Originally posted by Existent
Amaterasu, a good argument for religious people, but many people (including myself) aren't religious, or aren't religious enough to consider that
argument valid (I'm not bashing anyone's religious beliefs, just stating mine).
It works pretty good for some of us who are not religious, too. Like I said, I avoid dogma, but since we cannot PROOVE the soul or its entrance into
us... Let's use scripture.
It is cruel to force a child to first breath, then abandon it, just as it is cruel to abort a fetus that may have become the next Winston
Churchill or Thomas Jefferson.
Here is the main fallacy that anti-choice people bring up. The facts support the idea that sociopaths and psychopaths virtually always come from
twisted families with little to no love, with neglect and psychological, physical and sexual abuse. The more love (especially!) that an individual
receives, the more likely they are to contribute positively to society.
So... Trying to suggest that we will cause neglect and abuse but that's ok on the off chance we might have a Churchill or Jefferson - but far more
likely a Dahmer or a Jack the Ripper - all makes up for forcing these little ones to misery.
And maybe that child was going to grow up to become an axe murderer.
Far more likely than a Mother Teresa...
We can't judge by someone's possible future actions, only by their potential.
Their potential as measured within the bounds of how they are likely to be treated. And frankly, we might conclude that their potential is most
likely in the realm of a drain on society. Ergo, we might take more seriously our obligation to provide for those we force into first breath. Or...
We might conclude that it is wrong to spew unwanted children into our Universe. And choose the benchmarks given in scriptures the world over.
Man was created equal. Is it not counter to our beliefs to prevent someone from fulfilling their potential?
Only if we have at least a 50/50 chance that that potential will be positive... But the facts give us around a 70% chance of being a detriment to
On top of that, how can you say that the fetus is anything? Many are born dead, in fact, so the mere state of fetushood says nothing. In other
words, a fetus is not yet a "someone" of whom we could prevent potential. (Unless we state the potential is to become a human upon birth...)
When does the mother's pursuit of happiness override the child's right to life?
You show me a child and I might have an answer. Fetus is not child. And when does a mother's lack of interest in the eventual human life of her
fetus not matter? And who gives you the authority to speak, relative to a fetus, of a "child's" life?
Obviously not every abortion is about that, but we American's tend to have difficulty drawing the line.
So just how DO you propose to get abundant love to the unwanted children - regardless of the reason the child is unwanted?