I sorta plugged in a few of them.

I am absolutly convinced of the TRUTH… that being… that I will never change anothers mind by force or violence.

Often the shouting drowns out the subtle desperation to just talk about this complex issue.

Where individuals with different views, just talk about it.

Thanks

For you life begins at conception, for me life begins once a child can exist outside the uterus.

You may believe anything that makes you comfortable, however, I will not let you make my choices for me. So while I am certian that you will never undergo an abortion yourself and that you may tell your opinion to anyone and try to sway others to believe as you believe, I will not acknowledge the rights of fetus because for me this is not yet a life.

I believe that miracle occurs at birth not conception.

Reclaiming the center? hmmmmm…. a nobel concept.

Let us try to practice it here a moment.

All biological life is a functional result of DNA and the building blocks of genetic code within cellular biology. A mouse, a pig, a dog, a human being as a unique member of the species begins the journey of life from a single, incomplete cell. The genetic code for development of a unique lifeform within the species is not complete until conception. It is just simply a scientific fact that at that moment the transformational code of the combined genetic materials now facilitates the growth and development of the organism.

This biological and scientific fact is a-moral. The now unique lifeform is on the biological path of development within the species, again a dog a cat or a human being. Life is not subjective, it is objective. It is measurable, observable, indisputable.

The application of moral thought with respect to life is a matter of individual judgement. You may either apply the moral judgements of human life to all stages of development, or you may selectively dismiss them, but it is a choice only with respect to the moral thought, independent of the biological reality.

Thus society makes moral judements as to the extension of law with respect to the protection of human beings, based not on the science, but based on the subjective needs of the society. So-called “rights” are either applied or withheld. You either have the “right” to choose, or it is denied. The organism either has the “right” to life, or it is denied.
But the application of a higher moral standard to the “rights” of any group versus another is sociologically subjective. Is the right to “choose” superior to the “right” to life? Or vice versa?

Returning to the natural, biological facts – the unique individual human life form is either terminated from existance, or continues on with development. It cannot know the moral judements made by OTHER human beings about existance.

Finally then the issue is whether single cell or multi-cellular, unique individual human beings at any stage of development, are in fact created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether the Constitution of the United States of America extends to this level of human development or not.

The logical consideration, purely from a Constitutional and foundational legal principle from the cornerstone documents of this Republic suggest that we must resolve these questions in the affirmative for life. Not simply because of the natural, biological and scientific reality – but because of the potential for society to make “other” judgements regarding human life. Already witness the cases of infanticide, doctor assistated suicide, and of course the case of Terri Shaivo.

I am satisfied with a discussion regarding these issues if all accept that we are talking about the termination of unique human life forms. If society rit large determines that some human beings are not protected by either moral, or legal Constitutional “RIGHTS” – and that the subjective “rights” of society (et. al. the individual within the society) are superior – then please let’s just be honest about it.

Yes we are talking about CHOICE. But choice in this context is neither living, developing, growing or scientific. It is a personal moral judgement that places the true RIGHTS of one human being, above the RIGHTS of another human being. The individual liberty and freedom of a living human being, to terminate the existance of another.

Finally, the CENTER of this issue recognized the enourmous complexity of LIFE versus sociological precident. It recognizes the realities that there are cases where saving one life, may require the termination of another. It recognizes the deep emotional impact of violence, rape and fear. It recognizes that patients, and calm debate and conversation are much needed, but often lacking from this issue.

I will continue to try and understand all aspects and deep complexities therein.