Muslims say they do http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic ...ssage to Humanity By Hassan Ali El-Najjar.htm
The term "child" in it's broadest context refers to parent/child relationship established by the birth of the child. It does not refer to the preborn. The "preborn" are not children although they might be considered "potential children" but much can happen before the birth that would terminate the parent/child relationship from ever existing. Certainly a zygote, before attaching to the uterus of the woman (that takes about four days) isn't even a potential child as most of these die naturally and women aren't even aware of their existance. .
As Shiva_TD pointed out, rights exist for "persons" and only "persons" are protected by the US Constitution. A fetus does not have rights because it is preborn and not classified as a "person".
Morals are not the same for everyone. That may be your moral, but the woman who is single and got ditched by the guy she loved because she is pregnant and knows she will be unable to care for her kid feels that she is doing the morally right thing by getting rid of it.
I would like to advise those that oppose abortion that they really should refrain from expressing dishonest or deceiptive opinions as they always provide an easy means of rebuttal. For example calling the "preborn" children is fundamentally false and, instead, they could be referred to as "potential children" as childhood begins at birth. Making compelling arguments relies on providing statements that aren't subject to dispute based upon technicalities such as mislabeling the "preborn" as children. Just advice of course but I believe it is good advice.
So are Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Fairy Godparents, all of which we have no more proof of than God. Don't fill in the blanks with whatever sounds good just to avoid having a blank. Use your head.
Don't be silly, human life is present before conception. Human eggs and sperm are "human" and "alive." Now you're going to say, "but, but, but...it's 'different'." You'll be absolutely right, it IS "different." Now IF you're smart enough to see the difference in human life BEFORE conception as opposed to human life AFTER conception, you must also be smart enough (well, maybe not) to see the differences in human life BEFORE birth as opposed to human life AFTER birth. Now if you want to draw the line at conception and say this is the point when human life becomes valuable, that's fine and dandy, but there's no justification for you to impose your concept of values on the whole of society.
When life begins, whether based upon personal opinion, religious beliefs, or even scientific theory is a good thing to have but it has no bearing on the abortion laws today. The laws relate to the "person" under the US Constitution and historical precedent establishes that the "person" begins at birth and not before. When the US Supreme Court addressed abortion it specifically addressed this issue and it's decision was based upon the "Rights of the Person" and the only "person" that had Rights was the woman. The Supreme Court took an extraordinary step Roe v Wade in allowing the limited infringements of the Woman's Rights based upon the potential "personhood" of a fetus at natural viability which was very favorable for the "anti-abortionists" of the time. As I've mentioned previously Roe v Wade was actually a ruling that supported limitations on abortion and was actually a "pro anti-abortion" decision even though it struck down many unconstitutional laws. "Anti-Abortionists" often condemn Roe v Wade not realizing that it was actually supportive of their political position. They should be celebrating the Roe v Wade decision as opposed to condemning it.
will be trespassing on your turf? Oh sure, as if the pro-death crowd had any other basis for their position BUT linguistic technicalities.
Intergrity in presenting arguments is always important. As I noted early in this thread even the title of this thread, Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice, is dishonest because most of those that I know that are pro-choice are also pro-life. They just don't believe that the government should be infringing upon the Rights of the Woman by laws prohibiting abortion. They believe in the US Constitution that protects the Rights of the Person and the Woman is the only "person" in the abortion debate. The accurate title of the thread should be Pro-Choice vs Anti-Abortion because Pro-Life and Pro-Choice can and generally are representative of the same person's beliefs. .
To be sure. Absent awareness of that reality; and if that isn't a fate worse than death, I don't know what is.
They are not children, at best they are potential persons. Its strange that the vast majority of pro-life people are also religious, even though the bible doesn't say anything about abortion, also most pro-life people don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the "potential person" once it is born. How is that pro-life?
It isn't. The point I was trying to make was that women need to have the choice. That was just the example I used. My point basically was how would you feel if you were raped and forced to carry that child because laws wouldn't allow you to have an abortion? But their are many other examples for that subject.
