God I'm so hungover at work today . . . this will be a fun one, duder.
Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
I promised myself that I wasn't going to get involved in this debate, but...
1) Viability of an unborn child is as low as 20 weeks now, and with continued scientific advances, will probably get lower. At what point do we decide to protect this 20 week child? I have friends in Atlanta whose son was born at 22 weeks, and survived. By the time he was 1 year old, his medical bills were over hundreds of thousands of (tax) dollars. What if he had not been wanted? Does that mean that he could have just as easily been tissue in an incinerator? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of saving the one 22 week child, and aborting another, simply because of his or her convenience?
|
This is a completely specious argument, except for the first sentence. Thanks for your fallacious appeal to emotion, but the reality is that fetus viability has already been addressed as a sticky issue. There's no hypocrisy involved here, unless you apply some sort of morality to the issue. Speaking of . . .
Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
2) We have always legislated morality. We have laws concerning theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc - not one of these has any basis other than morality. And yes, theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc will always happen, whether or not they are legal. Does that make abortion any different - or is it just more popular due to its convenience?
|
NONE OF THESE ARE RELIGIOUSLY MORAL.
They are infringement upon the rights of others. If you can't see this, exit the thread immediately b/c you're going to force me to smash it down your throat until you understand how our nation and our laws originally were intended to work. Next you'll be tossing "in god we trust" at me, and I'll have a seizure.
Theft: infringing on a person's constitutional rights
Murder: infringing on a person's personal rights
adultery: not illegal, that i know of - feel free to enlighten me as to where you get arrested for having sex
perjury: you are infringing on a person's right to a fair trial
There is no moral aspect involved, lovely.
Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
3) Does anyone know a mother who has - or wanted or considered - an abortion? I do - and if you know anyone who was adopted, you probably do, too. Each of these people who I know was almost aborted (well, all but one, to be honest) is one of the nicest, sweetest people I know. If you were adopted yourself, if you love someone who was, aren't you secretly glad that his or her mother decided to be inconvenienced for nine months?
|
These are again fallacious arguments. Everyone I know who has had an abortion has not regretted the decision. Also, adoption and abortion are not in some sort of diametric opposition, although it is an alternative - you're burning the candle pretty low with this argument.
Also, how do you know they were 'almost aborted'? You're making this up, kiddo.
Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
4) It is not easy to admit this, but I've changed my own views on abortion - the more I talked with those who have had one or considered one, the more I realized the devastation it causes. Maybe not at the time of the inconvenience, but the devastation does happen. It can play out in the promotion of anti-abortion campaigns; it can play out in pro-abortion campaigns, but it is and will always be a turning point in the life of the mother. Granted, I am lucky in that I never had to make such a decision, but I ache for those who did.
|
Fantastic, but irrelevant. Sure, it's a tough decision - but until you can provide me a constitutionally sound reason to remove the right to make this tough decision, it doesn't matter.
If it's a shitty decision, hey that's tough, but we cannot remove the option to make it. You might think it's ruining someone's life, but LET THEM RUIN THEIR LIFE, it is ultimately their option.
Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
In summing up, like it or not, most of our laws are based on morality. Until a better argument is discovered, maybe convenience of one person or another should be reconsidered.
|
Very few of our laws are based on morality, and the ideal is that NONE of our laws would be based on morality. Drug laws aside, I think you're just blowing smoke. Your arguments aren't based in either logic or actual constitutional law, but instead on your personal beliefs and experiences.
Guess what? These are exactly the kinds of things we need to AVOID when discussing law. Fair enough?