The point I was making about religion, was not about your religion, whatever it may be, or even if you don't have one. It was about acknowledging the religious liberty of others. It was about not calling them scumbags just because they hold a different view than you do, regarding what can often be a "religious" question.
No Zippers were raised or lowered in the creation of this post.
:incorrect. It states
I know what it states. Nothing in that statement makes my assertion false. If you think it does, please elaborate but I know now that my tolerance for selective emphasis on single words to the exclusion of the whole document is exactly 0. But if you think you can make your case...
Yes a citizen, just not one that has left the womb yet. The activity of late term abortion is the entire society's business as it directly impacts a baby citizen with pain, suffering, and deprivation of the most basic of rights.Not a citizen. And a real citizen, has decided to empty her womb. Respecting that real citizen, this activity is no one's business but her and her doctor.
Posted this in another thread, but I thought it'd be more appropriate here:
Aside from the obvious differences between what an unborn fetus should have...
Is there or is there NOT a pretty significant difference between the rape and murder of an 8 month old and legal optional choice of a woman to abort her fetus.
I mean, besides the fact that, oh I don't know- one was definitely alive and the other could still have been stillborn. Besides the fact that one was legal and the other was illegal. Besides the fact that one had rape involved and the other didn't. Besides the fact that Rapist/Murderer A chose to end the life of a toddler and Doctor B did what he was legally obligated to do and what Paying Customer C paid him to do (this is a capitalistic society right?).
I don't understand why Doctor B should be justifiably murdered even though he wouldn't be "murdering fetuses" without the consent of Paying Customer C. I don't really think he enjoys "murdering fetuses" but we all do work our jobs to get money right? Why should Tiller be the target of violence when he's doing what is legally his right to do? Why shouldn't these insane psychopath confused Pro-life (irony?) murderers go after the women who choose to have the abortions? Why don't they use the same scare tactics on them?
Can we agree that, if ANYBODY (which I don't agree with, as I'm pro-choice) is to be morally blameworthy for these actions, shouldn't it be the women who make the decisions to go see the big bad abortion doctors? Also, if the Tiller killer instead killed the women who went to go see Tiller, would he be getting as much support from some pro-lifers as he is now?
So think what you want about my credibility. It's certainly more interesting than the "See no evil, hear no evil, " approach most take on the Tiller fiasco.
So the gist of my point was the original prosecutor had more charges against Tiller. The new guy brought in dropped them all and went with 19 charges all having to do with 2nd opinions.
The original point stands. The question of whether these women met state kansas law and had an irreversible health threat NEVER had to be answered in court do to the original prosecutors charges being dropped upon his firing. The new guy brought substantially less charges all surrounding 2nd opinions which is why tiller was acquitted.
The jury never had to decide if Tiller was killing viable healthy babies in women who had no irreversible health threat.