darth_ender said:
walkingdork said:
Warbler said:
Monolithium said:
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It means I am for Choice.
but it must be more than that, in order to be pro choice you either must believe that the fetus does not have the same right to live as you or I do, or you must believe that people have the right to murder.
So you believe that it's murder....but murder that is suddenly okay if rape is involved? How in your mind does rape/incest trump the rights that unborn babies apparently have?
I personally don't think so. However, I do feel that I can be more accommodating on these points, though again, I feel it should not be the default, but rather an option. My reason for this is that when when person's health poses a risk to another, sometimes you have to make a choice. Often, separating conjoined twins is an unfortunate and perhaps arbitrary choice of who will die so the other can live. Considering the potential mental health dangers in rape/incest and what they can ultimately lead to, I am willing to provide the option, especially when it does become so much less clear. But even in cases like this, I feel like abortions should be done earlier than later...much earlier than allowed at the present.
I think abortion is generally a bad idea and if you can avoid it you should. But no part of me thinks it's murder or that an incomplete zygote has any rights. That's how I can come to the conclusion that if you are raped or incest is involved you should be allowed to have an abortion.
In response to the underlined sentence, since a zygote lasts for 4 days (not sure what an incomplete zygote is, but a complete one), is abortion not permitted afterwards? I understand, I'm playing a bit with semantics here, and I suspect you are referring more to a "bunch of cells," not a formed creature with all the emotions and sensations of a more developed person. But still, it's worth considering. At what point do we consider a genetically distinct human worth having human rights? I would prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. BTW, I appreciate your first sentence in this paragraph very much (italicized). Even if the country never came round to my way of thinking, I'd be so happy if it at least came around to yours. But the sad truth is that abortions today are simply another form of contraception to far too many.
If I believed that abortion was, without a doubt, murder then there would be no excuse for it. After all, I would never let my children be killed so that I could live. But if the pregnant mother of my potential child was in mortal danger I'd want to have an abortion...and I would not consider it murder.
This is a good point. And I admit I don't liken it exactly to murder. However, I suppose this is more because I don't think most feel they are committing murder, so I'd see them as ignorant killers rather than murderers. But again comparing to my conjoined twins comparison above, sometimes a choice must be made. I'd side with the mother for various reasons: 1) if she dies, the child will die anyway in most cases, unless we're getting later down the road; 2) the needs of other family members are in consideration here as well, considering the death of the mother will probably be much harder on the family than the death of the child; 3) many who say they'd take a bullet for their kids might actually be unable to do so when the time came--and I wouldn't necessarily fault them for it--they may have not had the willpower, but that doesn't mean they didn't love their child unconditionally; 4) the suffering of the mother will be far more than that of the child, and for that reason, when choosing between two lives, I'd choose the one with the more peaceful death.
I wouldn't consider it murder either. I'd consider it the right choice in difficult circumstances. But I don't consider killing born humans always the wrong choice either--there are appropriate times when someone must die. If a killer entered my house with the intent to kill, when it comes down to him or me living, I choose me (sorry Bingo :P). I hope I never have to take another life in any circumstance, but if I have to do it, I'd hope I again make the right choice under difficult circumstances.
Thank you for the very thoughtful post expressing the opposite POV. :)
Quoting myself for C3PS. Note that I don't call it murder, in spite of my passion on the subject. I give various reasons for allowing the mother to live over the child. There are numerous cases where killing is not murder. But in my humble opinion, a human life has already begun at conception, and it should be protected in as many cases as possible. It's a matter of societal perception, and it truly saddens me that too many people discard a child as little more than an excised tumor rather than recognizing that they have indeed ended a distinct individual's life. If Western society simply changed its worldview, then more would be willing to carry children to term, even if they were not interested in keeping the child. It would be a choice reliant on when health is truly at stake, be it mental or physical. It would not simply be a matter of socioeconomics.