Thread: Oklahoma court rejects personhood ballot initiative (because they aren't lunatics)

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Why not ensure women have access to contraception for the cost of an ounce instead of the coercive use of force of the State at the cost of a pound.

You are saying that the power of government is forcing these women to abort their children?

You've written of Angels and Intelligent Design regarding government, what kind of people was our constitution designed to serve? If you would answer "a moral and religious people" I would say start your approach in the manner that this type of citizen would understand.

I am referring to merely and only criminalizing the medical procedure instead of providing better access to forms of contraception which may preclude any need for an abortion of a potential fellow human being.

Why not be more ethical and provide the infrastructure which may improve our ethics if not some subjective Iron Age moral values which may not be worth what they once were in modern times?

Originally Posted by DixNickson

"medical treatment." Codeword for kill the developing human being.







A human being developing in a human mother's womb is distinct and has a separate identity. He or she has their own DNA pattern, form and future.

The PLACENTA has it's own DNA pattern - as for the foetus - it is only a potential not an actual

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

The PLACENTA has it's own DNA pattern - as for the foetus - it is only a potential not an actual

BowerBird, don't we all have potential? Definitions are important but why do we dance around these terms, when in reality abortion stops the development/ends/terminates a human life, surely we can agree on that? I understand that for some using specific words can make the ending of or taking one's life more palatable for the taker but still there is a distinction.

True, the placenta has its function but you are not comparing its function as to be equal to that of the human life developing in the womb are you?