no, but I believe that in general, the most vocal "pro life" are in fact "pro birth", and do nothing to indicate otherwise. If someone has the time to picket Planned Parenthood, do they have time to adopt a crack baby? Or volunteer as a big brother/big sister? Or donate to charities that try to make the lives of abused children better?

When ever I have had convesations with staunch "pro-life" people, not a single one has done any of these or similar things. That leads me to believe that they are pro-birth, and nothing else. The only reason they "care about" the other people is that they want to "save them" in a parochial sense based on their personal belief system (which they insist on extending to others).

Sorry, I didn't major in ethics. I did take a biomedical ethics course though...and I engaged in tampering with the genetics of living creatures, and in fact would routinely kill literally billions and billions of them in a single procedure. I always used to argue that if e. coli were cute like bunnies I would have ended up killed by some PETA faction...

Abortion is one of those issues that I've mostly given up arguing about. It is like religion - there's 5% arguing one extreme, 5% arguing the other extreme. Each of the extremes picks the "most" extreme situation to highlight, and they basically seem to be talking to themselves and to each other. Neither extreme's arguments are susceptible to logical reasoning - it's pure faith. Meanwhile the other 90%, whose views fall somewhere in the middle, have basically tuned out the debate and the debaters. The politicians are almost all grandstanding for their respective hard-core supporters. And the judges are left holding the bag.

To those who demean the judges - vent all you want, the fact is there is a lot of legal precedent that they must interpret and follow, and for the most part they do their best to interpret the law and the constitution. There's always someone who'll disagree with any decision, today it happens to be you. You haven't read the precedent the judge must follow, or the record they had to rule on, perhaps you know little or nothing about law, but - hey - go ahead and call the judge nasty names if it makes you feel better. They are, unfortunately, quite used to it.

We could probably have a good discussion on this very important topic, but you speak in sweeping generalizations and limit your proof to personal experience. This forum is simply not the place as the topic itself is too important to leave to a sparring match of emails. I have an extensive library from which I can recommend several great books dealing with this issue from 'both' sides, and presents conclusions based on sound arguments. I agree that the info fed through the media certainly presents the issue as a black and white fallacy and that hurts those who are trying to form a belief based on the 'facts.' This is also an emotionally charged issue and those aren't usually won by either trying to persuade the other. you can give someone the facts (the truth whatever that is) but they can still interpret them (or ignore them) as they wish.

I would be very interested in finding out how many Porsche owers have read more than 1 book for each side of this issue.

"the fact is there is a lot of legal precedent that they must interpret and follow, and for the most part they do their best to interpret the law and the constitution."

Law is not the final answer. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. The most blatant example is slavery. There was a time when it was legal, but it was never ethical.

"There's always someone who'll disagree with any decision, today it happens to be you."

And rarely do you find the court in 100% agreement. Dissenting opinions are equally sound in most cases, but it comes down to a majority conclusion.

"You haven't read the precedent the judge must follow, or the record they had to rule on, perhaps you know little or nothing about law"

I have seen many, many, many judges rulings that totally ignore precedent. That's one of the fundamental rights of a judgeship and one the of fundamental problems with law and why ethicists are becoming so popular these days. (I refer to the recent corporate unethical behavior)

how many books does it take? This isn't rocket science...it comes down to faith and your belief system.

If you want to take an analytical approach, how much biochemistry and embryology do you know? How many books have you read on those topics? Maybe we can extrapolate from first principles and come up with a definitive answer.

I'd be interested to see your bibliography, becuase as far as I can tell, all of the books on the subject are in fact subjective tomes written from a POV. And they have to be, because beyond a few basic scientific facts, the rest is based on a combination of philosophy/religion/etc. The lionshare cannot be objectified. The saddest examples are when writers who are clearly trained (or not) in the humanities dabble into "psuedo science" to try and "prove" their point.

My bottom line is that I think abortion is a bad thing, but I also believe that people have a right to make choices about their bodies and lives. I think going to war and killing people is a bad thing. But for some reason society finds its way to justify that...

I give up. You win. Your facts are astonishingly overwhelming.

of course I win. And you win too. There is NO answer to this arguement. And if you think that "facts" will do it, then I would suggest you take those ethics classes again. Persuasion on a topic like this depends very little on scientific facts and instead relies on hyperbole, manipulation, and obfuscation. That and a healthy dose of misapplication of basic scientific data makes for a fine arguement. ON BOTH SIDES.

But then again, I'm not an ethics scholar. But I do know science, and I do know how to draw conclusions from data. But I also know how to differentiate between data and "data."

Ahh, you got me again. Sorry, please let me apologize. I misspoke when I said 'facts.' I meant to say your 'argument' is astonishingly overwhelming.

But I do have one question. Are all of your decisions based on facts? And how do you come to a decisions when there are no facts?

"the fact is there is a lot of legal precedent that they must interpret and follow, and for the most part they do their best to interpret the law and the constitution."

Law is not the final answer. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. The most blatant example is slavery. There was a time when it was legal, but it was never ethical.

You can't criticize judges for following legal precedent rather than (someone's view of) ethics and then, two paragraphs later, criticize judges for ignoring precedent. Anyway, it doesn't make much sense.

Our (American) law includes some basic ethical rules that British culture pretty much universally agreed on when America was colonized, and that we pretty much still universally agree on today (e.g. the so-called "equitable doctrines" which essentially inject fairness requirements into legal decision-making - one shouldn't profit from fraud, things like that). It also includes some further ethical rules that the country is founded upon (via the Constitution, which sets forth principles of freedom, individual rights, etc) and that we all either agree on or otherwise have to live under. Some other ethical goals are expressed in the law, through statutes that our legislators pass, ostensibly as our elected representatives, so we all have to live under them too. So the law incorporates quite a bit of ethics. But there's going to be a lot of ethically-based views that the law can't incorporate, because they are not widely agreed on or otherwise imposed upon us via Constitution or statute. Thus "ethical arguments" that men shouldn't eat animals or that we have a duty to overthrow dictators or that life begins at conception aren't expressed in the law, and really can't be, not under the American concept of the law anyway.

"There's always someone who'll disagree with any decision, today it happens to be you."

And rarely do you find the court in 100% agreement. Dissenting opinions are equally sound in most cases, but it comes down to a majority conclusion.

It is true that judges don't always agree. In that case, the majority wins in that particular case. But sometimes a really persuasive dissent will influence future decisions.

"You haven't read the precedent the judge must follow, or the record they had to rule on, perhaps you know little or nothing about law"

I have seen many, many, many judges rulings that totally ignore precedent. That's one of the fundamental rights of a judgeship and one the of fundamental problems with law and why ethicists are becoming so popular these days. (I refer to the recent corporate unethical behavior)

No, you haven't. At least you haven't seen "many, many" such rulings relative to the sheer number of rulings that the courts have to make. Out of tens of thousands of decisions, the vast, vast majority follow precedent or do their best to do so. A very small number can be said to "totally ignore precedent". It is also not a "fundamental right of judgeship" to flout precedent. Those decisions are usually reversed by a higher court - the Court of Appeals or ultimately the Supreme Court. As for unethical corporate behaviour, I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about.

Sorry to get so pointed about this, but I spent many years as a lawyer and, while I disagreed with judges daily, I developed a lot of respect for what they do. The responsibilities aren't easy.

(I remember sitting in a courtroom watching a judge sentence a guy to life imprisonment under the "three strikes" law that then-Calif governor Pete Wilson championed. The guy had two prior convictions, 10+ years prior, for drug possession (meth, I think). After going straight, working (as a roofer, I think) and supporting his family for a decade, he did something bad. I forget what it was, it was some sort of theft - tools from a jobsite, something like that - a crime certainly, but not what you'd imagine would lead to life imprisonment without parole. The judge clearly opposed the law, but he felt he was forced to impose the sentence. That wouldn't be an easy responsibility to take on, would it?)

I try to base as many decisions as possible on facts as I know them. For some decisions, I do a significant amount of research. For others, less so. In cases where there is a paucity of facutal sources, I have to use my instinct, which consists of my experiences, both personal and ones I have gleaned from others. In some cases I play rock, paper scissors.

I am willing to read various sources to try and obtain "facts", but perhaps the greatest challenge is determining the POV of the writer, and reading between the lines. That is a skill I'm still working on.

A decision based on no facts isn't a decision, it is an act of faith or belief. Religion is such a case. Buying a used 911 is another act of faith. All the PPIs in the world can't guarantee you won't have a broken headstud 5 minutes after purchase. You gotta have faith...

Nostatic. Let me drag you back to the topic. Let's not discuss 1st trimester abortions (which most Americans support. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.) Let's talk about the right to abort a fully formed viable fetus. Is it OK to "abort" an 8 pound fetus minutes before it's birth? How about a few weeks before it's birth. Is it OK with 4 pound infants, but not 8 pound infants? Makes you squirm, but this is the debate. Take a stand. All but 12 states have decided that you cannot electively terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks of gestation (time of fetal viability.) What about those other 12 states? Are you OK with the 8 pound abortion?

See, the problem is that people feel they cannot be against any abortion without being against all abortion. This simplistic view liberates them from the burden of reason.

Moses, I am not for late abortions, BUT I fear the slippery slope. So not only do we have the difficulty of determing a cutoff date (which I would personally prefer to be some time in the first trimester, but realistically early in the second when full genetic testing could be done and medical implications are understood), but we have to worry about the "pro-life" using a ban on late-term abortions as a wedge to extend that on down the line.

That's what makes this even tougher imho...

Truly, this one is not that tough. The "slippery slope" argument is pure silliness. It assumes that legislators will be unable to draw a moral distinction between an 8 cell blastocyst and an 8 pound baby.

a) you give legislators too much credit

b) legislators (sometimes) listen to their constituents, and there seem to be a not insignificant amount that CANNOT tell the different between 8 cells and 8 lbs.

You guys are ignoring the fact that these ugly full term abortions are only performed on infants with fatal medical issues.

Those who have created the legislative issue of "partial-birth abortions" have done so primarily to open the door to further restriction of abortion.

Leave it to the doctor and patient.

If you are against abortions, don't get one.

Techweenie, you are absolutely, completely, thoroughly WRONG! At the hospital where I worked in New York, 3rd trimester abortions were commonplace. These fetuses had NO medical conditions. Chromosomal and physical malformations are almost always diagnosed in the first and second trimester. During my OB/Gyn stint there I was required to take a medical history from all patients before they went to the operating room. The one I remember most clearly was the girl who told me she caught her boyfriend with another girl, so she was NOT gonna have his baby.

Tech, the N.O.W. position on abortion is clear. Abortion on demand at any time for any reason. Come on. Take a position. How do you feel about that?

Perhaps. But our legal system makes many micro-judgements and is pretty effective at hair-splitting.

It is legal to use lethal force if you believe your life is in danger, but it is murder if you do not. There are thousands of other examples.

In this case the "slippery-slope" argument is the last refuge of people who lack the moral conviction to say, "I'm pro-choice, but elective termination of healthy fully developed babies is WRONG."

Moses, you say you want to know my position. I doubt that, but if you're sincere, here's the best statement I've heard:

http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_partial_birth_abortions.html

Excerpts: "approximately four one-hundredths of one percent (.04%) are performed in the third trimester or after viability"

"The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.
- American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists"

Can you say that unequivocably, without knowing the medical and social circumstances of each particular case?

So why in the world do you object to restricting 0.04% of abortions?

There are about 1.2 million abortions performed annually. That means that every year about 480 healthy viable babies are electively terminated. Hard to believe any rational human is OK with that.

I feel passionately about this issue because I'm definitely pro-choice, but this small fraction of abortions is morally indefensible.

Remember, we are talking about an elective procedure here. Mothers health is not in jeopardy and she is carrying a near-term healthy baby. If you still believe an abortion should be OK in this case, then you frighten me.