The death penalty is not imposed at the discretion  of an individual on a person whose only "offense" is being unwanted.

   Pretending not to see that there is more complexity to BOTH issues than such simplistic sloganeering suggests helps neither the cause of abortion advocates or capital punishment opponents.

  One can sincerely and consistently be for both capital punishment and abortion rights or against both.

Why not use "for the sake of argument" a phrase most everyone with a high school education would understand?

"I don't support the death penalty but, that argument conflating abortion with capital punishment was lame 40 years ago and tired and lame now."

No, it's not. It's the very argument those who are make every attempt to be consistent with the 'culture of life.' It's not a view I hold though I've known many and do know many who make every attempt to align their beliefs consistently.

Not if they believe, as I do, that life begins at birth.

Jeralyn, in all the threads on abortion on TL, you are, I believe one of, if not the first person to ever come right out and say "I believe life begins at birth."

  Again, people just damage theirt own credibility and persuasiveness when they make such claims of obliviousness. It's one thing to say yo disagree with people who draw the distinction, but it is entirely another to claim to be incapable of grasping the reasons for it.

   There are many moral, spiritual,  practical, etc, reasons to oppose capital punishment even with those who have committed the most heinous of crimes. However, arguing that those opposed to abortion are should be required to oppose capital puunishment betrays extreme narrow-mindedness combined with the the sort of self-righteous desire ro impose one's value system on others that is branded intolerant fundamentalism when done by people with whom we disagree.

a reference: As I (IANAL) read Rove V Wade there is extensive history that in "original intent" or common law, life began at quickening.
"It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 -- was not an indictable offense." 21

A Belief:  This is all a crock meant to get votes because Bush policies cause (induce ?)  more abortions

There was a movement to try to find common ground between the anti and pro choice forces which was quickly squashed by the men running the anti forces.   You can hear the tones here

  Why is taking an independent breath rather than being capable of taking one the moment humanity is endowed?

  Why is either  actually breathing independently or being capable of doing so  a moment when humanity is endowed?

  What articulable moral, biological, spiritual, medical or any other basis can you offer for that assertion?

  What argument supports your apparent conviction that your personal belief is the one upon which the law should be based over and above all othger competing beliefs?

  In light of the  competing views why should this not be considered a political question to be decided through representative processes rather judicial fiat?

What articulable moral, biological, spiritual, medical or any other basis can you offer for that assertion?

There are many articulate arguments supporting Jeralyn's position. I think we could find countless spiritual positions, documents, ideals that equate Life with breath. All one has to do is simply meditate to realize the importance of breath with life. Of course, biology also supports the breath with life position.

Does this mean there aren't contradictions? No, but as Walt Whitman said "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

We all can take a position. It is an equally valid position to say that life begins at conception. It is also valid to say Life begins when one become self-aware. Or, Sarcs position that Life begins when it could survive on its own. All of these positions could find articulate moral, biological, medical or spiritual basis for support. But in the end moral, biological, medical, spiritual positions are human inventions and we will always contradict ourself somehow when we hold fast to a position that is based on inventions subject to change.

  That is a thoughtful post. I don't find your reasons for equating the first breath outside the womb with the endowment of humanity at all persuasive but you reveal an ability to actually think about the issue rather than attempt to draw illogical parallels.

   The problems  with that include, of course, that respiration begins long before delivery; that some people are incapable of breathing without artificial intervention after birth and at various other times during life and are still "human beings on planet Earth;" and that it mistakes one function necessary for life with life itself.

  The bottom line is that NONE of us, even clergy or lawyers, despite their often inflated sense of self worth, can know when humanity is endowed-- or even in the more metaphysical sense of whether "humanity" in that sense  truly exists or is simply a construct of our making.

  Necessarily, people have to decide what they belief for themselves for their own reasons. what I dislike-- and from the Left as much as from the Right-- is the supreme arrogance and presumptuousness of the the extremists.

  Personally, I find the life begins at first breath argument just about the weakest of any posited by anyone-- but i don't then take the huge leap to asserting that is not a position that should be listened to and considered when POLICY is made. I also don't believe that "humanity" as I view it present at the moment of congress between ovum and sperm, but again, I don't argue that is a position that thus should be ignored.

  We cannot and will not EVER have universal agreement on the question of when human life begins because it is an unknowable concept. It is not a medical or biological question at its essence and it surely NOT a constitutional or legal question question.

  While we can't answer the questions involved, we should only decide what POLICY should be implemented in light of the conflcting views of the unknowable through representative processes. Anything else is simply tyranny.

  In our society both the Far Left and the Far right aspire to tyranny. They are  equally self-righteous, narrow-minded and intolerant-- and equally frightening.  

I agree with you. Breath seems to coincide with life but then again so does flatulence and it would be ridiculous to say life begins with the first fart. But your larger point on the far left and right.

Breath seems to coincide with life but then again so does flatulence and it would be ridiculous to say life begins with the first fart.

Well done Peaches!

And, yes, I'm strongly with the rest of your and Decon's comments here as well.

While I truly wish to know Jeralyn's support for her position, and certainly wasn't trying to bait her into some long, drawn-out debate, I also realize that she's usually too cautious to expose herself here in that way.

I remember reading a Carlos Costanada book when I was younger (in my twenties). Don Juan told Carlos after one of his experiences while he was coming to his senses and he let one loose. Don Juan said "You Fart, You are alive." I was living with an old girlfriend at the time. Whenever she would give me that look after I'd rip one off, I'd announce in a loud voice, "I Am Alive!!"