Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i reject the idea that absent some "objective" rule or standard that abortion ceases to be an ethical problem. the are several grounds for this, some of which i've already gone through above--but i don't see this as a matter that anyone approaches in a cavalier manner--so it is simply not the case that the anti-choice people and their world view is all that stands between the present and an absolute erasure of any trace of ethics.
|
I'm not arguing that anyone does or should treat abortion with a cavalier attitude. However, I don't see an alternative to an either/or approach on the morality of abortion that doesn't at some point place a fetus' right to life on roughly the same level as the mother's wish to avoid a pregnancy. I see this as problematic, because this logic can be applied to any other putative human that presents an inconvenience: infants, young children, brain-damaged adults and the mentally retarded.
Quote:
|
it seems to me that this is a very difficult, complex decision. and i see no basis---at all---why anyone who is not directly involved with such a decision should put themselves in the position of determining what kinds of considerations do and do not count in making it. "am i ready to be a mother?" is no more or less legitimate a question than any other---
|
Then what logically separates abortion from from the killing of infants or the retarded? If a line can't be drawn somewhere beyond which lie those who have an absolute right to life (in the sense that we ascribe that right to roachboy and inboil), then what right does society have to punish or prevent murder? I'm normally against forcing one's morals on others, but at some point doesn't society have to say "enough of us find X wrong that we're going to interfere with anyone attempting it"? I understand that to some extent, determining X must be arbitrary. The abortion debate seems to me to be a way of figuring out where that line should be drawn in the least arbitrary way possible. The problem is, I don't see a good place to draw that line. "Am I ready to be a mother?" is a legitimate question, whether in the context of abortion or infanticide, but "does this entity have the right to live?" seems vastly more important to me.
Quote:
|
given a pluralist context--which the present pope has a Real Problem with in any event--the furthest it seems legitimate to go is to say that if you oppose abortion don't have one--but (again) that the procedure should be legal as a way to insure its safety.
|
I agree with this, but I see it as a temporary measure. We (society) know that women have rights, and we haven't decided if fetuses have rights, so it makes sense to err on the side of protecting rights that we know exist. But resolving this uncertainty is important; we may be allowing innocent people to be victimized.