Seriously?? At least "capital punishment for murderers" assumes there was a trial and the defendant found guilty before punishment was rendered. Some wild-eyed, unhinged fanatic taking the law into their own hands is an entirely different matter. And I still believe the irony of someone claiming to be a "Right to Life" supporter actually murdering someone to be astounding.
You might wish to peruse this 9 page paper on the subject. It’s extremely enlightening and it’s good science as opposed to the simple answers that most sites are able to provide since it’s pretty evident that most sites are pro-abortion or choice. This link travels on the center line all the way and leaves virtually nothing to the imagination although there are some subjective points. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
Are the babies who are aborted given these rights? I agree. As I have stated in another post in this forum, some people believe they are pro-life when, in actuality, they are just anti-abortion. However, for someone who believes both in capital punishment, and that unborn babies are human beings, then there would be no contradiction, except that - as it was in Nazi Germany - it is legal to kill certain segments of humanity. If it were legal to kill children up to the age of ten, would you be able to empathize with someone who took a life in order to protect the life of a nine-year-old? That's not so far-fetched, you know. The governor of Virginia (a pediatrician) believes that babies should be able to be aborted even after they have been born alive.
I don't consider an embryo or an early-term fetus to be a baby, but that's just my feeling. We all know that a first-trimester embryo could not possibly survive outside the womb on its own. That said, I doubt that I could ever have had an abortion, but I don't want anyone else having the authority to make that decision for ME. And I'm out of this thread, because we all know that whatever our beliefs on abortion, no amount of discussion will change them.
Any speculation that begins with IF is already far-fetched. Especially hysterical hypothesizing designed to inflame.
Are there any other words in the English language that you are opposed to? The US Constitution contains that word eleven times, and that's not counting the Amendments. Lincoln used the word four times in the Emancipation Proclamation. It's a fairly common word, actually, and an important one. While other words may be chosen, the simplest is often best, and the idea that is conveyed by the word "if" is necessary for the understanding of consequences.
If “if” is often far fetched, then “when” is surely way out there! If a thunderstorm hits, when a thunderstorm hits are both speculation but neither is far fetched unless one lives where It never rains. If someone has an abortion, If someone commits murder might even be exchanged for “When’ unless one lives in a country where neither occurs.
@Lulu Moppet I must respectfully disagree......I am currently speculating about my supper; IF I eat supper, THEN I will likely gain more weight. Not a damned thing far-fetched about it! Frank
Yep, required in logic, math and computer languages https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/4085/if-then-meaning-in-logic