Quote:
Originally posted by FPJ
1.* Is it legally defensible (not "right," but "legally defensible") to base the legalization of abortion in general on special cases (e. g., rape, incest, and other unpleasant things)?* An analogy: there are special cases in which it is legal to kill another human being - in war, for example, or in self-defense.* Can this be used as an argument to support the position that the act of killing another human being should be legalized?
|
Let's consider for a minute the basis of why war and self-defense are exceptions to the law not to kill. War itself is a very messy subject, so it's best not to speak specifically as to the reason of a particular war, but the basic idea is that if a country goes to war,
it is in the best interest of that country to do so, whether for defense purposes, or for the purposes of gaining resources to sustain that country's people.
In the case of self-defense, if another human being threatens your well-being, or the well-being of your family, you have the right to kill that human being.
The self-defense logic goes well for the argument of the mother's life being endangered by carrying a child to term. And you may be surprised at the likelihood of this occuring, especially now that more and more women are becoming pregnant at a later age. The case of being impregnated due to rape would probably also fall under this logic, in the sense that the rape itself is a violation of your well-being, and therefore the fetus inside the mother is also a violation... but rape is a special case that I feel should be put into its own category.
The war logic parallels the idea that population control is in the best interest of the country. Take Japan, for example, where abortion is not only legal, it is an encouraged
necessity, in order for the country to sustain its population.
And it's somewhat curious to ask whether something is legally defensible when it has already been proven in courts that it is in fact legally defensible (otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this debate, and abortion wouldn't be legal in some places. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this debate in Japan).
Quote:
|
Originally posted by FPJ+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FPJ)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3.* Is it at all hypocritical for someone to lament that there are too many people living on the planet while continuing to live on it?[/b]
|
It is, but isn't it just as hypocritical to complain about the hypocrisy of others when you can't offer a viable and acceptable solution to the actual problem (overpopulation)?
And truthfully, we are all born in hubrous. The moment we are conceived, we are meant to die at some point. Those of us who actually have made it to this point that we can discuss the issue should at least do our best to ensure that the survival of our future generations is as likely as possible with the best quality of life as possible. If overpopulation and decadance of culture threaten our ability to sustain, then it should be dealt with, either via preventative methods (through education, birth control and abstinence) or proactive measures (the morning after pill, abortion).
<!--QuoteBegin-FPJ
4.* Are we all - with our dreams, desires, urges, opinions, idiosyncracies, modes of expression, and dirty little secrets - nothing more than a product of our genetics?[/quote]
If yes, then abortion is a viable option, as it is considered the removal of undesired genetic material. (I personally don't agree with this way of thinking.)
If no, then abortion is still a viable option, because that would suggest that our "humanity" is the product of nurture. A fetus in the womb has experienced only biological nurture - the basic support necessary to sustain life. If our civilization is a product of socialization, and all thoughts, dreams, desires, urges, opinions, idiosyncrasies, modes of expression, and dirty little secrets are derivatives of that socialization - then a fetus cannot lay claim to being fully human.
I apologize to all for being so argumentative. I am personally neither for nor against abortion. I simply feel that we should at least be given the option to choose for ourselves, and I do find it somewhat frustrating that throughout the course of this discussion, women have been dragged through the mud as wanton heathens who just want to have a good time with no consequences. If the majority of you actually were women, I doubt you'd think the same way. There are definitely some women like that, but on the whole, it's just not the case.
It also seems to me that when you have one argument that is extremely limited, and the opposing argument in and of itself includes the limited argument, there really shouldn't be an argument at all.
After all, how does it really affect you if Jane Doe in Corntown, Arkansas gets pregnant accidentally, and considers having an abortion? It doesn't. However, I bet it will have a profound impact on Jane's entire life, whatever she decides.