Re: Life in the womb
First of all, we have god in our pledge and on our money. Deal with reality, if you can. Secondly, if the only argument against legal abortion is religious, then theocrats they are. If we can't find a secular argument against granting women the right to defend themselves from physical intruders, there isn't one.
... if you appreciate zygotes the same way you appreciate fully actualized women, you're crazy even before you begin speaking in tongues or asking invisible beings for favors. Fetuses are not sub-human, they are pre-human. A person is more than just a DNA signature.
Saying religion has nothing to do with it when the religious dominate the anti-choice side of the debate is the height of ignorance and denial... If you remove the people who attach their god's magic to another woman's fetus, the ones left, with the secular arguments, would be statistically zero.
... There is no excuse for believing in a supernature that demands we treat women like chattel. I think your "little voice" is a misogynist.
If it's not equality, it's not worth mentioning. Men can defend themselves from threats but women can't, is your ridiculous stance.
OK, genius, when you start claiming that a newly conceived zygote has more rights than the woman who bears it, you have crossed the line into Sillytown. When you further imply that it is "distinct, while it is living inside and threatening the life of a woman, you've gone further into Retardedville. The zygote has distinct DNA but it is not a distinct organism until some woman risks her life growing it inside her and allows it to burst forth into life...
Obviously, Roe vs. Wade proves that statement to be utterly absurd and a big fat lie. ...
Theocracy =
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. Sorry, try as you will, we DO NOT have that here. We DO have a republican form of democracy and if WE, the people, vote in legislatures and Presidents that agree with us,even should most have a religious viewpoint, sorry, that is how it goes. It cannot be a specific church or a specific god but WE, you know the People, get to decide and you cannot exclude people from having religious views. Not under our Constitution.
"Person" is essentially an arbitrary designation in the stages of development of humans. That you might get to fully actualized woman w/o going thru that stage as well as infancy, adolescence etc is preposterous. One must pass through the birth canal first before being so considered is obscene. One second on one side and then the next second you are on the other... within two seconds you suddenly,
magically become a "person"? Sounds like talking in tongues, speaking to some invisible priest of the secular nonsensical scripture to me.
What I, obvious to most, was saying is that religion has no bearing on MY views. That people can be religious/hold a religious viewpoint is, well, freedom of choice. Why is it that your belief system somehow trumps those of religious people? Atheist predilections just automatically dominate? Based on what? The debate does not have to be, nor is mine in actuality, based on religion. Too big a chunk for you to chew and digest? Not my problem.
Your viewpoint on my voice is irrelevant. A system that gives women all the choices she wants up until there is another individual involved is fair. Attempting to label a differing viewpoint as being against women, not for humanity, might be considered bigotry. About half those in the womb would be of the female gender, we are trying to save those equally. Your gripe with letting babies live? Watch it, some label that pedophobia.
Women, by nature, not through men so deciding, are put in the situation of pregnancy. Something to deal with. Should men blame women for not having prostates and the problems associated? No. A rather silly proposition don't you think? Our natures saddle us all with different problems, one cannot just blame others.
I think we know which of us resides in "Retardedville". Just to stoop that low shows one has not the wherewithal to rise to the challenge of proper debate. That lack of capacity does not mean you should have been aborted, however. That you might think yourself the proper arbiter, along with women, of just who gets to live. who gets murdered, well, lets just say I noticed your zip code, it fits the above location.
Lets use this hypothetical thought experiment. Can a Siamese twin just arbitrarily kill its twin? Since they are attached and all? You think that would/should be legal? I ll leave you to digest that.
Its a free country, you can move to other zip codes.