^ Couldn't agree with you more Pdx. His Hotel Hanoi stories while on the surface emblematic of a true patriot and hero sometimes didn't completely add up. Furthermore, he has always come across as a political opportunist prone to dirty infighting and silly posturing when politically expedient.
Of course life begins at conception. A zygote isn't "dead".
But under this type of mentality, the morning after pill could be considered abortion, and therefore illegal. Do you think it should be? I don't, and I can't even think of any conservative Christians I know who think it should be.
My issue is that the far right stance on abortion is just as unrealistic (and unproductive) as the far left stance. As long as we live in a representative democracy, abortion will never be 100% legal or 100% illegal anywhere. The only option left is to compromise. The far right and the far left need to move toward the middle a bit, which is where a majority of Americans already are.
Stupid legislation like this is divisive, unproductive, and totalitarian.
borndead1 wrote:
You're being glib on purpose I suppose. You know damn well we're discussing the beginning of human life after the union of sperm and egg. I believe it begins upon fertilization of the egg, but you're welcome to assume that there are differing degrees of human blob tissue- some with more of a claim to life than others.
Of course, anything that may terminate life should be made illegal- case can be Biblically made for capital punishment but all in all I tend to shy away from its validation (capital punishment)... You say it shouldn't be illegal for convenience sake? That's shallow beyond compare IMO. This country has also become shallow beyond compare. That's why no one worries about the aftermath of our actions. We live in the now. Btw despite being a Catholic, when I was young and single I couldn't have cared less about abortion. In fact, I thought it was great. Took me off the hook. As you get older, you begin to value life more dearly and don't try to qualify your arguments by shades or degrees.
How do you "compromise" on taking of life? That's like saying it's ok to kill depending on the state's legal definition of life. Totally subjective? No, I disagree. I don't feel that the life of a human embryo is any less important than that of stand alone human unit. Both should should be saved concurrently. I also disagree with the convenient argument that you may have to choose between the mother and baby. But hey, this is one of those moral judgement calls that the Government has sanctioned as "OK" to make.
And "stupid legislation" is never perceived divisive, unproductive, and totalitarian by those its favors. From a historical perspective perhaps, depending on the historian's agenda and slant. And yes, certain sex and race related laws deemed archaic and politically incorrect as well as morally wrong. However, I don't think that you'll come across political opponents who have the courage of conviction to EVER agree on what's currently BAD legislation.
Whatever you may think of me or my opinions, at least I don't mock or belittle other posters. So which of us is *really* coming across as a petulant child?
borndead1 wrote:
Ok, so I mocked you a bit. Well, that's what you get for self-righteous indignation bordering on aristocrat. Does it really matter what you or I think in the ultimate order of things? Lighten up on the religious right among others on the "far right". They're not the ones who put this country in the condition it is financially AND morally IMHO. It is what I call self-serving secularism. The truly religious people of most established religions are not very materialistic. I know I know the trappings of the Vatican... I can't explain that convincingly, BD. lol But it's the self-serving and nearsighted secularists with no moral compass who have sold all of us down the river.
That's my 2 cents. Don't take it too personal. You make good arguments. I just disagree this time.
Edited by user
13 years ago |
Reason: Not specified
