I read it years ago and, though I certainly don't believe that abortion was the only variable, logically it makes sense to me that forcing women to bear children they don't want will have an adverse effect on the child and could very well turn many of them to bad things.
My point is that Being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocritical and inconsistent. But out side of that, the major issue i have with pro-lifers is that their whole definition of when life begins is arbitrary. To say that killing a one-cell embryo constitutes murder isn't a logical assertion. There's no defining quality that it scientifically has a consciousness. It doesn't. It doesn't even have nerve cells or a brain. Nor a sex. So at what point does human life begin - that's been the fundamental question. And science can't answer that, and neither can law. But somewhere law has to draw that line. We all agree that killing a child that has been born, and is independent of the mother is unacceptable. We all agree that killing egg cells or sperm is acceptable. pro-lifers want to draw that line at the moment of conception base on religious doctrine. Pro-choices want to maximize their human rights, and thus draw the line as late as possible. One pits religious beliefs against human rights and individual freedom. Personally, I find abortion distasteful after the first tri-mester. Once a brain is functioning, I think it's not a good thing. But I also it's morally wrong for me to dictate to someone what control they have over another's body. But I find it even more disturbing that such a person would also advocate killing humans in regards to war or executions. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Then so is being pro-Choice and anti-Death Penalty... but I don't think calling any of it hypocritical is really worthwhile or even accurate. Things are complex not simple.
that is an inaccurate assumption you make. i was at that place a decade before encountering religion.
Here's what you wrote: Originally Posted by LScolaDominates "Most people acknowledge that there are at least some circumstances in which abortion is justified. At that point it becomes a medical decision, not a political one. Women and their doctors are the only ones capable of making that decision." Apparenly I mis-interpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant that because of medical considerations there are some circumstances in which abortion is justified. With that I agree but not with the simple conclusion that "women and doctors are the only ones capable of making that decision" (without a medical complication). To me that is just birth control post facto.
actually, science can and does answer that. by the time most women even discover that they are pregnant, the fetus has a beating heart and brain activity. there is no Biblical scriptures that specifically states when life begins, but the Bible does refer to God stating that life is created and begins in the womb. Of course it's vauge.....you'll have to draw your own conclusions. Stem cell research: strictly my opinion, but I agree with Bush's line on the issue. You cannot destroy life in order to create life.
All pregnancies involve multitudes of "medical considerations". Who are you to decide which ones are and aren't important to the woman?
It's not just about what is important to the woman. Certainly medical considerations that dangerously affect her quality of life or her life itself are her due. Are you trying to suggest that because she doesn't want to endure morning sickness a woman should have the right to an abortion? Following your train of logic, why shouldn't she?
God! How many times does it have to be said? Whatever the reasons a woman has for terminating a pregnancy, it's none of your business What don’t you understand about that? It’s a fairly simple concept.
This is just so arrogant. Apparently you cannot even imagine why someone would disagree with you. It's pathetic, really.
Why are you trying to pigeonhole and trivialize the issues women face when contemplating the very difficult decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy? This is exactly the kind demonization of a woman's choice that leads to tragedies like Dr. Tiller's murder. I think a little more compassion is needed, and a little less contempt.
The trivialization was aimed at you. I was pointing out why I didn't agree with what you wrote because the silliness I postulated was a logical extension of what you wrote. You do realize that "a woman's choice" is pretty open-ended?
Hey! I'm not the one trying to control other people's lives or decisions. And I'm the one that's arrogant?
I think it would be mendacious to pretend I have a vast amount of knowledge on the subject. I cited the Bush quote because it made sense to me, given what little I know about stem cell research.
Oh but you are (the baby). On a related note, what do you think about the unions associated with film and theatre... and how they treat scabs? Is that not an issue of control.
