Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
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.
|
"Inconvenience"? You expect me to have a serious conversation with you when you characterize pregnancy and birth in that way? It's
your side that says it's a magical process in which a fetus gets a soul when sperm meets egg. But if you think the process of pregnancy and birth is merely an inconvenience to the woman who happens to provide the uterus, you're in for a surprise. I've half a mind to go to Walnut Creek and impregnate your wife.
Conservatives say we don't have a "right" to things in scarcity, such as a place to live. Medical care is one of those things in scarcity. Yet they say a fetus has a right to occupy a person's internal organs? If you think there is any coherent non-religious conservative theory against abortion, you're nuts. It's all spiritual. To be opposed to things like RU-486, you have to believe at some point a collection of cells is imbued with magic powers.
In the absence of agreement on whether particular conduct is bad, I say it shouldn't regulated. You call yourself a conservative?
Quote:
|
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?
|
You expect too much of science. Science can't tell us if brain-dead people are "beings." It can tell us that they are
homo sapiens, but we've known that about both brain-dead people and fetuses for a long time now. It isn't the question.
Quote:
|
Characterizing abortion as a "social problem" slants the issue beyond argument. But again, I think that characterization is wholly-dependent on the scientific question.
|
Characterizing it as "murder" also slants the issue. But we can't help it --- it's the core of the question. I repeat my statement in a way less objectionable to you --- the criminal laws should not criminalize conduct that less than 90% of people agree should be punished. Whatever.
Quote:
|
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?
|
There is little doubt that an embryo and a fetus are human. What else could they be? The question is whether they are "beings" in the sense that they have a right to be, and to continue to be, as we have come to believe children and adults do. Even people on the right agree that a person whose body is being kept alive but who experiences no brain activity is not a "being."
At some non-magical point in the developmental process, a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. In my personal view, at that point it has interests independent from the woman who, until that point, kept it alive. This is only my personal view. I am generally opposed to any form of abortion after viability. I am unclear how we would accomplish removal of a viable fetus without the woman's consent, especially since I would be frightened by the development of any technology that could teleport the fetus out and directly into a NICU incubator.
