*sigh*

I really do have to go to bed. Good night.

"Yes, he overthrew it - that's a good way to put it."

Overthrew it yet fulfilled it. What a jumble of contradictions your superstition is.

Marti the Bruce + 8 - not just + 1, + 8. Why 8? Why not 8? I like 8.
But yeah. Well said.

Philo Judeas! Yes! The great Scholar who said a second holy temple should be built in Alexandria!

Tell me how that worked out!

^
Always actually loved that idea actually, I shouldn't knock it

lol Nice.
My point though wasn't to argue that Philo is the ninja master at ancient Jewish thought; just that the ancient case regarding Exodus 21 and its implications for abortion is not unanimous or easy, so it's not like Christians are being inconsistent in taking a particular view of their "source religion's" text on this point.

There is the argument about Capital punishment that those in favour should have to pull the lever, fire the bullett, stick the needle in the vein etc. I feeel that those in favour of abortion should also have to work in an abortion clinic. With late abortions a significant number of foetus, (no I actually mean BABIES) emege alive, what do you think happens to them?
Of course if they were in the neo-natal department they would be put into incubators, but in the abortion clinics.............
The ''Look abortion in the eye'' site has some relevant images; http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/archive1.htm
I am not oppotimistic, however, that the ''pro-choice'' lobby on this site will bring themselves to look at them. Their minds are decided and that is that.

I go with my wife who escorts women into clinics which are routinely harassed by the women hating pro-life banshees. It's despicable the conduct of the anti-choice hordes, they take pictures of escorts and post them online. They take pictures of license plates and post them online. They're hysterical and obnoxious. It's very intimidating and scary.

If only hospitals would perform these basic services, then women wouldn't need to face down these terrorists and wouldn't be put in harm's way all the time.

And keep in mind, most of the time women are simply getting basic services. You have to face down these superstitious windbags for merely getting a pap smear.

"I feeel that those in favour of abortion should also have to work in an abortion clinic." - I feel that those opposed to abortion should be forced to carry a baby they don't want to term inside their bodies. (I don't really think that obviously, but it's an equally valid argument).

For the record I went through your site and looked at every single picture. Obviously you won't take my word for it, but I did. And my feelings about abortion have not changed one bit. Women have every right to decide what happens to their bodies. It is very very important we respect their reproductive freedom, gruesome and emotionally charged images of aborted fetuses notwithstanding.

my mind is made up, dead right pal. You nutjobs are denying some basic human rights to half the planet's population because of some text(s) written millennia ago. Fuck me, i respect your right to 'believe' your bullshit, but you have no right to impose those beliefs on the rest of us.

and my point is the majority of jewish oral law suggests that abortions in certain cases were tolerated or required, and that a fetus is not a human. Indeed, Jewish philosophers disagreed as did Christian ancient and medieval philosophers who had the exact same debate. For Jacob to come out here and cross himself at all us who dare to suggest that a fetus might not be a human and that abortion is not murder is ridiculous. There is no doubt that there is discussion on the issue, there are always discussions on issues like this, unless you are talking to a blockhead born-again bible thumper who has been fed a spoon-full of dogma and told that is the only truth.

The hypocrysy comes in when you start a thread about the theological basis for homosexuality and Mr. "Jesus Changed Everything" up there will shove Leviticus in our faces.

"I am not oppotimistic, however, that the ''pro-choice'' lobby on this site will bring themselves to look at them. Their minds are decided and that is that."

Have you told a woman bleeding in the emergency room due to a miscarriage that your opinion about her body matters more than her own? Have you bothered to stare a woman facing pregnancy complications in the face and told her that you know what she should do and she should be forced to abide by your will? Of course not, so spare me your "challenges". How much have you invested in pre-natal care facilities? How much time have you spent there helping women in need? How much have you done trying to get women access to contraception?

My guess is nothing, nothing, and nothing.

Also @ fulhamish - From Wikipedia: "Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:
Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking"
I suppose what you're doing here is actually an appeal to disgust or an appeal to "aww look it's a baby." Either way it's an invalid argument. Not letting you get away with that.

Personally i think thus: religious whackjobs believe foetuses are actual babies and that it is wrong to abort a pregnancy therefore. However, because they believe thus, everybody else has to as well, whereas 'pro-choice' says, you don't have to abort, but if you want or have to, you can. An extreme and interfering opinion against a moderate, hands-off, respectful one.
easy choice, really :)

I'd love to quiz these anti-choice men about female anatomy and physiology and what happens to women's bodies during pregnancy, since they seem to like to play doctor for other people so much. How much do these people actually understand about what they deem to be human incubators who they're forcing to carry to term? Not much judging by the misinformation they spread to anybody seeking medical care.

pun intended ;)

Just to respond to the personal attack, my wife and I had four kids and we decided to quit while we were ahead. Male sterilisation seemed to be so much more of an easier job than the female equivalent, so I had it done. Now moving on..............

Live babies will be born in those abortion clinics today FULL STOP

Wow, was that a thread where the Forces of Good and Reason actually emerged victorious?

oh Damn

It sounds fulhamish like you're objecting to very very late term abortions. I disagree, but that is a different thing from objecting to any and all abortions. Obviously a fetus the size of a nickel, aborted at 12 weeks would not be alive, and thus your argument about it being the same as a premature baby doesn't apply in that case. How do you respond to that point?

OK SC.
Of course, again, I think that just because the interpretation is hard does not mean one cannot come to a decided opinion on how to interpret it (though there will be disagreement); in particular I think you're reading in when you ascribe a "Jesus changed everything" source to the personhood of infants. As elaborated earlier in this thread, much of the case for that is based on the OT. Naturally, this entails a reading of Exodus 21 different from that which you espouse, but there are ample such to be found.

(This is NOT an argument that Exodus 21 should not be discussed, or that your position is prima facie absurd, but that one can decide that it is wrong and still have a firm opinion on such; and, that one is not completely flouting ancient interpretation in so doing).

@Marti: Nothing new in pointing this out, but this all turns on whether one considers a foetus to be a human or not. If one does, for whatever reason, then the logic is NOT that it is a personal choice respecting the woman's own organs.

Let's take an analogous case. A hundred and fifty years ago there were (I presume / vaguely remember, I don't claim to be a scholar, but it doesn't matter anyway for present purposes if this is historical or just illustrative) people who believed it was fine for a slave owner to beat to death his slaves, because black people were not humans, and were instead his property.
Now, the fact is, this is a perfectly rational argument, _if one accepts the heinous view that black people are not humans_. (Well, not perfectly rational, even animals can't be beaten to death, but I digress). The point is, for any right-thinking human, the argument will be irrelevant because they won't accept the horrifying premise.
Now I'm not saying the case of a foetus is as clear, but the logic is the same. The question turns on an ideological question of what is a human, not on the question of whether somebody's organs are theirs to control. Everybody agrees that a person's organs are theirs to control, in normal life.

@ Mafia I feel that it is an appeal to reason. One baby is placed in an incubator in the neo-natal clinic, while another, of the same age, in the abortion clinic is left to die at best (I would rather not consider the alternatives). You are right it is emotionally disturbing, at least I find it so, I wonder if you agree? Underneath the disturbance, however, there is a logical/moral inconsistancy to be addressed, hopefully by you.

I am pro-Choice (to a degree!!! I don't think anyone is pro-Choice at 8m unless there is a medical issue.), but for masochistic shits and giggles. Explain to me how I am wrong, NOT USING RELIGION (I am a Polytheist, a 'Pagan' as many call it, an Odinist, a Asatru, a Heathen; so your logics doesn't work on me.) I have looked at the pictures, and due to the lack of evidence that the pictures you showed me are sentient in anyway (meaning does not fall under murder or homicide or manslaughter), all I can say is 'Poor women who have to endure this torture and humiliation by the radical pro-Life. Posting what is UNDOUBTEDLY the most horrific moment of their life on the internet.'

^That English sounds off to me, I hope my point got through...

@ mafia to give you a direct answer I wouldn't like a 12 week limit on moral grounds, but on pragmatic grounds I feel that it would be a reasonable approach/compromise. Now do you think that you can bring yourself furnish me with an equivalent answer?

@semck: so the question is actually legal. Not theological, theology has no place here. You can believe what you like, not impose said belief on me.
We have to legally define what is human and sentient and what is not.

Late term abortions are rare, highly regulated and only done when absolutely necessary. Late term abortions are used as an excuse to prohibit all and any access to abortion, knowing full well the circumstances in which they are performed.

couldn't agree more Herr, for once. (walks away shaking head in confusion...)