I don’t fault the pro-life movement for attempting to save the lives of human beings. I think it’s important that people be encouraged to take care of their children as best they can. But I don’t believe criminalizing the procedure is the best way to do it. If you want people to make “the right choice,” you need to educate and empower them. And throwing them in prison for making a choice that you yourself would not have made is the best way to do neither.

By all means, pro-lifers encourage people to “choose life.” But allow them to make their choice without fear of prosecution.

To imply that that anti-abortion rights bloc is consistent on the matter of God’s commandment is misleading. To call a pro-choice person “pro-abortion” is simply a lie. But Perp did make one true statement, that people who honest distort the truth in one area shouldn’t be trusted.

Julian, I thought that’s what we WERE discussing; at least, that’s what I was discussing. The problem with dealing with true believers is that the impact of their opinions is, to them, always secondary to being ideologically pure. That’s fine, Julian, you be ideologically pure and let the rest of us do the social policy. I’m done talking, too, and am sure everyone else is glad.

Jose, this is a dialogue of an arrogant person, who finds that his way is the only high way. Didn’t you find any interesting difference between your point of view and mine on the abortion issue? I am amazed at your comment and finding you impatient in reading others point of view with interest. Let me cite an example from your past writing that would show point of difference between yours and mine. In your initial posting you blamed Roman Catholic Church for influencing their Church doctrine of antiabortion into public life. I voiced my opinion by saying that antiabortion is not only Catholic value but also for all followers of Christ, as well as for those who believe on natural human and humanity. I emphasized implementing “natural law of selection” over abortion, in delivering normal and healthy baby or in worst case complicated and painful delivery (include your 12 cases). If you have difficulties understanding “natural law of selection” at birth in this context, that is different issue. Thank you any way for contributing your thoughts on current national debate like prolife vs. prochoice.

Caleb thanks for your comments also, even though I do not agree with your concern on pro-life and its impact in social life. To me impact is secondary issue in selecting pro-life or pro-choice and that should be discussed separately for social justice.

So far, I have never read anything, either by you or anyone else, which gives any social policy reasons for changing the law. I personally find many things that are perfectly legal quite immoral, but for public policy reasons do not seek to change the laws.

As for natural law, it, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Abortion in the first trimester has been legal for 1800 of the last two thousand years that we know of, going back to Roman times. So, one supposes that if people believed in a particular concept of law for nearly two thousand years, and there was no groundswell of support for changing it, it might well be the proper manifestation of natural law. Abortion was illegal in most of the United States for not much more than 100 years, and there was such a hue and cry to change the law by the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s that virtually no one in public life favored the continuation of the old laws.

Julian, buddy, if all you’re ever going to do is say that abortion is immoral, therefore we should outlaw it, and not ask the follow up question, of whether the alternative is going to be worse, you’re not dealing seriously with the issue. The problem is that so many other people also refuse to deal honestly with the issue. Again, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these issues have only begun to come up after two generations have lived with safe and legal abortions, having forgotten the problems of the past.

Caleb, to find an answer to that question I asked you a simple question: is abortion natural right of human, especially for a Christian? Instead of straight answer you spin around the answer. We wanted to hear your opinion out of your life experience along your faith. But rather you danced with Steven Levitt and John J. Donohue’s fine article and Roe v. Wade verdict. You may dance, because you have natural right, but I do not, because it does not speak truth about life and whole universe we exist. Please be noted I am a natural human, not created in a lab, so I prefer natural law. It is up to you whether you like to upheld natural law or not, choice is yours and I have respect for your choice. You must not forget that people’s faith and social policy are inter-related. As long your faith is for well being of people, no policy would come up that effect badly to majority of the people. I believe that man made law can be changed any time as needed but not the natural law.

One thing you did make very clear, that it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with you over any matter of substance. I’m done trying.

As far as the data I cite for the crime wave theory, that’s from Steven Levitt and John J. Donohue’s fine article on the subject; a trip to Google will bring it up. As far as the origin of the right to abortion, that is from Roe v. Wade. But that’s not the point. The question is whether to change that law. In order to make that decision, one has to look at actual facts, not pie in the sky. So far, you’ve dished out lots of pie, but no social policy, other than the whole head in the sand thing.

Caleb, it seems to me you are from a different planet and naïve about complicity of life under this planet earth. You are unaware that with implementation of any law we still need correction center for certain % whose behavior would never be changed. There would be some woman, no matter what, would perform abortion in backdoor, jeopardizing life of both mother and issues. Q# 1) who should be blame for illegal action, society or victims? # 2) where did you find for truth that unwanted babies create crime wave? Please answer to specific questions only.

It is commonsense law that you can not break a system, unless you can make it. The reproductive system is not man made system that you can break it whenever you want. That is why to me abortion is violation of natural law, which is illegal.

“…your answer is to ignore the problem and bury your head in the sand,..”

Caleb, I am looking North direction and you, by looking south, advising me that I did not see the problem. To be in same page let us define the problem to identify the problem. Problem: Is abortion natural right of humanity? My answer is no and I explained by above posting and support majority people’s view on this subjects. What’s your answer, is abortion natural right of human? In replying to the question, please be consistence to your Christian value also, I know you are Christian. Because neither you nor anyone else would be able to answer the question “when does soul come in and out of our structural body?”

I agree with you Caleb. But with this truth do you want for example, to change your anti-corruption law to allow those people who take bribe in a business as a normal business transaction and make company more profitable? In any case people are indulged in kickback despite your existence of anti-corruption law and taking high risk being in a prison for life. Your answer to this question would be your answer to your 2nd question, “2) If we make abortion illegal (anti-corruption law), what do you intend to do about the flood of women (persons who take bribe) seeking unsafe back room abortions (kickback) that endanger not only the unborn child (company profit) but the fully born mother (individual) as well? To me your question is like crying for a law breaker.

By educating women as well as men about the seriousness of life would reduce significantly unwanted babies and aware them about their responsibilities if accident happens. Today’s national evening news of ABC broadcasted that teen pregnancy has been significantly dropped due to awareness of moral value, abstain from sex until marriage and trusting on God. Life is not a joke, nor a pleasure in a bed that you would take as a “Sunday school fluff”. By the example of killing a tiger by a gun as stated above, I mean women at their will and doctors with their dollars as remunerations can kill the life making process, but in both cases it is morally wrong. You are learned corporate lawyer, and I hope you understand this point is not an empty sound of a bullet, it is real.

Your third question “3) what specific alternatives will you offer to mothers who do not want to or are unable to care for their now-unborn child? This problem is not something new to our society and federal government under Department of Health and Human services (HHS), Administration for Children and Family (ACF) have been serving public for this situation.

Your 1st question, “1) If we make abortion illegal, what do you intend to do about the crime wave that will follow?” I understand with this question you mean unwanted babies would be criminals in future. Caleb, I do not find language to criticize this humiliation to humanity false statement. You know by constitution we all are equal irrespective of where we born. As a Christian you also know that God does not create junk.

In my previous posting actually I answered your 3 questions but apparently we were not in alignment to see the answer. Let me know if you need further clarification about importance of life as we are enjoying now and let other to come. Do not be selfish in nature. If you do not want baby, practice safe sex, no one would object to your will.

Jose, Your question is challenging for human and up till now no one knows the answer but God. We know new life begins construction at the conception, but we do not know when soul appears in a normal baby as well as complicated babies. We should not make human as a guinea pig to find out your answer, but until then we should obey natural of law of right to be born, as we are and not to interfere in our reproductive system starting from construction (conceive) till death. As a Christian irrespective of any denomination we should open our God given inner eyes to see inception of life and its end.

Also, what about the back room abortions? You don’t seem to address this, either.

Julian, your solution seems to be for everyone to just be good. If that were a solution, we wouldn’t need laws against murder or theft. The problem is that people are never as good as you want them to be. All my life, I’ve worked in fields that used live ammunition. By that, I mean that when I sued someone, real money was at state, and when I’ve taken political positions, real issues were at stake. It seems to me, Julian, that you are interested more in what people should do than in public policy, which usually comes down to what the rest of us do when other people don’t do what they should. I am never impressed with people who shoot blanks, Julian, and that’s what you’re doing. Re-load with live ammo, and then respond.

11. The process of becoming a person begins prior to conception and continues until after birth. There are multiple distinct events (ovulation, conception, implantation, birth) and long periods of smooth develop (in utero, postnatal). Based on objective observable facts, can you be sure that there IS a single point in time marking the instant that a person begins? Why?

12. Legally, ethically, and theologically we also have to face the question of when a human life ends. How can we apply our observations there to the same question of when a human life begins? If the same rationale for “life begins at conception” were used to determine end of life, then how would that differ from the commonly accepted definitions today?

To answer all these questions in nutshell I would like to say enhance awareness of moral value of the society that would increase awareness of responsibility for an action which have consecutive results. Moral value of life’s end result is to love for other life which is coming, as ourselves, thinking our birth was also in the same way. Potential mother must be aware that unsafe love making in bed may results in bringing her involvement in life making process which she can not terminate at her will, like a mother can not kill her born baby even though she may not like to take responsibility. It is natural selection (God). I can not kill a tiger even though I have power to kill it by a gun.

We can not take life making process lightly, if we can band guinea pigs testing in laboratory we should also band disruption of human reproduction. Like any other responsibility or risk we take in our life we must take responsibility of baby that comes out of our love making. In question of raping, where mother is unwilling to accept the baby, Government/NGO would be happy to accept the baby. We got to believe because it is true that no child is born as a criminal. Society makes a child criminal by allowing a child raised in a criminal environments. In my previous posting I pointed out that though there is anticorruption law still there is corruption behind the door that does not mean we would allow corruption. We can not take law at our hand by doing illegal abortion. Once we apprehend that reproduction system is not man made system that we could play with this system at our will once it started by formation of gamete (union of sperm and ovary) whether in early stage or in later stage. Every action have a opposite reaction. If we make love results may end up with responsibility. There is no easy escape by termination, like killing. Moral value would bring not only happiness but also prosperity of individual life and be a good citizen of a nation. It is encouraging that teenage pregnancy rate has been reduced.

6. Identical Twins
One egg, one sperm, one conception. The embryo splits and forms two fetuses. Can we agree that there are two persons born? At what point does the second person come into being?

7. Vanishing Twins
The embryo splits as for identical twins, but soon after it rejoins and develops as a single fetus. One baby is born. Was there another person at any time? What happened?

8. Conjoined Twins (separable)
One conception and one embryo which then partially splits. The resulting fetus is almost two complete bodies joined together. At birth there is one body but with separate heads and limbs that act independently. Sometime after birth this one body is surgically split into two. This is two persons, right?

9. Conjoined Twins (nonseparable)
This is similar to the one above but is much closer to one whole person than two. A baby is born with spare parts attached, like an arm or a leg but no head. There’s not nearly enough of the second baby to make a body that survives, so doctors just amputate the extra parts. If conjoined twins are always two persons, then it would be true in this case, right? Is the amputated limb a person?

10. Chimera
This one is rare but it really does happen. Two eggs are fertilized separately in two conceptions, leading to two independent and genetically distinct embryos. (This is the traditional fraternal twin situation thus far.) However, sometime early in the pregnancy the two embryos fuse into one fetus. The result appears to be a single healthy baby, with one head, one torso, two arms, two legs, etc. However it has two distinct sets of DNA. Is this one person or two?