3 ms·

> Well this is a problem with society then, yes? Does your suffering give you the right to kill another being (Since we still have not determined when life begi

> Well this is a problem with society then, yes? Does your suffering give you the right to kill another being (Since we still have not determined when life begins you have to admit this is a possibility.) I think you have this backwards. Since we haven't defined when life begins and we know the person carrying the fetus is alive we must choose the rights and well-being of the living over the unknown. Otherwise we open ourselves up to allowing legislators to assert that this or that cell might be alive and therefore requires equal protection under the law.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
> Since we haven't defined when life begins and we know the person carrying the fetus is alive we must choose the rights and well-being of the living over the unknown. They have defined when life begins which is why they have cut offs for abortion, like not after 3 months. Also this man was charged with killing an 10 week old fetus. https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article340575.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article340575.html You cannot murder something if we have ruled it does not have a right to life. > Otherwise we open ourselves up to allowing legislators to assert that this or that cell might be alive and therefore requires equal protection under the law. Not at all. The most we could go back is to say that human life begins at fertilization. The other option is when the baby leaves the birth canal. To me those are the only options that makes sense. The three month rule is idiotic.