I must think like you do in order to "mature as a human being"?
No, but you must be willing to recognize when your opinion is JUST AN OPINION, and that other people have their own opinions, that can be just as valid as yours.
Religious Christians seem to have a very difficult time understanding that because they have adopted a religious dogma that's based on it's own presumed righteousness, and so doesn't allow for tolerance or diversity.
Spare me the lecture. And get off your high horse.
I'm just telling you how it is. And why the anti-abortion crowd can't seem to grasp the essence of the issue. All they can do is keep reiterating their own opinion as if it were an absolute truth. When it's not. While they keep trying to force everyone else to comply with their opinion.
How can both opinions be valid? They are mutually exclusive.
Either abortion kills a person, or it doesn't.
The difference of opinion is about what constitutes a 'person'. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that because to do so would expose your opinion for what it is: an opinion. As a result, all you can do is keep repeating your opinion over and over: that it's about "murdering babies".
Please explain how both stances can be "equally valid."
I have already done so many times on this thread and others. And I see no reason to think you will not continue to ignore any explanation I can give you.
There is little evidence to suggest that an early stage fetus is a "person". It does not yet have the biological capacity for the complex self-consciousness required to manifest a human 'person'. Nor can it exist independently of it's biological host. It exhibits only the
POTENTIAL TO BECOME a human person. Thus it cannot reasonably be considered "murder" to end that potential before it manifests as an actual human person. And since it exists inside a woman's body, it is her choice whether or not to end that potential, or allow it to develop into a human person.
This opinion is honest, true, and reasonable.
The other opinion is that the potential to become a human person that is evident in a developing human fetus is and should be considered an actual human person, because it is unique and individual. And if we destroy it at any stage in it's development, we destroy that uniqueness, that 'individual', forever. to destroy the
possibility of a person existing is the same as destroying an existing person. And therefor should be called, and treated, as 'murder".
This also an honest, true, and reasonable opinion.
Yet neither of these opinions can be proven beyond their own reasoning, because their reasoning is based mostly on subjective perception, and not much on fact. And that being the case, no one has establish the right to impose their opinion on everyone else. Which is why the courts chose a compromise.
