“No, you're not giving too much credit. Folks, like me, who oppose abortion aren't anything like 99.9% of what you read on this board.
Ours is the logical point-of-view: Human life either does or does not begin at fertilization. It does. It is an immutable fact that post-fertilization there exists a separate growing human life distinct from the mother.
A woman's choice occurred prior to fertilization. People, like myself, believe that after fertilization the guarantee of the right to life as expressed as inalienable in the United States Constitution prevails. Done. That's the entire argument.
On the other side is the logically messy counter-position that human life doesn't begin at fertilization, relying instead on an arbitrary definition of what is human "life" (with its attendant rights) and when does it "begin", is easily extrapolated to the support of the rights of infanticide and euthanasia.
Logic and the Constitution are on the side of folks who would deny the proposition that abortion is a right. It is not in the same way that infanticide and euthanasia are not.
Finally, to the argument that the SCOTUS has found that abortion is not Unconstitutional and is, therefore, unarguable settled law. Don't forget: Dred Scott v. Sandford
p--- on Oct 14, 2011 at 15:03:56
“you lost me at "a woman's choice occurred prior to fertilization." it never ceases to amaze me that men are totally uninvolved in the creation of a baby, that it's all the woman!”
ratskii on Oct 14, 2011 at 09:42:47
“Notice that your side also opposes most birth control because they say it "might" cause a newly fertilized egg to fail. Also note that your definition of when human life begins isn't even supported by the Bible: Exodus 21: 22-26.
And re: your claim that logic supports the anti-abortion position. Why not extrapolate further and make it murder for every woman who had a period without attempting to get pregnant? Every sperm is sacred, right?”
“Because one has a right to either criticize Romney, or to kill an innocent separate human being who resides in a woman's body, doesn't make it right or proper -- I suspect you know that.
Again, you make an assumption: Because Romney said his sons are too busy working to get him elected doesn't mean that he told them they had no choice. Your initial point was that he was to "let" his sons volunteer (for military service). His not "letting" them is an assumption on your part -- and therefore strays from the realm of what is fact. I would think you would be applauding Romney for "letting" his son's choose the the course of their lives.”
Anniebody on Oct 9, 2011 at 09:01:07
“I notice that you aren't defending the family dog's right to not ride on the roof of the car. Is it only children that have rights? Wouldn't someone with a strong religious background care about their family pet. As far as a women's rights about her reproductive organs, an embryo has the potential to become a human. It is not a human and it is abortion is the LAW! Abortions have always happened, way before ROE v Wade and they will continue to happen, no matter what the law. I will never applaud a war monger. He wants to send the 99ers off to war but keep his family safe because he has the money to do so. That is a hypocrite to me. Have a nice day.”
“You speak of facts? And then appeal to the authority of your 326 "fans"? Pathetic. I bet all of Vick's dogs thought he was a loving master.
I imagine in other instances you believe in Keynesian economics -- except, of course, when that spending is for the military. Further, care to cite where Romney proposes to eliminate "old age healthcare benefits"?
You're right on one thing though, the Democrats do indeed intend to enslave the US through out of control, non-productive, welfare spending leading to economic and cultural bankruptcy.”
“Sheez. You imply he didn't "let" his sons volunteer. Seems like a bit of an assumption, no? His sons are individuals and have a right to choose. I'm sure you're all about pro-choice.”
Anniebody on Oct 8, 2011 at 18:06:36
“He is the one that said they were too busy working to get him elected, not me. He is the one going on about Bushs war policies. So I feel I have a right to criticize that not one of his five sons have ever served the country. I also am not the one that drove to Canada with the family pet on the top of my car. Obviously, the dog didn't have a choice but of course I'm assuming that as well. Of course I believe in a womans right over her own reproductive organs and for that matter a man's. I worry about the children that are born already whose parents seem to be making them disappear more and more often these days.”
“Poor application of logic: "Nation of followers" refers to the people within the nation and makes no commentary on the people of other nations. Even if you still want to apply your flawed logic, this not being a nation of followers doesn't imply that attribute can't be shared by other countries.
Also, really?, you invoke his religion? I imagine you're the type of person who cries "racism" every time somebody is critical of Obama.”