{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/14/2013 7:37:49 PM
29
The abortion debate is a pointless one to have. Abortion is legal in every first world nation I'm aware of. I can assure you that that's never going to change, because societies tend to become more liberal and progressive over time.
English
-
由HurtfulTurkey编辑： 3/14/2013 7:57:11 PMI hated abortion even when I was an atheist. I don't understand how the party that freed the slaves (and before anyone mentions it, Lincoln's Republicans were a bit different back then), secured voting rights for women and citizens of all ethnicity, brought about labor laws protecting children from dangerous work and families from starving due to low wage, and is fighting for equal rights of all people regardless of sexual preference could possibly condone the principle that fetuses are property and should not be protected by law. I really just don't get it; the entire thing seems so backwards to me.
-
[quote]I don't understand how the party that freed the slaves[/quote]Because slaves are humans and persons. [quote]secured voting rights for women and citizens of all ethnicity[/quote]Because women and citizens of all ethnicity are both humans and persons. [quote]brought about labor laws protecting children from dangerous work and families from starving due to low wage[/quote]Because children and families are both humans and persons [quote]and is fighting for equal rights of all people regardless of sexual preference[/quote]Humans and persons. [quote]...could possibly condone the principle that fetuses are property and should not be protected by law.[/quote]Humans, but they are not persons. [quote]I really just don't get it; the entire thing seems so backwards to me.[/quote]I hope this post helps you.
-
"Stacy and Connor's Law" that I think you're referring to is specifically written so as to not be used as future justification for anti-abortion policy. So, that's kind of a weak argument. The day conservatives start taking their cues from the UN is the day Satan himself crawls up from the depths of Hell, looks up to Heaven, and says, "Hey God, oops, sorry about all that nasty business before, let's be friends again." :-P
-
由HurtfulTurkey编辑： 3/14/2013 9:59:09 PMYeah, I wondered why I couldn't find it. I fully understand why that law doesn't prohibit abortion. Right now my hope is that we reach a point where we consider fetuses persons in all legal situations. Morality doesn't matter; the goal is to increase the umbrella of protection. Because even if a law banning abortions were to be passed (which, to my dismay, seems impossible), the supporters would need to be able to defend it using the law, rather than a subjective morality.
-
I'd imagine in that situation the mother would act like a medical proxy and would then have the ability to choose to terminate the pregnancy. Regarding sexual assault, I understand how it sounds but I support protecting the fetus even in that case. Both are marginal/exceptional situations and need to be considered but shouldn't suppress the general ban.
-
I don't think it's so crass. They aren't property, but nor are they fully human. The mother, however, is, and therefore her concerns should be prioritized over the fetus'. Or look at it the other way. The other party is suggesting that once a male, any male, impregnates a woman, said woman no longer fully owns her body, the unspeaking fetus does (whose best interests are determined by the gov't...). So who exactly is declaring things property? Seems like both are, in a way.
-
The thing is that a fetus isn't part of a woman's body; that's not an accurate way of describing the relationship between a fetus and a mother. The fetus is in fact genetically separate from the mother. Does the woman own her body? Of course, but she's also responsible for the life of another human.
-
[quote]Does the woman own her body? Of course, but she's also responsible for the life of another human.[/quote]These statements are incompatible. She does or she does not. If you think she must carry the fetus to term, you do not think she owns her body during pregnancy. I believe in the sovereignty of individuals (when they are actual individuals, and not physically connected to and housed within their mother), and this amounts to gov't usurpation of that sovereignty based on a medical condition. Not a fan.
