@60. Beauxdog:
First, my thanks for your civil and respectful reply. This is a breath of fresh air after the typically shrill response most PJM commenters offer me. As you noted, the insults, derision and sarcasm have inspired me to occasionally respond in kind. On the other hand, my posts are generally respectful and fact based, and I work to maintain a level of civility as well. I’ll do my best to take your advice on moderating my tone.
On to our disagreements…
First of all, SOCIETY should determine the laws and mores of this country. SOCIETY includes everyone from athiests to evangelical Christians. An evangelical Christian should have just as much to say about what is right and what is wrong as you do. I think murder is wrong (this is Biblical!)… what do you think?
I don’t think that anyone should have a right to make their religious beliefs the basis of the law. That’s why we have rights and protections, and an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the government from making such laws.
Logically and scientifically, you can’t argue with the statement “life begins at conception”.
Sure I can. You appear to be claiming that the egg and sperm are not alive before conception, which is an odd argument. I don’t think you can make a great distinction here.
Politically, you can argue till the cows come home. At conception, you have an entity with its own DNA that left alone, will be born a human being.
Actually, at conception you have an entity that, left alone, might or might not implant in the uterine lining – if it is “left alone”, and doesn’t hitch a ride on the uterus, it ceases to exist as an entity. If it does implant, then it is no longer “left alone” – it is a dependent entity.
Whether a woman, or a man, has control over her own body is extremely debateable.
No, not really. It is a pretty well established right, and it is spelled out plainly in the Constitution (see above). As a practical matter, it is not really debatable at all. As a legal matter there are conditions, but they are quite limited.
A woman can’t take illicit drugs or commit suicide legally.
Actually, most illicit drugs can be obtained legally under limited circumstances. And in the state I live in, physicians can provide lethal drugs for the purpose of hastening death (legal suicide). So a woman can take illicit drugs or commit suicide legally under some circumstances.
A woman can’t sell her own kidney even though the proceeds would lift her out of poverty.
True enough. But she can offer her womb for rent, or sell her unfertilized eggs to lift her out of poverty.
We can make arguments against each other’s beliefs or world view all day. If we stop insulting each other, maybe we can find common ground where we can progress.
Yes, we can make arguments all day. I think the problem with finding common ground on abortion is that opponents have an absolutist view that any and all abortions are bad, and fail to understand the many and varied reasons that this procedure is employed. The current state of law, which allows women to make this decision in consultation with their medical provider, seems to me the only tenable position. There is no reasonable basis here for the government to interfere in the privacy of a patient-doctor relationship. But that’s just my opinion, as supported by the Constitution and logic.
What do you think would constitute an acceptable solution? Maybe we can find some more common ground.
Peace.
DS
