|
To be perfectly honest - the question "that's it?" confused me a bit too when i reread, please disregard. I think i was replying to another board at the same time. did i mention i was a lil hung over at the time too - on a tuesday - how'd that happen?
Anyway - i didn't assert that the article was breaking moralistic ground. Just well researched and addressed far more issues than yours did (no diss intended). Her article wasn't written in response to yours, but I will now - i was kind of rushing earlier, and just posted that in hopes of some sort of response from you. But whatever, this is what I think in a nutshell about your essay:
You conveniently compare the life of a week old and the life of an 8 and a half month old and acknowledge that there is a grey area in between. You acknowledge life in the 8 1/2 month old by the defination given and state that the week old does not meet the criteria. Your solution to the grey area: restrictions on abortion as the baby evolves. You don't define these restrictions for obvious reasons (i.e. - they are not defineable). My problem with this is that because you cannot pinpoint a time in which you believe the fetus is "alive", the only safe assumption is that it is alive at conception. I'm surprised that your essay acknowledges and leaves open the possibility that a human life (by your own definition) can be and is at times ended - it is murdered. And your justification for this murder is "preservation of a woman's self-determination."
|