![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
I believe true life begins at birth but modern medicine can save premies earlier and earlier so I wouldn't problem with that. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first 20 weeks, the viability issue doesn't change things much.
The vast majority of abortions take place by the 21st week which is "pre-viability", correct? So if viability is the issue, there's absolutely no reason to change the status quo, correct?
None of the recent States who have changed their laws in defiance of the Federal government use 'viability' as their barometer.
More restrictive? If we follow the 'conscious human life begins at conception' crowd, that's an outright ban which essentially turns every woman into a government-mandated human incubator regardless of circumstance. I see nothing moderate about that position.
Let me point out an inconsistency with the left positions here. Roughly the same number of people are murdered with guns every year as are aborted past the 20th week. There are enormous numbers of legal gun owners that never commit a gun crime and there are enormous numbers of abortions before the 20th week. With guns, you’re arguing to take away all legal uses of guns to get rid of the small number of bad uses. With abortions you’re arguing that the small number of viable baby abortions is insignificant so allow all abortions.
I would accept that but I'm not part of the crowd who won't compromise. Ten weeks is still baby-murdering to those people.
Even an exception for the Mother's life???!?!?!?! Wow, what amazing compromisers those Bama legislators were!!! Screw rape or incest exceptions though. A man's seed, even a rapist's, must be protected.
Oops, Sorry Crazyhole, but discussions about how
You’d have to create some legal standard, such as clear and convincing evidence, in order to remove the argument point.
It seems to me that it would probably be no different than how we would handle a murder with an accomplice. The person who actually commits the murder receives the worst sentence and the accomplices receive lower ones. Each state has their own laws on how to sentence in those cases so I would say we don't need to figure out some overarching one size fits all answer on what to do about it. Overturning Roe doesn't mean that a state can't still permit abortion.
I agree with you. I would simply add the point that 'decency' goes both ways. The pregnant woman deserves our concern and respect too. It's a fine line between 'respecting life' and forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a young woman. For all the talk of 'it takes two to tango,' the woman choosing abortion is almost always facing this emotional decision alone. Too often we've seen examples of blowhard men publicly condemning abortion only to be caught in their private lives encouraging mistresses to have one.
I agree with you. I would simply add the point that 'decency' goes both ways. The pregnant woman deserves our concern and respect too. It's a fine line between 'respecting life' and forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a young woman. For all the talk of 'it takes two to tango,' the woman choosing abortion is almost always facing this emotional decision alone. Too often we've seen examples of blowhard men publicly condemning abortion only to be caught in their private lives encouraging mistresses to have one.
A tad OT but relevant to how we treat pregnant women is a story I recently linked somewhere on the board about a 12-year old girl who was raped and had the baby. Nine years later, the rapist (who served time in prison for the offense) successfully sued for joint custody and had his name added to the birth certificate. Wanna bet whether the judge was male or female?
