gumborue in fact every legal question is at root a moral one. All laws through out history have been based on the society's moral code of the moment. Laws are compromises between what is desired and what is possible. When there is a very homogenous society then narrowly defined codes/laws can work. In the multi faceted society we live in with a lot of variation in what is moral laws have to be more flexible. No one disputes murder is bad and should be outlawed but to define abortion as murder in the law is not right for our society. There are as many that believe the fetus is not a person until birthas there are that believe it is human at conception. To automatically outlaw so many will create an instability in the rule of law. Personally I believe the fetus is a seperate entity sometime after it is implanted in the womb. I believe conception including morning after pills is no different from the rhythum meathod or rubbers. Too great a percentage of embryos are naturally aborted in the first few weeks to claim any more. After that I believe abortions should become increasingly restrictive as the pregnancy continues. Is that an equivication? Yes, but all laws are, otherwise we would execute people for negligent homicide or the like. Gumborue I respect and honor your view, but rather than asking for a law, you should change peoples minds so that society agrees with you in great proportion. Then you can have such a law passed. Laws especially laws like that must be the result of a social compact. You can't ask for such a law then complain when a law you don't like is passed.
Winston, I did not advocate one way or the other. I simply posted an article. None of the words were mine. She does hopefully provoke some thought on the issue though. Personally, I wrestle with abortion but for reasons I don't feel like articulating at this time. Would I be for a ban on all abortions? No. Do I think that abortions should be used as a means of birth control/convenience? No. I'll leave it at that for now.
And this is the crux of the debate. I've always been of the mind that rights have no limits. Gun ownership for example. Its nice that the Founding Fathers stated the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, but at the same time, why should the government have to spell out my right to defend myself? The moment you place a limit on a fundamental right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government. But, I think its a truism that with every right comes a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that doesn't interfere with someone else's rights. And because, as MLU says, people are naturally stupid, you can't count on people being responsible.
It may be that in theory rights have no limits but that would only work in an ideal society and that will never exist. SO we set up governments to mange the conflict between individuals and their rights. You cannot live in a society where rights are unlimited. It is fantasy. Rights have been limited since the beginning of the US. Remember Justice Holmes comment that you cant shout fire in a crowded theater. Free speech, free press (obsenity), religon and all other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights have limits and have had for essentially ever. The second amendment arm clause has had limits for ever... you can't buy a functional bazooka or hellfire missle etc. To refuse to recognise there are limits is to refuse to recognize facts. There is a wide range between a shot gun and hellfire and somewhere inbetween is a reasonable place. There will be shifts in that place as technology and society change. To claim we have the same social structure today as we had in 1789 is ridiculous. If you think your rights are being abridged bythe fact we have a government then you don't understand the social compact that has made the US the best place to live and thrive ever.
Some refuse to call a child in the womb a person, but rather a fetus... like a fetus is less human... but once out of the womb, kicking and crying it's a human... once a baby born takes its first breath and then "snipped" is plain murder just as if I walked up and stabbed an adult in the back of the head with a pair of scissors. This doctor should've saved everyone the money and just hung himself.
No argument, and I should have said,"In a Utopian world, rights would have no limits...." kind of thought that part was self-explanatory. Then again, in a Utopian society, there would be no need for the right of self-protection, be it with a handgun or a hellfire, because no one would ever assault anyone else.
I agree with you there TT. I understand he has a right to a legal defense but don't understand why anyone would try a moral defense of what he did. I wish I could know where a fertilized egg becomes a person. The definintion of when life begins has moved through the years and as our knowledge and capabilities become greater the threshold of life is also pushed back. As noted earlier many eggs are fertilized but are never implanted in the womb so never become fetuses. Likewise a developed fetus at some point is human and a person at least in law. I would have a hard time allowing abortion when a fetus can survive outside the womb. Where does the mother's rights supercede the fetus' and vice versa?
