EvilPhysicist wrote:
Unfortunately abortion is not murder, which means the debate is not over integrity, but over simple misunderstanding of our justice system. Just because the religious wacks beleive something, doesnt mean everyone else has to follow it. They can call it murder all they want, but our government has deemed otherwise. And frankly im getting tired of all the jackass politicians continuing to bring this up to grab a few conservative votes.
Whether abortion is or isn't murder is a matter of personal opinion, not some scientifically determinable fact. And our laws are based on what "the people" think. You are certainly free to disagree with the pro-life position, but you're essentially arguing that they shouldn't have a right to attempt to make changes to the law that fit their view of morality.
And that just seems like a silly position to take when you live in a democratic country.
Quote:
These people will go as far as you let them to push their views onto others. I for one am not interested in what they have to say about jesus/muhamud/krinsa etc.. Why cant they abstain from the carnal pleasures of life and let others enjoy life to the fullest.
Here's the thing though. You're arguing that the issue is morally ambiquious and therefore it's best to let any individual decide for themselves whether they wish to do something. Those who are pro-life *don't* believe it's morally ambiquious. They believe that abortion is wrong. Period.
The parallel I like to use is that of the slavery abolitionists back in the 1800s. Most of the population believed that slavery was morally ambiguous, and that each person (or state as the case ended up) should have the freedom to choose whether to allow slavery or not. I'm sure they also argued their position in exactly the same way you are arguing the pro-choice position. They believed it wasn't anyone else's business whether they allowed slavery or not because anyone who didn't like it could simply choose not to own slaves. The abolitionists simply believed that slavery was wrong. Period. No exceptions.
I'm not equating a right/wrong relationship between slavery and abortion here though. I'm pro-choice myself. However, it's important to realize that those positions are not absolute, and it's certainly valid for a group to attempt to change the social position on an issue over time, just as the abolitionists did with slavery. There's no way to say which way our society will go, but clearly societal norms *do* change over time, so it's (again) somewhat silly to disagree with someone on an issue purely because they're attempting to create such a change.
Quote:
As for the "ethical" issue of abortion, because it is NOT a universally classified "evil deed", and reagardless of what the religious nuts say, its not, the only fair thing we can do is look to science to give us a reasonable answer of where life begins and set the guidline by that. This allows the mother and father to decide if they wish to raise this child, or if they wish to discard the undeveloped genetic tissue. Only when people start believing that the little cells have souls does the argument become clouded with superstitious meandering.
Just to repeat the point. In the US lavery wasn't universally classified as an "evil deed" either. Not until the abolitionists changed people's opinions on the matter sufficiently.
There are a whole range of issues surrounding abortion that go way beyond blanketly dismissing the other sides position out of hand.