| Subject: Abortion, fun? |
Author:
Biff
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/13/02 10:28pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Abortion fun" on 11/11/02 2:44pm
>So, to kill something we must necessarily show that it
>is not a life? This is a rather weak argument. We
>don't "need" to show that a deer is not a life to kill
>it. We don't "need" to show that a dog is not a life
>in order so that we may put it to sleep. We don't need
>to show that a virus is not a life in order to stamp
>out its existance with antibiotics. Clearly, there are
>other criteria that determine whether or not it is
>"okay" to go ahead and kill something other than
>whether or not it is simply "alive". Life in and of
>itself is no entitlement to the right to live.
Forgive me if I was not clear. When I stated "life" I was implying human life. Now, never having been a citizen of the U.S., I may not be entirely clear on what follows. However, the sanctity of human life is one principle upon which American Law is based. It is embodied in the Declaration of Independance. To me, it simply does not seem to fit that a nation which declares life as an unalienable human right can legalize homocide based esentially on age. Thus, it is not so much a matter of arbitrary morality as a matter of codified law. True, this law may be based upon a system of morality. However, this is a system which, being written into the constitution (which is essentially a contract between citizens and their government) the people agree to live under.
>>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.
>
>Okay, even if this is satisfactory for a defintion of
>life, so what?
Not so much a definition of as evidence for.
Just because something is alive doesn't
>entitle it to always stay alive, or be immune from
>being killed.
Of course not. But again, the documents upon which American Law is based do not sanction the ending of human life. The Canadian Constitution states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." If a fetus is a human life it must be afforded these same rights.
>Regardless, this analogy isn't quite the same as
>the abortion issue. You'd have to be responsible for
>the "hiker" for 18 years, in some cases you wouldn't
>have a choice in helping the hiker; it'd be more akin
>to someone planting a hiker in your womb without first
>asking,
The cases of women being forcibly impregnated make up a miniscule percentage of abortions. Even so, we do not execute anyone because his or her father commits murder. How can we allow it when a man commits rape?
and also the hiker changes your body chemisty,
>eats what you eat, and is totally dependant on you.
>There is even some question as to whether or not the
>hiker in you is "human" or "alive". Should you or
>should you not have some say in whether this hiker
>stays since it is you that it fundamentally changes
>and inconveniences? Should you or should you not have
>some choice in whether you help the hiker in your
>example with the broken leg? Surely the answer should
>be yes.
You're right, the plane crash analogy is not quite the same. But only in that no reasonable measures could be taken on your part to prevent the situation from happening. The overwhelming majority of cases of unwanted pregnancy can be prevented before they occur.
>>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?
>
>Law is arbitrary and not grounded on any morality
>besides that which the masses prescribe to.
I stated nothing about morality. I pointed out the obviously flawed logic. This particular fetus' circumstances suddenly change. It still has the same capacities and composition it would have had inside the womb. It has simply changed it place of residence, you could say, and now it is protected. Based on any reasonable interpretation of Western law, this can't be justified.
In North
>America, it happens to be christian values. The
>santicty of human life etc. Clearly as I've shown
>though, life in and of itself is no reason to warrant
>life.
Clearly as I've shown, abortion simply cannot be legal in a society with laws guaranteeing humans the right to life.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 