I'll have to explain it to you.
I asked the question of why you think that the custody of the unborn's rights should be in the states hands, you answered a different question that I didn't answer. You answered the question of whether or not the state had the duty to protect us. Your answer doesn't answer my question. Claiming that it does directly implies that I asked a different question than I actually asked.
Hense your misquote.
I will take from your answer though that you believe that the state should have custody only to choose life.
It saddens me that I have to translate your answer, and that you couldn't just answer my very direct question.
Quote:
So then am I to assume then that a state mandated abortion would be okay with you?
This question is based on what I precieve from you a bias that the state should have control of those rights.
If you are consistant in your stance, you MUST answer YES to this question. Asking me what "I'm talking about," is only your cowardice to admit that you have a big hole in your stance.
If you choose right now to reply that ,NO, the government should not have the choice to do so, well the proble then is much more obvious.
It would seem that you are only in favor of the government having custody over our rights when it benifits YOUR beliefs. Your stance isn't consistant.
You quote the declaration of independance like a silver bullet, yet it is not representitive of your stance.
You believe in capitol punishment, and I'd by no stretch imagine you are pro-war.
Your stance, is crap. Posting something like the above only shows your own shortsight.
Life may begin on a microscopic level at conception, but life at such a level is not exclusive to humans. Rights are a social contract within our society.
Morally
Abortion when treated as a moral issue, veries greatly.
Take for instance the example of three deaths: A woman having a miscarriage, and a 20 year old man dying, and a 50 year old woman dying. All of natural causes.
The emotional reaction to all are great, but there is a significant difference between the born and unborn's death significance is there, and undenable.
There difference in the 20 year old and 50 year old is only measurable in the affected people that the person knew.
I'd say that the difference in the unborn and the born is their (and for simple convienice of recently used termonology) personhood. It's something that can't be granted by simple biology.
RL - Morally, you make the perfect case for reasons for you to not get an abortion. You clearly articulate how a abortion would make YOU feel. You also make claer what you feel about those who have abortions, morally, uniformly. You however make no moral case for anyone else, further you admit how abortion doesn't affect you, adding to the complication of why you feel entitled to such strong moral objections. You also equate the morality of stem cell cultivation through SCNT as being the same act as a partial birth abortion, further a old blind man being shot and murdered. This is unfounded.
Morally, I find adoption to be a more appealling alternative, however I also feel that if the so called pro-life movement were as empassioned about the issue of life as they claim to be, more effort would be shown to improve the lives of countless children who need homes and support, further single parent assistance.
I believe the test is simple, prove to the country/world that we can take care of those who are born. Prove that we as a community can support not only our wanted, but our unwanted childeren. Then and only then, can you find such deficiet in a person seeking abortion, because then and only then, would the alternative be a garantee. I'm sure the pro-life movement will fail this test.
Legally
Legally the issue of aboriton's legitimacy has been driven by several things, namely a word: "personhood," something in which the supreme court held as NOT being establish as an unborn.
Further, the struggle of the who holds the custody of the rights of the unborn is debated. For one to take the stance that a mother has no legal right to make decisions for another person, one would also have to surrender other more culturally acceptable practices of just that. to name a few, circumcision, or having someone certified and detained.
Legally, I say that the mother/couple should have the choice whether or not to birth a child, knowing all while that choices need to be made early in a pregnacy. I find no malicious intent in either abortion or stem cell cultivation, I find no more finacial greed/ambition ni abortion practice than in any other medical practice. I further can find no culteral/societal benifit to legislation to make abortion illegal. Abortion has been illegal before and the true atrocities of abortion have already happened.
I also feel that in the interest of safety, abortions should be documented as anly other medical operation, performed under hospitol standerds etc, as well has before and after cosultations.
As for the issue of stem cell cultivation, it offends me to think that the two issues would be treated as the same further: Murder. Stem cell cultivation is a step towards a great benifit to our society, not the opposite.
Lastly - I now declare that I label myself as Pro-life, as my stance as much as it is about liberty, is further about cultural development and the PROMOTION of LIFE. Like it or hate it, That's my stance, I can call it what I wish. I don't need to be a part of any movement but my own. I can think for myself.
Diest TKO: Pro-Life.
