I just don't understand people sometimes.

This question is, of course, ridiculous.

But if you want an answer, your two year old nephew can draw breath and be taken care of by any number of people.

A fetus is not the same thing as a two year old. To argue so doesn't make much sense.

 

I disagree with that construct in your last sentence. The VAST majority of the time, a life conceived in the womb is going to be a life. No one gets pregnant (accidentally or not) and assumes that a life isn't going to form. Isn't that one of the central reasons for an abortion?

 

Your assistance isn't needed 24-hours per day. If you walked away for a moment to go to the bathroom, your two year old nephew would continue to live.

In this instance, choice is referring to the option of having an abortion or not. It isn't loaded when you limit the scope. As such, these groups are anti-choice.


Now that these items seem to be ironed out...
Since this is a terrorist incident on American soil, will the president cease issuing the statement "There haven't been any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11"?

 

The question isn't ridiculous, and I wasn't comparing a two-year old to a fetus.

You talked about "existing on its own" and I was looking for clarification on exactly what you think that means.

If the pro-choice movement is going to use "existing on its own" as part of their argument, I would like clarification on exactly that term is interpreted.

If you think that's ridiculous then I don't know what to say...

 

Because those eggs aren't in the womb and there's no chance of conception of a viable human life until they are.

It's the same distinction between abortion and stem-cell research (though many believe stem-cell is wrong too). I don't have a problem with stem-cell, because that cell was never going to be a life ... hence no life is interfered with. Same thing with a fertilized egg that is not used to create a human life.

Abortion is a whole different enchilada.

 

Pastor - what about a person with severe disabilities that require 24x7 care?

 

I don't have an intimate knowledge of the specific battle you're referencing, so I'll withhold any further comment on that other than to note that no mainstream advocacy group is going to knowingly hop into bed with clinic bombers. People with exceptionally strong views, perhaps. Avowed terrorists, no.

And it's not one side, it's extreme fringes of one side. Again, that's like saying since Muslims did 9-11, Muslims are terrorists.

And how exactly can the national pro-life leadership eliminate bombings? Someone goes off the grid, there's not a lot you can do about that. Outside of starting a registry, banning its members from owning weapons and implanting tracking chips in their heads, their hands are tied.

 

This reminds me: I was driving to a game a few years ago and saw an Operation Rescue-esque protest near a restaurant. Aborted fetus posters and the works. I thought maybe the restaurant would be pissed that they were possibly losing business, except that it was a Friendly's, and so the issue would have been false advertising.

 

Of course, both sides argue over the numbers, but most doctors will tell you that somewhere around half of all fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus.

Another 15-20 percent implant but don't make it through the early stages.

Add to that natural miscarriages, and I think you have a pretty convincing case that the fertilized egg isn't a life yet. I just can't call a zygote that has not implanted a life if they fail half the time. To me, that's equivalent to calling a sperm a new life.

 

It's loaded because of the way "anti-choice" is used, in that the only people I've heard use it are abortion rights' leaders, and usually it's coupled with "zealot" or "anti-woman" or something similarly perjorative.

Anti-choice, the way it's used in American discourse, is most certainly meant to damage the other side of the argument, or at least to score points against them with the converted.

As for the terrorist thing: just because I think it can qualify as an act of terrorism doesn't mean that it actually was. There's people who think the Virginia Tech massacre counts. The most accurate phrase would be "no incidents of international terrorism since 9/11", but that's splitting hairs.

 

There is no such thing. The care-giver can always get up, go to the bathroom and return. That absence of a care-giver, regardless of whether it is 30-seconds or 10-minutes, is long enough.

They could start by issuing statements condemning the bombings and bombers. They could follow this up by assisting authorities in the tracking down of these terrorists.

 

It's as ridiculous a question as asking why a zebra and a carton of milk aren't the same thing.

And if you read Roe v. Wade, the address your question. It's why abortions have nearly always been no permitted after a certain point in pregnancy.

This isn't new stuff.

And Meat, there are many, many people who are anti-abortion and pro-choice