At the risk of side-tracking the thread, I've got to say I don't understand that argument. At conception the baby has a uniquely identifiable genetic code- that person has never existed and will never exist again and has everything it needs to grow into an adult. All it requires is oxygen, nutrition, and a safe environment- not unlike newborns. Where do we draw the line? When it has a heartbeat? When it grows limbs and begins to 'look' human? When it emits brainwaves? When its capable of feeling pain?Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Advocating millions of murders for the good of society is monstrous.Abortion is good for society. More unwanted babies is bad for America--Of all people, Republicans should be FOR Abortion, as it's less people whom you'll have to pay for their welfare.
Now, more on topic (sorta), politicians should base their legislative actions on their beliefs, period. Why is it ok if his fiscal beliefs say we should have lower taxes, but an outrage if his religious beliefs tell him abortion is murder? Its a ridiculous litmus test to suggest that legislators should determine whether a view has religious influence before being able to support it. Again, they are elected for their beliefs- if those beliefs are different enough from ours, we vote someone else it. Whether he holds views because of his religion is irrelevant.
Bookmarks