No problem, jenbit. During lunch, I was thinking about what makes an embryo or pre-viability fetus unique. When I got back, I saw that you had posted exactly the answer I would give. So when Angryguy seemed to completely miss your point, it gave me a good excuse to restate it in my own words.

And I now see that Windchild has restated it as well and even better than I did!

This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.

Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?

Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.

Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.

Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.

I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.

The reason I say life of the mother is there is no reason that 2 people should die.

You still have not given me a reasonable explanation of the differences between the fetus and the mentally ill/handicapped other than the state says so. I've given you thought process as to why I believe how I do, your only reply is that you simply don't believe it and the state grants us rights. We can disagree, but you haven't thought this out.

The difference in our beliefs is you believe that rights are derived from government and not nature.

I am curious exactly what rights does nature provide a human?

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The founders believed that equality, unalienable rights and government by consent, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inherent rights of man. Believing that they are derived from government means that they can be taken away and gives it too much power.

Yes I have read that government document written by the Continental Congress.

So my question still stands... what rights does nature provide a human?

I already explained it as well as the DoI. It's pretty straight forward on where our liberties come from. I see you are trying to make the point of personal freedom and how it relates to women carrying babies. But until you can give be a reasonable definition of humanity, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Nice try though, you libs are not hard to figure out.

I am pretty sure you just made some liberals on this board spit up their drink with that one.

well I saw through his intentions rather easily didn't I? Must be tough to base your beliefs on emotion rather than thought.

But I cannot fathom that a rational human being with even the tiniest capacity for self-reflection or humility, could not look at this subject and at least consider the possibility that those who support abortion might have some justification for that position as well.

Could life begin at conception? Maybe. I'm just not going to take the rights away from an american woman who I know is a citizen and alive based on a hunch. I value liberty more than life. That's my take on it. Could I be wrong? Yup.

Second, if God gave us rights, every ones would be equal and we wouldn't need to die for them. If god gave me the right to free speech, to bear arms, to freedom of religion, I think millions of soliders and civilians got jipped because they died for nothing.

You don't have god given rights, you have gun given rights. At the end of the day, no supernatural force will be able to secure your liberty.

"Gun Given Rights." So he/she who has the biggest stick makes all the rights? That's how they do it in China, North Korea, Cambodia, Syria and other places that have no human rights. I know it's not what you meant at all, but careful with those that hate guns. I myself, like shooting them and shooting at things. As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least. Anyway, carry on. Let's agree to disagree respectfully. But this....this right here was halarious!

"Captain! The sperm deflector shields are at 40%!"

'Divert all power form the reverse thrusters to the sperm deflector shields!"

"Won't that make a mess?"

"We're already in a world of *kitten*, Joker!"

For some reason, I found this to be funnier with the Star Trek Next Generation crew voices, than the classic Star Trek crew voices.

As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least.

Attempting to back up a supposedly rational argument with non-evidenced "natural law" or presumptions of God's intent doesn't really qualify as an attempt for me. Instead, he actually ends up backing up his positions with apparent passion and inflammatory rhetoric (pro-abortionists? try pro choice).

The biggest issue for me in the Akin case is that I find it absolutely terrifying that someone who is completely clueless about the basic biology of my body is trying to legislate it. This goes so far beyond abortion debate - the statements and law propositions made by Akin are simply and blatantly anti-woman.