That is really the wrong question. It should be, as you say, when does life come to the fetus. But, the more appropriate question is, when do the TWO people take responsibility for the actions that likely will produce a new life. If we focus on that we might find a reasonable solution.
watch the movie “unplanned” a true story. You can see the baby trying to move away from the abortionists suctioning its limbs off. It is barbaric. At the hands of a doctor. Of course I’ve been drawing attention to the doctors overprescribing contributing to the opioid crisis for years. STOPPNow (Stop the Organized Pull Pushers) Now.
And the language becomes very important. Denying the humanity of the unborn is critical. A woman’s right to “ control” her body? That begins at coitus and there are so many ways to evade conception. Controlling her body means not getting pregnant not just the right to kill the kid.
All the control my body clique denied that same right regarding the covid vaccines. And please stop with the rape and incest crowd.
The basic question "when does life begin" has become a profoundly moral issue wrapped in semantics. The unavoidable fact is a new, more unique living entity begins at conception. An adult who makes the choice to kill that life has imposed his/her capacity to act upon another who is helpless and vulnerable. That imposition of power is no less than choosing to kill an infant, to kill a puppy or kitten - all of which are roundly considered to be immoral, inhumane, cruel and, in most cases, inarguably worthy of severe sanction. Playing with semantics is merely an exercise in talking oneself into justifying an egregious act.
Good video, Ken. It's easy to see a future where the point of viability gets closer and close to the point of conception, which would make the abortion issue more fraught than ever. I can even envision a time when any abortion is considered barbaric.
But we're not there yet. There's a lot to be said for the "safe, legal and rare" position that Democrats mostly abandoned in the 2000s when they tacked left on abortion. But the "rare" part isn't realistic without a social safety net that's stronger than Republicans will support.
I think abortion should be reserved for cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother, but on a more basic level any policy should be grounded in compassion, which is scarce in politics these days. Compassion for the mother and for the fetus. Not just one or the other.
Finally, abortion is a social issue at the intersection of science and morality. We should consider the possibility that politics isn't the best arena to settle this conflict.
That is really the wrong question. It should be, as you say, when does life come to the fetus. But, the more appropriate question is, when do the TWO people take responsibility for the actions that likely will produce a new life. If we focus on that we might find a reasonable solution.
watch the movie “unplanned” a true story. You can see the baby trying to move away from the abortionists suctioning its limbs off. It is barbaric. At the hands of a doctor. Of course I’ve been drawing attention to the doctors overprescribing contributing to the opioid crisis for years. STOPPNow (Stop the Organized Pull Pushers) Now.
And the language becomes very important. Denying the humanity of the unborn is critical. A woman’s right to “ control” her body? That begins at coitus and there are so many ways to evade conception. Controlling her body means not getting pregnant not just the right to kill the kid.
All the control my body clique denied that same right regarding the covid vaccines. And please stop with the rape and incest crowd.
The basic question "when does life begin" has become a profoundly moral issue wrapped in semantics. The unavoidable fact is a new, more unique living entity begins at conception. An adult who makes the choice to kill that life has imposed his/her capacity to act upon another who is helpless and vulnerable. That imposition of power is no less than choosing to kill an infant, to kill a puppy or kitten - all of which are roundly considered to be immoral, inhumane, cruel and, in most cases, inarguably worthy of severe sanction. Playing with semantics is merely an exercise in talking oneself into justifying an egregious act.
At Conception
It's so controversial because there isn't really a right answer.. This video is as close to a balanced look at the issue as we'll ever get!
Good video, Ken. It's easy to see a future where the point of viability gets closer and close to the point of conception, which would make the abortion issue more fraught than ever. I can even envision a time when any abortion is considered barbaric.
But we're not there yet. There's a lot to be said for the "safe, legal and rare" position that Democrats mostly abandoned in the 2000s when they tacked left on abortion. But the "rare" part isn't realistic without a social safety net that's stronger than Republicans will support.
I think abortion should be reserved for cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother, but on a more basic level any policy should be grounded in compassion, which is scarce in politics these days. Compassion for the mother and for the fetus. Not just one or the other.
Finally, abortion is a social issue at the intersection of science and morality. We should consider the possibility that politics isn't the best arena to settle this conflict.
A "respect for life" is an instinctive belief that comes naturally. To lose or defy that is unnatural, enter the democrat.