1. Life begins at conception. (As I said before, I’ll accept this as a logical starting premise despite personally disagreeing.)
2. Life is sacred and should be protected. (That sound you hear is me, vigorously nodding my head in agreement.)
3. The taking of INNOCENT human life should be a crime. (And herein lies the problem.)

In your version, #3 doesn’t follow #2. #2 proclaims the sanctity of ALL human life; #3 states that only SOME human life should be protected. At best, you are missing a step in your argument. Unless you can somehow provide the missing step–or rewrite #2 to claim that only SOME human life is sacred (which opens quite the moral can of worms)–your logical progression is no more successful then mine, and does not logically follow from your initial premises (#1 and #2).

Thanks for responding!

(On a side note, though, I agree that the term “extremist” has been overused and abused by both parties. If I were queen of the universe, I would ban the terms “extremist” and “activist” from political discourse.)

1. Life begins at conception.
2. Life is sacred and should be protected.
3. The taking of INNOCENT human life should be a crime.
4. Thus, abortion should be a crime, as it is a form of murder.

5) Because abortion is murder and murder is a crime, punishment should be administered to those whom administer abortions.

6) If a murder is premeditated, then the murderer makes a conscious choice to take a life.

7) All conscious choices beget consequences whether positive or negative.

Committing pre-meditated murder is a sufficient condition for receiving the death penalty in the American justice system. (logically follows)

9) A doctor administering an abortion is a sufficient condition for he/she to receive the death penalty as punishment, in the American justice system. (logically follows)

The commenter argues that #9 above does not logically follow because because it is at odds with #2. We live in a nation of laws, like it or not–accept it or not. Within this construct, there are certain choices that can be made that will beget negative consequences. Pre-meditated murder, by its definition, is a conscious choice. If one is convicted of pre-meditated murder, they are by definition guilty. The whole argument here by the good Senator from Oklahoma is that we should ALWAYS protect INNOCENT LIFE. A fetus, by definition, is a life and while it can make certain choices within the confines of the womb (kicking, etc.), it clearly cannot make certain choice due to those confines. The fetus has wronged no one and thus should be given the same protections under the law as any other human being who has wronged no one under law.

I’m game. Let’s trace that logic.

1. Life begins at conception. (I disagree, but I can see how someone else would think this. I’ll accept that.)
2. Life is sacred and should be protected. (No argument here.)
3. The taking of human life should be a crime. (Once again, full agreement.)
4. Thus, abortion should be a crime, as it is a form of murder. (I disagree, but accept that it proceeds logically from the initial premise.)
5. Abortion doctors should be punished for their crime. (Still logical.)
6. Abortion doctors should be executed. (Wait, what? Doesn’t his argument proceed from the sacredness of human life and the evil of ending it? He just undermined his logic completely.)

I can follow the logic just fine…up until #6, where he completely tosses logic out the window. If you want to use #2 and #3 as building blocks for your argument, you can’t later decide to ignore them when they no longer suit you.