PDF said:
flukus said:
PDF said:
flukus said:
PDF said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
PDF said:
@avinash but you cannot prove it doesnt exist. Also I said the arguement is that your killing somthing that could of lived. If you dint interfere then it would of became a baby.
We are so close at settling this. Your opinion is = to anyone opinon that is faith based. Your opinion is based on how you grew up and raised and experiences just like their was, they just had some religion incorporated in their life.
When a opinion is proven it becomes fact like gravity. That is not a opinion it is fact. When somthing is proven as a fact and can not be refuted it is correct.
|
Except that its not alive, so you aren't killing it, since it can't survive independently at that point. See the problem is you're trying to use faith to override what we know in science and what is legal under the constitution, and that is where the problem arises. |
It was going to be alive is the point. If you plant a seed in the ground and let it grow for a couple of days then you dig it up. It was never really a tree but you killed it all the same because you took its chance from being a tree away. The problem is your trying to overide any person with faith who are just important as you under constitution because they recieve one vote just like you. So no matter what you think their opinion is equal under the Law and you fail to see that. Also I do not think it is the right for a the Supreme Court to make law. They shall only interpret not make. So Roe v. Wade should have never been made. Only congress has the right to make laws as it is stated in our constitution. |
But people that are pro choice arn't overriding people of faith, everyone agrees their allowed to carry their child full term, it's anti abortionists that are trying to override people who don't share their faith by saying they can't have an abortion. And your logic goes right back to the "every sperm is sacred song". Every sperm could have been a child, so I'm killing a million kids before going to bed every night. |
Umm no, you cant have a baby without a egg. sperm will be killed no matter what you do. it is not a child seeing how it is only half of what is needed to become a baby. DUH. |
It also needs several months of nutrients and saftey from the mother, not that thats the main point I was making anyway. Based on your (presumably) religious beliefs you think the right to an abortion should be taken away from everyone else. Therefor you think you have the right to assert (through law) your faith on everyone else, which you obviously don't. In contrast, pro choice people force no one to do anything, which shows a case where it would be much better not to have religion involved in politics. |
You obviously have not read all my post or you would then really know how I stood on abortion. I am only argueing the Rights side of it to make a point. You think that everyone should have the right to abortion killing millions of babies and forcing your beliefs on them. You are trying to force your opinion on others just like they are. You have that right, as do they. This works on the death penalty as well. If you think there should be one your then forcing tour beliefs on them and if you dont your forcing your beliefs on those who do. Either way somone is forcing thier beliefs on another. It is the way America works. As long as it is majority beliefs it is ok instead of an individuals. |
Explain in what way being pro choice would be forcing my opinion on other people?
Something like the death penalty is a different bag. We all agree we want a society with as few murders as possible, as far as I'm aware it's not divided on religious lines and theres data to back up our arguments.
Usually when religion interferes with politics (such as abortion and gay marriage) it is when there is a divide roughly along religious lines, no data (or no objective data) pr logic to back up either claim. Sometimes even against evidence as with the intelligent design "debate".
Not to mention the fact that the debate isn't neccesarily a fair one, as with intelligent design. One side has to provide evidence, predictable and reproduceable results and countless studies. The other side gets to say "NAH-AH, IT WAS MAGIC". It's unreasonable to expect both sides to be taken just as seriously but apperently we do when religion interferes with politics.
