I have cited no line of Gospel. As I said, I had come to this conclusion years before I ever darkened the doors of a church to which I had driven my own car!! I've not seen others quoting scripture either. I dubbed my conviction Compassionate Pragmatism.
But it's contradictory to what you're saying. I'm not getting into legalese. I'm getting into what the opinion says...which is the very STATUS QUO you're talking about. It says...unless you're in the first trimester...you can't get an abortion without a medical reason. So to protect the status quo is NOT to protect this inherent woman's absolute right to her body. Get it??
I don't want to limit their choices, but I will if it means saving a life. (I would think you would try to grasp my position a little better than that blatant mis-representation)
Boy I find it very discouraging when people deny an unborn child even a theoretical right to life. As I have said before, my ex-wife had had two abortions (not my conceptions) and I married her anyway. I don't run around calling those who have or who sanction or who perform abortions murderers but I do think there is some kind of callous, selfish, ungenerous thinking behind those positions... and I don't know exactly what to do with it. I don't disrespect those who think differently, but I think it will be a cold day in hell before I ever agree with that line of thought.
That's at about 28 weeks, right?? Man, you really ought to be rallying against the status quo, then, which doesn't allow a woman to have an abortion without a medical reason after the 12th week!!! That's 16 weeks of the government doing too much, right?
Oh well, I guess we will have to all live with you feeling discouraged about humanity. Color me....unconcerned. DD
I find it very callous, selfish, and quite frankly evil to deny someone the right to govern their own body. As well as place unwanted children into a world to suffer at the hands of fate. But I know their heart is in the right place. Forgive them father, they know not what they do.
this is a dangerous stand to take. Once technology can provide for life outside then it will be murder if we don't put them in the artificial womb. I think a better litmus test can be found.
If you choose to use this inflammatory language, I will refer back to my earlier statement that until the woman decides she WANTS to bring the fetus to term and bear it, it is nothing more than a parasite. I'll be happy to refrain from my inflammatory language when you do. And my answer is that you have no right to force your personal values and morality on someone else. The question I have is why you can't give up your Quixotic quest for an ineffective paper ban in favor of concentrating on reducing the root cause of abortions?
Ok, well, why don't we all tempt our conversation with hypothetical turds and what ifs....that sounds like fun. It is like arguing about things that might happen......uh...ok... DD
you mean like the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade?? THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO GOVERN YOUR OWN BODY!!! can we please stop having the discussion break down to these Palin-esque generalizations??
Did I say there was? Man, calm down. I am against anything which impedes the rights or free-will of any independent human being.
