Klink said:
I think the responses so far ignore the social implications of this debate, which I think have been the ultimate determining factor...at least politically. Before I can agree to believe that abortion should be illegal, I would like to know what business the government has in telling a woman what to do with her body, which the fetus relies on for survival?
With all due respect, a democracy is governed by the people. When the public outcry for a vicious act to take place is as big as it is, we have to see what the big deal is. Many feel that it is morally wrong to kill an unborn, as it is morally wrong to kill a newborn. You may disagree with me on your definition of a "human", but my good friend dictionary.com (not known for any political bias) would define "human" as this:
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human.
Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.
Feel free to interpret that however you want...
Klink said:
Most importantly, I think it's important to point out that the scientific "evidence" displayed so far is not really evidence for either side at all. What is being used as "evidence" are the interpretations about what these results mean and how we should react as a society. There no ultimate logic or reason that can successfully bridge the gap between the moral absolutism of "pro-life" and the scientific evidence presented. It's all in how one interprets (a) the evidence and arguments and (b) how we as a community feel we should react to this interpretation. To me the reliance on personal interpretation and emotion suggests that moral absolutism is probably a disposable position. This debate has been reduced to a matter of one's interpretation of the means and goals of society. That being the case HERE, what grounds do we have for telling someone what they can do HERE? The absence of something self-evident in this debate is exactly why abortion cannot be considered anything but just that...a matter of opinion - choice.
Even I feel that Hillary Clinton - a "pro-choicer", is helping bridge the gap. She acknowledges that it's a tragic choice that is made by many women, and it benefits both sides of the debate to provide contraceptives for the sexually active who would choose abortion.
Klink said:
To conclude, I'd like to throw in two more criticisms of the "pro-life" argument. One, they contain certain theistic assumptions, the most obvious of which pertains to the sacred nature of human life, which certainly lacks jusitifcation. It also contains the anthropocentric assumption that human life is superior to other life forms that we kill which, again, no matter what you believe, is not justified.
This is NOT a theological issue. There are many who have no interest in believing in a higher power, or being religious folks, who object to abortion. Abortion deprives a child of life, anyway you slice it. What form of life is superior to human life?
Klink said:
A restriction on freedom requires sound logic, at the very least. Unless there is some imperative argument requiring abortion to be treated as murder (and i cannot think of one), then I'm not sure there's an imperative to restirct a woman's right to exercise her freedom...especially over her own body. Does the government have the right to dictate what happens in the womb? I'm not in favour, given the arguments so far.
An unborn child is not a body part. It has its own genetic makeup, and abortion restricts that child from freedom. Honestly, it's a permanant solution to a temporary problem, and I discourage the practice, and I would rather protect the innocent rather than support the most acceptable, yet vicious form of child abuse.
I'm not betting that I'm changing anybody's mind, but just as you have stated your opinion, I have stated mine.
no sir.
