|
Sinergy -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/20/2007 1:36:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
We do not live on our own little islands free from social responsibility.
Tell that to the previous legislature.
I am not trying to start a political debate here, but I do want to point out that if Roe V. Wade is overturned it would be people like Gingrich, Delay, Foley, Hastert, Clinton, etc., who would be involved in deciding what a doctor could provide in terms of health care. People like Ashcroft would be charged with enforcing the laws they set up.
This is not really a slippery slope. Roe vs. Wade was designed to protect a woman's freedom.
As julia pointed out, mandating that abortion is murder, but allowable in cases of rape or incest, is logically invalid. The child was conceived and if aborting a child is murder, than aborting a child from rape or incest is also murder. Why is the line drawn in that instance (rape and incest) more or less valid as a reason for murdering a fetus than a woman not being able to support the child?
It becomes even more invalid with the statement that nobody knows why a child is being born. This is true, but what does it actually mean and how does it relate to the argument?
It becomes further tied up with the idea that an abortion can be allowed in the best interests of the mother. Perhaps the mother is supposed to die. If the mother dies, doesnt the fetus also die?
That is the main problem I have with anti-abortionists. Each and every argument they bring to the table is an emotional one. Bouyed up by their own spiritual or religious beliefs, morals, etc. I support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, I just object to them attempting to legislate their beliefs on everybody else.
While the same thing could be said about my being pro-choice, I accept that. But the law used to allow abortion simply provides for a woman's freedom to gain access to medical care. Is this really a precedent that people want to get rid of?
Where does it end?
Sinergy
|
|
|
|
