Quote:
Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
which is also why i said "my .02".....i realize other ppl think differently about life/abortion/right and wrong/heaven/hell/satan/crack/cocaine/weed/cigarettes/church/repubs/dems all that.....again, i was just stating my reasoning why i can't accept KSig's reasoning concerning roe so i can be a good american thing. i think life begins at conception. and i'm okay with saying that i pray roe v. wade gets booted out the door. to some, they see it as a women's issue, i see it as a life issue. therefore, i'm pro-life.
i have a niece/nephew gone b/c of choice.......while i totally, 100% understand how the logic was formed behind the decision.....no logic in the world makes it right to me.....or to her.
|
Here's the thing though:
It's completely cool that you believe in conception as the start of a (legally protected) life. The problem is that this definition does not meet the high standards required in courts (at least under current review).
Rudey introduced a new, potentially problematic concept: the 'potential for life' . . . this also introduces elements that are completely beyond the court's necessary comprehension, things like stillbirth, prenatal disease and birth defect, and even 'DNR'-type quality of life arguments.
So the thing is, we have a hotbutton issue that no one can agree on. The reality is that even science can't tell us when a 'life' begins because we can't agree on a definition, and the best the prevailing religion can say is 'at conception' (which originally meant 'during sex' but now we know it takes hours . . . so when is it? can it be pinpointed?) . . .
In these sorts of cases, we must allow the freedom for individual interpretation. The bottom line, Monica, is that you're saving souls - and we can't legislate on that, at least not in good faith.