XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
The law and common sense used to prohibit abortions completely. I didn't say
they didn't occur. By using your reliance on the law and common sense we
should still prohibit abortions completely.
Of course the issue has changed due to scientific advances in large part.
The advent of birth control and women's rights have forced the need for a
reevaluation of what the "law and common sense" say.
We surely can't leave things the way they were before Row v Wade. But we
don't have to go from one extreme to another. We are not talking rocket
science here.
A reasonable approach would be to allow abortions in the early stages of
pregnancy, to allow for a change of mind by the woman, and for abortions all
the way to severing the umbilical cord in those extrordinary circumstances
that demand it, such as rape, health, etc. But to allow a period of time
when society says the fetus is close enough to humanity that we won't kill
it reflects the grey area that I spoke about earlier.
As for my comment about adoptees, I admit I did pull it out of my ass. That
is what common sense is! And, BTW, it goes the other way to, just because a
fetus is wanted all the way to birth, does not mean that it will be a happy
productive person. Common sense again!
"Ivan Gowch" wrote in message
news:pvv2tvo6bnu2kf4kt37ut86uis94tfubfb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:15:19 GMT, wrote:
>
> ==>So, "A fetus is a growth inside a woman that
> ==>> exists at her pleasure until birth". And, "a fetus is worthless until
> ==>> the moment it breathes air on its own"
> ==>So the simple act of breathing on it's own transforms a growth into a
> ==>person.
>
> Exactly.
>
> ==>The only way this could happen is by a supernatural act. Atheists don't
> ==>believe in
> ==>supernatural acts. You are confused!
>
> No, you are. In law and common sense, a
> person is a human being who has been born
> alive. A human still inside the womb is not
> a person, even if it is only one second from
> coming into the world. It is still attached to
> the mother, via the umbilical cord, and is,
> therefore, part of her, and not an individual
> person in his or her own right.
>
> That's not only the way it is, it's the way it's
> always been. That's why we don't have funerals
> for the tissues that remain following a miscarriage
> or, usually, for stillbirths.
>
> ==>You are also confused about the prospects in life for unwanted babies.
> ==>The great majority of adoptees lead productive successful lives
>
> How the hell do you know this? Talk about
> pulling "facts" out of one's ass.
>
> ==>In my opinion, the fact that society says that very late term fetuses
can be
> ==>killed
> ==>at the will of the mother instills a confusion about the value
> ==>of human life, and life in general, in the minds of many people.
>
> Your opinion is your opinion, and you are
> certainly entitled to it.
>
> ==>I support abortions for a short time, 3 to 5 months or, preferably
based on
> ==>other developmental criteria, after the conception and in all cases
> ==>of possible harm to the mother and of serious health problems of the
fetus.
> ==>and of rape caused preganacy, on the gounds
> ==>that the mother would be harmed by a birth as the result of a rape.
This
> ==>issue is not one that is absolutely clear cut
> ==>as your position supporting the moment the fetus "breathes air on it's
own"
> ==>as a clear demarcation of personhood would be.
>
> But that IS the "clear demarcation" of personhood.
> Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner
> than the birth of one more unwanted child.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
