Our laws are supposed to protect the lives and liberty of the people. Why are the unborn excluded? Why do people think "liberty" means "do whatever you want, no matter who you hurt?"
Note: I did NOT vote for Bush because he is NOT pro-life and because he disregards the Constitution. And I'm not Catholic.
2006-07-23 08:31:01 · 15 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry I AM CATHOLIC!! But i am w/u the unborn is excluded but shouldn't be it has only one right but it should always be noticed. And the right is to LIVE. It is persons' body and most think that they should do what ever they want to it, but thats is a lie. We mortaly living in Gods eyes. that we only barrow the body, and shouldn't destroy it.
2006-07-23 08:54:45 · answer #1 · answered by purpleflwr 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every sperm is sacred? Every unfertilized egg is a person? Those are unborn. Or embryos that are miscarried. Those are unborn.
I don't mean to be cruel, but the argument favoring rights for the "unborn" ignores the basic medical fact that until a fetus can exist on its own, about 6 months into the pregnancy, all you have is a collection of tissue that cannot function as an independent living being.
So, the question becomes, who has more rights? A collection of cells that might someday become a human being, if everything goes well? Or a living breathing person who is fighting to retain control over what happens within her own body?
If you can come up with a way so that every embryo can grow up to become a living person, without forcing women to be pregnant against their will, more power to you. But right now, that's not an option. So the choice is between the person who has a birth certificate and established legal rights, and the collection of cells that might someday become a person.
Liberty means giving people the right to choose. People, not politicians. And let's face it: someone is going to make the choice regarding pregnancies. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority of politicians through enacted laws.
And personally, I don't think politicians are either competent nor qualified to make those choices.
2006-07-23 08:36:31 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The unborn had their rights taken from them by a majority of nine men in 1973. This had nothing to do with the constitution and was a hijacking of our liberties by an activist court.
By the way, I personally know President Bush and he is most definitely pro-life. There is a very limited amount that any president can do to restrict or stop abortion. It will take the Congress refusing to further give up its own constitutional authority and take back its constitutional authority, which it has freely given up over the last several decades, from both the Judicial and Executive branches. I would highly recommend that you read Mark Levin's book "Men in Black" for a complete answer to your question. Excellent book.
2006-07-23 08:39:02 · answer #3 · answered by blowry007 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didnt Bush just veto Stem Cell Research....?
I agree, people want to try to bend the laws to what works for them, in some cases the unborn is not a human being and in some cases it is. I think it should be one way or the other, preferably that they are human beings.
2006-07-23 08:34:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I do approve of murdering little fetuses. I like the sound the vaccuum makes when their little bones and flesh makes when they are ripped apart in their mothers womb and sucked down the vaccuum tube, sccchuuulllppp.
ah, god, now I'm hungry, thanks a fewking lot; and I just had Chinese.
Please, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR OPINION, NOT ASKING A QUESTION. If you we're asking a question, your mind would be open to change, which it IS NOT. Why do Christians HATE so badly these Mothers who choose to abort, then CONVENIENTLY FORGET THEIR PROMISE OF A RESURRECTION IN THE FUTURE? Does God hate these INNOCENT Babies so much that he won't give them a chance at life? After all, according TO YOU they are alive? So would you rather have them gauranteed a resurrection in the future or a living nightmarish hell with a mother that would probably blow pot smoke in their face to "calm them down" and give them benedryl to get them asleep?
2006-07-23 08:41:09 · answer #5 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the unborn aren't people yet. To qualify as people, it must be able to survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures. The human race is in no danger whatsoever of becoming extinct any time soon..
2006-07-23 13:12:37 · answer #6 · answered by Mrsjvb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, our laws are supposed to protect its citizens or at least legal residents. However, technically,the "unborn" are not citizens yet. Also, some couples are not ready yet to have a child. It is better to kill the child before carelessness will transform them into a criminal.
2006-07-23 08:36:25 · answer #7 · answered by John 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are right , most people have abortions because they know they are not able to take care of a child. They have 3 options . 1. up for adoption which in most cases ruins a childs life when they find out and are depressed forever . 2. have the child and have a miserable life for both of them or 3 abortion , and have nobody's life miserable
2006-07-23 08:43:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is pro-life, Bush isn't catholic, Clinton was the one to break the second and fourteenth amendments.
2006-07-23 08:35:05 · answer #9 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the real issue. When does life begin? My answer is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Those who believe life begins at birth have no reason to question abortion.
2006-07-23 08:50:00 · answer #10 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋