badgenome said:
And in feeling that way, you show just how reflexive you are. I never stated my opinion on abortion. I'm not even sure what my position is, to be honest. But basically, it seems abhorrent to me and yet, even though it is not logical to say that the circumstances of a person coming to be should determine how they are to be treated, I can't get on board with forcing a woman to bear her rapist's child. I'm also not sure exactly when a fetus can be considered a person. Abortion may be one of those things that is (sometimes, at least) unethical but should not be illegal because of the problematic nature of enforcing a law prhobiting it.
No, it doesn't. For one thing, there's nothing arbitrary about saying that life begins at the moment of conception. That's an extreme position politically, but of all the positions, it's probably the most logically consistent. I don't even understand what you're getting at here. It's also the most scientifically correct. The question is, is it a person? This is why it is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.
We're not talking about an egg, we're talking about a fetus. Unless you mean like a bird egg. In which case, of course an egg is not life. But what is inside the egg is alive. On that note, it is a bit fucked up to me that the penalty for scrambling a bald eagle egg (up to $250k and 2 years in prison) is less than the penalty for scrambling an unborn infant's brains (no penalty, because that's a woman's prerogative).
You do know that your stance is a pro-life position, right? Because you just ruled out elective abortion altogether after the first 12 weeks. While there is some disagreement on the pro-life side of the issue about whether abortion should ever be legal, your position completely flies in the face of the pro-choice position that abortion is ethical and should therefore be legal under any circumstances (although some pro-choicers get squishy on this once the fetus is viable). |
1. ? Seriously? You quoted my post. Said "no" and then called it kneejerk idiocy. That was a kneejerk reaction to my post was it not? Kasz said it was two different arguments saying fetus rights vs mother rights, when my first post wasn't addressing that. I didn't feel his reply sufficiently addressed what I was saying, so I said "from my point of view, it's one argument with a couple facets".
2. Yes, it IS arbitrary, because nothing in science agrees with that assessment, and neither does anything in the Bible. It is a position taken specifically because it avoids talk of abortion altogether It circumvents the science. Then you say 'it's more philosophical' after countering by saying it's more scientific?
3. Yes sorry, semantics. fetus not egg.
4. Yes, I know it's pro-life, but more importantly, it's pro-sanity. It is a good middle ground, a compromise, where each can have rights. I don't believe that a mother should simply terminate at any point, but three months seems a lengthy amount of time to make that decision, and I even provide that the woman's rights still come first afterwards. If the fetus endangers her life or well being, she can terminate at any time.