| Subject: It comes down to one unloaded question |
Author:
Biff
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/10/02 8:56pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Loaded questions" on 11/ 5/02 3:45pm
>Clearly, the issue of abortion is further complicated
>than this trite rhetorical drivel. Not everyone thinks
>a fetus is a "life".
I don't think that it is necessary to prove that a fetus is a life in the abortion debate. Rather, it should be necessary to prove that a fetus is not a life in order to allow abortion. Until either thesis is proven, we are obligated to err on the side of caution. How would we react when, if the fetus is definitively proven to be a human life, we realize that we have endorsed the murder of millions of innocent lives?
Given that a large number of aborted fetuses have in fact survived the operation, some for several hours and others permanently, indications are that a fetus is in fact a life.
Not everyone thinks it is
>entitled to the same rights as people who don't have
>to live in some other person's womb.
Yes, a fetus is dependant upon another person to live, and that dependance may be an inconvenience to the other. However, that does not negate it's right to live.
Imagine this: you are a passenger on a small plane which crashes in the deep wilderness after straying drastically off course. Only you and one other person have survived, and you know you have virtually no hope of being found by rescuers. You will have to trek out of the wilderness to civilization, however, the other survivor has a broken leg and is unable to walk. You know that if you leave him behind, he will most certainly die of exposure before you can return with help, but to bring him along, you'd have to carry him somehow. Is it right for you to leave him behind to die because he'd hinder your hike? Of course it's not. In fact, it may be a criminal act.
Consider this: a fetus is scheduled to be aborted on Tuesday, but on Monday night the mother suddenly goes into labour and delivers a premature but healthy child. Now that child's life is protected by law, though it was previously labeled for legal termination. The child is still dependant on others for survival, the only difference is that it was previously attached to another's body. Where is the logic in this?
I challenge anyone to come up a sound, logical argument to support abortion. The one question to be answered is: is the fetus a life or is it not? The evidence suggests that it is, but until either position is proven, I restate that we must err on the side of caution.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 