Felicity

I understand what you are saying here, but it does not guarantee an actuality in any way. Since you continue to define what the fetus “will be” rather than define what the fetus “actually is,” you are presenting an argument against abortion that aims to convict a free woman of a criminal action that has no “actual” victim. Let me give you a parallel and maybe you will better understand why I find your simple assertion that abortion is wrong because it takes a “potential” life lacking.

If I put money in the bank in a CD that earns 2.125% interest, that money has the potential to earn a significant amount of interest over time. Let’s say I expect my investment to become $5000. This is the problem with potential vs. actual. I cannot put money in the bank and claim that I have the right to the potential interest it could build, simply because my money exists in that bank. The money in the bank is merely the money it is at the time I choose to withdraw it—and nothing more than that. So—if I put $1000 in the bank today, and withdraw it in 3 months, I will have merely withdrawn $1005.33 --Not at all what I expect my money to become. If I left the money in for 909 months, I could get over $5000. My money has the POTENTIAL to be $5000 in approximately 75 years, but I am not entitled to that potential at any point until it the interest is ACTUALLY earned.

A “potential” life in the womb, is nothing more than it is at the time you withdraw it. It is nothing more than some stage of potential and not “ACTUALLY” what you claim is violated.
Legally, in the US, a woman cannot be held to the service of another person, let alone another “potential person.

We had slavery in the US, and then we abolished it. See below:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV...Section 2....
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant cannot be held to that involuntary servitude of another person—let alone another POTENTIAL person. She has not been convicted of a crime by becoming pregnant and therefore there is no basis to hold her to the servitude of motherhood against her will. Furthermore—Section two says that Congress has the right to enforce that freedom through legislation.

If you wish to defend the position that the “sanctity of life,” as you put it, outweighs a woman’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom from servitude, please offer the legal/historical evidence that supports that notion.

(C’mon Henry...try to sound sincere will ya?)
The natural process of life includes the potential cessation of life—God included that in his plan. Some pregnancies end prior to the birth of a living child “naturally.” What, then, proscribes ending a pregnancy “intentionally?” Both are things that can happen to pregnancies—natural processes of the reality of existence.

God gave woman free-will. Who is she (or you) to deny her full use of that free will?

(are you really trying or are you merely taking swipes at religion here by painting people of faith as having only ignorant, emotional, assertions of unreasonable positions? Have a little respect for the intelligence of those who hold beliefs different than yours and at least give it the old college try....isn’t that the point of these reverse debates?)
“WILL and SHOULD” ??? Please elaborate on the objective source for this claim. Have you been speaking to “nature” and how does the “natural world” have a “will.” Your assertions are seeming crazy...do you talk to animals? Did Bambi tell you abortion is wrong?

Your first sentence said: “Potential as in a several months, it'll be human.” According to your own position—the “life” disrupted in the womb is not yet human. Hence, by your own definition (and by your supposed clarification) it is not “murder.”

Aside from the fact it is legal in the US—fine....explain how denying the onset of “life” is equivalent to the taking of life. You need to retract your position on the “potentiality” of the thing, and explain your ”natural world” reference more fully for your assertion to be anything more than “spewing theocratic fundie pro-lie clap-trap of hyperbolic, revisionist linguistics.”


(Well, I'm a freakin' pro-life Christian!!!! No-one said you wouldn’t have to research...this is why I am encouraging you to try harder--otherwise the intelectual integrity of this debate on the assumed pro-life side is in question and makes the continuation pointless. )

Baloney.
Current abortion beliefs of religious groups
Pro-choice groups:

Liberal and some mainline denominations: In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1

American Baptist Churches-USA,

American Ethical Union,

American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,

American Jewish Committee,

American Jewish Congress,

Central Conference of American Rabbis,

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),

Council of Jewish Federations,

Episcopal Church (USA),

Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,

Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,

Na'Amat USA,

National Council of Jewish Women,

Presbyterian Church (USA),

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,

Union of American Hebrew Congregations,

Unitarian Universalist Association,

United Church of Christ,

United Methodist Church,

United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.


Religious groups other than denominations:

Catholics for Free Choice,

Episcopal Women's Caucus,

Evangelicals for Choice,

Jewish Women International,

Lutheran Women's Caucus,

North American Federation of Temple Youth,

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,

Women of Reform Judaism,

Women's American ORT,

Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren,

Women's League for Conservative Judaism.


BTW--arguing that abortion is a world-wide issue and laws of the US are only applicable in the US and the definition of murder is universal, and then going back to the laws of the US and the "beliefs of the majority" to support your position is poor debate form. Pick a venue.

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~