>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot


Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.

I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.

And I agree, that does sound idiotic.

In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.

It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?


It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.

I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.

That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?


First off, I agree it's clear there's value to this question. I think a logical, utilitarian ethical calculus has to rely on some definition of a "live human" and a "future live human" (not "could be" but "will be"). I think, going by a materialist view, this definition of life has to itself be based on some definition of "being human" involving capacity for thought or reason. And I think it also can't rationally be binary (not live human/live human); there has to be weighting (almost dead guy, 12 week-old fetus, guy in coma, etc... should probably all be partially weighted).

But humans aren't rational utilitarians when it comes to ethics. We're superstitious. We're habituated to rely on deontology. We value aesthetics.

And that's why debates like this take place is terms of analogies and emotions. And that's why, I think, you aren't putting down your simple answer for "when does life begin" - because we understand that having a single answer gets a whole deontological train moving. If we take any single answer there as a premise, we're driven to accept other answers we don't like, so instead it's arguing in the margins and specific cases.

It's a deadlock inherent in our irrationally based ethical system. Sorry.

The issue is when the cluster of cells inside a woman achieves the level of development to be called a viable human being. If the cluster of cells wouldn't be able to live on its own

And viability is under constant change thanks to medical advances. If we reach a point where science can viably support a fetus after only 2 weeks does that become a new starting point?

As for cells that can live on their own, do we then count that same exclusion on humans of all other ages after birth as well, by the same logic?

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being.

And how you weigh that will be radically changed based on if you define the fetus as an independent human being with it's own human rights, or if you simply class it part of the woman's reproductive system.

How you define the point when a fetus is classed a human being with human rights is a fundamental base assumption of all your points and concerns. Admitting that should NOT be damaging or a hindrance to the discussion, unless you are uninterested in really pursuing it.

@bcglorf

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being. In order to do this, of course, one must take into account the not only physical health factors, but also the effect each life will have on the other. A woman's life is forever changed by childbirth; often the responsibility for caring and raising said child falls entirely on her shoulders; she may not have the (economic/emotional) resources to care for it, causing there to be two victims. How much does a ball of cells, or an embryo, with no memories, no personality, no identity, ... how much does that weigh against the irretrievable changes its continued existence would make to the woman? Why are some forms of life valued over others? Why do we feel no remorse removing a tumor - a living organism - from a person/animal? It's a question of checks and balances.

And please don't talk about the "potential" human being that an embryo or foetus is. That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day. The point @Jinx makes about the debate is completely valid: we can argue (with the help of scientific evidence) the details about the moment when an embryo/foetus becomes capable of suffering/cognition (my opinion is that it's at the moment when the brain is capable of treating and storing sensory input), but the "pro-life" crowd are not up for rational debate, nor are they particularly pro-life. Instead, they will disregard the (quality of the) life of the woman as well as those of the future child simply because of their superstitious beliefs. They are also usually the same ignorant people who will fight against sexual education and the use of contraception for the same reasons and, more generally, against the autonomy of women and their rights over their own bodies (since their belief systems usually stem from the patriarchal desert monotheisms).

I don't know about anyone else, but when life begins doesn't even come into the equation for me.

I swatted a bug today. I have no doubt that it was alive. And I didn't have any problem with killing it.

I also had roast beef for supper last night. That cow was once alive. I have no problem with eating meat and the fact that is was alive doesn't bother me in the slightest.

When life begins means shit all. Life isn't sacred. If I consider anything sacred it might be called 'humanness'.

The issue is when the cluster of cells inside a woman achieves the level of development to be called a viable human being. If the cluster of cells wouldn't be able to live on its own, it's no more important than that millions of cells I will lose today through scratching, shitting, eating, etc.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.
But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.


Myself I consider life to begin at implantation of the fertilized egg. The frequency of spontaneous abortion from that point on is radically reduced. None of the every sperm is sacred madness. Most importantly, it is the last clearly definable point I can think of prior birth. An arbitrary, x days, weeks or months just feels exactly that, arbitrary. Barring human intervention an implanted fertilized egg will by born, grow old and die. Sure, it still has the chance of dying naturally before birth, but we don't accept the infant mortality rates when prosecuting child murderers so it hardly seems a valid argument to when a fetus is differentiated as a human.

I'm open to being dissuaded on when life begins, but the lamentations over the consequences of any given definition aren't what I consider valid arguments.

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.

But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.

i won't discuss when a life is a life until you answer why i must discuss that first.

Fair enough, I suppose I thought it was self evident. When life begins is the underlying basic assumption upon which all your other arguments are based, as are the other arguments on the pro-life side. The pro-life and pro-choice camps are disagreed on the very original and basic assumption of when life begins. There should be no wonder at all that neither side can make heads or tails of the other side's logic and reasoning, as it is fundamentally based on a different starting assumption.

When life begins is the underlying assumption of all the accusations of murder, insensitivity to women, cruelty to other human beings, and all the related consequences.

You want to talk about the consequences of changing laws and making a rape victim a criminal if they pursue an abortion? You are assuming the fetus that is being ended is not a separate human life. If a rape victim is too traumatized and takes 10 months to come forward our country already removes her right to end the child's life. The important distinction is when life begins, and both sides need to recognize that they can not, and will not EVER understand one another unless they recognize and approach the true underlying difference of opinion they really have.


I didn't suggest any "pro-life arguments"
My apologies I meant to say 'pro-choice' and obviously confused things greatly . I was assuming you were pro-choice and thus tried to illustrate the importance of when life begins with a pro-choice example.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.


No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.

I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.

Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.

If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.


I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.

You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.

Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

>> ^bcglorf:

The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.


I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.

And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?

How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.

There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.

The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.

People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.

What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.