- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
That is what happens to the defenseless unfortunately.
Makes a fine argument for not allowing ourselves to become defenseless, doesn't it?
That is what happens to the defenseless unfortunately.
Should it be legal for me to kill you?
I see the point your making. Aborting a fetus is tantamount to murder. If that's your argument then we need to decide when life begins. Technically sperm is alive. This means that most 16 year olds have committed mass murder while looking at a nudy-mag.
Great. Now all that is left to do is pass a law forcing those who believe different to fall in line.
For good reason: most of their voters oppose gun control, but not everyone is anti abortion. Many women (and men) value their reproductive rights and want their elected representatives to reflect that. Not every gun rights advocate is anti abortion, you know.
If you are volunteering to pay to raise peoples unwanted kids, I suppose that's fine to ban abortion, but just realize those people will probably grow up to vote for Obama type politicians.
The best I can offer you is that at the time of conception a unique new pattern of DNA is formed. If I had to hold up a moment and say, "This is it," that would be it.
I will grant you that I have a very difficult time with allowing the government to mind people's business under circumstances not specifically addressed in the Constitution, which leads me to the conclusion that it is not a federal issue to address abortion one way or the other, but rather, under the Tenth Amendment, the prerogative of the state. On that note, most states prohibit murder. Believing in the personhood of the unborn, I am left with no recourse but to oppose their murder just as much as anyone else's.
I would say that when a baby could survive outside or has a heartbeat would be a more accurate timeframe for declaring them a person. Fetuses don't have a heartbeat for how many weeks after fertilization? There are so many circumstances that can cause a fetus to not make it that we would be putting women in jail for murder every day all over our country.
Shouldn't that be a problem only if there is no burden to prove intent? That said, I can see a need to be concerned that an overzealous prosecutor (a frighteningly common creature) would be prosecuting miscarriages as criminal offenses.
They could go the "negligence" route and then it's the burden of the woman to provide proof she didn't do anything wrong.
Scary stuff, I know. I would prefer we not go this route at all, but if the christian crazies have their way we WILL be going this way.
What part of pre-natal murder is the domain of "christian crazies"?
What part of codifying into law that all rights are attached to all humans, no matter how young, small, and/or indefensible is crazy, whether Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, or atheist?
Really? How about the fact that a lot of people don't think 1 second old fetuses are humans.
How is that the domain of "christian crazies"?
Please provide your rationale for that assertion.
Well, considering this indoctrination of "personhood" seems to be spouted from Christians at every opportunity let's go with that. And it's not a "gray" area debate, it's "All or nothing" which means nobody bends or compromises.
I also admit I add "crazies" to liberals who are ranting about taking guns as well. It's not limited to Christians.