[Sethomas]

Although my first post was made on the topic of abortion years ago, this is a stupid fucking thread.

You can believe that life begins at birth, or you can believe it begins at conception. To pick an arbitrary point in-between is asinine. The rules stand at three months simply because the people who made the rules recognize that people get more sentimental over a thumb-sized embryo than a pinhead-sized zygote. To introduce metabolic processes into the debate is moot; self-guided meiosis begins at conception.

My principle belief is that abortion should be illegal for the same reason murder is: one human does not have the right to kill another. Murder is a crime in all societies as a result of our uncertainty and fear of death. We want to die in a way suited to the way we live our lives, not by the intrusions of someone else's actions.

The argument of whether life begins at birth or conception scientifically one of semantics, but for practical argument it's a theological querry. By arbitrarily putting the line at three months, the government involuntarily assumes the position of the church. The obvious argument against this is that if the government intervenes on a woman's choice on the grounds of a theological oppinion, THAT is a violation of separation of church and state. But that's only on behalf of the woman, but the unborn child gets no say in the matter. Argh, this is kind of muddy trying to express this the right way, but I'm saying that the unborn child deserves the benefit of the doubt. Because it is not the right of the government to decide whether an abortion sends a soul into the afterlife or not, abortion should be equated with homicide judicially.