Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
Nyah-nyah, you touched the third rail!
Now you're gonna get the personal invective treatment, forget that you asked a legitimate question.
You're probably a neocon, too!
I generally am opposed to abortion but am more opposed to government interference in people's lives. So I view it as an issue of liberty being more important than infanticide.
If your'e a minor, you have less rights than an adult. If you're a teaspoon of sperm, you got nothing for rights. If you're an unembedded zygote (a one-celled human being with a full chromosome compliment) nature may prevent implantation into the uterus or later, spontaneously abort the fetus. In any case, why allow benign abortion (or whatever it may be called) and not allow human selection of the gene pool?
OTOH, legal abortion cheapens life from an awsome responsibility to a question of convenience.
If a fetus is inconvenient and its okay to abort it, why not a fetus at 9 mos, 3 weeks? Or how about if you kid is defective at say, 6 months post-partum?
Anybody who thinks this is an easy question probably hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about the stuff at the cusps of life.
|
To me it is a simple legal question. The constitution reserves rights to only "natural born persons". It also guarantees, in the 4th Amendment, that we are to be "secure in our persons", or have a right to control our own bodies. There is also the 13th Amendment, that prohibits involuntary servitude, and forcing a women to raise a child against her will is certainly that.
07-31-2004, 08:35 PM
Hybrid Mode
