Of course not. and I basically have an issue with that kind of an argument, Vicomte13. Because it assumes an opinion or attitude that I have niether described nor promoted. Moreover, my point at the end of that comment was that it's a "dominion over my body" issue - an issue for which I have been TOTALLY consistent throughout the 400+ comments in this thread. So it doesn't logically follow that I would choose to IMPOSE euthanasia on a handicapped or terminally ill person.
And let's be clear, before a bunch of additional comments explode - I said PERSON. And I have also said I don't believe a fetus is a PERSON.
And I'm sorry if my tone sounds harsh - but you've been a very good debater and this last comment was unexpected.
Science has proven that the unborn can learn. Strange behavior for a non-human don'tchaknow.
>And I have also said I don't believe a fetus is a PERSON<
Ok, at what point in gestation does a fetus become a person? Read the excerpt below and tell me why the boy in the quote below is any more deserving of life than a 24 week gestational boy who has not yet been born:
http://www.prematurity.org/baby/hardly-believe.html
"Judy invited me to stand at the bedside of one of the five or six infants in the pod. It was a boy. He was curled up tight on his elbows and knees, the red oximeter light on his foot bathing his tiny, wrinkled rear end in an otherworldly glow. Balled up like he was, I figured he was about the size of a cantaloupe, maybe smaller. Judy said he had been born at twenty-four weeks gestation and was now about two weeks old."
"Moreover, my point at the end of that comment was that it's a "dominion over my body" issue - an issue for which I have been TOTALLY consistent throughout the 400+ comments in this thread. So it doesn't logically follow that I would choose to IMPOSE euthanasia on a handicapped or terminally ill person."
Oh, it follows directly from your "dominion over my body" issue. Because with abortion, you are asserting dominion not only over YOUR body, but dominion to kill the body of another, a tiny child. That you choose to not define the child as a child is the crux of why you do not equate imposing death on an adult and imposing death on that child.
And you are right, there is absolutely no convincing you.
This is a matter that must be imposed by law. Right now, your view holds sway, and death is imposed on millions of tiny people every year. Watch the movie "Silent Scream" sometime. Watch a little baby human die. In agony. In the womb. You choose not to see that as a baby, and that is the legal authority today. You must understand, therefore, that I have no compunction at all about imposing my will on you, in reverse, if I and mine are ever able to get the power to do it.
How one views human life, its sacredness, when it may be taken, is so fundamental, such a core issue, that the opinion of the majority simply isn't good enough to settle the issue. The majority can be wrong - it currently is. To the extent that the majority can be persuaded, things may change peacefully. I do not believe persuasion is possible, because it is, as you say, a matter of power, of sovereignty. THAT is only gained or lost through conquest.
So, that is what it is going to take.
I have to say, that after the South Dakota vote, my side is a long way from achieving that conquest. Maybe we never will. My long-term hope is placed with the Hispanics and pro-life birth rate advantages. Where else can it be placed?