Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, what's the point of arguing that our laws need to recognize that life begins at conception if there are NO legal repercussions? We currently hold that life begins at birth and have granted certain possibilities based on this perspective. Nothing needs to change, then.
No, we don't hold that life begins at birth. There are no legal repurcussions. For certain life forms life began at conception approximately 1.2 billion years ago. Human life has begun at conception since the conception of the first human, no religious belief or political ideology changes basic biology any more than drawing imaginary lines on a map, to indicate states or nations, changes the terrain of the land.
We have decided human life can be killed, pretty much without restrictions, before the final trimester.
If life begins at conception, does that mean that people who are over the age of 20 years and 3 months (according to their actual birth date) can legally drink?
No because the law requires you to reach your 21st birthday. Do you know the definition of birth?
We have decided human life can be killed, pretty much without restrictions, before the final trimester.
Correct.
Alas, as you noted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
We have decided to grant certain restrictions on being killed at viability. We have decided to grant citizenship rights at birth. We have decided to grant the right to vote at 18 years past birth, to drink at 21 years past birth.
In other words, our laws are what they are and that's just it. We have decided that abortions are acceptable under certain circumstances. We have also decided that the standard we apply to those circumstances are graded - they are generally not all or nothing, depending on the stage of gestation.
If life begins at conception, then our laws are already based upon that perspective since, as you noted, it has been like that for a rather long, long time.
Thus, changing our current laws to formally recognize that stance also means that we have to adjust ALL of our other laws to deal with such a change. We need to re-regulate anything from inheritance to child abuse (smoking while pregnant, anyone?). If we don't need to re-evaluate any of these laws and just leave them the way they are, then what is the point of legally recognizing life at conception as a principle?
If there are no legal repercussions AT ALL following such recognition, then it follows logically that there should be no shift in abortion laws, either. Or is there any reason why the legal recognition of life at conception should only affect one area of law but no others - other than legislating religious ideology onto others?
In other words, our laws are what they are and that's just it. We have decided that abortions are acceptable under certain circumstances. We have also decided that the standard we apply to those circumstances are graded - they are generally not all or nothing, depending on the stage of gestation.
If life begins at conception, then our laws are already based upon that perspective since, as you noted, it has been like that for a rather long, long time.
Thus, changing our current laws to formally recognize that stance also means that we have to adjust ALL of our other laws to deal with such a change. We need to re-regulate anything from inheritance to child abuse (smoking while pregnant, anyone?). If we don't need to re-evaluate any of these laws and just leave them the way they are, then what is the point of legally recognizing life at conception as a principle?
If there are no legal repercussions AT ALL following such recognition, then it follows logically that there should be no shift in abortion laws, either. Or is there any reason why the legal recognition of life at conception should only affect one area of law but no others - other than legislating religious ideology onto others?
I agree.
The fact is I am old enough to have had biology before Roe v. Wade or global warming were issues. Life beginning at conception and CO2 being a greenhouse gas were not something to argue over, they were facts. The fact that abortion and global warming are now political issues does not change the facts of biology and chemistry, to argue differently is absurd.
Abortion needs to be more frequent. Legalized abortion is a major contributing factor in reducing crime and welfare. Abortion needs to be safe, legal and common. Keep killing present and future parasites.
Eliminate welfare and offer free abortions and our country will be going in the right direction. If you can't afford to raise children kill the developing human life in the womb.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
