Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond
I see what you're saying, but...
Isn't saying it should be legal for women to have an abortion only during the first trimester putting an arbitrary timeline on the legality of abortion?
I very much so understand your contradiction, but I think we have to view this issue as a principle. If we can agree that human life begins at DNA fertilization, and we can agree that after DNA fertilization a human is created, I believe we have to protect that human's liberties. As I stated in my first post, it is essential for a government to protect the least among its citizens, including those who can not protect their liberties for themselves.
So, if after DNA fertilization we are considering this "thing" a human [terminology when talking about abortion is always tricky, haha], then how can we not refer to abortion as murder? It's also important to point out that mothers and doctors are legally responsible for unborn children. If one has to be legally responsible for this unborn child, then the unborn child is a legal entity - it has liberties.
Positive arguments with a goal of mutual agreements for the win!
|
Well, from a moral standpoint I believe a first trimester abortion is not good. It is bad and it compromises the value of that embryo.
And, even from a legal, or strictly from a dictionary definition, aborting the embryo would indeed be murder.
I guess I'm saying in a way I'm pro-advocating murder, only with moral reprehension? That sounds horrible! haha.
But, again, the question I ask is does the value of this living thing change in certain situations. For instance, how do you feel about Terri Schiavo?
I don't think there is a perfect way for the government to tackle abortion. The government does not exist to debate moral issues. So, if I had two choices;
A) Allow all abortions
or
B) Do not allow abortions
I would vote for option B). However, by denying the right to have an abortion at all, the government is essentially denying the right to some mother's life. We can agree that some pregnancies will compromise the life of the parent. At which point, isn't the government essentially violating its own goal of protecting the right to human life?
What we really need is a judicial system for abortions, one that has a judge and jury that exist without bias, where they make decisions based on the unique situations presented to them. However, that will never happen, right?
As far as "liberties" go, the main one I'm concerned about is the right to life. That seems to be the only real applicable one to discuss, correct?
Edit:
By the way, if this has any value to you, if I was in a vegetative state where I was unconscious and I wasn't coming back, like Terri Schiavo, I would want my family to terminate my existence. I would not want to be that burden nor do I feel that my life would, at that point, have any value. I wouldn't even want to be frozen indefinitely until a cure was discovered, what value would my life have if I woke up hundreds of years later without my loving family? I bring this up as an example of me supporting that situation. Now, I wouldn't want to be aborted if I was in the first trimester of a mother wanting abortion. However, since I would not have had knowledge of my very existence in the first place, nor would I have felt pain, to me now as a living thing with a waking conscience it seems like a big loss, but the reality is it would not matter as much.