BTW, here is the Oklahoma homicide law:

A. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another.

B. As used in this section, "human being" includes an unborn child, as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

C. Homicide shall not include:

1. Acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented; or

2. Acts which are committed pursuant to the usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.

D. Under no circumstances shall the mother of the unborn child be prosecuted for causing the death of the unborn child unless the mother has committed a crime that caused the death of the unborn child.

I'm no legal genius, but how is this reconciled in view of fetal homicide state laws?  For purposes of homicide, Alabama defines the person as follows:

PERSON. The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

Many states have these laws. Why aren't these laws "repugnant to the Constitution." I'm assuming they all have a caveat saying that these laws don't apply to abortion. So, you have the Court saying that the fetus is not a person and the state legislatures saying it is, except when the Court says it isn't.   Even though fetal homicide laws are constitutional only because they include the flimsy caveat that they don't apply to abortion, these laws shed light on the myth that underlies a justification of abortion.  That is, what is undeniably human, really isn't.   Quite frankly, I don't see why someone who receives prison time for fetal homicide doesn't challenge these laws as unconstitutional.  Isn't it the settled law of the land that a fetus is not a person?

My wife and I were not able to have biological children.  While struggling with the idea of adopting, my best friend had a daughter with Downs.  In the following years my friend said to me that even though he and his wife had a higher than average chance of having another kid with Downs, they wanted to have another child;Downs didn't matter.  My wife and I still struggled with the idea of adoption.  Why should we adopt?  We pondered the many "disasters" that might befall us: the kid could be completely incompatible with us; he/she could have attachment issues, etc.  Meanwhile, we noticed how much my friend and his daughter loved each other.  I've never seen a purer love than the love that those two have.  Thus, I finally came to the realization that that is why I wanted to adopt.  Just once in my life I wanted to love as a father and be loved as a father.  That's it, nothing more.  Now I understood why my friend wanted to have another kid regardless ofDowns.  We adopted (twice) and never regretted it.  We learned a great life lesson from my friend and his daughter.    

F. Scott Fitzgerald in a similar vein.

When you come to a house instead of waiting politely for someone to drop a piece of candy in your bag, you scream "Trick or Treat! Give ME all the candy! You owe me!" And you grab the whole candy bowl. Followed by relieving yourself on the homeowner's front lawn.  

These bizarre causes of action are rooted in the contraceptive/abortive mentality.  At one point, people had the odd belief that a sexual act may lead to the birth of a child.  Nowadays we're much more sophisticated.  Any sexual act is assumed sterile unless otherwise desired by the participants.  If the obvious consequence of the sexual act, a child, is not desired by the participants, we have the right to dispose of that obvious consequence.  I do not desire a child, so dispose of him.  If you do not properly dispose of him, I will sue you because my rights to dispose have been breached.  I desire a perfect child; if he is not perfect, dispose of him.  If you do not properly dispose of the child; I will sue you.

Case dismissed on summary judgment because plaintiffs assumed the risk of having a child by engaging in consensual sex and are strictly liable for any child that mysteriously results from engaging in said act.

Yes, I know the doctor agreed to perform a service (screen and/or abort) and did not perform it properly and may be held liable.  But, what bizarre circumstances the abortive mentality has wrought. 

Well, at least her companions should be a little more hygienic than the other occupy protesters.

Thank you for pointing out this piece.   I don't know why, but I hold a certain respect for atheists that fully embrace their religion and face its consequences.  

Member Katie O posted a link in Peter's thread to this short video on said subject. 

Yes, their lives were of infinite worth. What they did with their lives is another question. 

Yup, there was an article written about this.  

I was surprised when Peter said his adoptive father was a repo man.  So, I dug into it a little.  I knew he was adopted, but I always assumed he was adopted by an upper-middle class family.  It turns out his adoptive parents didn't have much education.  Nevertheless, he remained fiercely loyal to his adoptive parents, even to the point of saying that they were the only parents he ever had.  Being the adoptive parent of two girls that are much smarter than me, I only hope that they aren't ashamed to say that they know me when they get older.

I see the point of saying that if he'd been aborted, what would the world have missed.  Thus, what else have we missed out on because of others who've been aborted?  But, I fear, this slips into thinking of venerating life because of its functional purpose.  If he'd been associated with Windows instead of Mac, would we still say he deserved a shot at life?  Everyone deserves a chance at life regardless of their functional worth.

How about a limerick:

I saw a mob that was crazed

with their solipsism they were not phased

so I asked with a quip

why make this trip?

so, into their navels they gazed

And using the H from New Hampshire:

No November Hopey-Changey For Very Irritating Obamabots

Naturally November Is Verily Obama's Final Chapter

National Nightmare Obama Certainly Is Very Finished

Obama's Feckless Career Is Vanquished Next November  

The should demand:

a) an end to solipsism;

b) a sense of purpose in life;

c) personal responsibility;

d) a sense of shame; and 

e) personal hygiene standards for protesters. 

But, I'm not holding out hope that these will be their demands. 

Either Berlinski could write about shoe polish and it would be a fascinating and entertaining read.  I read The Devil's Delusion.  It was one of those books I just couldn't put down.  

 To my understanding David Berlinski is an agnostic.  Nevertheless, he vigorously (and hilariously) critiques the arguments of atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, et al.  It's been awhile since I read the book, but I think he even throws in some arguments that a belief in G-d is not unreasonable.   Why oh why would a true agnostic take the time and effort to make these arguments!?!  I realize that a defense of theism is not the main purpose of the book, but why would an agnostic even take the time to make these arguments.  Even on weighty issues I would think that an agnostic may correct someone he thinks wrong, but not with the tenacity that David Berlinski does.  This is one of the things I always wondered about David Berlinski.