thaxlord wrote:

How can you bring up a topic such as this one and not bring God into that which he is the only one to allow "life"

Thats just the point, thaxlord.  It is imperative that we not bring G-d into the arguement, because we are not a theocracy.  We are governed by the Constitution, not by a higher power.  One of the most beautiful things about this country is the right to believe, or disbelieve, as you see fit.  The second that you bring G-d into the equation, you have left the realm of discourse that can relate to our legal system.

angpuppy wrote:

I think with the way our constitution was written, its a logical stretch. The right to privacy isn't in the Bill of rights. It was argued to be an inferred right, and thus originally was interpreted to extend to privacy in the bedroom of a married couple. Thus whatever the couple did in the privacy of their bedroom, was none of the court's business, basically. And thus this was extended to say "none of our business" on the contraceptives thing. Thus contraceptives were legalized.

Then through proceeding court cases, this was extended to the unmarried, then was stretched to early term abortion and then to abortion in general.

Yes, I think we all agree on that.  Well put.

angpuppy wrote:

The other problem with the case is that I disagree with the court's decision on what cases to allow in the courts. I don't know all the terms, but originally they needed Norma (Jane Doe) for the Roe Vs Wade case as someone filing the case and making a complaint. Because pregnancy lasts only 9 months and it takes longer than 9 months to go through the courts, it was decided that because the courts decision would affect so many other women, they shouldn't actually need women as examples to draw these cases up with.

This however is dumb for now all the abortion cases aren't presented based on real situations but on hypothetical ones. As the judge's aren't doctors, this allows for manipulation of data to occur more easily. Before you would be able to give examples of "In this case of such and such, this happened to this person so this actually can happen and we need to protect against it."

Here, however, is where I disagree.  Courts do take cases based on precidence, as you stated.  If an issue is certain to come up again in the system, the court will take the case regardless of whether or not the decision can be enacted in the original instance.  However, that doesn't mean that you can bring up a hypothetical case that was made up just for the hell of it.  All cases still have to be real, with an actual plaintiff and defendent. 

angpuppy wrote:

I ultimately believe the courts have made an unconstitutional decision. This should have been a legislative issue.

I agree that this should have been a legislative issue--if our system were perfect, all these types of decisions would be legislative: same-sex marriage, abortion, domestic spying, habeus corpus for foreign nationals--all of these could technically be decided by the legislature.  Unfortunately, because of the way we elect our government and the inherent nastiness of our political system, the legislature frankly doesn't have the chutzpah to touch any of this.  Hence, the beauty of an unelected judiciary (yes, some states do elect judges--and that's among the stupider parts of our entire elections system).  Since the judges don't have to worry about politics, they can actually base their decisions on what the law says, instead of how an opponant might twist the ruling into propaganda at some point in the possible future. 

One of the most beautiful things about this country is that, historically, when issues like this have come up, we err on the side of freedom and protection of personal civil rights.  Since there is no compelling evidence that a fetus is an actual biologically viable life, we err on the side of freedom.  We can never answer whether or not abortion is actually constitutional, because the rights that we use to ensure it simply aren't there.  But does that mean that they weren't intended?  We just don't know.

Blessings,
Lexa

How can you be talking about "a human life" when clearly a fetus has not yet grown into a baby or even a child? Because the law does not recognize the fetus as a human life, rather a potential human life.

How can I be talking about a human life, when clearly a newborn has not yet grown into an infant or toddler?  How can I be talking about a human life, when clearly a toddler has not yet grown into a pre-teen or adolescent?  How can I be talking about a human life, when clearly an adolescent has not yet grown into a young adult or adult?  That line of reasoning does not seem to hold water.

Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--How can the reproductive act between a human male and a human female, produce anything other than a human?"
Easily, it can produce a miscarriage, a hydatiform (sic) mole, or a defective fetus doomed to die before birth.

A pregnant mother miscarries her human child, not an elephant, nor a leaf.  A hydatidiform mole is clearly the result of improper fertilization.  And lastly, I'm not sure how a fetus' fate, changes its nature--we are all doomed to die, and yet we're human.

In any event, these examples miss the big picture:  The point, is that part of the design of the sexual act is the procreation of new humans--it's why so many people contracept, it's why so many people abort.  To deny that the normal result of a human sexual act is somehow not human, is preposterous.

Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--If a fetus is not really a human person, what reason is there for an abortion?"
To prevent a human from developing.

Huh?  Isn't it a little late for that?  Are you suggesting that there's somehow a magical point at which what wasn't there before (a human), is all of a sudden going to appear?  This sounds very unscientific to me.  And this type of reasoning is what led to partial birth abortions, where literally a baby's body was removed from her mother's womb backwards until the base of the skull was exposed, and then a surgical instrument was jabbed into the brain to suck it out.  Because if the baby's nostrils reached the air, "abracadabra", it was human; but as long as the nostrils remained in the womb it wasn't.  There's no magic happening at birth--we have the science to know that the baby that comes out, is the same one that was there all along.

Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--If DNA uniquely identifies every human person, why should fetuses be excluded from this fact?"
Fetus are not excluded just as your hair or fingernail is not excluded.

I'm glad we agree on this one--unique DNA indicates a human life.

Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--How can a stage of human life not itself be human?"
any developmental stage before brain functioning means no sentience. Human life has sentience.

How about, human life is: human + life.  We recognize this fact enough that we protect the unhatched eggs of bald eagles, but we get confused when talking about our own species.

Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"To my mind, this part, at least, is not a mystery: when a sperm (the gamete of a human male), fertilizes an egg (the gamete of a human female), there begins a life which was not there before. And that life starts immediately to go about its work. And that life is human. We were all once there ourselves, and we can recognize this fact without stretching science, or referring to a religion."
Keywords...begins "a life"...it is not sentient life and it causes a severe compromise to the host, the host must have the right to defend itself from such physical distress.

Yes, the keywords are "begins a life".  Without a beginning, there's no middle, and no end.  But once life begins, to end it prematurely is not an issue of personal preference, like chocolate or vanilla.  Nor is human life some sort of disease--disease is malfunction, pregnancy is a proper and normal function.