Story.
If there's one thing I know about pro-life candidates is that they do not have national appeal.
A candidate that says he will ban abortions will not be more than state senator.
Time and time again the voters make their voice heard on this, especially women.
clap
<pause>
clap
<pause>
clap
<pause>
clap
And by the way, Rand, the moment it's human is very much a religious question, you know, First Amendment territory. Congress shall make no law... stuff.
And before anyone goes off on me about this, make sure that God's not involved in your decision process concerning the moment the zygotes become people.
I will not accept religious based arguments on this because I don't believe in your Gods.
I remain open minded enough to be swayed by a convincing and compelling argument, though.
I think that I mentioned, more than once, that I am not very conservative except on guns and economics.
I'll start.
It is a human being when the collection of cells can live in the atmosphere and process nourishment through its digestive tract. Before that it's just human tissue. Example, a heart is definitely human tissue, is it a person?
As long as people are getting pregnant when they don't want kids you're going to have abortions. The procedure is literally medieval. Just like banning guns will not eliminate guns, banning abortion doesn't stop it. There's the pragmatic position.
The only way you're not risking having a kid is to not have sex with another person. There a lots of ways to mitigate against it, but the exact same people who are so damn passionate about banning abortions are the people who also don't want any pubescent to learn about sex except as a DIY kit. Biology wins here. To override biology you need to present a compelling case as to why. You may note that a woman who's getting an abortion has found such a reason.
I'll admit, it's a stupid form of birth control, but is your position helping or hurting?
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
Hey bud, I'm not sure this is about completely banning abortion, it's this super late term stuff that gets my goat, a 7 or 8 month pregnancy isn't an abortion, in my humble opinion, it's more like murder. I'd never go off on a friend over his belief, it your belief, I just don't think they should be allowed to pull a baby out and scramble its brain just to make someones life easer.
ReplyDeleteNotice my definition. Can survive in the atmosphere, digest food. Pretty much the entire third trimester can pull that off.
ReplyDeleteI did.
My due date was mid February and I was born late December.
Here's mine: It is a human being at the point of implantation. Why implantation as opposed to conception or "viability" (a clinical term for your definition)?
ReplyDeleteBecause implantation is the point at which that collection of living cells will continue to grow to birth and eventual adulthood, barring natural causes or external intervention. Implantation is the point at which the final element needed for that zygote to develop through to birth - the connection to the mother that provides the necessary nourishment - is present. At that point, the child will naturally continue to grown on its own.
Not all fertilized eggs will implant successfully (after a quick googling, it looks like about 30% - 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant), and just under 2% of pregnancies are ectopic, which I do not consider "successful" since it is not survivable. So "conception" is a poor point, with a fairly high failure rate that is based largely on chance and timing, and especially since most of those failures occur without the mother even being aware of it.
My issue with "viability" as a test is that it's a target that continually moves as medical treatment improves. Babies are born today and living that would never have survived even 10 years ago. It's an inconsistent definition (or, more specifically, one that is slowly but continually moving earlier and earlier into the pregnancy), unless you rule out medical intervention when making it.
So that's my line: successful implantation = human life. Because at that point, it WILL be born unless something actively prevents it.
I was going to reply. Then it occurred to me that I've vented my spleen and don't really wanna talk about it any more.
ReplyDeleteIt just alienates people to no good end.
Which was really the point of the original post, there's going to be a lot of woman voters who're pro gun and fiscally conservative that will be voting for anyone but Mr Pro Life, or staying home. Giving us another four years of...?
No worries. It's a touchy enough subject that I was a little hesitant to comment in the first place, even with the beginnings of a reasonable discussion in place.
ReplyDelete"there's going to be a lot of woman voters who're pro gun and fiscally conservative that will be voting for anyone but Mr Pro Life, or staying home. Giving us another four years of...?"
On that, I cannot really disagree - except that I don't think it will be just pro gun and fiscally conservative women who will be turned off by it.
Much like the story of the Roman general who had a slave to whisper "You're only mortal" in his ear every time the crowds cheered him, I think every Republican needs an aide whose only job is to scream "It's a trap!" in his or her ear any time it even looks like they're going to comment on these kinds of social issues. It's probably the only way they'll ever actually learn.