Sadly that's true, but the burden is on the individual perpetrators not on a society that has sanctioned the taking of little lives. What other life and death scenario do we extend such powerful legal choice to individuals? I'm all for every bit of education that we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but I'm not going to stand by and allow millions of exterminations until my conscience says I've done as much preventatively as feasible. Nothing is more important than that individual life about to get rubbed out-- except for life and death matters for the mother. Then she has a choice to make.
Well don't you believe in scientific advancement? Who would have thought you could have done a heart transplant 100 years ago. The idea would have been laughed at.
Can we have this debate in (at least) a century more then? Laws can change reflecting changes in circumstances. Given that you are arguing for viability as a valid metric for balancing competing state interests, I believe you are upholding the Supreme Court's logic on this matter---if viability changes, than the laws can change as well. Until then, Roe v. Wade will stand the test of time. In the last decade, not much has happened on that front. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7390522.stm
You didn't answer the question. Sounds to me you are glad you were not aborted. Yet you think women deserve the choice to end their own forming child inside the womb. Just utterly ridiculous.
How are we supposed know how people turn out? Yet, another weird rebuttal from the pro choice crowd, which makes no sense.
Are we suppose to count sperms and eggs as life when we have the technology to produce humans from egg and sperms without a mother?
Whats the difference between killing a baby inside the womb, and killing a "fetus" inside the womb that will inevitably become a baby?
Then God's the biggest aborter. stop getting on Roe v. Wade and start praying harder. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html
What's weird about it? We know how Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer turned out so under the argument that it is a good thing that I wasn't aborted. Then it should be true that it's a bad thing that those people weren't.
Of course I know what Roe V. Wade that but you aren't going to change anyone's mind with that. FYI did you know that the original Roe language doesn't allow for unregulated abortion? Anyway what I am saying is that there is room for common ground which is finding ways of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
First off we are talking about in the womb and not babies, besides that though no one knew then how I would turn out in utero or as a baby. I could've grown up to be a serial killer for all anyone knew. Your proposition is that because I exist that is a good thing so therefore it was a good thing that I exist now and wasn't aborted. Then do you consider it a good thing that Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer existed when they could've been aborted? The fundamental flaw in this argument is that we actually know how I, Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer turned out so arguing that it is a good thing I wasn't aborted since we know how I turned out (not serial killer or genocidal dictator) you would also have to consider whether it was a good thing that they weren't aborted. Your argument is based on what we know because you are using me, GladiatorRowdy and others who do exist as the basis.
I think we will see artifical uteruses. One thing I've learned about the abortion threads here, it isn't worth arguing over, because nobody is going to change their position because it is all in how they see the "zygote" "clump of cells" "fetus" "baby" "unborn child". Only thing you do is make judgements against people based on that view. I'll still never understand protection for abortion came from the 14th amendment.
The location of the baby doesn't change its importance. I don't know why pro choicers differentiate the two. While I don't condone their actions, choices, behavior, etc, during their existence, they did have the right to be born.
Because there is a HUGE difference between a fetus in the womb and a baby outside of it. In fact, the whole being born thing is a necessary part of being a "baby" instead of a fetus. I don't know how you can fail to see the difference between the two.
At one week, the neonate is literally a pile of cells. Like if you examine it in a microscope, you could not distinguish it from a lot of other cell bodies. I actually value prenatal life---but you have to understand it first before you talk about "saving the children". I myself believe there should be economic disincentives placed on abortions and not bans. In fact, there are very very few things I believe where bans outright work. Hell, I don't even like an assault weapon ban, tax that s**t. But to counsel an outright ban based on faulty understanding of the law and science---that's just very dubious to me. as for the 14th amendment---
