I think I see you’re hang up now . . . you’re an “ageist” - meaning you believe that someone’s worth as a human being is measured by their age, life experiences, value to society, etc.

I say because of your comments:

“if you cannot recognize the difference between a living breathing 50 year old human and a zygote then i’m sorry for you”

“The logic that you employ would also state that there is no difference between a 3 year old and a 30 year old. Thats utterly absurd.”

Well duh! Of course there’s a difference between a zygote and a 50 year old, between a 3 year old and and a 30 year old. There’s also a vast difference between 2 different 30 year olds as there are between 2 different 3 year olds (or zygotes and 50 year olds for that matter). Those differences are what makes us INDIVIDIUAL human beings, or ADULT human beings, or CHILD human beings, or UNBORN human beings. But they are all HUMAN BEINGS.

Our HUMANITY, and the DIGNITY that comes with being a HUMAN BEING, is not measured by age, ability, cognition, or contribution to society. This little phrase may or may not be familiar to you:

“We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL MEN are CREATED EQUAL, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”

1) One has a moral compass, the other does not.

Really, having “moral compass” makes one a Human Being? Which “moral compass” would that be? Any ole “moral compass”? Because yours and mine seem to be pointing different directions and if it’s a specific “moral compass” well then once of us is human and the other is just a slab of meat.

2) One has values and ethics, the other does not.

See #1

3) One has the ability to think, the other does not.

4) One can survive on it’s own, the other cannot.

So, if whatever comes out of a human mother’s womb was left to its own it would survive on its own? All that a child at birth needs to survive is nourishment, warmth, and love . . . exactly what a child in the womb receives from her mother, nothing more or less.

5) One has consciousness, the other does not.

So if I konk you on the head and knock you out then you cease to be a Human Being?

6) One can provide for itself, the other cannot.

See #4

7) One has the ability to perform analytical thinking and utilizes higher brain functions, the other does not.

Are you trying to say Congress is not Human? (sorry, couldn’t resist).

One can breath, the other cannot.
9) One has a heartbeat, the other does not.
10) One has a brain wave, the other does not.

Fact: Virutually all abortions happen after 6 weeks of pregnancy (the “doctor” has to be able to see what’s he’s burning with saline, etc.). By now the child is considered an “Embryo” instead of “Zygote” and has a hearbeat by week 4.
Fact: By week 20 they can sense pain, the child can be seen in an ultrasound resiting being torn apart by the forceps.
Fact: The child will practice breathing by week 24, which is why this is considered the point of viability. Yes, it’s amniotic fluid they’re breathing, but it’s the act of breathing nontheless. Most children born at this point have a good chance of survival and many don’t even need to be in the NICU very long if at all.

11) One has memory retention, the other does not.

What were we talking out again?

I came across a website that asks the question

Why can’t we love them both? mother and unborn baby.

I believe your error was that you ignored the context of “no difference”, that being the determination of whether a fetus was a human being deserving of the right to life. That’s what we are arguing here, and that is the only difference therefore that is applicable.

With that in mind, let’s look at your list:
1) One has a moral compass, the other does not — That is true of born children to a certain age; but only the most rabid leftists think it would be OK to kill a 2-year-old because it doesn’t have a moral compass yet.

2) One has values and ethics, the other does not — Again, true of born children.

3) One has the ability to think, the other does not — fetuses have the ability to think at an early age, and it develops both in the womb, and through their life outside the womb. How much “thinking” must a person do before you would say they were ‘human’ and deserve protection?

4) One can survive on it’s own, the other cannot — leave a month-old baby by themselves, and tell me how long the survive. IN fact, a born baby is harder to care for than a fetus. If you meant “someone other than the mother could care for them”, that is true way before birth, you just need to deliver the baby.

5) One has consciousness, the other does not — that develops in the womb.

6) One can provide for itself, the other cannot — same as 4 really, and not true for born humans until they are rather old.

7) One has the ability to perform analytical thinking and utilizes higher brain functions, the other does not — same as “thinking” or “consciousness”.

One can breath, the other cannot — One has to breath, the other doesn’t. One can take nourishment through fluids, the other can not. Both are the same genetic material.

9) One has a heartbeat, the other does not — One needs one, one doesn’t. I won’t discount this totally, as it is at least a measurable line to use; most abortions happen after the heart is beating though.

10) One has a brain wave, the other does not — Given recent discoveries about brain-dead people being conscious at a level unmeasurable without an MRI, I don’t think this is a reasonable determination of what is “human”. It is at least a real yes/no determination.

11) One has memory retention, the other does not — Are you saying that if an old person can no longer remember anything, they are no longer human?

I can go on if you like — I doubt it. In your 11 items, there were only 3 or 4 real categories. Which proves the point — in virtually all ways that matter, the embryo is human, and will never do any more than grow in it’s entire life. There are virtually no times between fertilizatoin and death where you can draw a line and say “before this is clearly just a lump of cells, and after this it is clearly a person and deserving of the right to life”.

We know that an unfertilized egg, left to itself, will never “grow up”. We know that a fertilized egg, left to itself, will “grow up”. The mother does nothing more than shelter and feed the fetus, both before and after birth. That is the clearly scientific differentiation — fertilized or non-fertilized. Everything else is a matter of degree, and opens the door for situational ethicists to claim that babies, old people, infirmed people, and undesirable people aren’t really human and can be enslaved or killed as the “real humans” see fit.

Since we cannot clearly establish any scientifically certain line except for fertilization, and since (despite all the protests) there is really little harm done in allowing a fetus to grow up and be born, the RIGHT thing to do is to err on the side of the one clear line we can draw, which is that a fertilized egg is human.

You are correct. You are no scientist and you are no historian. I see you are sticking to the same argument about morals. That doesn’t hold water. The Bible is a history book.

To answer your arguments about the Bible would take up a lot of space and time. I will refer you to two excellent books on the subject: Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John Haley and When Critics Ask by Norm Geisler. In fact on page 329 of When Critics Ask under the heading of Matthew 5:17-18 - “Did Jesus come to do away with the Law of Moses?” Dr. Geisler gives an excellent answer to those who like to accuse Christians of trying to impose Levitical law. It’s all about context!!! The Bible is the best selling book of all time and the most abused.

There are a couple of basic questions you have to answer when it comes to the Bible, God’s Word: Can a perfect God perfectly reveal Himself? and Can a perfect God preserve truth throughout generations? The answer would have to be yes.

As I have said, God made the world. He instituted the natural physical laws and moral laws. If they are violated there are natural consequences. One only has to look at the newspaper to understand that. Look at Tiger Woods and the consequences he is suffering because of his adultery. His wife may never be able to completely trust him again. His children will have a hard time facing the fact that their dad cheated on their mom. That is a hard pill for his kids to swallow. I can go on with many other examples but I don’t have the time or space. Just pick up the newspaper tomorrow and you will see for yourself.

The founding fathers, who you finally acknowledged were Christians, understood there are certain fundamental absolute truths from God’s Word. That is why we have the form of government based on checks and balances. They knew man has a natural tendency to do evil-Jermiah 17:9. Did they believe that people need to be forced to convert to Christianity (many Christian haters like to falsely accuse Christians of doing that today)? Absolutely not! See the Constitution. Even God Himself doesn’t force Himself on us. It is strictly a personal decision. He calls us to reason together with Him - Isaiah 1:18. He stands at the door of your heart and knocks - Revelation 3:20. The founding fathers understood that a system of government based on the absolute truths from God would benefit all people even those who would not receive Christ as Savior. You have to admit that to be true since we still live under that same system of government.

The concepts of life and liberty come from God’s Word. The value and worth of the individual created in the image of God was a guiding principle of the founding fathers. What system of government can compare to ours? Where else can you have the freedoms that we have? Name a system of government that has proven to be superior to ours. As a contrast, look at socialistic/communist countries whose official religion is atheism. They take away individual rights for the good of the collective all. They believe that the government is the savior of the people. They in effect make government out to be a god. Look at Cuba and China. Would you like to live in those countries? We wouldn’t be able to have this discussion there. How about the former Soviet Union. It completely collapsed.

Your biggest objection seems to be abortion. You are correct. You are no scientist. Science has said that life begins at conception. All that makes one a human being starts at conception. So when you claim life does not begin at conception you are at odds not just with God but also science. Let’s look at one of your line items - “one can provide for itself, the other cannot.” Does that mean Christopher Reeve, the actor, was no longer a live human being after his accident?

There are physical and emotional consequences of abortion. I do know abortions can cause infertility. I had a miscarriage a few years ago. My doctor would not do a D&C because she said in her own words: “that D&Cs have been found to do more harm than good.” I have heard that from another doctor also. They do not do D&Cs unless they absolutely have to. I know someone in my family who had a D&C and almost bled to death. Evidently Delegate Marshall has seen reports on possible birth defects after a first abortion.

But I’m sure there are those who hate Delegate Marshall so much that if he said a curse word they would condemn him. I’m sure the local Unitarian Universalists (BRUU members such as Bruce Roemelt, John Bell and Jeanette Rishell) along with others on the Anti-Christian blog are bashing Bob Marshall with a vengeance. How hypocritical they are. They would be the very ones who would approve of a baby being aborted if it was discovered that the baby had some physical handicap while in utero. Yes, UUs are all about abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy. They are all for homosexual marriage. We could talk about the damage that life style has caused - AIDS in particular. I get tired of hearing that stupid argument about what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom….well AIDS got started in the privacy of a bedroom. Also UUs are advocates for cap and trade. Yep, they do not want you to exhale because you produce too much CO2.

If that were the case, how would one measure the presence of brainwaves in an in utero fetus to ensure that an abortion isn’t actually murdering a legal person, and do so without harming the infant or the mother? If you’re going to have a scientific standard, which I agree is a good idea, you have to be able to apply it. I don’t see a way to actually do that in this case. You’re not going to propose we surgically implant electrodes on the skull of an in utero fetus and take a reproducible measurement before allowing an abortion to proceed, are you?

Of course Lincoln’s prepared remarks were more thought out and more deeply considered than Bob Marshall’s extemporaneous comments at a press conference.

Looking at the video of the press conference, I think it’s pretty clear that Marshall’s remarks are taken out of context to a large degree and didn’t seem to upset a single pastor among the crowd standing behind him. Had Marshall actually said what the press is attributing to him, I imagine there would have been some reaction from them.

Really?? If you cannot figure that out on your own you have some bigger problems. Here’s a start:

1) One has a moral compass, the other does not.

2) One has values and ethics, the other does not.

3) One has the ability to think, the other does not.

4) One can survive on it’s own, the other cannot.

5) One has consciousness, the other does not.

6) One can provide for itself, the other cannot.

7) One has the ability to perform analytical thinking and utilizes higher brain functions, the other does not.

One can breath, the other cannot.

9) One has a heartbeat, the other does not.

10) One has a brain wave, the other does not.

11) One has memory retention, the other does not.

I can go on if you like.

The logic that you employ would also state that there is no difference between a 3 year old and a 30 year old. Thats utterly absurd.

My PERSONAL definition is that life begins when brain waves begin, as that is the definition of death (when the brain waves cease). So, it would seem logical that since the cessation of brain waves is death, their commencement is life. Brain waves typically begin after 25 weeks, or right at the end of the 1st trimester.

BUT, and i emphasize the BUT in this case, I dont want my definition forced upon others who define it differently with the help of the government. Pro lifers dont give a crap about the debate surrounding the issue, you are convinced that you are right and refuse to recognize the controversy surrounding the issue. And screw anyone who disagrees with you, even though its about 80% of the nation, their opinion doesn’t matter, only our opinion is the real one.

And whether or not you are willing to admit, its based in religious belief, its a religious moral. Religions are not the basis for morals, morals and ethics were around LONG before religions showed up, especially christianity, read a history book if you dont believe me.

Other than being 30 lbs. overweight and having a dyspeptic disposition exactly what are the differences that makes a zygote something other than a Human Being? At what point in the human gestational process does the zygote receive the necessary characteristics of a Human Being according to your definition?

and if you cannot recognize the difference between a living breathing 50 year old human and a zygote then i’m sorry for you.

As for the beginning of life, I think there are a lot of folks who see a pretty simple answer here — that life begins at conception, and that answer makes a ton of sense from a scientific standpoint. It is the one and only time in human development where the genetic composition of a human being is completed.

As for whether government should be involved in defining when life deserves legal protection, well, that bus left the station long ago. It’s entirely appropriate for government to protect life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well. It is pretty much a core reason why governments are instituted among men in the first place, to paraphrase.

I suppose you’re more of a “living document” person. I’m not. The Constitution and our founding documents to me are not at all living, or perhaps more elegantly stated, enduring.

What about my statement to Patty is an ‘attack’? having a different opinion isnt an attack, its a critique. having faith is one thing, using that faith as a reason behind enacting public policy in a secular country (whether or not you choose to recognize it, we are) is another. i am against the latter. believe what you want, have faith in what you want, but dont get offended when i have a problem with you using the government to impose your faith onto me (abortion policy in particular). out of my grade school education (k-12) i spent 12 years in christian schools, both in this country and in great britian. i can quote the bible like everyone else can, and if i choose, i can use it tpo back up my arguments like everyone else can. but i dont want my religion dragged into the public square as justification for the infringement of the rights of others. i am willing to recognize the faults of the bible and what i was taught as a child. being a republican isnt about being christian or pro life, its about working within a party system and getting like minded (notice i didnt say identically minded) individuals elected to office. thats what the party system is around for. i am happy, i dont need religion to be happy. i choose to not subscribe to the beliefs i was taught as a child because i saw first hand how intolerant people with those beliefs are to contrary opinions. because of my experiences, i have the opinions i have. i didnt like it when i had religion and christianity shoved down my throat in school by teachers. i know how that feels and i sympathize with those who see that same thing happening to them with regards to religious based pro life arguments, they see a religious policy being forced on them and its wrong. i dont want to live in a country that forces people to make the moral decision all the time. like i said earlier, smoking is a sin as outlined in the bible because it desecrates the temple (the body), but you defend smoking rights because you believe in the rights of the people. the same for me and abortion, i defend it because i see it as right for the people. would i want to have one? would i encourage another person to have one? no to both. but that is not my decision to make and it is especially not a governments decision to make. thats not to say that all laws that essentially are based on morals are wrong, but because of the high level of conflict between sects of society over abortion, the beginning of life, the point at which an embryo becomes life, etc, etc, etc, the government doesnt have the right to side with a small portion of the population (18% th be exact) and say that their morals are better than everyone else’s. its not bashing religion, its not an attack. my view is actually heavily in ethics and morals. i dont view it as ethical and moral to force people to make ethical and moral choices, neither did Jesus or God. if they did, we would all be christians because then we would all be saved. but He gave us free will and the ability to make our own choices, the government should do the same.

What gives me faith in america and humanity are the stories that i hear about success, about people coming to america with $50 in their pockets and making something of themselves. that is what this country was founded upon, the principle that you can make something of yourself. yes, the founding fathers (and all the brits for that matter) were christians. all the founding fathers prayed before meetings of the constitutional convention. i can go on and on about the religious heritage of this country. i can also go on and on about the debate over whether or not they should have prayed at the conventions. or the fact that jefferson would not issue religious proclamations as President (nor would Madison i believe). i could also talk about the immense political pressure that jefferson brought to force the separation clause to appear in the bill of rights. we can go back and forth forever. what doesnt change though is the fact that the founding fathers came to this country to escape religious oppression. a religious oppression that was brought about under the guise of ‘its the moral thing to do.’ just like pro life policy ‘its the moral thing to do.’ you may believe that 100%, and thats fine. go out and lobby for it, go and preach it, go out and raise awareness for it. but dont expect the government to side with you because that is simply the government choosing your religious views over the views of others and is establishing a law respecting a religion. its a dangerous slope to get on. if they do that, then whats to stop them from forcing women to wear hijabs? after all its the ‘moral’ thing to do according to islam. of whats to stop them from banning the slaughter of cows? after all its the ‘moral’ thing to do according to hindus. i can name dozens of things that are moral according to dozens of religions, but the government doesnt have a right to cherry pick them and impose laws that respect them. you, as a christian, would say that life morally begins at conception. i as a non christian would say that life begins at the first breath. another person would say that life begins when the heart starts beating. yet another would say that it begins when the brain waves begin. what gives the government of the people, by the people, and for the people the right to side with any of us over the other? in fact, in this scenario, if a vote were taken, it would be 3:1, 3 against and 1 for your definition.

Basically, the government doesnt have the right to jump in the middle of an intense philosophical debate that has transcended generations to no avail. it isnt simply about abortions, it impacts so much more than that. I found this answer and its pretty close to accurate in my book:

“The question of when a human life begins is a profoundly intricate one, with widespread implications, ranging from abortion rights to stem cell research and beyond. A key point in the debate rests on the way in which we choose to define the concepts of humanity, life, and human life. What does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? Is a zygote or an embryo alive? Is a zygote or an embryo a human being? These are intricate philosophical questions that often incite intense debate, for their answers are used as evidence in the answers to questions about the moral status of a zygote, embryo or fetus. The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history and in a multitude of cultural contexts. The “answer” is fluid, in that it has been changing throughout history, because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion. Throughout history there have been several “answers” to the question of when human life begins, but the only consistency among the answers is that they are always changing as social contexts change, religious morals fluctuate, or new knowledge about the process of embryo development is obtained.”

An issue like the one spelled out above is none of the governments business to get involved in, at all.

During a recent Rush Limbaugh program Rush said that self-described “moderates” attack conservatives far more than they do Democrats in reference to John McCain’s recent attacks against J. D. Hayworth compared to the way McCain laid over and played dead when running against Obama. I wasn’t quite sold on that idea until just now, when “local gop” claiming to be a “moderate” Republican, but more frequently toeing a pretty darned liberal political line typical of Democrats decided it was time to attack Christians and their faith. As I’ve concluded at other times on other subjects, I suppose Rush is right.

“local gop”, I really hope that the scales fall off your eyes some day. Faith is a unique comfort during troubling times and a real source of joy when times are good. I’d love to see you enjoy that. I’d really like to see you as happy with life as some of my Christian friends like Patty who can easily find comfort and peace, even in tough times and when faced with an uncertain future.

Otherwise life can be a pretty lonely journey.

He says that people following scripture were at the core of the relatively short-lived abolition movement. But he doesn’t mention that this “core” consisted of religious dissenters who had to overcome centuries of support for slavery by people who used scripture as their justification for it. He says people using scripture were at the core of the Civil Rights movement. But again, he ignores that when they emerged they were fighting a much larger group of people who for two hundred years had used scripture as the basis for opposing civil rights. He doesn’t seem to understand that the fundamental premise of separation of church and state is that without it freedom of religion is impossible. He doesn’t seem to recognize that there are plenty of churches where what you say is right on–how quickly he forgets Obama’s Jeremiah Wright. And he shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our democracy, which has built-in protections for the rights of the minority precisely to avoid the potential tyranny of majority rule. Greg either has only an elementary school understanding of the subjects or has willfully chosen to cherry-pick his facts or take them out of context to support his point.

As for Bob Marshall, the comment is no surprise, and it is not the first of this type he has made. I don’t believe that he meant to disparage disabled children, but I am very confident that he considers them to be the penalty of a vengeful God. He is a right-wing, religious ideologue who like Robertson, Dobson, and our old local friend Steve Chapman, would, if they could, impose the implications of their own particular religious beliefs on all of us. Thankfully, our founding fathers, mindful of Europe’s religious wars, gave us some protections from these folks. But those protections are constantly under assault, including on this blog, it appears. So keep up the good work Local GOP. If you go down, so eventually does our party.

Patty, which particular Christian path to salvation do you subscribe to? The one at Patrick Henry College? The Catholic one? Some other one? Many of them are mutually exclusive you know. Or, I am guessing, you don’t.