I simply do not know. I'm 99.99% positive you don't either. If you play the both scenarios out of who's right or who's wrong, your error would be way more consequential. Am I right?
Great idea! I should have known that the best idea would come from a socialist terrorist homosexual libpig.
No, I'm not. Because even if I disagree with abortion, I don't see how criminalizing it is the most effective way to deal with it. Look, I disagree vehemently with junk-food eating. However, I will never advocate a ban. A tax, perhaps to adjust for cost, but never a ban. Because government intervention in this case is not effective at all, and these are matters tangential to the national interest. And stop with the killing a baby crap, when you haven't even begun to look at defeating the scientific consensus, nevermind the legal argumentation. Go step-by-step. Define abortion as murdering human life, and then get back to me on the legal side. The legal and scientific consensus on this is that it is not, and that won't be changed just because you post it as such.
Well, I never said I was right. I just asked what if you aren't. I totally agree with a woman's right to choose to have birth. It's the idea of terminating the possibility of a life for convenience that I don't agree with. And like it or not that's where we are at as a society. If it were somehow proved without a doubt that life did not begin until birth then it's pretty cut and dry. That's a crow I could eat.
I'm pretty sure everyone can agree an abortion is not something you look for. How to manage it is, however, a very different story. It's like the old tale---alcohol kills people and etc. But government learned quickly what happens when you restrict a domain of human behavior in the manner they did.
I do know. A blastula is not a human life. It is just a bunch of replicating cells. THe moment life begins is when we become conscious. When there is brain activity. When there is measurable electrical activity going on.
I find it supremely ironic that you consider the pro-Life position as "government intervention." It's a very calculated move on your part. It would rather seem that it has taken government intervention (i.e. Roe V Wade) to make the miserable reality of widespread abortion stick. The default position used to be that life is sacred and protected but with your dread government intervention the law has been reversed. Another dishonesty.
So now a legal martini is the virtual equivalent of a legally-aborted child? Some value system you have there! Since human beings are involved, it's not always a pretty world. Can't control all behavior but we should protect the innocent child as much as possible. If everyone is so turned-off by the actual act of abortion (except thadeus) why make it so readily available? Where is the integrity in that? It's not an empty choice you are offering... In what other area do we trumpet Choice over Life?
It isn't a "baby," it is a "blastula," or "fetus." The living, breathing human in the situation is the one with a choice, the clump of cells inside her, nope.
Uh...abortion laws are nowhere near the natural state of things. I've already posted at length about this topic. There is nothing natural about a set of laws implemented in the late 1800s to regulate an activity that has been happening since prehistory. Suffice it to say the Supreme Court could not find a consistent common-law basis in the English tradition for abortion laws, so I doubt you will. Stop making legal arguments if you can't be bothered to research to validate your points. You're better off at this point ranting and raving about baby-killing or something.
Many---war over peace, meat over grain, junk over health, death penaltly over life sentence, toxic waste dumping in Somalia over properly costing waste, climate change, lack of regulation on commodities betting etc. All of these things lead to effects like a marked increase in food prices which starve a couple of thousand or million people. You'll note, however, that people who argue those cases usually don't stick around the "HOW COULD YOU STARVE PEOPLE" step, and rapidly progress to an empirical line of reasoning with a clear problem and solution defined, something I feel like most pro-life advocates could benefit from.
Actually, the "default position" was to allow the procedure until someone decided to get the government involved by outlawing it. The "default position" was to allow doctors to do their jobs until someone decided to try and shove their moral beliefs down someone else's throat.
My interest is in preserving the innocent lives of those who will be sacrificed for way-too-casual reasons. Period. Throughout the centuries, human beings have capable of both greatness and baseness. Just urging toward the greatness.
If your wife were pregnant and didn't know it and someone invaded your home one evening and informed you that were were going to perform an early first-trimester abortion on her, would you and she be protesting and screaming about our violating her Choice or her Child?
Should have been more clear; I was talking about the arena of individual choice. The items you listed that still might qualify: meat over grain, junk over health still only affect the decision-maker's life not the life of another. Could you try again and be more specific and accurate?
I would be yelling and screaming, but not for the reasons you think. You see, I have had a vasectomy, so my wife's pregnancy would be indicative of infidelity, and if she chose an abortion, I would support her decision fully.
