Actually, I got distracted from my original point, which was that there is no basis for the two parties to reason together, because each is beginning from a different foundational assumed premise. In order to reason together, there must be a shared foundational premise, and in the case of the question of whether abortion ought to be legal, the actual literal bort *foundational* premise is, “Abortion ought to be legal”! So obviously, there is no shared foundational premise. That was my original point, I apologize for being unclear.

As for what originally “turned me toward God and against abortion” it was revelation, not any reasoned argument. And holding a picture is not a reasoned argument. Jesus indeed commanded to preach the gospel to every creature, but why did Paul feel it necessary to point out that the preaching need be “not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power”? Everyone seems to think that his or her own preaching is not “with words of human wisdom,” and that that particular caveat is for others, but they themselves are not violating it. OK, fine; you believe that you are preaching in the power of the cross, in trying to get some judge somewhere to allow a defense of necessity. Far be it from me to doubt it. The day of judgment will show the worth of each person's work. Until then, I stand corrected and apologize. Sincerely, what do I know?

As a secondary matter though: in my long experience, generally, arguments, whether sound or not, in most cases only serve to assure (rightly or wrongly) those who already agree with the one presenting the argument that his or her conclusion is the correct one. Reasoning almost never persuades anyone to change conclusions.

Thirdly, I almost never see any sound argument. For example, someone could have shot the previous U. S. president (Bush) and claimed the necessity defense — it was necessary to save the lives of soldiers in Iraq. That person could probably find nearly identical ground to that you suggest be taken by Mr. Roeder's defense.

Fourthly, no one cares about the necessity defense unless it conduces to the result that he or she wishes. Even were the logic of claiming the necessity defense in Mr. Roeder's case thoroughly sound, it would not matter in the slightest to any but a tiny few; almost no one cares about what is or is not logically sound. Almost no one cares. If you are trusting in the power of divine providence, that's good. But if you think that sound logic has any power *in and of itself*, you are wrong. It doesn't. In fact there is some reason to believe that God would be more likely to put his blessing on the words of a ten year old child, rather than the carefully crafted arguments of those who think that such careful crafting will result in persuading more people.

Was God wasting His breath when He said: Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Do you hold up signs showing the evidence of what abortion does to babies to no effect?

We don't have to guess how fruitful our seed will be, if we prepare it well: He tells us plainly, in Luke 8:5-18. It will be fruitful enough to support ourselves today and still have enough left over to keep planting tomorrow.

I didn't say everybody loves to reason 100% of the time, did I? Just as ground doesn't nurture seeds 100% of the time. But this is the time to have hope! This is a time of national turbulence! Turbulence causes people to scramble for sure footing for their souls amid the sinking sands around them.

I suppose if a reasoned argument persuades one person in a thousand, that's still one who wasn't persuaded before. It just seems a bit like trying to keep a lawn trimmed with a pair of scissors, though. For every person who is convinced by a sound argument, there may be twenty at the same time who go the other way for any number of reasons.

I guess what bothers me about debate in general is that it presupposes that humans arrive at their beliefs rationally, and that is wrong. They don't. They just don't.