Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you acknowledge that there are circumstances that would justify taking a life---it would follow, then, that you would hold open the possibility that arguments could be advanced that would make an abortion justifiable for you.
|
I think that I probably misunderstood that portion of your previous post. My interpretation was that abortion is a complex decision to make even when it's legal and safe. And additionally, I may have thought 'hard' when I read 'complex'.
I do take a simpler view of most cases of abortion - those involving 'convenience', financial troubles, inability to take care for the child, evidence of genetic deformities, incest, or rape: I don't believe that those motives could ever justify the procedure on their own. I do believe that a woman in
any of those situations could still agonize over the decision. It'd be a hard, and emotionally complex decision, but I don't see a sufficient justification from these circumstances alone. It's easier, although you may not agree with the comparison, to understand my thought process here if you take this thought process and replace all instances of 'abortion' with 'infanticide'. This also makes it easier, I hope, to see why I don't want the law to accept just any justification that an particular case presents.
Those areas are, as far as justification goes, black and white for me. As is protecting the mother's life - it should always be a legal option in that case. But that brings up an unavoidably gray area, "health of the mother". This is the one area where I would support a case-by-case evaluation: is the maximum damage that could reasonably be expected by a medical professional sufficient cause to abort? The law here should be crafted to allow leeway; the particulars vary in ways too important to be generalized by sweeping criminalization.
Quote:
|
the simple fact of the matter is that not everyone who considers having this procedure does so. why is that? perhaps because the ethical questions are taken seriously, and the debate that the anti-choice folk assume does not happen in the context of abortion being legal in fact does happen.
|
See, this is what I don't hesitate to agree with. I'm sure that most of those women who underwent abortions wrestled with their consciences beforehand. I'm not one to think them categorically immoral or amoral.
But the same is likely true of many criminals out there. The law doesn't condone these acts simply because the conscience of the perpetrator was consulted.
Quote:
|
as for the 3 criteria you outline, i think them all elements of the discussions about whether, in a given situation, the procedure should be undertaken. i dont think anyone really argues that an abortion is not about the life of both a baby and the (potential) parents. no-one thinks this is not a decision about lives.
|
You've never met anyone like that? I've spoken with many pro-choicers who insist that there is no important difference between an abortion and an appendectomy.
Quote:
this has been interesting.
glad i happened to be reading blake, whose fine quote about reptiles of the mind rationalized entering into a discussion that i would usually not want to have.
thanks for explaining your position. and it is good that things drifted away from their cranky beginning.
|
I apologize for my tone at the beginning. I have been enjoying this exchange. Thanks for taking part.