You live in the Netherlands, so let me point out something you may not be aware of and that **Bricker **didn’t mention in his response. The US has a federal system where (theoretically, at least) the central government is restricted in it’s actions in deference to the states. Many of us favor certain policies, but want the states to be able to determine what those polices are, not the federal government. There has been an enormous errosion of state authority over the last 100 years or so. Many will argue that that is a good thing, but the contrary position cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.
I’m an atheist who would gladly vote for legalized abortion in my state, but I still think *Roe *was wrongly decided. It’s not a matter of getting the result you want regardless of the means. Consider how you think about the expansion of EU political authority. I’m sure there are issues you’d be concerned about turning over to Brussels as opposed to being able to control in the Netherlands.
Just out of curiosity, would the EU constitution (recently defeated in France and your country) have required all member states to legalize abortion?
The questions is Bricker do you represent the majority viewpoint? All movements have their reasonable members and their nuts. This board, attracts more often than not, people who are willing to be reasonable. The real world isn’t so…functional.
Let me ask you Bricker. If I believe that all forms of birth control as well as sex education should be banned AND I believe that women who have children out of wedlock should be taught a lesson and really have to struggle to qualify for welfare, food stamps and WIC, in order to reduce the support that enables people to have children they can’t afford…Am I being “honest” to the movement?
Does my responsibility end once I ensure the life of the unborn? Do I have to open my home as well, to fulfill my promise to “save” the children?
I mean, it’s not MY fault, they can’t keep their legs closed and reproduce when they can’t afford or have a stable relationship, is it?
Nonetheless, it seems that you are arguing that it is acceptable to abort if the mother will abuse the child after birth. Ergo, it is better to die than to be abused. So, if it is acceptable to kill the victim of abuse to stop the abuse, it is acceptable to kill abused children to prevent further abuse.
And ISTM that the argument that no one should oppose abortion unless they are willing to take responsibility for those who would otherwise be aborted is a bit like emotional blackmail. If I see a murder in progress, I am morally bound to prevent it, if I can. I am still morally bound if I cannot take on full responsibility for the life of the victim from here on.
Yet abortion is currently available, and child abuse still occurs. So does infanticide. How does that affect your argument?
I think I represent a reasonable plurality of the pro-life movement, but I acknowledge that this could be self-selection on my part… that is, I tend to hang out with others who agree with my view. I don’t know how to test this theory.
My view is you’re being counterproductive to the pro-life movement with those views.
No. But your responsibility to your kids doesn’t end if you care for them until they’re 18 and then kick them out of the house without a penny, even though that is legally permissible. By this analogy, I mean to say that the basic, sine qua non quality of a right to life adherent is the respect for human life at all its stages, from conception to natural death. But it’s a foolish consistency to focus myopically on birth, and then ignore the myriad issues that impact on quality of life after birth.
No, it’s not your fault. Nor is anyone saying it is. The question is not whose fault it is. The question – given the situation as it exists, what’s the best, most effective way for us as a society to respond. If we implement the too-bad-you’re-a-slut-and-you’re-on-your-own plan, will that really be effective in lowering abortions, stopping unwanted pregnancy, and the like? Or is there a more effective way to accomplish those goals? I contend there IS a more effective way.
The size is not a difference. The lack of a personality is: it’s also what separates the living from the dead, and explains why it is a great crime to cut my throat (thus destroying a personality) than it is to cut the throat of a corpse.
The size is not a difference. The lack of a personality is: it’s also what separates the living from the dead, and explains why it is a greater crime to cut my throat (thus destroying a personality) than it is to cut the throat of a corpse.
I don’t know how to test your level on the issue either, but I will say that you’re the exception to most anti-abortion people I’ve dealt with. Granted I don’t know scores of them, but the majority of people I’ve dealt with feel the way I posted and I find them unbearable to be around. Their sole purpose is to prevent any form of interferrence in the birthing process, whether it’s education, birth control or social programs and then they have no problem in washing their hands of the situation, and laying blame at the foot of the mother.
I don’t know who’s in the majority here, you or them; but I fear the latter.
I’d say it’s the primary relevant difference, yes, with personality loosely defined and referring to such things as self-awareness, desires, interests, beliefs about the future, capacity to feel pain and pleasure, and so forth; and the understanding that a personality may be temporarily dormant without being destroyed.
When do those attirbutes kick in after birth? Would it be OK to kill a 2 month old infant, who certainly is not “self aware” and has no beliefs about the future.
I don’t generally rely on feelings in these matters.
Could you provide the evidence that you used to decide that those who are prevented from aborting are much more likely to abuse their children?
And again, you are arguing (as far as I can tell) that destroying a fetus so as to proactively prevent it from being abused later is a morally valid choice. This seems to be the basis for your argument that Roe v. Wade needs to remain in place. Is that the case?
How severely retarded are they? Do they have awareness of their own existence? Do they have a capacity to feel pain and pleasure? Do they have desires and fears?
Honestly, if a person is born without the capacity to have any of these experiences–say, they’re born without a brain–then I believe that killing them is only unethical inasmuch as it might diminish the killer.
I think, John, this ought to answer your question as well. Let me know if it does not. Note that a personality is not a binary operation: a chicken has more personality than a fetus, but less than a human adult.
Look, arguing that abortion is good because it reduces child abuse is just silly. Or do we need to go down the Bill Bennett road about crime again.
And arguing that newly born baby has a personality but a 6 month old feuts does not is equally silly.
Any time limit we place on abortion is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Few people would argue in favor of elective abortion at 37 weeks into a pregancy, just as most people in the US are OK with elective abortion up until 13 weeks or so. Given the state of technology at present, it would be hard to argue for elective abortion after 25 weeks (roughly).
