N00b, just so you know, nuancing over the killing of the alive unborn is a decidedly liberal characteristic. And you might want to focus the discussion on the notion of ‘self-defense’ rather than female dominion over her body and thus the specious right to kill an innocent helpless alive other.
There is no third option. We don't have to or need to redefine ourselves for the sake of the foolish!
Some things are black and white.
Nonsense like this has resulted in over 50 MILLION DEATHS in the past 37 years with another baby being murdered EVERY 24 SECONDS.
I sniff a strong scent of Troll in the air.
Quisling double-talk. 3rd option my arse!
BTW...nobody here likes a blog pimp...jus' sayin'. IBTZ!
Suttee, honor killing and child marriage - keep the government out of our families and homes.
Is that you, Colin?
Because murder is murder -where is the third position going to fit - only some murder is actually murder?
There is no debate, new human life begins at conception. Open up an embryology book for cripes sake.
Is the writer assuming that pregnancy is something that you catch like a cold?
No one finds themself pregnant. Really really, it just doesn’t work that way.
Of course the mother's rights are important. She has many rights in this area: avoid behaviors that lead to an unwanted pregnancy, seek medical care once she is pregnant, compel the father to support the baby, elect the preferred avenue of givng up ther child for adoption, not be Christian or religious, -- all these are her rights and every conservative I know supports them.
Killing a baby she doesn't feel like bringing to term is not one of them.
Let me state this very simply so that it is unambiguous to anybody.
First, human life begins at the moment of fertilization. The blastocyst has 46 chromosomes; it is a human life. Those 46 chromosomes are not the same as the mother; it is its own life. Through natural processes it will mature, grow toward maturity, have the capability of reproducing, will age, and will die.
You will note that I quoted no religious text in establishing this rationale. So far, so good.
Since we have established that a separate human life begins at the moment of fertilization, we now need to address the issue of whether or not it is right to destroy that life.
The answer to that question is if there is an inherent value to human life or if one life is more valuable than another based upon some arbitrary criteria (known as a utilitarian view).
The view that there is an inherent value to human life is relatively self-explanatory. This is also the view that is espoused by all reasonable conservatives and libertarians, as well, as it is the view espoused in our country's founding documents as well as in the Constitution:
From the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
From the Constitution:
Amendment 14.1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment 5: No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The utilitarian view looks at the value of life based upon some arbitrary criteria: age, physical condition, education, race, religion, or whatever.
If one establishes that it is OK for a mother to abort her child, he says that the mother's life is more valuable than the child. It is a very short trip between that and saying that the lives of the elderly or infirm are not worth as much as those of the young and healthy.
It is a larger jump, but it is the same thought process used to justify killing populations.
Frankly, that doesn't sound too conservative; that doesn't sound too libertarian. Honestly, that sounds a lot more like the progressive eugenics movement, to me.
And if that's the way you want to redefine the Republican party, you'll be doing so without me or the vast majority of the people who post here.
By the way, do you intend that your entire existence on Free Republic be that of a blog pimp? (seeing as that's all you've managed to post in the two weeks you've been on this site)
The entirety of your argument is based upon a false premise. The Right to Life is the very first enumerated right - the Declaration of Independence transcends the Constitution in two ways:
First in it's precedence: It was written before the Constitution, so the Constitution must bow to the DOI.
Secondly, in the manner of authority: The rights described in the DOI are natural rights, granted to all by God. It follows that no court of Man has the authority to remove those rights from any man... except in the narrow means provided for (in a limiting fashion) by the Constitution: "Just Cause" or "Due Process".
ANY other reading must necessarily strike at the very root of our foundations, including yours. It is *NOT* a moral choice, but a matter of LAW. Sin, by definition, IS lawlessness.
It's CLEARLY a 10th Amendment issue. Roe was a bad decision. Any subsequent decision that does more than simply overturn Roe would also be a bad decision.
Abortion, like all murder, belongs to the states.
Any "conservative" who argues otherwise is not conservative.