Repeal the Endangered Species Act

You have several problems with your “logic”.

1) A hair follicle is human DNA. However, that human DNA does not have (to use your own word) the “potential” to become a human WITHOUT human intervention to become that human. A human baby (I refuse to use the terms “zygote, fetus,” or other such nonsense: it's a baby) is a human baby at conception because WITHOUT intervention: that is its natural course.

A follicle CANNOT BECOME a baby without intervention; a baby IS a baby without intervention.

Major flaw.

2) According to http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862002001100009 , the WHO's own bulletin, the numbers quoted are incorrect.  “FINDINGS: The relative risk (RR) of death during pregnancy but before the onset of labour was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-2.32).”

Thus, part of your argument must be disregarded since you are throwing erroneous numbers out. The WHO bulletin further states,

“Of the deaths of women in the period including pregnancy and the 12 weeks following pregnancy outcome, 86% were disease-related.”

Thus, if you are using the wrong information to back up your conclusions, your conclusions must be flawed.

3) A “potential person”? What is the dictionary definition, medical, legal, moral definition of “potential person”? Flaws like making up terminology for logical discussion is child's play: there is no such thing as a “potential person”.

Science has already deemed an amoeba – something you brought into the discussion – as being alive. Science has already found “life” in a metorite that landed in Alaska and deemed it outer space life because of the amoeba: one cell. If a single cell is life, then two cells coming together – sperm and egg – must be twice as alive as an amoeba, therefore must be alive. And, using your own definitions, it grows, needs nutrition, has waste products: therefore, it must be alive. My computer does none of those things; it is not alive. A baby does those things from conception to birth to old age death; it is alive.

4) You have left out the fact that in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and egg and sperm donations have added life to this world as well as other methods of fertilization. A baby no longer depends on the “one woman” idea since a child's conception can take place in one woman's womb and be transferred to another woman's womb. Thus, your argument there is flawed.

5) You claim the baby has no self-awareness. I beg to differ and you must not have children! We see in babies self-awareness and identity all the time. Watch a baby play with his toes and find out about wiggling them. Watch a baby look at his Mom and watch how he picks up on her expressions and mimics them. That's learning and self-awareness. Ahh… Your argument will go, that's AFTER they are born. Ever watched an ultra sound? Ever seen a child inside the womb react to sound, react to touch, react to voices, or pain? That may not be what you consider self-awareness, but when a child inside the womb is able to do all that, it is already learning and growing. And, if a baby is able to do all that, and a woman is still legally able to kill that baby, don't you think the baby should at least have the same rights as a you? After all, you, too, react to sound, voices, touch, and pain. If babies do not have the same rights as someone/something that reacts the same way to certain stimuli, then I assert that your argument is flawed since you have already acknowledged that babies have the same DNA and that babies are human.

6) You assert in your point five that, “Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.” Problem: How about babies who are born — full term pregnancies — without the mental capability to ever come to “conscious” life; life that you equate to being a fully conscious human being after the age of about two years old. What if the thirteen-year-old with a severe mental handicap is incapable (in your terminology) to be a “conscious” life? Should that person, allowed to come to term within its mother and loved by the people taking care of him or her, be on the list of people it's okay to kill without remorse nor legal consequences? The law, and morality, say no. Your own circular logic says no because that person is already born and past the two year old stage. Should this person in your eyes be “killable” without consequence? Yours is a flawed argument.

7) In your point five, you quote the Preamble to the US Constitutioin. If you are going to quote it, why not read it? It says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalieneable rights. That among these rights are LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” Without the RIGHT to LIFE, there are no other rights. There is nothing without the RIGHT to LIFE. Dead people don't have the rights of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Without being ALIVE we cannot have any of the other GOD GIVEN RIGHTS: LIFE being the first and foremost. If you are going to quote the Preamble, then at least realize what it says. It is a flawed and specious argument that quotes something and ignores the quote!

Giving a baby the “Right to Life” does not automatically cancel out the mother's Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If so, every Mother who has ever given birth instead of aborting her baby has given up her right to life and we can all now be murdered. We are all without the right to pursue our own happiness, or to liberty. We are all second class citizens. Also, how about conjoined twins that cannot be separated or do not wish to be? Do they have equal rights? Are they in the same body? Don't they have the same rights? Again, flawed arguments.

9) Define “person” differently than our dictionary does; because that is apparently what you are doing in your last para. in your fifth assertion. Erroneous assertion, I should say. A baby in the womb is a person, and a baby outside the womb is a person; even before two years of age. Your definition must be totally flawed because my dictionary and legal and scientific and medical dictionaries all agree with my defiintion. Thus, your argument is flawed.

10) Using independence to decide when we should be able to kill a child? So that, in your flawed logic would deem it okay to also apply the independence clause to the elderly and we could “abort” them as well. We should be able to just smother grandma and grandpa because they are no longer independent and they are a burden on us, taking away some of our “Pursuit of Happiness” time and getting in our way. What about their rights? What about the “over two” theory? Flawed argument.

11) YOU SAY, “But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies.” FLAWED. It is NOT THEIR BODIES they are controlling when they destroy a baby. It is NOT their bodies being torn limb from limb and suctioned into a sink. It is NOT their bodies being burned with saline solution, or whose brains are sucked out at the last moment so that the skull can be crushed and the baby delivered dead. THE WOMAN'S body is still intact. You are using a flawed argument.

Your statements are so totally bereft of logic it is astonishing to see that you consider them correct! You are wrong. You are not just wrong, but demonstrably, and irrefutably wrong. You don't consider every aspect of what you are saying, following it to the logical conclusion. You have no concept of how to follow the trail and how to put two and two together. If you think that your “argument” for abortion is well done, well tought out and reasoned, then you must not know much about logic and reasoning!

I also must question your views on the biblicality of abortion. I have not yet read that “assertion” (for I will not call it an argument, logic, or reason), but I can tell without a doubt that you are going to be using something besides the traditional Bible, circular logic (which iis not logical at all) and irrational thought patterns to try to justify something you probably had a hand in to make you want to stand up for it so badly. I am sorry for you and for the baby or babies you helped abort. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to justify it by posting this kind of nonsense all over the web. Your heart must be heavier than I can ever imagine. But that doesn't mean God can't forgive you and what you did or encouraged another to do.  And, May God have mercy on your soul for all the abortions you may have helped come about with your little illogical diatribe. It's so sad to see your heart.