The record I think is 21 weeks and 5 days (gestational age).

Why not? It's more on-topic than your conservative vs. liberal debate. Like I said before, it's stuff like that that keeps us from taking the rest of what you say seriously. You still haven't explained the "legally able to survive" part

it's the crux of the problem with the abortion "debate" (although I'm not sure how/why people believe it's okay to debate about the personal freedoms of people they have never met). Pro-lifers "feel" and "guess" and "think" an awful lot with no facts to back them up.

- they "guess" that the best ending for any circumstance a pregnant woman is in is live birth.
- they "guess" how viable a fetus is
- they "guess" that fetuses feel pain
- they "guess" that every woman who has an abortion is going to be guilt-ridden at some point in the future
- they "guess" that they are in more of a position to determine the outcome of someone else's life than that "someone else" simply because.... well... they're full of themselves.

-they "guess" that women who have abortions are all whores who use it like the rest of us use condoms.

- and for the religious ones, they "guess" how their god feels which is (according to the bible) a huge no-no. I mean, how do they know that god didn't give man the medical knowledge to perform abortions because he WANTS them performed in certain circumstances?

Your "feelings" and your "guesses" have no place in law, nor in the lives of complete strangers.

BTW, my cousin was told that she delivered at 21 weeks, so that's all I know. Her daughter had countless surgeries on her bowels because they were so thin they tore constantly. She had surgery to keep her from going more blind because she was on oxygen so long, she had surgeries on her lungs and heart, spent months and months in and out of the hospital with lung, stomach, and heart problems. But hey... she was "viable".

It wouldn't matter anyway, because I'm against the intended termination of an innocent growing child, whether it is viable or not.

"Legally able to survive" should need no explanation.

Gun control and political correctness seem somewhat fascist to me.

As mentioned above...no need for back up of this statement.

What I said was true about viability, my guess at the age that occurs was off by about ten weeks. Instead of debating or discussing what I said or the questions I asked, you try to frame the debate around that?

"Legally able to survive" should need no explanation. Look up the term "viability."

(including the law being changed under false testimony) and you chose to go after an insignificant small "guess" I made about when a growing child becomes viable.

Your so inconveinanced on a daily basis by people of faith. You poor thing. It's a shame you've had to live here in the world of oppression all your life, and not in a more free environment like....IRAN.

(Nathanson now admits he was being dishonest)

Either you're misinformed yourself, or you're deliberately trying to throw off the debate. Which one is it?

It's hardly insignificant. But, sure, let's go with what you claim is more important, the law being changed under false testimony? Which law specifically? Which testimony is false?

Don't tell me you wouldn't have jumped on it had someone said "A fetus cannot survive prior to 8 months" and the answer is actually 5 months . . and you would've accepted the explanation that they just made a "minor, insignificant" mistake in a small guess?

Isn't this whole part of the debate that you're trying to support based precisely on the concept of making into law something that's based on a religious belief?

And, there are enough articles about fairly extreme, although not fringe, Christian groups who expressly say they want to change the laws of the US so that it's a Christian Theocracy. Let me repeat that - they have expressly said they want to do this.

My parents got out of Iran while the getting was good, before the revolution - and we've still got some family back there

Isn't he now a pro-lifer mouthpiece, and doesn't he do the narration for that Silent Scream film, and some of the other gore-fests which have actually used stillbirths for the images in an attempt to convince people that this is what most abortions are like?

Again, let's stick with NEUTRAL sources.

Notelvisjunior,
You are trying to reason with many people who had no problem with the concept of nuking Iran when John McCain sang his song, didn't blink an eye over the oil war US genocides in Iraq and Afghanisan, think the death penalty is just punishment, even if a few innocents are taken out, and don't think that abortion doctors are viable life forms. Remember the 80% bloodlust in the US in 2002-03? We had to kill someone, even if they had nothing to do with 9/11. Facts are not important to some.

Obviously Roe -vs- Wade is what I was referring to.

It's also probably a good thing that your mother's health was never threatened by your pregnancy while in Iran, as she may have ABORTED you. Just think. You'd never be here to talk about how important it is that we kill off innocent babies before they are born.

I'm against the termination of innocent growing babies, regardless of the month or how far along.

So what? There are extreme Muslim groups who want to make America a nation of Islam. There are people all over the world who want to make America into something it is not. That's why we should be united over the Constitution and rule of law.

He would always say..."It never bothered me to perform an abortion, as long as I didn't have to look at the fetal parts." We all know that pro-choice advocates who are all about baby killing do not want to look at the fetal parts. They refuse to acknowledge what it is they stand behind.

The irrelevance of this is absolutely absurd. In early term abortions there's NOTHING TO SEE!!!

Not obvious, given the hodge-podge of state bills/laws/proposals/etc covering this sort of things as well, trying to put their own limitations, etc

what good would it have done for both of us to die rather than myself alone, who was at that point incapable of suffering or feeling pain?

So, from the moment of conception? I just want to be clear - from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg is what you're saying?

The Muslim groups don't have even a smidgen of the influence required. The Christian ones, on the other hand, not only have the potential to do so, but are attempting to do so without breaking the constitution - stretching it to the breaking point, maybe, but staying within it until they can get their constitutional amendments passed.

But going by the definition of pregnancy, a fertilized egg is considered developing, so is a woman considered "pregnant" at that point in your view?

But going by the definition of pregnancy, a fertilized egg is considered developing, so is a woman considered "pregnant" at that point in your view?

You're right about the point of pregnancy not being up for debate. It's only being debated among the wingnut faction

Scroll back through this debate. Yourself, and every one of the prochoice advocates completely avoided every one of the facts and reasons I posted as to why I'm pro-life,(including the law being changed under false testimony) and you chose to go after an insignificant small "guess" I made about when a growing child becomes viable. It wouldn't matter anyway, because I'm against the intended termination of an innocent growing child, whether it is viable or not.

-The law Roe -vs- Wade was changed under a lot of false testimony. Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) is now a pro life advocate. She claims she became the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers who were looking for a plaintiff who they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. "Mary Doe" of the companion Doe v. Bolton lawsuit

you understand, this is how arguments are brought before the court...ROE represents all persons(in this case pregnant women) in the same situation. The Court was [not] rulling for or against McCorvy...They were rulling for all in her same situation.

The Court rule[d] that the Texas Law banning Abortion was Unconstiitutional...

Considering that Roe -vs- Wade is the result of the Supreme court making it illegal for the states to vote on the issue and taking the case out of the hands of the people, I'd say it's the single most important moment our government has been involved in with abortion.

I've noticed that you do not seem at all interested in debating Roe -vs- Wade, the dishonest testimony, as well as the liberal lawyers who manipulated the woman in question to change the law. [SAguy: see above explanation]

Right. As if your entire belief on this matter rests on my guess as to how long a child is growing before it becomes viable.

"Legally able to survive" should need no explanation. Look up the term "viability."

Scroll back through this debate. Yourself, and every one of the prochoice advocates completely avoided every one of the facts and reasons I posted as to why I'm pro-life, (including the law being changed under false testimony) and you chose to go after an insignificant small "guess" I made about when a growing child becomes viable. It wouldn't matter anyway, because I'm against the intended termination of an innocent growing child, whether it is viable or not.

You paint a disgusting picture that is filled with assumption and is not based upon facts. This is strictly your opinion, nothing more. As for suggesting pro lifers are in more of a position to determine the outcome of someone else's life, you are right. We are the only ones who will stand up and fight for that innocent child's right to live.

Not a single pro lifer I know refer to people who have abortions as whores. However, I have heard many pro choice advocates suggest that they are more likely to have unprotected sex, knowing that if they had to they could just get rid of the baby. Ultimately, abortion being legal encourages irresponsible behavior, which is bad for us all in the long run.

Nothing makes you more mad then someone who's religious, does it? Your so inconveinanced on a daily basis by people of faith. You poor thing. It's a shame you've had to live here in the world of oppression all your life, and not in a more free environment like....IRAN.

I was just commenting on a message board. I wasn't testifying before the courts or giving numbers for NARAL like Dr. Bernard Nathanson did to help get the law changed on abortion. (Nathanson now admits he was being dishonest) I also wasn't the victim of two ambitious trial lawyers who wanted to challenge the law.

If you want to talk about the law, then explain to me why our federal government is involved in healthcare at all? Why does our government cover half of all healthcare costs in America?

The Constitution was written to restrain government, not the people. Our government has an obligation to protect innocent life and liberty here in America.

Sounds like a horrible situation. Did the daughter survive and is she alive today? Sure sounds to me like you would have much rather your cousin aborted her. Did you express this to your cousin?

I know women have rights, and there are life and death circumstances. But I don't think we should take lightly the fact that we are ending someone's existence.

And your government has an obligation to protect it's citizens.... not blobs of tissue that MIGHT become citizens someday.