Originally Posted by jmac7142
I'm not about to waste my time researching this to meet your standard of proof, which seems impossible to meet. This type of consensus if similar to a mathematical convention, like c
being the hypotenuse of a triangle. Try to find a poll of mathemeticians that agree with that one
My 'standard of truth' is simply a request for you to show that you are correct in your statements. If you won't give reasonable proof for your assertions, I'm not so sure you even have an arguement.
I think most of you are overlooking the fact that is is not your decision to make, and it is not a decision the legislature should make. It should be the decision of the woman in question and maybe the father.
A decision the legislature should make is one that protects the people's rights. A decision that I can make is one that upholds my moral code, and it seems to me that attempting to protect innocent life falls under that. I don't think I'm 'overlooking' something. I've already shown why I don't think that relative judgements can be used reliably in this situation, so don't assume I have to follow them.
No, I'm not going to just take your word on it (which is basically all you've given me) when you declare that it's perfectly ok for someone to arbitrarily decide whether or not to kill innocents. That's how it appears to me, and I will
take action based on that.