Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well it does. You can't start picking it apart and say well I suppose women who were raped, deserve an abortion. There should be equality, either don't have it available at all, or available to all women. Saying that only raped women should be entitled to abortions is still 'killing' a foetus. Is it somehow OK to kill it now, because it will share genes with a rapist?
This also raises a number of issues:
[list=1][*]How does one determine if a woman has been raped?
A physical examination will not determine if a woman has been raped in instances such as incest in which a woman is not raped by force but by coercion.
[*]How would requiring a woman to prove that she has been raped interfere with her access to abortafacients?
If a woman who has been raped does not have access to an abortafacient within 24 hours, she must undergo an invasive abortion procedure.[/list]
The middle ground accomplishes nothing on the issue. It's like taking the middle ground to slavery during the middle of the 19th century served no purpose except to delay the inevitable. Yes, going towards the absolute can cause conflict, but conflict is not inherently bad. It can even be cathartic in many cases.
Originally posted by Ymir
The middle ground accomplishes nothing on the issue. It's like taking the middle ground to slavery during the middle of the 19th century served no purpose except to delay the inevitable. Yes, going towards the absolute can cause conflict, but conflict is not inherently bad. It can even be cathartic in many cases.
Originally posted by Ymir
Actually, you're not really in the middle. You're really veering to the pro-life side. Being firmly in the middle would likely mean upholding Roe V. Wade in its current form.
There's no such thing as an absolute middle ground when it comes to ideology's. Right balance does not mean the exact number on both sides. Sure I agree with a good amount of what pro-lifers believe, but I only do so because it compliments my ideals and balances them out.
Originally posted by Ymir
Thus, you can't really choose to be on the middle ground. Like I said, choose an absolute. My personal beliefs on abortion? Totally acceptable, up until the last trimester of pregnancy.
I do not base my choices on absolutes, that's the problem with people today. They fall into endless dialectecal divisions there are always exceptions.
Originally posted by Ymir
I'm a person who feels that yes, decisions should be moderated, but I also wouldn't really mind an absolute decision to put the conflict to rest. Then again, it might just inflame the conflict further.
Originally posted by Ymir
Thus, you can't really choose to be on the middle ground. Like I said, choose an absolute. My personal beliefs on abortion? Totally acceptable, up until the last trimester of pregnancy.
Gunna jump in and say that that is not absolute itself, because you would only be agreeing with part of abortion, and not all one way or the other.
I think its okay to have a sort of middle-ground though. Because as Ashtar said, there are exceptions to the rule. I couldnt say all abortions are wrong and irresponsible, because there are some that arent, like where the mother is going to die. I find that acceptable, because it would be saving a life even if preventing one as well. Since the mother speaks for the kid, in these cases she would have the choice, because her own life is at stake, whereas in other cases it is not.
I just really hate that some people are idiots and can legally be allowed to keep getting abortions when it is completely unaffecting their health and it is just their own uncare for human life. In order to prevent those people from changing the definition of the value of human life, I would draw the line at a woman's health risk for abortion only.