If not, then all pregnancies amount to involuntary servitude, which flies in the face of the Bill of Rights.
Using that contorted (and fallacious) logic, parenthood itself flies in the face of the Bill of Rights, because all parents have duties to their children which will, in fact, be enforced by the government if necessary.
Regardless of the semantic games being played in legalization of abortion, it remains the killing of a human life.
No one denies this.
Abortion advocates such as yourself deny it all the time. "It's not a human being, it's a fetus", etc.
People are simply aware of the differences between human life outside the womb and within, with a key discriminant being viability.
Again, that's a lawyer's distinction, not a biologist's. And viability was selected for expediency. Period.
A distinction which you seem unable to grasp.
Grasp? Yes.
Accept? No.
My cousin the quadraplegic isn't "viable" either, without machinery and human assistance. But I think we both recognize his basic right to life.
That the law doesn't recognize this is the great failing in the law- and it's the TRUE area of disagreement between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice; if one accepts the premise that abortion takes a human life, there is no reasonable basis on which to allow it.
This is completely wrong. Abortion takes a human life. Roe realizes this too. What both I and Roe recognize is that a person has a Ninth Amendment right to carry out their pregnancy as they see fit, at least until the quickening, at which point the State's interest in protecting the welfare of its... people gains more traction.
As I said, and you demonstrated- if one accepts the premise that abortion takes a human life, there is no REASONABLE basis on which to allow it.
This ad was much ado about nothing. Not remotely offensive, not even very effective.
I was reading in USA Today web traffic to Focus On The Family is up 40x. So, I disagree with you there too.
I assume you disagree on the "effectiveness" of the ad, rather than the "offensiveness", since nobody can rationally point to anything offensive in the ad itself.
As it its effectiveness, I hope you're right, but I suspect that sans the faux-controversy abortion advocates have drummed up over the add is what actually has driven people to the web site.
Regardless, surely even a die-hard "Pro-Choice" person such as yourself would acknowledge that if the ad leads some women to choose not to terminate the life of their unborn child, that's not a bad thing.
Right?
