the red tape surrounding the often long
process, of being on death row. If that's the case, I might be inclined
to believe you. But that only underscores another reason to streamline
the process, and eliminate the red tape. As it were, it still only costs
a bit more for legal representation for appeals. Keeping a prisoner
alive on death row, is no different than the money spent to support a
life sentence.

Otherwise, once the scumbag is dead, it costs no further money.


Room is not an
issue because room will always be made for someone guilty of a capital
crime.

But at what cost? Do we continue to build more and more prisons (In
places where people shout NIMBY!), or do we start letting "lesser"
criminals (like drug dealers) loose to make room for the really "bad"
guys?

Again, look up the figures for the percentage of the prison population
that is on death row and/or are in for life without parole compared to
the overall prison population. There will always be room for them
because they are an insignificant percentage. If you really want to
make room for more really bad guys, all you have to do legalize and
control and tax certain recreational drugs like pot. Then you'd have
all the room in prison you need.

The old, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy?
There is no societal benefit to legalizing controlled substances. They
only benefit simple minded people, with low self esteem, and a lack of
discipline, who seemingly can't cope with life, without an "escape".


There aren't really that many of them compared to the rest of
the prison population. Parole is not an issue because capital crimes
generally are not elligable for parole no matter whether a bleeding
heart liberal thinks they've suffered long enough.

Like you've said before, laws can be changed. Pardons can be issued, and
as long as the criminal lives, there is always a chance that he could be
set free.

That's true. Which is why I'm for the death penalty. I just can't
understand how you can be, given your stated belief that it's wrong to
put one life ahead of another.

If they're on equal terms.

I've tried to explain it before. The death penalty is justified, due to
the criminal having committed a crime (usually murder), by which he
deserves the ultimate forfeiture of his rights, and as an assurance that
this person can no longer be a danger to society.
A far cry from the termination of innocent lives for simple convenience,
and an escape from responsibility.

You are assuming too much here. We have no way of knowing who will be in
any target area, at any given time.

Of course we do. When reconisance photos show civilians surrounding
military targets, we know they are there. Hell, we even make that
information public ... and bomb the crap out of it anyway.

That sort of data changes by the minute. We cannot be certain at any
given point just WHO is where. Afterall, we sent in missiles not once,
but twice based on info on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. We still
can't verify if we actually got him. Most people in the know, now
believe he's still alive. So if we can't rely on the accuracy of hour
old info, how can we ever justify any attack?


for abortion the INTENT of the
process is to end the pregnancy. The killing of the fetus is the
unintended but necessary byproduct.

Since one goal is dependant on the other, they cannot be looked at as
separate issues. That comparison is little more than an exercise in
semantics.

Wrong. There are plenty processes where one step follows and depends on
another and yet can still be looked at as separate issues.

Name them.

You'll have
to do better if you want to single out abortion as an exception to that.

No, you'll have to do better than a simple contradiction to make your
case that a cause and effect relationship can be considered separate
issues when they are intrinsincally linked.

One is a direct result of the other. It's THAT simple. That makes them
linked and not seperate. I want to see you realistically do one without
the other. You're starting to tapdance like a liberal now.

Follow the logical criteria, and you'll see where the chips fall. Were
the victims of the "collateral damage" the intended target? No. Did we
willfully seek out and plan to kill those people? No.

They were not the intended target. But we did willfully seek out and
plan to kill those people, yes.

No, Who are "those people"? Innocent civilians are never a legitimate
military target. Our targets were exclusively command and control
centers, and military installations.

Exact same situation as abortion.

I don't see it that way. Besides, you cannot compare a justified
military campaign, to the killing of an innocent life.



But I'd love to see a general officer or President
brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter when there is
collateral damage as a result of their policy or actions. The fact that
they aren't most likely means that *legally*, collateral damage does not
fit any of your definitions above.

Because war is handled quite differently than civilian law. The
"victorious" side is not charged with anything as a consequence of
suppressing a threat. The "aggressors", can be charged with "war
crimes", such as the case with the Nueremburg trials, Milosevic, and
likely Saddam, if he's ever found alive.

Ah, so you're saying morality has nothing to do with it and it's just
that the rights of the more powerful entity take precedence. You're
making progress.

Morality does have much to do with it. Vanquishing a threatening enemy
is a justifiable killing. Abortion is not.


Hmmmm. You finally admitting that there is no such thing as a
consistent set of morals, and that whatever ones you believe to be true
may not be right afterall? Or are you just admitting that you like to
make up whatever rules fit into your preconceived notions as you go
along and that you're morally inconsistent?

There is no universal truth. I did not make up the rules. And I do not
enjoy being taken to task for the events which put them into place. But
if your only justification for abortion, is that since morality is
inconsistent people therefore have the right to selectivly make
judgement calls to fit their convenience, it sends a very frightening
message that our very moral fiber is open to individual interpretation,
and the door to anarchy cracks open.....


Not a moral one.

Then there was not a moral one for restricting abortion either ... at
least by a consistent set of morals, not your conflicting set of morals.

Then by your own twisted logic, there is no moral justification for ANY
law. Welcome to anarchy.

I would agree with you, that keeping the government out of decision
making, is a noteworthy goal. However, this is not about government
control as much as it is a moral decry of the killing of another
innocent life, for no other reason than it's convenient.

Good. You can morally decry it all you want, as long as you don't get
the government to prevent it.

The who else would? Who is in charge of enforcing those rules which are
supposedly based on morality?


I don't have a problem is the fetus is ruled as genetically damaged, or
the fetus is a direct threat to the life of the mother. But I have a BIG
problem when abortion is used to cover up promiscuity and
irresponsibility.

OMG, now you're getting into the government making decisions on whether
to abort a fetus based on it's genetics, and whether the government
would rule it as "genetically damaged." While I also have a problem
with using abortion to cover up promiscuity and irresponsibility, I have
a MUCH BIGGER problem with the government ruling a fetus as "genetically
damaged" and basing abortion decisions on that.

The government? How about the OB, in charge? You can tell early on in a
pregancy if the fetus will have severe birth defects, or other
"problems" in this case, the choice would be the mother's, with the
endorsement of her doctor.

Ah, finally we can end this. Legally, society has specifically exempted
aborting a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy from being murder.
Just like your other exemptions.

The exemption of a fetus from protection under the law, is immoral.

Preventing a woman from having the option of a safe and legal abortion,
is immoral.

Why? There is no moral basis for protecting the right to end a pregancy.


Why should the mother be given the right to play God? It's not her
choice either.

Of COURSE it's her choice. It's certainly more her choice than yours.

Not it's not. The mother is only the vessel by which a life is
constructed. She has no more right to interfere with it, than anyone
else. I know if I envoke the name of God, that people get all weak in
the knees, and fly off the handle, and start looking for Jerry Fallwell
clones, but that's how I believe.


If the mother decides to have
an abortion, who are YOU to say it's not God's will that it be done and
God is acting through her? How can you or anyone else be so sure of
what God's will is?

Since we cannot be sure, we need to err on the side of morality, and
give the benefit of the doubt that God would prefer that all life which
he has blessed, he would want to come full term.

Why do you have to err on any side? Just you don't play God at all and
let the mother make her own decisions.

Because it's not her decision to make!

A simple stroke of a pen, and you're supposed to lower the bar for
morality? I'm sorry, but it's just not that easy.

Again, we're talking about legality here. Legally, abortion is not
murder. That's just something you have to come to terms with. It's a
self evident fact. I'm just hoping we don't lower the bar for morality
by making abortion illegal.

I would see it as raising the bar, as it will reduce the number of
shameless killing of innocent lives, any one of which could be the next
Einstein or Mozart.


Which has no bearing at all on the current viability of the fetus or of
the terminal patient. How do you know the cure for whatever they have,
even if it's brain death, won't come about the day after they are
terminated?

I don't know for sure, whether a cure for some illness would be found.
You make a good case for cryogenics. But I DO know, that a normal fetus
stands a VERY good chance of being born healthy, if allowed to. Those
odds are much better.

Which again, doesn't matter a single bit so there's no point belaboring
it. When the normal fetus is born healthy, legally killing it is not an
option.

And allowing to to make it to that point is an equal moral imperative.

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record" cases
as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much
easier morally, for people to accept abortion, if they truly believe
that "it's only a bunch of cells", and not an individual life. When
abortion first became legal, there were many people who believed that a
fetus didn't become a life until its head popped out, after 9 months.
That's why I beleive that abortion was made legal before the issue of
"when it becomes a life" was fully explored. I would support a
moratorium on abortion until the issue is finally resolved.

I may have to accept the fact that the law states that abortion is
legal. I do not accept that it's morally justified.

That's true. But you do have to accept the fact that you're judging it
by your morals, which are not necessarily the same as everyone else.

You make it sound like I'm alone here. Like I said before, if we are
going to hold a court of judgement, everytime a particular moral comes
under question, we might as well abandon all of our laws, since they are
all ultimately based on a moral premise. If we don't uphold these morals
as standards, then the rationale for any law becomes subjective.



Collateral damage is not accidental death. It took the willful act of
someone else to end the victim's life. It's not like a car accident.

It IS an accidental killing, unless the victim was the intended target.

In the case of where the innocent victim is forced to be in the
proximity of a military target and the target is destroyed, it is NO
accident.

Forced? Who forced them?

The power brokers (i.e., the ones with the guns) in whatever country
we're fighting. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Then we cannot be held responsible for the desperate and despicable acts
of the enemy's leadership.

And what about the police officer who does intend to shoot someone, and
pulls the trigger and hits them and kills them. But it turns out that
it was the wrong person and in the heat of the moment, the officer
thought they had a gun pointed at him.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the ensuing investigation,
the officer could be charged with reckless homicide, or it could be
ruled as a justified action. Police officers are under a great deal of
stress, and often have to make split second decisions, which could
result in their life being placed on the line. Sometimes, in the flash
of a second, a pack of cigarettes could be mistaken for a gun. The last
thing a perp, should be doing when a cop shouts the order to halt, is to
reach into their pocket for something. There's no way the cop can know
what's in your pocket, and he has to assume the worst.

My point exactly, which is why it's not an accident.

That particular case is not. But that's not the original case which I
presented.

You're wrong. It falls under the exact same criteria. Just like war,
safe and legal abortion is a necessary evil, trading human life for
freedom.

Abortion is only "necessary", if the health of the mother is threatened.
Any other case and it becomes purely optional.

And who's life for who's freedom? And at what cost, and for what reason?



You are so entirely inconsistent in your opinions that it's not even
funny anymore. It's actually getting pretty sad to see how confused you
are. Two paragraphs above, you say that war is a necessary evil in our
society. One paragraph above you say no one has the right to decide
life or death ... only God can decide that. Well, which is it? Can
only God decide life or death OR do men have that right when they war?

In the Bible, God specifically allows for war. There is not such passage
which allows for abortion. I am not the one who's confused here. Part of
that may be your inability to differentiate between neccesary and
optional, or the difference between putting down dissention, and
societal threats, and terminating an innocent life, which poses no
threat


You CAN'T have it both ways.

But you're trying to make a univesal rule which fits all cases. Such is
not the case.


Make a decision and stick with it. Don't
be so wishy washy. Hell, I'd have no problem with you being vehemently
anti abortion IF you valued other human life as much as an unborn fetus.
But you don't.

And no one can, because not all cases are based on the same criteria.
You have to be able to evaluate each case on it's own merits.

I could turn this around and say that I'd have no problem with you being
so vehemently pro-rights, IF you valued the rights of all human life
(including the unborn fetus), But you don't.


Her rights and
responsibilities regarding the decisions that affect her body and mind
must be taken into consideration and take precedence over the fetus.

You say that, but have not made the case to support this assertion.

Easy, there are several reasons. We know the wishes of the mother when
she decides to have an abortion. We cannot know the wishes of the
fetus.

So you assume that it would not wish to live?


Safe and legal abortion is less
dangerous then a full term pregnancy.

Not always.

Then there's also the fact that God is
acting through the mother.

Fact? Fact? What fact? You're making an assumption!

It's my assertion that every baby that was
ever aborted would have, if they were allowed to be born, grown up to be
mass murderers.

And that's exactly what it is, an assumption.

God is putting the thought of aborting the fetus into
the mind of the mother to prevent an evil spawn from occuring.

More likely, selfishness and irresponsibility are putting that idea in
her head.

So it's
to society's benefit to allow the mother to exercise Gods will, and
there's no reason to put her in any more danger than necessary by
forcing her into a back alley to do God's work. That's my assertion,
and it's impossible for you to prove otherwise.

Maybe not conclusively, but it's MY assertion that God would not allow a
life to be conceived in the first place, if he didn't want it to go to
term. And that makes more logical sense.


over another, especially when it's usually not an "either-or"
proposition. Unless the result of a full term pregancy, is the death of
the mother, this argument is irrelevant.

Since you don't know that the result of a full term pregnancy won't be
the death of the mother, you have no right to prevent her from ending
the pregnancy if she feels that's in her best interest. So the argument
is completely relevant.

Medical professionals can make a very accurate prediction as to the
chances of preganacy related death.


Usually it's a decision of a life vs. someone's convenience. When viewed
in this perspective, it's a lot more callous.

Now that's an irrelevant argument.

Not in my book.


Above, you are giving YOUR life more
consideration then the innocent victims of war. Hell, you're giving
even less then your life, but your "way of life" and your freedom more
consideration then the innocent victims of war. If you were SO
concerned about giving all life equal treatment, you'd be willing to
subject yourself and America to being ruled by any two bit foreign
dictator *if* it could prevent the loss of ANY lives by fighting.

That's a stretch that I'd expect from a liberal. But I would think you'd
know better Steve.
You are using the elements of a complex concept like war, as a
justification for abortion. They're not the same thing, and there are

No, I'm not. There are plenty of better reasons to justify the
availability of safe and legal abortion then by comparing it to war.
The reason I'm comparing it to war is so that it's plainly obvious just
how inconsistent YOUR views on the value of life are. You're willing to
condemn innocent people to die just for the concept of YOUR personal
freedom. But you're not willing to let someone else do the same thing.

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Where your
arguement fails, is that you assume that I'm the only one who wants
"freedom". I am not alone in my conviction to defend our society from
those who would see to its demise. There are many people who
collectively agree on these policies. In the case of abortion, the
decision to end a life, is much too great to be left to one person.

This is getting to be such a long post, that my editor cannot load it
all. So what came afterward was lost. I've tried to snip the parts which
are outdated.