Would you vote for him? #2

[$mooth]

If you believe that no one can deprive another person of life, the debate is "where does LIFE begin," not whether a woman has the choice to end that life.

I argue that life begins at conception. The DNA of the zygote, fetus, etc is unique, and all stages of development are for a person, not some unknown being. Therefore, abortion should be illegal to preserve the life of the developing person. I just don't think it's a Federal issue and should be left to the states along with all other crimes against life, liberty, or property.

I'm also in before this thing gets locked, because no abortion thread can be debated in a civil manner.

This is a slippery slope for me. I agree that life begins at conception. But if my wife has a drink the day after conception, I don't think she should be held for child abuse.

 

[femurphy77]

Can't vote for him across the board because he caters to gun owners and how he wouldn't infringe on their rights and then tells women they don't have rights to their own body. Just as their shouldn't be conditions on 2A issues imho there shouldn't be conditions on abortions although I can see a valid reason for one as well as a lot of invalid reasons for one.

 

[colt45er]

This is a slippery slope for me. I agree that life begins at conception. But if my wife has a drink the day after conception, I don't think she should be held for child abuse.

Is she drinking to the point of harm intentionally? I'm pretty sure someone who has an abortion is intening to end that life.

Can't vote for him across the board because he caters to gun owners and how he wouldn't infringe on their rights and then tells women they don't have rights to their own body. Just as their shouldn't be conditions on 2A issues imho there shouldn't be conditions on abortions although I can see a valid reason for one as well as a lot of invalid reasons for one.

The abortion isnt about the womens rights to their own body, its about the rights of another life. I personally believe it should be legal to kill yourself as long as you don't hurt someone else. I have a problem with them killing that baby.

 

[Son of Liberty]

The abortion thing holds me up as well, I believe it is the womans choice not mine, or anyone elses.
No one knows for sure when life begins, therefore, it is hard to call it murder or make it illegal based on a huntch, which is what it is.
Most of the thinking behind when life begins comes from religious beliefs, and that being the case no body has the right to force their beliefs on another.

 

[rmabrey]

This may start a flame war and I expect potential neg rep, but abortion doesn't hold me up cause frankly, its not my business what other people do.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The abortion thing holds me up as well, I believe it is the womans choice not mine, or anyone elses.
No one knows for sure when life begins, therefore, it is hard to call it murder or make it illegal based on a huntch, which is what it is.
Most of the thinking behind when life begins comes from religious beliefs, and that being the case no body has the right to force their beliefs on another.

Actually, we know exactly when life begins. It happens at conception.

The sticking point with abortion legislation is when the fetus goes from just a "collection of cells" to a baby.

From what I remember, when the SCOTUS came to their decision they based it off of "quickening" or when the baby begins to move in the womb. They used historical precedent dating back to ancient Greece, so this isn't a recent argument. So, that is why they set the limit at the first trimester. The majority opinion of Roe v Wade is actually a very good read if you have the time.

The logic here being that the baby does not have conscious thought prior to movment. It is most definitely alive as it has a heart beat, most of the vital organs are fully formed along with all the limbs, but technically not "human" until it begins to move.

Even at 8 weeks when a woman first notices she has missed her period, the baby has a heart beat.

If a single celled bacterium can be defined as "life" then surely we can define human life in the same way.

Indiana also has laws on feticide, which are currently being amended to include babies prior to 30 weeks gestation, after the case with the bank teller on the east side who lost her twins when she was shot.

So, it's not a question of whether or not the life of the unborn should be protected. All courts, both state and federal, have upheld that notion.

The only point of debate is timing, and scientifically, I think there is more evidence to support the notion that life begins at conception, than not.



Also, we should not fail to miss the bigger picture of whether or not the Federal government should even have the power to regulate state law in regards to abortion. I argue that the Feds have no say in the matter one way or the other, and that it should be left to each state to determine.