Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reconsider Roe v Wade
It only makes sense.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action."

I would hate to ask where Miss Lila attended science class. Probably the same place that teaches us that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. Science does not address the philosophical issue of when life begins. It tells us when and how vital organs develop, that's it. Only God can define when life begins and he hasn't revealed that yet.

The activist judge needs to understand that forced abortion is illegal. It would have been a more honest analogy to compare homicide to "forced" abortion. I think both are a henoius crimes.

If we want the government to get involved in defining personhood it must be done through the legislative process including changes to the constitution. Then we can define the different levels of "personhood" like in that fine book "Brave New World" . There is no way an evangelical would the allow their property (kids and unborn) to enjoy the same rights and protections as themselves.

Abortion is the slipperiest of slippery slopes. It's best to keep Big Bro out of it.
It isn't whether an abortion is voluntary or involuntary (fetal homicide), is it a LIFE is the question. Hence, if it is a life, then voluntary or involuntary is homicide.

Since there is a law, Big Bro is involved.
There is no law addressing the "life" issue. That is part of the problem. Rather than having judges legislating from the bench or playing god, we should have a law. Until then, the constitutional right to privacy to is the overiding principle on the issue.
There certainly are laws against taking a life and plenty of people are in prison for that crime of murder. Additionally, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is our birthright.
You misread my post. I never said there weren't laws against taking a life.

On a unrelated note. Life, liberty and the pursuit of property being a birthright is a fantasy.
If there are laws regarding fetal homicide there is law regarding the 'life' issue. Now we need to address Roe v Wade to quit the hypocrisy.
I think you should cite that law about life. And while you are at it dig up any article from a real scientist proclaiming the precise moment life begins (based on science). And also while you at it explain what fetal homicide has to do with when life begins. And explain why you feel the need to describe a homicide as "fetal.
This is your answer to the last item.

Science doesn't have the answer. But, ask a woman who has missed her period and see what she says.
I support fetal homicide laws.

The women says oops first. Panic or elation second.

I'm not sure what you meant when you accused me of hypocrisy earlier. But I suppose I could be viewed as hypocritical for the following reasons.
1. I might hate abortion as much as anybody yet I think under certain circumstances it should legal, safe and unhindered by third part.
2. I have changed my views on legal abortion over my lifetime.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)