96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
:? Why is the heart more important than the lungs in your analogy? And so you're saying that if someone doesn't even have lungs (or a brain) then they're alive, even though if the lungs and brain stop the person is dead? I think this contradicts your original point. Regardless, if you saw a guy laying on the street with no lungs or brain would you really question whether or not he's alive??
Well, fetus don't use lungs like we do since they receive everything through the ambilical chord (sp).
True - which is why they are not an independent life.
What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.
Like, how long into the pregnancy are you allowed to have an abortion?
yes
It varies based on your circumstances and what state you're in.
I meant what do you guys thinks is acceptable? Sorry for the confusion.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Well, if you think it's a life, then I don't know how you could support it. And if you don't think it's a life, I don't see how you could defend invading someone's personal medical decisions. So I think you'd have to be on 1 side or the other.
I think it's a life and I don't think the state should invade someone's personal medical decisions. So there you have it. Turns out you don't have to be on one "side" or the other. (I think it's this binary thinking that causes many of the problems we have in the world.)
I think that's bs. No way you can think its a life and be ok with someone else deciding to kill it.
Cincy - It just baffles me that you don't see the difference between being pro-choice about something but not necessarily pro-something. Aren't there issues where you respect the choices of others, though you might make a different choice? Isn't this one of the fundamental concepts of the founding of our nation?
For instance, I am pro-choice with regard to gun ownership, though I believe no one should own a gun. I am pro-choice with regard to circumcision, though I would not support getting my own child circumcised and I think it's torture. I am pro-choice with regard to homosexuality, though I am not gay. I am pro-choice with regard to some religions, though I believe their teachings are wrong. (Eh, "wrong" is a strong word, but you get my point.) Et cetera, et cetera.
Well, if you think it's a life, then I don't know how you could support it. And if you don't think it's a life, I don't see how you could defend invading someone's personal medical decisions. So I think you'd have to be on 1 side or the other.
I think it's a life and I don't think the state should invade someone's personal medical decisions. So there you have it. Turns out you don't have to be on one "side" or the other. (I think it's this binary thinking that causes many of the problems we have in the world.)
I think that's bs. No way you can think its a life and be ok with someone else deciding to kill it.
Cincy - It just baffles me that you don't see the difference between being pro-choice about something but not necessarily pro-something. Aren't there issues where you respect the choices of others, though you might make a different choice? Isn't this one of the fundamental concepts of the founding of our nation?
For instance, I am pro-choice with regard to gun ownership, though I believe no one should own a gun. I am pro-choice with regard to circumcision, though I would not support getting my own child circumcised and I think it's torture. I am pro-choice with regard to homosexuality, though I am not gay. I am pro-choice with regard to some religions, though I believe their teachings are wrong. (Eh, "wrong" is a strong word, but you get my point.) Et cetera, et cetera.
Cincy - It just baffles me that you don't see the difference between being pro-choice about something but not necessarily pro-something. Aren't there issues where you respect the choices of others, though you might make a different choice? Isn't this one of the fundamental concepts of the founding of our nation?
For instance, I am pro-choice with regard to gun ownership, though I believe no one should own a gun. I am pro-choice with regard to circumcision, though I would not support getting my own child circumcised and I think it's torture. I am pro-choice with regard to homosexuality, though I am not gay. I am pro-choice with regard to some religions, though I believe their teachings are wrong. (Eh, "wrong" is a strong word, but you get my point.) Et cetera, et cetera.
I meant what do you guys thinks is acceptable? Sorry for the confusion.
Acceptable for whom and under what circumstances? Regardless, I don't believe I have the right to decide for someone else.
So you think it would be fine if someone decided to have and abortion after say 7 months? Since it is their body.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I meant what do you guys thinks is acceptable? Sorry for the confusion.
Acceptable for whom and under what circumstances? Regardless, I don't believe I have the right to decide for someone else.
So you think it would be fine if someone decided to have and abortion after say 7 months? Since it is their body.
Depends on what you mean by me thinking it's fine and depends on the circumstances. (And usually there need to be some pretty bad circumstances for this to happen.)
True - which is why they are not an independent life.
What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.
I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?
True - which is why they are not an independent life.
What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.
I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?
So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?
True - which is why they are not an independent life.
What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.
I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?
So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?
I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.
I understand they are not an independent life, but that does not mean they aren't living. I don't know much about brain development I know they have brain activity in the begining of the third trimester. So there is brain development throughout the pregnancy. But we can't really compare a fetus to a independent life because of the enviroment its in. A fetus has life, according to its enviroment because it is cotinually using vitamins and minerals that you put into your body, so that it continually grows and develops. And i think we would all agree that the enviroment (womans womb) is living right?
So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?
I though you ment independent life as in it could survive without its mother.
Well that does have to do with it. But now I'm getting confused. Do you think a fetus is a person? :?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
scb, I'm pretty much against abortion except for rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. But I'm not here to tell a woman what to do.
But I do have a question for you; in another thread you stated that illegal alien Harvard student should be allowed to stay because (I'm paraphrasing) he could find the cure for cancer.
I don't understand how you can defend him, as he was only going to have to move to his home country, and then not defend the life of an unborn child. Could that child not have the potential to cure some terrible affliction?
I'm not telling a woman what to do but I just can't find it acceptable.
Cincy - It just baffles me that you don't see the difference between being pro-choice about something but not necessarily pro-something. Aren't there issues where you respect the choices of others, though you might make a different choice? Isn't this one of the fundamental concepts of the founding of our nation?
For instance, I am pro-choice with regard to gun ownership, though I believe no one should own a gun. I am pro-choice with regard to circumcision, though I would not support getting my own child circumcised and I think it's torture. I am pro-choice with regard to homosexuality, though I am not gay. I am pro-choice with regard to some religions, though I believe their teachings are wrong. (Eh, "wrong" is a strong word, but you get my point.) Et cetera, et cetera.
I get it, just not in this case. Doesn't fit.
Why not?
This is a life, so it's a black and white issue for me. No gray here. Dead is dead. Or it's a simple medical procedure. It's 1 or the other.
It has been interesting to read the different viewpoints on this subject so jar. Amazingly, the debate has been pretty controlled and engaging. Bravo.
Anyway, this is my thought on a life. I can't for the life of me judge when a human goes from an embryo to an actual "human". But I do think it's insane to define life as the second the baby leaves the womb. That would insinuate that 42 second before a mother gives birth that the fetus is just nothing. I would find it tough to argue that point convincingly (to myself). But I do understand that there is a transition somewhere in the 0 - 9 month period. But where does it happen? Can anyone say with 100% confidence?
And even if it is defined at an arbitrary duration, a process is still being disrupted that otherwise would eventually lead to life . . .
scb, I'm pretty much against abortion except for rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. But I'm not here to tell a woman what to do.
But I do have a question for you; in another thread you stated that illegal alien Harvard student should be allowed to stay because (I'm paraphrasing) he could find the cure for cancer.
I don't understand how you can defend him, as he was only going to have to move to his home country, and then not defend the life of an unborn child. Could that child not have the potential to cure some terrible affliction?
I'm not telling a woman what to do but I just can't find it acceptable.
Aside from the fact that we have considerably more reason to believe that the Harvard kid (who has stated that his purpose is to find a cure for cancer and has thusfar taken every possible step in that direction) would find the cure for cancer than a random unborn fetus (who has not declared that his purpose is to find a cure for cancer and likely won't have as much opportunity as the Harvard kid has had to make it a reality even if it were his goal), I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.
This is a life, so it's a black and white issue for me. No gray here. Dead is dead. Or it's a simple medical procedure. It's 1 or the other.
But we've done this dance before me thinks.
Really?? I have no recollection of that at all.
Basically, my position on this part of this issue is that just because a group of cells is alive doesn't make it a person, and killing a group of cells is not the same as killing a person. To use a crude analogy, my appendix was alive when it was still inside me. After I had a simple medical procedure (an appendectomy), it's no longer alive, but I wouldn't say it's "dead". That word, to me, implies the end to an independent consciousness that appendixes and fetuses don't have.
I'd also like to point out, since people seem to want to think more of fetuses which have developed into the 3rd trimester, that only 0.07% of abortions occur in the United States in the 3rd trimester (about 90% occur in the 1st trimester). So this idea of an actual baby (like we think of babies) being killed is not anywhere close to representative of the vast majority of abortions.
. . . I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.
It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.
. . . I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.
It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.
Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?
. . . I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.
It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.
Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick your points, I was just trying to condense the subject matter.
OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?
It is also ironic that a college student's potential, although setback by the conservative's agenda, is 100% more important to defend then an innocent life that could turn into anything.
Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick your points, I was just trying to condense the subject matter.
OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?
Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.
Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?
Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick your points, I was just trying to condense the subject matter.
OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?
Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.
Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?
That's a good question. I'd save the baby.
But let's say there are 100 embryos and 150 plants...what do you save?
I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.
Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:
1. A fetus is not a person.
2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.
The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.
What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.
Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.
Sad.
I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The whole pro-choice/anti-abortion, etc., argument is just semantics designed to make people feel better about their own opinions.
The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.
For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.
Also, the argument for the death penalty saying they killed an innocent person is also a bunch of nonsense. Who is innocent? What is innocent? What if a guy is going to rob a store and he happens to shoot and kill someone who was previously convicted of murder? Would it be OK to let him go since he killed a non-innocent person? Wait, that's exactly what we're doing when we execute someone....
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It has been interesting to read the different viewpoints on this subject so jar. Amazingly, the debate has been pretty controlled and engaging. Bravo.
Anyway, this is my thought on a life. I can't for the life of me judge when a human goes from an embryo to an actual "human". But I do think it's insane to define life as the second the baby leaves the womb. That would insinuate that 42 second before a mother gives birth that the fetus is just nothing. I would find it tough to argue that point convincingly (to myself). But I do understand that there is a transition somewhere in the 0 - 9 month period. But where does it happen? Can anyone say with 100% confidence?
And even if it is defined at an arbitrary duration, a process is still being disrupted that otherwise would eventually lead to life . . .
This is the crux of the entire issue. There are few who could reasonably argue that at some not-yet-defined point in the pregnancy, the baby is not a person.
What I always ask is why take the chance if we're not sure?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The whole pro-choice/anti-abortion, etc., argument is just semantics designed to make people feel better about their own opinions.
The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.
For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.
Also, the argument for the death penalty saying they killed an innocent person is also a bunch of nonsense. Who is innocent? What is innocent? What if a guy is going to rob a store and he happens to shoot and kill someone who was previously convicted of murder? Would it be OK to let him go since he killed a non-innocent person? Wait, that's exactly what we're doing when we execute someone....
Thanks, that's what I was trying to say.
Again, I've said it before, but I do admire your consistency on these issues.
Comments
yes
Ok
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
True - which is why they are not an independent life.
What about brains? Do people have to have brains in order to be alive? (Honestly, you really can't say independent life is characterized by functioning hearts [which, as I said, fetuses don't really even have anyway] but not by the presence of brains.
It varies based on your circumstances and what state you're in.
Edit to add: Roe v. Wade protects womens' right to abortion at least through the 2nd trimester.
I meant what do you guys thinks is acceptable? Sorry for the confusion.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I think that's bs. No way you can think its a life and be ok with someone else deciding to kill it.
Acceptable for whom and under what circumstances? Regardless, I don't believe I have the right to decide for someone else.
I get it, just not in this case. Doesn't fit.
I think it's alive; I don't think it's a person.
Why not?
I gotta go, I'll get back with ya.
So you think it would be fine if someone decided to have and abortion after say 7 months? Since it is their body.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Depends on what you mean by me thinking it's fine and depends on the circumstances. (And usually there need to be some pretty bad circumstances for this to happen.)
So wait - if you don't think a fetus is an independent life, do you think it's a person?
Well that does have to do with it. But now I'm getting confused. Do you think a fetus is a person? :?
But I do have a question for you; in another thread you stated that illegal alien Harvard student should be allowed to stay because (I'm paraphrasing) he could find the cure for cancer.
I don't understand how you can defend him, as he was only going to have to move to his home country, and then not defend the life of an unborn child. Could that child not have the potential to cure some terrible affliction?
I'm not telling a woman what to do but I just can't find it acceptable.
This is a life, so it's a black and white issue for me. No gray here. Dead is dead. Or it's a simple medical procedure. It's 1 or the other.
But we've done this dance before me thinks.
Anyway, this is my thought on a life. I can't for the life of me judge when a human goes from an embryo to an actual "human". But I do think it's insane to define life as the second the baby leaves the womb. That would insinuate that 42 second before a mother gives birth that the fetus is just nothing. I would find it tough to argue that point convincingly (to myself). But I do understand that there is a transition somewhere in the 0 - 9 month period. But where does it happen? Can anyone say with 100% confidence?
And even if it is defined at an arbitrary duration, a process is still being disrupted that otherwise would eventually lead to life . . .
Aside from the fact that we have considerably more reason to believe that the Harvard kid (who has stated that his purpose is to find a cure for cancer and has thusfar taken every possible step in that direction) would find the cure for cancer than a random unborn fetus (who has not declared that his purpose is to find a cure for cancer and likely won't have as much opportunity as the Harvard kid has had to make it a reality even if it were his goal), I actually wasn't trying to make the argument that he should be allowed to stay because of his potential. I just meant to say how ironic I think it is that people make this argument of potential greatness about abortion all the time and yet want to thwart the plans of a kid who is actually on his way to greatness.
Really?? I have no recollection of that at all.
Basically, my position on this part of this issue is that just because a group of cells is alive doesn't make it a person, and killing a group of cells is not the same as killing a person. To use a crude analogy, my appendix was alive when it was still inside me. After I had a simple medical procedure (an appendectomy), it's no longer alive, but I wouldn't say it's "dead". That word, to me, implies the end to an independent consciousness that appendixes and fetuses don't have.
I'd also like to point out, since people seem to want to think more of fetuses which have developed into the 3rd trimester, that only 0.07% of abortions occur in the United States in the 3rd trimester (about 90% occur in the 1st trimester). So this idea of an actual baby (like we think of babies) being killed is not anywhere close to representative of the vast majority of abortions.
Not if you don't believe the so-called innocent life is a person. (Plus, I noticed how you cut out my whole point about how it's not ironic even if it were a person.) Each and every one of your sperm is alive and has the potential for greatness. Yet do you not waste/kill them on a regular basis?
OK, imagine this scenario, (maybe not fair, but ..), let's say there is some lake shore property that has a ton of endangered bird eggs that are creating a stink. Let's say there is a method to remove and exterminate the eggs without causing any damage to the ecosystem. Since the eggs have not hatched and no environmental damage could happen, what do you think the left would feel about this? Technically, the birds has not hatched . . . no damage to the ecosystem. No harm, no foul? Right?
Of course I can't speak for the entire left & wouldn't want to try. But, theoretically, I'd say we should leave it up to the mother bird. I think we need to respect that the eggs aren't ours, just as we need to respect that other people's fetuses & bodies aren't ours.
Let me ask you a question: You're at a fertility clinic with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a fire breaks out. There's a baby there. You can save 100 embryos or 1 baby. Who do you save?
That's a good question. I'd save the baby.
But let's say there are 100 embryos and 150 plants...what do you save?
What's scary is both points you mentioned are not based in fact and they are opinion only.
Therefore, people are willing to potentially murder based upon opinion.
Sad.
I will agree that the death penalty and abortion are two completely different things and do not merit comparisons. I find them equally repulsive and pathetic, however.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The argument...and the ONLY argument is about what defines a person/human/life. This is what needs to be determined.
For example, to the so-called "pro-choice" people, all you have to do is ask what choice does the baby have. As soon as you do, they say they do not believe it is a person yet. See - the issue is not about choice. It's about the definition of a person.
Also, the argument for the death penalty saying they killed an innocent person is also a bunch of nonsense. Who is innocent? What is innocent? What if a guy is going to rob a store and he happens to shoot and kill someone who was previously convicted of murder? Would it be OK to let him go since he killed a non-innocent person? Wait, that's exactly what we're doing when we execute someone....
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This is the crux of the entire issue. There are few who could reasonably argue that at some not-yet-defined point in the pregnancy, the baby is not a person.
What I always ask is why take the chance if we're not sure?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Thanks, that's what I was trying to say.
Again, I've said it before, but I do admire your consistency on these issues.