I am an atheist, believe life begins at conception and support a woman's right to choose. If only there was a manner to have all females' default bio-setting @ zero for pregnancy. Want to get pregnant? Take this pill/injection & you are now in pregnancy mode.
Don't take this as an attack, but how do you believe life begins at conception and also support a woman's right to choose (in cases other than rape or health risks). If you acknowledge life has begun, and you are granted someone the right to choose whether or not to keep that life, isn't that murder? Isn't this why the main argument of abortionists is that the fetus is not a life yet? If you admit it is a life, and you are giving someone the right to take away that life, are you not playing God? I understand there are circumstances to every case, but every case begins with the same risk, sex. If you have sex, with or without a condom, you are taking the risk of pregnancy. With a condom that risk is extremely low, without it, depending on the female's cycle, the risk is much higher. Why do we tell people about risks, but then pamper them when they make them? Isn't this indicative of the way our societal structure has become? No punishment, no responsibility for our mistakes. On a somewhat similar note, why do people argue for exceptions for incest? If it was forced incest it is covered by rape, if it was consensual, you're disgusting, but why do you need to abort the fetus? I am not a doctor or biologist, so maybe there are more risks to the mothers (I know there is to the fetus) of incestual pregnancies.
I'm not a scientist. My opinion changed as i got older regarding "life" yet i'm uncomfortable w/limiting a woman's choice over her own body/biology based on my unproven, unscientific moral position.
i've never understood pro-lifers' rationalisation for giving a "pass" to fetuses conceived out of rape.
I tried to give a reasonable analogy. If someone beats the crap out of you and you end up with $100,000 medical bill, should you have to foot the bill? Of course it becomes a bit trickier when you start with the premise that life begins at conception, I acknowledge that. However, can you equally justify forcing a woman to have a child that she was forced to conceive? In EVERY other case (except immaculate conception) there is an action (consensual sex) that leads to conception.
I agree wholeheartedly, with the caveat that we also should set males to zero as well. Your thoughts on my post here? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7243595&postcount=164
I think week 5 or 6 when the brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form. -'religiously irrational' democrat
Except that's just an arbitrary time that isn't even consistent from one pregnancy to the next. Fact remains, a baby has not been born.
I don't know. I just know my wife and I have been discussing adopting a in a couple of years, and through the state there are all special needs. It take about a year, and often times numerous disappointments before a child actually becomes available.
Everyone is quite aware that a baby isn't born at 5 weeks, nor 20 weeks. Do you believe life begins at birth? If so, you must be for abortion up until labor?
.... but is alive. Founding Fathers couldn't conceive of women having jobs just as they couldn't conceive of the abortion industry. You can play the Constitution card just when it suits you...
The word 'alive' in this context is open to interpretation and highlights a fundamental difference in the debate. If you are writing laws, you want to remove as much ambiguity as possible. In my strict view, there are only two non-ambiguous options. Life begins at conception Or Life begins at birth All other options are open to interpretation. An unborn baby is not considered a citizen. It can't vote, can't be taxed or used as a tax deduction, doesn't have a SSN, isn't afforded any protections under the law. Our government, nor any government, considers the unborn to be 'alive'. It is strictly a moral judgement ...not a legal one.
It's really a simple question to answer. There is a living human being inside the female. If you choose to kill a living human, then it is murder, no matter if they are outside the womb or inside. End of debate.
If the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of abortions, my personal opinion is its perfectly fine to compromise somewhere in between if that is ALSO met with measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies from ever occurring. I heard a great quote recently. "Perfection is the enemy of good" That is what we have hear. The GOP wants a perfect solution ...all the while abortions keep happening at a higher rate than most folks want. It is for that reason why I challenge the whole topic is dishonest from the right. Rather than focusing on reducing abortions (which almost everybody agrees with), the GOP turned the issue into a wedge issue and only focuses on one part of the problem ...the part that invades on the liberties of women.
Either you are born ...or not. That isn't debatable. What is debatable is when does life begin. The government says it starts at birth. Those are the facts.
