The "quivering lump of cells" is a sarcastic use of the type of language that pro-Choice proponents use to refer to a human life in utero. The argument goes that while the cells might be alive, they are not human.
OK, so did you give both sides equal time or did you use this "open discussion" to influence your kids about why abortion is wrong? Hey, come on, be honest- we know as parents that our open discussions can amount to a subtle way of influencing our children to think the way we want them to- I've done it, you've done it, we've all done it. I'm telling you, I have a very hard time trying not to defend capital punishment- for some of those sick a**holes out there who have done unspeakable things, I think they should be put to death. But my son happens to be against capital punishment. It's hard not trying to influence him (well, to be honest, I do try), but I do my best to present both sides of the argument. We've had the conversation about abortion- and it always comes down to the same thing- it's 50/50. I focus more of my time telling him about the value of waiting until he is ready (translation: don't do it until college or later!!! we've had very frank conversations about masturbation), about responsible methods of birth control, the costs of an abortion, and that he may feel it is a child and wrong therefore. But it's not clearcut- it always comes back to that.
That is what I think....when it is viable outside the body. But the undecided part is that it is not up to me to decide....nor anyone else in this thread..... Your views DO NOT COUNT to the woman making the decision. I side with keep your own opinions to yourself... DD
There are plenty of living cells that aren't human. The question is how we distinguish between a human lump of cells and a non-human one. You were the one that brought in all this talk of souls into the discussion; it's your responsibility to define the terms you use in an argument. I am comfortable saying that I simply don't know the point at which a fetus becomes a human organism. I don't think that point is at conception, when all you have is a unification of two cells. However, if you were to give me a reason why that lump of cells has a soul, which makes it human, then I would be perfectly willing to change my opinion.
Our "open discussion" consisted of them knowing what an abortion was in actuality (saline solution, vacuums)-- without sugar-coating it in language of a woman's choice. I did leave it that they would in time have to make a decision about what was more important... although I think my position was clear! I doubt most here will believe it but I didn't coerce my stance upon them. They knew my stance though. I'm all about trusting that the truth will win over... if you confront it and some people are very good at avoiding it.
That is certainly your right, but I like to think there are some of us who wish to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves.
I'm pretty comfortable saying that as well, since it is pretty unknowable except by an exercise of faith. I say err on the side of caution so to interfere at any time during the pregnancy runs the risk of making interference more grievous than you might imagine it. I don't think science can provide you the answer you seek, so you will need to look elsewhere...
Well, sure, but it was others who were asking me to "prove" it. It's a good way to cut-off the inquiry if you're not willing to look beyond/underneath science-- where there is no certainty either.
The ability to sue would be for governments that try to restrict choice, not for "conscientious objectors" like doctors who don't want to provide abortions. FOCA will not force anyone to do anything against their will. In fact, it is the exact opposite, it will give people the freedom of choice to do what their own morality tells them is right. If a doctor doesn't want to provide abortions, they are not required by the Act to work in an abortion clinic.
Moral argument..... He prbably eats meat like Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers...........They are all MURDERERS and they know it.......... by the way those unborn children could have grown up to be soldiers that the government lied to and their churches followed the reasoning for war blindly..... nice one so called Compassionate Conservatives.
No offense, but are you really familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church? This movement you are speaking of is the actual church doctrine.
Im a religious person so Im not really for abortion but then how many of the people who posted here have uteruses... probably up to the women to voice their opinions... Guys really dont have much say especially when they arent the ones bearing the kid
andy, I point you to section 4(c) of the bill: (c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action. It says including relief against a government. In other words, not what you're saying. It also reverses everything since Roe. Things I know you have supported, like some restrictions on abortion. This blows them all out of the water. This is just a bad bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1173:
Theoretical questions: 1) Pro-Lifers: Would your position on abortion change if it was scientifically proven that no fetus could survive on its own until birth? 2) Pro-Choicers: Would your position on abortion change if it was scientifically proven that every child could survive from the moment of conception? We hear a lot of talk about these issues but I have a feeling many people wouldn't change their views on the topic in either case.
If we allowed zygotes to keep and bear arms (and firearms) we would have less abortions. I think abortions should be legal until the kid can get a job and an apartment.
Your question only touches one of the arguments. The one of right to own body. Meaning that while the child has a right to live the woman has a right to say what goes on with her body. ie if she does not want her body supporting another life she doesn;t have to. There are other arguments so I doubt just one change on this issue would change many minds.
I go with the pro-life candidate. Most other issues have elements of justice that can be argued back and forth and are mostly prudential decisions. This one really doesn't have any wiggle room. Where there is an unjust act occuring, I feel obliged to fight for justice.
