![]() ![]() Whether you find that acceptable or not is no matter to me - It's no less factual based on your skepticism. ![]() that there are proofs and that I do have some (others have much more), and that one day you may also. In fact I said quit clearly that I didn't, only And, an acorn is not a tree nor is a chicken egg, that I ate for breakfast, a chicken. I suggest you read it.Īnd re your flower analogy. Being of a different nationality, perhaps you aren't familiar with the 14th Amendment. Else, shouldn't I have had a funeral, named it and registered it? It was not deserving of the protection of laws as a person, defined in the 14th Amendment, is. Should these beliefs be codified into law to forbid medical treatment or blood transfusions just because there are people who believe this?īTW, I have written other places that my belief is at the very core of my being in that I had a spontaneous abortion at 8 weeks and that blob of tissue that I flushed down the toilet was in no way a baby. Perhaps you would also believe as Christian Scientists do about medical treatment or Jehovah's Witnesses do re forbidding blood transfusions. It is no different with any other belief because beliefs are not facts that the majority believes and adopts willingly. But, changing the law requiring everyone to become a Roman Catholic would be off-limits and I hope you agree. That's no different than trying to convert a Methodist to Roman Catholicism. You are free to not have an abortion and to try to convince others that your belief is correct. I respect your belief, but don't, and never will, share it. So, the difference is that you and your fellow-believers want to impose your belief on us, through laws. I don't want to pay for that.Click to expand.I believe differently. Nevermind that I have no patience on the issue when the same people who insist that the concept of life is so sacred that a fertilized egg should be treated as a full person, but the moment that egg finally has turned into a birthed child, the speaker says "**** 'em. But if it can't, there's no point, because it's inevitably dead even with the most state of the art care at that point, the mother's rights should probably take precedence. Which gets to the real question: at what point in human development should the constitution grant the full rights of a person-citizen to an entity? The best balancing you're going to find is the one we already have: once a fetus is reasonably viable outside the womb with medical care, it should be treated as a full person under the constitution. Yet nobody asks if any of those things have the rights of a person or citizen. An intestinal parasite can be called life. The question is not "can this thing be called life?" My finger can be called life. ![]() It intentionally asks the wrong question. I have never seen a thread framed that way result in anything but its creator announcing that each participating poster has presented an insufficient argument, then acting like this mean the OP starting position must be correct.Īt any rate, you're never going to make headway with someone who uses the "life begins at conception" line. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |