- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
But I don't think that's the outline of the hypothetical. You come from a very developed theory wherein you state that the unborn child is something less than human. However, the scenario placed before us for the context of this thought exercise is to assume that it is now accepted that we accept life at conception. Therefore, a conceived child would be considered a "person".
As I read the first post. The situation is that the supreme court has deemed a fetus to be a person. I took it to mean that I may or may not agree with their decision. As such, I saw no reason to change my own feelings on the matter.
Just like the title says.
It's the year ???? and the anti-abortion movement has finally succeeded in banning elective abortions; making them illegal.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that 'personhood' begins at conception and that children while in the womb have a 14th Amendment right to their lives, due process and equal protection under the law.
The Constitution remains as it is currently worded.
Would you demand and support an exception to the ban for cases where a woman was raped and she becomes pregnant?
As I read it again, I don't see where it should be understood differently. Laws are only laws, I consider my morality to be a more important motivator at least in terms of me choosing my own actions and beliefs.
Last edited: