reply to post by Maslo
Abortion is not a contradiction if you use my law to deal with it. YOU are making a stance that contradicts itself. You have two perfectly internally
consistent options that do not result in ANY logical contadiction to choose from:
1. ban all abortions, even in cases of rape, all embryos have human rights from conception
2. allow all abortions (up to some decided limit), for whatever reason, ALL embryos until that limit do not have any human rights, after it, ALL have
As usual Maslo, your logic is excellent. While I don't always agree with your positions, I respect that you have the courage to lay it out, even if
in doing so, it will bother the average person.
SO, in this example, I'm guessing from the typical majority schizophrenic posts on this issue, it would be Number Two that might stick in the average
craw. Obviously, the first one is the most consistent "pro-life" stance, and one can agree or disagree with the statement.
But as for the second one...A "decided limit", for "whatever reason"...While I can totally see the logic, I think that in putting it so starkly,
one might tremble at how perhaps "arbitrary" such limits and reasons could become. Indeed, as they have become over the decades since the
legalization of abortion.
And yet, anyone who has looked at this history knows that these limits weren't necessarily "arbitrary". There were reasons proposed, and since the
issue was essentially philosophical, the courts had to aim more for practicality. And a fair amount of politics factored in too, I suppose.
I know someone will be here shortly to scold me and say that "science" is on their side, but from my point of view, something like "personhood"
(and rights that go with it) is out of the realm of science. I suppose advancements can be made, but I would have a hard time thinking that science
will resolve the matter. It can shed light on the issue, it can perhaps help with the limits, and reasons you mention, but I can't see how it can
ever do much more than that.
SO, since the issue is primarily philosophical, I think you have made your case. When it comes to law, a declaration must (and does) come into play,
and frankly, whether that fiat is arbitrary or not, is quite beside the point.
I used the word schizophrenic, and yet I wonder how many posters on this thread consider that their positions are exactly that. Perhaps if I feel up
to it, I'll count the number of posts who use the term "child", or "baby", and then go on to support reasons for their termination!
As for the rape issue, I'll pass on that for now, as I see you have been in a heated debate with Gorman91.
I appreciate you shining the light of logic on the topic, and pointing out the inconsistencies. Regardless of a person's position on the matter, I
think they could benefit from at least maintaining internal consistency with the things they (supposedly) believe.