Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.
This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.
Why is the mother's life more valuable? Why are her rights more important than that of the child? You have already conceded that the fetus is indeed human. If that is the case, the law requires that we extend to that unborn human the same equality before the law as we extend to the mother.
Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.
The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.
Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?
Yes, banning abortion legally would create a more equitable balance of human rights. Just as you conceded that the fetus is a human life, I hav conceded that banning abortion would not mean that abortions would still not occur. However, the fetus would be extended protection under the law since, when the the life of the fetus was intentionally taken, it would be a criminal act. Not only do laws regulate society, they make a statement about those things which that particular society values. Do we value human life?
We currently have laws in place against armed robbery. Should we, in the interest of reducin the number of persons injured in the commisiion of robberies, decriminalize that act to make robbery a "safer" choice?
From a practical standpoint, let's compare situations. Under the current system, one hundred women "need" an abortion, one hundred abortions take place. If abortion was illegal, one hundred women "need" abortion but due to availability of practicioners willing to violate the law or the prohibitive cost of obtaining an illegal procedure only twenty take place representing a net savings of eighty lives. Hmmmm.....
For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.
But the mother is more viable than a newborn, or a six month old, or a three year old. You've conceded that the fetus is human, so you tell me, when do rights attach to that life? At birth? At six months? At three years? The only point in human development which is not arbitary is conception. If there is some other non-arbitrary point at which rights adhere in a human being, please let me know when that point is.
With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?
First, you have made the admission that abortion is an evil. Is it ever ethical to condone evil, even if a greater good may come of it? I would contend that it is not.
While your analogy is delightful, it is seriously flawed. Both parties are over the cliff due to the irresponsibility of one party, the other is wholly innocent. My emphasis would be to clearly mark the precipice, maybe build a fence around it, make the cliff clearly off limits thereby preventing folks taking themselves and those whose care they have been charged with into the abyss.
Til next time, all the best. Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment