Roe V Wade history?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Oh you see right through me. I of course should drop all more specific terms in favor of 'baby?' But for the vast majority of pregnancy terminations, zygotes is technically correct. Because the vast majority of pregnancy terminations are by prevention of implantation, by device or drugs. The current ideology would rule these terminations murder. Do you share this view?

Again, rights in conflict. You ascribe moral status and rights to a developing human, pre-brith, from the point of a fertilized egg forward. I say the woman, whether adult or barely-pubescent girl, has rights to bodily autonomy. A right you also share. Would you like it if someone took away your bodily autonomy because someone really needed your bone marrow? What compels me to recognize these purported rights of, in general, insensate clusters of cells, over the rights of grown free citizens?

You have only your moral sense to support your view. Why should your moral sense rule others? This is another of those issues that Lewis Carrol described, when he had a character say 'The question is, which is to be master--that's all.'

I see you ducked the question. My post wan't about "seeing through you", nor do I care about that. The post wasn't even about my " moral view" though I suspect you'd rather make the conversation about that.

No, it was about the apparently leftward drift and extreme positions that many abortionists have adopted over time. I described some very specific practices that many abortion advocates favor, and have stated that while most folks when polled say they want Roe v Wade left alone, that same polling reveals a lack of support for those more controversial procedures.

So, the question again is: given the extreme positions that exist with most abortion advocates, and discounting the extremities of individuals on both sides of this debate, is there any common ground where there might be agreement or compromise?