Capital punishment should be illegal, and abortion rights should be respected.

Actually I think a scientist wouldn't get mad if you tried disproving science with a few lines out of a textbook. Science is absolutely irrefutable, because it produces results that can be used to predict future events with exactitude. I know you think you are doing scientists a favor by not proving them wrong, but you actually wouldn't succeed at all if you tried. I never said Jesus would advocate the destruction of our legal system. Judgement is natural, and an every-day occurance. But no man has the authority to judge a person fit to die. You are stretching my argument to mean "no person is able to judge any other person in any way". I perhaps was not clear enough on my position. Jesus said "let he who is without sin, throw the first stone". When someone is stoning someone, they are attempting to kill them. The judgement that I am discussing here, which I firmly believe does not belong to mankind, is the judgement of who gets to live and who gets to die. I think our legal system should be denied the right to judge death to a person. Since an embryo is not a person, I would claim that this "right to personhood" for an embryo would not set in until it has reached a certain point in its development. Your argument against newly-pregnant women's rights is what we call a "slippery slope". So if a couple has sex, then as soon as they are done, there is ANOTHER person in the room already. First of all, that is just nonsensical. Second of all, we cannot hold women responsible in this way. Consider what laws politicians would pass if people like you got their way. The first move is getting a fetus/embryo officially recognized as a person. This is where the slippery slope comes into play: how can we defend this new person's rights? They are a full fledged person, right? So this embryo, the size of the average bacterium, has full constitutional rights? Let me ask you this, Leonitus. Are you going to fight to protect the rights of that woman, against people like you, that are going to hold her responsible for what she does 'wrong' while she is pregnant? Are you going to sit there and deny that you wouldn't go the extra step, when the smoke clears, and start proposing new legislation that starts abusing women's rights about how they take care of themselves while they are pregnant? We are talking about Fetus's rights. I can see it now, women being held in contempt because they didn't follow doctors orders to the letter, and being put on trial for murder and being electrocuted, lethaly injected, or gassed TO DEATH because they had a miscarriage and they are accused of not handling their pregnancy responsibly. YOU CANT MAKE A FETUS A PERSON. The slippery slope here is way to steep, and with Christians in our government proposing laws based on responsibility and family values, we are absolutely guaranteed that they would take women's rights back to the middle ages! I absolutely believe that pro-lifers would not stop with the outlaw of abortion. I absolutely believe that pro-lifers would continue their fight to protect fetus's rights, at the cost of destroying the mother's rights, who is a real and bonified person. It makes no sense to destroy the rights of a person at the benefit of a potential person. When christianity opposes science, it is defeated. Always. When christianity invades politics, progress in human rights is sacrificed. Always. When christianity realizes it is merely a philisophical notion, it can achieve justice and take its place as a tool for philosophers. What good does it do for the berieved family to see the murderor put to death? I reject the notion that justice is served through "an eye for an eye" logic. Are you going to defend "an eye for an eye" against me? Don't confuse the meaning of Pro-life. We let you anti-abortionists call yourselves pro-life, but don't just take a mile when you are given an inch. Pro-life means absolutely nothing more than that, and you can't just say that the framers were pro-life because they were good people. You can't say that the second continental congress was pro-life because they cared about liberty. You can't say that anyone is pro-life just because they care about life, because that has nothing to do with being pro-life. Essentially, being pro-life has nothing to do with being pro-life, as pro-lifers' pro-death penalty arguments typically exemplify. The label "pro-life" is simply a rhetorical device, just like the "USA Patriot act" label, and the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" label. What all three of these have in common is that they are all embellished terms created by Republicans to appeal to good people but accomplish something totally different. Pro-lifers work to send women back to the stone age, the USA Patriot act removes civil liberties from our constitution, and Operation Iraqi Freedom is a despicable name for a war that congress did not wage that has Iraqi's rights at the BOTTOM of its agenda. This is my last chance to post in my argument, but please refer to the comments section where my positions are being attacked vigorously for a continuation of this debate.