Indiana's new abortion law won't save babies. It will only make my patients suffer.

SmarterthanYou said:
when did you develop a reading comprehension handicap?

you face two problems with this. 1) if you allow the courts to decide what is a right, then isn't a right anymore...we will eventually have no rights left. 2) you have somehow badly overestimated the value I place on human life. I've seen the cruelty of humans far too often in the animals I rescue, so it's relatively easy for me to dismiss the lives of most people.
Click to expand...

Unborn children are not cruel. They are at the most vulnerable and innocent stage of life. Our right to life is inalienable and sacrosanct. I have no reading comprehension problem. The Roe decision was a badly formulated application and therefor bad law. Morally, its bankrupt, and gives the power to kill another human in a most arbitrary manner, to a person who has been, in most instances, irresponsible and careless.

I do however accept your callous indifference and bid you adieu on the matter.
 
Last edited:
patriot66 said:
The government should have never been involved it's not mentioned in the constitution
Click to expand...

Perhaps you think the Constitution doesn't mandate the settlement of disputes through the judiciary process. Is that it?

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
 
Legion Troll said:
Perhaps you think the Constitution doesn't mandate the settlement of disputes through the judiciary process. Is that it?

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.
Click to expand...


I am saying the Court should have never taken the case Abortion is not covered in the constitution, which is their role deciding on constitutional. matters
 
patriot66 said:
I am saying the Court should have never taken the case Abortion is not covered in the constitution, which is their role deciding on constitutional. matters
Click to expand...

Troll's one of those that thinks the government should do things for which the Constitution doesn't specifically give it authority (abortion, healthcare) and opposes people exercising the right to do things that are (gun ownership).
 
SmarterthanYou said:
can you expand upon that answer?
Click to expand...

You wrote: "do you think that if people saw the awful aspects and existence of people who were forced to deal with their choices on their own, that it would persuade the next generation to make better choices?"

People have been seeing this for decades and haven't changed. Take illegal drug use as an example.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
my question to you was to assess what exactly your pursuit of allowing abortions are. If it's to ensure birth control on a whim, that's pretty selfish. If it's to ensure a 'perfect' child, that also pretty selfish. I used ALS as an example to see if you would approve of abortions being performed on a fetus that shows that gene.
Click to expand...

You didn't say that the fetus would only show the gene. You said "if genetic research can definitively conclude that a fetus will be born with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)..."

I'm pretty sure you can carry the gene but have only a 50-50 chance of developing the disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top