As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.
The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.
The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.
My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.
We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.
So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.
Huh? The conservative point of view is not that a fetus has the POTENTIAL to become a human life. It IS a human life. Surely you understand that a fetus isn't a puppy or goldfish or fern. It is a human fetus, the fetus has life and is alive - therefore it is a human life. Not a potential human life -a real human life and not that of a puppy. And certainly not that of an insect. Humans who have mated can only create another human life -basic biology in play here. Denying its shared humanity for no reason but its stage of maturity requires total abandonment of any critical thinking skills, common sense and the ability to reason. Its life started at conception and it can die naturally or be killed at any point from then on. Birth only determines when citizenship begins -not life.
And WHAT on earth makes you deem a human fetus to somehow be a "lesser" life form than an INSECT? Are you for real? An insect at all times and at every stage of its development is an INSECT. A human life at all stages of development is a HUMAN LIFE -it is physically incapable of being anything BUT a human life. So exactly how much more "complicated" does it have to be for you than "human life"? A human fetus is just an immature human being at every point -just like a week old baby is also an immature human being. As is a 2 yr. old, a 9 yr. old, a 14 yr. old etc. So deciding that some immature human lives are legitimate targets for murder while other immature human lives are not -is an ARBITRARY line in the sand. One I refuse to draw.
Most liberals have no problem drawing that line though. They figure if an immature human life is hidden from their eyes while growing -it doesn't REALLY count as a real human life. Only when its shared humanity can no longer be denied because it is no longer hidden from their view does it count as a "real" human life. Maybe they think that until the very last moment there is a good chance it really might end up being a puppy. But it is a life that liberals believe has no right to exist unless SOMEONE ELSE finds value in their existence. That is NOT a measure we use to judge the value of a human life at any other time though. Truly it is a revolting standard with deadly implications for the owners of the lives anytime "ownership" of a life is transferred away from the real owner to someone else. In fact, that transfer is ONLY made in order to allow someone who doesn't own that life -to control it and/or kill it. It is NEVER, EVER done in order to protect and preserve that life. True when Nazis decided the life of a Jew was not worth living, true when slavesowners were deemed to own the very life of their slaves -and true for those who believe immature humans are legitimate targets for murder. In all cases, ownership of those lives was first transferred away from the real owners to someone else and then they were ALL stripped of and denied their shared humanity. All so someone who didn't own the life could control and/or kill it. Transferring ownership and then having their shared humanity denied - is ALWAYS required before the state allows the wholesale control and/or slaughter of others. And before those doing the controlling/killing or expressing support for it can bridge that moral gap. And it works for you too. How else could you even imply that killing an immature human life is of no more importance than killing an
insect or bacteria? Only by first deciding that someone other than the real owners "owned" that immature human life -and then stripping that human life of any of its shared humanity entirely. But THAT is just morally repugnant to the pro-life, sorry.
Hard to comprehend that mentality given the fact that we ALL start off as very young, immature human beings -and each of us only own ONE life. And no one else's -at any time. I don't own the lives of my children and never did. 98% of all elective abortions are done for no reason except the fact that someone who didn't own that life decided the EXISTENCE of someone else's life was inconvenient.
Liberals believe that if a woman finds the existence of that human life to be inconvenient -she has the "right" to kill it. Of course the father of that human life has no such right. Since REAL rights apply to every member of the human race equally and not just special groups within the species, it isn't a real right at all. It takes two people to make a baby in an act they both consented to do with both knowing the risk of pregnancy - but only one has a "right" to kill their child if she doesn't want it -AND can force a man to be a parent against his will? But women cannot ever be forced to be a parent against their will. Even though she consented to the identical act the man did and also knew the risks of that act in advance. THAT is not equality whatsoever. True equality would be either BOTH parents are forced (by the state) to be parents of any child they conceive - or NEITHER may be and either men or women may have their unwanted child killed. No one is going to go along with forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will except in China -so that leaves just one option for those who believe in true equality of the sexes. The same option for those who oppose abortion. And since the risk of unwanted pregnancy exists for both sexes before the act even takes place -making both responsible for the consequences of that act is the only true equality. NOT by making only men responsible for the consequences of their actions when a woman is legally allowed to duck out of it. But the Supreme Court ruled that one gender has the "right" to legally duck out of responsibility for their actions while the other does not. Which means it is not a true right but a state granted privilege to a special group that is denied to all the rest.
It is a privilege that many conservatives do vigorously oppose -but then according to a Gallup poll taken just a few weeks ago, 51% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life as well. (Guess who are actually the most strongly supportive of abortion? Single men, then married men. Then single women and finally married women. I can come up with the most likely reasons why men would support abortion more strongly than women. And concern about women isn't among the top five.) So it isn't as if conservatives have taken some kind of "extreme" position on this issue. What I find so weird and so mentally and morally convoluting is that liberals are highly likely to oppose the death penalty - while many conservatives have no problem with that. I do not understand the liberal point of view on either topic at all. I oppose killing the youngest and most vulnerable of human lives just because one of their parents decided their existence was inconvenient today. Sorry but I do not consider 9 months of mere inconvenience to be of greater moral weight than someone else's LIFE. And more than 98% of all abortions are done for issues of CONVENIENCE only. Those immature humans DID nothing wrong and are guilty of NOTHING except existing. But somehow liberals find that a sufficient reason to consider them the perfect target for murder -and really do think that a woman's CONVENIENCE is morally superior, far more important and supercedes any right of an immature human being to keep his own life.
While convicted murderers, serial killers, child rapist/murderers at all times had the CHOICE not to commit their crimes, had the CHOICE not to torture and kill another human being -but knowing full well that if they chose to do so anyway, they put their own lives at risk if caught. They CHOSE to risk forfeiting their own life so they COULD torture and kill someone else. So somehow THIS is the group liberals believe worth protecting. Liberals have no problem killing the youngest and most innocent of human lives while totally stripping and denying them of even their shared humanity -while wanting to protect the most guilty and evil who already proved they pose a deadly threat to all of society and CHOSE to be a deadly threat. I understand those who oppose both abortion and the death penalty and those who oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty. But I do not understand supporting abortion while opposing the death penalty -and frankly I don't want to because I find it so morally bankrupt.
The only life ANYONE -male or female -ever owns, is their own. The only reason to claim that someone other than the true owner of that life "owns" it -is so that person who doesn't own it -can kill it. This same mentality has been used to justify the Holocaust and slavery. Abortion is simply using this same mentality on even younger humans. But if there is a "right" to kill other humans based on their age and stage of maturity -then surely deliberately killing a newborn is a lesser crime than killing a 5 yr. old -which would be a lesser crime than killing a 13 yr. old. And the worst crime of all would be the deliberate killing of an adult - right? With a good argument that the very worst of all is killing someone who is near the end of their natural life. If the value of a human life is determined by its stage of development and maturity, then its true for all human life and not just some. Either you value human life and realize that the value of that life is separate from its maturity -or you find all human life to be a "relative" kind of thing where other people who don't own that life have the greater "right" to decide if the true owners even get to keep it or not. There really isn't much in between on this one. Once you have drawn a line in the sand, its pretty easy to find the rationale for moving it JUST a bit. And you will always feel the pressure to keep on moving it. How did you feel about Terry Schiavo -and did you even bother to view the available video before you reached your opinion or not? I was inclined one way until I viewed that video and realized that not only was it NOT what I was expecting to see -but that I had no right to EVER make the judgment that someone else had a life not worth living. Just not my call. Not talking about removing REAL life support but the deliberate decision to deprive someone of the necessities that we ALL need -like WATER. As was done to Schiavo. That is another whole topic -but EXACTLY what I mean by the pressure to constantly move that line once you have shown you are willing to deem ANYONE to have no right to their own life - unless someone else finds value in your life.
It isn't hard to explain where my own beliefs came from on this subject. I gave birth to an extremely premature boy -born at 24 weeks gestation. Do you REALLY think he wasn't a real human even two weeks earlier? Do you REALLY think he didn't experience pain at that age? I assure you -he felt pain more intensely than a full term baby. At that stage a baby is normally protected from any intense or painful stimulus while their skin and fat layers get thicker. Thicker skin and more fat means it requires more of a stimulus to cause pain. My son is 21 and in college -perfectly normal. Do you think extremely premature babies are LESS likely to survive now than they were two decades ago? My son isn't anywhere close to the youngest premature baby to survive -and he wasn't even two decades ago. The youngest to survive was born earlier than your own arbitrary cutoff date. Which should make it difficult to justify allowing the murder of them just because they haven't been born yet. But certainly gives lie to your own mental gymnastics that somehow they aren't quite human at that age. They certainly are.
To see someone so ignorant as to suggest killing a human fetus is of no more importance, carries no more moral weight than killing an INSECT is truly repulsive. It is just SUDDENLY endowed with value and becomes a real human life on a completely arbitrary date for you just because you have zero experience with humans that are younger? For real? And you really can't understand why people totally reject it, huh?
