Mark D

The debate used to be that the fetus isn't a life. Or, the debate was at what point does a fetus become "alive." However, it seems that the new debate is whose life "trumps" whose--the mother or the baby? No longer do pro-abortion advocates, or so-called "pro-choice" people try to argue that the baby is alive or not. Their thesis now seems to be, "I was here first, so I get to choose if the baby lives or dies since it's 'inhabiting my body." Does anyone else see the problem with this line of thinking?

A think tank last year took a lot of heat because they attempted to work out that theory beyond birth to the second year of the child's life. They supposed that, since the pro-abortion line of logic was that the baby needs its mother to survive, therefore the mother should choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not--that this could also follow through to the point that a baby can eat solid food, becomes mobile, etc. Well, if it is true that a baby can be aborted because of its total dependency upon is mother, than why not allow parents to kill their babies before they reach the age of 1 year old?

The answer is obvious. The value of human life is not determined by how immobile that person is or whose help they might need to feed them. If it were, ICU's and places that assist the handicapped would have no need to exist. We would just kill all of those who could not fend for themselves, as they did in Nazi Germany.

Think about it--one of the biggest rationales for legalized abortions is that it helps to control the population. How much more would the population be controlled if invalids were exterminated like lame animals?

From my observation, what happens when most people begin to consider such things is that the human being in them, that part of them that some call a "soul" or "spirit" begins to show itself, and could not in good conscience allow such things to happen.

If that same spirit or soul would be allowed to manifest itself to those who, across the board and without exception, are incapable of defending themselves, namely the unborn children, then abortion would probably never happen, except in extremely rare, no-other-option types of cases wherein both the baby and the mother would die unless it occurred.

If the mother's life truely "trumps" the baby's life because the baby is completely dependent upon the mother, then the government has the right to terminate anyone who relies solely on the government for support, I have the right to kill all of my children, from the age of 20 months to 10 years, etc. But of course I do not have the right, and neither does the government. In truth, neither does any human being have the right to terminate any other human being out of convenience, lack of resources, or remorse over their existence. That includes a pregnant mother and her unborn baby.

He's a family man. He believes in God and professes to be a Christian. He's been a very successful business man. He's extremely wealthy. He has a history of turning around very bad economical situations. Will the country be better off than it has since Obama took office?

Has Australia loosened up on its immigration procedures and requirements at all since 2009? Aside from a doctor or some other really skilled/highly-educated worker, what would be my best chance in getting a long term visa in Australia as an American?

I'm curious, the so-called "pro-choice" advocates are quick to point the finger of "no scientific proof" if pro-life/anti-abortionists say that human life begins at conception? I take it as a matter of faith that it does. Does anyone have any hard evidence that it doesn't?

To me, if the question remains unanswered scientifically, then aborting a fetus that MIGHT be alive, and hasn't been scientifically proven not to be, can be equated to demolishing a building that you THINK is empty, but haven't proven it to be. By not proving it, there is a possibility of there being someone still inside, and therefore you would be killing someone.

The pro-lifers in this analogy would be like people standing next to the guy setting off the charges saying, "Wait! Wait! I think there's someone still in there! I'm sure of it!" The pro-abortionist would be the guy telling the man with the explosives, "Hey, there's nobody in there. These people are just a bunch of religious freaks who don't really KNOW that you'd be killing anyone, so they're just trying to take the building owner's choice away to do with your building what she wants to. It's HER choice, and she has chosen to destroy the building!" The guy with the explosives would be the abortion doctor, who of course wants to get paid, so he's more willing to side with the owner of the building.

I have researched this issue for practically my entire life. There is a lot of flowery rhetoric about the "evidence" on the side of life not beginning at creation, and the side that believes that it does has just about as much evidence that it does, but ultimately relies on faith. Faith that we shouldn't kill someone based on an unknown seems to make more sense than faith that we should, just because someone believes her "choice" is the ultimate, once-and-for-all deciding factor.

Does anyone agree with this? Does anyone disagree? Please add your responses, but please be respectful. I will report any abuse.

Thanks!

I was sued for early terminating a contract that really shouldn't have existed to begin with. I offered a settlement, and the plaintiff accepted it. The stipulation says it is "with prejudice against the defendant (me)." What exactly does that mean? Does that mean simply that I cannot sue them back, or is there more to it?

I am going to be studying in Australia, and I need to arrive several months before my term starts to settle my family in. The rule is that you cannot apply for a student visa for Australia more than 4 months in advance. You can apply while you're in Australia on a visitor's (tourism) visa, but only if you do not get a "no further stay" condition. The problem is, you don't know if you're going to get a no further stay condition until after you pay the money, wait the time, and get your visa approved, so I could be out that money if it doesn't work. The problem is, the closer to my school start date, the more expensive the plane tickets get, and I'm moving my wife and five kids out there, so it's already expensive enough. Does anyone know what prompts immigration to mark your visa with no further stay in Australia? Thanks!

My stepsons are in serious danger from their bio dad. My wife and I are full-time college students and currently unemployed, so our budget can't match the ex's for an attorney. I come on here and ask for advice about what we should do, saying we need to make sure that whatever time this attempted murderer gets with the kids is supervised, and people want to jump on me like I'm the criminal. "You believe whatever your "perfect wife" tells you?" "You like drama, don't you?" "Stop calling him (referring to the ex) a monster" and so forth. Nobody wants to give me any serious advice? No one cares that these two little innocent children being alone with this guy is dangerous? People want to play devil's advocate and say that just because the guy's DNA is in those kids that he has just as much right to them as my wife and I, the only loving father they've ever known? What has happened to the human race? What has happened to compassion??

Hello. Here is our situation. I married the most wonderful wife and mother that anyone could ever hope for. She was married to a guy who used to hit her, attempted to kill her twice (while pregnant), and who confessed to her that he had sexual thoughts regarding her older boy. This guy threw her and the kids out in Dec. of '06, and then filed divorce against HER! In June of '07, their decree was issued, but there were no decisions made on visitation, child support, etc. Just a divorce. They were ordered to go through mediation to resolve those issues. We went once without him, and he went once without us, but the only result is that we were to have a home study, which never transpired.

Fast forward to now, her lawyer hasn't done anything else on the case, and informed us he was withdrawing because he doesn't want domestic relations cases anymore. We have called around, and everyone wants $ we don't have, and our relatives are unable to help with $, too. The "Free Legal Aid"

What I am trying to find out is whether or not it is true that Utah can override another state's custody ruling in favor of one of its citizens. I have heard this to be true, and I wanted to research it. So far, I'm not getting a straight answer. Thanks!