All your womb are belong to us

Interesting that you should bring up drug laws, because just like abortion bans they are nothing but legislated morality pushed through by the Christian right, and just like abortion bans are overreaching and unconstitutional... so yes, when the Supreme Court codifies Christian morality into law they are very often wrong.

Ok, I think so far this is what we can all agree on:

1. A fetus is a life form of some sort. Beyond that it becomes a matter of interpretation that varies wildly from person to person.

2. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnacy to term against her will is an imposition on her freedom. Disagreements stem from whether or not this is justified and to what degree.

3. Maple syurp from the US is inferior to canadian syurp. If it wasn't, there would be maple leaves on the US flag.

Argument: a fetus is a (potential) human life and must be protected on an equal footing with other human's lives.
Counter arguments: It is not human until (some criteria) - i.e. argument on definitions

Argument: a woman has a right to control what happens to and in her body, free from government influence
Counter argument: society places other restrictions on what a person may do with their body and this is no different

Argument: legal abortion makes sense because the other alternatives create psychological, social and/or economic burdens on the mother and child that society that the general population at large is unwilling to bear
Counter argument: unwanted pregnancy is the fault of the woman and the resulting burdens are her punishment


Have I missed any other arguments that are not: Leagal wrangling, emotional pleas or just nonsense?

Since when did Christians corner the market on the idea that heroine, crack, meth, etc were bad things? I'm pretty sure these drugs are illegal in Muslim nations and non religious countries like France.

But once again we have the "if it's wrong it must be Christian" theory because Christians are of course responsible for every bad thing that ever happened.

-Kiamat Dusk
...bad guy...

South Dakota passes abortion ban

1 hour, 49 minutes ago

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

...

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

If men can't have any say in terminating an inconvenient pregnancy then why should women?

Well...

1. You don't have to carry the baby for 9 months, risking your life (yes, women STILL die from childbirth)

2. I would hope, that a woman would talk to the father, and together they could come to a decision. The only time I wouldn't agree with that is if it was due to rape/incest, where the father should have absolutely no say.

But the whole point, there shouldn't be any laws regulating what happens to a woman's body. These decisions should be private between the woman and her doctor, and whoever else she chooses to involve, NOT the governments.

I was actually just having a bit of fun, but looking back, I think that living for several months with a pregnant woman made me gay

...

Argument: a fetus is a (potential) human life and must be protected on an equal footing with other human's lives.
Counter arguments: It is not human until (some criteria) - i.e. argument on definitions

......

If the fetus is alive and is a human fetus then it's clearly not just a potential human life.

Rip it out of the mother.

Is it human? No, it's a blob of tissue.

Therefor, it's "potential" human life. "Clearly", to use your term.

In the same fashion, an infant, while human, is not an adult - They are a potential adult.

If you rip it from the mother it's still a human. If it dies in the process, it's a dead human. But still very human indeed.

Difference of opinion I don't consider five cells human.

You mean like all those anti-gay marriage laws so many voters voted for in 2004 only to have them shot down in the courts? Where were your deep sighs then, vivi?

...

Here is what constituted a separate human.

1. Has own human DNA (own blood type etc), not the DNA of the host human. This would preclude a toenail as being a human.

2. Is alive and will continue to develop through childhood to adulthood unless is killed or otherwise dies.

If it has five cells or five trillion cells, it's a human.

BTW, not many abortions happen at such early stages.

BTW, not many abortions happen at such early stages.

in your OPINION.

Since when did Christians corner the market on the idea that heroine, crack, meth, etc were bad things? I'm pretty sure these drugs are illegal in Muslim nations and non religious countries like France.

But once again we have the "if it's wrong it must be Christian" theory because Christians are of course responsible for every bad thing that ever happened.

-Kiamat Dusk
...bad guy...

The laws are based on prevailing notions of morality, not on rational statistics. They're religious laws. Since the prevailing religion in this country is Christian the morality codified in many of our laws is Christian.

The laws are based on prevailing notions of morality, not on rational statistics. They're religious laws. Since the prevailing religion in this country is Christian the morality codified in many of our laws is Christian.

You can give a contrary definiton if you would like. I won't mind.

Is killing an innocent person considered a Christian morality law?

Should we do away with laws that are based on the ten commandments, such as stealing?

Whose morality will we follow? Yours?

Did you know people generally think their way is the logical way? I assume you are no different.

2. Is alive and will continue to develop through childhood to adulthood unless is killed or otherwise dies.

Exactly.

As soon as there is at least a 0.01% chance it can survive on it's own with even *extreme* medical intervention, then I'll accept that it's human.

Then a newborn has no right to life, because it can't survive on its own.