Sometimes I think that you are actually trying to be objective and that is a scarry thought, but I'm game:
Quote:
|
Just as I am marginally anti-death penalty because I don't want to live in a world in which even one wrongly convicted person is put to death in my name, I am pro-choice not because I think abortions are justified in all cases, or that the embryo or fetus is not a human being (I frankly don't know), but because I don't want to live in a world in which even one woman is compelled to carry an unwanted child to term and experience the birth of that child. It's horrifying so long as options exist.
|
Are you saying that, in your mind, the inconvenience of 1 woman outweighs any harm to, and rights of, the fetus/embryo/? I'm not ssure how you reach this conclusion, given that you've admitted that your are ignorant (as am I and the rest of us) on the most important fact. Let me ask you this. Would your mind change if science could tell us with 90% certainty that the fetus was a human being? With a 100% certainty?
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bottom line --- the criminal law should not be used to combat social problems that fewer than 90% of the people agree is a problem. Until nearly everyone agrees a fetus is human, it shouldn't be called murder.
|
Characterizing abortion as a "social problem" slants the issue beyond argument. But again, I think that characterization is wholly-dependent on the scientific question.
And speaking of that scientific question, I'm not sure exactly how that argument goes for the left. Do they think that at some point during the developmental process, the non-human magically becomes human?
