Thanks for replying. I completely disagree with the premises behind your statement that "people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous." But I know better than to argue with anti-abortionists.
But I know better than to argue with anti-abortionists.
Shame on you. Without that sentence, your comment would have been cool - instead you patronize me.
I'm an atheist, liberal (mostly), and almost certainly not one of the typical "pro-lifers" you're looking down your nose at. My distaste of laissez-faire abortions does not make me "anti-abortionist."
I believe abortion should be very much a "last choice" that's heavily regulated. In the standard terminology that makes me more "pro life" than "pro choice" - yet if someone makes a long, hard decision to have an abortion, I'm in support of them being able to effect that. It just shouldn't be easy to do.
> I completely disagree with the premises behind your statement that "people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous."
Fair enough. So, let's find out what issues qualify and how this all works.
Let's start with the obvious - are fetus' special and when? For example, if a pregnant woman doesn't find out about the issues until a week before birth, do you think that it's wrong for her to not abort? How about if she finds out a week after birth? Should the kid be killed?
Now let's talk about issues. How retarded is too retarded to live? Is retarded the only issue? How about blind, deaf, missing a limb or two? What about the mother's circumstances? Suppose she's a crack addict. Or, just incredibly poor. Or retarded? (There's progressive supreme court decision arguing that "three generations of imbiciles is enough" - the case involved forcible sterilization.)
Me - I'm pro-abortion. (Yes, I know that pro-choice folks say that folks like me don't exist. Unlike some of them, I'm just honest.) However, I'd never tell someone that they're obligated to have an abortion.
Have a baby if you feel like having a baby, but there's lots of great reasons to have an abortion; almost 100% of them are none of our fucking business, unless we're involved in the fucking.
That's nice, but the claim was that there was something wrong with not having an abortion in certain circumstances. I'm trying to nail down some of those circumstances.
Comments
Thanks for replying. I completely disagree with the premises behind your statement that "people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous." But I know better than to argue with anti-abortionists.
But I know better than to argue with anti-abortionists.
Shame on you. Without that sentence, your comment would have been cool - instead you patronize me.
I'm an atheist, liberal (mostly), and almost certainly not one of the typical "pro-lifers" you're looking down your nose at. My distaste of laissez-faire abortions does not make me "anti-abortionist."
I believe abortion should be very much a "last choice" that's heavily regulated. In the standard terminology that makes me more "pro life" than "pro choice" - yet if someone makes a long, hard decision to have an abortion, I'm in support of them being able to effect that. It just shouldn't be easy to do.
I'm sorry I offended you. I should have said that I don't want to get into an argument with an anti-abortionist about abortion.
> I completely disagree with the premises behind your statement that "people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous."
Fair enough. So, let's find out what issues qualify and how this all works.
Let's start with the obvious - are fetus' special and when? For example, if a pregnant woman doesn't find out about the issues until a week before birth, do you think that it's wrong for her to not abort? How about if she finds out a week after birth? Should the kid be killed?
Now let's talk about issues. How retarded is too retarded to live? Is retarded the only issue? How about blind, deaf, missing a limb or two? What about the mother's circumstances? Suppose she's a crack addict. Or, just incredibly poor. Or retarded? (There's progressive supreme court decision arguing that "three generations of imbiciles is enough" - the case involved forcible sterilization.)
Me - I'm pro-abortion. (Yes, I know that pro-choice folks say that folks like me don't exist. Unlike some of them, I'm just honest.) However, I'd never tell someone that they're obligated to have an abortion.
Have a baby if you feel like having a baby, but there's lots of great reasons to have an abortion; almost 100% of them are none of our fucking business, unless we're involved in the fucking.
That's nice, but the claim was that there was something wrong with not having an abortion in certain circumstances. I'm trying to nail down some of those circumstances.
I don't see that claim anywhere. I only see the claim that not having an abortion in certain circumstances is not more virtuous than having one.