The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Right...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The question here (see in situ)


...but that fits in with what I'm saying about being consistent. It's 'easy' for a pro-choice person to say the government shouldn't prevent an abortion, since they do not see the baby as a person with the right to Life. To them that's the same thing as saying the government shouldn't prevent you from brushing your teeth, since it's just unwanted 'tissue'.

But wouldn't everyone be angry if the government did nothing to prevent a mother from murdering a newborn if it could? Doesn't everyone view that newborn as a person with the right to Life, and that for the government to look the other way would be wrong?

So my point is that for someone who sees the unborn as just as much a person with that right to Life, how could they think it's ok for society to not prevent its murder, when it would be expected with the newborn, rape or no rape?

Again, it's not really a big deal for pro-choice folks, since they don't see the unborn as a person. To them, it's just like saying the government shouldn't interfere with drug use or marriage, etc. I hold the same stance as them on these other issues, but once you believe the unborn is truly a person, the life issue stands apart from these other issues, just as would if it involved a newborn, a five year old, a fifty year old, etc.