I'll answer the questions in two parts - Pro-choice and pro-life.
For the pro-choice questions, to me, life begins when one takes its first breath. So, does that mean I think abortions should be legal right up to that moment? No. I would put the line at "capable" of taking it's first breath (and surviving). That usually falls around 2…
I'll answer the questions in two parts - Pro-choice and pro-life.
For the pro-choice questions, to me, life begins when one takes its first breath. So, does that mean I think abortions should be legal right up to that moment? No. I would put the line at "capable" of taking it's first breath (and surviving). That usually falls around 24 weeks. The current "compromise" of 20 weeks seems a decent compromise.
But the counter claim that says "at inception" leads to no compromise whatsoever. Why rape and incest allowed? Isn't that still "murder?"
What about ectopic pregnancies (where the embryo embeds in tissue outside the uterus (usually a falopian tube? Untreated - meaning removing it (aka, an "abortion") - will almost certainly lead to the death of the mother. Not "possibly," not "maybe"...like 90% likely. That's ok?
Or is the removal OK, because it's in the fallopian tube, but not OK in the uterus?
The pro-life position can ONLY BE (without being intellectually dishonest) that it should be left untreated and the mother...well good luck to her.
I'll answer the questions in two parts - Pro-choice and pro-life.
For the pro-choice questions, to me, life begins when one takes its first breath. So, does that mean I think abortions should be legal right up to that moment? No. I would put the line at "capable" of taking it's first breath (and surviving). That usually falls around 24 weeks. The current "compromise" of 20 weeks seems a decent compromise.
But the counter claim that says "at inception" leads to no compromise whatsoever. Why rape and incest allowed? Isn't that still "murder?"
What about ectopic pregnancies (where the embryo embeds in tissue outside the uterus (usually a falopian tube? Untreated - meaning removing it (aka, an "abortion") - will almost certainly lead to the death of the mother. Not "possibly," not "maybe"...like 90% likely. That's ok?
Or is the removal OK, because it's in the fallopian tube, but not OK in the uterus?
The pro-life position can ONLY BE (without being intellectually dishonest) that it should be left untreated and the mother...well good luck to her.