Taltimer,

First, it's a little thing, but just so you know...I'm a she.

And yes, I do care about science, always have and always will...true or pure science, that is. I have no quarrel with the proved facts of science on the authority of various specialists in their given field. 

Biological and human embryological science have conclusively shown that human life begins at fertilization. Now, without appealing to religion, apply that scientific fact together with the principle upon which the US was founded, namely, that each person has an inalienable right to life, and yet ever since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, abortion denies a particular group of human beings the inalienabe right to life.

And do you know how the pro-abortion crowd keep abortion going...by lying to us. In order to keep abortion on demand "legal", the facts of when human life begins, and terms such as "human being", "person", even "life" have been changed to mean something else. Human embryo isn't really human life we are told, it is a "clump of cells",  pro-abortion is pro-choice, killing a baby is "terminating a fetus" or "terminating an unplanned pregancy", and on and on.

And these are the lies they teach our children in public classrooms all over the country...in order to teach k-12th grade children about abortion and contraception, sex education classes come under  "family planning" ...."Health" has been changed to "reproductive health education" and yet you don't reproduce something by killing it. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind at family planning centers and it ain't choosing life because it would be bad for business.

For all you pro-abortionists, I have a few questions originally posed by Dr. Bahra of Michigan.

Since science has confirmed the embryo, and later the fetus, is a distinct developing person, why isn't he/she under Constitutional protection?

Why does a woman's "right to privacy" used as legal justification for the destruction of her child, depend on her short birth canal?

Why should that short birth canal be the dividing line between an unborn "nonperson" without constitutional protection and a newborn person with a life fully protected by the Constitution?

 Why are all of us rightfully enraged at any cruelty to animals, yet so few are shocked by the merciless cruelty to our unborn?

once again, for those who've somehow managed to miss or have chosen to ignore this point: supporting access to legal abortions is worlds different from being pro-abortion--just as supporting access to legal plastic surgery or tattooing or medically supervised treatment for drug addicion is not the same as being pro-plastic surgery, pro-tattooing or pro-addiction.

i was incorrect (or more correctly inaccurate) when asking for scientific proof that life begins at conception.  what i meant to question was your assertion that science has determined a point prior to ex-utero viability at which a fetus, zygote, embryo might reasonably be considered a person with all the rights that status entails. 

you've once again made that assertion as if it were fact and then undercut your own argument by asking the same question i posed dozen of replies earlier. 

why, indeed, is there no constitutional protection for zygotes?  why is obama's place of birth more important to you than his place of conception?  why is there no official catholic ritual for the miscarried zygote?  why is there no official certificate of non-birth and/or death certificate issued and recorded?

why--for thousands of years--did the church claim the unborn were relegated to somewhere other than heaven?

it is impossible for there to be an inalienable right, at some point it will contradict itself or another inalienable right.

for example, inalienable right for life... except, when a person is shooting up a school, it is a matter of shooting him to protect the inalienable right to life of his victim, or letting the murderer continue murdering to protect the murderer's inalienable right to life.

In this case there are several inalienable rights that directly contract the inalienable right of the fetus to life, which results in decisions for when to choose one right over another.

The justification of right to privacy is patently absurd, its the right to self governship of your own body. The reason the right to privacy was used for that legistlation from the bench is because it is not explicitely stated that a person has an inalienable right to their body in the bill of rights, so a right that was stated was chosen instead; but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

it was assumed that such obvious things did not need to be mentioned in the constition (for example, the constitution also does not mention murder, etc).

But it's not worlds different - I support peoples right to get plastic surgery, or tattooing, or medically supervised treatment for drug addiction. I wouldn't do any of those things myself. That makes me pro-those things, in that I'm against banning them (and support peoples right to use them).

Similarly, if I was to support peoples right to have abortions, even if I wouldn't use that right myself, I would be pro-abortion.

exactly.  Like I said you're either for it or against it.  There isn't really a middle ground even though some are trying desparately to remain in the middle.  You're either for it or against it. 

If you're for it for others' sakes.......then you're for it.  Period. 

I'm against abortion for everyone except in cases of medical emergencies when there is no other alternative.....which I believe to be quite rare btw. 

We seem to forget there are silent voices involved.  Maybe it's time we pay attention to them instead of all the clamoring for our rights and voices to be heard.   

if you believe people have a right to engage in sexual activity with others of the same sex, that makes you pro-homosexual?

i have no interest in tattooing, plastic surgery or sex with other males nor would i recommend any of the those to anyone else. i have no interest in constraining others from any or all. 

i'm no more pro-tattoo, pro-plastic surgery nor pro-homosexual than i am pro-cricket, pro-bunji jumping, pro-nascar or a whole catalog of things i would not restrict and am not against. 

consider the root of the words "pro" and "anti".

agreeing that others should be able to choose things makes me pro-choice as opposed to anti-choice.  accepting that people may choose to terminate a pregnancy with the assistance of a medical professional does not make me--or anyone else--pro-abortion any more than acceptig people may choose to be treated medically for addiction makes me pro-addiction.

religion has always invested far too much in voices only it claims to hear.

Yes - you believe it should be allowed (assuming the alternative here is having it banned), just as if you believe abortions should be allowed then you are pro abortion.

With abortions, there's not much middle ground when looking at whether they should be allowed (the only contentious areas are with rape and when the mothers life is in danger, which to avoid complications I'll ignore for the next bit) - either you think they should be allowed to take place, or you don't. Either you're pro-abortion, or you're anti-abortion, or alternatively, either you're pro-life, or anti-life. They key factor in this isn't whether you would want to have an abortion yourself, it's whether you believe other people should be able to have an abortion. If you believe they should, that means you're pro abortion. If you believe they shouldn't, that means you're anti-abortion. To occupy the middle ground of not being pro or anti, you'd basically have to say you have no opinion on the matter/don't feel strongly either way. That is, that you neither believe abortions should be legal or illegal. However that's not what has been said in this case.

technically if you beleive people have the right to do something you never will its called TOLERANT OF not PRO. Pro is someone who supports it, tolerating something means you DON'T like it but accept that banning it is wrong, SUPPORTING something means you think it is a wonderful beutiful thing. I do NOT think homosexual relationships are a wonderful beutiful things, I think they are disgusting, but I fully support peoples right to do so, I TOLERATE their homosexuality. Those who wish to opress them do not tolerate them, and many are pushing the agenda that gay is in.

No it's not a fact I have to come to grips with.  As I have stated for me that fetus is not a true life until it is able to live outside the womb (with or without life support).  Until that point it is a potential life at best.  In the first trimester I don't see it as anything more than a parasite.

And you do the same thing.  Your bible says "Thou shalt not kill".  That seems rather straight forward, don't kill anyone.  But members of your religion draw lines there as well, it's ok to kill someone during war time.  It's ok to kill someone who has killed others (capital punishment).  It's ok to kill someone if they were attacking you and it was either you or them (self defense).  So it's ok for you to draw lines but not me?  Sorry that doesn't work.

Isn't it convenient that you use "science" here but when it comes to evolution vs. creationism science isn't good enough for you.

the evolutionary theory changes all the time but facts do not change.  It is a fact, and proven that life begins at conception.  It fits all the criteria for life. 

it all falls under sanctity of human life El-D.  All of it.  Think about it. 

It's all very consistent.  The pro-abort people are NOT consistent.  They ok murder in the womb but oppose war and capitol punishment.  Makes no sense to kill someone before they had a chance and not kill someone after they abused their chance. 

you bring up a good point Taltimir. 

There are two diff views of tolerance.  The first view is the old view and that was you would be considered still tolerant if you disagreed with something but let it be.  In cases of homosexuality it was tolerated but not accepted by the majority.  They were considered queer but tolerated.  That's how it was when I grew up. 

Today we have a diff view of tolerance.  In cases of homosexuality you are considered intolerant if you do not accept this as legitimite.  We are being forced to accept this as an alternative lifestyle whether we agree or disagree.  To disagree is to be labeled intolerant. 

 And you are showing here that you are a product of the new view of tolerance which means we have to accept this to be considered tolerant.  I'm afraid that's what's going down in today's culture. 

It has nothing to do with what the thing looks like but everything to do with it's abilities.  In the first trimester it is nothing more than a parasite living off of the woman like a tapeworm does taking nutrients and growing.  But once it is able to survive on it's own outside the womb it doesn't "need" the woman to survive, medicine can jump in and finish the job if necessary.

Not true.  The "arbitrary trimester" is more easy to assign then when the formation of some arbitrary organ is because some of them are extremely difficult to see on an ultrasound. 

If a man has a 5 o'clock shadow would you consider it a beard?  All the material is there for the beard, the whiskers and whatnot, in fact soon after the man shaves there is hair growing in.  At what length of whisker would you consider it a full beard?  Why not just claim that all men have beards since all the necessary "materials" are present?

I've got a question for you.  If an illegal alien happens to be in the US when they conceive a child is that child automatically a US citizen?  Meaning if they are deported before they give birth does that child have a right to claim US citizenship at some point even though it was born on foreign soil?

If life begins at conception why don't we have conception days instead of birthdays?

Well said.  There are more than two choices on just about every issue, few things in this world are black and white.

No it doesn't.  So just because you're on one side of a war the other side has less of a right to live?

Don't make absolute claims like that.  I am pro-choice but I am NOT anti-war or anti-capitol punishment.

How tolerant are people who hold up signs that says "God hates fags".  That's not tolerant in the least.  I'm not saying you are in that group I am merely using it as an example.  I for one would never tell you that you have to accept homosexuality but I would ask that you tolerate it and allow civil unions as part of that tolerance, again I'm not asking you to accept those civil unions as marriage just tolerate that they are allowed to file taxes jointly and be in the hostiptal rooms when the other member of the union is sick, etc.

this isn't rocket science.  Most people have no idea when the conception date is.  I had three children yet I couldn't tell you (invisible to me) when the conception took place.  I may have an idea or even a week in mind but couldn't be dogmatic about it.  Just because I don't know the date doesn't make it less than life.  I don't know your birthday either.  Doesn't mean you're not alive.  This is a ridiculous argument El-D.  No disrespect really.  Just speaking my mind.   

Yes it does.  War is between two groups who are fully capable of protecting and arming themselves for it.   That's not the case with a yet unborn baby.  The safest spot in all the world should be a mother's womb.  Sad to say, today we have made it a battlefield with alot of innocent blood shed.  That baby is not capable of protecting itself.  You're comparing apples and oranges here. 

of course.  I didn't mean to...but there is a pattern for this.  Many pro-abortion people are against war and capitol punishment.  I never said all nor do I believe that to be the case. 

this is ridiculous.  You have to go to the extreme to reply to what I said?  I agree with you on this because that is not being tolerant whether the old view or the new view. 

Again you are asking me to tolerate something by ACCEPTING it.  That's the new wave of tolerance.