And so was I.


Can you prove that? Can you apply the scientific method to that and come up with that result? What definition of sentinent do we use? In Eastern philosophies water is a sentient being of first order. At what point does one become sentient? If a child is born that is brain damage non-sentinet do they not exist? If you have a accident and have brain damage do you no longer exist? At what point is someone no longer sentient? Is a person in the fifth stage of Alzheimer's sentient? By definition no! But ask that to that person family. Who determines this certainly not the individual, the family, the state? If you don't not exist if your not sentinet "I did not exist until I was a sentient human being." do you become disposable? That sounds like eugenics - Nazism but you did say you were a socialist and Nazi does stand for the National Socialism.


First man is not inherently good nor benevolent if we were we wouldn't be having this discussion because none of this would be and issue.
You're good is very relativistic. It only applies to people that think, believe and act like you. Once again you're making statements without any backing "so they can enjoy life in the here and now", "rather than being good because you think you'll be rewarded by some god" neither one of these concepts come from the Bible other religions maybe.


Wrong religion.


I have no right to say what someone else does with themselves, to themselves or with other consenting adults. But to say that abortion is not killing something living is a lie that is used to soften the blow. To call the life that is killed a fetus is an argument in semantics it's a baby. To base whether it's a life or not on it's viability outside of the uterus is pathetic. Call it what you like but it's killing a life. Once again I have to take you for another great segue. Without a standard for morals they can and will change and often to the prevailing ideas in the culture. At first abortion was only first tri-mester justified by it being a fetus, now it's OK for second tri-mester abortions but at the end of the second tri-mester that point of viability outside the uterus is reached so by the very definition used by the Pro-Choice people it is no longer a fetus but a baby. The Pro-Choice movement is pushing so third tri-mester abortions are allowed and again that fetus no longer a fetus but it is a baby. This is the most vile way to put someone to death. PETA screams about what happens to animals in slaughter houses this is worse. You on the left boo hoo the "torture" the people at Abu Grahb and Gitmo went through. They went through nothing compared to what a baby goes through in partial birth abortions (third tri-mester. They are pulled out with forceps, the skull is punctured and crushed and the dead body is removed. This is most often performed on a perfectly healthy mother and baby. [Link: npr.org] With moral relativism we've gone - in the past 40 years - from whether abortion is legal or not in the first tri-mester to fighting over the right for women to have access to partial birth abortions.

Before you start screaming about the womans right the founding fathers drew up these rights thinking that we would realize that with these rights come responsibilities. You have the right to use profanity but you have the responsibility to not say it so people that might be offended can hear it, the same with music. A woman unless she has had an a hysterectomy needs to be cognizant that no birth control method is 100% effective so if she doesn't want to get pregnant maybe she shouldn't have sex. That's the only way to be as close to 100% sure of that she wouldn't get pregnant. So now your going to bring up what about rape and incest. These are such a statistical small part of overall abortions that they aren't much of a issue - approximately 1% of all abortions. Now your going to bring up medical reasons effecting the mother or baby those are about 7% and this opens a whole different can of worms. In England a baby was determined to have birth defects. The medical profession with the backing of the government (great example of socialism and socialized medicine) came just short of forcing her to abort the baby. The woman refused the baby was born without any birth defects. How many healthy babies are aborted because they might have birth defects? So 92% of all abortions are out of convenience - her right - but where are her responsibilities?

Someone committing a crime causes a woman to lose her baby and this is murder but she can decide that she doesn't want this baby and that's abortion.

Let's just call it what it is and stop the euphemism of fetus for baby and abortion for killing. This doesn't effect her rights only puts it in the correct perspective.