Do you feel the same about every subject based on legality? What about drugs? What about guns? Abortion is a hot debate, because some see it as a right, while others see it as taking a human life, while others see it as infringing on rights while taking a human life. On top of this, it is often emotionally charged.
Not all pro-lifers are religious. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1909/atheist_secular_and_prolife.aspx
Obviously.....and I did not say they were. I stated that the reason abortion is still a hot debate was due to religion. Many are indeed against abortion for reasons other than religion, but those wishing to force this opinion of everyone else are indeed religious as a general rule.
I disagree, I'm rather philosophical. I believe all life should be given an opportunity. I believe engaging in the act of sex, which is the act of procreation and then saying "No, I don't want to procreate" is rather selfish, egotistical and it's precisely WHY we have "unplanned pregnancies" to begin with. Having an abortion is the same as abandoning a child. It has literally the same effects, with one bonus and one drawback. The bonus is, the child as it were wouldn't know that it was abandoned. The drawback is that it wouldn't know or experience anything at all. So it depends on if you're a philosopher or not. If you live 'for the moment' and you could care less for the kid, it's easy to have an abortion. But if you take everything into consideration, that decision stretches the bounds of morality and asks us 'if we can do this, what can't we do?'
Some philosophical people maintain that not only embryos, but all life forms including eggs and sperm, are sacred, and should be given an opportunity: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=AE4C54D735462548F236AE4C54D735462548F236
Does your philosophy lead you to believe an adult human should be compelled to submit to the unformed life growing within it? Does your preference and opinion of sexual activity lead you to feel everyone else should be compelled to follow your lead? If not then my point stands, as your take is not religious and you are not trying to change the laws based on your personal opinions.
So in order to give all those eggs and sperm opportunities, people MUST have sex at every opportunity, indeed they must create opportunities to have sex, otherwise, alas, all those eggs and sperms dying!!
I don't believe the adult human(in this case the female) is being compelled to "submit" to the fetus. To the contrary, it is a merger for all intents and purposes. The fetus's life is the mother's life. In the case of consensual sex, is it not all the more a proper merger that she accepted? To say that "I engaged in intercourse but I don't want the child" is akin to having the cake, and eating it too. Sex, though pleasurable, has its responsibilities. To run away from those responsibilities is childish. Try this: In the Animal Kingdom, approach a pregnant kangaroo or the baby in it's pouch, you'll get your ass kicked. Yet today, we immorally have the concept that the adult female in our human society simply has little to no value in the fetal human. This is Social Darwinism at it's worst kind IMO. So this is a question based on opinions, and I intellectually hold your opinion on very faulty water. The idea that a fetus is compelling the adult female, especially in the case of consensual sex. I do however concur with the right to abort given rape. I can see the psychological damages and that would only hurt the child growing up as she could never be a mother to him/her. Rather than "my lead", I believe it's a societal structure that served us(and the animal kingdom) well over for thousands of years. The idea that the moment our society collapses on some level, then the collapse will only worsen until the point of no return. The nuclear family unit had raised a strong middle class, that strong middle class then in turn raised entrepreneurs, intellectuals and scientists, etc. There's a reason turning away from this proven formula had led to our decline, because we're experimenting in socialization. We should have long passed the experimentation phase, we found something that worked. It should have been tweaked perhaps, but the radical changes should have been opposed. The consequences were obvious, and we're left to the deal with the damage. In fact, it serves as a lesson. Once radical changes are implemented, it's almost impossible to fix them. Germany had to fix them because they faced nukes and the whole world. But in this case, this is social devastation and non-geopolitical. No one's going to compel us to fix our errors, and hence we won't. Or in this case, if someone did compel for the positives of the nuclear family unit that person(me for example) would be called sexist in nature lol.
Abortions have been happening for thousands of years. We are not altering the family dynamic by decriminalizing them now. The nuclear family unit was based on women's dedicating their lives to the well-being and continuation of the family. To do that was to give up any ideas, dreams, visions, desires of her own. That means the nuclear family unit, otherwise known as patriarchy, was great for everybody else, but for women it was not. So society is being compelled to readjust what they think of as the "nuclear family unit" and find some new ways to care for children.
Those new ways seem to be 'not to care for them at all'. Or, let's force others to care for them!(Pre-K and so forth). To have the Family Unit as akin to Patriarchy is laughable. Women were able to sustain the household, the children were incredibly well educated and the family was financially supported. Perhaps a few women have been able to strive for great things in the corporate world, but at what cost? So Women politically call for more maternity leave, more sick days and lesser hours. What do you think businesses will do? You'll see even more of the 'Patriarchy' as businesses start dropping women like flies and bringing men back in the work force. To an extent, the new society might be fortunate to men as we can kick back and relax as opposed to working 40+ hours a week for women. But to a greater extent, men are the most economically productive even now. It has been costly to the Nation and to Businesses. With new health care laws covering contraceptives and other unnecessary items, it's even more of a burden. In the next 30 or so years, we'll see even more consequences of the failed social experiment. Kids are even rowdier than in my generation, more of them are from broken single-"family" households and hence more of them will commit crime. The greatest irony is that the more well-off families are the ones who maintain the family unit. That isn't only due to economics, I believe they're fully aware of the social advantages that come from a nuclear family unit. The Elites as always, propose "something" to the masses, and then when the time comes they run away from it lol. Because they're not stupid enough to take their own 'advice'.
Women HAD to sustain the household on the amount of money they were given by "the head of the household." And because it was HIS money, she had to sustain the household the way HE chose. Those who control the money, control the people. If you have no money that you control, you have no control. LOL, men are benefitting from "family leave." And families are benefitting from the father's contribution. There is a downside to having child rearing done solely by women. Therefore, it's not any benefit to businesses to hire more men. Health care insurances WANT to provide contraceptives because it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than to provide maternity care. IF men are more economically productive, it is because they have dumped their share of child care onto women while they go do as they choose. Family structure has evolved over all of human history, and all we see now is more evolvement. Hopefully, a way of better caring for kids will evolve soon, and hopefully it will be a way that does not place all the burden for rearing kids on women. Already, we have evolved to the point where the ideal family size is generally considered to be two kids, and that gives women a lot more leeway to pursue some of their own goals.
I bet there is a lot of evidence on the web that unwanted/unloved children are linked to a lot of sociopathic crime, although there are some major exceptions to that rule.
Laughable, again marriage satisfaction rates were much higher in the pre-feminist world than not. I consider feminist and pro-feminist women as daydreamers, thinking of some terrible reality that never existed. Quit the daydreaming girl, it didn't happen. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html Tell me, what would a Business rather have? A worker that can work 7 days a week consistently, or a worker gone for weeks at a time? If Maternity leave increases, businesses will of course lean towards men. To the extent that I'm currently unemployed, I'd welcome women to do something so politically suicidal. I could use the job openings. And your right, single child-rearing has been bad for all of us. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce Lol, this is laughable. I didn't know men controlled the family courts. That's news to us as women sue the crap out of my gender. The way men are seen now, we're nothing more than a dollar sign. But as that article above alludes to, it does little more than destroy children. How can women possibly argue their actions over the past 30+ years have been productive for anyone but themselves? As though we couldn't be more optimistic, you call this an evolution? 2 children is barely the replacement level. It's the "ideal" in terms of if everyone had two children we could sustain population growth. But as you said, it's now a "choice", a choice that many people simply aren't exercising. After all, the fact that it is a choice has robbed it of all material and spiritual value. If women don't want "all the burden for rearing kids", you have A: A weird way of showing it(Family bias and asking for full custody) and B: You can simply push that on men. After all, if children need economics more than parenting(which our current laws suggest), you should have no problem giving them to the economically superior men. Somehow, I feel as though you're going to reject that proposal though.
A simple "Yes, I feel my opinion should be enforced" would have sufficed. Fortunately for everyone else, it cannot be enforced.
LOL, marriage satisfaction rates for whom? Please don't tell how wonderful life was for women when they had no choice but to be housewives. I was there. BTW, the divorce statistics don't really reflect marriage dissatisfaction. The point is that men are taking advantage of mandated family leave, so it doesn't really matter to the employer which sex he is employing. Both sexes are going to take parental leave. More men are getting child custody these days, and that's because more men are asking for it. Equal custody means men are going to be taking more time off work.... We have no need to sustain population growth. The planet would benefit if the population level were reduced. Most men don't want custody of children and don't ask for it. They prefer to just write a check.
Tell me, since you were "there" are you satisfied? Presuming you have a daughter, she has to compete with other men and women for jobs just to survive and so do you. I won't get personal since that goes against internet etiquette but most news articles such as this one show that the "revolution" has hurt women more than most. http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/august/part-time-work-employment-increase-recession/ http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/04/5-ways-feminism-has-ruined-america Your welcome As a man, I can give you an opposing viewpoint on your full-steam ahead reckless train that has us pushed off a 30 year old cliff. Furthermore as someone born in 1992, I have direct experience with the consequences. It's a good thing too, those kids need at least ONE parent to show they care lol. I personally want to structure my financial life to make it so that I can be with my kid son(whoever he ends up being) when we go out to the ball game. Not necessarily, the more time you take off work, the less money you get. As a whole, it'll be difficult for single dads(and always has been. Far more so than women). http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/going-solo-single-fathers-reveal-what-its-like-to-be-a-lone-parent-1995725.html It's utterly laughable for women to claim they're on the same page as men. Debatable, the U.N has said population levels will drop dramatically over the next few decades. Asian/European countries not named China are struggling with some of the bio-structural challenges. That's the feminist dream of believing they're screwed over. This is the reality: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html The reality is a growing number of men ask for custody, they want to be involved. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/poll-most-men-aspire-be-dads Especially since if we get another job or have more kids, it means the more child support we'll pay. But yeah, keep thinking all is fine and dandy for us in the new feminist world.
Then you are arguing against the mainstay arguments of the majority of pro-lifers who declare that a zef is a seperate individual life from the female. Merger or to merge means to combine or cause to combine to form a single entity, and this is clearly incorrect. The zef if anything displays parasitic-like tendencies during gestation. You seem to be under the illusion that a female deciding on abortion is not taking responsibility, a typical pro-life viewpoint where everything is placed around the zef and the female is secondary, and again you seem to forget that sex creates nothing more than the risk of pregnancy, it is not a foregone conclusion that every act of sexual intercourse will result in a pregnancy, if it did you would have a point .. it doesn't and you don't, the degree of risk involved - 15-20% for unprotected sex falling to around 4% when using protection - is not even a high risk. The problem with this is that you are basing the opinion on an unproven premise, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, it is a assumption fallacy, you are assuming the fact and expanded the opinion based on that assumption to form a conclusion. you are begging the question .. on whose morality do you base this opinion? Sorry but you are in no way intellectually holding our opinion on very faulty water, you have offered nothing intellectual to support the opinion you have, it is based on assumption of facts .. the assumption that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and the assumption that abortion is amoral .. neither of which is based in facts. No it only served the male structure of society, the female for most of those thousand years was considered a lesser person than the male, and in some countries they still are. We are still raising entrepreneurs, intellectuals and scientists despite your insistence that the "sky is falling", we turned away from the formula because it obviously didn't work for all people. Personally I have no wish to return to a time where women were raped within marriage with no recourse, could not stand against their husband in a court of law or were not even allowed to own property or land .. that is nothing more than 100% sexist discrimination. What is there to fix, like all societies that have ever existed we are evolving . .you cannot stop evolution, adn these "errors" you refer to again this is just an opinion based on the assumption of facts. Yes, because the nuclear family was a society based upon sexist attitudes .. it worked by keeping a substantial proportion of the population at a second class level. The whole of your above comments are a fallacy, they are all based on assumption of fact.
The only thing laughable is the above statement, women had very little recourse to secure divorce from a man prior to the no-fault legislation introduced by Reagan in 1969 - Which I add is easily notable from the link supplied - women had no chance to remove themselves from a marriage without overwhelming evidence and a large source of money (something they didn't have as it was always the man who controlled the money) As already supplied to you in another response the institution of marriage has only recently been about love. Here are some more details as to why divorce went up; Before 1970, divorce was relatively uncommon and difficult to get. Fault was usually required-one of the spouses must have committed a crime or sin that justified the divorce. There needed to be adultery, abandonment, cruelty, intoxication or some other reason that made it necessary to end the marriage. No-fault divorce became an option in some states in the 1950s. Couples no longer needed to prove that one person was at fault. They could simply say that the marriage had broken down. By 1970, almost all states had laws allowing no-fault divorces. A long separation before the divorce used to be mandatory. Many states also passed laws that greatly decreased the separation time, making divorce easier and faster. These laws had a great effect on the divorce rate. From 1940 to 1965, the divorce rate remained near 10 divorces for every 1,000 married women. By 1979, the rate had doubled. Changes in the law explain part of why divorce was on the rise, but it does not tell the whole story. While the law was changing, society was also changing. Women became a strong presence in the workforce. They no longer depended on their husbands to support them. This independence allowed them to leave an unhappy marriage and still provide for themselves. Divorce also became more acceptable. The guilt and fault of the old divorce laws were gone. As more couples separated, divorce gradually became a normal part of life. In short, many couples that would have previously remained married now chose divorce. Other changes may also explain why divorce increased, including: Cohabitation (living together) has become acceptable. Research shows that couples that live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. A divorced person who remarries after a divorce is much more likely to get divorced again. Children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced. As the number of divorced parents increases, so will the number of their children that get divorced. and further more the current rate of divorce is declining View attachment 23639 Men are more and more getting paternity leave and a business would rather keep the workers they have, it can cost between 50 to 200 percent of a workers salary to replace them .. it makes little business sense to replace them.
It's ironic, isn't it? When other people argue that you're making fallacies, then they make fallacies of their own. For starters: The Fallacy of Composition. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html Zygote=Parasite=No Dice. It's intellectually false and you should know it. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unborn-child-just-a-parasite-cutting-edge-science-shows-fetal-cells-heal-mo/ http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html Then there's the fact that if the child is actually born, that child's dependent on her/his parents from age 0-18. Is that child also parasitic? Why not? What benefits does that child bring to its mother? Your statistics are false and misleading. Those numbers only reference to a month. How about yearly statistics? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120313-sex-in-the-city-or-elsewhere 86%. That's a major difference. The fact is, intercourse leads to pregnancy. We don't know when of course, nor do when we know if a theoretical couple 'X' is using a condom or women birth control methods or not. But basic biology suggests that when a man inserts his seed into the vagina and if enough sperm eggs meet the womb, the developmental process starts to engage itself. Even if the statistics were still low, that doesn't refute the fact that there isn't a 3rd way for a baby to be born. We *could* artificially create life, but we don't(for very valid reasons. I suspect, and the link you gave me hinted at there would be greater complication for the artificial fetus then if done naturally). I mean, do you understand what you're doing here? Your arguing against basic biology and you're basically saying "Since it doesn't happen right away that means that there's no correlation!" That's not only stupid, that's something where if I didn't know you any better I wouldn't bother talking to you bro. I'm not making any assumptions about biology. In fact, you made the assumption that low probability=no correlation. In that case, there's no correlation between a family that won the lottery and playing the lottery. Since the lottery has such low odds. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/27/who-are-the-nations-biggest-suckers-lottery-players/ We've aborted 50 million babies, this 'opinion' is an easily observable fact. If we cared, less would die. I mean, fairly simple wouldn't you think? The advent of contraception(not that I'm against it) also leans in this direction. I mean, if you can protect yourself from a pregnancy, how much care do you really have for it? I've presented nothing but facts to the contrary, the 'assumption' is a biological truth. Your assumption of a parasite however is the Fallacy of Composition. I'd like to see you argue otherwise. But if you want facts towards the amorality of Abortion I'll gladly give them to you. And I'll be sure to avoid a pro-life site just to avoid your complaints later. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-terms/ Americans view stem cell research more morally than Abortion...Ouch, freaking OUCH for you dude. I mean consider, it wasn't too long ago Stem Cells were fiercely opposed. Lastly, why don't I take on the 'Consciousness' argument(you proposed this argument and I came across a webpage which supported it). This argument basically outlines consciousness as the point of existence and that thereby promotes the morality of abortion. However, once again we find a problem: The Animal Kingdom and the laws therein(and I already proved we set laws for them). http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/ If Animals are conscious, even though their level of 'consciousness' is vastly inferior to a human's level of consciousness then it's no longer a matter of whether or not a fetus is 'conscious' to the level of a human being. All I have to do is prove a fetus's consciousness...period. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18923-bumpology-my-fetus-is-smarter-than-an-earthworm.html#.UokqvPmkySo Alas, I can I argue that any kind of movement, any kind of reaction is a conscious reaction. Even if we aren't consciously aware of it. And I have an apt comparison to prove my statement: Dreaming and our reactions to dreaming. http://www.aasmnet.org/articles.aspx?id=1499 Just because we're not aware of a fetal conscious state, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. And even if a conscious state isn't prevalent, that doesn't mean one isn't alive. Really? I raise you some more facts to prove that they're not http://condor.depaul.edu/dsimpson/tlove/courtlylove.html http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/courtly_love.html If women were so 'abused', these ideas and many more simply would not have become to be. If they were, the 'old ways' wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. Or had the social benefits that they did. Neither do I, but I have every wish to return to a time where the women held the household with pride and men owned the workplace. Economically, it was better off. In terms of family time it was better off. In terms of everything, it was better off. http://workplaceflexibility.org/images/uploads/program_papers/bianchi_-_family_change_and_time_allocation_in_american_families.pdf The world we inherited from the Feminist Mystique is a world of epic and total failure. The sad thing is is that only its supporters cannot see that. And because it can't, the country will continue to collapse. I know it discourages you, but facts are never assumed. Facts are facts. If this world was so benevolent, the children would be productive. The young adults would be employed, etc. It's a failure, a flop. And most of all, it's sexist against men. Actually, I contend more women then ever before are holding themselves to a second class level. You honestly think this crap is first class?
From the same link ; It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed. and as further evidence that your position is at odds with the majority of pro-lifers http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/ethics/a-case-for-pro-life/ Extract - The second stage of the pro-life argument is to show that the unborn is a separate individual from the mother. Biologically speaking, it is a scientific fact that the mother and fetus are distinct individuals. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood.htm Extract - so are the biological facts which constitute its simplest and strongest evidence, especially the genetic identity and individuality of the preborn child from the moment of conception. Firstly I did not say "Zygote=Parasite", I said a zef displays parastic-like tendencies, and I have NEVER stated that a pregnancy does not have some adventitious properties to the woman .. however, those advantages are minimal when compared to the substantial injuries incurred. There are various types of symbiotic relationships (parasitic being one), some are beneficial to both, some are beneficial and also harmful, some are only harmful. From you second link - a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.) b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship. Part 'a' is factually incorrect - The male Anglerfish is a parasite to the female, they are the same species - http://animals.nationalgeographic.co.uk/animals/fish/anglerfish/ Everyone except number 5 of the reasons given in that article can be disputed. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being. Only part of the fetus is from an inside source, the other main "ingredient" is from an outside source .. the sperm, hence why I said parasitic-like. Rubbish .. every single pregnancy causes the following damage. Base level hormones increase by up to 400%, respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure, A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta, her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus, chemicals are released into the woman's blood stream to supress her immune system and other chemicals are released to influence her physiological outlook. In the initial stages of implantation the blastocust does make direct contact with the hosts tissue, in fact it invades the uterine wall - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantation_(human_embryo) a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.) b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship. The reason the female's immune system does not react is contained in 'b' ie the fetus suppresses the normal immune reaction. Further evidence that it is not only the embryo that does this can be found here - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3281594?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102954643421 a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce. b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother. All of 'a' may also happen to a woman during pregnancy. The highlighted item is a fallacy, an appeal to common practice. One major difference, the woman can, at any time, remove the child and so end the dependency without the death of the child. Once birth has taken place the child is social dependent and not biologically dependent. I cannot access the linked item. The statistics given of 86% are based on regular sexual intercourse by couples who are trying for a pregnancy and that both are 'normal' as in having no fertility issues, it is also based on the sexual intercourse taking place at the correct time ie during ovulation. It also does not factor in the approx 1/4 of fertilized eggs that fail to implant .. in reality the actually risk of pregnancy is not more than 15-20% when all factors are taken into consideration. That is correct, it however does not remove the fact that sperm are not required in order to create an embryo, much the same problems were evident in the earliest stages of the IVF program .. look where we are now. IVF is also (or was) against basic biology. I have never said there is no correlation, what I have maintained throughout is that the risk involved is not a high risk and that we take risk involving a far higher chance of injury being the outcome and yet we do not deny medical treatment. Again I have never said that, I have said repeatedly that the risk involved is not high, just as the chance of winning the lottery is not high .. I have never said it cannot happen. Still doesn't answer the question - on whose morality do you base the opinion, and furthermore why should that morality be imposed onto others .. You may consider abortion immoral, others don't, so why should they be forced to adhere to what you think is right. I have need to argue against it because it is something I have never said, what you have done is to misquote and misrepresent what I have said which is that a zef displays parasitic-like tendencies .. dispute that if you can. Seems strange don't you think that people consider abortion - which is the ending of life - less moral than IVF, which ALSO has a high percentage of ending life. (NB I have no proof of figures as they don't seem to be kept, though a report based in the UK estimated 1.2 million embryos destroyed) As a counter to your morality status, the American people are in a majority of NOT overturning Roe. - 53% of Americans do not want Roe overturned - http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx They also support abortion in some circumstances, with the percentage who want it banned totally being the lowest, it would seem that most Americans are more than content with the current legal standings of Roe. In order for consciousness to be, there has to be a brain, that is a biologically reality as is reaction, unless you are alluding to a virus being conscious as they will draw away from noxious infringements, these are not conscious reactions. - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise You may wish to argue against the scientific findings, that is your choice. Again you are misrepresenting me, I have never said that a fetus is not alive .. nor would I. So the fact that up until recently in the US a man could not be convicted of raping his wife, or that a woman could not own property, or that she could be left destitute without money or accommodation are all "good" things for you. Marital Rape - "The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes. At that time, most states differentiated between the way marital rape and non-marital rape were treated. The laws have continued to change and evolve since 1993, but in some states, there still remain differences. Prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was not a crime. Traditional rape laws in the US defined rape as forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife", making it clear that the statutes did not apply to married couples. The 1962 Model Penal Code stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: (...)".[4] In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption.[5] On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.[5] In some states, notably New York - in People v. Liberta 1984 [6] - the courts had been involved in striking down the marital exemption as unconstitutional. The decision of the New York Court of Appeals, delivered by judge Sol Wachtler, stated that "a marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to control her own body as does an unmarried woman"." Property - "Any money made by a woman either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance automatically becomes the property of her husband once she is married. Once a woman became married her property was no longer her own and her husband could choose to dispose of it whenever he thought suitable: Thus, a woman, on marrying, relinquished her personal propertymoveable property such as money, stocks, furniture, and livestock--- to her husbands ownership; by law he was permitted to dispose of it at will at any time in the marriage and could even will it away at death.[2] Even in death a womans husband continued to have control over her former property. Married women had few legal rights and were by law not recognized as being a separate legal being a feme sole. In contrast, single and widowed women were considered in common law to be femes sole, and they already had the right to own property in their own names. Once a woman became married she still had the right to legally own her land or house but she no longer had the rights to do anything with it such as rent out a house that she owned or sell her piece of land: Thus, a wife retained legal ownership of her real propertyimmovable property such as housing and land, but she could not manage or control it; she could not sell her real property, rent it, or mortgage it without her husbands consent" Can one assume then that you are content to have women as some sort of "domestic" and have little to no opportunity to improve their lot .. isn't that the American dream, to pull yourself up by the socks and make something of your life .. or is the "American dream" purely an male dream. There are many reasons for the current status of the planet trying to lay them all on a single cause is just plain dishonest. nice opinion, you are welcome to it.
Honestly, it was a facetious statement. To answer your questions, yes legal drugs are fine, it's all about how you use them. Guns are fine, it's all about how you use them, obviously killing someone with them is not good. Abortion, well, you are killing someone regardless, so it's ok since it is legal. It's not my problem, not my choice to make, not my decision I have to live with. I just know it's legal, and it's one law that will never be brought down, not in this society.
