Always the wrong choice? So based on that and your other posts in the thread, I take it then you believe the cutoff point for legal abortion should be placed at... conception? I.e. make all abortion illegal regardless of the time or reason? If so... then why exactly? Why choose that as the point to make it illegal?... Potential?... As tecoyah and others have pointed out, even a sperm can potentially lead to a new human child under the right circumstances... same for an egg. So why choose the meeting of the two as the cutoff point as opposed to some other point/justification? There are, after-all, more than just the extremes you know... A. Lovemaking (Week 0): Because Any Form of Abortion is Murder B. Conception (Week 0): Because Life Begins at Conception C. Conception (Week 0): Because since no one knows exactly when a zygote becomes a child, it must be assumed to qualify as one D. Nervous System (Week 12): Because the baby’s senses are developing and it looks pretty human at that stage E. Viability (Week 20): Because the earliest surviving baby was born at just over 21 weeks F. Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission G. Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers H. Viability (Week 24): Because that's when the law defines a fetus as becoming a child I. Viability (Week 24): Because that's when a fetus is able to live outside the woman without artificial means J. Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers K. Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers L. Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception M. Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point @. Medical Community (Week ??): Because the decision should be left to the doctors and patients who are more than capable N. Birth (Week ??): Because That is When a Baby No Longer Depends On Its Mother to Live O. Birth (Week ??): Because Women Should Always Have the Right to do What They Want With Their Body Also, does this mean that you are also against legal abortion even in cases of serious threats to the life or health of the mother, rape, incest, or fetal abnormality? However available contraceptives are now, the consensus of the political forum vote was that they should be made even more available than they are currently. That doesn't necessarily just mean making them less expensive, though that could certainly be a part of it. Like I mentioned in the thread I linked to, some of the components were broad and could use fleshing out. Perhaps at some point another vote could be set up just for that purpose. When it comes to contraceptives specifically, increasing their availability could mean anything and everything from simply increasing awareness and education about the different forms of contraceptive and where to get them, increasing the amount of certain types, filling in gaps where they may not be as easily obtainable as in other places, removing limits on who can purchase them, as well as any means of reducing their costs, and perhaps other things beyond that. -Meta
Do you agree that a fertilized egg, if left alone, will develop into a human baby? Do you agree that the egg being fertilized by sperm is the first step in any human's life? Do you agree that killing that embryo terminates what would become a human being?
Here is an image of an egg being fertilized. If "left alone" how exactly is it going to "develop into a human baby"? If "left alone" can it just suck nutrients out of the atmosphere? Or is there something else that MUST BE INVOLVED in order for it to "develop into a human baby"? What is that "something else" if being "left alone" doesn't make that fertilized egg MAGICALLY transform itself into a "human baby"?
Because...? Setting aside for the moment the fact that banning "SSM" makes not a whit more sense than banning 747s from landing on the Moon, what makes you think the refusal of any jurisdiction to legally countenance such a glaring imbecility requires for its justification any religious belief?
No pretense at all. I tried hard to keep this thread on topic, as required in the site rules. It was a losing battle so, finally, I responded to the other posts. But the discussion is not a religious one. That is my intent in this thread, to take the anti-Christian bias out of it so we could debate without dismissing any anti-abortion argument as religious interference. You cannot dismiss the views based on religion unless you also dismiss anti-murder views as being religious based.
I don't. Government and laws should be secular. Free people should be free to live their life as they like, provided they don't adversely affect another.
If your aim is to create confusion, hacking out text that's relevant to your answer is a swell way to get it done. Now assuming you mean you don't think the refusal of any jurisdiction to legally countenance such a glaring imbecility requires for its justification any religious belief, do you really not see now that contradicts what I responded to initially? Because...? And that can't be achieved in a jurisdiction with nonsecular laws because...?
Yet there are thousands of precious children that will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home. They will never know what it feels like to be cherished. Where are all these people that claimed to care before they took their first breath?
Using the pro-abortion logic (and don't call it pro-choice), if there's not a pro-lifer waiting for those babies, they could just be killed, right? Unloved babies killed, only loved and wanted babies live?
Fair enough. Lets say we reinstate abortion laws. They failed long before the internet and abortion pills. What makes you think they can be enforced now? What are your solutions to: Black market abortions Abortion drugs Medical tourism Funding the war on abortion Try replying to what I said. How many have you adopted?
Completely unrelated issue. Are you suggesting that only those who adopt get a voice? How many have you adopted? Or is this actually your concession that I am right (even if I thought I was only being facetious) - to the left, we could just kill all unwanted children, before or after birth?
I could not have been clearer. Those claiming to care about these precious little lives only care up until it requires effort on their part. How many have you adopted?
Question is....should her opinion be forced on the life she willingly conceived? So because some stand up for life they are to take on the responsibility of others? Is that what you imply? My dear old Dad used to say...."if your gonna dance you have to pay the fiddler."
We can apply tour argument to murder. You might as well....people are going to do it anyway. Hey.....Abortion does end a life!
Your deflections are graceful. Lets just keep the goal post on abortion law. How many of these precious little lives have you adopted?
I've raised every single one I've helped conceive. I also buy purebred dogs but have never put one in a shelter. Are you morally superior?