You're just repeating yourself, I said there is no black and white here. I don't have to believe abortion is justified and believe it needs to be state funded. There's a split because people keep saying what you're saying as if there's no possible way there could be a compromise.
That's because when an innocent life is involved, there
is no compromise. That's why this is such a stark issue. In a sentence, it works like this:
if the fetus is not a human, no justification is necessary. If a fetus is a human, no justification is possible.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing but, depending on the person, the "established" being technically has more say.
Well, technically in the sense that right now it's legal, yes. But this is, of course, a discussion about what ought to be legal and why.
The problem with giving this power to the more "established" person is that this describes parents and their newborn children just as much as parents and fetuses. Any argument for the justification for abortion should probably not work about equally as well describing born infants.
It's not really about being dirt poor, it's about starving your child, losing shelter, etc.
Well, my response is the same, then: we don't get to decide that for other people. But they still have choices. They can give the baby up, for example. They are not completely without recourse. I'm also not sure either of us would really trust someone to draw the line between the truly destitute and the highly inconvenient, anyway.
But that's impossible to determine. I just can't see the purpose of pro-life outside religion, and that's when it becomes unsafe.
The only belief necessary to be pro-life, regardless of religious affiliation, is that innocent human life is sacred and ought to be protected. I think you'll find that no arguments I advance (or have advanced) will posit anything more than that.
Having one prick into religion because of abortion is completely fair to me compared to all the other ideologies that the country says are welcome but this doesn't really hold true.
I honestly can't follow this. Can you rephrase?
I was questioning the implication that religion is true, which is while it is real in that people believe in it, no one can say true or false or anything so it's not worth adding to the already muddled world of politics.
Correct, it cannot be empirically established as true. I'm simply saying that there's nothing wrong with it factoring into someone's political beliefs. If they honestly believe it's true, that's the only sensible thing to do. I expect all people to bring all honestly-held beliefs into the public sphere.
EDIT: just saw the added quote...
Also, what happened to stem cell research? Couldn't the banning of that "waste" the fetuses?
That's kind of a loaded question. But sure, it would "waste" them (assuming I understand the science correctly), but in the same way we "waste" the bodies of people who aren't organ donors, or "waste" money on caskets and funeral services. Obviously, the position is one of showing a degree of respect for human life beyond its material benefits, partially so that we don't come to cheapen life over time.