It truly was another great post. I think DD is Developmental Disabilities Home. This strengthens the case. The spawn of a rapist could easily have these disabilities from 1) a genetic standpoint and 2) a challenged upbringing.
The rapee doesn't need this and neither does society. From a NET standpoint, the positive of aborting outweighs the negative.
Interesting take on heartbeat starting at 5 or 6 weeks. If not mistaken when you're heart is no longer beating you are no longer alive. Conversly, if a heart is not yet beating, life has not yet occured.
Arguing is good when each person realizes no one has the certified perfect answer, we all have opinions. As dear as we hold each of our opinions by exchanging we learn about each other and NO one's opinion is the 'End of Story'. They are all just educated guesses/opinions.
Yet again you make wild, unfounded assumptions and completely misunderstand the net concept which is still in my favor.
From conception it is a unique human life. None of those things can be argued with on a rational scientific basis, hence you, DD, SPN and GG are left in the unenviable position of trying to justify the taking of an innocent human life.
And here's a hint for you. It is patently immoral and unAmerican to exti guish someone's life for what they might do but haven't done yet. Ditto for the possibility that they might have a difficult up ringing and a hard life.
All of you are old enough and should be wise enough to know that life doesnt come with gaurantees for anyone. To suggest that this is moral justification for ending innocent human life is morally bankrupt.
If you don't have life, you've got nothing in terms of this world. End of story. Threw that in just for you, Vag. Oh and the fact that it's an unarguable truth.
With life there is possibility and the chance of realization of potential. If ther is a God who is remotely interested in the affairs of men, I don't see how He would approve of arbitrarily ending a unique and in ocent human life regardless Of how early the stage of development
Or temporary dependence on th mother.
9 months for the mother can't begin to compare to a potential 9 decades for the child.
Another couple of thoughts in closing. GGs comments on the DD homes seems to echo the Nazi campaign of extinguishing "life that is not worth living". As you may recall that is the cover under which they started only to proceed to homosexuals, gypsies and then ultimately the Final Solution.
Something else to consider in terms of the dangers of the slippery slope is that there is a so-called ethicist at Princeton named Senger (sp?) who actually argues that not only is abortion is acceptable it it is acceptable to kill infants and toddlers. Let that sink in for a moment. You may think that acceptance of early term abortion would never lead to that, but you can't really know that you can only hope or Think that.
Human life demands that we err on the side of caution
And provide it the utmost respect, even if that life presents temporary problems for the mother.
