CDZ When does the sanctity of life run out ?

[EGR one]

T
Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

It's not just the car. The criminal who steals the car often uses it to commit more crimes, thereby endangering other people's lives as well.

Therefore they still deserve to be shot.

But you dont know that. It might happen but it might not.

"Thou shalt not kill" vs something that may or may not happen.

Has God given you discretionary powers ?

Neither do you know or can promise me the car thief will not cause other loss of life. See how that kind or absolutist reasoning works?

No. God has put me on this Earth as a big brother and uncle and a son. And with this mind and heart and these hands I can do nothing better or worse than protect them however and wherever the need presents.

Using God to blame reasoning in one post and promote it in another is fine, but at some point you must admit that either you believe and your philosophical proselytizing is germane to your arguments, or you don't and you're just using God to win just like you accuse the believer of doing.

So God is telling you to kill beause you face material loss ?

An armed robber is in the commission of a potentially deadly crime that can result in death or severe injury to a victim and/or bystanders. The victim can never be sure that the robber has no intention of harming him or her. A deadly response can be easily acceptable, legally and morally.

 

[fncceo]

Im not particularly religious but "thou salt not kill" seems to be good advice

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a mistranslation of the Biblical Hebrew injunctive of ‘You will not murder.’

Murder is a non-judicial termination of a human life. Judicially sanctioned life termination is biblically approved.

Fascinating. Not an interpretation I have seen before.

Not a lot o Brits read Hebrew. Especially since 1290.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

T

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The thing is a given person might have a family. Their family needs to be fed, clothed and prescriptions purchased for them. The person's car gets them to work. Without the ability to work the person cannot get paid. No pay. No taking care of the family.

The answer: harming or killing the car thief keeps family alive. Car thief dies every time.

Youth can be a beautiful set of blinders. Saving the world and preserving all life sounds great. But either you have something to protect and you do, or you philosophize away the responsibility and let them starve.

Or

How about the child stricken with leukemia? How will her parents get her to treatment if they allow the thief to walk.

How will a mother get to the store to buy food or medicine?

In every case existential value cannot be placed on the hunk of metal with wheels. Its meaning exceeds its materialistic composition.

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

I wouldn't kill over a car......in the one thread I started about a fireman, the car jacker tried to run over the victim, who then shot the car thief......that wasn't about the car, that was about attempted murder.

I think for clarity, we need to know..... is this theft a car jacking? Or does the victim simply see the thief taking the car?

Just taking the car. Or some other material goods. No violence involved.

 

[night_son]

T

The thing is a given person might have a family. Their family needs to be fed, clothed and prescriptions purchased for them. The person's car gets them to work. Without the ability to work the person cannot get paid. No pay. No taking care of the family.

The answer: harming or killing the car thief keeps family alive. Car thief dies every time.

Youth can be a beautiful set of blinders. Saving the world and preserving all life sounds great. But either you have something to protect and you do, or you philosophize away the responsibility and let them starve.

Or

How about the child stricken with leukemia? How will her parents get her to treatment if they allow the thief to walk.

How will a mother get to the store to buy food or medicine?

In every case existential value cannot be placed on the hunk of metal with wheels. Its meaning exceeds its materialistic composition.

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

Let's revisit your chain of thought, which I respect by the way, as it pertains just to a single owner and his car, and not a all cars sitting in driveways and parking lots across the world.

You apparently place great value on human life as do I. Therefore can we not view an owner's automobile as an extension of preserving their life in that intrinsically it can be viewed (by the owner) as a protector and sustainer of life through one or more of its many uses which cannot be fulfilled if stolen.

Please try to separate the concept of the car as an inanimate material object/possession from monetary value placed on it and instead recognize it as a life support system for the owner. If you can get that far you might be able to see how the car owner's assigned value in the object transcends its material value and becomes both life sustaining and vital to his existence. Not all car owners have excellent insurance coverage and police recovery of stolen vehicles can take some time.

Proceeding forward with the automobile as a vital extension of the owner's life, killing the car thief while in the act of stealing it is in defense of lives; the owner's and his family's. In this way the killing is not for material sake or possession but rather true self defense.

I'll grant you that if you have excellent insurance which includes car rental coverage and you are a multiple car family, then the higher moral ground in that situation could be keeping your distance (while calling the police) and allowing the thief to steal it. The caveat being that imo allowing the vehicle to be stolen puts sole responsibility in the owner's hands for whatever the thief might then do with the taken vehicle.

 

[irosie91]

T

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

Let's revisit your chain of thought, which I respect by the way, as it pertains just to a single owner and his car, and not a all cars sitting in driveways and parking lots across the world.

You apparently place great value on human life as do I. Therefore can we not view an owner's automobile as an extension of preserving their life in that intrinsically it can be viewed (by the owner) as a protector and sustainer of life through one or more of its many uses which cannot be fulfilled if stolen.

Please try to separate the concept of the car as an inanimate material object/possession from monetary value placed on it and instead recognize it as a life support system for the owner. If you can get that far you might be able to see how the car owner's assigned value in the object transcends its material value and becomes both life sustaining and vital to his existence. Not all car owners have excellent insurance coverage and police recovery of stolen vehicles can take some time.

Proceeding forward with the automobile as a vital extension of the owner's life, killing the car thief while in the act of stealing it is in defense of lives; the owner's and his family's. In this way the killing is not for material sake or possession but rather true self defense.

I'll grant you that if you have excellent insurance which includes car rental coverage and you are a multiple car family, then the higher moral ground in that situation could be keeping your distance (while calling the police) and allowing the thief to steal it. The caveat being that imo allowing the vehicle to be stolen puts sole responsibility in the owner's hands for whatever the thief might then do with the taken vehicle.

in our history------they hanged horse thieves

 

[Two Thumbs]

leftists, standing up for criminals.

again

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yiour [sic] arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

Criminals do not need to be replaced. One less criminal is a good thing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

poor dumb leftist, can't see the difference between defenseless innocence and a vile criminal.

It's worse than that. It's not just a failure to grasp the distinction. In this, and in other threads, he's made it quite clear that he knowingly, willfully, openly is on the side of filthy criminals, and against the side of law-abiding citizens. In the unlikely event that he is not directly a serious criminal himself, he is certainly no better than one.

 

[Two Thumbs]

poor dumb leftist, can't see the difference between defenseless innocence and a vile criminal.

It's worse than that. It's not just a failure to grasp the distinction. In this, and in other threads, he's made it quite clear that he knowingly, willfully, openly is on the side of filthy criminals, and against the side of law-abiding citizens. In the unlikely event that he is not directly a serious criminal himself, he is certainly no better than one.

It's weird.

It's like he's booing doctors and cheering the plague.

 

[sparky]

thou salt not kill

~S~

 

[denmark]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

 

[2aguy]

T

The thing is a given person might have a family. Their family needs to be fed, clothed and prescriptions purchased for them. The person's car gets them to work. Without the ability to work the person cannot get paid. No pay. No taking care of the family.

The answer: harming or killing the car thief keeps family alive. Car thief dies every time.

Youth can be a beautiful set of blinders. Saving the world and preserving all life sounds great. But either you have something to protect and you do, or you philosophize away the responsibility and let them starve.

Or

How about the child stricken with leukemia? How will her parents get her to treatment if they allow the thief to walk.

How will a mother get to the store to buy food or medicine?

In every case existential value cannot be placed on the hunk of metal with wheels. Its meaning exceeds its materialistic composition.

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

I think you miss this......

Carrying a gun is not a break in the law.....since you can legally carry a gun in this country. Stealing a car is, in fact, breaking the law, it doesn't compare to carrying a gun.

You would make a better point if you said shooting someone for driving a car, not stealing a car.

Stealing a car shows that you are willing to endanger the lives of innocents, since you are willing to endanger the owner if they try to stop you, and if the police pursue you, you are likely going to drive recklessly to avoid capture.

When someone points a gun at someone, they have put that life at risk, so yes, you can take that life.

 

[2aguy]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

 

[2aguy]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

I wouldn't kill over a car......in the one thread I started about a fireman, the car jacker tried to run over the victim, who then shot the car thief......that wasn't about the car, that was about attempted murder.

I think for clarity, we need to know..... is this theft a car jacking? Or does the victim simply see the thief taking the car?

Just taking the car. Or some other material goods. No violence involved.

Is the owner at any way involved? For example, stealing the car in the middle of the night when no one is around is different than if the owner is right there when it is happening...

 

[denmark]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

 

[night_son]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

No. The unborn was never solely the mother's possession. The moment she received the father's genetic material and life was conceived it became a combination of mother AND father's DNA.

Abortion is the ultimate lack of personal responsibility. Mother's duty is to defend the child growing in her womb. You promote murder, you know it, you revel in it. It's okay to admit you were wrong and that all life is sacred.

 

[Care4all]

God saw that we were being evil in our punishments towards his children on Earth, so he gave us a commandment to stop our cruelty....

He said our punishments were excessive!

And we should follow this commandment....

NO MORE THAN

An eye for an eye,

NO MORE THAN

A Tooth for a tooth,

NO MORE THAN
...
A life, for a life....




Not one of God's children, should be killed for stealing, stealing is not taking the life of another....

No one in our JUSTICE system gets capital punishment, for stealing.... otherwise, that would not be just....

 

[denmark]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

No. The unborn was never solely the mother's possession. The moment she received the father's genetic material and life was conceived it became a combination of mother AND father's DNA.

Abortion is the ultimate lack of personal responsibility. Mother's duty is to defend the child growing in her womb. You promote murder, you know it, you revel in it. It's okay to admit you were wrong and that all life is sacred.

I am practical. Not all life is sacred. Be realistic.
Yes, i know an embryo has DNA from father as well as mother, but that embryo lives in mother’s body, and therefore it’s mainly her responsibility. Yes, she should take care of her offspring, but YOU do not factor in her issues with pregnancy & difficulties of her life.

 

[Care4all]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

No. The unborn was never solely the mother's possession. The moment she received the father's genetic material and life was conceived it became a combination of mother AND father's DNA.

Abortion is the ultimate lack of personal responsibility. Mother's duty is to defend the child growing in her womb. You promote murder, you know it, you revel in it. It's okay to admit you were wrong and that all life is sacred.

With all of that being true, it is still not your government's decision to make.... They should not even know, if a woman is pregnant in her early stages or is not.... it is none of the government's business...nor should it be... and I do not want any woman to have an abortion or even feel like they need to have an abortion.... but this is something so personal to both the mother to be and father to be....we should have no say so or force what we think is right or wrong on them.... the decisions to be made are hard enough on them and very personal.