|
| WEIGH IN |
| Monday, November 28, 2005 |
| In my discussions with pro-abortion advocates, every argument usually comes down to defining the rule by the exception. (Abortion in the case of the mother's life, rape, incest, deformity, etc.)
Here is an exception for my pro-abortion friends. What impact do you think this should have on existing abortion laws?
50 Babies a Year born after failed abortions |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/28/2005 12:49:00 PM   |
|
| 8 Comments: |
-
It looks like the link is broken.
-
-
Honestly I'm not too familiar with existing abortion laws.
Our past conversations got me thinking a bit though Jack, and I sort of fine tuned my views and came up with this statement:
I don't support the government forcing anybody to do anything involving their own bodies. Getting a tattoo, getting a tattoo removed, cutting off a finger, not cutting off a finger... these things, to me, should be 100% up to the "host" person.
The unfortunate aspect of pregnancies is that the thing pro-lifers are trying to protect is inside another thing - a fully grown person with actual rights and life experience. I don't support forcing that grown person to undergo or not undergo any procedure against her (or his) wishes, despite how gruesome her (or his) wishes may appear.
I suppose that's a libertarian point of view...
-
Smorg,
I DO see where you're coming from. (And thanks for weighing in). I guess I just wonder about human rights. I am a HUGE human rights advocate, and don't think that one's right supercedes another. In the case with a child does it have rights?
What are your thoughts?
-Jack
-
-
That's the essence of the debate, isn't it: does the developing human have rights? If so, what are they, when do they come into affect, etc. Well, in the case of a person choosing whether or not to carry a fetus to term I think the actual rights of the decision maker supersede any perceived rights the developing human has.
The embryo and/or fetus can (not necessarily will, mind you) leave its world without pain and suffering --we can spare both mother and child pain-- whereas forcing someone to give birth just seems overly cruel to both the woman and the child.
-
I don't support the government forcing anybody to do anything involving their own bodies.
Please answer two questions, and please be as specific as possible: 1) Exactly which part of a woman's body is the fetus? 2) At what point does it change from being part of the woman's body to being the child's very own body?
One more questin, while we're at it. Why is it okay to kill the fetus at 24 weeks when its in the mother's womb, yet if the baby is born alive and I smother it to death, I'm a murderer?
-
Sean,
I see where you're coming from. Remember the Scott Peterson case? I wondered why they could convict him of "murdering" his wife's fetus. I don't understand the inconsistencies myself.
-Jack
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
It looks like the link is broken.