[quote]orion wrote:
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
[/quote]
You realize this has to do with a process known as growth.
[quote]John S. wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Do you know why the 3/5ths clause was in there? Somehow I doubt it.
Your right that was a bad example to use. I am well aware of what it means. 3/5 of all slaves would be considered in the enumeration(sp?) and would be counted towards taxes and the house of representatives. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that they where saying slaves are only 3/5 human in this. that is my interpretation of it.
*edited [/quote]
You can interpret it how ever you like, but they in no way intended to claim slaves were 3/5 of a human for any other purpose but representation.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
John S. wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Do you know why the 3/5ths clause was in there? Somehow I doubt it.
Your right that was a bad example to use. I am well aware of what it means. 3/5 of all slaves would be considered in the enumeration(sp?) and would be counted towards taxes and the house of representatives. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that they where saying slaves are only 3/5 human in this. that is my interpretation of it.
*edited
You can interpret it how ever you like, but they in no way intended to claim slaves were 3/5 of a human for any other purpose but representation.
I agree and disagree. Yes, that WAS the practical reason. However, they were considered to be subhuman. And that did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was even part of human evolutionary theory well into the 20th century.[/quote]
considered sub human by whom? Unless the framers and those that ratified the constitution felt this way and intended to make this statement with the 3/5ths clause, it is irrelavent to the example it was used in here.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
John S. wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Do you know why the 3/5ths clause was in there? Somehow I doubt it.
Your right that was a bad example to use. I am well aware of what it means. 3/5 of all slaves would be considered in the enumeration(sp?) and would be counted towards taxes and the house of representatives. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that they where saying slaves are only 3/5 human in this. that is my interpretation of it.
*edited
You can interpret it how ever you like, but they in no way intended to claim slaves were 3/5 of a human for any other purpose but representation.
I agree and disagree. Yes, that WAS the practical reason. However, they were considered to be subhuman. And that did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was even part of human evolutionary theory well into the 20th century.
considered sub human by whom? Unless the framers and those that ratified the constitution felt this way and intended to make this statement with the 3/5ths clause, it is irrelavent to the example it was used in here.[/quote]
Like I said probably not the best example I could have used, but in my interpretation I think it fit. If you do not view that 3/5 of all slaves as each slave is only 3/5th human then I would love to hear why, maybe send it to me in a pm so we can put this discussion back on track.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
You realize this has to do with a process known as growth.[/quote]
A continuous process of constant replacement?
[quote]yorik wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I hope the rat bastard that gunned him down is put down. Churches are supposed to be sacred ground. Pulling a murder anywhere is an offense to humanity, but pulling one in a church is just on another level.
I have no idea whatsoever what his criteria was for performing late term abortions. Abnormal development? Anencephaly? Things like that? If so, then I applaud his courage. If he was performing late term abortions for convenience, then fuck him.
OTOH, I do agree that the piece of human filth who shot him down (that is, aborted him in the 260th trimester) at a church needs to be put down like a rabid dog.
[/quote]
There’s really no excuse for late-term abortion except when the mother’s life is in SERIOUS jeopardy. Even then, it is an agonizing choice for the family. But he is only one of three clinics in the country that performs late-term abortions, and I don’t think he limits it to these situations when the mother’s life is in danger. Nonetheless, his killer should also still be punished.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
John S. wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Do you know why the 3/5ths clause was in there? Somehow I doubt it.
Your right that was a bad example to use. I am well aware of what it means. 3/5 of all slaves would be considered in the enumeration(sp?) and would be counted towards taxes and the house of representatives. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that they where saying slaves are only 3/5 human in this. that is my interpretation of it.
*edited
You can interpret it how ever you like, but they in no way intended to claim slaves were 3/5 of a human for any other purpose but representation.
I agree and disagree. Yes, that WAS the practical reason. However, they were considered to be subhuman. And that did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was even part of human evolutionary theory well into the 20th century.
considered sub human by whom? Unless the framers and those that ratified the constitution felt this way and intended to make this statement with the 3/5ths clause, it is irrelavent to the example it was used in here.[/quote]
Most did consider blacks less than human at the time. But that is not really why the 3/5ths clause came into being. At least not that percentage. It exists because Southern states with large slave populations wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They didn’t really consider these people human but wanted them to count for representation purposes. States without large slave populations argued that they weren’t really ‘people’ and shouldn’t be counted. The Southern states could not really argue with this considering the prevailing and their own well-publicized view so argued that they were ‘partial’ human beings. The 3/5ths clause was a compromise.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
The pro life crowd did not do itself a favor in the US because their adamant insisting on that every fertilized egg is holy has led to partial birth abortions which are hopefully not the norm around the world.
C’mon, Joe, I don’t think the pro-lifers’ fertilized egg insistence leads to partial birth abortions. That’s just too much of a stretch.
Of course it does, because it makes it an all or nothing issue though it does not have to be.
I think most people would be ok with some sort of compromise, like abortions in the first trimester.
Ok, what? Partial birth abortions would never have happened had first trimester abortions never been opposed? That makes no sense. Why isn’t it the easiest explanation? That dehumanizing humans in the womb, makes it much easier to kill them in the womb, at any point. And, what’s to compromise? If you believe it’s truely a property issue (her body) you must support the “right” to abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. Not to mention infanticide by neglect.
You can only dehumanize what is human.
There is no way to dehumanize a fertilized egg.
Is the human embryo some other organism that magically becomes another? Like a shark that, shazam!, becomes a human at some point during it’s term?
Edit: Isn’t Orion embryo the exact same individual organism as PWI Orion? Or, was there some kind of swap out in the womb at some point?
You are playing with words.
Not everything that is “human” is a “human being”.
You only can dehumanize human beings, fertilized eggs are not human beings, therefore they cannot be dehumanized.
Well, I am curious. Are you the same individual organism as the one in the womb? And “being?” Like a German Shepard being? Or a Soft shelled turtle being?
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
[/quote]
You also don’t share a single cell with the orion of 10 years ago, yet clearly it would not be moral to kill that orion. Look, science has taught us so much in the last 100 years and we should not just ignore science when looking back at decisions that were made 30 or 40 years ago. People were smoking Cigarettes in hospitals back then right? “Human” or “Human Being” as you want to refer to it is a construct made up in each persons head, it is a representation used by the individual, to label things outside of it. Human Being, just so happens to label other things which are clearly very similar to itself, yet, not identical. Now mostly this is going to be determined via appearances. I mean should a Yeti walki into the room, regardless if he has every single anotomical distinction that you do, since he is bigger, and much more hairy, you are not going to think of his as “Human Being”. Now with science, we understand that there is a certain base to every single cell in every living thing on the planet. Plant, Animal, fungi, virus, everything. Surely this stuff is very important, this DNA, which somehow is acting like a set of blueprints for the cell to follow. Now this DNA, being a blueprint can tell us much about the organism, so much so that we no longer need to see the whole organism, ike hoogram, we can take a single cell, extract the DNA, and Map out that blueprint to give us a picture of the whole.
Ok so now that science has given us a clear view of cell biology, and DNA’s role in growing living organisms, why would it matter when you kill the organism, Biologically, Once it is one cingle cell with unique DNA, it is it’s own organism. The stage of growth has l;ittle to do with it “aliveness” People don’t stop growing until thier late teens to early 20’s yet I hear little clamor for offing these “growing Humans” because they inconvenience us.
I want there to be consitancy, if it is going to be legal to kill a human in it’s early stages of development, then I also want to be able to kill any other human who is being an inconvenience.
V
…okay, so we’re 10 years in the future, and abortion has been deemed illegal. A young woman is raped by her father and decides, when she finds herself pregnant, to have an abortion. During the procedure they are caught redhanded by the anti-abortion police, but it’s too late; the 10 week old fetus is no longer. Due to unrelenting lobbying by Vegita and his ilk, abortion is murder 1 by law, and punishable by death. The young woman is subsequently gassed.
…this is one scenario, but how do the prolifers see an anti-abortion law put to work?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…okay, so we’re 10 years in the future, and abortion has been deemed illegal. A young woman is raped by her father and decides, when she finds herself pregnant, to have an abortion. During the procedure they are caught redhanded by the anti-abortion police, but it’s too late; the 10 week old fetus is no longer. Due to unrelenting lobbying by Vegita and his ilk, abortion is murder 1 by law, and punishable by death. The young woman is subsequently gassed.
…this is one scenario, but how do the prolifers see an anti-abortion law put to work?[/quote]
Who said I was pro death penalty? Or even that this would be a case of murder 1? You just threw the worst case scenario up on the wall, and instantly assumed our position for us. Hell let her claim insanity or PTSD from the rape and go into a nice cushy “hospital” setting for the rest of her life. Regardless of how she got pregnant though, if she understood it was considered murder to kill the fetus, there is little you will get in the way of sympathy for her actions to kill the fetus. Now, are you saying that certain people should be allowed to break laws and certain people should not be allowed? Or that we should not have laws because a person who you deem to be innocent might break one of the laws?
I mean if we use the scenario you just said, there is a high chance the baby dies before birth anyways, if not it’s going to have another high chance of being deformed or retarded. There is going to be a whole host of problems dealing with each individual involved in this. The Father, the Daughter, and the new human life they created. (I’m not saying she willingly created it either). Hopefully you lock the father away, you treat the daughter and hope she can make a recovery into the population again. What else are you supposed to do? I mean besides killing thousands of babies so irresponsible people can have a more convenient life.
V
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I mean besides killing thousands of babies so irresponsible people can have a more convenient life.
V
And therein lies the crux of the entire matter. Convenience. That’s what it really boils down to. All of the dancing around the issue of “Is it a human yet?” “Is it viable yet?” “What about the woman? It’s her body.” “What about rape?” “What about deformity?” “What about the baby’s future possibly poor social setting?” “What about this? What about that?”
Yeah. Convenience.
[/quote]
Yeah, but irresponsible people will have their abortions nevertheless.
Arson is a poor example, if arsons were legal they would be done above all for economical reasons. The societal effects of legal arsons are from a different league than those from abortions.
I do think there are more effective means to minimize the amount of abortions than by outlawing them. Easy access to contraseptives and sexeducation comes to mind.
[quote]orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
You realize this has to do with a process known as growth.
A continuous process of constant replacement?[/quote]
Yes. Which would explain why you do not share one cell with a fetus…but it does not negate the fact that you were formed from this fetus.
(Vegita already explained it above in greater detail.)
[quote]Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
The pro life crowd did not do itself a favor in the US because their adamant insisting on that every fertilized egg is holy has led to partial birth abortions which are hopefully not the norm around the world.
C’mon, Joe, I don’t think the pro-lifers’ fertilized egg insistence leads to partial birth abortions. That’s just too much of a stretch.
Of course it does, because it makes it an all or nothing issue though it does not have to be.
I think most people would be ok with some sort of compromise, like abortions in the first trimester.
Ok, what? Partial birth abortions would never have happened had first trimester abortions never been opposed? That makes no sense. Why isn’t it the easiest explanation? That dehumanizing humans in the womb, makes it much easier to kill them in the womb, at any point. And, what’s to compromise? If you believe it’s truely a property issue (her body) you must support the “right” to abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. Not to mention infanticide by neglect.
You can only dehumanize what is human.
There is no way to dehumanize a fertilized egg.
Is the human embryo some other organism that magically becomes another? Like a shark that, shazam!, becomes a human at some point during it’s term?
Edit: Isn’t Orion embryo the exact same individual organism as PWI Orion? Or, was there some kind of swap out in the womb at some point?
You are playing with words.
Not everything that is “human” is a “human being”.
You only can dehumanize human beings, fertilized eggs are not human beings, therefore they cannot be dehumanized.
Well, I am curious. Are you the same individual organism as the one in the womb? And “being?” Like a German Shepard being? Or a Soft shelled turtle being?
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
You also don’t share a single cell with the orion of 10 years ago, yet clearly it would not be moral to kill that orion. Look, science has taught us so much in the last 100 years and we should not just ignore science when looking back at decisions that were made 30 or 40 years ago. People were smoking Cigarettes in hospitals back then right? “Human” or “Human Being” as you want to refer to it is a construct made up in each persons head, it is a representation used by the individual, to label things outside of it. Human Being, just so happens to label other things which are clearly very similar to itself, yet, not identical. Now mostly this is going to be determined via appearances. I mean should a Yeti walki into the room, regardless if he has every single anotomical distinction that you do, since he is bigger, and much more hairy, you are not going to think of his as “Human Being”. Now with science, we understand that there is a certain base to every single cell in every living thing on the planet. Plant, Animal, fungi, virus, everything. Surely this stuff is very important, this DNA, which somehow is acting like a set of blueprints for the cell to follow. Now this DNA, being a blueprint can tell us much about the organism, so much so that we no longer need to see the whole organism, ike hoogram, we can take a single cell, extract the DNA, and Map out that blueprint to give us a picture of the whole.
Ok so now that science has given us a clear view of cell biology, and DNA’s role in growing living organisms, why would it matter when you kill the organism, Biologically, Once it is one cingle cell with unique DNA, it is it’s own organism. The stage of growth has l;ittle to do with it “aliveness” People don’t stop growing until thier late teens to early 20’s yet I hear little clamor for offing these “growing Humans” because they inconvenience us.
I want there to be consitancy, if it is going to be legal to kill a human in it’s early stages of development, then I also want to be able to kill any other human who is being an inconvenience.
V[/quote]
Every time you scratch your nose you are committing a holocaust of single cells with unique DNA that with future scientific techniques could become another person. The fact that the DNA is the same as yours matters not; consider identical twins who have the same DNA but are different people.
Where is the line if you follow this train of “consistency”?
How about an example; abortion is illegal. A single woman/girl of any age with no family or close friends is raped and becomes pregnant. Unable to support a child financially or emotionally she turns to a back-alley illegal abortionist who of course botches the job and she dies or is irredeemably injured.
Is this acceptable?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
The pro life crowd did not do itself a favor in the US because their adamant insisting on that every fertilized egg is holy has led to partial birth abortions which are hopefully not the norm around the world.
C’mon, Joe, I don’t think the pro-lifers’ fertilized egg insistence leads to partial birth abortions. That’s just too much of a stretch.
Of course it does, because it makes it an all or nothing issue though it does not have to be.
I think most people would be ok with some sort of compromise, like abortions in the first trimester.
Ok, what? Partial birth abortions would never have happened had first trimester abortions never been opposed? That makes no sense. Why isn’t it the easiest explanation? That dehumanizing humans in the womb, makes it much easier to kill them in the womb, at any point. And, what’s to compromise? If you believe it’s truely a property issue (her body) you must support the “right” to abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. Not to mention infanticide by neglect.
You can only dehumanize what is human.
There is no way to dehumanize a fertilized egg.
Is the human embryo some other organism that magically becomes another? Like a shark that, shazam!, becomes a human at some point during it’s term?
Edit: Isn’t Orion embryo the exact same individual organism as PWI Orion? Or, was there some kind of swap out in the womb at some point?
You are playing with words.
Not everything that is “human” is a “human being”.
You only can dehumanize human beings, fertilized eggs are not human beings, therefore they cannot be dehumanized.
Well, I am curious. Are you the same individual organism as the one in the womb? And “being?” Like a German Shepard being? Or a Soft shelled turtle being?
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
You also don’t share a single cell with the orion of 10 years ago, yet clearly it would not be moral to kill that orion. Look, science has taught us so much in the last 100 years and we should not just ignore science when looking back at decisions that were made 30 or 40 years ago. People were smoking Cigarettes in hospitals back then right? “Human” or “Human Being” as you want to refer to it is a construct made up in each persons head, it is a representation used by the individual, to label things outside of it. Human Being, just so happens to label other things which are clearly very similar to itself, yet, not identical. Now mostly this is going to be determined via appearances. I mean should a Yeti walki into the room, regardless if he has every single anotomical distinction that you do, since he is bigger, and much more hairy, you are not going to think of his as “Human Being”. Now with science, we understand that there is a certain base to every single cell in every living thing on the planet. Plant, Animal, fungi, virus, everything. Surely this stuff is very important, this DNA, which somehow is acting like a set of blueprints for the cell to follow. Now this DNA, being a blueprint can tell us much about the organism, so much so that we no longer need to see the whole organism, ike hoogram, we can take a single cell, extract the DNA, and Map out that blueprint to give us a picture of the whole.
Ok so now that science has given us a clear view of cell biology, and DNA’s role in growing living organisms, why would it matter when you kill the organism, Biologically, Once it is one cingle cell with unique DNA, it is it’s own organism. The stage of growth has l;ittle to do with it “aliveness” People don’t stop growing until thier late teens to early 20’s yet I hear little clamor for offing these “growing Humans” because they inconvenience us.
I want there to be consitancy, if it is going to be legal to kill a human in it’s early stages of development, then I also want to be able to kill any other human who is being an inconvenience.
V
Every time you scratch your nose you are committing a holocaust of single cells with unique DNA that with future scientific techniques could become another person. The fact that the DNA is the same as yours matters not; consider identical twins who have the same DNA but are different people.
Where is the line if you follow this train of “consistency”?
How about an example; abortion is illegal. A single woman/girl of any age with no family or close friends is raped and becomes pregnant. Unable to support a child financially or emotionally she turns to a back-alley illegal abortionist who of course botches the job and she dies or is irredeemably injured.
Is this acceptable?[/quote]
That’s a stupid and ridiculous analogy.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
The pro life crowd did not do itself a favor in the US because their adamant insisting on that every fertilized egg is holy has led to partial birth abortions which are hopefully not the norm around the world.
C’mon, Joe, I don’t think the pro-lifers’ fertilized egg insistence leads to partial birth abortions. That’s just too much of a stretch.
Of course it does, because it makes it an all or nothing issue though it does not have to be.
I think most people would be ok with some sort of compromise, like abortions in the first trimester.
Ok, what? Partial birth abortions would never have happened had first trimester abortions never been opposed? That makes no sense. Why isn’t it the easiest explanation? That dehumanizing humans in the womb, makes it much easier to kill them in the womb, at any point. And, what’s to compromise? If you believe it’s truely a property issue (her body) you must support the “right” to abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. Not to mention infanticide by neglect.
You can only dehumanize what is human.
There is no way to dehumanize a fertilized egg.
Is the human embryo some other organism that magically becomes another? Like a shark that, shazam!, becomes a human at some point during it’s term?
Edit: Isn’t Orion embryo the exact same individual organism as PWI Orion? Or, was there some kind of swap out in the womb at some point?
You are playing with words.
Not everything that is “human” is a “human being”.
You only can dehumanize human beings, fertilized eggs are not human beings, therefore they cannot be dehumanized.
Well, I am curious. Are you the same individual organism as the one in the womb? And “being?” Like a German Shepard being? Or a Soft shelled turtle being?
Depends on how you look at it.
I do not share one cell with this fetus.
Not one-
You also don’t share a single cell with the orion of 10 years ago, yet clearly it would not be moral to kill that orion. Look, science has taught us so much in the last 100 years and we should not just ignore science when looking back at decisions that were made 30 or 40 years ago. People were smoking Cigarettes in hospitals back then right? “Human” or “Human Being” as you want to refer to it is a construct made up in each persons head, it is a representation used by the individual, to label things outside of it. Human Being, just so happens to label other things which are clearly very similar to itself, yet, not identical. Now mostly this is going to be determined via appearances. I mean should a Yeti walki into the room, regardless if he has every single anotomical distinction that you do, since he is bigger, and much more hairy, you are not going to think of his as “Human Being”. Now with science, we understand that there is a certain base to every single cell in every living thing on the planet. Plant, Animal, fungi, virus, everything. Surely this stuff is very important, this DNA, which somehow is acting like a set of blueprints for the cell to follow. Now this DNA, being a blueprint can tell us much about the organism, so much so that we no longer need to see the whole organism, ike hoogram, we can take a single cell, extract the DNA, and Map out that blueprint to give us a picture of the whole.
Ok so now that science has given us a clear view of cell biology, and DNA’s role in growing living organisms, why would it matter when you kill the organism, Biologically, Once it is one cingle cell with unique DNA, it is it’s own organism. The stage of growth has l;ittle to do with it “aliveness” People don’t stop growing until thier late teens to early 20’s yet I hear little clamor for offing these “growing Humans” because they inconvenience us.
I want there to be consitancy, if it is going to be legal to kill a human in it’s early stages of development, then I also want to be able to kill any other human who is being an inconvenience.
V
Every time you scratch your nose you are committing a holocaust of single cells with unique DNA that with future scientific techniques could become another person. The fact that the DNA is the same as yours matters not; consider identical twins who have the same DNA but are different people.
Where is the line if you follow this train of “consistency”?
How about an example; abortion is illegal. A single woman/girl of any age with no family or close friends is raped and becomes pregnant. Unable to support a child financially or emotionally she turns to a back-alley illegal abortionist who of course botches the job and she dies or is irredeemably injured.
Is this acceptable?[/quote]
You jumped through like a couple different hoops there. First off, Killing a skin cell has little effect on the organism as a whole. I really don’t want to have to go into a really big biology lesson here. You do know what an organism is right? It can be one cell or a LOT of cells. Every one that is a LOT of cells, still starts out as one cell. But they grow to more than one cell. Killing the cell is not the problem, it’s basically wiping out that line of specific DNA, you don’t give it a chance to live it’s life, mate, and have offspring. Which is the primary objective of all DNA, and it’s also the sole reason life can evolve on an everchanging planet.
To your second point. I really need to know one thing before I will even entertain that and argue the merits of it. Just show me one official stat, showing how many women, died in an illegal abortion attempt before it was made to be legal. If you can give me the 10 years before then I will really dig deep into the argument. But as of right now, a one time hypothetical situation which you attempt to attach personal feelings of sorrow for the girl getting raped, and a “back ally” which is supposed to be dark and scary, does not hold any weight in any grown adults decision to murder off 45 million babies. Your scenario is one in a million at the very best, and no we do not make laws to prevent the one in a million scenario.
V
Here I did your homework for you.
â?¢Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, even though abortion procedures were unsafe and often life-threatening, in addition to being illegal
â?¢During the 1950s and 60s, each year an estimated 160 to 260 women died from illegal abortions, while thousands more were seriously injured
So even if you take the lowest number of these abortions and use the highest death figure, and we are talking about a .0013 death rate of the mother. … Ooooh scary.
And if we go for the highest number of abortions preformed, and the lowest amount of deaths. .0001333%
Now that is something that we REALLY need to get a better handle on.
So the bottom line is, your only way to make it sound like these are horrific numbers is to attach all sorts of emotional factors to pull on the heartstrings of people so they feel sorry for the woman. Personally, I don’t feel sorry for any of them, I’m sure on an individual level, some of them got into some really bad spots that they really couldn’t control. You know what people get into a car and get killed because someone was stupid, people go to work and get into a work accident and die because someone else was stupid. People do a lot of things to other people over stupidity that there is going to be innocent victims every single solitary day. However, how people can draw the line and say, oh lets just kill off a baby because we can’t see it yet. It just seems beyond stupid to me. What if the mothers stomach was translucent and you could see it with the naked eye through all the stages of development. Would you still be able to do physical harm to the very most defensless and innocent form of human life?
V