Joined: Mar. 2006
|Quote (Spike @ April 03 2006,18:31)|
Wow! Just like I said. People who are normally quite rational get their panties in a bunch when it comes to abortion. (Me too!
I don't think I get too excited over this debate. Not anymore, now that I stopped feeding the troll. However, I have one small request: Please don't get all thordaddy on me. I've had my share of that.
In my post, I simply stated two points that I thought were problematic in your "draconian" solution.
Most of your reply was questioning and attacking my beliefs (which I did not mention in my post), accusing me of loaded language for speaking about a woman's right to reproduction (when you refer to the zygote as a "little kid" whose right to life we deny), and arguing for your solution using wishful thinking.
Look, I honestly don't have the patience to explain my views anymore. It's not your fault for that, it's the troll's: I've been trying to punch through Trolldaddy's brick wall too long, and I'm tired. If you like, you can check any of my previous posts in all three threads (or is it four? I forget) where I repeatedly explain my views again and again- and you can point to any issues in them that need to be discussed, in your opinion.
(I'd just like to point, though, in case you think I haven't bothered to read your opinion -trolldaddy style :)- that I understand your basis of choosing conception as the beginning of human life is seeing no argument that would convince you otherwise... That, however, does not necessarily make it true, and such "rational arguments" can be, and have been, produced by others. You can address or dispute them, if you like, but not deny their existence like thordad did.)
For now, let's stick to those two points I made:
For one thing, I stand corrected. You seem to say that the only necessary abortions are those made to protect the life of the mother, and all others are for "convenience" (even the ones to prevent the fetus from developing to a seriously ill child, with only a few years of torture ahead of it?). Well, I see no problem with that being enforced, in that case- But that's just it: Enforced.
Forcing the woman, who might even be the victim of others in this case, to suffer all the -sometimes disastrous- societal, financial and emotional problems of an unwanted pregnancy, or depriving her of the right to have children forever? There's just no way this draconian solution can be applied, unless under a very "draconian" regime. As for being not a law, but a societal norm, that doctors shall willingly practice (!!!!80): We live in the real world, Spike, not in a Heinlein novel.
You also claimed that you can argue against any justification for abortion as necessary for the woman using examples, but the example you seem to provide as a good one does not even mention the woman who gave birth to these kids, just those who adopted them- and therefore wanted them and could cope in the first place.
How does this address any possible problems of the biological mother? Not that there had to be any in this case, but the example is simply useless for arguing for or against them. It's just an appeal to emotion ("would you have these lovely kids aborted"?), already overused.
(Oh, and you challenge me to argue against it on the grounds of the women being lesbians- why should I do that? How does it relate to the problem? Are you actually asking me to create a strawman for you?)
And you completely failed to adress by second point. If this law is created under the moral concensus that abortion is murder, I cannot see how the enforcing of such a law is in accordance with its spirit.
You cannot help a person commit murder, even once, and then punish her for doing so!
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this "law" seems to me to be more focused in wreaking vengeance upon women who decide to have an abortion, than actually preventing the loss of a human life that the zygote is supposed to be.
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."