Wait On That Abortion

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Thank God such an absurd thought hasn't caught hold in our legal system yet.

The ironic thing is that abortion rates are rather steady worldwide, whether they're technically legal or not -- women will get abortions one way or another if they really want them. Might want to brush up on Brazil.

So the long and short of it is that women are going to terminate unwanted pregnancies either way. If it's legal, it's more likely to be safe. If it's illegal, it's more likely to be unsafe.

So you're going to have "dead" DNA strings either way. Whether you're gung-ho about adding more dead, injured, or maimed women to the fray is really what we're arguing here when we cut out all the rest of the crap and it's all said and done.

I think I've demonstrated that since the 1973 decision did not factor in where life begins, or any logic delineating where it "must have begun by" or "could not have started yet", the decision is absurd and arbitrary. After all, a question of where life begins would have some uncertainty, but in that case, the responsible individual (or in this case, Supreme Court Justices) should err on the side of caution. Even if life "might" have started by conception in another individuals mind (I have no doubts, but others might), the responsible action is to say, "Abortion at that point or after could be a murder, so we cannot allow that."

As an analogy, if we suspected, but were not sure, that the population of an endangered species -- the humpback whale, the california condor, the siberian tiger, etc. -- were at a critically low level in population, the responsible action would be to stop hunting them. Why? Because if we're wrong, the worst that happened is that their numbers increase. But if we're right about the population being low and do nothing, they go extinct.

Strangely, many PETA members on the web have supported abortion while opposing hunting and the consumption of animal products. Go figure.

Environmentalists, in the face of mounting evidence against global warming, assert along the lines of "But if it's happening and we do nothing, we're screwed." Their recommended action is to err on the side of what they see as caution. We could always reverse course if it's not true.

Taking a life is a one way street, so every facet of what's going on needs to be understood, and only if it's PROVEN that a human life is not terminated can any action like that take place. That's conservatism, not politically, but in terms of judgment based on the facts we have or can get.

I've heard the whole "back alley" argument before as we all have. The issue is that a crime (like murder) cannot be upheld and supported by the government in a just society. Crime is always in the alleys, out of view, hidden, because in the light of day the non-criminals will object.

Other countries can do what they want - what their citizens decide. But as an American, I want my country to protect life. If people want to go to Brazil to commit a murder, be my guest.