Good thing in SD we know the difference between a verb and an adjective as well as the difference between relative morality and true morality. Maybe you were just kidding about this and your tongue-in-cheek article is really to underscore the gravity of the real issue here--a separate and identifiable human life that is 100% reliable on the mother for life through the connection to the mom via the placenta (to be "separate" when the baby comes to full term and is able to live less dependantly on mom). I hope that no one goes out to have sex just so they can look forward to an abortion, but maybe there are those who have treaded that far into the abyss.

The search for the truth in this is the question of abortion--right or wrong? It can't be both. If it were not wrong, not a woman alive would think twice about having one, and this would not be an issue. But I would bet that any woman who is put into the situation of an unwanted pregnancy does indeed think twice about an abortion--why? Because of the very nature of the emotion it draws from people, in our hearts we know the real morality of the situation. We can justify our actions all we want, but we know the truth if we so choose to face it. Inconvenience is not a factor when it comes to making the right moral choices in life. When life is on the line (mom's or baby's) the choice must be made based on the sanctity of life, the most human of our character.

"The search for the truth in this is the question of abortion--right or wrong? It can't be both."

Sure it can. It can be right or wrong dependent on the situation.

More important is, even if it is wrong according to your morals, or even "absolute morality", if it in fact exists, why should you get to enforce your "morals of choice" through law?

FILO,

Don't you realize that all laws are the enforcement of morals. How could you ask such an absurd question.

You also do realize that when you commit murder the aggrieved is not the victim (or her family) and that it is in fact the the people of the state itself.

When you murder someone it will say "The People of State of X against FILO".

FirstInLastOut:

"The search for the truth in this is the question of abortion--right or wrong? It can't be both."

Sure it can. It can be right or wrong dependent on the situation.

More important is, even if it is wrong according to your morals, or even "absolute morality", if it in fact exists, why should you get to enforce your "morals of choice" through law?

Because THEY know better than us fact driven,liberty respectin' ,non believers and that means they can impose their increadibly obvious stupidity on us.

spiker:

FILO,

Don't you realize that all laws are the enforcement of morals. How could you ask such an absurd question.

You also do realize that when you commit murder the aggrieved is not the victim (or her family) and that it is in fact the the people of the state itself.

When you murder someone it will say "The People of State of X against FILO".

no they are not! were the hell did you get that little gem of illogic and stupidity? robertson,hannity,farwell?

HahahahahahahahahahaHahahahaha­hahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaha­HahaHahahahahahahahahahaHahaha­hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The hubris required to say that you are fact driven is beyond the pale.

spiker:

FILO,

Don't you realize that all laws are the enforcement of morals. How could you ask such an absurd question.

You also do realize that when you commit murder the aggrieved is not the victim (or her family) and that it is in fact the the people of the state itself.

When you murder someone it will say "The People of State of X against FILO".

all laws ane not enforcement of morals .thats just plain stupid.But even if true ,does not mean any loud group of people can impose this kind of morality on others .not in this country.try reading james madisons opinon on religious morality and the power os goverment .try " a remonstrance and memotial" if you have the guts to face ,what to you would be a shocking bit of knowlage.

that should be " a remonstrance and memorial"

spiker:

The hubris required to say that you are fact driven is beyond the pale.

pot meat kettle......idiot!

POT MEET KETTLE....it's already been a long day.

There is no search "for the truth in this question of abortion". You have a belief about it. And no, not EVERY woman thinks twice about an abortion. Not everyone thinks or believes as you do.

But the issue is not about the morality one way or the other.

The issue is PURELY about what the limits of The Government's power is. Does The Government have the power to

• compell involuntary servitude on the part of the host woman in direct contravention to the 13th Amendment?
• Compell involuntary organ donation to "promote life"?
• Compell a woman to triple her risk of dying to "promote life"?

That is the gist of it. How much power are you going to cede to The Government, power that was never ceded to the Government by the US Constitution, in the name of "promoting life"?

After all, if The Government can compell a woman to risk her life and carry to term, why can't it come and demand that you donate a pint of blood when it is convenient for The Government? Why stop at blood, you have two kidneys and clearly donating one would save an innocent life? Why stop at a kidney, 1/3 of your liver still leaves you with enough liver to keep living (though you can't drink beer anymore) and is large enough to save an innocent child.

If you don't respect the limits The Constitution places on The Government in the case of preganant women, what basis do you have for insisting on limits at any other point?

Something as trivial as the enforcement of building inpsections is a moral value.

If you don't believe me ask a China man weeping standing next to the rumble of his child's school. If I was him I'd scalp you for asking such a stupid question.

...any loud group of people can impose this kind of morality on others...

Not only are you laughable company I'm sure the company you keep is laughable.

Thats okay. I feel like taking pity on you now. :-)

Not everyone thinks or believes as you do.

Ever been accused of belaboring the obvious?

I'll just say that if the govt. can compel you to shoot and kill someone or die yourself, then I'm sure that given just the right circumstances, if it was warranted, they could compel blood donations. They might even make exceptions for say Jehova Witnesses like they do for conscientious objectors.