On 9/25/2011 9:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 25/09/2011 3:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/25/2011 11:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/09/2011 5:11 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait
wrote:
On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote:
So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a
human?
At conception.
===
That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.
What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do you
want?
You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails the
common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion
advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now
that
you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled law,
and
nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it.
It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with whom
you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a
secular law.
There is no such thing as "settled law."
It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but
there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow
children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other
(secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that feel
that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV,
which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They are
even taking their position to court to defend their right as parents
to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane,
right?
Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals
beliefs
are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot stand to
let others live their own lives.
Actually, when it comes to abortion and religion, drop the liberal and
conservative thing. Bot sides have their fanatics that feel the right to
tell others what to do.
Libertarian versus statism might have better alignment. Comes down to
how much do you believe others have the rights to make their own
choices?
What more do they want? They already have abortion on demand as a
"compromise", what is next, will they get to choose who must have an
abortion??
So? What is wrong with the choice being exclusively between the woman
and the doctor?
It isn't your womb after all.
How about government dictating circumcision? (or banning it?)
Or maybe one step further, claim your genetics are not good enough and
you must be sterilized. (an every genome has defects, that is why we are
not the same).
My point is, why are we even talking about it.. How much more
"compromise" do you want, you have abortion on demand now, paid for and
delivered by organizations who have only one solution in their arsenal,
and make a ton of money on it, with no right for any other information
or opinion to the young girl that walks in....? if there is any more
"compromise"... we will be at the point of: "government dictating
circumcision (or banning it?) Or claiming your genetics are not good
enough and you must be sterilized." So, I ask you again, how much more
"compromise" do you want?