I quite agree. However, once women have talked to other women who have had abortions, understand the pros and cons, then want to go forward anyway, should the state determine whether or not they have the right to make that decision to go forward?
Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken, or an egg? Is the potential to become human (no guarantee that birth will take place) the same as being a human? While you are legislating protection for the fetus, if you are consistent, you must also ban the use of any chemical, or food, or environment that in any way might harm the fetus child.
You know what scares me? Not that there are women out there that have abortions. That doesn't scare me. What scares me is that there are so many people out there fighting for the right to murder an unborn. I haven't seen such conviction for wanting to kill somebody since Hitler. See, every murder comes up with reasons to justify his actions. That's how he sleeps at night, Hitler convinced himself that Jews were parasites and a disease to the human race. That is how he could deal with the smell of burning flesh coming from the smoke stacks. And the pro-choice people here on ET convince themselves that the Fetus is not a human being and has no rights. That is how they sleep at night. Funny how we have to justify our actions isn't it? BTW, most serial killers use the same methodology for killing people. They create their own reasons why its OK to kill their victims. That's why their conscience can tolerate their actions. Think about it.
ART: >First of all, the issue of whether or not a fetus >is a sentient human life is unanswered scientifically Surf: >WRONG >the fetus is distinct genetically from either parent. it is >a separate living entity once conceived. While the first sentence is undoubtedly true the second one is undoubtedly debatable. But even with the stipulation of both as true you still have not proved ART wrong in any way. For many, a "genetically distinct entity" does not ALONE a human constitute and thus the debate goes on and on and... Saying it's so FOR YOU doesn't make it so FOR OTHERS. >as a proponent of individual rights to the extreme, it is >my view that the genetically distinct entity must be >afforded one of the few legitimate duties of government >which would be "protection against aggression". Considering your first position, the second one follows...BUT >the state stops you from killing a born infant, why >do you see a distinction from an unborn one ? You have to understand that since we/many don't agree with your first assertion, for us the second one DOESN'T follow. Those who hold that abortion is wrong in all cases I respect, both their position and consistency -- IF however one holds this position and isn't out on the front lines bombing clinics and shooting doctors in defense of the children like we all should be for any other "murderous" activity, I certainly question that persons commitment to the issue. Surf, I really only disrespect your position if you are one of the majority of "pro-lifers" who believe in abortion only in cases of rape/incest/mother threatened -- and even then we can still get along ok on my end. JB
Yes, and what of it? That "distinct DNA" thing means "human" to you and not to me. I can understand your disagreement with my conclusion, but it should be easy for you to see that if I hold such a position then all the sharp retorts regarding it don't amount to a hill of beans in my world.
Turok let me ask you something. Let's say we don't know if the fetus is a living being yet OK. Let's say we can't agree on when life begins OK, meaning that both sides don't really know for sure. Why not just err on the side of caution. Why not just say, well, even if there is only a one in a million chance that the fetus is a human being, why take the chance. See I just don't get that. You are basically saying the odds are 50/50, So I say screw it, kill the fetus. How can you be so merciless and not give life the benefit of the doubt. I just don't get that about you. I understand your logic and the logic of many on the left, but if you admittedly don't know, which you said so much, why not err on the side of caution? Can you answer this for me? Thanks.
Mav: >And the pro-choice people here on ET convince >themselves that the Fetus is not a human >being and has no rights. Well, at least I'm glad to see you back on the REAL issue...the point at which a human deserves full rights. Speaking only for me, I haven't "convinced myself that a fetus is not a human being and has no rights". Your stated position assumes a conclusion of fetus = human and from there those for choice "convince themselves" otherwise. It's a hollow assertion. Like the other positions I take, I start out neutral and then conclude from the evidence my position. You and I have concluded differently, but to reach that point it was never necessary to convince myself of anything like your assertion. I don't believe legally protected human life begins at conception (though I was raised that way). Neither do I believe that the mothers right to choose extends to birth or partial birth or anywhere near such a thing. I find both of those positions pretty hard to defend so I fall in the middle fuzzy area. JB
Yes I understand but why not err on the side of caution. I mean, anytime I am not 100% sure of something I don't do it. Take for example a drug. Let's say somebody tells me that if I take this drug, I would have the greatest high. But then, these people over there tell me that the drug will kill me or at least there is a small chance. My question is, why even take the chance? Why do I have to play russian roulette with my life? See, I can respect the fact that you admit you don't know for sure where you stand, just somewhere in the middle. But why then even take any kind of a chance here. There has to be more to this then you are letting on. Come on man, lets throw all our cards on the table and be honest about this. What is the real issue here that you disagree with?
"I mean, anytime I am not 100% sure of something I don't do it." These are the words of a trader? The issue is choice, personal choice, not what others think of the choice. We demand proof of guilt to convict, innocence is assumed otherwise. Choice is the foundation of our Constitution, not probition on the possibility of being wrong. Until we have proof that a fetus is a human being, exactly the same as a human being who has been born....not a potential human being, the rights must go to the woman who decides whether or not to abort a fetus.
a fertilized chicken egg has a different chicken inside it, than either of the chicken parents. goverment has a duty to protect the individual, born or unborn. surfer