It occurs to me now that what you meant was that they don't think it's murder right now but that it should be. That's quite a different thing. That I can understand.
Karen, that goes back to the semantic arguement in some of my posts esp. the one with links to online dictionaries. Murder does have more then one definition, but instead of worying about semantics I could instead say that most strongly pro-life people see abortion as the moral equivilent of murder. I understand you do not have the same opinion. If killing of some group of all ready born group of people, some racial group, or people with a certain color hair, or historically the Jews under the Nazi's or any one who opposed Stalin in the old Soviet Union, would you object to some one calling it murder? I understand that you do not think of fetuses as being humans desrving of rights, but you seem to be trying to understand thier viewpoint so I posted some situations that might cause you to have a similar reaction.
Then my next question becomes why and how should we change the law to make abortion murder?
From the pro-life perspective why is an easy question. To try to reduce the amount of deaths of innocent unborn children and for at least some pro-life people to try to get a measure of justice for those who are unjustly killed.
Also from a strict constuctionist viewpoint there is nothing in the constitution about abortion, but this isn't a totally pro-life position because it leaves states free to allow it. To actually ban it by a court decision you would have to have an activist pro-life court, just as I see Roe vs. Wade as an example of an activist pro-choice decision. How is a slightly more difficult question. From my perspective it should legally be up to the states so I would say Roe vs. Wade should be overtunred and then I would push for states to ban abortion. Others (probably not very many) might try to argue for an activist pro-life supreme court decision based perhaps on the qual protection clause. Still others argue for an amendment to the constitution. Many probably don't have an overall plan they just try to take what they can get and win each individual battle. None of these plans seem like they have a strong chance of succeedeing.
You seem to be able to articulate a pro-life position in a calm and understandable way, which is rare, and the reason I've been trying to go to school off you.
I here that alot. I generally try to make the assumption that it is a true and honest compliment so, thank you. It is not the type of compliment that might really make one feel good however, because it could be taken as meaning "I suprised that some one who holds a viewpoint as crazy as yours can be so reasonable and calm. I think you mostly see the lest calm and reasonable viewpoint because it is a very emotional issue. If you thought that millions of babies where being killed it might not be easy to remain calm, but I figure nothing will be gained by ranting and acting obnoxious. Also I suspect that media bias against the pro-life position causes them to focus on the more unreasonable or even violent holders of that positition when they even mention anything about the pro-life cause at all.
* Legally, a fetus is not a human being and deserving of the rights and privileges of one. U.S. law and eons of common law say so.
I will conceed that current law recognizes no rights for the unborn. But as I said before this is not relevant to the issue of what the law should be. I'm sure if the pro-life position was entrenched in the law you would not all of the sudden become pro-life.
* Some people feel very strongly that that should be changed. The only reason I know of is that their faiths tell them so. I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the government imposing some people's faith-based beliefs on the rest of us.
Not every pro-life person is religious. In any case while I would be against the idea of an idea that is supported by a religous faith becomeing law automatically because of that religion's support (I'm not a fan of theocracy), I also am against the exlution of an idea from all public consideration just because a religion supports it.
* This is a very sensitive, personal, and complex subject.
* I am, by nature, a libertarian. I take your point about the government getting involved in the funding of abortions.
Both of us agree here.
. In fact, I think the government should keep its distance from the whole issue and leave it up to the individual consciences of its citizens.
I would agree if I thought it was not killing innocent children but was instead just a matter of personal morality or esthetics.
I ask questions to see if there's anything out there that will change my mind.
My guess is that is unlikely that you will change your mind but if you have any questions, even if you are firm in your current position, don't hesitate to ask.
Tim |
