Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
No they're not. One follows the other. If you think the answer from a moral perspective is X, you will support laws that result in X. If you think that preventing a woman to make the choice to end her pregnancy is in all circumstances morally wrong, you will want laws that reflect that. If you think that an abortion after after 20 weeks is baby murder, you will want laws that reflect that. You could certainly argue that a range of legal regimes around abortion are aligned with your moral views, but what that range is is inherently going to be governed by your moral views.
So no, they aren't two separate debates when one inescapably relies on the other, and as a result, your statement about people who are proponents of banning late term abortion as a matter of law being "not serious people" is completely asinine. There are plenty of serious people who would take the view that the law should draw a line at some number of weeks after which no abortion should be permitted - say, for example, the United Kingdom, which draws that line at 23 weeks and 6 days.
|
One does not naturally follow the other. Your ethical position might inform the other. But they are entirely separate. It’s a completely rational position to believe that abortion is ethically wrong in every circumstance and still believe in free access to abortion is a fundamental right.
And the people in the UK who proposed the 28 week and the the 23 week and in 2008 the 20 week and the 16 week and the 12 week bans are not arguing ethics they are wedging to ban abortion in general. If you don’t like not serious I would accept not genuine or have alterior motives or arguing in bad faith. The person who believes that it is necessary for the state to restrict 3rd trimester abortions but not any other abortions and is arguing from a good faith position does not exist.
This is different then a person arguing that 3rd trimester abortions are unethical