I use to be a huge pro-life person, having grown up in the Catholic church and family. But lately, I'm more supportive of people getting abortions if they can't handle having children. What I mean is, allow one abortion no questions asked, but penalize them hereafter. What the penalty is and how they enforce I haven't a clue, but just something to make sure this abortion is their only one.
A white trash girl I graduated with a few years ago (I don't even know if she actually graduated or not) has a couple of kids, one she got knocked up with while still in high school. Anyways, they're like ages 2 and 5. The other day she was caught shoplifting at Menards (that's right, a home improvement store, not something that would have been worthwhile had she actually gotten away with it) Anyways, the point is she's a skank with mixed up priorities if she's spending her time shoplifting. I feel bad for her kids. I can only speculate on what type of life they have, but given what I do know about her as a person, I can't imagine it's that great. I wouldn't go as far to say these kids would have been better off aborted....but, she is and never has been fit to be a mother and it's unfortunate that it'll really hinder her children in life.

Bottom line is that some people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. They barely have their own lives under control -- why should they be allowed to have kid(s)?....Sadly, enforcing that is a pipe dream of society.

The sun example is a terrible example.. We know why the sun rises and falls and as such we know that it will rise tomorrow unless something catastrophic happens.

HitsRus;511045 wrote: What is relevant to our present reality is that we are beings that travel linearly thru time in one direction only...and where we are on that time line makes a huge FUNDAMENTAL difference.

the same is true for a sperm or an egg yet you think they have no moral significance!

A sperm an egg do not constitute a human being. There is no arbitrary line when the two combine to give a genome for a unique human individual. There is no equivocation of definitions of when somthing is 'alive'. No arbitrary determinations of 'conscious thought'...no elitist requisites of 'having a brain' to be eligible for society's protection.
You would rather protect the 'deeply personal property' of an irresponsible person who consentually, and with full knowledge concieves...and then wisks away the inconvienience...oops.???? I'm trying to picture how someone who creates life and then destroys it gets a free pass.
It's funny how someone can assign such priority to the living poor who are at the mercy of the "rich"...and be so indifferent to the helpless who are at the mercy of the irresponsible.

it is absolutely relevant because you find it a moral horror to choose convenience over the life of a human being that feels no pain yet you feel it not a moral horror to choose convenience over the life of human beings that feel great pain.

Where did you get that idea? Because I don't immediately submit to a government shakedown without question? I asked you before...how many people are you supporting? How much are you spending...and are you willing to share the burden? As I posted earlier( revised since I actually calculated it) My business provides full health insurnce for 8 people and their families not including my own...21 people. It costs the business 6% of my gross. The government wants to take an additional 6% out of my net too just 'cause it seems fair to do so? How can I be sure that the money is going to health care for the poor middle class?(it's not going to the poor who are already on medicaid).


I'm kind of curious....where do you get this notion that it is fair to take money from the not quite rich to pay for middle class needs? Is it some kind of Christian notion to give to those less fortunate than you...or is it something you just accept "A PRIORI'