Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Locobot
After reading that article my crotch is thoroughly sore from all the fence straddling. I really don't think there's room for compromise on this issue.
|
I think you couldn't be more wrong. For some reason, people on both sides of the issue seem to think that there are two, and only two, positions that one can have on the subject of abortion. That is simply not the case, as Tecoyah's article makes very clear.
Perhaps more than any other, the debate about abortion has become one in which "either" side demonizes the other. Pro-lifers don't care about the rights of the mother: they are imposing their religious beliefs on us all, the pro-choicers scream. Pro-choicers think it's ok to kill living human beings just because they haven't yet exited the womb: they advocate infanticide, pro-lifers shout back.
I have adopted the policy of saying "no" when asked if I am pro-life or pro-choice, a reaction that perplexes those that are not aware of the depth of this debate.
I'll say a few words of my own:
1. Aborting a fetus in the last two or three months of pregnancy is a form of infanticide. We all know that if that same baby were born prematurely, killing it immediately after birth would be infantacide. Thus, the same rule should apply to fetuses within the mother.
2. It is impossible to prevent women from seeking and finding abortions. The government can only decide whether or not the abortions will be safe and legal. So, it is an obligation of the government to provide safe abortions to women who seek them.
3. It would be preferable to have as small a number of abortions performed as possible, as the act is disgusting and barbaric. For this reason, the government is obligated to teach the use of birth control devices in public schools. Including abstinence in the curriculum is acceptable only if it is accompanied by all the proper birth control information.
Conclusion: The government should allow women to receive abortions during the first trimester, no questions asked. If individual states want to add waiting periods not to exceed, say, a day or two, that is acceptable.
The government should ban all abortions in the third trimester, with exceptions made for if the health or the life of the mother is in danger, or if the fetus is gravely defective. The necessary level of defectiveness would have to be well-established because this provision has the potential of being misused.
Second trimester abortions are a very grey area. On the one hand, it seems like the fetus is not yet "human", at least in the physical sense. On the other, why wouldn't the mother have gotten an abortion earlier in the pregnancy? Certainly the same exceptions that apply in the third trimester apply here, but what should happen in other cases? I cannot provide the answer.
As mentioned above, the government is obligated to reduce the number of abortions through sexual education programs.
That's my opinion. I welcome yours.