Clint,

I'm sorry, I'm obvioulsy not a very good communicator. I'll try to take a wack at our obvious impasse. I don't mind discussing it but I do know these long threads can be horribly tedious to open and read, so if I bore you early on I understand.

If you understand the distinction between innocent and guilty (and I think I pointed out that you do), comparison of abortion to capital punishment is merely a red herring."

Indeed I do understand. I said, plain as I could, "capital punishment, even when done with due process is sometimes the taking of an innocent life. The courts are not infallible."

The point I was trying to make way back when was that there is a significant difference between "IS innocent" and "COULD BE innocent" (or, as you said "sometimes" the taking of innocent life. {by virtue of poorly served justice}). To my thinking, relative to the comparison between abortion and CP -- it is only significant that the unborn is innocent and the killer is guilty. relative to arguing the merits of CP THEN your issue of "could be" is significant.

"So you are saying that an abotion is an amputation?"

No. They are similar in that they are bad things. Amputation and abortion and killing a child's dog are all bad things, but sometimes a bad thing is the best you can do, because the alternatives are worse things.

That's why when I "made this point" I ended it with a question. So you don't think abortion is bad on moral grounds? So, on what grounds do you find it "bad"?

" 'If pro-life advocates they'd each adopt at least one "undesirable" baby, and have funerals for miscarriages.''
"Lots do and lots do. But even if they did not adopt a single unwanted, undesirable child, it might make them less honorable -- but not philosophically wrong. And I have personally attended three funerals for miscarriages"

Didn't say "philosophically wrong." Said they're not putting their actions where their mouth is; not practicing what they preach; not living up to their philosophy.All hat & no cattle. I had never heard of a funeral for a miscarriage until your post. Stillbirths, yes.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned that I have attended such funerals because the point I have been making all along is that this is a philosophical/moral issue but it is significantly clouded by emotional arguements that are actually red herrings. We may FEEL a certain way about something but it has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of it. If we were slave owners we might FEEL as though we were kind to those we own -- but it's immaterial to the rightness or wrongness of slavery.

And, again, you may feel as though a pro-lifer who doesn't adopt is a hypocrite -- but it doesn't answer the greater moral question. It's a bitch when nasty people are right -- but it happens some times.

You seem to make a strong distinction between "stillbirth" and "miscarriage". Relative to the pro-life/pro-choice debate however, this is inconsequential because what acts or serves as the law of the land makes no distinction relative to length of term. Any fetus can be aborted. There is no wing of the pro-choice movement lobbying congress to enact laws limiting abortion to early term. There IS a wing of the pro-choice movement seriously lobbying to protect late-term (partial birth) abortion.

"The speed limit thing -- I can understand the connection but logically you would have to accept the premise that lower speed limits save lives. I've seen stats that counter that notion."

Stats or no, it takes longer to stop at high speeds, and that can cost lives. That's why nobody sane wants a 60 mph speed limit inside city limits.

But my point was, if you're sincerely pro-life I expect you to be against anything that is anti-life, that can cost lives. Burning stubble fields in this area, for instance.

There is one word in your reply here that moves this away from a moral (or certainly a moral equivlency) issue. The word is "can" - as in "...can cost lives."