You are right about this. The country has shifted from cautiousness to reckless politics. Political agendas have thrown caution to the wind. We no longer see any moral basis for doing anything unless it serves politics. Our sense of caution went away with our sense of moral duty. Yes we do, if we know they are innocent we don't execute them. You probably mean convicted people where there is evidence that they might be innocent. Point is all babies are innocent- there is no refuting that. We should be cautious about convictions that is why American citizens are tried before a jury of their peers. This is true in reality, but in the lies of politics we supposedly always exhaust diplomatic options, knowing that politics lies and starts senseless wars doesn't make me feel any better about the senseless killing of babies. Again this is proof positive that the govt. should err on the side of caution especially when lives are at stake. It is plain abusive that the govt. would lie and risk harm to thousands of people in NYC and it is equally abusive that they would kill babies so that there is no inconvenience to society or a parent. Nor do we err on the side of caution when it comes to it comes to the poisoning of our food supply with dangerous chemicals. This again illustrates how wrong our entire view of life has become. We poison the environment, the food supply and murder babies- we need to stop calling this civilization. Now that should be a consumer choice. Let free market forces drive fuel economy. If everyone wants to buy cars that get 10 mpg fine. I think with gas prices up and the potential for more spikes that cars that get 30-50 mpg, use of hybrids and other conservation efforts are going to be on the increase. I disagree. Since when did we ever as a govt. err on the side of caution with respect to getting our political agendas through? This is the very reason we should stop pretending that we are doing the right thing by playing politics. If killing a baby for the convenience (not the safety) of a mother is civility then we need to never complain about any human atrocity again. The battle doctors have fought to improve the quality of life for the unborn, to help the many pre-mature births survive, to help the mothers carry the young to full term are all fought to help improve the survival rate for newborns. This has been one of the major medical advances for humans in the past 50 yrs. Today we are seeing many 2 lb. premature babies live thanks to the hard work of the medical community to develop neonatal technology that gives unborn babies more success at living. While at the same time the profit-greed driven abortion industry is allowed to prey on the minorities and poor without redress. This is unbelievably abusive, irresponible and inhumane. When we afford more protection to eagles eggs than we do to human unborn children we have abandoned the foundations of human dignity, respect and love. God bless you for this.
If the argument were only about being cautious with the innocent and not with life itself it would make sense. In the case of abortion there is debate about when life begins. With prisoners we can never be sure they are not indeed innocent. That's why mistakes have been made. That is the same line of logic as the abortion should be the woman's choice. It is a matter of where people draw the line, and I am not trying to argue with you about where it should be drawn, just that people draw it in different places but use the same rationale.
No matter your personal view on it, you are not going to eliminate abortion. Same thing as prostitution. To better control it, educate the involved party, and make it safe for everyone, is to legalize it. Critisizing, blaming, or even accusing murder, doesn't change the fact that it's an ancient human act, same as prostitution, even if it's not recommanded morally or religiously.
i disagree here. it will cause a huge increase in backalley abortions, especially among poorer women. it will also lead to a huge increase in damage to the uterus. it is an issue about health of the mother.
Compelling and ironic isn't it that there is a groundswell to remove the Death Penalty for the reasons you've cited and other general humanitarian reasons but apparently no such ground swell for the Right to Life of the Unborn. How do you explain that? I think you raise legitimate points here and the only thing that explains the different conclusion for the differing scenarios is clarity of the issue-- that's an individual consideration. That's the price of living in a free society where things are fluid.
I am always perplexed by the idea of the 'fetus'. As if an unborn child is not living and not human. I have talked extensively with three gynocologists about this and they have all firmly convinced me from a medical standpoint that an unborn human baby is living and human. The development of the unborn child starts very small with simple cell development and then rapidly increases in complexity and form. They tell me that in a few weeks the unborn child has feelings and responds to pain, comfort and natural human growth. I was told by an old gynocologist that years ago the unborn child was very protected by mothers. They went out of their way to take care of the baby in the womb, even changing their diets and lifestyles to provide the greatest care for the life they carried. Doctors worked very hard to help babies live until birth. Some people still care about the babies that are growing the womb. One gynocologist told me the abortion industry was about two things- convenience of unwanted pregnancy and the billion dollar industry it has morphed into. I have never seen any evidence that the safety of the mother or back alley abortion was more than a very small % of issue with doctors. That is until today when our education system and medical system is more and more indoctrinated into eugenic thinking that the population must be managed, especially among the disadvantaged. Is abortion murder? Only if the unborn child is human and living. I don't want that baby= If I don't kill it, I will have to deal with it.
We are not talking about 7 or 8 months old fetus, but rather embryos. Yes, it's unborn, but yes it's not human, yet, by any definition. A sperm among billions of other sperms is not human, even though it might become half of the origin of one human life, and it wouldn't be called half human, by any definition. Same thing for an egg among 6 hundred other eggs. Similarily, although an embryo has far more chance to become a human life, it's still not one, until it develops into one. BTW, that "I" you mentioned, is very personal to any "I". So, others shouldn't be making decisions for that "I", no matter how one likes/dislikes it.
I've never understood this logic. It's going to happen anyway, so legalize it. I can make the same argument for murders of born humans, abuse, rape, incest, whatever. Robbery and murder have been illegal in some societies for 5000 years, yet they still happen. We should make them legal.
No, the real tragedy would be people like you being successful in removing the right of a woman to choose what happens to her own body. I don't have to "cobble together" anything. The only thing I need to justify an abortion is the fact that a woman should have the right to choose what happens in her body. If she does not want to use her womb to bring a fetus to term, that is her choice and you have no right to interfere. You are welcome to "err on the side of caution" when it is YOUR choice to make. However, you do not have the right to "err" for someone else who does not share your opinions. In one case, the woman has decided to bring the fetus to term and in the other, she has decided otherwise, presumably in consultation with her doctor. Night and day, try another straw man. Personal freedom is what America was founded for. Period. You are marginalizing the women of America who have the right to decide what happens inside their own bodies. As I have said before, I support reasonable regulation of abortion and would fully support a late term abortion ban with a health exception. In fact, I would support a 12-15 week limit if the pro-life side would agree to limit their pursuit of an all-out ban. Together with real sex education, complete availability of contraceptives, and other programs, I think we could reduce the overall abortion rate just like when Clinton was president. However, you are trying to strip women of their rights and I will fight you tooth and nail on that until you are willing to reach a reasonable compromise.
Should pregnant women be allowed to legally drink as much alcohol as they want during their preganancy?
I would say that when we can no longer tell the difference between a right and a responsibility we are no longer civil and human.
Either side you're on, there's a contradiction in the law today. Why can we prevent one from putting illegal drugs into their body when it harms only them and yet cannot prevent one from making a decision that prevents another life from coming to fruition? I just never bought the 'woman's body' argument. At that point it's not only her body but the body of another potential human being. Another question: I'm unsure of this so this is a simple question. If a pregnant mother is murdered, when is it considered a double murder? Is there a point when one can be charged with the murder of the unborn baby or not?
Hmmm..... Lets talk further about this! If I remember correctly, a woman does have the right to decide what happens to her body (in most cases) and an abortion should not be one of the options. You are 100% CORRECT! Freedom to LIVE! Thank you weslinder - I agree with all my heart!
If one read this thread and only looked at the poll results afterwords I imagine that one would not expect such a disparity. Interesting.
