Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa Ok .. i concede on all points. |
Purrrrr...theees ees how eet SHOULD beee.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkjabwa Let's talk about implementation.
...Who will codify the rights of an unborn? A fetus concieved by rape or incest should still have the same rights as those feti concieved due to carelessness. So will those feti have separate rights or no? |
If I had my way, hkjabwa, there would not be an exception for rape and incest unless the mental health of the mother could be professionally assessed as being so threatened that her life or future mental health was truly at risk.
However,
as I wrote yesterday, I think these exceptions would have to be included in any legislation as a regrettable pragmatic strategy to get it passed. Otherwise, people like Kim Gandy and Kate Michelson will drive everyone mad carrying on about the "hard cases" (which is a logical fallacy btw; you don't make conclusions based on exceptions).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkjabwa In fact what gives the right to a court to decide to take away the right to survival of a fetus even if the mother's life is in danger? It's not the fault of the fetus. Why is the survival of a grown lady more important than that of a fetus? |
************************
I am coming in at a later date to edit this: I am just taking out the part where I briefly discussed some religious points of view about abortion, because the words I chose resulted in ambiguities concerning the Catholic position - corrected later in this thread - and because the religious views are not germane to the topic of this thread anyway.
- LW
************************
It would be a matter of self defence.
And YES it is not the baby's fault, you are correct.
Look at it this way:
If I have a neighbor who is insane, and he doesn't even know what he is doing, and he comes at me with a knife,
I have the right to kill him to defend my own life.
It is not the neighbor's fault at all, because he is insane.
Yet regrettably he still might have to be killed as a way of defending my life, and it would and should be legal.
Same principle would be involved in the case you mentioned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkjabwa My contention is that since each abortion is an individual case, no legislative process can ensure that all factors are weighed properly. In such a case there is only one person with all the relevant information and it should be the right of that person to make the decision. That would be the mother. |
Well quite clearly I disagree - one reason is that I don't accept "social health" (to quote a section of Roe) as a reason for killing a living human being. A mother might have many reasons but as far as many of us are concerned, ONE human being's
preference does not trump another human being's life.
Also,
The parameters of health in Roe are ludicrous. If you haven't read them, I suggest that you do.
Hkjabwa,
It is a good discussion, but it could go on forever. I've probably said most of what I have to say about abortion.
This country is right now divided almost exactly evenly between those who want to see Roe left standing, and those who want to see abortion restricted.
We will see what happens.