Yes I agree and I'm primarily talking about the thread. Most of the people here who would be considered in the pro-choice crowd have agreed to limitations on abortion. Besides rhester I haven't seen much discussion from those who would consider them pro-life in regard to allowing abortion. I think it was Giddyup who said that he would be against anything that costs of the life of the fetus. Does that mean sacrificing the health even the life of the woman? I don't know. I believe most Americans will accept limitations on abortion but not a total ban. Even without ban of any sort there's a lot of oppurtunity to work on reducing the causes that make women consider abortions.
After reading your link, I realize that no one here has debated the difference between implantation and conception. The only debate rages on whether an embryo should be considered a human with all the rights given to it. But if you want my opinion, saying 'implantation' is the beginning of life is just a trick used by the pro-choice people to make abortion seem more acceptable. You know, like telling your child that his pet hamster is up in heaven. The fact of the matter is, pro-choice people don't care whether 'life' begins at conception or implantation. They just don't view a single cell or a cluster of cells as the same thing as a human being. It's that simple.
I thought the key element was the self-control of the being in the implantation. The language here indicates that the little critter nests itself, following some kind of innate programming. To me, that paints a different picture than the one suggested of a useless glob of cells. Oh, and it has human DNA.
I don't blame you for missing it or not remembering it, but I've said many times that I have no problems with a mother choosing an abortion when the doctors deem her own physical being is at medical risk. As MadMax has pointed out, the definition has been downgrade so that there only has to be a consideration that the mother's health is at risk-- and they have allowed that her mental health can be the dictate. And even with that, all it seems to take to abort the child is not to want it.
We have instituted the draft how many times? ...they didn't have a choice and many died. An unborn child in the first trimester never knew the difference anyway as it wasn't concious...but the drafted soldiers certainly were concious.
Wrong. The mother's Liberties would be sacrificed. You know, that little constitutionally protected detail. You can't sacrifice the liberties of one (mother) to the benefit of a possible life (unborn). Do you know what Liberty means? Look it up. "Life, Liberty and Justice for All" YES IT IS. Ask a slave about sacrificing freedom in exchange for life. Our soldiers in WWII and Vietnam unwillingly sacrificed their lives to preserve freedom. Life without freedom is no life at all.
Of course that's a valid point over military history, but I was commenting on a quote by Colin Powell made <b>yesterday</b> that you were citing which references today's military-- who were <b>not</b> drafted.
It is unAmerican to sacrifice the mother's liberties to save the unborn's liberties. You can't right a wrong with another wrong. The ONLY true solution is to prevent the unwanted pregnancy.
Wouldn't it be much more humane if the mother only "inconvenienced" herself for a few months, bore the child, and gave her up for adoption. This is kind of like killing the fly on your forehead with a sledgehammer...
I really don't see where you are going with this. Even a virus has some 'innate programming' that instructs it to implant its DNA into other cells and perform other tasks that are fairly complicated. Having an embryo 'implant' itself in its mothers endometrium is hardly a sign of anything intelligent. It's just a pre-programmed function like what a virus has. An embryo is not conscious, and I doubt you can prove otherwise especially since a brain hasn't been developed by that time.
You pro-life people keep saying unborn baby! It's a fetus, dammit. Also, since when does the Consitution ever grant rights to something that is 'unborn' as you call it. It gives rights to humans. Living, breathing, 'born' humans. We might as well give rights to our sperms. NO MORE EJACULATION FOR ALL!!!
I'm not concerned with consciousness. That's your hurdle not mine. I'm comfortable with the absolute predictability that a human child will be born/stillborn if s/he is left alone by the abortionist. I'll second that with human DNA strands...
I think the magnificent thing I see is the mother's body working in concert with the little one while the little one is self-directed. The mother's body welcomes the little one rather than trying to resist it like the parasite it has been popularly characterized as being.
Well, then we can't really discuss anything since your beliefs and mine are mutually exclusive. That being said, I thought we have made some compromises on the pro-choice end, such as no abortions after the second trimester and doctor counseling. Yet, pro-life people want more.
It's just a mutualistic relationship that occurs all around the world. Such as mitochondria and your cells. It doesn't mean a thing. Or rather, it's just the process that has been developed.
