gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.
SShaw490 wrote: A fetus in the first trimester isn't a "baby" in any sense of the word. The notion that it's a "baby" is a religious thing, not a biological one. And if you want to use that religious position to create legislation that will force women to carry babies of rapists, you'd better get used to accusations that you're no better than the Taliban.
gabrielmalinois wrote: You guys are idiots. You called it a baby. Is abortion illegal after the first trimester? That is news to me.
You're the one who called it a baby. I repeated what you said. And as far as abortion goes, you people could have had a compromise 10 years ago. We could have compromised on legal abortions in the first and second trimesters, or first half of pregnancy, or whatever. We just won't - never will - allow you to designate stem cell embryos as people, fertilized eggs as people, eggs that are NOT fertilized as people, the morning after pill as illegal, early-term abortion as murder, and all that useless, hopeless crap.
We could have solved all this 10 years ago. But you have too many organizations that profit from the fight. End the abortion debate with a rational compromise and you end all those pathetic, abominable hate-monger organizations and the millions of dollars that they bilk out of people. The abortion debate has nothing to do with babies. It has to do with commerce, with a con game that's been run for 40 years now.
This debate reminds me of an interview with Robert McNamara about the war in Vietnam. He said, basically, if America had believed North Vietnam had no designs on anything except unification, we could have ended the whole thing in 1968. But we continued to fight for another 5 years, killing hundreds of thousands of people, tearing our own country apart, for one simple reason - it was politically inexpedient to compromise. The abortion war is exactly the same. A compromise is possible, a rational debate could be held. But you won't engage, and of course there are those (although politcally impotent) pro-choice radicals that feel the same way on the other side. So we'll keep fighting the same fight indefinitely. How many decades are we going to do this?