That is a very very important truth that is so lost on people, particularly those responding to the natural "underdog reaction".

My point was simply that the repeal of RvW simply means the matter reverts to the State. If that State considers life begins at conception then that is that State's law. Another State may want to use that it is not a life and can be aborted up until self awareness. Which may mean, until the child can speak and write if they would so choose. However I do not think any State would go that far. And if they did, then perhaps we would see a SCOTUS rule.
My point is that it appears to me, that none of you even understand RvW. It declared that due to the privacy of the individual, the actions between a patient and doctor are protected by the right of privacy. Thus a woman having an abortion, is between her and the doctor. That would seem to me then, if your doctor and you decide that being a heroin addict is what you want, them that under RvW would be leagal too. The next step.
No "RIGHT" can impose an action to be imposed of another person. You can not have a right to an abortion, it can only be legal or illegal. You can not have a right to health care. It can only be available or not. You can never have a right to the labor, or property of another. To compel one person to work or produce for another is not a Right. It is theft by law.

hillary and bill are total fascists...trump is the kind of businessman you get with crony fascism...

I hope you have a self to be in it for. I really dislike those who are without any kind of self interest, good or bad. He is much better than his selfless opponent who must live off of others. Trump could even make a very good living even if he lost everything. Although I did not like most of them, I have known several who have made and lost fortunes only to get wealthy again each time. They all had strong selves. I do agree that he is a better person than Hillary.

Seems like Trump was messed up by an over long adolescence which I hope he is now growing into a more rational adulthood. Still hard to trust him but easier than trusting Hillary.

But the fetus was born during the delivery and was then considered a baby and in those cases were not very viable due to the amount of machinery need to keep them alive.
So are you saying that a fetus was still a fetus after being born due to its premature weight?

Until fairly recently it was a fetus until born and then becomes a baby or child or infant. It may have been changed by those who would like to ruin the language or the society. It is just lucky in the natural sense, that any zygote gets to be a fetus due to the randomness of the processes that go on inside an ovum when fertilized by a lucky sperm. So much can go wrong. Those are to be considered lives to be protected and maybe even have memorials for, since they were alive?
I see a lot of protest about abortion related to the pain that the fetus might feel.I would suspect that those same people would have a male child's foreskin cut off without regard to the pain suffered but would overlook that with visions that he, if I can call it that at that age, will have a better life among his later friends by not looking differently from them.

People often seem to forget that just because they dislike a particular thing, passing a law is not the best way to remedy. Every time another law or regulation is established, to that extent a person's freedom is diminished.
Glad you agree.

I logically contend simply that life begin with consciousness or self-awareness. Anything before that is less than an animal which we kill for food, sport or to make way for ourselves without any claim of murder or crime.

Viability, possibility, etc need to be examined against murder by condom, bad music, bad hair and bad pickup lines.

I was thinking something like this should've been Trumps response to her bringing up the recording. Something like:
"Look Hillary, I'm not proud of what I said, but men are pigs. All men are pigs. How can you be unaware of this? You are married to one of the biggest pigs and you have women promising blow jobs campaigning for you. Either you are incompetent at critical thinking or a complete hypocrite, either one is unsuitable for president."

I think you are right, but I'm looking for some evidence to support arguments with feminists. (and yes, I do joust at windmills)

Agreed, everything, including the trade I posted is relative. Compared to Hillary a drunken sailor in a strip club is fiscally conservative.

"there is no person yet to exorcise a right other than the mother only." -- well, that's the core of the argument, isn't it?

Is that objective reality, does a person not exist until he or she exits the birth canal or is born via caesarian? Or is it when they COULD live independently. The current Roe v Wade basis is essentially viability. Of course even when they wrote it, it was considered a moving platform. The day will come when we can raise a baby from conception without using a human mother. What then of the viability argument?

Yep.

I logically contend simply that life begin with consciousness or self-awareness. Anything before that is less than an animal which we kill for food, sport or to make way for ourselves without any claim of murder or crime.

I didn't start this thread to argue this point (which you and I have bantered for pages and pages, my good Blar-friend!). I started it to leverage the wisdom and breadth of this group to help see through the media-noise on Trumps flip-flopping on this subject.

To make any kind of logical assertion requires work. To attempt to say that either point of view is a given or of automatic merit is to expose one's bias for one side or the other. Rand laid out a case for atheism - she didn't assume anything. I suggest that the same course be taken and that no assumptions be taken for granted.

The other problem is in identifying which religion one is going to take issue with, as there are hundreds - if not thousands. And within the major ones such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam there are sub-cultures with their own interpretations - some even radically different. One can not contend with all of "religion". It is a straw man of epic proportions. One has to identify principles. In this case, the principle is the question of when life begins.

Boy did I kick over an anthill !!!!!

Only wanted to understand how much the media is overplaying Trump's flip-flopping on this issue.

First, the bible is no place to begin or leverage for a logical argument, unless the argument is about the bible.

How many potential persons have been killed by condoms, bad music, bad breath or bad pick up lines?

I agree, if a pregnant woman is shot, and the baby dies, it should not be a murder.

My point about fetus to baby is self awareness. This does not occur in the womb at all, not until much later; however, arguing this after birth is too much.

If the pregnant woman wants you to deliver a baby early and it lives, great. Up until then, it is all up to the mother.

Precisely.

Atheism is not a religion. It makes no assertions.

One's work is all ahead of them to put a logical argument behind religion, and further to draw this conclusion from religion. .

Good rant.

Right...

The reverse can also be said: that the question is very simple until atheism enters the room. It isn't a one-sided argument.

The following may make some here angry but here goes my somewhat quiet rant.

In society you must exercise a right by choosing and acting freely. Not all actions will be free depending on the society even though you should have liberty to do the action. You cannot require others to provide you with anything, including privacy. You can work to have privacy laws passed but most people will view privacy differently than you do.
As to abortion, the government, in a way, reverted to language of the past where a baby or child is a fetus which has been born. Fetuses have only the rights of a parasite which feeds off another. There, it is the one who is being fed off of who has the right to keep or reject the parasite. It might be too harsh to say it that way, but the only right, as a parasite, that such a fetus or other parasite has is to accept what is given to it or go elsewhere, though that is questionable in the case of a fetus since it has no ability to think or accept anything.

I am tired of the political nonsense of "pro life" and "pro choice" the first just indicates that only human life is good and the second that one is moral. I would like it if every pregnancy was a chosen one with parents who would love the child and that every pregnancy would end in a healthy child but that is a kind of crap shoot with a large percentage of fetuses being malformed and most likely unable to live any kind of a normal life (as do some downs syndrome children and others with much help) which are miscarried and unnoticed by the mother. I have enough empathy to understand the horrors that mothers can have about abortion and even the possible horror of forcing very sickly and in constant pain or needing-large-numbers-of- surgeries babies to live painful lives let alone those who will live painful lives due to extremely bad parents.
No one has a right to force any choice on anyone else. Those choices do not include what would be actual criminal choices. I do not consider that abortion is criminal since there is no person yet to exorcise a right other than the mother only. Thus the state and society should stay out of it.

This is one of the many conservative views I oppose. While I abhor abortion, I don't want to see a law against it.No one should dictate to a woman -- or a man for that matter, what they should do with their own bodies.