In the 70s-80s the medical community and pro-abortion groups said it wasn't a life (at all). And yet now we know that at 8-10 weeks it has a heartbeat
Posted by
Stephen (aka Sceire)
Jul 13 '13, 11:29
|
etc.
Now it's "it's not a "viable" life." And yet, we're seeing increasing viability of those born at just 23-24 weeks. So where does the medical community and pro-abortion groups shift the goalposts to next.
As for the point you raise below, to me, it's a distinction with little difference, especially when you factor in state-funded abortions.
If it's wrong for a "civilized" society to support, and government to carry out, the execution of those who have been deemed to be a danger to society it's equally wrong for a "civilized" society to support abortion, and for the government to sanction the taking of life in this manner either through direct action (state funding), or inaction (failing to enact laws to protect such life).
In other words, I'll gladly give up my support to put to death those who have committed the most vile acts of depravity against society if you'll (not you specifically) give up your support to take a life that has done no wrong whatsoever.
But please, don't talk to me about being civilized when the standard practice of hospitals/facilities is to discard terminated babies (or even miscarriages) as "medical waste," cause I don't think we have the same definition of "civilized." (Again, not YOU you...)
|
Responses:
|
