On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 03:37:42PM -0800, Michael M. wrote: > > According to the CDC, [1] 1.4% of all abortions performed in the U.S. > were obtained at 21 weeks or more (statistics for 2003). > > So, because some unknown portion of 1.4% of abortions have the potential > to be aborting a fetus that might, under exceptional circumstances, be > viable, then a politician who is pro-choice can be said to support > "murder"? > > Still doesn't compute. > That is not it. The point is that if a fetus at 22 weeks can survive, who gets to decide when the fetus is actually alive. I say we err on the side of caution and say that it is alive from the moment of conception. You are welcome to your own opinion, however. > It seems to me you can only equate abortion with murder if you believe > that a fetus equates with a human being (in terms of the human rights it > should be accorded), in which case viability is not an issue because > even a not-yet-viable fetus should be accorded those same rights. > That's certainly a valid point of view, but no more or less valid than > the view that a fetus is not a human being entitled to the same rights > accorded a human capable of conceiving a fetus. > > It seems to me what you're doing is claiming that because you believe > abortion is murder, then anyone who is pro-choice must support murder. > That is plainly wrong. > Actually, there are two kinds of death which can be effected by one person on another: a lawful death or an lawful death. Some examples of lawful death: * self defense * an executioner doing his job * a soldier killing an enemy combatant on behalf of his government Some examples of unlawful death: * killing someone you do not like * getting drunk and running someone over with an automobile * getting in a bar fight and accidentally cutting someone's neck with a broken bottle In the first group, the "victims" have either threatened the life of another in an immediate way, been stripped of their right to life via due process, or engaged in an act of war against the state. In the second group, the victims are innocent. Now, the law in the US makes it OK to abort fetuses. But, they have not committed a capital crime, threatened the life of another, or engaged in an act of war against the state. To me, that means that the victim of an abortion is innocent. Killing an innocent is called murder. Now, if you believe that life begins at birth, that is one thing. Of course, since babies can be born extrememly premature and still survive, this is kind of fuzzy. So then, where is the line drawn? Hence my assertion that it is better err on the side of caution and consider life to have started at conception. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature