Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docbungle
I find the whole abortion fiasco to be ridiculous. Why are so many abortions needed? Because people are irresponsible with their bodies. That's why.
...snip...
Or give a freebie, just for the sake of argument, to first-timers. Hey, mistakes happen. But if they don't learn from that one, well, then too bad.
I guess it's good I don't make the laws. We'd have a lot more kids in the world. And a lot more teen mothers living in trailer parks. Sounds bad, I know, but eventually people would start to learn. Learn to change their irresponsible behavior, change the tendencies to have irresponsible sex because they know they can't just bail out by getting a pill from the local Wal-Mart or having someone from planned parenthood scrape out their insides.
|
This circular responsibility argument is something I have never understood. It's like saying you shouldn't speed because you'll get a ticket, and you get a ticket because you shouldn't speed. Abortion is the way to get out of the ticket, and so people argue that it is irresponsible because you're not facing the music for speeding/having sex. It may be a statement of fact that speeding is unwise because you could get a ticket, and it may also be true that the reason for tickets is to stop speeding, but it doesn't explain the real reason why they exist.
The reason speeding is illegal is because of the danger to the society (direct and indirect). Tickets are the way to enforce this status. But it isn't illegal because you'll get a ticket.
To ban abortion under the responsibility argument, you are mandating that there is a certain consequence (having to raise a kid) for having sex. Well why are you attaching this consequence. There must necessarily be something else about sex that is bad and therefore warrants assigning consequences.
It may be considered irresponsible to rock climb without all the right gear and training. Do we deny medical care to someone stupid enough to try it without said gear when they fall off a rock? To use the responsibility argument, we should deny that care (regardless of the individual's ability to pay for it) because otherwise we are creating an incentive to be irresponsible, right?
More specifically, to use the responsibility argument as it is used against abortion, we should deny medical treatment to anyone who contracts VD, as it as well is a consequence of 'irresponsible sex'. We certainly should not be spending resources developing treatments for these people should we? Afterall, if you aren't scared of an STD, wouldn't that make it more likely you'd commit an act of 'irresponsible sex'? Actually, this tactic is being followed by some more fanatical anti-sex groups.