Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Honestly that question does not work.
Abortion is not a matter of which life to save, but whether or not to save life in general.
Yes, if we were faced with the decision we would save the 2 year old. But abortion is more along the lines of
"There's a young child that can not protect herself. Her mother is going to kill her. Do you save her?"
Now THAT's a question we're faced with in abortion.
|
Okay Seaver, you indicate that IYO, the description of a fertilized egg is reasonably interchangeable with "a young child" description.
What then, should the punishment be for the woman who aborts that "young child". Does the young child leave a legal entity, an "estate" that can pursue it's mother who killed it, for civil damages? If abortion is the taking of a life, is it murder? Why does the new South Dakota law, which defines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization of an egg by male sperm, provide no criminal penalty for a mother who "kills her", the fertilized egg inside the mother's body? Why is the doctor who performs the abortion violating the law against taking the life of a fertilized egg, and not the mother who conspires with the doctor to take a life, and pays him to do it?
The stock answer of public demonstrators in support of banning abortion, to some of the questions above, may surprise those who view the interviews:
http://www.atcenternetwork.com/?p=64
I submit that most folks who view abortion as <b>"Her mother is going to kill her."</b>, do not believe their own words. They do not believe that it is murder. They do not think through their position, yet they have few qualms about using what amounts to sensational descriptions to attempt to provoke an outcome and a set of consequences that they have not really considered. They themselves do not believe the core of their own, strongest argument against abortion. If I believed your description of abortion was a mother "killing her child", I would consider that decision to be murder or conspiracy to commit murder, and I would have answers to all of the questions that I asked above.
It is of great concern to me that the folks driving the debate, and now actually legislating the law, do not think about or believe thir own arguments enough to be consistant and coherent.