Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
The tragedy is for Kane, the mother and his family, all of whom were happily expecting a child.
No one is arguing that abortion isn't sad, or hard, or even moral. It's just a reality that has to be dealt with the safest way possible. And as noted, 90+% are done before 12 weeks. So is it really worth arguing about this 10%? Most of which are health related reasons?
And, for future advice, I'd probably avoid comparing miscarriages to abortions in actual settings where people can see and hear you.
|
But it is not a tragedy when a mother decides to get an abortion at 26 weeks and the father has literally no say in the matter? You made it pretty clear in the first post that it sure as hell isn't an easy situation to deal with.
I don't have all the answers either because no matter what I think it is pretty clear that limiting abortions will not necessarily result in 'less' abortions. I think it is pretty clear what will reduce abortion rates across the board.
I just find it really bizarre that there are people who can't see the common sense in creating a line in the sand without thinking everything will turn into a slippery slope and suddenly abortion will be completely illegal again.
From a completely legal perspective I can make a strong argument that at SOME POINT the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being. The exact date is always thrown around, but most people will agree that it is sometime before full term is reached. And if we agree on that, from a legal perspective can you not say that the baby will at some point before it is born have the rights that we grant all our humans to not be killed? Especially not be killed by a state sanctioned law?
It is the same reason I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I do not believe the state should have the right to execute its own citizens. No matter what they do I believe we grant them the right to 'live', and I don't think you can make a constitutional argument that the right to live can ever be taken away from them regardless of what heinous acts they preform, i.e. killing someone else.
And in regards to the bodily anatomy argument that Roe vs Wade uses, I asked this in the other thread and I'll ask it here again. If the pregnant mother dies on the hospital bed and the doctors feel the fetus is developed far enough that it would have a chance to survive, can they operate on the mother without permission to try and save the baby? Because wittynickname is saying that unless specifically stated, they cannot just like they cannot take your organs without your permission.
Should they be allowed too? Does the baby have the right to live? Or did the mother dying remove that right as well? Who is deciding there? Because if you are saying the doctor should be decide, well then we are right back to square one.
And there were posts in the other thread by GreenLantern saying the doctor should have the right to decide NOT to preform an abortion if they feel like the mother is doing it for certain reasons (gender, health, father forcing her, etc) which is strange because all of a sudden the rights of the mother don't matter anymore? Suddenly then the baby has a right?
To me the further this debate moves along, the more it becomes a confusing mess because both sides don't want to admit that the most sensible solution involves some serious compromise.