Dragonlady
Designing Woman
You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.
That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.
There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.
I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.
You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.
If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?
Let's start with your first lie: You are not taking the "life of the most innocent and defenseless child". You are terminating a pregnancy, which may or may not become a baby. I've had 5 pregnancies but only three babies. The other two pregnancies ended with a "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage". On average, 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Scientists believe that there was some sort of failure in the genetic plan and the fetus wasn't viable. On my last miscarriage, ultrasounds showed no heartbeat at 6 weeks, and no heartbeat and no growth at 8 weeks.
Every sperm is not sacred, and every fetus was not meant to be. Biology has given women the option to chose to end her pregnancy and pick a better time, and certainly during times of war or famine, it was necessary for the survival of the family. Given the lives of young working poor women in the USA, having more than one child is really not a viable option.
sorry but youre the liar,,,
100% OF PREGNANCYS result in a baby barring catastrophic events that end its life,,,
And you’re an idiot who needs to take a biology class before commenting further.