After some careful thought, I've decided that you're just playing devil's advocate to everyone's argument on this thread. You must be having a ball. :hihi:
not necessarily, but if i did, oh boy crazy me and my controlling fascist anti-murder government. what wild oppressive thing will i not necessarily favor next? i dont like when people argue they need government protection from things that arent that scary, like high gas prices or open markets. but if you were to make an argument that living humans need protection from murders, i might listen. and if gave a damn about anyone besides myself and a tiny group of friends and family, i might really care. and since most people are not me and they actually care if other people live or die, i think their arguments make perfect sense. there is a short list of things i accept as a government responsibilty. murder prevention is one of them. but i only really care about it because if murder was legal i would personally be scared of anarchy. obviously i dont have to worry about being aborted anymore, so i am golden . but i dont care about human life inherently. but i can understand if others do. pro-lifers have an honest opinion that i can respect.
Before hand, I might've argued that where life begins is arbitrary, but I think martin pretty much blew that argument out of the water. So I'm stuck with a shrug and saying I guess I just don't really care. I'm pro-choice because I don't think life is sacred. But that last comment, yea - definitely just to stir the pot.
i am mostly stirring the pot too, it definitely isnt an issue i decide my vote on. i would vote for a candidate on either side. i am only really saying that i think it is sort of a prototypical case of people taking a side that doesnt appear on its surface to be all that classy, so they kinda twist the wording around until they feel better about themselves.
Does the Terry Schiavo case come into this discussion at all? (Of course it does, and so here goes more pot stirring) Obviously she was a human being, but she wasn't "alive". I favor the family's right to pull the plug on her and don't consider that murder. So, it seems logical to me for the government to, in a sense, define life & thus when ending it would be a crime. As long as they do that, fetuses wouldn't meet the criteria for being alive either.
i thought about that case and i dont remember what i came up with. i might have concluded that it was too hard and i gave up.
Oh come on. You've got something better than that. But speaking of that, I think I've got a thread or two that I never got back to...
How come you can only go back through 2 pages of threads on this board? I know there was a thread where I left thinking about something and never answered but can't remember which one.
