Interesting how fast these threads turn into the same old abortion and homosexuality debates.

I think I have managed to catch a glimpse of Karen’s point that a person who TRULY aligns him/herself with “God” wouldn’t be a serial killer. I find that argument interesting, every time, because it means Karen (in this instance) has the only TRUE take on “God,” which is that any REAL relationship with “God” brings a person to peace, honorability, love, etc. There are so many things wrong with that, I have given myself a headache trying to sort it all out. But I will say that is all you are going to get, Les: “Rader wasn’t a REAL Christian,” and that is going to make perfect sense to the TRUE believer. They will pad themselves with “free will and all,” and if that doesn’t work…

Okay, here it is: “GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS.”

(And, GeekMom isn’t a REAL mother.)

Just my bet.

Wow.

Well, I’m a 25 year old woman, and I’d like to say that if I turned out to be pregnant, I sure as hell wouldn’t be having it.  I’m not married, and I don’t want a baby right now. Now is not the time.  And there’s no way I’d consent to being called a murderer.  Conception is a bodily function that we have no certain control over (aside from sexual abstinence, yeah right) and there’s no way I’ll let my body rule my life.  Not when I’m sick, not when I’m in pain, and not when I’m pregnant.  Not if I can help it.

Many other species are known to abandon their young in times of low resources. We are no different.  But now we have the capability to do it quickly and painlessly instead of leaving an already born child for dead, as was done in the past. (And as is done in other species.)Technology is just another one of those things that distinguish us from other animals.

Further, how can you conscionably place all the blame on the woman?  She’s the only ‘murderer’?  How are men, who are also capable of creating babies and helping in the decision to abort, less to blame?  No wonder women go crazy and kill their already born children by driving them into lakes.  No wonder women leave their babies in dumpsters.  No wonder women become addicts and neglect their children.  With blame-flingers like you, the pressure must be too much.  “Have your baby to avoid being a murderer even though you don’t know what in the hell to do with it and don’t want it!” Great idea. Why don’t we focus on building a supportive society based on empathy and compassion instead of hatred and elitism.  Then the ‘murder’ problem just might solve itself!  Holy fucking making sense, Batman!

For now, I’ll enjoy my time and be selfish with it until I reach a point in my life where I’m ready to share it with others.  And I’ll enjoy every delicious and beautiful minute of it all.

Honestly between denying the deity of Christ and discounting most of the NT as Pagan, (Deity of Christ and infallability of scripture are two accepted tenents of Christianity by pretty much every mainstream Christian sect.  ) Karen has already denoted herself as a member of some cult or weird ideology.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, just pointing out she’s nutty in more ways than one.

Well, Slick, that’s the problem for thoughtful Christians, isn’t it?  If you’re intelligent enough to see the internal inconsistencies and the scientific problems with the Bible, you have to steer some sort of course around the rocks.  On the other hand, if you’re a fundamentalist, you simply stick your fingers in your ears, ignore the shivering timbers, and sing out “La la la! It’s a beautiful day in the Neighborhood!”.

Karen’s course is a pretty typical one- divine inspiration, human imperfection.  Many Christians I admire have similar beliefs, and that’s fine.  The problem comes when they try to impose those beliefs, one way or another, on all of us.

I have no interest in tarring Christianity with an endorsement of slavery, and I do not know a single Christian today who believes slavery is good or morally neutral.  Yet if the bible is the word of god, it pretty much stamps slavery with god’s approval as explained above.

Not to mention racism in it… just remember those speeches about “god’s chosen people”.

“Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand . . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.”
-Bertrand Russell

“Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction.”
-Blaise Pascal

zilch:  For the record I didn’t so much have a problem with the infallability of scripture, as the denial of the deity of Christ.  Scripture is subject to reader interpretation on almost all but a few counts.  The deity of Christ is one of them, and if you deny it, you muddy up the whole religion.  What she’s saying sounds like some sort of reverse Gnosticism, and while certainly not as harmful as Gnosticism, it doesn’t gel with 99.9% of Christianity’s follower’s beliefs. 

Then again, a lot of fundamentalists get upset with me for subscribing to evolution, and refusing to recognize a few layers of cells as a person, even though I believe most of what they believe. 

As I said, she has the right to believe anything she wants, just as I do, and just as you do.

SHE HAS THAT RIGHT, and it’s none of your business what she does with her body any more than it’s her business what you do with yours.

GeekMom, settle down. Please.  I never said she didn’t have the right to end her child’s life.  I guess having an opinion on this subject is outrageous to you.  I don’t need permission to have one so I will continue having one.  And until you can argue intellectually that stopping a beating heart is NOT “killing/murdering then I suppose you can just ignore me.

and STILL didn’t see them as fully human until they had actually developed into functioning humans.

It boggles the mind that any woman can carry a child and view it as “non human” until it is “functioning”. Quite frankly, I think you are only saying this just to say it and not because you truly believe your unborn child was not human.  But just in case you are unsure wether the children you carried inside you for 9 months were human or not...take a good look at them now. They aren’t cats or dogs.  They were human then and are human now.

Did you know that it’s been statistically determined that the legalization of abortion has caused the US crime rate to drop?

I do know that study has been proven (years ago actually) to be a complete laughable crock of shit with absolutely no evidence to support it. I wouldn’t be relying on old, outdated, biased pro-choice studies to support your argument in favor of abortion, especially one titled “Freakonomics”. Especially when the author himself once admitted he never even looked at the correct crime stats himself. lol The statistics simply do not support Levitt’s hypothesis. You ought to know this before you go lauding his alleged research.

According to Levitt’s logic, murder should have declined first among the youngest and last among the oldest. Did it? Unfortunately for Levitt, the opposite is true. The murder rate for Americans age 25 and over started falling way back in 1981 (when the youngest person in this cohort was born in 1956) and fell fairly steadily for two decades. Indeed, in contrast to his theory about post-Roe individuals being especially law-abiding, the adult murder rate has only begun to creep back up now that people born after Roe have begun to make up a noticeable fraction of those 25 and up. From 1999 through 2002 (the latest year available, when a 25-year-old would have been born four years after Roe), the murder rate among 25- to 34-year-olds has risen 17 percent, while continuing to drop among the under-25s.

But the acid test of Levitt’s theory is this: did the first New, Improved Generation culled by legalized abortion actually grow up to be more lawful teenagers than the last generation born before legalization? Hardly. Instead, the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history. 

Abortion became legal in 1970 in California, New York, and three smaller states. Let’s compare the murder rate of 14- to 17-year-olds in 1983 (who were born in the last pre-legalization years of 1965-1969) with that of 14- to 17-year-olds a decade later in 1993 (who were born in the high-abortion years of 1975-1979). Was this post-Roe cohort better behaved than their pre-legalization elders? Not exactly. Their murder rate was 3.1 times worse.

For more on this see graphs and FACTS here:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_09/feature.html

But then facts and reason hardly entertain the irrational mind.

And you know what, I have one more issue to address with you , Geek. How much differently does a newborn function from an unborn?  Does the newborn run out and get a job?  Please define “functioning” for me. I’d LOVE to hear your version of it.

Taking your childbirth is a noble and glorious ordeal mindset to it’s logical conclusion, I have to wonder why you even accept adoption as an alternative. I fear you would view it as a cop-out.

Do you make gross assumptions about people you don’t know often?  Any alternative that results in a living child is a miracle to me.  And as I said, i would be VERY careful about insinuating that unwanted children are always the bane of their family’s existence.  Many, MANY children are born of unexpected and unwanted pregnancies. The human heart has a way of softening once a pregnancy progresses a woman becomes attached to her child.  That is to say said woman HAS a heart and doesn’t view her unborn as “sub-human” because it isn’t “functioning”. I actually do pity the child of any woman who once viewed it as “sub-human”.  And I can’t imagine how hurt that child would be if he/she ever learned his own mother felt that way at one time.

But now don’t you take my words out of context-that child is still better off breathing that in a trash compactor.

I find that argument interesting, every time, because it means Karen (in this instance) has the only TRUE take on “God,� which is that any REAL relationship with “God� brings a person to peace, honorability, love, etc.

Nice way of putting words straight in my mouth, pal. I never said any of that. I am amused how unwelcome dissenting opinions are on this board. You express them and any numerous amount of people jump to make wild interpretations of what you have actually said and then accuse you of being exactly what THEY themselves are: closed minded.

My statement was only meant to express my firm belief (and no you won’t sway me) that any man who TRULY chooses to be close to God can not in the same breath choose to do evil.  I am using the Messiah as my example..and perhaps only him since no man has come as close to perfection as he. I never meant to imply anything regarding “peace”, “honorability” or “love”, particularly since HE never found those things in great abundance from his fellow man. I also never claimed that I and only I had the one true take on God.

Honestly between denying the deity of Christ and discounting most of the NT as Pagan, (Deity of Christ and infallability of scripture are two accepted tenents of Christianity by pretty much every mainstream Christian sect.  ) Karen has already denoted herself as a member of some cult or weird ideology.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, just pointing out she’s nutty in more ways than one.

If I had a dime for everytime some evangelical, chest beating “christian” labelled me a heretic or cultist or nutty. It actually makes me smile.  It’s proof they have no better argument for their irrational belief in unexplainable and illogical dogma.  I might also point out that the whole of Judaism rejects the deity of Christ, as does Islam and thousands of Trinitarians and Christian scholars themselves question the authority of the New Testament, being written centures after the death of the messiah.  I suppose they’re all nutty and all part of some grand cult.  More small mindedness-should I be surprised I am finding this on a majority liberal blog?

Karen’s course is a pretty typical one- divine inspiration, human imperfection.

I’m sorry but.....HUH?

The deity of Christ is one of them, and if you deny it, you muddy up the whole religion.  What she’s saying sounds like some sort of reverse Gnosticism, and while certainly not as harmful as Gnosticism, it doesn’t gel with 99.9% of Christianity’s follower’s beliefs. 

Since you seem woefully ignorant of the terminology-it’s not reverse Gnosticism. It’s monotheism. I believe in ONE God. Not 3 in one. Not only does the Scriptures (Torah or NT) ONCE identify jesus with God no mention of the word trinity can be found.  It wasn’t a doctrine until the 3rd century and even then it was denied vehemently by the existing fragments of the original apostolic faith. It was a doctrine designed ONLY by and through Roman conversion to Christianity. It was not a doctrine held by jesus himself-he was a Jew of his time-monotheistic, believing in the supremity of the Father alone as God. Over and over again he pronounced his submission and obedience to the Father, “his God”. The Scriptures no more support the concept of the trinity than they do the concept of evolution.

This being one of my favorite quotes:

In the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt with consequences of a pernicious nature. The subject of this fatal controversy which kindles such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, a doctrine which in the three preceeding centuries happily escaped the vain curiousity of human researchers.-J.L Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History (new York Harper 1839)

The deity of Christ is one of them, and if you deny it, you muddy up the whole religion.

Say what you will about me and my beliefs. The concept of the trinity is Christianity’s self inflicted wound-it has served to muddy the religion up all on it’s own-with it’s mysterious unexplainability and lack of evidence to support it-wether it be in the Scriptures or in it’s historical conception.  And for the record, I never said the Scriptures were completely innacurate. My only contention is they should be subject to utter scrutiny (particularly the NT) being that it has been proven time and again to be adulterated by the hand of man and written SO very long after the conception of the early faith.

As I said, say what you will about me. Call me a freak or nutty. At least I can say I have come by my convictions through hard earned study and research and not by sitting in some hard backed pew taking some other’s word for it. I prefer to lead my own brain than hand it over on a leash to some priest or pastor who has no more logic, reason or ability to know God than I do.

7-dipping… that has to be some kind of record.  I feel kind of clumsy when I double or triple-dip and then it’s usually to correct some error in my own comment.

Karen, first let me say, I am not stepping between you and GeekMom, for exactly the same reason I wouldn’t step into a live-fire zone on a Baghdad street.  However, I would like to offer one little suggestion:

Open an editor like WordPad and type your comments into it for twenty minutes or so.  Then when you start to slow down, copy the whole thing and paste it into a comment form and preview it before you hit “Submit.”

You’re pretty good about using paragraphs, though.  My other pet peeve is when people submit comments that are 200 lines of text without a break.

Back to your argument, then…

Conception is a bodily function that we have no certain control over

This gave me more than a chuckle! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
So, hmmmm, tell me when did human beings start asexually reproducing?  I guess I assumed your basic biology course clarified any of those really complex concepts, shana. Were you absent?

But now we have the capability to do it quickly and painlessly instead of leaving an already born child for dead, as was done in the past.

So we should justify the collective extinguishing of millions based on the rare instances of child abandonment? Also led me add that abortion is hardly quick and painless, unless you are given an anesthetic that knocks you out. I know some clinics do this but most do not-it is simply too expensive.  I may also add that there is more and more evidence linking abortion to breast cancer and uterine insufficiency. The consequences can last a lifetime for some women.

How are men, who are also capable of creating babies and helping in the decision to abort, less to blame? 

They are no less to blame. But perhaps the woman should be held to a higher standard since the child is inside HER body and is HERS to protect from harm while it is there.

“Have your baby to avoid being a murderer even though you don’t know what in the hell to do with it and don’t want it!�

So we should pre-execute said child on the offchance and somehow crystal ball prediction that the parent will turn out to be insane?  No woman HAS to have a baby she doesn’t want. There are plenty of alternatives to making a decision that leaves HER the murderer of her own offspring.

With blame-flingers like you, the pressure must be too much.

Shana, if you knew me you would not be saying that about me. I am not a blame finger. I am in no position to blame anyone for their choices. But I also can’t close my mind to logic and reason and address issues on pure emotion-like you seem inclined to do. You seem so worked up about this issue-so much so that you are willing to accuse a complete stranger on the internet of being the reason woman murder their BORN children as well. Logic and facts always bear themselves out, long after emotion has died down: fetus/embryo=living being, beating heart, capacity to feel, genetically human. Abortion=stopping a beating heart and causing death to living being which is genetically human. This is the purest definition of murder. It’s so simple it’s almost stupid.  But it’s this very simplicity that women’s rights advocates hope escapes you in favor of emotion and chest beating, “it’s my body, it’s my right.” If the logic and simplicity of it is ugly and brutal and too hard to face, the answer is not to resort ot irrational, emotionally based arguments in favor of it-rather to look at it for what it is and just accept it.

Why don’t we focus on building a supportive society based on empathy and compassion instead of hatred and elitism.  Then the ‘murder’ problem just might solve itself!  Holy fucking making sense, Batman!

I am all for that! Eutopia, Batman! Just point me to the nearest women’s libber or women’s right’s advocacy groups that want to join in on that effort! Hurrah Hurrah!  Just one question: where is the hatred and elitism in this issue?

-dipping… that has to be some kind of record.  I feel kind of clumsy when I double or triple-dip and then it’s usually to correct some error in my own comment.

LOL Sorry I can’t sit here all day and respond to these comments as they come in.  But I can’t NOT comment-twould be against my nature.;0)

Open an editor like WordPad and type your comments into it for twenty minutes or so.  Then when you start to slow down, copy the whole thing and paste it into a comment form and preview it before you hit “Submit.â€?

Nah, I don’t censor myself or second guess myself. If I typed it at first I wanted to say it.

You’re pretty good about using paragraphs, though.

Structure and form are next to godliness. Must be the writer in me.

DOF said to Karen: Open an editor like WordPad and type your comments into it for twenty minutes or so.  Then when you start to slow down, copy the whole thing and paste it into a comment form and preview it before you hit “Submit.â€?

For some reason I see that as lack of respect for the site owner when it happens. It’s almost like they’re thinking “He’s lucky I’m taking the time to comment on his little blog. Sha, you know what, I feel like being generous today!”

Structure and form are next to godliness. Must be the writer in me.

Now, it’s structure and form. They used to say it was cleanliness. You know what? I looked it up, it’s all bullshit.

Goggles is next to god. Cleaniness is next to claustrophobia and cleavage.

Now I need to look up structure and form. I suspect strictnine and fornication will come up.....

I don’t have the time to read through everything right now, but I have a quick comment to Karen:

When I was born 2.5 months early, I would have died on my own.  I think that viability is a major factor in determining humanity.

You can’t blame someone for ending a mass of cells that can’t even survive on its own.

And sure, you’re welcome to have your opinion.  I have a BIG problem when that opinion is forced on others.  Maybe you don’t advocate criminalizing abortion, and I would commend you for that.  More later.

Karen:  based on the rare instances of child abandonment?

Geekmom was talking historically.  The ancient Greeks and Romans (among others) used to put unwanted infants out like old furniture to be taken by whoever may have wanted them, or to die from exposure if not.

Karen: Sorry I can’t sit here all day and respond to these comments as they come in.

That’s what it looks like you’re doing when you multi-dip.

Nah, I don’t censor myself or second guess myself. If I typed it at first I wanted to say it.

You completely missed his point.  DOF is saying that instead of sitting there cranking out post after post, just write it up as ONE single post until you stop hitting keys.  THEN post it.  Nobody said shit about censoring or second guessing yourself.  Feel free to pop off the backspace key if you like.  Not to mention if something calls you away, you can just save the text file for later.  It also helps when the browser decides to eat your post.

I have no interest in posting an opinion on whatever it is that Karen and the rest of you are discussing. It apparently is high tide for thread drift.

In an attempt to stem that tide, I’ll revisit this portion of Les’s original post:

I point all this out because I’m sometimes told by True Believers™ that the power of faith in God is so great that it can turn the worst of murderers into shining saints. Or that true evil of the sort that supposedly drives men such as Rader to do the terrible things they do can not survive in the light of God. Rader would seem to put the lie to those claims; he survived and prospered just fine for most of his life.

Without taking issue with whether what the TBs tell you is accurate or not, I note that Rader does not serve to discredit what they are telling you.

For Rader to discredit such claims, Rader would have to be a Christian.  Attendance at church, nor even being on a church board makes one a Christian in the manner that the TBs are proposing to you Les.  TBs generally believe that to get saved one must have “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” That is their touchstone.

Rader is clearly a sociopath.  He lacks the ability to have a personal relationship of any kind other than one that superficially serves his purpose. He lacks the requisite ability to even be a Christian by TB standards.  As such his use for comparitive purposes is not on point.

Karen, do you really want me to pull my Bible out.  While Jesus submitted to God (the Father) he also claimed to be God multiple times. 

The concept of the Trinity was invented as a way to try and explain what is essentially unexplainable. 

Fun reading time on the Deity of Christ:

John 1:1

John 8:58

I am sorry for being “woefully ignorant of the terminology”, I am only eighteen, and still have a lot to learn.  As for being a ‘close-minded liberal’, you’ll have to look elsewhere, I am a moderate from a strongly Republican family, so I lean pretty heavily to the right (though I profess no fondness for Bush). 

I’m not going to beat you over the head with this anymore.  I apologize for being abrasive in my first post, it was not proper.

The messiah (again my humble opinion) chose to walk with God his entire life and he did NO evil-hence why he was without blemish and sufficient to be sacrifice for the sins of man. That is if you believe he existed and believe what is written about it. I choose to.
...
I stand behind the contention that the “good book� has been corrupted by the hand of man and is more a reflection of man’s endorsements and guidelines than it is of God’s.

And that, Karen, is what I paraphrased as “divine inspiration, human imperfection”.  Is this an unfair construal of your position on the Bible?

As far as what makes one a “true” Christian- we can argue til the cows come home, and not agree.  If a Christian is one who believes in the literal truth of Scripture, then there can be no Christians except those whose happy lack of cognitive dissonance renders them unfit for participating in rational discourse.

If a Christian is one who believes in the “central message” or the “spirit” or the “divinely inspired” part of the Bible, then there will be endless debate about exactly what to pick and what to discard- and that is indeed the case with all the various sects of Christianity.  Richard the Lionhearted considered himself, and was considered, a good Christian.  Is he in Heaven?

If, however, a “true” Christian is one who practices the universally recognized virtues of kindness and generosity, above and beyond what the Bible recommends, then all bets are off.

Karen:
On the Levitt study, your only source was the American Conservative.  Hardly an unbiased source, tsk tsk.

This gave me more than a chuckle! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
So, hmmmm, tell me when did human beings start asexually reproducing?  I guess I assumed your basic biology course clarified any of those really complex concepts, shana. Were you absent?

Wow, you really didn’t read my post, did you?  I suggest you look again, in the parentheses.

So we should justify the collective extinguishing of millions based on the rare instances of child abandonment? Also led me add that abortion is hardly quick and painless, unless you are given
an anesthetic that knocks you out.  I may also add that there is more and more evidence linking abortion to breast cancer and uterine insufficiency.

I’m not so sure it was a rare occurance, but neither of us have statistics, do we?  Suffice to say that it’s practiced in some unindustrialized areas to this day that have no access to healthcare--and I’m not talking about cultures that single out female children.  I’m talking about some largely egalitarian cultures.

As for quick and painless...sure, any surgery has some pain. Compared to a coat hanger, the pain of abandoning a viable child, or actually carrying a baby to term and giving birth (especially when you don’t want to), I’d say abortion is pretty quick and painless.

The risk of maternal death due to a legal induced abortion in the United States is approximately 0.6 per 100,000, whereas the risk of death for a woman 35 to 39 years of age who attempts to carry a pregnancy to term is 21 per 100,000 — 35 times as high.

Statistics from:
one
and
two
Quoted in:
three
Note: The article these stats were quoted in has a definite pro-choice bias, however, the sources are unbiased medical journals.
I’d love to follow this up with some plain stats from the CDC about younger women, but I’m having problems with adobe right now.  The most recent stat I can find on the CDC is for the period from 1982-1996, when the rate was 7.5 per 100,000.

from
four

On abortion and breast cancer:

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (1)

from
five

I have no idea what you mean by ‘uterine insufficiency.’

[Men] are no less to blame. But perhaps the woman should be held to a higher standard since the child is inside HER body and is HERS to protect from harm while it is there.

Um, I don’t find that fair at all.  The woman didn’t choose her sex or even to be pregnant.

So we should pre-execute said child on the offchance and somehow crystal ball prediction that the parent will turn out to be insane?  No woman HAS to have a baby she doesn’t want. There are
plenty of alternatives to making a decision that leaves HER the murderer of her own offspring.

Did you read Nowiser’s post?  I don’t think you did!

Also, as I’m sure you well know, pregnancy screws your body up.  Your organs and bones never go back completely to their original places afterward.  I won’t put myself through that if I don’t want to.  How is an unviable fetus somehow more important than a productive and healthy adult?

By simply taking the stance that those women are murderers, you blame them.  As for logic and reason, you’re the one consulting biased sources and quoting misinformation.  Sure, I’m impassioned, but that doesn’t mean my information is any less accurate or logical.

And yes, I find it quite logical that such attitudes as yours drive some women to leave their children for dead. When society puts all the responsibility on women and call them murderers, there are bound to be some who break under the pressure. They’re damned if they abort, but they can’t care for the child either.  They could give it up for adoption, sure, but who’s gonna pay for the vitamins and OB/GYN?  What about the time they have to take off from work to give birth? 

Plus, thanks to pro-life groups, women don’t always have access to all the information they need.  Many women go into “family planning” clinics looking for advice and all they get is bible-thumping and promises of free diapers; no counseling about the choices they have.  When the time comes, many of those so-called family planning clinics leave women with their babies and nothing else.  So you’ll have to forgive me if I get a little worked up about this; it just doesn’t seem humane or logical. Neither does it seem humane or logical to force a woman to live for nine months with something in her body she doesn’t want--for someone else to make that decision for her.  Obviously the issue is not so cut and dry as you like to describe it or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As for your comments about abortion stopping a beating heart and such, talk about emotional!  Let’s look at animals in general.  It’s quite probable that more cells lyse in your body every day than are contained in a human embryo. Death is an everyday occurance.  Sure, an embryo has a different aim than say, the cells on your arm.  But there’s no promise that embryo will survive.  There’s no promise of anything.

Given problems with overpopulation, healthcare funding, and the situations many unwanted children find themselves in today, it’s quite an intelligent and appropriate decision for many women to get abortions.  Others choose to have the babies, anyway, and I think that’s a good choice, too--so long as it’s a choice.  As a child, I would rather be chosen than inflicted on my mother against her will by people who know nothing about her or her life.

When I was born 2.5 months early, I would have died on my own.  I think that viability is a major factor in determining life.

I didn’t say everything I intended to say here because I was in a hurry.  What I mean is that I had a maze of tubes and wires and multiple surgeries to keep me alive.  I couldn’t have survived with just my mother.  The same is true for most babies born that early.  By comparison, babies aborted in the first and second trimesters most likely wouldn’t even survive with surgeries and the best medical care--they’re just not developed enough.

KPG, you win...a new car!

It’s quite probable that more cells lyse in your body every day than are contained in a human embryo. Death is an everyday occurance.

I’ve been carefully filtering my bath water, and straining out all the sloughed off skin cells, so that they can be preserved for cloning.  I mean, they’re alive, they’re human, and they could potentially become conscious human beings (sometime down the line), so I feel it’s my moral responsibility to preserve and nurture them.

I haven’t been able to bring myself to pick through my own excrement, yet, so I guess I’m still a murderer, but hey, baby steps, people, baby steps!