Not playing.... since I'm assuming the 5YO is not having an abortion. In our discussion, the only reason to make a choice is that there is a destructive interconnection between the two parties That is not the case here I do not believe. This is not about playing God. This is about protecting innocent members of our society which is something we do all the time, every day.
No, life begins at conception period. I'm not sure I get where you are wanting to take me here. I have no notion that sex is only for procreation. We are not compelled to constantly create children. Like I said earlier, some forms of birth control prevent conception.
No it's about you dodging a question which you know would weaken your argument if you answered. To compare a zygote to a 5 year old girl is crazy. And yet that is what you do here by trying to give a zygote the same rights as the 5 year old girl. She is much more than a zygote Giddyup. Anyway, you say people use science to try to defeat your arguments...and that trying to be rational is such a horrible route to go (you realize that science is really just rational thinking, right?). So fine, don't use science. You use your beliefs that you have been given by others. That's ok. The rest of us can have different moral framework on what is right and wrong. The problem with abortion debate is that one side has a moral framework that isn't in line with the others. And that side is trying to impose their moral framework on the other side. It's as simple as that. I don't want your moral framework imposed on my life.
Only if you believe that abortion = "death," which many of us do not. Again, you don't get to force your personal beliefs on other people.
My answer was supposed to be provocative for you. Debate your bias all you want but the ultimate decision should be the mother and her doctor, not a group that decides that their opinion on a debatable concept is right with only faith based, not reason based arguments. I hate the thought of abortion because of the psychic damage it might cause the mother, but committing to 4 years of 24/7 care and 18 years of financial support is a serious choice. My alternative would be comprehensive sex education for all children and ubiquitously available contraceptives and day after pills, state supported prenatal care for anyone who needs it, state sponsored child care help and forced sterilization for those proven mentally unfit to deal with their own fertility, male or female. It's about the same level of government intrusion as you propose but recognizes the precedents of the legal system regarding the definition of human life. Again, if you really thought abortion was murder, you would deal with the realities of it and make every real rational effort to see that it rarely comes to that point instead of arguing a philosophical point and limiting the options of those with a different point of view.
This is like one of those jokes: Would you rather eat a plateful or elk **** or buffalo ****. Then you choose buffalo and the news is that you eat buffalo ****. It's a manipulative game. Obviously it is easier to kill the zygote but since it's not necessary and still is wrong, I'll pass. It doesn't weaken my position but it does illustrate it. I think my notion of doing no harm and assuming that life starts at conception are THE MOST RATIONAL pieces of this discussion. Be honest, both sides are wanting to "impose" their moral framework on the decision. It's a two way street, not a one way street. You don't think you've been "given" your scientific beliefs. All through history science has been an accumulated knowledge that has been proven to be very wrong from time to time. It is probably less fallible than 300 years ago, but the question here is when life begins-- something we can only see the kind of evidence that we can now measure-- emphasis now.
....but you do? Face it, having "choice" is about having abortions NOT not having abortions. Women who won't consider abortion get no benefit from the pro-Choice initiative.
My position is not faith-based. My position is highly rational: Doctors are supposed to "First, do no harm." Abortion flies in the face of that. The medical community cannot say with certainty when a human life begins. Who are we to terminate an innocent life? Does a doctor even have a say yea or nay?
I'm not forcing anyone to have an abortion through my moral code, nor am I forcing anyone to adhere to it. You would force other people to follow your moral code, even when they don't believe the way you do. That is wrong and I will always, until my dying breath, defend women against people like you.
I am DEFINITELY saving a life with my moral code. You are CERTAINLY dooming a young life to extermination by allowing abortion with your moral code. What other life and death matters are you so casual about? Suddenly your high and might is not nearly so high or nearly as mighty.
Only if you believe that fetus = "life," which many of us do not. You don't get to define "life" for anyone else, that would be part of forcing your moral code on someone else. My position is much "mightier" than yours given that mine allows everyone to decide for themselves what moral code makes sense for them.
Bottom line: myself and many others would sacrifice a fetus in the name of society. It's cute that others are so sensitive but lawmakers turn to rationality to benefit society. They also look for freedom of opportunity and a separation of church and state. If you are against abortions, I have some wonderful news...you will never be forced to have one. PS. This was decided in the 1970s an will never be overturned because we will only get more progressive on social issues as time goes by.
No, you don't get to define "life" for anyone except yourself. I promise, nobody will EVER force you to have an abortion. Stop trying to force your beliefs on others.