republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's a perfect response requiring little explanation. Why waste time seeing how you think depression is always treatable via non-abortion means? Abortion can be the treatment, this is obvious to me.

I can also win any argument by having the quicker trigger finger, but that doesn't make it the right choice.

Treatment has to consider the betterment of all the parties. This would include the unborn. You appear to be okay killing off one party to stabilize the other, but many philosophers would suggest that your solution attacks the defenseless party at the expense of the party that was mistreated until this point. So, I dunno man, you're advocating the most brash of all treatments, and your argument is still a strawman since you are assuming that all mental illness is life-threatening.

But what your arguing is the difference between late-term abortions and more traditional abortions. The reason the former is "sketch" is because we're talking about a stage at which the fetus is in a very grey area between unborn and born. The difference between a late-term fetus and a premature birth is often just semantics.

Let's face it, you are looking at birth at the point in which you would apply human rights to the second party. There is nothing in natural law that states birth is more significant than conception or is more significant than any point in-between. This is a cultural division. Your denial of human rights up until a point is the EXACT REASON that late-term abortions are sketch. You've decided that there's a hard point at which a child should go from not having the right to life, to having all human rights, which fits the American legal perspective just fine, but does not account for the inherent gradual development of the situation. The eyes, nose, ears, and conscience don't just happen on birth man. I once again suggest you re-assess here.