Pro Life, or Pro Choice?

The sort of abortions we're talking about, deliberate ones.

This is only in case it is still-born, of course it's alive in the womb.

The intent of the lawmaker is considered in a legal battle, it is hard to say the founding fathers meant it in this way.

As for animals eating offspring, can you please list sources? Not saying you are wrong, i just couldn't find any instances of it happening.

The intent of the lawmaker is considered in a legal battle, it is hard to say the founding fathers meant it in this way.QUOTE]

all we can really do is speculate and make an educated guess about the intent of the founding fathers. There really wasn't any such thing as abortion as we know it then. So it's hard to say they meant anything about abortion in this law.

Reagaknight;15099 wrote:

The intent of the lawmaker is considered in a legal battle, it is hard to say the founding fathers meant it in this way.QUOTE]

all we can really do is speculate and make an educated guess about the intent of the founding fathers. There really wasn't any such thing as abortion as we know it then. So it's hard to say they meant anything about abortion in this law.

Which means that they weren't supporting abortion, which effectively takes away the argument that it can be used to support abortion, because they probably had no idea it would be interpreted in this way and usually have used no other venue to express their views on the subject, so we cannot tell what their intent would have been supposing they thought of abortion.

No, I believe you, and this is mostly what I thought.

This would be more because they need food though, then, instead of the wish to avoid responsibility for the child, like with most human cases. In species that support their children, that is something instinctive for them to do. If not, they would have evolved into a species that doesn't support its children. It also usually conflicts with the general rules of the animal species, I would think, beause the purpose of the eggs is to reproduce, which animals must do to survive. It would conflict with the survival of the species were it to be done commonly or as a general rule.

trapped.by.parties;15102 wrote:

Which means that they weren't supporting abortion, which effectively takes away the argument that it can be used to support abortion, because they probably had no idea it would be interpreted in this way and usually have used no other venue to express their views on the subject, so we cannot tell what their intent would have been supposing they thought of abortion.

no, but it can still be held as a legal loophole.

There can be many legal loopholes depending ow you look at it.

true, But i believe the question here is are you pro life or pro choice. I think we have both stated our stances. I don't believe the choice should be taken away. Not for reasons of instinct, Just the idea having the freedom to choose. There is nothing wrong with oposing abortion either, at least you have the balls to stand up for what you believe in. right or wrong.

Well yes, I am pro-life anti-abortion. I disagree with saying that you are pro-life but don't want to oppose abortion openly or enforce their beliefes on someone else(I'm pretty sure that isn't what you are saying though?). If you believe that abortion is wrong, I think you should say so and do something about it.

Too much freedom equals anarchy, too little, injustice. On-demand abortion is too much freedom for the woman as she can do what she wills with another life, and too little for the baby, which can be killed upon a whim. How to balance it out? give them both the same freedoms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; foremost, life.

And I think homosexuals can be homosexual, just that they should not exceed civil unions and go into the religious concept of marriages. What's the difference but the term and the religious nature of the union?

This has been brought up before very recently. As human life, it is wrong to kill it because that is murder. It is not the same as bacteria. it is human life and it has a brain and a heart and will very, very soon be conscious. It is simply fully formed during the third trimester. Its brain forms in around the third or fourth week. From conception, it is sure to be what it is going to be if it survives. For example, if it's going to be a male, dark hair, blue eyes, average intelligence, etc., it's not going to change what it will be the next week to blonde, green eyes, and female. It is going to be a human, and it will develop traits early on. To kill bacteria is much different.

And unless they have depression, most people would rather be alive than have never been born.

it's an ameoba, a cluster of cells comming together to form a child. it's not a child yet. i mean you can nitpick details but a child is not a child untill it is born. it will never know the difference between life and death untill it gets much older. My son is almost 3 now and is just now getting an understanding of life and death. those traits you speak of are mostly inherited traits, comming from the mother and the father. what if the father has strong clinical mental problems that cause murderous impulses. Or if the child is going to die within the first two years of its life span. The connection to the baby would not be as strong with the parents before they recognize it as a person. There generally will be less depression with an abortion than growing to love the baby for two years and watching it die.