Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
Does the common decency argument cover the 40 million plus abortions that have taken place in the USA since R. vs W.?
|
Of course!
The decency argument comes from the alternative. Imagine a country in which Roe v. Wade had not happened yet. Law enforcement pushed safe, educated abortion providers out of the practice, directly causing abortions to become far more dangerous, and often deadly. Illegal abortionists before Roe v. Wade and in countries where abortion is currently illegal are often not properly trained and do not take all the necessary steps to ensure a safe procedure. The consequence is women, at one of the most vulnerable and depressing moments in their lives, are in the hands of someone far from professional. Did you know that in countries where abortion is currently illegal, between 25-50% of all maternal mortality is due to illegal abortion? Those are all deaths prevented here in the United States as a direct result of a woman's right to choose. Abortions performed by certified and trained medical professionals in a hospital or clinic environment are incredibly safe.
Common decency would point someone to wanting less deaths of women. That's the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
While I respect the rule of law, but after having children, and to hold my significantly premature niece in the palm of my hand, then to witness her 12th birthday this year... we're kidding ourselves if we don't look at abortion as anything less than murder. At the same time my niece was becoming "viable" ... other babies of the same age were being killed as an inconvenience.
|
Your premature niece was an infant and not a fetus or embryo. The vast majority of abortions are done on embryos, and some are done on fetuses. None are done on infants. You don't get to pretend that a premature infant in your hand is the exact same thing that's in the womb, connected via umbilical cord to the mother for sustenance, air and waste disposal. You don't get to ignore statements like "my body, my choice" because you can't accept that there's a real biological difference between a fetus and an infant. I'm sorry, but you can't just glaze over reality.
And I'm glad your niece is doing well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
I don't want anyone to suffer in life. But with my experiences I can no longer rationalize the act of abortion as a personal choice about one's body. If viability outside the womb is the bench-mark, then anyone on life-support is no longer viable outside the womb. Why is this any different? Does anyone here regret the opportunity at life?
|
The benchmark is not viability outside of the womb, it's biological disconnection from the mother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
As an aside - I think if more of us researched Margaret Sanger and the roots of PPH, I'd hope your findings would leave you disgusted. She was an unapologetic racist, eugenicist, and Fabian socialist. But that may be more than OK with some of you. It's all out there if you care to look it up. A monstrously vile human being.
|
Ad hom. Planned Parenthood in 2011 has nothing to do with racism or eugenics. Have you ever read War of the Worlds? H.G. Wells was a Fabian socialist.