Originally Posted by joeydb
"sperm and egg meeting is just one of many steps involved in what will ultimately, possibly, create a new human being. them doing the tango doesn't mean squat if the new combo doesn't get attached to the uterine wall...and then develop, etc, etc and remain til it gets far enough along to survive delivery."
OK, fine, but the whole pro-life stance of many is anchored on finding the point at which nothing should be done to baby--that line has been set, remember? 24 weeks? after that point, states can make rules, and some have chosen to do so. others have not. and that time frame hasn't been altered from that time to now. unless/until medical advances change that, it will remain the line.
, so while you are correct of course on the mechanics you describe above, that is all the more reason to NOT interfere with the well-being of the baby-completely disagree. one, that ignores what science knows. two, there is a human involved-the woman. it's her decision, her body, her uterus. i will never, ever concede the rights of a potential human override the life of the person who is actually a human, already here, and fully capable of deciding for herself. she knows her life, her circumstances, her abilities, or her health.
. And as a practical matter, no one is pursuing an abortion for a non-attached zygote, as there is no need, and the levels of hormones in the blood that indicate pregnancy are not detectable until the attachment occurs.
The development of a human being - no surprise - is extremely complex and complicated. Some of the concepts are not - like the DNA blueprint, but even that is so huge that it was only recently decoded to an extent by the Human Genome Project. Picking an arbitrary point for "yes before this point, and no thereafter" is almost impossible - as the 1973 Supreme Court themselves grappled with until they themselves defined viability as a legal device. viability wasn't arbitrarily chosen. it isn't a 'legal' device.
The Supreme Court decision did indeed short circuit official debate, since Congress knows that even though they are free to pass whatever bill they want, up to and including a ban, that if they do so the debate alone will shut down Congress. The three coequal branches of government are free to act - the Supreme Court is not "boss" of the other two, no matter how far you take Marbury vs. Madison and the Constitutionally unsupported concept of "judicial review". ...i'm sorry you don't understand what you just wrote about.
Abortion is easily shown to be the horrible act that it is, not just by videotaped observation of the reality as has come to light, and not just by the scientific facts regarding conception being the point where all the DNA is fused and the organism growing constantly, but also philosphically..
What is the purpose for pursuing an abortion? It is an acknowledgement that if an abortion is not committed, -gasp-, a baby is coming. maybe it is, maybe it's not. but yes, everyone is aware that if a pregnancy proceeds, a baby will come.
but if i throw away an acorn, i didn't chop down an oak tree.
And unlike birth control which will prevent the process from starting, and which very few people have an issue with, the fact that it has started and must be stopped, must mean that something that is living will be rendered non-living. yeah, not quite. when i miscarried, i didn't say my baby died. i said i had a miscarriage. and yes, an abortion ends a pregnancy, which again would produce a baby if it's carried the whole time. and a lot of people do have issues with bc, and i've seen countless discussion where people claim certain bc is an abortaficent. of course them holding that opinion doesn't make it so.
When something is transitioned from living to dead through the actions of another, that's killing.
When that something is a human being, that's murder.
If there is a process and a strategy for doing all of that, that's called premeditation, and is the worst form of murder recognized by the law.
People rallying around Planned Parenthood are calling this an assault on women's health. the previous three sentences imo are ridiculous. it's your opinion, which you have a right to have. having said this, do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion? and it is an assult on a womans health. pregnancy for centuries was the number one cause of death for women. it still kills women. and should women here have to go thru stuff like that poor girl in paraguay? forced at ten to carry a pregnancy to term..pregnant after being raped by her step father.
They do not address the central question: When a healthy woman goes to a clinic to abort a healthy baby, is that a women's health issue? the exceedingly vast majority of abortion occurs before week 12, and the vast majority of those-before week 8. people keep saying 'week 20 should be the limit', but week 20 is when many prenatal testing can finally be done-testing that would show an unhealthy fetus. so, one, you don't know it's a 'healthy baby' that early on, it's too soon to tell a darn thing. two, a healthy woman can get pretty unhealthy in a hurry further along, and three, if they bar abortion at 20 weeks, women would be forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term. i can't imagine having to do that, especially with some of the issues some fetuses develop.
If one or the other is not healthy, if the mother's life is in danger and there is no other way to save her life, that's a different story.
But let's be clear: the hand wringing from the pro-abortion crowd is not about the small percentage of extraordinary circumstances like rape or a legitimate life-threatening condition. It's about the other 99% of the 340,000 abortions per year that are not in that category. it's pro choice, not pro abortion many pro choice people don't like abortion, would never have one-but don't think their views should be foisted on every one else-unlike the anti-choice pro birth crowd.
And guess what? I do agree about better birth control, thereby PREVENTING this situation. And I further agree that kids are not punishments but blessings, but I'm not the one you need to convince: more like the parents of the 340,000+ that will die in the next year.
|