|
StrangerThan -> RE: Religious Wrong gets smacked down again (9/3/2011 3:30:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EternalHoH
quote:
ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
Freedom and liberty do not constitute or infer a right to commit murder. I'm the first person to stand up for individual rights, but there comes a point when the "it's my body" defense falls flat on the fact you're killing another one.
When the procedure becomes murder of a human being is really up to the court to decide. And they decided in RvW..
Earlier, you said "I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing."
Why is it a "child" and not a fetus?
Generally speaking, the average person sorta draws the line at survivability outside the womb, which is why they are okay with abortion in the first tri (the fetus is otherwise not survivable), but is not too keen on the procedure later on.
You can have some states do their "life begins at conception" declaration bullshit, but that is where religion starts to encroach and strong-arm secular government. And anyone that doesn't want to live in a theocracy should be willing to legally strike that down.
The court noted that RvW does not encroach upon states rights to form value opinions favoring birth as opposed to abortion. Where these laws skirt that issue is the preamble frames the intent for requiring doctors to use the language of "unique and living human being." If you will note, the Court of Appeals struck that language as well as much of the ensuing law.
And you're pushing to always be a religious stance, which it is not. When I argued this on the flip side with religious types, the only language I could find in the Bible that dealt with the death of a fetus was in...I believe Deuteronomy, where the text noted the difference between a baby born, and one unborn as in the punishments applicable to them being killed by another. Fargle notes that sperm lives and eggs live, and as such life has no beginning. The question there, is what life? The life that is, or will become if you prefer, the unique human being certainly does not exist at the point egg and sperm are separate.
There have been reams written on the development of a fetus, and the specific points where one thing or another forms, where heartbeats are first heard, where movements are first felt. The point for me as I have said many times, is where the life inside is a life whether the mother is present or not. Beyond that I cannot and will not accept the action as one that belongs in the choice category, unless the choice is one to commit an act of homicide.
My first child was born when I was 16, so I know how hard the path is. I know kids are, for the most part, not mature enough to be parents, and even those who are, have no clue as to the complexity and problems life will throw at them. It is not a choice I would choose, but I recognize for others it may be. I understand why. That doesn't change me however, nor how I feel inside about the topic.
There is no argument, sensible one anyway, that can insist the life that emerges doesn't begin at the moment of conception. Any starting point afterward can be traced back to an earlier event. That doesn't mean I think all abortions should be banned. I do believe, and firmly believe that some should be however. The it's my body defense is simplistic at that point and does not address the fact that life ending is a life, and as such should be murder. The court only extends protection for abortion to viability. That doesn't stop the insistence from some that later abortions be available as well.
We have a case now going to court where the woman self aborted at week 20, via pills she got over the internet. That's on the cusp of viability so I expect she has a good chance of winning. 20 weeks is 4 months. Makes you wonder why it would take someone 4 months to decide. Shrug.
Much of the argument here is one I can understand, rather than being a version of my own litmus test. I can understand why people who feel strongly about it having a problem supporting a place that performs them. We can go round and round all day over the dollars, but the truth is, take those dollars away and the place in question will either undergo a decline in services or find funding elsewhere. I can understand people seeing that as indirectly supporting abortion.
Again, shrug.
Edited to add, before some dickweed comes along and starts screaming YOU ARE A MAN. I know I am. Where it falls into my realm of decision making is that I vote. All other things equal, if I have to choose between one who defends it always and one who bans it always, I will vote for the one who bans. That's not because I side with them in that stance. It's because I'm sanctioning what is murder if I vote the other way.
As I said, all other things being equal, which they rarely are.
|
|
|
|
