I'm not forgetting the federal prohibition, but since we're not talking about federal executions, but rather executions carried out by a state(s)
Posted by
Stephen (aka Sceire)
Jul 13 '13, 14:39
|
state funded abortion is entirely relevant to the discussion. But, even if all state funding for abortions was stopped, thereby removing that so called canard, you still ignore the fact that if the mark of a civilized society is that the state doesn't carry out death sentences, or allow its citizens to kill one another, then neither can it fund, or allow to occur, abortions. If there is no gray area, if there's no innocent life vs convicted murderer/danger to society argument to be made, then if executions are abhorrent to civilized society then so too must abortions be. If there's no room for a distinction between life and murderous scum then neither can there be a distinction between life and "viable" life.
As far as your consent argument goes, you're forgetting, or ignoring, that regardless of whether it's a state sponsored abortion or not at least half of the lives involved never grant consent...
And with respect, your contention that no one wants abortions is, frankly, naive. When so many pro-abortionists refuse to even acknowledge, despite the medical evidence, that there is life, why would there be any impetus to end the practice of abortion. It's just a jumbled clump of cells afterall...
But, at the end of the day, sure, that qoute comes off somewhat hypocrtical as it was said, but the belief system behind it not so much. In other words is far less hypocritical to me to say I support the right of the innocent to life more than the right of convicted killers to live then it is to hold the rights of convicted killers over those of the innocent.
|
Responses:
|
