Quite the opposite, I've defined life clearly. I oppose those interventions because they are private individual activity, not because they are hard to enforce. No one can take away your life. That doesn't mean they are burdened with sustaining it (unless they are responsible for your creation). I can't believe atheists (not saying you are one, but I am), who understand that human existence is invaluable and finite, are so casually accepting of it being willfully denied to others. Is there a greater act of moral abdication than destroying a life you are responsible for creating?
I won't call myself an atheist, but I have no faith, and I'm very pro-life. It isn't a faith based argument. More of a values based, and even then, I'm not sure. Either you see a person, or you don't.
What's tragic is the lengths the pro-abortion crowd has gone to in order to define this as giving a woman "a choice". Who wouldn't want to give a woman a choice? Sounds innocent enough, right? HOWEVER, 1) nobody deserves a choice to murder another human and 2) if you're in favor of giving choices, then the baby deserves a choice, too. History won't look bad kindly on the abortion era
I love liberals: Let's save the trees, but kill the babies. Let's save the poor dogs in the animal shelters, but euthanize the elderly.
Let me simplify this so-called complicated debate of abortion. Choosing to kill a human being inside the womb is horrible, unless the mother's life is at stake in some way. Why anyone is pro choice has always confused me.
Because the ones that are pro choice can't handle the responsibility and repercussions from previous actions. Sad....but true. Life should never be denied to anybody. That is a fact.
Wow! That was really enlightening. Let me counter with another super overly simply arguement. Removing a bundle of cells within the womb before it becomes a human being is the choice of the mother. Believe it or not, that's just a valid argument as yours, though I'm sure you won't agree. That's why the argument is not "so-called" complicated. But in a way, you are acknowledging what I said, to an extent, by choosing the live of a the fetis over the mother if the later was in danger. What makes the mother's life more important than the other "life"?
I love conservatives: Let's only give a crap about babies while they're in a woman's womb, but push anti-mom policies before pregnancy and anti-child policies afterwards. My point: oversimplifying those who disagree with you cuts both ways, and is generally useless, if sometimes humorous. Equally useless is assuming your definition of "life begins" should automatically be transplanted into millions of other brains. Aristotle thought humans weren't really unique human individuals until they were four years old. Yes, one of the supposed greatest thinkers of antiquity said you could drop them in a ravine unless they could walk, talk, and start to read. So... that sounds horrific and crazy to me, but there's always been a range to this debate.
I assume you are against the death sentence then? If not....hypocrite? Insert lame excuse here.........
Quit skirting the issue or question above. You state "you do not have the right to end a humans life" I ask if you are against the death penalty then. Now prove to us all you are the hypocrite that you are.
I can be against locking someone in a basement and still believe in incarceration. That wouldn't make me a hypocrite.
So in cases where someone was wrongfully convicted of a crime that levied the death sentence. Does that make the prosecutor a murderer who then deserves the death sentence?
You're asking if it's OK to murder somebody who has not committed a crime that carried the death sentence? Yeah, I think everybody's going to answer no to that one, mensa.
