Quote:
Originally Posted by StickyGreen
Life probably starts whenever that little thing inside of a woman starts moving around and starts using sustenance from it's host.
But I don't care enough about abortion to sit here and argue about it, there are much more important things to be concerned about in this country right now in my opinion.
Also, freedom and liberty do not equal anarchy. What about murder? We can't just say that a person should be free to decide if they want to kill someone or not. We have to have laws about certain things. So if the baby is technically alive then obviously it's probably not a good thing to destroy it, just like it's not a good thing to destroy another person. The main issue is who should write the law and how should it be implemented?
|
I agree with you that life likely starts when the baby starts taking nutrition from the mom and is breathing and moving around. I have no idea at what point during the pregnancy that occurs. To me this whole thing is a larger issue because it feels like Paul would be using the system in order to manipulate the outcome in his favor. If he made abortion illegal and was able to get a law passed that said life starts at conception it would be very hard for any state to pass a law allowing abortion because it would be seen in the eyes of the law as murder. It is just a shrewd way of getting what he wants while appearing to be pro-states rights.
But as you say the abortion issue is not one worth fighting over. As far as I am concerned it isn't going to be changed any time soon. No president is going to get it over turned. It would take a state outlawing it then that case working its way through the judicial system and eventually getting to the supreme court who then ruled in favor of the state to make it happen. If a state could get abortion outlawed and survive the court battles it would open the door for other states to do the same. But that process could take 10 years or longer. We as a country have much more pressing problems.