Whatever. You're becoming irrational.
What is irrational is the notion that a woman should "have a right to terminate her pregnancy", when that word "terminate" implies the halting of development of a little life whose very existence the mother had every opportunity to prevent. In #51, you yourself admitted "no one disputes that cellular life begins at fertilization". At this point you are left with a tenuous bifurcation between life and personhood. To the logical mind this is problematic, and is why I've been so tough on you to show us the "magical moment" at which the baby becomes a "person".
You then go on to make the baseless statement that "her fertilized egg is nothing but a potential person, and pregnancy is a condition which she can reject. You, - and society, -- have no say in that matter, at that point." At this point you are bound to show why that is true in this case - a case in which a woman is choosing to end a hardship she (in 97% of cases) brought upon herself at the expense of someone else - and not true in other, analogous cases like slavery. Indeed, you need to show why any murder is not an infringment of life.
I posit that your whole basis for this rests on the non-"person" status of the baby.
Just like the "good Germans", minding their own business...
Good grief, you're trying to establsh that I'm nazi-like by defending a womens right to end early term pregnancy?
If x becomes the accepted norm, and y is very far from x then y will appear irrational to x's adherents. The reverse is true: y was once the norm, and x appeared at that time as the extreme position. If there is no objective right and wrong, then morals can change. If that, in turn, is the case, we have no fundamental basis for any law, since law itself implies absolute truth.
There are millions of us who will not rest until America's brand of Nazism is defeated.
And to 'defeat' early term abortion you want an authoritarian State to decree that ending a pregnancy is murder.
No more and no less than the "authoritarian" laws that for the nonce prohibit all other forms of murder.
Realize I'm not going after you personally but after a whole system of thinking that has proven detrimental to our overall health as a society. This system redefines logic and invents "absolutes" of its own (like "she has a sovereign right to do as she pleases with her own body") to fill the void of those it has vacated (ergo "Thou shalt not kill"). To one (and I presume not to know if this includes you) who has grown to affirm relativism as truth - which is itself a contradiction - the arguments presented will appear "extreme" and shocking.
I think I've presented a pretty logical case for why the unborn should be protected by the law. Making this a reality, however, will mean fundamental cultural changes. For example, extramarital affairs must come to be viewed again as a disgrace and aberration, not as the norm. To your credit, you've observed that simple top-down legislation of morality cannot change the heart, which is by its nature evil - just look around if you need proof.
Sorry, I sometimes get ahead of myself. Should read:
Indeed, you need to show why any prohibition of murder is not an infringment of the would-be murderer's rights.
They are protected, -- by our rule of law. -- As I explained in #51, and elsewhere here.
You want to change that rule, and in effect, change our Constitution. And if you succeed, women would simply ignore your new rule, or go elsewhere to abort.
Making this a reality, however, will mean fundamental cultural changes. For example, extramarital affairs must come to be viewed again as a disgrace and aberration, not as the norm.
Get real. -- Victorian hypocrisy was the abberation. The "Victorian Compromise" was, and still is the norm.
To your credit, you've observed that simple top-down legislation of morality cannot change the heart, which is by its nature evil - just look around if you need proof.
You see our sexuality [the heart] as evil. Sad comment.