Issodhos @aol.com wrote:
> Well, I was simply making an observation, not laying out an argument, and
>I do not intend to enter into one on this topic now.
Clearly untrue, you have obviously entered into the argument.
> Why you would think your posting not specious when all you do is apply a
>monolithic stereotype to demonize those who oppose abortion (thus you
>avoid addressing the question of abortion itself) while claiming that they
>would have the temerity to actually vote based on their moral beliefs is
>beyond me.
I was not debating their vote, but the inconsistency of their argument.
>Do you not vote based on your moral beliefs?
Of course, but I temper my moral beliefs about what is ideal, with an
analysis of what is materially possible. For example I don't believe the
premature death of human beings is acceptable, but it is not materially
possible to prevent all deaths by accident or disease. My moral outrage
over such deaths is not something that can guide my votes.
> Actually the moralizing of much of the left and it's attempts at inflicting
>their moralizing on others would make the most ardent Baptist blush. If
>you wish to vote your morals the question remains,
>"Is it all right or not to kill an unborn child?" Of course, America is a
>constitutional republic so the "mob" vote here may not be binding.:-)
The question assumes that there is a right or wrong answer. But as in so
many cases, it is really a question of balancing the rights of different
parties. The rights of the fertilised egg often have to be balanced against
the rights of the mother whose womb is required and whose future life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness will be adversely affected by the tasks of
motherhood.
As I understand the law in Australia, abortion is not legal in all
circumstances. It is legal only in circumstances where the physical or
physchological health of the mother would be put at risk by carrying a
pregnancy to term. Thus the law recognises that there is a balance of
rights, that neither the mother, nor the fertilised egg have absolute
rights. But the actual human being has the predominance of rights.
Anti-abortionists essentially want it the other way, they argue that the
rights of the fertilised egg must take precedence over the rights of the
mother.
Morally, I would prefer that the rights of both parties could always be
preferred, but it does no good to pretend that this can be so and choices
must be made. They must of course be made in the context of the society as
it is now, no use pretending that the implications for women of bearing a
child are minor, for some people they are quite serious.
But the woman herself is the best person to assess those risks, therefor
the only person who is entitled to make the decision.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas
|