Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
That's valid if life begins at conception. I don't accept that premise. Furthermore, there is a difference between a medical treatment to prevent an event from occurring and the act of killing a four year-old.
Affirmative homicide aside, we make choices between one life and another all the time in the allocation of scarce resources. Ask anyone on an organ donor list.
We also make economic allocation resource decisions that may affect human life on a daily basis. I show up at the hospital with angina and I'm rushed into the operating room for an angioplasty at once. The waitress at a place I eat a lot has heart trouble but she doesn't have health insurance. She waited six months to have her angioplasty done at County.
I generally don't favor abortion. But I also believe that each decision to abort or not is so particular to the mother and the fetus that the procedure is not susceptible to regulation by the state or federal government. So you could say that, while I'm generally anti-abortion, I'm also pro-choice.
By declaring itself pro-life, the anti-abortion movement hurts itself by coming off as hypocritical and by politicizing what is a social, not a governmental problem.
|
And again I say that if you are saying economic considerations are justified to allow abortion then it should be no different with a 4 year old.
The difference between you and your waitress is that she has and had a choice to get a job or jobs that provide health insurance so whether or not she gets appropriate care ends up being within her realm of responsibility. If not, there is the social safety net, but in a capalist society that is likely to be less than the top end of private care. It is better than nothing. But again it is an equation she takes part in. Allowing children to be murdered because there parents made a bad decision in sexxing and can't afford is purely a third party equation. And that is murder.
