TrackBack and Comment API URL

http://www.bunnyworld.net/admin/incoming.asp?id=1245235468001

If you were to try to scientifically pin down one particular moment as when "protected" life begins, when would it be, and why?
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:35:24 GMT :: Permalink

I don't think it's about when it becomes protected, but how we go about protecting it. You can save a life by putting a person on life support, or you can save a life by not drinking and driving and injuring that person in the first place. I think the earlier we can start working to save lives the better. Don't jam it down people's throat's at the last minute when you could have been helping them for years prior. I think it's interesting that the same people who fight hardest against abortion are the people who want to cut the welfare that goes to the mothers who DID have their babies.
Cassondra
via BlogWorks :: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:32:45 GMT :: Permalink

That's rather a tangential issue. Laying aside the bizarre idea that welfare has EVER been "cut", one does not preclude the other. And it doesn't address the issue about abortion itself. Of course we should (in whatever way) do whatever we can do to help struggling families with more children than they can handle, and adoption should be streamlined, more crisis pregnancy centers, etc. etc. But given that, then what?

I'm sure we can all agree that a one-year-old child should be protected from being purposefully killed by another. We could probably even all get behind it for a newborn that had just been severed from its mother's umbilical cord. But is that it? Is that the dividing line between "ok to kill" and "not ok"? Is it acceptable that a fetus one day away from birth can be killed because its host wishes it?
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:41:26 GMT :: Permalink