You may have a point. Liberals generally don't try to legislate their religious BELIEFS and force them on everyone.
Sure they can, on issue doesn't define them...but being a Liberal Progressive means that you're too smart to want to restrict women's rights or believe that abortion is murder.
[video=youtube;G880gxjj9dI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G880gxjj9dI&list=PL6FA3E6E9D2264689&feature=share[/video] [video=youtube_share;km45mHYyqjc]http://youtu.be/km45mHYyqjc[/video] [video=youtube_share;XjBMdPjBwiY]http://youtu.be/XjBMdPjBwiY[/video] [video=youtube_share;mfojnjPOWP8]http://youtu.be/mfojnjPOWP8[/video]
Watch the Hippie Tree one again - where she says 'bring me to THIS cathedral.' I digress. How are my (or CKW's) views on abortion based on a 'religious' belief?
Right, I think you understand environmentalism is not a religion. According to Gallup... "polling data suggest...that the depth of ones religious beliefs...is what drives attitudes on abortion. The overwhelming majority of people who say religion is very important in their lives believe abortion should either be illegal or legal in only a few circumstances." http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx It then follows that someone who indicates religion is important to them, and is also pro-life, that her view is based on religion. You have never indicated to me that your pro-life view is based on religion. You have made it clear it is not based on a deep reverence for life (you don't care about the rate of abortion), and the important thing to you is to make abortion a punishable crime. That suggests to me your view is based on misogyny.
I can completely understand how someone can be for the protection of the environment for non religious reasons. Now, can you understand how someone (myself or CKW) can be for the protections of prenatal children for NON religious reasons as well? According to Gallup... I wasn't asking you about anyone other than myself and CKW. I don't need God in my life or religion in my life - to know that an abortion kills a child. So, your poll has nothing to do with me or the question I asked you. "How are my views based upon religion?" While I am not 'anti-life' - I don't claim to be 'pro-life' either. (I can support the death penalty and even wars to defend lives and freedoms) Is there a reason why you can't just appreciate the fact that I am "anti-abortion?" You are failing to see the difference between 'rates' and totals. I know that I have told you that ONE voluntary abortion is one too many. So, while I don't care about the abortion 'rate' - You conclusion about how that translates to not caring about 'life' is completely wrong. The important thing to me if to make sure children in the womb are being afforded the equal protections of our laws. Making the violations of a child's rights something that is 'punishable' is only a necessary aspect of securing and protecting the child's rights. So, again you have it wrong. Punishment is not the goal, it's only a means to protect the rights of those who are being violated. Of course it does. You can't afford (politically) to admit that we care about women AND the children they carry at the same time. That wouldn't fit your (figuratively yours) template at all.
ah yes the usual defense appears . .do you know what informal use means? did you notice on these two you offered that they both are about FUTURE events. Next you will be telling me that if I call my car 'my baby' it must be a person.
so vets don't humanely put animals to sleep then Humane does not only refer to humans . .I know the words look the same and might be easily confused by some people. one definition of humane is "inflicting the minimum of pain" . .abortion meets that definition.
Nah the ones actually stated by the person and backed by the documented evidence, all to put people in the picture of the nature of the the beast
I suggest that the focus remain on the topic and not each other. If nonsense continues there will be thread bans followed by infractions. JohnnyMo Moderator
Apologies, I take full responsibility for creating the problem and as such offer my apology to Chuz Life.
When someone says Christians believe abortion is murder, that's a good indication her views are based on religion. And overwhelmingly, pro-lifers are religious according to Gallup. I know the difference. Rates are more useful for comparison. How does a law that is ignored "protect" anything?
When I say it - it is based only on the Constitution and the biological facts. We don't know the future - so we can't know that it will be ignored.
How is it you can base your view on "biological facts" when scientists don't even agree on a theory? Carl Sagan, as brilliant as he was, did not pretend to know when one becomes a human being. But YOU know. When we don't know the future, we base our predictions and actions on what has happened in the past. We don't assume something might work even though it has never worked before.
Am I expected to regard Carl Sagan as an authority or something? He's no authority to me. Also, I disagree wit you when you claim there is non consensus among scientists - as to when and how a new human being's life begins. The problem has not been with what scientists have been able to document and prove. The problem has been with how government (law makers) interpret and apply those findings. The rights of children are not ours to make compromises with.
LOL. See, your position requires you to casually reject the opinion of a world reknowned, profoundly brilliant scientist. If there is ANY "authority," Sagan would certainly qualify as one. Sagan doesn't count, then? And another, world reknowned embryologist, Lewis Wolpert, who says fertilized eggs are not human beings--he doesn't count? Here is another scientific view: This paper re-examines the question of whether quirks of early human foetal development tell against the view (conceptionism) that we are human beings at conception. A zygote is capable of splitting to give rise to identical twins. Since the zygote cannot be identical with either human being it will become, it cannot already be a human being. Parallel concerns can be raised about chimeras in which two embryos fuse. I argue first that there are just two ways of dealing with cases of fission and fusion and both seem to be available to the conceptionist. One is the Replacement View according to which objects cease to exist when they fission or fuse. The other is the Multiple Occupancy View - both twins may be present already in the zygote and both persist in a chimera. So, is the conceptionist position tenable after all? I argue that it is not. A zygote gives rise not only to a human being but also to a placenta - it cannot already be both a human being and a placenta. Neither approach to fission and fusion can help the conceptionist with this problem. But worse is in store. Both fission and fusion can occur before and after the development of the inner cell mass of the blastocyst - the entity which becomes the embryo proper. The idea that we become human beings with the arrival of the inner cell mass leads to bizarre results however we choose to accommodate fission and fusion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076123 Devbio is an online biology text which explains several scientific theories on the subject and this: "Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it." http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf It has long been established by international human rights groups and courts worldwide that human rights are accrued at birth. So, seriously, what is the source of the idea that prenates have rights? The rights of women are not yours to make compromises with.
