[gungafox]

I love the way people talk about "the sanctity of life from conception" when what they really mean is the idea of there being such a thing as a "right to life" sufficient to compell other people to undergo hardship and suffering. In my lifetime in the real world, all I've ever seen that idea do is elect democrats to public office. If "right2life(TM)" is gone by 2040, I won't miss it.

[newzjunkey]

You've only been here a week. Perhaps you got lost looking for the Democrat Underground?

[little jeremiah]

In other words, you support the right of a mother to kill her unborn child, is that correct?

What about euthanasia, you like that too?

[GermanBusiness]

[all I've ever seen that idea do is elect democrats to public office]

This is so true of young urban American women: when you dig deep down inside of an addled liberal brain, you will find the sheer hatred for Republicans to have much to do with their overblown impression that overturning "Roe vs Wade" would be the end of civilization. I even had to beg my sister to vote for Bush last year by saying that women would still be able to go to Canada for abortions. I said "it won't be like the borders will be closed or anything. It won't be the end of the world. Meanwhile, we have to stop Al Qaeda and that means voting for Bush." I shouldn't have had to say that.

In Germany, the conservatives won't allow a choice/life debate to sap female votes away from them. The Bundestag agreed to a law that makes abortions illegal after the third month. Period. No more arguing. No more politics.

[jla]

In my lifetime in the real world, all I've ever seen that idea do is elect democrats to public office.

Then you must have been born after 1989. Because you see, in the "real world" prior to that America elected a staunchly pro-life candidate to our highest office. And not only once, but twice, and in historical landslide victories.
This candidate even had a pro-life book published the year leading up to the 1984 election. I imagine this would've not been deemed a wise act by other candidates, but candidate Ron must've known a thing or two about people living in the "real world".

[buccaneer81]

ZOT bait, dude. Prepare for "Apocalypse Meow."

[Leatherneck_MT]

So by your reasoning we should elect murderers and abortionists to public office (no difference in my opinion).

Go back to DU

[bvw]

By that wondrous theory you've advocated -- You, yourself, have no right to life if it should make someone else's miserable. Say if you are ugly, those who want only beauty will be miserable: death to you. If you are pretty, those who envy your beauty are made miserable: death to you. If you are ordinary, those who want only the extraordinary will be made miserable: death to you.

Seems any way to look at that theory it is suicidal -- it can only be murder.

The Constitution does not proclaim a "right to happiness" -- only to the "pursuit of happiness". That means, in essence, that the Framers recognized that we are each and all always short of the mark, happiness-wise, thus that we will always have some misery and struggles, but that we have a right even a duty, perhaps, to pursue what happiness we can.

That's a social theory, btw, straight out of Genesis.

[grey_whiskers]

I love the way people talk about "the sanctity of life from conception" when what they really mean is the idea of there being such a thing as a "right to life" sufficient to compell other people to undergo hardship and suffering.

If I had only stopped at the posting date on your About page, I'd have taken you for a troll. Since I read your "In Forum" links, I think you are an agent provocateur--given you are posting as more-or-less a biblical literalist on crevo threads, and as someone who agrees with Peter Singer here.

I have never met or corresponded with anyone else who holds those two views simultaneously.

BTW, you're still wrong--any pregnancy and child-rearing compels others to undergo hardship and suffering.

Cheers!