Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I give less weight to the woman's rights because she is not potentially being killed as a result of my decision. Seems logical, doesn't it? You seem to think there are equal items on both sides of the scale. I do not. Perhaps one day science will reveal that is not the case, but until then, I find it prudent to error on the side of life (just like I do on the death penalty).
I don't understand your comment on forcing a woman to have one.
|
Maybe what you mean is not what you're saying -- that you don't consider the woman's interests -- but that the fetus' demise outweighs almost any possible interest the woman could have. If so, you'd get more sympathy if you acknowledged the woman's interests instead of suggesting that she gets whatever she's got coming if she chooses to have sex. Although I still don't understand how any of this changes if the fetus is the product of rape, which is where we started. As someone else said, the harm to it is no less in those circumstances.
I don't think I said there are equal items on each side. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not sure how I would resolve the problem if I were faced with it, though I think I know. But I reject the simplistic thinking that ignores the differences between, e.g., a week-old fetus and a baby. At a week after conception, you're talking about a speck, something we wouldn't have been able to identify as human until the last few decades. When people invest that speck with rights, I have to think that they are motivated more by nostalgia, or sentimentality, or other bigger ideas in which abortion plays some supporting role.
