>I agree with you to a point. I think a fertilized egg is a person and won't back down from that.
You have a right to believe that; absolutely.
>However, it is ugly to have people surveilling every move and decision of other people.
100% in agreement!
>Women have known (or used to) things that could act as abortifacients.
Yep. In many cases, these can be life threatening. The OTC pill has never killed anyone.
>The thing is, when people take a private action that I disagree with it does not have the society-wide implications of policies made by states. Unless a woman is raped, she had a choice prior to the conception of the baby.
Agreed, 100%. What's hard to accept for most anti-abortion people to accept is she still has a choice even after conception. In my personal opinion, that choice is still available until about the 6 week mark – when there's a heartbeat. Others? Way further into pregnancy than that. I do NOT agree with that. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, while still making it safe. In my opinion, that makes me very much pro life (from a preservation standpoint).
>No one should expect sexual activity has no consequences.
You cannot control other people, though. Their promiscuity has absolutely no bearing on your life, liberty, or property until they demand you pay for their fuck ups. That's when you have a right to be concerned. They have just as much a right to live they way they choose, as do you, so long as each of you aren't doing so in a way that infringes on each others' rights. That's the law of the land.
>Even sex between married people could result in a child at an inopportune moment. Why that should result in the death of the one innocent party is beyond me.
>innocent party
And here's the issue, right? This is a faith-based position on the subject, and not all people that believe in God agree on the "at conception" argument. They quote the scripture "I knew you before I formed you in the womb" but, again, that's a faith based position.
And ultimately, it's not for you to decide what other people do about a situation that doesn't involve you. It is for the persons directly involved in that situation. Your view on when life begins has not been legally defined, and that's what takes us back to the root of the argument where each side takes their strong stance.
Medically, if life started at conception, then there would be a heartbeat at conception.
Legally, if life started at conception, the State would require your immediate subservience in picking a name and assigning them a SSN.
Religiously, life may begin at conception for some that adhere to a set of beliefs.
>CPS is not constitutional.
Agreed, again, 100%. There are 426 thousand children in state care in the United States. Abortion? It doesn't even equate to this anon right now. There are 426 thousand right here, right now concerns that need to be addressed.
Thank you for the back and forth, anon, sincerely. We agree on much. We disagree on a couple of details. Unfortunately, most of society allows those details to get in the way of sensible solutions. Again, I am NOT pro abortion. I'm pro sensible solutions. I do not think joining the church and state is a sensible solution. I do think society has drifted a bit too liberal in some places. I think that overall, society is mostly fine and the current times we're living in has driven some to believe every narrative that makes it all seem much worse than it really is.