OpEdNews - Page 7 of Article: Why Funding for Abortions is Essential to the Nation's Health

And if we don't? Adults on life-support usually aren't viable either; do we repeal their personhood and put all their property in escrow until the tube comes out? Why should we accept your completely arbitrary and self-serving standards?

"I can't abide these knee-jerk replies from those who have not thought this question through."

I can't abide narcissistic moonbats who have to make everything about them.

"There is no good reason to treat zygotes, embryos, or early term fetuses as though they were persons."

Except for the fact that every available fact says they're both alive and
human, and the fact that the only reasons for ignoring the first fact are completely selfish in nature.

"An entity that cannot survive independent of its presence within the body of another does not properly qualify as a "person"."

Your slant on it. Mine differs. Yours is motivated by selfishness; mine is not. Guess which one is purer morally?

"Instead, it possesses the status of a special kind of property until viability occurs, at which point the first in a series of rights--a "right to life"--occurs, which is only the earliest to which persons are entitled and even then does not prevail in conflicts with the rights of the woman nurturing it."

More opinion, condoning slavery, this time. Also the abrogation of the right to life when weighed against the woman's right to not fret over her expanding waistline. Where do you come up with these little gems, James?

"The perversion of rights that the court has found to be implicit in the Constitution by those who avow they support it is hypocritical in the extreme."

Yes, it most certainly is. The right to life goes out the window, to be replaced by the right to look good in a bikini. That takes a special kind of narcissism.

"I can't image a better example of shallow thinking on a crucial subject that this latest post."

I can't imagine you imagining anything. You're too steeped in self-regard to pay any attention to the world around you.

"And the suggestion that arguments based upon ordinary language, fetal development, and Supreme Court decisions are "emotional" reveals the intellectual poverty of the author."

Your arguments aren't based on these things. They're based on your personal opinions, which are themselves based on your personal feelings. The word "I" appears in your latest post no fewer than seven times. And remember, this is the same Supreme Court who confabulated a right to privacy in public places out of a written right to not be searched for no reason.

"If this is the kind of thinking that impresses any on this site, then Ron Paul is in more desperate shape than I have supposed..."

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9