The pro-life movement is advocating the opposite of what it claims. It wants to excuse the mothers of murder and further subsidize and regulate the medical industry.
"The pro-life movement" can do what it will. Prosecute the mother (and her accomplices) should she murder her fetus. Nothing of this issue will change. That is, abortions will not cease, but at the least one is responsible for their actions. And of course when provable, which may bare an issue, of sorts, but it no doubt would be better than what we have now.
No, I do not agree it is right to murder a viable, human fetus. Nor do I defend that decision. I have some minor questions with regard to legal standing and how to act on those concerns. Like it says on the Continental Congress currency: Mind Your [OWN] Business.
Mind your own business is a great mantra to an extent. If somebody commits a crime, one could be argued to have an obligation to society to seek justice. Whether or not the victim can press charges or speak for themselves is of little regard.
What opinion of mine would you possibly attempt to change?
Perhaps your opinion on abortion. I seem to recall, and perhaps I have you mistaken for another, you being callously undisturbed by this issue. I seem to recall you being "pro-choice." That is, pro the choice that if the mother wishes to murder her fetus, on her authority alone, she can murder it. I find the position to be wholly immoral and in fact, criminal.
Perhaps we agree?
If it is murder, develope a case and charge the murderers with murder! The so-called pro-life movement - as a whole - wants to continue to excuse/pardon/ignore the mother's role.
That they should. I do not associate with, nor do I even know, the "pro-life movement." (Whatever organizations you are speaking of specifically.) I am pro-life. If the evidence is strong enough, charge the mother, and any accomplices, with murder.
Note too that I'm not a politician who feels a need to vote for unconstitutional legislation due to misplaced priorities:
Note too, that the Constitution was never signed by anyone living today, is binding of no one, and is sometimes incorrect. For instance the 3/5 clause. I am sure that you know this though I felt it needed pointed out. Voting against something inherently evil, though violating of the Constitution, is hardly a sin worthy of reprieve. Ron Paul took his Oath seriously. That is admirable. A congressman being sued for violating campaign promises is legally impossible. They have taken no Oath to any given man. This is aside from the abortion issue, but frankly I could not give one damn if someone is violating of the Constitution if their vote corresponds with natural law. And I'm sure you are aware that these bills aren't cut and dry. They are intentionally muddy.
The movement is flawed and has been for a couple centuries. It has always been about the AMA - IMO. Which reminds me,
I wouldn't doubt that some of this is simply for more medical regulation. I suspect that most all are just disturbed by the notion of murdering a fetus. Both morally and consciously. It is shocking to the senses to even have to have this discussion.
It is NOT MY article. It supports a couple points I repeat but it takes the theory that pro-life is more of an anti-sex thing. I see pro-life as more pro-AMA, FWIW.
You posted it. There is no need to semantically argue whether or not it is "YOUR article." Yes. I get you didn't write it. You obviously agree with it to post it. And to be frank, saying that the pro-life position is a position founded on being anti-women is fucking dumb. It is a cop out to prevent actual discussion on the issue.
I could more easily argue the case that abortion is anti-women. After all, there are women in the pro-life camp and females are aborted at a higher rate.
I won't do that because I am not intellectually bankrupt.
I get tired of having to point the clueless to the same video:
I don't have six minutes to spare at the moment. I will watch the video later and come back an enlightened man.
The movement has nothing to do with prosecuting murder and everything to do with increasing the scope of government.
I am confused when you say "the movement" without adding in your qualifiers. I am for prosecuting murder. I am, I suppose, a part of the pro-life "movement." I also wish to shrink the government to sizes probably never before seen in human history.
With regards to this issue it would be preferable for evil to cease to be. That I am even debating the case of murdering fetuses,
right v. wrong, is really rather incredible. When one steps back to actually look at the situation, it's rather discouraging, to say the least.
