Skip to main content

I remember Obama's insightful answer at Saddleback Forum regarding when life begins. I was so proud. He is a humble and wise person. To me, there are some things that we simply do not know and may never know. The moment of life is one of them. If we believe the bible account of human life, and this diary is based on that, then no one knows absolutely when life actually enters the body of a fetus.

The bible talks of God forming man from the earth. But just because there was a body, did not mean the body was alive. It was only when God, blew or breathed into man that that person lived, functioned with mental and physical acuity. To keep things simple, I will refer to this as the "life force" in this diary.

Some babies are born fully formed but still dead on delivery - still born. Yet, some argue that life occured for these babies when the cells began to split and multiply. Did it? No one knows why babies continue to grow in the womb and yet are dead when delivered, there are many theories. We must remember, that doctors are only licensed to practice medicine, they cannot cure anyone. They keep trying things that "should work".

I do not believe the argument that life begins at conception is true, it did not happened in the begining with the first man and I do not believe it happens now. I realize that life is incubated in the womb now after the first couple, yet even now mothers talk of when they feel life in their stomachs and it is usually 3 to 4 months. Researchers claim there is documented proof of it prior to that. But no one has proof of life as the cells begin the mutation process at the moment of conception.

Obama's answer to the question of when life begins was insightful because he realized that no one really knows when a person becomes alive in the womb. He simply admitted the answer was above his paygrade. He does not know.

Bodies without "life forces" are buried on a daily basis. I believe God is Pro Choice, not only in what a woman chooses to do with her body, but in how she or anyone chooses to live their lives. He may not like the things we shose, but He allows us the choice. The choices we make today determines our destinations tomorrow and beyond. If He allows us this, then why should the government seek to usurp this freedom?

To take up a crusade for the child in a womb sounds like a great thing, but should not mitigate the rights of the mother. If abortion is against God, then let Him deal with it. In the mean time, allow his words to set the tone. God allows mankind freedom of choice to live for Him or not, with Him or not. He implictly forbids judging one another, making others feel less than they are. Afterall, He is the sole proprieter of the life force and I believe He has invested heavily in our rights to choice.

Originally posted to emcneill on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:39 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no God...... (5+ / 0-)

    so who gives a shit about his political opinion.

    "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:42:44 AM PDT

  •  I watched a Tee Vee News Show (6+ / 0-)

    from the Philippines about a single mother with 7 children and no means of support.  She was giving them each a spoonful of rice flavored with coffee for their meal.  

    The Catholic Church, which is the primary religion of the Philippines, says the use of contraception is a sin.  

    Does this example  fit the topic of your diary?

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:45:55 AM PDT

    •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beltane

      I am just agreeing with Obama that a woman has the right to chose what happens with her body. Not anyone else.

      No one knows when life actually begins.

      Even God allows us to chose what we do with our bodies, so why should the government legislate our rights.

    •  What does this have to do with God? (6+ / 0-)

      There isn't a single Catholic person on this site I would venture who believes that the Catholic Church has a clue when it comes to reproductive issues.  To extend those shortcomings to God is uncalled for.

      If you don't believe in God, then at least accept that whatever God is or isn't, She isn't defined by the utter failures of Her followers.

      Of To We. Proof of Obama's 'plagiarism'. Can we trust a person who blatantly absconds with prepositions and pronouns?

      by nsfbr on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:56:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry kiddo (0+ / 0-)

        not catholic, nor do I have any idea wha you are talking about. No church or government has a right to tell me what to do with my body!

        •  I'm sorry, what? (0+ / 0-)

          I would agree that you have no idea what I'm talking about.  I would offer that I have no idea what you are talking about as well.  

          My comment was aimed at someone who was holding up the inconsistencies of Catholic Dogma as applying somehow to God.  My comment was aimed at pointing out that God, by definition, has no real relationship to the idiocies and atrocities committed in his name.  

          Kind of like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson not being responsible for us invading Iraq.  

          Clearer?

          Of To We. Proof of Obama's 'plagiarism'. Can we trust a person who blatantly absconds with prepositions and pronouns?

          by nsfbr on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You are incorrect. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fl1972

        I am a Catholic, and the Church has the issue completely nailed.

        A new life, distinct from all others, begins at conception.  This really can't be argued from a scientific perspective.

        The real issue is when do we begin to respect this life.

        I think God was real specific when he gave the commandment "thou shall not kill".

        What more explanation is necessary?

    •  I have always (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kayakbiker, beneldon, martydd

      wondered about God and people starving.  I always wonder how God would let innocent children be born to simply starve to death.  I mean what loving God would actually allow that.  I was sitting in Mass one day, actually listening, and my pastor said that God has created a world where there is plenty of food for everyone and we are given the task to make sure we feed each other.  We need to be responsible for each other.  I took comfort in that.  I know there are some that might find it trite, but I found comfort.

  •  God is an atheist. (3+ / 0-)

    Otherwise, why would he require the constant praise and reassurence provided by religion?

    •  He also needs your money (9+ / 0-)

      George Carlin describes God as this man in the sky who is all-powerful and all-knowing, but who is chronically broke and in need of cash.

      The universe is far too vast, strange and complex for any of us to wrap our minds around it. And the Judeo-Christian God is far too small and petty to be the lord of all creation.

      The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

      by beltane on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:54:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm agnostic (at this point) but... (5+ / 0-)

      I can't imagine a God who requires constant praise and reassurance.  As I see it, that is something that humans (organized religion people) need in order to reassure themselves that they're "saved" or "chosen" or whatever it is that they need.

      I mean - if you're the Creator, Lord and Master of the entire universe, you're really not going to be enhanced or diminished by something a mere mortal would do or say.

      "I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused." - Elvis Costello

      by Oldengrey on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:03:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Bible portrays God as a nasty piece of work. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box

        Sending people to hell, smiting whole cities and populations, generally making people's lives miserable if they cross him. Not someone I'd like to be friends with.

        I'm an atheist. There's far too much nonsense in religion to take it seriously. I equate it with the thought of adults believing that Santa Claus circles the planet in a sleigh every December with presents for everyone.

        The difference is parents eventually tell children that there isn't a Santa Claus, but they never tell them there isn't a God.

    •  Not an atheist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box, martydd

      just a very very needy entity.

      The Judeo/Christian/Moslem variety, anyway.

      There are many other examples of Deity that seem downright healthy by comparison.

      Be specific.

      When you speak of God, be sure to specify which one you are speaking of. She tends to frown on those kinds of gross generalizations.

      "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly".

      by Niniane on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:14:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's Another Angle Here Too (9+ / 0-)

    Regarding God if you believe that sort of thing.

    The ahistorical (and unscientific) view that life begins at conception therefore means that "The Pill" which prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall is abortion.

    But here's the thing:

    WITHOUT the pill the best estimate we have is that ONE THIRD of all fertilized eggs do not successfully implant in the uterine wall.  ONE in THREE pregnancies fail in this manner... and if I had to pick someone responsible I'd say the guy who supposedly controls everything in the universe is a pretty good suspect.

    I'm not a God person... but I reckon as long as we perform less abortions than he does we can't be losing that many points.

    MY McCain / "Dungeons & Dragons" Character Sheet - "Funster" - L6 Male Human Rogue - S15/D18/Co16/I13/W10/Ch11 - FEAR MY UNCANNY DODGE OLD MAN!

    by TooFolkGR on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:49:42 AM PDT

  •  Thou Art God...nt (0+ / 0-)

    "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:51:52 AM PDT

  •  You're kidding, right? (0+ / 0-)

    Insightful? C'mon... That answer was pure political BS. He may not know the answer, but the question is framed to a potential President of the United States. As President, he will need to make some decisions on, at least his belief or the belief of the people he intends to serve, the issues. I sat there with my mouth open in disbelief.  

    •  Two Separate Issues (10+ / 0-)

      One is a public policy issue, and one is a private metaphysical issue.  Obama can continue the public policy that allows women to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health without having to draw a line in the sand saying that a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours and 44 minutes.


      You can have your "Under God" back when I get my "Liberty and Justice For All" back.

      by karateexplosions on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:55:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He should have come right out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Niniane

      and said that Rick Warren is a fraud and that all those who pray for money in his church are going to hell.

      The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

      by beltane on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:56:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  First get the right question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave Brown, martydd

      which was loaded with subtext.

      The question was not:

      "When does life begin?"

      It was:

      "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

      Were the original question answered definitively, the followup should be "Do the mother's human rights supercede that of the fetus, is it vice versa or are their rights equal and correlative?"

      The answer "Moment of Conception!" does not begin to address those questions.

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:05:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought his belief was pretty clear: He does (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rosemary, Pandoras Box

      not know and will not presume to know.

      That is exactly what I believe.

      I was never more proud of a political answer.

      Obama is making break-throughs in so many ways and maybe he can once and for all drain the "power" from this issue that the Republicans pander about to capture votes.

      It's about time we all recognize this issue for the idiocy it is....it's nothing more than a wedge issue, like arguing about how large the universe is and expecting our candidates to know.  Until God him/her/itself walks into the halls of Congress and testifies this is nonsense.  

      •  True enough, except for one little (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box

        (and not new!) problem with Obama's approach . . .

        During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

        •  I don't see it as a problem at all, since the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          texasmom

          majority of the nation can agree with the idea that none of us is God.  We just need leaders who actually say so and remind us about what rational and reasoned discourse is.

          •  Oooh, I don't know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karma for All

            from what I see, an awful lot of people seem to have god-like inclinations . . . (or if nothing else, their god is 100% right and other people's gods much less so)

            •  They need to be reminded that they are mixing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              two realms that need not be mixed.  We have churches and priests and ministers and mosques and temples to convince people to agree with their perception of morality.  If these are the people of God they don't need politicians to do their work for them.  

              I think people can agree to some kind of humble approach to this if we could remove the vote-harvesting power associated with it from our politicians.  

    •  i disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karma for All

      it was subtle and humble

      "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

      by Pandoras Box on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The whole issue is highly opague (4+ / 0-)

    and hardly appropriate of a topic for sound-bite answers.

    For example, life does not begin at conception, insofar as both the sperm and egg were already alive.

    But, does that make that particular life form - moments after conception - particularly valuable or unique? No, not really . . .

    I would image that the key question is when life with distinct human characteristics begins.  Which for sure can't be before human reasoning capacity is present, which in turn cannot occur before the necessary anatomical structure is present (i.e., the cerebral cortex which begins to take shape in the third trimester).

    •  I have often read that (3+ / 0-)

      Rabbinic Judaism teaches that life begins only at birth - with the first breath, I believe.

      Other traditional and religious definitions include implantation, "quickening" at 16 wks. or so, point of viability (which changes with each medical breakthrough), etc.

      Of course it is impossible to answer "correctly."

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:16:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting, (0+ / 0-)

    So you believe life begins 3-4 months into the pregnancy.  Can I assume you are against abortion after 3 months then?

    I am pro choice.

  •  A few more "insightful, wise, humble" answers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martydd

    and we are undone.  "Above my pay grade" will not fly with a public evaluating a candidate for the presidency.

    •  He used rather unfortunate termonology there (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      texasmom, martydd

      he could have used better phrasing to indicate he was essentially defering to God on the question of when human life begins.  The unfortunate use of the phrase "Above my pay grade" will be used against him in commerical soundbites.  It's a common phrase, and Americans generally associate it with the idea of deferring to another person at a higher level (higher "pay grade") than you. Americans generally don't believe anybody is "above the pay grade" of the President.

      The other disconnet there was that he was answering the question of when human life begins (clearly the question he was prepared for, as one might expect from Warren), when in fact Warren phrased the question in terms of civil rights -- i.e., recognition by the government.

      •  What difference does it make how the question was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box

        phrased?  It of course is logically dependent upon when human life begins.  As to not liking how he answered the question, what is the converse of what he said?  Yes, the President knows God and speaks for him/her/it...I don't see it as a problem at all if Obama's campaign simply maintains the non-presumption in his answer.  It was perfect.

        •  Here's the "converse" (in your words) (0+ / 0-)

          As to not liking how he answered the question, what is the converse of what he said?

          Here's a suggestion (and of course, hindsight is always 20-20, so take it with a grain of salt):  

          I know you believe human life begins at conception.  That belief is between you and God and I understand and respect that.  Some people in this country do not share that religous belief, and I understand and respect those views as well.  As for me personally, I leave the question up to God.  I don't believe that we, as human beings, really know the answer to that question.

          When you are talking about the policies of our country, much as I respect your religious views, I don't think the country can impose them on others who believe differently. I don't believe the civil rights of an embryo, at the moment of conception, are equal to the rights of the mother.  (Go on to discuss shared views of reducing abortion.)  

          This might have been a bit more straightforward and avoided the controversy that "above my pay grade" has caused.  And, it would not have been a surprise to Warren or the audience, who were clearly aware of his position going in.  

  •  I agree with you, I thought his answer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All

    was great, it shows his willingness to show humility, that he doesn't have all the answers.

    I believe in God, but these evangelicals idiots and not all of them.  Seem to think they have all the answers and they are the only ones that are right.  I don't know what version of the bible they are reading from, but thats not what I get from the bible, it is very clear that we shouldn't judge, that is left up to God.

  •  You have really given me a lot to think about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All

    i've always shied away from a theological basis for discussing choice; you have prodded me to think about choice as the ultimate gift to humanity by a higher power.

    clear.  articulate.  and very thoughtful.

    thank you.

    "When you're skating on thin ice, you might as well dance." Jesse Winchester

    by The Poet Deploreate on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:04:48 AM PDT

  •  It's about putting people in jail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karma for All

    Social conservatives want to put people in jail over abortion.  Pro-Choice people do not.  The rest is about theology.  That should not be the reason to put anyone into jail....

    It is about criminalizing abortion.  Plain and simple.

    •  It's also very much about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Roadbed Guy, Pandoras Box

      birth control.  Most of that commonly used by millions of women.  

      A HHS resolution has already been drafted:

      "The Department proposes to define abortion as ‘any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation," the draft reads.  The language uses right-wing ideology that states every fertilized human egg constitutes a life, whether viably implanted in the womb or not.

      Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, eight to 18 days after fertilization; between one-third to one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant naturally, they say, and up to 20 percent of all implantations end in miscarriage, most before the women knows she is pregnant.

      Several common forms of birth control are being targeted now.

      The truth always matters.

      by texasmom on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  call me pedantic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Roadbed Guy

    but the question is never "when does life begin"  Obviously a fertilized egg is alive, so is an unfertilized one, so are my liver cells.

    the question is one of when does a person come into existence.  Or that is the moral question.

    Sorry, its one of the moral questions. Another one is: suppose the fetus is a person, does this mean its wrong to abort? always, sometimes, never? Or I suppose you can also argue: yes the fetus is not a person, but I don't care, its still wrong to have an aborttion (again: always, sometimes, never?)

    The political question is different again, as has been pointed out.

  •  God gave us free will. (0+ / 0-)

    and the ability to do moral reasoning.  It is what sets us apart from other animals.

    But God was pretty emphatic on this point.  Thou shall not kill.

    •  That would assume, of course, that you know (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Roadbed Guy

      what God wants, and when life begins.  Those are two things I never presume to know to judge anyone by.

      •  well, he did tell us soem things. (0+ / 0-)

        And as to when life begins, it is at conception.

        When else could it be?

        Dead things don't become alive, and we are certainly alive when we are born.

        Do you think that a fertilized egg is dead?

        •  Did he talk to you about it, really? (0+ / 0-)

          That assumes that everyone believes your account of God, which is the bible, and that just isn't the case.  Religious belief is about faith, not reason.

          Cancer cells are alive and grow, we don't call them human.  

          •  do cancer cells ever grow up into (0+ / 0-)

            adult human beings?
            No?

            Then they really aren't a distinct person, and never will be.

            Unlike a fertilized egg.

            •  a fertilized egg does not always "grow up" to be (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne

              a human either.  We don't legislate based upon "potential for life" either, would you mandate that sperm be protected as well based on that logic?  

              •  no, because a sperm can never (0+ / 0-)

                become a human being.

                I see this canard all the time, and I don't understand it. Nobody is trying to protect sperm or ovum.

                They are trying to protected a fertilized egg. Just because it doesn't always succeed in growing up is irrelevant.  

                A fertilized egg isn't a potential person.  It is a person with potential.

                •  You believe it is a person. That does not mean (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  arielle

                  everyone has to accept your belief.  That is the point I'm trying to make to you.  You are presuming that everyone has the same belief system and faith in the issue that you do, and this is the United States of America where we are free to believe what we want to in these areas where there are no rational answers.

                  •  and P.S. if a sperm is fertilized, it becomes (0+ / 0-)

                    a human being, just as if an egg develops, it becomes a human being.  Once again, our Constitution does not cover "potential" for human life.  We are limited by our own humanity and human understanding and to presume otherwise is to say you know God's intent...which is based solely on faith.

                    None of this belongs in the debates of our government, all of it is a debate individuals must have within their own beings about what they believe in.  

                    •  sperm doesn't get fertilized. (0+ / 0-)

                      An egg does.

                      Of course when people are valued is the subject to the debate of people, and hence their governments.

                      People used property rights arguments to say that the government stay out of the issue of slavery.  

                      Were they right or wrong?

                      •  Excuse me, should have read, "if a sperm (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pandoras Box

                        fertilizes."  

                        Slaves were actually humans and no one could debate their right to live free lives.  It was appropriate that our government make a rational decision to secure their human rights.  

                        •  But obviously people did (0+ / 0-)

                          debate whether they were human and had a right to live free lives.

                          I think a fertilized egg is actually a human, and the government has a role to see that no one tries to intentionally end their life.

                          Do you see the similarity?

                          •  ...and the debate is unwinnable from either side (0+ / 0-)

                            because it relies upon faith and belief which are irrational and cannot be definitively decided.  

                            You "think" a fertilized egg is actually a human because you believe you know this.  You have no proof of this whatsoever.  We cannot interview the fertilized egg to see if it responds.  God has not as yet shown up to testify.  You are trying to mix two realms that do not belong together.

                            IMO, if you believe this you are relying on the wrong forum to spread the word.  You should be in the faith-forum (ie:  churches, mosques, etc.) trying to teach your faith rather than trying to impose it upon people who obviously are of a different belief system through legislation.  

                          •  the debate is winnable. (0+ / 0-)

                            By passing laws to protect unborn life.  By giving support to those who unfortunately became pregnant and didn't want to.  

                            To make this a society where all people are wanted and valued.  Not by destroying those who are unwanted.

                            By showing people good ultrasounds of their unborn children, so that they can see them move and suck their thumb, and get them to realize they are human.

                            Even if it isn't winnable, it is a worthwhile thing to tilt at windmills.  Fighting the good fight is always worthwhile.

                          •  You don't pass laws to win debates. You win (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            martydd

                            debates by presenting clear, rational evidence.

                            The bible is not rational evidence, your beliefs are not rational evidence.  There is presently no rational evidence to prove when life begins.  That is why this has no place in the realm of clear, rational debate and therefore no place in our legislation.

                            We are not a theocracy.

                          •  yet we base our laws on our values. (0+ / 0-)

                            One of our values is that we think it is wrong to kill another person.  

                            It doesn't take a theocracy to come to that conclusion.  

                            And again, there is no real debate as to when life begins.  Science tells us that.

                            The question is when do we value life.  

                          •  Science does not tell us when human life begins. (0+ / 0-)

                            We do not base our laws on our values.  In this country we base our laws on what is Constitutional and what is not.  You have no way of proving that a fetus is a human being.  Therefore, it is not covered by our Constitution.  

                            Can you please explain to me what the problem is with preaching in your own church about your own faith-based beliefs?  This would be the most logical venue for achieving your goals.  In the meantime, people who hold the same views have set themselves and their beliefs up as pawns to use for the same wedge-issue in every election.  At some point I would think people would realize that this is not going anywhere in government as I've explained over and over, because it is not a debate that can be won without making a religious/faith based determination.  

                          •  My own church already has the right (0+ / 0-)

                            idea on this.

                            This isn't a battle that can ever be conceded.  Abortion is the death of an unborn human being.  All human life must be defended and protected.

                            The idea isn't just to convince my own fellow church members.  It is to convince everyone.

                            And we intend to add it to the constitution.  

                          •  Well, I hate to disillusion you, but it ain't (0+ / 0-)

                            ever going to happen.  Have you not observed the number of times you've voted in the guy who promised to further your efforts and the number of times that it absolutely went nowhere?  Do you not realize your religious beliefs are being used to manipulate your vote at this point?

                            It will never be part of the Constitution because you have no empirical evidence.

                            You are wasting your time and in the meantime turning off many people who might listen to you if you addressed it for what it really is, a matter of the soul and of faith for consideration at that level rather than a religious view you hold that you've arrogantly decided everyone else should believe.

                            My advice to you would be to re-think your tact.  As Jesus Christ said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."  By my interpretation, he was basically advising people how the work of the soul should always be conducted outside the halls of our government.  Just my view, of course.    

                          •  yes we are aware that the Republicans are (0+ / 0-)

                            willing to use it as a wedge issue,and very few of them actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

                            What is the alternative?  Vote for the Democrats?

                            That just makes me giggle.. They are just a bunch of nitwits.  And the ones who aren't nitwits, like the Clintons, are just evil.  

                            And as to being part of the constitution, empirical evidence isn't necessary. It just has to be voted on.

                            So we try to persuade and change the hearts and minds of people, one at a time.

                          •  Ah yes, God's work is trolling on liberal blogs. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            trashablanca, martydd

                            That's winning hearts and minds, just like blowing Iraqi children apart is winning them over daily, right?  

                            I don't believe you even value your own beliefs, you would not be pursuing them so disrespectfully.

                            Goodbye Wrong as Dubya.  

                            Flush.

                          •  tell me how to do it respectfully on this site. (0+ / 0-)

                            It kicks off dissenters.  It doesn't even want to have the conversation.

                          •  A conversation with empathy-free morans (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Karma for All, martydd

                            is not worth having.  

                            "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon

                            by trashablanca on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:06:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stop trolling, go to your church (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            martydd

                            and do your work there.  You make a mockery out of people's religious beliefs coming here to present as a troll.  You also work against them completely by allowing yourself to be roped in by politicians who want war for profit because you insist on making your religious belief part of political campaigns.

                             

                          •  you have got to be kidding me (3+ / 0-)

                            when you write this kind of malarkey:

                            yes we are aware that the Republicans are (0+ / 0-)

                            willing to use it as a wedge issue,and very few of them actually want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

                            a very few?

                            on which planet have you been vacationing?

                            and if you knew your stuff you would know that it isn't really roe v wade that the republican party is after, it is CT vs Griswold.

                            know the facts.

                            _______________

                            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                            by dadanation on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I do not presume that everyone has the same (0+ / 0-)

                    belief system.  

                    But why is that relevant?  China doesn't have the same belief system, and they subordinate the rights of individuals to that of the state.  They essentially still have slave labor in prison camps.

                    Does that mean that I can't criticize them, or try to dissuade them?

                    No.

                    There is no lack of rational answers.  There is a lack of rational people who will treat all human life with respect.

                •  Just to be clear, you are claiming (4+ / 0-)

                  that a fertilized egg is a person?

                  I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or just say "WOW"

                  •  FYI, some basic definitions from Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

                    The term person is used in common sense to mean an individual human being. But in the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, it means the presence of certain characteristics that grant a certain legal, ethical, or moral standing.

                    For example, in many jurisdictions, the law allows a group of human beings to act together as a single composite entity called a corporation, and the corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy and medicine, person may mean only humans who are capable of certain kinds of thought, and thus exclude embryos, early fetuses, or adults with certain types of brain damage

                  •  yes I am claiming it is a person. (0+ / 0-)

                    Any other definition suggests that some attribute or physical ability is what defines a person.

                    This is of course, arbitrary, and subject to the whims of the definer.

                    If I was a person at 7 years, then I was a person a day before that, and the day before that, and so on.

                    I wasn't a non-person one day, and a person the next.  

                    If you think I was, tell me which day the cross over occurred?

                    The definition you add from wikipedia is really just a justification for the strong to be more important than the weak.  

                    All people are valuable, and should be valued.

  •  This is why farmers don't count chickens until (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Pandoras Box

    they are hatched, and having 10 or so yard hens, when they sit on a clutch of eggs, maybe 70% hatch, or maybe a little higher percentage sometimes.

    The stillborn/weak twin or triplet ratio in goats is nearly 10%.

  •  I agree God is pro-choice (2+ / 0-)

    Afterall, 30% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted for various reason at various times in the pregnancy.

    A mistake turns into a problem when you do nothing to fix it. JFK

    by Georgia Liberal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:37:54 AM PDT

  •  Isn't this the fundamental question (0+ / 0-)

    underlying the abortion disagreement in this country?  If you believe, as a fundamental religious matter, that human life begins at conception, you have to, almost necessarily, be pro-life, because under you view, one person (the mother) cannot morally make a decision to terminate the life of another person.  If you believe human life begins at conception (a very big "if"), I can't see how you could logically hold another view.

    Being pro-choice almost necessarily means that you share the kind of views expressed by the diariest -- that a fertilized egg is not the same thing as a human being.  

    This is a philosophical or religious position, not a scientific one.  (For example, the Catholic view is based on when the "immortal soul" enters the body and cannot be proven or disproven by science).  

    Everybody knew the question would be asked by Warren in some form.  Would Obama have been better off being more direct and to the point, saying that he understood and respected Warren's views, that he respectfully disagreed that a fertiziled egg was a "human being" in the same way a baby was, and then talk about shared goals of reducing abortions?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site