But what is your meaning? Is it that you are claiming that in your opinion from conception this is a human being and therefore needs protection? It this your political stance, that all human life should be protected from harm? But what if another political stance goes against the first? If innocent people die in an action you support doesn’t the fact that they were human beings mean you couldn’t support that action? Put it another way if a political view causes suffering to other humans even there premature death, is that political view acceptable to you? Or are you pro choice, the choice to choose to see all human life as sacred in on instance and to disregard it in another?
Balbus, I'm assuming that your questions are directed at me, but I'm not really sure what they mean. Are you asking me if my pro-life views require me to be a pacifist?
In a consistant person, they would. In order to call oneself prolife, one should be anti death penalty and anti war. Because these are human lives.
Killing in self-defense or executing a convicted murderer is not morally equivalent to killing innocent and helpless unborn babies. (I happen to oppose capital punishment, but only because I believe the risk of error or abuse is unacceptable, not because murderers don't deserve death.)
I don't think that these questions are answered in your response. What about all the innocent that are killed in war, soldiers and civilians alike? Or all the people suffering and dying from poor healthcare or starvation?
I think that every effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties, but I don't think that they can ever be completely avoided. Many French civilians were killed in the liberation of France from Nazi occupation, but I think the French generally appreciate the Allied invasion of Europe. (They just commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Paris this week.) What about them?
Yeah Huck...what about them? Oh that's right. You care more about the unborn embryo then you do about already born people. The starving children that exist by the millions in this world. I dont ever see you speaking on behalf of them. You obviously dont actually care about children. You just care about having control over another individual's private matters. You never have anything to offer in terms of solutions on how to care for the Earth's already vast amount of children..most of whom have no food, clean water, medical care. Babies in Africa are dying from AIDS and being raped by AIDS-infected men as some sort of voodooistic cure. All you seem to care about is speaking on behalf of zygotes and getting rid of the evil homosexuals.
Huck- I must admit that was a GREAT response. I am impressed you could produce so much information, so quickly. I am still not agreeing or disagreeing with the definition, however. I still don't think the scientific community, especially the medical community, has formed a concensus. I do have to point out, also, that all of your sources were over 20 years old. Science evolves much more quickly than that. I am very impressed with the information presented in this thread, but I am no longer going to actively participate in it because I am no where near as knowledgeable on this subject as many other posters. I feel compelled to give women and their doctors the power to make their own healthcare descisions, and I do see it as a healthcare decsion. As a previous post said, is it repulsive, YES. I agree with that. Many medical procedures are repulsive. I will continue watching, though, I appreciate the arguments...
CAUTION: THIS WILL PROBABLY OFFEND EVERYBODY!!! The end of this post reminded me of a bumper sticker a friend of mine had, that caused an incredible amount of chaos. Keep in mind, I am a homo...so this offends me too, but it is such an incredibly offensive statement I can't help but post it. It passes through offensive into funny/absurd/sick: Here it goes: (AGAIN, NOT FOR SENSITIVE READERS) "Eat a Queer Fetus For Jesus" ...isn't that lovely.
No, not equivalent. But still killing. How is "collateral damage" somehow more acceptable than abortion? Killing a murderer (let's say one who "deserves it") is still killing, and if you are Pro Life, you should not accept that. FTR, I am pro death penalty for sadistic murderers, rapists and child molesters. But then again, I don't call myself a Pro Lifer.
Um, I have commented on world hunger in threads dealing with trade policy. (See the "Globalization" forum.) I just don't know what any of this has to do with abortion, except to create a diversion. Show me where I've ever advocated "getting rid of" anybody.
"Pro-life" simply means a respect for the right to life as set forth in our Declaration of Independence. This right is sacrosanct unless it is forfeit by killing or endangering the life of another. There's no philosophical inconsistency here. It is a foundational premise of our legal system.
If anything, scientific advances have only underscored the marvel of the earliest stages of embryonic life. Unfortunately, medical ethics have regressed as scientific knowledge has progressed. Surgery is usually bloody, but it is never so violently destructive as abortion.
I think abortion is wrong in a sense and right. if the girl doesn't want the child but is against abortion she should give it up for adoption. or lets say if a girl got raped and got pregnant she doesnt want the child or go through with full term she could get an abortion. or a 12 year old girl got pregnant and she isn't even old enough to take care of herself let alone another child she could get an abortion. on the other hand where i think abortion is wrong is when a girl get pregnant and she has a good job, a place to live, everything is good and she gets pregnant on accident and wants an abortion that is just wrong she could go full term and give it up for adoption. my pregnancy was a total accident and im finishing high school quit my job and now am relying on my bf an I know everything is goingto be alright.
That is just an opinion, not fact. A lot of points on this issue rely completely on opinion. I just think that is wrong to take away the opinion of others because yours differs from them. As long as America isn't forcing abortions on its citizens then I have no problem with women and doctors making informed decisions on their own. This is not an area for politicians.
The Constitution does NOT address the death penalty direcly. (Where does it say, the "right is sancrocanct unless it is forfeit by killing or endangering the life of an other?" THAT IS not in the Constitution!) IMO, (and basically this, as well as your argument IS opinion) that in order to call oneself "pro life" one should be consistant and be anti death penalty and totally anti war.
I suggest you witness a few amputations or a mastectomy. You don't know destruction until you have seen or had a leg, a foot, an arm, or a breast removed. You dont know destruction until you have to deal with the aftermath of a woman who had to have both breasts removed or a woman who had to have an emergency hystorectomy. Or a woman who has to have her ovaries removed. Or rather more closely to home for you, a man that has to have his testicles or even entire penis removed for some reason. Don't talk about destruction when you clearly have no clue. And you have no clue because the above quote made by you is such a stupid blanket statement. I'm sure a woman who just had her uterus removed values her personal organ over someone else's aborted feti.
First of all, I referred to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Second, the 5th Amendment says that no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The obvious implication is that they may be deprived of these rights with due process. Note that the 5th Amendment also specifically mentions capital crimes.
