Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (1298)	10/5/2000 2:00:28 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (2) of 10042

Zeev - For the first time in about three years in reading your posts, I've found something to disagree with: The question of when life begins is a religious question, and according to our constitution, the government has no business getting involved in resolving it or legislating it. I'd argue that it isn't a religious issue (though it's usually presented as such) but a philosophical one. If it were strictly a religious issue, how do you account for the fact that some of the most compelling opponents of abortion, like Nat Hentoff and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, are self-described atheists - or in the case of Dr. Nathanson was an atheist when he changed his views after performing thousands of abortions? Personally, I found it far easier to justify supporting abortion before I "converted" to agnosticism. And I'm sure some constitutional scholars would disagree that it was the constitution that forbids the government from legislating abortion; it's the current Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution. As I'm sure you're aware, while the constitution is constant, the interpretations can change - as they did on the constitutionality of segregated schools. Perhaps the most interesting opinion I've read on abortion came from Nicholas von Hoffman about 30 years ago, before Roe v. Wade made it illegal for the states to regulate most abortions. His argument - very roughly paraphrased - was along these lines: "Ok, I'll agree that abortion is the taking of life, but so is capital punishment and killing the enemy during war. Perhaps this is a case where the benefits of abortion make it acceptable. My proposal would be to grant to women the right to have her fetus removed from her womb, but also impose on the doctor who performs the abortion the obligation to keep the fetus alive if it's viable." The event that first got me thinking beyond the cliches on the issue was the case (I think) in Massachusetts where a surgeon had performed an abortion, but the fetus was expelled alive. He allegedly crushed its skull to complete the process. Did that change the nature of the activity?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next