3RU7AL

Why do/would embryo exist in such quantity?

Why not explain to Pro Lifer's why Roe v. Wade is not against their beliefs then?

Maybe we shouldn't freeze embryos.

That's what it means to maintain principle, because principles--namely axioms--which inform any moral arguments express essentially 0th ordered logic.

If it is certain that the embryos 'will grow up into adults,

Why not explain to Pro Lifer's why Roe v. Wade is not against their beliefs then?

Or 'is it against their beliefs in some ways?

There is middle ground, and I'd be willing to meet there, even though there 'still leaves me uncomfortable,

Everyone contributes to society to some degree. For poorer people, that may just mean buying from local businesses, paying rent and working an 8-5 job.

Pro Life doesn't mean 'no abortions at all, given that exceptions have already been remarked upon,

or especially in Gods eyes.

Is this what people want and 'expect of the system in it's ideal form though?

All of them that wanted to vote again would send back their stimulus checks. Or simply anyone partaking in welfare currently or during a voting cycle would not have the right to vote. 

Another point, welfare breeds voting slaves to politicians.

First off, how can anyone support democracy (rule by the people), and yet be against a large part of the people being allowed to vote? Secondly, I don't see any reason why the poor and welfare recipients are contributing little to society. In reality, most are doing hard work in multiple jobs, but their efforts are rewarded with low pay and next to no job security or benefits. To put it bluntly, hardworking people earn little not because they aren't contributing, but because their wages are determined by greedy capitalists. These syphoon the value of the poor's effort into their own pockets -- and themselves pay even less taxes, proportionally.

I, for my part, support a vision of democracy based on who policy AFFECTS. The state should be responsible to the people affected by state policy, aka, inhabitants.

I don't find atheists so much into exploring ideas as they are in destroying ideas.

What do non-smokers believe? Nothing. This is essentially what you’re arguing. Most atheists just live their lives just as religious people do. 

Also, I'm not sure it's most common policy to arrest people, without having acquired evidence and just reason to believe they are guilty?

On another note, would you rather abort 3 embryos which have reached the blastocyst stage, (approximately five to six days after fertilization) or kill a single child

I thought we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, in this country?

And what happens if the mother miscarries?

legal rights > moral preferences

fundamentally disagree on the role of government

And there is no way that you can monitor every pregnancy that occurs in the country.

I feel for couples that want children and can't have them. But children are not commodities. They should not be used as experiments because people are desperate to have them. They should never be objects. 

Not necessary if there were no abortion mills where women could go to kill their unborns.

Not necessary if there were no abortion mills where women could go to kill their unborns.

or must be likely to suffer following its birth, with no prospect of improvement

The bond between parent and child is sacred,

Forced pregnancy is far more invasive than anything that has to do with property or the domicile. The constitution recognizes the distinction between violating property vs. person and  considers the latter to be far more significant (i.e. searches of one's person have higher standards than searches of one's property; forcibly inserting yourself into someone's home has a lesser criminal status than forcibly inserting yourself into someone's body, etc.). 

My references to property have only meant to highlight how much we value property and privacy when it comes to government intrusion. The Bill of Rights establishes that the government cannot even force someone to house a person against their will, let alone live inside of their body. If there's a hurricane coming, the government can't force anyone to take in  homeless people to save lives regardless of how immoral  you find it to leave them on the streets.  

There's also a sizeable number of Pro Life people, who'd be willing to allow abortions in various situations,

No, the systems we operate under are not hypothetical. 

The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe. Is that moral?

If you don't want a law based on morality, our positions are more different than I could begin to reconcile.

In short.......We think, we want and we can.

If you mean a contract you want out of midway, sorry but that is some tough shit unless you have a good reason for it. Go to court in that case.

I'll just point out you're consenting to having your body used without your consent. (That would be consent).

Id expect my dad to do so if he wasnt a deadbeat sack of shit and his kidney was viable.

The emotions matter, they are how morals are formed.

The law should not be based on emotionality, but reason.

my dead body

“Republicans won enough senate elections to take a majority and exercised that power in a way I found distasteful” is not even close to the same as saying the courts were “packed” or seats were “stolen.” Not holding a hearing for Garland was not “bending the rules” (itself a significant walk back from “stole” or “packed”) although it was a violation of an established norm. 

based on what principle ?

If a woman has no choice but to bear the burden of pregnancy, then it is fair fathers should provide support. 

Right now, father's should pay child support. I would like to see father's helping with pregnancy if they aren't already.

so it would certainly not be appropriate to have men skip while women have no choice.

You're not wrong, but I am hopeful killing Roe to satisfy religious sensibilities will bring a stronger advocacy to the separation of state and religion.