[juniorgrrl]

Originally posted by valkyrie


I have a few questions --

Upon what do you base your belief that the "unborn child" is a life from the moment of conception? If it's religion, do you think that religion is a valid basis for law?

I believe that its a life from the moment of conception, because that's just what it is. I can't see how something "non-living" could continue to grow into a child if its non-living. Two living things (sperm and egg) merge to form another living thing.

That seems pretty harsh to put it all on the woman -- to say that if she has sex, even with birth control, it's just a risk she has to take... If I cross the street and get hit by a car, have I taken that risk so that even if I'm *really* careful and I look both ways, I have no case against the person who hit me because I knew that getting hit was a possible (however remote, say there was a 1% chance, about the same failure rate as the birth control pill) outcome?

This is faulty logic. The person who hit you acted in a negligent manner. However, if birth control fails, the fetus is not responsible; it is the result - an "injury" from the "accident."

I'm assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that by saying you are "pro-life" you mean that you would advocate passage of laws that would PROHIBIT women from obtaining abortions. Is your reasoning for this partially based on the fact that you view abortion as a selfish act? It seems that you are saying that abortion is a selfish act, and therefore it should not be allowed. That seems to me to be a pretty dangerous place for the law to go -- what other things are selfish and should be outlawed? What if you think it's selfish of me to buy a new Louis Vuitton handbag instead of donating my money to charity? Can there be a law against that?

Yes, I think abortion is a selfish act, but that should not be the basis of the law. I believe that there should be laws against abortion because I believe it is murder.

I agree with what (I think it was) KSigRC said -- that if you're going to argue that it's the position of women to carry a child to further the human race, than it is also the position of men to have sex with as many people as possible to spread their seed or whatever. So do you advocate monogamy, because really isn't monogamy in conflict with the biological purpose of men?

The law recognizes that a man must support his offspring - whether or not it is with a monogomous partner. Its interesting that when the man acts in the name of biology by creating a child, he must support it. However, when the woman becomes pregnant with this child, she is not required to support it - she is given the right to kill it.