Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Yes, alternatives are always of interest. I have a basic problem with using historical record, etc. in the debate though, as I don't believe inconsistant or flawed actions of the past are of interest in determining an objective yet fair approach to the future. Whether or not our society, in the past or now, considers that the right to life extends to all human beings equally is of no concern to me. Others are, of course, free to take that into consideration, but I view it as counterproductive when dealing with a society which has shown a propensity to repeatedly manipulate its interpretations of scientific data in order to support its own biases.
In this instance, I see that we, as a society, have a bias towards revenge against murderers and sympathy towards mothers who wish to have their children that clouds our judgement and prevents us from an objective viewpoint. Despite how the law may choose to write its own loopholes, the core of the matter lies in the fact most people who are pro-choice are so because they believe the life to be not "human" (expressed popularly as a belief that it is not a life). However, there are also the popular emotional interests I previously mentioned. The result is a legal explanation that does not match the popular explanation so that it can attempt to make up for the inconsistancies in the popular viewpoint. I'd prefer to have laws which match the popular explanations while also taking consistancy into account.
|
Since you brought up the issue of historical viewpoint on the sanctity of human life, if you would rather not embark down that path any longer, it's fine with me.
Similarly, if you'd prefer to drop the notion that our current understanding of those words of our nation's framers may or may not have changed since the time they were written, as I did not bring that up either, I do not object.
I have offered a sensible and logically coherent explanation for how murder of a fetus can be illegal and abortion by a citizen of an unborn fetus to be simultaneously legal:
If we draw the line at citizenship rather than viability or whatever value we historically or currently place on human life (having agreed that there is no room for it in this discussion), then we will arrive at a coherent perspective on how the law should operate in this domain.
EDIT: Allow me to recap:
1. The government has no obligation to preserve rights of non-citizens.
2. A fetus is not a citizen.
3. The government has no obligation to protect the rights of a fetus.
4. The government has an obligation to control the behavior of its citizens; particularly in the use of violence, which a "state" asserts monopoly over its use.
5. The state has not asserted a compelling reason to prevent women citizens from exercising rights over their bodies.
6. The state can allow women to exercise control over their bodies while simultaneously preventing other citizens from inflicting violence on citizens, non-citizens, and property.
(alternately, if the state found a compelling reason to control women from exercising this right over their bodies, such as it felt that women should not conduct violence on themselves, then it could criminalize abortion without too much (or any) realigning of the logical underpinnings to this standpoint)