Ridiculous. If you're going to outlaw abortion, you must consider what the likely alternative will be... which is adoption... which is facing it's own crisis at the moment. Why not get women on your side by showing them you're working toward fixing the situations they may have to put their children in post-abortion ban? Or is that even your concern? Pardon me for asking that last question... I'm operating under the assumption that when it's no longer a fetus, it still requires someone to fight for it. and spare me that "right to life is basic!!!" crap. I stopped believing that mantra when I watched pro-lifers argue that it's worth fighting for, unless she was conceived via rape... rendering that life expendable.
Not really. Laws against murder and theft present not only their prospective violators but also innocent third parties with undesirable alternatives, but that is hardly a compelling argument for the repeal of such laws. It certainly isn't mine, because women who insist that the laws be tailored to shift the burden of responsibility for their actions onto others will never be on my side. Indeed it does, and that someone needs to be its parents first and foremost; and the society which fails to insist on that can only look forward to despotism.
However if you repealed the self-defence law you WOULD see an increase in death rate And that is what enacting an anti-abortion law does - increases the maternal mortality and morbidity rate. So tell me - when would you allow abortion?
Which has nothing to do with abortion. You are comparing natural causes to a mother going to a doctor to kill her child
Life is constant and ongoing. Sperm and ovum are alive, the zygote is alive, the embryo is alive, the fetus is alive, the neonate is alive, the child is alive, the adolescent is alive, the man/woman is alive and then the cycle continues when they reproduce. If you mean individual human DNA though, then yes, that begins at conception and it may split several days later and 'twin' creating an exact replica of that same DNA. Being alive however is not enough to confer personhood as many things are alive in this world. Plants, animals, bacteria, fungus, germs, etc.
you do make things easy don't you; There are numerous immaculate conceptions in Hindu religion .. in fact Jesus was the last one of a long line of them. (BTW you do know that immaculate conception has very little to do with the actual conception of Christ, a common fault most christians fall into .. if you like I'll explain it to you) If you want to be literal, any virgin can have a non-sexual pregnancy, simply by self impregnating or via in vitro fertilization .. The only reason Jesus is seen to be "special" is that the fertilization was supposed to have been done by god .. just like many Hindu's believe as well of some of their prophets.
Of course it does, just as it does for every other living thing on the planet .. however when does that life become an independent sentient person.
But "personhood" does not and inalienable Rights, such as the Right to Life which is protected by the US Constitution, only exists for persons. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
Of course there can be no comparison of "God to man" because we know that man exists but there is no evidence to support a belief that God exists.
that's your own opinion from your own point of view. for me and many others, there is clear evidence that god exists.
Absolutely true but the First Amendment protects us from the imposition of laws based upon religious opinion. This was established in the Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v United States. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html While I respect the Right of everyone to express their religious beliefs they must also respect my Right to disagree with those beliefs and they should make no attempt to impose their religious beliefs upon me under the laws of the United States. It is a matter of mutual respect.
and that is your right to believe .. so why do you spend so much time trying to force your beliefs onto others?
"life begins at conception" is a religious concept. Its also never been proven by SCIENCE. Therefore you are trying to force your religion on everyone through the threat of executions.
abortion has nothing to do with religion. life does begin at conception thats a scientific fact. the thing up for debate is "personhood" rights... but abortion kills a living human. scientific fact. this isnt a religious issue, its a human rights issue again if i formed all my views on my religion. i would be anti every war, anti military, anti laws, ultra pro welfare and other issues.
As the US Supreme Court pointed out in it's Roe v Wade decision "When life begins" has no relevance under the US Constitution. Only the establishment of "personhood" matters as the US Constitution only applies to "persons" (or people which is the same thing). Personhood, based upon all of recorded history, doesn't begin until birth and that is undisputed.
That is true as Rights only exist for "persons" and only "persons" are protected by the US Constitution. The woman has Rights because she's a person but a fetus has no Rights because the preborn are not persons. For the "preborn" to have Rights then there must be legal precedent for "personhood" established as historically the preborn have never been persons. That legal precedent can be established in the United States but only by Constitutional Amendment. I've repeatedly pointed this out but it tends to fall on deaf ears but it is the only avenue that "anti-abortionists" where they can turn opinion into legal precedent. Opinions are fine but they carry no weight under the Constitution which is based upon legal precedent alone.
Once conception happens it is a baby in development which means abortion is a mother killing her child
