It isn't a fetus until a few days to after implantation in the uterin wall.  It is a zygote up until that point and a zygote can survive for a short time outside the womb, because it needs to as it awaits implantation during the normal process following natural conception.

I can't speak for all pro-choice people out there but I for one am all for abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control.

And I won't deny that some pro-choice groups distort the facts to bring in the cash, but the same can be said about the pro-life crowd.  In fact any group that depends on donations may at one time or another distort things to get more money, look at political campaigns for that as well.

I think I've answered this already, I was a potential life.  I wasn't a life until I was actually born.

You are misconstrueing what I was saying.  A fetus under 22 weeks of gestation can't survive out of the womb no matter what measures are taken to keep it alive.  there is no life support system in existence today that can do that.  However there are life support systems that can keep help them survive after 22 weeks, the further along they are in gestation the better their chances.  After they are born yes they require assistance to live, but with that assisstance they are able to live.  That is part of my distinction between a fetus and a child.

Ok look everyone, it's obvious that I'm not going to change your opinions and you're not going to change mine.  So let's just agree to to disagree and be done with this whole thing as this thread has gotten way out of hand which is why I attempted to avoid this discussion in the first place.

With that, we can all agree.   

The trouble is, even if the precise instant that an egg becomes a 'human' can be determined scientifically (which is itself something of a dubious notion), that won't move us any closer to resolving the Constitutional dilemma.

El-D

Before I comment on what you said, I just want to say even though I disagree with you on some issues (like this one) I appreciate what you bring to the discussion. 

Now on your above statement.  What reason would the pro-life people distort the truth for cash?  How is this done?  They don't receive any funds that I'm aware of like PP is getting.   Most of the pro-life groups I know about work only on donations giving out their services for free.   It's not nearly the industry nor as powerful as the (government backed)  PP group is. 

In April the annual report for PP revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion with reported profits of $115 MILLION!!!! Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal level.  The abortion business is a big racket, based on lies and nothing more.  Follow the money trail. 

In 2006 alone there were 289,750 abortions.  Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers.  But the execs of PP have escaped government scruitny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices and deadly windfall.    Why is this? 

How come our athletes are being stripped of medals, other awards, or status and hauled before the media and congressmen for doping or gambling etc and nothing is said bout PP's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notificaltion laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail?   Why is this?

Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by PP clinics in Kansas, where DA Phil Kline has filed a 107 count criminal complaint against the abortion racket with charges ranging from falisfying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?   Huh? 

For whatever reason Washington has turned a blind eye to this bloody government funded business.   These obsene profits are made only from tragedy. 

How does this even compare to the pro-life movement who will do anything to save the life of a child and mother?  Instead of taking from these confused, scared moms to be, they give to them, helping them in every way imaginable to keep the life growing inside them with no benefits to themselves. 

So I refuse to vote for any elected leader who backs this murderous organization because I believe they too have blood on their hands. 

It's not rocket science to know when life begins.  From a scientific, biological standpoint, human life begins at conception when the sperm from the male fertilizes the female egg.  I know, I know, you don't want to hear this....but it doesn't make it less so.  This is Science.  True Science. 

Once joined the sperm and egg form a new individual human possessing its own unique genetic code.  About 21 days later this new life has a heartbeat.  The chromosomal composition of the newly formed individual remains unchanged whether it is permitted to reach maturity or not.  The DNA is all there and in place. 

Not until we have a new emancipation.

I don't have any specific examples of where the pro-life movement distorted facts to get money.  I do know from reading an article a while back that Crisis Pregnancy Centers were using bad data (extremely out dated or just plain false information)  in a lot of the information that they were handing out to essentially con women into avoiding Planned Parenthoods when all the women wanted was birth control advice or assisstance in putting a child up for adoption.

As for Planned Parenhood taking in a lot of money keep in mind that any abortions that they perform are NOT federally funded.  They are paid for by donations and by the individual getting the abortion.  They depend on money from donations for most of what they do from providing low cost birth control to counselling services for women and men alike.  Abortions make up about 10% of the services that they provide yearly.  Not sure if that helps or not.  I really can't speak to their lieing because what you have said is news to me, it doesn't make it wrong it's just news to me.

From my experience PP doesn't go out seeking women to perform abortions on.  In fact when the women come in for the procedure they counsel them to try and desuade the woman from getting the procedure done.  The last thing that PP wants is for a woman to come in and get the procedure only to regret the decision in a day, week, or months later.  That's the difference.

This is news to me.  I'm not denying it, simply stating that this is the first I've heard of PP showing teens how to circumvent laws.  If they are doing that they should be hauled in front of congress to explain their actions.

And again I thank you for the debate on this issue but I know you aren't going to change my opinion on abortion and I doubt I will change yours so we will just have to agree to disagree.

I agree with this.  If it weren't for the need for a mother to nurture it to independent viability, there would be no issue.  The logical extension of your line of reasoning is to get the troublesome mother out of the equation, once we have the technical ability to do so.  I believe that day is a long way off but the whole notion smacks of '1984'.

Actually I think it is Brave New World.

Good job.  Aldous Huxley is the author.  Written about a young man from a 'savage reservation' (similar to the indian reservations of today) who was raised on Shakespeare.  He is invited to see this "Brave New World" where babies come from labs, their social class pre-designated, and in which sex is purely recreational.  Like basketball.  Co-ed, basketball. 

It's a good read.

Yep, I blew the reference.  BNW it was.

How did a discussion about the VP for the office that is the highly influential in countless issues suddenly all about abortion?  I know that in this country there are a LOT of people more interested in other things.  Or is the President to be and his VP supposed to pander to special interest?  (Yeah, I know they DO...which is a sin if there ever was one...but should they be?)

Sorry if this was asked on pages 3-6.  Lula's one issue voting rants on one of the earlier pages were too pathetically predictable to be interesting, so I just skipped to the end.

Hey Lula...who caused death to exist in the first place?  That's right.  Now shut up.

Well Ock, did you read the original blog?  We've made a bit of a turn but not a blind curve here.....much of the discussion starting from the original posting had to do with the President picking a pro-abort VP. 

And while that is just one issue out of many we could have discussed it's the one I picked because it was getting lots of press at the time I wrote this. 

The issue is important to me because as a pro-lifer I believe abortion is murder.  So when I choose my next President I prefer to choose one who doesn't have blood on his hands. 

Obama is extreme in his pro-abortion views even to the extent that he has a history of backing any movement that would limit a doctor or nurse from assisting a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion.  I read this from an article called Obamicide showing how deep Obama really goes with this issue. 

"Although Obama's love affair with partial-birth abortion has served to chip away at his finely polished veneer, his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) has revealed to the world that backward extremism permeates his marrow.
 
BAIPA very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is "born alive" – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.

During his recent "not-ready-for-primetime" appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback forum, Obama was asked at what point "a baby gets human rights."  His answer was shocking:  "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade," said Obama.
 
What?!  Above my pay grade?  And this man wants to be the leader of the free world?  Even the most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human rights as soon as it's born, right?  But Obama couldn't say that.  His opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn't believe it.  And if he had said it, he'd have been called on it."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=229976
 

And you're not in your pro-life views?  Just asking.

Are not most people?  After all, it is why we outlaw murder.

[quote]During his recent "not-ready-for-primetime" appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback forum, Obama was asked at what point "a baby gets human rights." His answer was shocking: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade," said Obama.

What?! Above my pay grade? And this man wants to be the leader of the free world? Even the most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human rights as soon as it's born, right? But Obama couldn't say that. His opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn't believe it. And if he had said it, he'd have been called on it."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=229976[/quote]

Good point, KFC.

This is who Obama IS deep down inside....He showed the world this side of himself by answering this way.

Doesn't this say it all when considering whether or not Obama's worthy of the highest office in the free land of AMerica?

Oh, wait a minute, freedom isn't that free...it comes with a price tag.

At the Democrat convention we've heard over and over again from all the main players, Michelle, Hillary, Bill, Biden....elect us, we'll do this and that "for the children". Yet, the group of innocent children growing in the womb are denied even consideration by the Democrats. For Obama, it's above his pay grade to even think about their humanity and dignity, let alone unalienable right to be born given by God Himself.

Well, duh.  There ya go with the religious argument again.  Since there will never be a way to make this a legally 'apples to apples' comparison, equating abortion with murder is a religious position.  A perfectly acceptable and admirable religious position, BTW, one that those who espouse should abide by.  I've said all along the conundrum is a Constitutional one, not a moral one.

DRGUY posts:

Medical facts are that every abortion--- no matter within hours of conception or several days, or 2 months, 4, 6 or right up until the 9th month as in partial birth abortion--- kills. Abortion is imposing death on the baby...is that morally right or morally wrong?  Is imposing death on an unborn baby civilized?

That killing by abortion isn't murder is an argument from moral relativism....and the morality of a country is best judged by how we treat own  children...after all , they are our posterity.  

I have purposefully avoided the religious aspects of the debate.  I merely said that I found most people to be pro-life.  I fail to see how that is religious.

With respect, there is a lot selective hearing going on here, not to mention ossification of opinion.  How is it that I can agree with someone & they not realize it?

When you assigned religion to my post.  I am very comfortable in my faith, and very set on this issue.  But I have learned not to debate the issue as it is akin to beating ones head against a brick wall.  I will discuss it around the issues of biology and science, and even nibble at the edges with semantics.  But I choose not to get involved in the religious aspect for personal reasons.  I was just pointing out that my response was not based in religion (and at the same time taking a tongue in cheek tweak at the title of pro-life).

One can be gay without being a homosexual.  And one can be pro-life and still support abortion.  Terms are being co-opted by special interest groups for pc purposes, and that I do take umbrage with.

Well, KFC.  McCain has chosen Sarah Palin from Alaska.  Very much Pro-Life and NOW I think I can vote for McCain. 

Thanks to AnthonyR I have been researching Sarah for the VP position.

I like the capitalized NOW.  Perhaps women can drag that organization back to its purpose instead of being toadies for philandering democrats.

yes, Sarah will appeal to strong women.  Many of those who were going to vote for Hillary may now vote for McCain.  Evangelicals will be happy.  Women will be happy.  Those who are sick of same ol' politics will be happy.  It's a win/win as far as I'm concerned.  I can't think of anything bad about this ticket right now.  Obama must be worried and Hillary must be steaming.....if anything happens to McCain, our first female President will NOT be a Clinton.

Can you imagine what the next election might bring......Clinton vs Palin?  Now that would be verrrrrry interesting.

hahaha so you missed my prediction on August 25th on Island Dog's site?  https://forums.joeuser.com/322157 

I too have been researching her and have been rooting for her ever since. 

Looks like we're in total agreement on this one AD.  I think McCain will win this now. 

Ha, I hadn't seen your prediction KFC.  You done good!  Sarah Palin is a winner for McCain.