I'm against abortion because it ends a human life. However, I recognize it's need with our current healthcare. Which is why I support thing like universal healthcare that covers alternative contraceptives. This way, abortion will become obsolete with the exception of the life of the mother at risk or a severe birth defect that's terminal shortly after birth.
Let me answer this like a liberal:
Yes. If it were murder women would be going to jail for homicide and they aren't. Murder is the term you choose to use but legally it means nothing because no humans are being killed. Do you know the difference between a fetus and a human being?
Childish.
Gotta love the reasoning that argues just because one’s opinion doesn’t jibe with the law that somehow that opinion isn’t sincerely held.
Another silly comparison. What a woman does with her own body has no bearing on slavery. For the party of high morals I wonder why some think owning people was ok?
The purpose of the comparison was not to compare slavery to abortion but rather to highlight the silly assertion that a law can somehow nullify an opinion on what is right and what is wrong, and for that it’s a perfect comparison.
What's right and what's wrong is in the eye of the beholder regardless of the law.
Exactly. So when someone says "I'm against abortion because I think it's murder" why do you dismiss that and look for another reason? e.g."Your opinion doesn't matter, the law says it's not murder. Which leaves one other option, the control of women by men."
So you're saying, in effect, that after the second trimester choice doesn't really matter and that the government can tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, yes?
I'm not looking for another reason. For the folks who think it's murder, that's their opinion and by current law their opinion does not jibe with the law.
Verbatim, your words: "Which leaves one other option." This is you looking for another reason.
I am saying i consider the fetus to be a human being at that point and we don't have a choice to kill other human beings without consequences.
So the answer to my question is "yes," yes?
the answer to your question is what I stated. From what I have read, of a lot of the posters here you should be more understanding of a nuanced answer.
You're welcome to point out how my assertion (posed as a question) is somehow wrong for its lack of nuance. Can you?
Uh huh. You guys kick your own party members to the curb for telling the truth and speaking out about the big lie and you want to talk about diversity of opinion? I put forth three reasons I can think of for people to be against abortion, there may be more for all I know. It's not the dems who want to outlaw abortion it's the gop which is ninety five percent or so white men and that is option number three, controlling women.
you demanded a yes/no answer to a negative connotation. my answer is more thoughtful than that.
A foetus isn't an "innocent" anything until born and viable. Until birth it is a 'potential' human. Furthermore it's nobody's damn business what a woman does with her body-and it's certainly not the business of sanctimonious, holier than thou religious busybodies who should find something better to do with their time than meddle in someone's private and personal affairs.
There is no reason a yes or no answer cannot be given re agreement to a negative condition. For example, were you to ask me, yes or no, do I think people should be prevented from stealing other people's property? My answer would be "yes."
That sounds rather dogmatic. Is that your opinion, or do you assert it as fact?
No human being are being killed.
I don't need to assert anything. The law already has done in Roe v. Wade.
www.lawteacher.net
Bans on abortion take away a woman’s right to control what happens with her body.