Yeru,
Jan, the sceince I've read says that 1st Trimester babies DO indeed feel pain.
I suggest you post references. Otherwise, I will just ask you to read the findings of fact in the Roe vs Wade judgment. It covers the issues pretty well.
Muttled science so lets err on the side of caution.
And religion hasn't? You believe in certain ideas because you have read in a book that some god said so to a man who may have lived 2-3000 years ago. That is well and dandy for you, but having those ideas made into law to dictate the actions of others is absolutely bizarre.
To err on the side of caution should mean leave the decision to the mother, not you, and not the state.
Why does "err on the side of caution" have to mean that the woman should go back into the chains of religionists? We already agree that the woman is a human life, but for some reason religionists don't seem to attribute so much value to it.
With no real brain there is of course no thought, and no thought means no pain. That should be pretty obvious.
Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion are no more childish than PRO-CHOICE and ANTI-ABORITON.
As I explained, this is what it is about. "Pro-lifer" is a term that could just as well refer to vegans or oppinents of capital punishment. It is essentially meaningless, and just chosen for PR reasons. You are anti-abortion, and should stand up to that. The term pro-choice is neither a very good one, as it is too generic. Pro-abortion-choice would perhaps be more fitting, and accurate, but it is certainly accurate on the context of the abortion debate.
Your first statement made NO sense to me at all.
LOL.
The concern is not only with Pain for the baby but about proper moral choices. That a baby is in the womb or out of it shouldn't matter, Genetically, what is inside the mother is human, it meets the criteria for "life" it is a HUMAN LIFE,
Of course, this is what it is
really about. Pushing old anti-sex laws (labelled, oddly, "moral") to take us back to the old testament. Most traditional sex regulations were put in place to control women in the first place, so you follow up in good tradition.
How can you, btw, talk about "proper moral choices", when your whole idea is that people should not be given moral choice? You want to dictate what women should do under threats of legal sanctions. That is not proper, not moral, and it is certainly not a choice.
Why not push for more sex education and responsible sex and less abortion on demand, which only encourages more irresponsible sex in society.
Again, you demonstrate your true colors. You want to restrict abortion to control people's sexuality, again because you believe some ghost in the sky don't like that people fuck without having a proper paper.
I have all the respect in the world for a gal who got raped or whose life is endangered by the pregnancy. This is clearly a matter between her and GOD.
Well, then you just demonstarted that you DON'T think the fetus is a life like a child is after birth. I doubt you would accept killing a newborn child because it was conceived through rape. You don't really believe your own arguments. If the early fetus is just as much a human being as a child, then it must be totally irrelavant whether the pregnancy was caused by a rape.
Since we already agree that the concern for a woman is more important than the concern for an unborn fetus, the question is just who we want to make the decisions.
WHat I oppose is abortion on demand that holds human life as disposable.
What you want is to control people's sexuality. It seems to be the core issue of Christianity. This god of yours is still obsessed with the sex lives of human beings, so many years after he wanted to collect baby foreskins.
Sure, it would be great if nobody had any sex that resulted in unwanted pregnancies, and all children were born into teh care of able parents. Alas, this is a pipedream. We have to deal with reality, Yeru. And reality is that lots of people will make stupid decisions when it comes to many issues, and sex in particular.
Better sex education, which is strongly opposed by most of your fellow religionists, is a key to improve the situation (and, FYI, "abstinence" is not a form of sex). But it will never be perfect. If your concern was really the wellbeing of humans, you would support not only contraceptives, but also the use of abortion pills that works on a tiny lump of cells that have no sentient feelings whatsoever, instead of waiting until we have to deal with the ethical problems of late abortions.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
