So because the fetus is inside the mother then it is OK to kill it? I guess you are in favor of partial birth abortion then. Just kill it right before its born and all is right with the world.
As long as that's what she wants, yes. I'm definitely in favour of partial birth abortion, or to give it its proper name intact dilation and curettage. It is much, much safer for the woman than cutting up the foetus in utero and bringing it out bit by bit.
Of course it is human, but that doesn't mean aborting it is immoral. Sperm and eggs are human, but we don't don't think it's immoral to dispose of them. The question is whether it is a human being, and that is a subject of never ending debate. And yes, it is unthinkable to force the victim of rape or incest to endure pregancy and birth of her rapist's progeny.
You did not check well. Legal under very strict circumstances and very rare and never "basically full term" as you state.
so is a tumor, should it be illegal to remove them? Only to the ignorant. If you can not tell the difference between a single cell and an infant you should not be debating it.
Yes quite so. What do you base that on? Can you cite any examples or this is just emotional hype replacing rational argument?
You made the statement "Up until the moment a person is identified as a criminal or enemy combatant, a finding made according to the law and supported by the evidence, such a person still has rights."
Nonsense .. this is a complete generalization. The problem is that the Justice system is so messed up that many innocents get put on death row. I am a Constitution loving conservative and would love nothing better than to see these wingnuts fry. The problem is when we extend the death penalty to include all those convicted of first degree homicide "life for a life". Take the guy that shot the pedophile that raped his son .. is this guy a threat to society in general ? Also there are those convicted on circumstantial evidence. The Death Penalty should only be used for multiple murder, with hard evidence and so forth. This is obfuscative termininology and a logical fallacy. The zygote is not a human. Until you can substantiate that it is (get Biologists to agree that a zygote is a Homo sapien, which they do not) the best argument you have in the early stages of pregnancy is: I do not know How do you value "I do not know" against the Constitutionally protected rights of a woman over her own body ? Nonsense. We do not have enough kids in the US to replace ourselves. In places like India and China population growth is a definite threat to the environment, but not because of the Carbon footprint or any ability to feed these folks. It is because of the pollution to the oceans .. persistant organic pollutants and heavy metals such as mercury that is the biggest environmental threat such that there is going to be serious problems long before CO2 ever becomes an issue. Huh ? .. this just makes no sence and is generalization involving generalized ignorance, logical fallacy, and lack of respect for the Constitution in general ( a liberal trait) I thought you were a conservative ? Nonsense .. the issue the left has with religion.. and I agree with them is religious folks forcing their religious beliefs on others by getting the state to enact laws. This is against the Constitution so as a constitution loving conservative I do not condone such things. I am a Christian but I do not want others forcing their beliefs on me so I do not think I should be forcing my beliefs on others .. hmmmm .. someone famous said this once .. "do unto others" .... The ones supporting the ideas of fundimental Islamic extremists are the ones who act like fundimental extremists by trying to impose Sharia/ Religious law on others. No human speaks for God .. not the Imam, not the Pope, and certainly not our Presidential hopefulls. It is the extremist religious folks in the US that support policies similar to extreme Islam by forcing religious beliefs on others and not following our own constitution. If we want others to follow then we should be leading by example as Christ did.
Hitler and Bin Laden killed other people. A fetus has not. This is an obvious point that leaves your argument in ruins because it is an nonparallel and inconsistent comparison.
Sure, I said that. I also said "The objection to abortion falls into the general category of objecting to killing the innocent from the 'pro life' point of view." The OP wants us to think that you cannot oppose abortion and support the death penalty or the military because he doesn't draw a legal distinction between what is considered murder and what is not. No fetus has ever been convicted of a crime. No fetus has ever commited an act of war. Fetuses cannot act to threaten anyone so they cannot be placed in the legal category that permits them to be killed according to them (pro lifers). Your reply to my first post made no sense because it doesn't relate in any way to the topic I'm addressing or the point I made.
That is why I posted my reply. It is irrelevant to my reply to you or to the fact that the statement, your statement is false. and that is correct. If life is sacred then a decision by a group of people does not alter that and killing is still wrong. I was only pointing out the fallacy of your statement.
BS, not at all. But, at least we know you are not pro life. You are pro choice. Life is life. So it is safe to say that if you could have aborted hitler or bin laden you would have( I would too) so you are pro choice. I am glad you are being honest.
That is irrelevant to why I made the comment. You made a vague generalization that is not supported by fact. That is irrelevant. Neither do people that are conveniently called collateral damage yet their deaths are accepted as the cost of freedom. You mean you missed it.
