This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BizSuitStacy · M
I agree with you. Doctors swear to do no harm. And many refuse to do abortions.
The problem I have is treating the Roe v Wade decision as an issue dealing with "women's reproductive rights." A classic liberal sound bite to deflect away from the rights of a child.
The right to [b]life[/b] liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable. They are granted by God, not by gov't. Since life begins at conception, don't the rights of a human begin at this point, no matter how early in its lifecycle, even if the being is only compromised of a few cells?
If not...who decides when human rights are to be applied?
The problem I have is treating the Roe v Wade decision as an issue dealing with "women's reproductive rights." A classic liberal sound bite to deflect away from the rights of a child.
The right to [b]life[/b] liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable. They are granted by God, not by gov't. Since life begins at conception, don't the rights of a human begin at this point, no matter how early in its lifecycle, even if the being is only compromised of a few cells?
If not...who decides when human rights are to be applied?