Replies

You can not impose your 'sanctity of life', 'life begins at conception' rules on them any more than you can impose no dancing, no smoking, no drinking, no oral sex, Blue Laws, etc etc ethics that you may volunteer to abide by in your church.

Actually Eagle, you can. Blue laws were standard laws in nearly every state at the time of the Constitution and nothing in the constitution or the Bill of Rights interfered with the State's right to impose Blue Laws or general morality laws upon the citizens of the states.

If a State were to make a determination that life begins at conception and that the State's obligation to preserve and protect that life also began at conception, then the State would be perfectly justified in outlawing all abortions except in those situations where the carrying of the pregnacy to full term would likely result in the death of the mother (in which case rules of "justifiable homicide and self defense would fall into play).

So you are wrong that Laws cannot be enacted to protect and preserve the life of the unborn. Indeed, if Life is defined as beginning at conception, then the State would have an obligation to protect that life by outlawing abortion except for a very few exceptional situations.

Where you define life beginning is where you should determine that the State has a duty to protect it. You had earlier argued that the "Life is in the Blood" and therefore unless there was blood, there was no ending of a life in an abortion. You now seem to be arguing that it really doesn't matter when life begins because the State should not have a right to interefere with the right to have an abortion any more than it has the right to tell a business that it must be closed on Sunday.

Your position now is one of fatal inconsistency. If indeed, as you argued so persuasively, the life begins when the blood begins to flow, then you should likewise believe that the state has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect that life once a heartbeat is detectable.

I can therefore only conclude that your prior argument was not serious and that it was merely a straw man argument to counter the biblical position that life begins at conception.

So if you truly believe that life begins at the moment of the first heartbeat, then why would you argue that the State has no obligation to protect that life?