The Abortion/Homosexuality Paradox

[glassjester]

You want to decide for her, if and when she can abort. I do not want to decide for her, and I am only willing to allow society as a whole to decide for her for the sake of it's own well-being.

Then shouldn't every law be put to vote?

 

[glassjester]

It should be the person who the decision affects the most ... THE UNBORN BABY.

Maybe every request for an abortion should have a required 9-month waiting period.

 

[Rusha]

Maybe every request for an abortion should have a required 9-month waiting period.

At least.

 

[quip]

Maybe every request for an abortion should have a required 9-month waiting period.

The right's version of compromise? :chuckle:

 

[glassjester]

The right's version of compromise? :chuckle:

I guess.

Why is it fine for the law to tell a 6-months-pregnant woman...

"No abortion. Stay pregnant for 3 more months."



But not to tell a 1-day-pregnant woman...

"No abortion. Stay pregnant for 9 more months."




What happened in that 6 month span that magically made that human life worth preserving?

 

[quip]

I guess.

Why is it fine for the law to tell a 6-months-pregnant woman...

"No abortion. Stay pregnant for 3 more months."



But not to tell a 1-day-pregnant woman...

"No abortion. Stay pregnant for 9 more months."




What happened in that 6 month span that magically made that human life worth preserving?

The state is entitled to a "compelling interest".

Why? ask them.

So, the right's version of the compromise is "my way or the hiway"?

 

[The Horn]

If you think that abortion is entirely the result of foolish , promiscuous single women having irresponsible sex , you are dead wrong . Many women who have them are just poor married women in terrible straits who can't afford to provide for a child . Adoption is not a solution, becuase adopting children is a very long and difficult process , and many unwanted children wait years to be adopted . Some are now teenagers !
Abortion is nothing new , and was not caused by Roe v Wade. Roe was not the beginning of abortion in America . It was the end of women DYING from abortions . By the way, I DON'T appprove of young single women having reckless promiscuous sex . But it happens anyway .
However, it's totally unrealistic to expect everyone to wait until marriage to have sex .

 

[PureX]

It should be the person who the decision affects the most ... THE UNBORN BABY.

Why? Because you say so? Because you think so? I think it's scary how easily some you just assume yourselves to be the divine arbiters of all that's good and evil. Especially when according to Judeo-Christian tradition, that has always been mankind's 'original sin'.

Regardless of whether or not the *mother* acknowledges that she is pregnant with a child, she is still the mother.

Yes, and as such, she gets to decide what happens next.

Mothers are suppose to protect their children, not dispose of them because they are temporarily inconvenienced.

Why? Because you say so? Because you think so? I think it's scary how easily some you ...

 

[PureX]

Definitely not. But people are proud of their promiscuity.

No they aren't. Nor are they particularly ashamed. They simply do what they do. I have know people who have had many partners, and people who have had only one or two, and none of them exhibited pride or shame in any way I could detect. Seems to me that it's only religious Christians, and Muslims, that get all bent out of shape over the sexual practices of other people. Mostly, I suspect, because they feel so stifled in their own.

I don't know. I don't do that. Do you?

It's pretty difficult to live in this culture without acting in support of it's blatant greed, materialism, and the commodification of sexuality in some way or another.

I do not think abortion is the only sin in the world. But it is the topic of this thread.

Point taken. But part of this discussion involves the "paradox" related to abortion, and for a lot of pro-choice folks, that righteous hypocrisy is a problem.

You're right; telling women not to have sex will probably not be very convincing. But when their deliberate actions directly lead to the existence of a new human life, it is horribly unjust to allow them to end that life.

Few of our actions are that "deliberate". Especially when sex is concerned. Why do you have such a hard time recognizing that?

And your appeals to relativism don't negate the fact that the goal of criminal law is justice.

I know a lot of people think so, but I believe the goal of the law in modern times is more to maintain the peace and security of society, because we are more and more recognizing that "justice" is an illusion based on an impossible ideal.

 

[glassjester]

Few of our actions are that "deliberate". Especially when sex is concerned. Why do you have such a hard time recognizing that?

Because people can choose how they act. And they are responsible for their actions.

Let's be consistent here - you've been touting autonomy this whole time. Autonomy is literally the ability to control one's own actions.

I know a lot of people think so, but I believe the goal of the law in modern times is more to maintain the peace and security of society, because we are more and more recognizing that "justice" is an illusion based on an impossible ideal.

The two goals are not mutually exclusive. Law can seek justice and peace. Is peace not just as impossible an ideal as justice? Yet you deem it a worthy goal. Dismissing justice as "impossible," isn't a viable option. Shall we release all prisoners, and lay off all the policemen? After all, eliminating crime is an "impossible ideal."

Yes, ideals are never achieved - but they are sought.



Earlier, you stated that you support whatever choice society makes for itself. Do you think, then, that laws ought to be put to vote?