Preferably you could show me one of these "real arguements"?

 

Read: Arguments that don't revolve around comparisons between abortion and Nazi Germany.

 

 

 

So now I'm not allowed to compare? I think not, I will compare all I like. I am being completely reasonable about it, but all you are doing is telling me not to. You can't even give me a reason.

 

Here's one:

 

 

 

Because comparing the destruction of a non-sentient object which has the potential to develop into a human life and, as a consequence, be forced to endure circumstances that are: a) physically and psychologically damaging to it; B) beyond its control to change; and c) further detrimental to the well-being of unsuitable parents; to the intentional murder of millions to: a) punish a scapegoat for the loss of a war and the economic slump which followed it; and B) satisfy an idea of racial purity; is to make a connection that no rational person can, save in ignorance of the realities of both acts.

 

 

 

If you want to compare abortion to something you find abominable, don't compare it to the Holocaust. I very much doubt that women who get abortions or the doctors who perform them are callous monsters who believe with all their hearts that the unborn child can never be seen as a human being. I also very much doubt that they torture the embryo for months before terminating it.

I study in a Catholic school.

 

 

 

I HATE IT

 

 

 

 

 

All my family is deeply Catholic, as are most of my friends, every damn day we are talked about how abortion is bad etc...

 

 

 

I have a small theory, that instead of actually reminding you that abortion is bad, it makes you think about it alot. So it's always on your mind and you know there is that option, i even spoke to a few of my friends (Catholics) And they told me they think abortion is right in some cases. But they are Catholics so they must say no to abortion. In my opinion, It should be legal, what if i was raped and i do not have the age/money/time to have a child? What if i may die giving birth to it?

 

 

 

It should be legal, but only if some experiments are met, (rape)

 

 

 

It's not necessary to be religious to know abortion is a bad option, basing on your example of being raped yes it wasn't your decision but that's not enough to take a life, what about giving the baby in adoption ? you'll be perfectly understanded by the people around you, about the second example... well that's really up to you if you decide to risk your life by giving birth it.

 

And no it shouldn't become legal as some women who get pregnant ( without being raped), and don't want to take the responsibility will use the excuse of being legal to abort. I would only agree in using abortion in cases like the second example you stated before in your post.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

someone can do whatever they want with their own body, Im more concerned with protecting unborn humans(definition being after neural development is signifigant). I mean we have laws against driving while under the influence, it works along the same line of thought. If someone wants to smoke drink or eat themselves to death they are welcome to it, but you cant allow people to have freedoms that let them hurt other people.

 

 

 

goddess--a. I know what you are saying but that statement was still worded horribly

 

b. there are plenty of non catholic hospitals, and believing churches should have to perform abortions is restricting their rights which Im pretty sure you said we cant do to women who want abortions.

Is it right to bring a baby into the world not being wanted and end up being dumped in an alley or having young women dying because they try and do abortions themselves in a non-sterile environment?

 

Nope. But I find abortions are right as beating a baby to death. I recall several baby killing threads, and a good number of threats were made against the perpetrators. I feel the same for abortion.

 

 

 

It's a very fuzzy line, though. Kinda like "the greater good". I can't make a solid stance. So I generally try not to get involved.

 

 

 

Still, it's a choice. If you don't believe in it, then don't get one. :P Not believing in it and banning it completely is similar to pushing your religion onto other people which many people here have found wrong.

Is it right to bring a baby into the world not being wanted and end up being dumped in an alley or having young women dying because they try and do abortions themselves in a non-sterile environment?

 

Nope. But I find abortions are right as beating a baby to death. I recall several baby killing threads, and a good number of threats were made against the perpetrators. I feel the same for abortion.

 

 

 

It's a very fuzzy line, though. Kinda like "the greater good". I can't make a solid stance. So I generally try not to get involved.

 

 

 

Still, it's a choice. If you don't believe in it, then don't get one. :P Not believing in it and banning it completely is similar to pushing your religion onto other people which many people here have found wrong.

 

 

 

It isn't necessarily a religious issue. It is an issue of the basic right to life which is being violated.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved.

 

 

 

Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved.

 

 

 

Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother.

 

 

 

Scientific opinion is that the life begins at conception. I have already posted the evidence of this.

 

 

 

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml

 

 

 

Comparing abortions to the Holocaust, have you guys lost all sense of proportion?

 

 

 

Abortion is murder of innocent people, so was the holocaust. Pretty good grounds for a comparison I think

 

 

 

That is your opinion not cold hard fact. I think you're a nutter for comparing the Holocaust to abortions but that doesn't make it so.

 

 

 

Quite frankly I think this has went from a reasonable well thought out discussion into a ridiculous hysterical nightmare thread.

 

 

 

Do you agree that the holocaust was murder of innocents? I hope so, if you are a holocaust denier I don't see any point in arguing with you.

 

 

 

Do you agree that children are innocent? I hope so. Do you agree that a child dies when an abortion is performed? I think so.

 

 

 

What you don't agree with is a fetus being human. You say it isn't cold hard fact, but it really is. Scientists have proven, time and time again, that the only reasonable time to say somethign is alive is at it's conception.

Honestly, the transitive property doesn't work as well in life as it did in Geometry.

 

 

 

I'm not going to have a child if it's inconvenient for me and the child. I'm living off the money I made from 16-18, which wasn't much I might add. Having a child would put me out on the streets. And don't tell me to get a job in college, that just leaves my life in shambles because I'm trying to justify a reason not to kill it, when, more than likely it will spiral down with me.

[hide=]

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved.

 

 

 

Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother.

[/hide]

 

 

 

when signifigant neural development begins, thats what I feel should be the legal boundary. I think life begins earlier then that, but I dont see why banning harm to a fetus that can feel pain should be objectionable. Note, allowances should still exist for (severe) medical complications of either mother or child, and rape cases. I dont see how that is restricting the mother's rights, after all why do you need to wait 7 months to get the baby dealth with?

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved.

 

 

 

Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother.

 

 

 

Scientific opinion is that the life begins at conception. I have already posted the evidence of this.

 

 

 

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml

 

 

 

Life in the most mechanical sense sure; there are a collection of living cells, but there simply is no true social consensus as to when life, in a moral sense, rather than a technical sense, begins. This is what is required to make good law (or at least one of the many, many things); there is social consensus that unlawful killing is wrong, thus murder law arises. There is no social consensus as to when life (again, moral sense) begins, or that abortion is wrong, thus it is incorrect to legislate against it.

 

 

 

Make no mistake, I wish people didn't have to have abortions - in a perfect world there would be no unwanted children, no mistakes, no rape and no downright stupid people, but this is not the case. We have a social need (and the demographic that this issue affects is generally, at least in my country, pro-choice) for abortion and whilst it would be nice if this need didnt exist, it does, and requires addressing. I still see no good reason, morally or legally, to restrict personal liberty and the choice of adoption.

 

 

 

P.S. your holocaust analogy is poor because whilst the analogy works on the basics, the fine details are missing. You are saying that the holocaust and abortion are the same because they (in your view) both involve the murder of innocents. This is like saying that cars and toasters are the same because they are both made of metal, technically true, but pragmatically a failure.

These threads always surprise me, are there really still people that think they have any right of command over what a person does or does not do to their body? The most sacred of personal liberties? What right does anyone have to stop another person if they want to eat so much they become obese, smoke or drink so much they become ill, stick toothpicks in their nose or whatever. Its their body, and their choice, and I worry for the liberty of any country that tries to restrict that.

 

 

 

That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved.

 

 

 

Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother.

 

 

 

Scientific opinion is that the life begins at conception. I have already posted the evidence of this.

 

 

 

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml

 

 

 

Life in the most mechanical sense sure; there are a collection of living cells, but there simply is no true social consensus as to when life, in a moral sense, rather than a technical sense, begins. This is what is required to make good law (or at least one of the many, many things); there is social consensus that unlawful killing is wrong, thus murder law arises. There is no social consensus as to when life (again, moral sense) begins, or that abortion is wrong, thus it is incorrect to legislate against it.

 

 

 

Make no mistake, I wish people didn't have to have abortions - in a perfect world there would be no unwanted children, no mistakes, no rape and no downright stupid people, but this is not the case. We have a social need (and the demographic that this issue affects is generally, at least in my country, pro-choice) for abortion and whilst it would be nice if this need didnt exist, it does, and requires addressing. I still see no good reason, morally or legally, to restrict personal liberty and the choice of adoption.

 

 

 

P.S. your holocaust analogy is poor because whilst the analogy works on the basics, the fine details are missing. You are saying that the holocaust and abortion are the same because they (in your view) both involve the murder of innocents. This is like saying that cars and toasters are the same because they are both made of metal, technically true, but pragmatically a failure.

 

 

 

It is an excellent analogy if someone is denying that toasters are made of metal, which is basically why I used the Hitler analogy.

 

 

 

As for whether a fetus is a human, that is a moral concern that basically ends up being a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it is, but I do respect the fact that other people (however strongly I disagree) feel that it is not for whatever reason.

 

 

 

As for there being a "need" for abortion, I disagree. There are viable options to keep children alive despite the conditions of the mother. I imagine people might say the world is becoming overcrowded, but this is a non-issue. Look at the birth rate for developed countries. Almost all of them have a birthrate below 2(ie population cannot be sustained). At this point, in Canada at least, all the population growth is coming from immigration, and birth rates in developed countries, while still high, are dropping as well.

It is an excellent analogy if someone is denying that toasters are made of metal, which is basically why I used the Hitler analogy.

 

 

 

As for whether a fetus is a human, that is a moral concern that basically ends up being a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it is, but I do respect the fact that other people (however strongly I disagree) feel that it is not for whatever reason.

 

 

 

As for there being a "need" for abortion, I disagree. There are viable options to keep children alive despite the conditions of the mother. I imagine people might say the world is becoming overcrowded, but this is a non-issue. Look at the birth rate for developed countries. Almost all of them have a birthrate below 2(ie population cannot be sustained). At this point, in Canada at least, all the population growth is coming from immigration, and birth rates in developed countries, while still high, are dropping as well.

 

 

 

You are using analogies for the wrong purpose - analogies are there to explain a point, not to prove that that one thing is like another (or prove another wrong in denying such a statement). You have provided no reasoning other than "Holocaust is a bit like abortion therefore if you support abortion you are as bad as a Nazi" a statement which is, quite frankly, unsupported and baseless.

 

 

 

If you respect that people feel differently, why are you arguing against a statute that gives people a choice? Why, if you accept it is a matter of opinion, and that other people hold different opinions from yours, and that you respect those opinions, are you trying to prevent them having the freedom to exercise that opinion? To do so is not respect for their opinion at all; it is attempting to force your will on others.

 

 

 

As for the "need" for adoption, this is not something subjective you can disagree with I'm afraid, it is pure and simple fact; if there was no need for adoption, then we would not be having this discussion would we? If there was no need for abortion then there would be no clinics, no statute and no problem, simply stating that you disagree changes none of this. Finally, your points regarding overcrowding is flawed - you state it is a non issue because most developed countries have declining population, this is incorrect. It is perfectly possible for a country to be overcrowded yet have a falling population.

 

 

 

Finally, just to reinforce the social need for adoption, the sheer number of uncared for, neglected and dying children in this world is sickening; let us say we take your route, we restrict abortion. What are our outcomes; even more neglected children, even greater stress on the state (which, in the US is already failing in terms of welfare) even more unhappy mothers, unhappy children and unhappy people. Then, the other side effects kick in - backstreet abortions, a hideous situation, and one that will undoubtedly increase if abortion was criminalised; women have been aborting children from the dawn of time, all that would be achieved by its restriction would be unsafe, unclean, risky procedures that put the mother in incredible danger becoming rife.

 

 

 

Abortion is a necessary, if regretable part of modern society, and whilst it would be amazing if it were not needed, it is, and to try to restrict it would be a greater evil in itself.

THIS THREAD IS LIKE A LEMNISCATE.

 

 

 

[bleep] THIS DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS HOMEWORK. STUPID MATH.

 

You are using analogies for the wrong purpose - analogies are there to explain a point, not to prove that that one thing is like another (or prove another wrong in denying such a statement). You have provided no reasoning other than "Holocaust is a bit like abortion therefore if you support abortion you are as bad as a Nazi" a statement which is, quite frankly, unsupported and baseless.

 

 

 

I never said anything of the sort. I simply said there were similarities, which there were.

 

Someone said that abortion is not making your life more convenient, nor doing what you feel like. I used that analogy to show that it really is. By killing off an innocent child, you are making your life easier. I don't see how that is fair by any means.

 

 

 

 

If you respect that people feel differently, why are you arguing against a statute that gives people a choice? Why, if you accept it is a matter of opinion, and that other people hold different opinions from yours, and that you respect those opinions, are you trying to prevent them having the freedom to exercise that opinion? To do so is not respect for their opinion at all; it is attempting to force your will on others.

 

 

 

I am defending the right of the one who truly deserves a choice, the unborn child. Unless you are going to argue that the woman is killing herself by getting an abortion, the one who is dying doesn't have a choice, they are having their fate decided unfairly.

 

 

 

 

As for the "need" for adoption, this is not something subjective you can disagree with I'm afraid, it is pure and simple fact; if there was no need for adoption, then we would not be having this discussion would we? If there was no need for abortion then there would be no clinics, no statute and no problem, simply stating that you disagree changes none of this. Finally, your points regarding overcrowding is flawed - you state it is a non issue because most developed countries have declining population, this is incorrect. It is perfectly possible for a country to be overcrowded yet have a falling population.

 

 

 

I stated that most growth is due to immigration, not that the population was falling. I also never said there was no need for adoption.

 

 

 

 

Finally, just to reinforce the social need for adoption, the sheer number of uncared for, neglected and dying children in this world is sickening; let us say we take your route, we restrict abortion. What are our outcomes; even more neglected children, even greater stress on the state (which, in the US is already failing in terms of welfare) even more unhappy mothers, unhappy children and unhappy people. Then, the other side effects kick in - backstreet abortions, a hideous situation, and one that will undoubtedly increase if abortion was criminalised; women have been aborting children from the dawn of time, all that would be achieved by its restriction would be unsafe, unclean, risky procedures that put the mother in incredible danger becoming rife.

 

 

 

Abortion is a necessary, if regretable part of modern society, and whilst it would be amazing if it were not needed, it is, and to try to restrict it would be a greater evil in itself.

 

 

 

I am not arguing about the need for legislation to at least protect the life of the mother, for sure abortions done in a medically controlled environment are far better then those performed in a back alley.

 

 

 

However, what you are doing is saying that society has a problem, that can be fixed by murder. I understand certainly there are extremely negative repercussions to a no-abortion law, but it is my belief that no problem should be fixed by murder.

Scientific opinion is that the life begins at conception. I have already posted the evidence of this.

 

 

 

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml

 

 

 

A little piece of advice: get a source which doesn't have a religiously motivated bias or vested interest in the issue. True scientific and medical information doesn't run by an agenda.

Scientific opinion is that the life begins at conception. I have already posted the evidence of this.

 

 

 

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... tion.shtml

 

 

 

A little piece of advice: get a source which doesn't have a religiously motivated bias or vested interest in the issue. True scientific and medical information doesn't run by an agenda.

 

 

 

If you are acusing me of posting an untrue article, read these footnotes:

 

 

 

1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

 

 

 

2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.

 

 

 

3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.

 

 

 

4Bernard N. Nathanson, "Deeper into Abortion," New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.

 

 

 

5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

 

 

 

6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

 

 

 

7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.

 

 

 

8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

Firstly, I'm inclined to agree that human life starts at conception. See previous posts.

 

 

 

Second, It doesn't necessarily matter if an article has footnotes or not. While it's a great start, religiously motivated sites with such an emotional vested interest are still prone to quote out of context, misinform or appeal to logical fallacies (appeal to authority, in this case).

 

 

 

Edit: Anyway, what do you mean when you say "human life". I'm curious to hear it in your own words.

You just posted an article on abortion from a website that has "ministries" in its name. That's like an Atheist claiming god doesn't exist and citing Richard Dawkins as his or her only source.

Churches' rights should begin and end at the altar. They should never have the right to force an unsuitable mother to bear a child.

 

 

 

I agree as well.

 

They shouldn't force, no, it is the decision of the mother, to kill or not to kill. But an "unsuitable" mother shouldn't be able to kill the child just because she is "unsuitable".

 

 

 

What makes her unsuitable, exactly? What makes her different than anyone else?

 

 

 

Everyone is equal. Period. If they want to get an abortion, then that's their choice and there's nothing one can do about it. They might, however, tell her why or why not she might want to get an abortion.

Churches' rights should begin and end at the altar. They should never have the right to force an unsuitable mother to bear a child.

 

 

 

I agree as well.

 

They shouldn't force, no, it is the decision of the mother, to kill or not to kill. But an "unsuitable" mother shouldn't be able to kill the child just because she is "unsuitable".

 

 

 

What makes her unsuitable, exactly? What makes her different than anyone else?

 

 

 

Everyone is equal. Period. If they want to get an abortion, then that's their choice and there's nothing one can do about it. They might, however, tell her why or why not she might want to get an abortion.

I think he was speaking of medical issues, or some complications in childbirth; something that will harm the mother.

Churches' rights should begin and end at the altar. They should never have the right to force an unsuitable mother to bear a child.

 

 

 

I agree as well.

 

They shouldn't force, no, it is the decision of the mother, to kill or not to kill. But an "unsuitable" mother shouldn't be able to kill the child just because she is "unsuitable".

 

 

 

What makes her unsuitable, exactly? What makes her different than anyone else?

 

 

 

Everyone is equal. Period. If they want to get an abortion, then that's their choice and there's nothing one can do about it. They might, however, tell her why or why not she might want to get an abortion.

I think he was speaking of medical issues, or some complications in childbirth; something that will harm the mother.

 

 

 

He might of, but from reading his posts, I doubt it.

I never said anything of the sort. I simply said there were similarities, which there were.

 

Someone said that abortion is not making your life more convenient, nor doing what you feel like. I used that analogy to show that it really is. By killing off an innocent child, you are making your life easier. I don't see how that is fair by any means.

 

 

 

 

 

It's not always about the parent though. In some cases, you'd probably be making it easier on them too. Would you really say it's good to have a child live a life where he gets no love or care?

By 'unsuitable' I meant physically or psychologically unable to bear and/or support a child.

 

 

 

If you are acusing me of posting an untrue article, read these footnotes:

 

 

 

1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

 

 

 

2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.

 

 

 

3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.

 

 

 

4Bernard N. Nathanson, "Deeper into Abortion," New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.

 

 

 

5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

 

 

 

6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

 

 

 

7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.

 

 

 

8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

 

And you don't suppose any eyebrows would be raised, seeing as this so-called 'scientific evidence' cites references which are all invariably two or more decades old?