A view which conveniently gives you an excuse to enslave women. It’s an opinion that is either irrational or evil.
That’s nice, but they are not Catholic.
I don’t the proper format for citing Canon Law, but:
According to Book VI, Sanctions in the Church, Part II Penalties for Individual Delicts, Title VI Delicts Against Human Life and Freedom, Can. 1398
Where did you learn this servile dependence on the federal government to solve all of life’s problems? I’m genuinely curious, here.
When was it the federal government obtained the right to control my uterus?
If a government is going to be responsible for creating social problems, it had better be prepared to offer alternative solutions.
What social problems has the government created in re: abortion?
monstro outlined several possible problems which could occur, should abortion be outlawed. Instead of addressing them, you just saw “government, government, government.” IOW; it would probably require a larger government to take care of the problems created by outlawing abortion that it does to keep it legal and safe.
You’re still for smaller government. Right?
I believe it was at the point where a distinct human being began to occupy it. Since you asked.
As a matter of fact, the government does provide alternatives (whether or not they should). Do you suggest otherwise?
I don’t think so. Since abortion isn’t prohibited by federal law, the federal government is not required to offer alternatives. But, since you seem to be in possession of knowledge to the contrary, please address each of monstro’s points, and explain how those problems are being/would be addressed, were a federal ban on abortion to go through.
When the Feds force the problem on someone, it’s the Fed’s responsibility.
Since that’s impossible, it’s irrelevant. An incomplete brain with minimal stimulation isn’t going to producing anything that should be called human.
First of all, none of montstro’s possible problems are caused by the federal government. Unwanted pregnancy is caused by the two people having sex. Plus rape is a crime. Neither situation can fairly be construed as “caused by the federal government.”
Smaller government? Hell yes. It should be decided by the states themselves, not the federal government. If South Dakotans don’t want it in their state, fine with me.
Are you trying to define “personhood”? As tough as that is, you might try to remain withing those boundaries. There’s no question a fetus is human, my friend. He is by definition.
[QUOTE=Updike]
First of all, none of montstro’s possible problems are caused by the federal government. Unwanted pregnancy is caused by the two people having sex. Plus rape is a crime. Neither situation can fairly be construed as “caused by the federal government.”/QUOTE]
Try actually reading this time. Here, I’ll make the type a bit larger for you.
If the federal government bans abortion, there’s a good possibility several societal problems will occur. Monstro outlined some of them. If those problems are created by banning abortion, then the federal government then becomes responsible for creating those problems.
The government doesn’t exist for itself. It exists to serve the people. All of them. Not just the ones that agree with you. You want the government to intervene on your behalf to force a woman to have a baby? Fine. YOU pay for it. Pay the doctor bills, the hospital bills, food bills, education costs, etc. You broke it, you fix it.
Taking a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy because you personally find it repugnant and then blaming her for daring to have sex is not only far more morally reprehensible than abortion, it’s obvious fear on the part of a bunch of socially stunted control freaks unable to stop themselves from telling everyone else how to live. Concentrate on your own life, Bubba. I don’t need your help.
Actually, fetuses don’t have gender til around the second trimester. Nice attempt at personalizing “him”, though.
“He” is nothing more than an extension of “his” mother. We discussed viability already. May wanna go back and read a bit.
Then you are defining a group of specialised cells as human. As other have pointed out before, this definition would also include tumours. Are tumours human? Is a thumb human? Nope. These cells, one day, if left to their own devices, will become human - but they are not a human yet, merely a part of a human.
Try to read standard English style guidelines. May wanna go back and read them a bit.
Viability has nothing–NOTHING–to do with whether or not a person is an extension of his mother. It has everything to do with that person’s probability of surviving outside the womb. By definition.
(On preview, I removed all the cursewords from my response. I commend myself on my composure.)
Yes. (I am not assigning it “personhood,” however, which is the province of pro-choice apologists.)
Um, yep.
You are trying, not terribly well, to define “personhood,” not “human,” it seems to me. Don’t parse words thusly in an attempt to distance yourself from the obvious. A fetus is human. If you want him to be devoid of rights, then make the argument. But he’s human.
Ah, I apologise. I assumed you were using the terms “human” and “personhood” interchangeably - i’m sorry I misread your posts.
So, it’s your position that a foetus is human, but is not a “person”. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? And why? (I’m pro-choice, btw).
Really? I’m a bit puzzled by it, myself. It is the Pit, I pretty much expect insults and cursing. But if you need to pat yourself on the back, you go right ahead.
Again; may wanna go back and read the whole thread. I realize you think the entire argument up til your posting was a complete waste of time. But we’ve discussed all this already.