Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The order that those fall in is significant, you cannot have one without the one before it.
And you just made this up. Since when were they in some sort of order?
You cannot be happy if you are not free, you cannot be free if you are not alive. A woman not aborting a fetus, would be temporarily giving up her happiness. Aborting a fetus would be taking away all 3 of those rights. So you have 2 options, one involves taking away one right temporarily, and the other involves taking away all three permanently. Now in a perfect scenario, no one would have to lose ANY of their rights, but this scenario makes you choose from 2 evils. This shows that at the very least the moral status of the fetus deserves to be considered.
Here's one thing I don't understand about conservatives.. and this isn't a direct reply to you but this is just a tangent from me.
They go on about freedoms, right to life, blah blah blah, you get the idea... but once you examine their economic principles? It's essentially take care of you and yours. I make a million dollars, but it's
my million dollars, and I choose whether to give it to people at the bottom or not. Don't tax the **** out of me and give my money to people in poverty. I'll do what I want with my money because I earned it. Have those people at the bottom work their way up like I did. That is the American way, apparently.
I can respect that at least. I mean, I don't agree with it 100%, but I can respect that as a philosophy and belief about what freedom means in this country.
But as soon as we get to talking about fetuses...
As soon as we get to talking about a pregnant woman...
That mindset goes into the garbage all of the sudden.
That same mindset that tells conservatives that a rich man has a right to his money no matter the hard situation of those below them is now doing the opposite. It now says that the woman with her own identity and life who is likely in the hard situation aforementioned now lost her earned identity to something with no attachments. No legal identity or emotional attachments. Nothing.
Again, I just don't get it. You want to claim life precedes everything else? You want to care for the potential of a growing human being so much? How do you deal with the fact that this is clearly not the case outside of her womb? What about these overcrowded adoption homes? I surely don't see the privileged going out of their way to adopt those minority and handicapped babies who are stuck their for their entire lives.
I don't see any real care for the unfortunate and poverty; you know, the
ones actually considering abortion. You want them to earn their money and way just like those above them. You don't believe in free handouts.
So why does it change in the womb? All you're statistically doing is adding another poor person to the poor population likely because you're forcing the birth of a child to a poor woman. Then the cycle continues more often than not.
So, why not stick to the so-called conservative mindset? Have the fetus earn its identity the same way poor Jane Doe has to earn her living and not depend on a handout by you simply because you have money. Don't have something with no legal or emotional attachment get a free 'handout' for the sake of life, because plenty of already living people die and suffer because they lack the privileged accessories of those above them not willing to simply hand it to them.