Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
If we believe, as the SD bill writers do, that causing permant damage to an exisiting human life can justify an abortion...i find it to be a dissembling and impermissable breach of logic to hold that mental health concerns are not of the same order as physical ones.
|
It's not a matter of mental damage versus physical damage. It's a matter of damage versus mortal damage. You can disagree with the idea that non-life-threatening damage doesn't justify a killing, but to assert that it's an idea lacking in humanity is false. Period.
edit: The reason I believe in some leeway when it comes to physical health is because it seems like a gray area to me - where does the survivable end and the life-threatening begin? Also, if a mind is in danger of 'shattering' due to rape, I'm skeptical of the proposition that abortion will significantly improve that condition. For many (but certainly not all, mind you), I'd imagine it could even worsen the condition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by james t kirk
The one thing that always make me wonder about the so called "Right to Life" folks is where they get off legislating how other people choose to live their lives.
|
Does anyone actually find this type of argument the least bit insightful anymore? As if it's a strict dichotomy between "let the people do whatever they want" and "let the people only do what my God says they can". It's right up there with "they should've kept their legs closed".
Quote:
|
It's not a right to life that they are fighting for, it's a right to BIRTH.
|
Silly. It's both. Life primarily, birth incidentally.
Quote:
|
After that unwanted child is born, 99% of them will consider it mission accomplished and turn their backs on these kids.
|
99% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Quote:
|
Who is going to look after all these unwanted children in the USA?
|
Even granting the ridiculous proposition that 99% of pro-lifers don't support government assistance,
Even granting the ridiculous implication that opposition to welfare is opposition to any assistance,
This doesn't show any hypocrisy. The right to life is simply that, a right to life. There are no adjectives such as 'comfortable' or 'ideal' there. Restate your argument in terms of the valuelessness of a right to life without a right to a life of opportunity and you might have something.
But that something can only result in "(some) pro-lifers aren't consistent! they're evil hypocrites!" and will do nothing to actually refute the pro-life position.