If you do this little word-switch you have a problem. It’s just a guess on my part, but I’d say that if a person was responsible for carrying around the life support equipment on their back, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 9 months, and was then responsible for taking care of the coma patient for 18 years once it left the vegetative state, we would have fewer coma patients than we do now.
Who woke this damn thing out of its coma?
::sigh::
Look, the fetus is not less entitled to protection of its right to life because it is in some compelling fashion superior to you or me. The fetus is less entitled to protection of its right to life because unlike you or me it is also and simultaneously a part of the body of another person.
You kill it without her permission, you’re a murderer. She kills it, or has it killed by acquiring the services of a practitioner with the skills and tools, she isn’t a murderer 'cuz it’s her body.
If I find you growing inside my body tomorrow, you can kiss your ass goodbye, I’m telling you that right now.
Well, up until 1972, the pro-life view was the rule of law. In January, 1972 that changed, now the rule of law favors the pro-choice. The reason is ethics, mores, laws change. Even she changed.
:eek:
Minus a couple interjections of half-concealed sarcasm; I just wanted to point out that I have provided the have-all and be-all of a correct analysis of this philosophiocal question. I’m not sure if anyone has provided this argument before (I wouldn’t be suprized shrug); regardless, the process and conclusions are correct. It is a potentiality argument, I replied to AZCowboy explaining why (with no response), and the logic derived from that potentiality argument remains unchallenged.
That means:
Pro-Life is the logical, moral and just choice of action and belief for all sentient beings, regardless of the time or technology that seperates them. Sentient beings who suppose differently, are simply relegated to not having been educated on this topic; or simply have different moral imperatives which maintain a more ‘liberal’ veiw on the topic of abortion. (moral imperatives like being elected president or maintaining church membership; in which case the logical center is corrupted from the action based centers of existence; and the individual possesses zero measuable integrity)
Does it not seem important to anyone that the answer is actually out there? Or is it just annoying because the debate stops, and you might have to be accountable for decades of logical indescretions?
Is this about truth and its derivations, or simply how truth can be concealed to meet ones needs?
I just find it interesting that nobody cared how clean, irrifutable and undeniable pure this argument is.
It makes me wonder how individuals would respond to irrifutable answers of deeper debate like the existence or non-existence of God. Does it spoil the fun to have an argument resolved?
-Justhink