[Kerberos]

“The bottom line is that we know, without being scientific, that this is a human being at the most delicate, protective stages of life.”

And what we also know is that the law has always held that an unborn child, until they become a living, breathing sentient being, outside of the mothers womb, has no rights.

So that being true instead of trying to restrict the rights of the individual, and thereby increasing the rights of government, why don’t we look into extending rights to the unborn child? It seems to me that none of the pro life groups ever consider that by giving the government the right to tell one that they cannot have an abortion, they are by default seting the precedent for the government to, at some future time, dictate that one must have an abortion. After all, we are setting the principle that rights in this matter do not reside with the individual, but with the government.

Do you understand the difference between the two choices?

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

"by giving the government the right to tell one that they cannot MURDER THEIR NEIGHBOR , they are by default seting the precedent for the government to, at some future time, dictate that one must MURDER THEIR NEIGHBOR

So clearly murdering one's neighbor shouldn't be illegal, right?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"And what we also know is that the law has always held that an unborn child, until they become a living, breathing sentient being, outside of the mothers womb, has no rights. So that being true instead of trying to restrict the rights of the individual, and thereby increasing the rights of government, why don’t we look into extending rights to the unborn child? It seems to me that none of the pro life groups ever consider that by giving the government the right to tell one that they cannot have an abortion, they are by default seting the precedent for the government to, at some future time, dictate that one must have an abortion. After all, we are setting the principle that rights in this matter do not reside with the individual, but with the government."

Good comments. Except, it's not up to us to "extend" rights. Rights such as the right to life are unalienable. In this case, those rights are denied by us, to our everlasting shame.

Perhaps it's a minor point to many, but the notion that fundamental rights descend from a benevolent Government or the wisdom and generosity of the Majority is a hot-button to me.

[Coleus]

And what we also know is that the law has always held that an unborn child, until they become a living, breathing sentient being, outside of the mothers womb, has no rights.>>>

That's about to change in a few months.