[jwalsh07]

Considered mainly on my feelings coupled with the fact that a fetus of that age can't exist outside the womb. Notwithstanding the science of a pre-90-day fetus, my feelings are an appropriate way to judge as I also see it as an issue of morality not legality

A 91 day fetus can not survive outside the womb. A 1 day old baby can not exist outside the womb absent parental care.

I'll try one more time but you have seemingly made a choice to ignore my posts. That's OK, it's a free country.

You live in a world that is no more real than Alice in Wonderlands. You're deficient on the science, the law and the role of morality in a constitutional republic. Hey we're not all perfect but as you wander back to where you came from I'll leave you with these two challenges to ponder.

If an unborn baby is not a human being what is it?

And see if you and your friends can find just ONE law in this country that is absent a moral component.

You won't find one so I'd suggest you widen your horizons a bit, ditch the "you can't legislate morality" bit (that is all we legislate) and let me know how the kangaroo trans-mutates into a human being on day 91.

Adios Bandita!

[DCBandita]

If an unborn baby is not a human being what is it? Until a certain point, it's nothing. It's a bunch of cells. And see if you and your friends can find just ONE law in this country that is absent a moral component. I could find them, and you would find the moral component. Morality is relative - what I would see as not having a moral component you may see as solely morality-based. I'm not trying to duck the question (the second one) - it's just that morality IS relative as proven by the discussion had here on abortion. I'm not a bad person because I don't believe it's murder and because I don't believe life begins at the moment of conception. You're not a bad person because you do. We just have different morals and, with that as a baseline, are unlikely to agree on issues of morality.